Iran-Irak War injustified
Debate Rounds (3)
Iraq got help from the US, but ONLY because they got oil from there. Many lives were lost in this war, and it ended after 8 years.
Why did the US even join the war? Well I'll tell you that, they only thought for themselves, not the lives that would go lost during the war.
Con has given us a bad synopsis of the war (and as con, he is obliged to prove that the Iran-Iraq War was justified). Nevertheless, I shall start by defining the terms.
Unjust is defined as "not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair". The criterion for unjustifiability will be left shallow for now, although "just war" shall have to be analyzed by Con. BoP is shared. As pro, the conditions for a pro-ballot is simple: that all arguments that are provided prove the baseline, which in this case is simple: the Iran-Iraq War was caused by an unjust invasion of Iran by Saddamist Iraq, and that the conduct was wholly unjust.
The Iraqi Ba'athist regime was a fearful regime. It had no respect for human rights. It had no respect for religious differences. It had one intention in mind-to stay in power and to shame the name of Arab Nationalism. After the Revolution of 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini soon called on Iraqi Shias to overthrow the Ba'athist regime. Although this was unjust, Saddam's reaction to it was more than unjust. When Iraqi Shias (which had long been treated as outcasts in Iraq) rose up, Saddam responded by executing Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr, a famous philosopher and Islamic Shi'ite cleric, on only one basis: that he had supported the Iranian Revolution against the Shah. Iraq's intimidation of Shias was furthered by the expulsion of 70,000 Shia Muslims (from Iraq) on the basis of religion (or race). The stated intent of the War in Iraq's view was the following:
a.) The recognition of the Shatt al-Arab waterways as Iraqi territory (contra to the 1975 Algiers Agreement)
b.) The return of the Abu Masa islands
However, this was clearly breached when Iraq advanced beyond these territories. Because of the imperialistic intent of Saddam, his aim was to liberate Khuzestan from Iranian control, using the excuse of Pan-Arabism. This is the de facto enslavement of the region (if this were to happen). The majority of the Arabic populace in Khuzestan follow Shia Islam. Saddamist Iraq made it clear that followers of Shia Islam were to be considered second class citizens. The true intention of Hussein was to launch an attack towards Ahvaz. This was shown by Iraq's advance towards Susangerd, passing the expected invasion line of Abadan. The cause of this conflict is wholly imperialistic and egoistic-it had nothing to do with the liberation of Arabs in Khuzestan.
Just looking at this from an ethical standpoint, if an Iranian CO were to have been instigated (and it was), it might have all the justifications (based upon principles of ethical consistency) to attack deep within Iraqi territory. Iraq did not act with moral purpose when it considered to attack Iran, for (a) the claims which it based it's conflict on was merely an enslavement of the Shi'ite population, and (b) it had much more imperialistic aims for the area.
Millions of lives were lost throughout the course of this conflict. However, the most fearful attack against HR during this war is undoubtedly the usage of chemical weapons. At Sardasht, Iraqi planes dropped mustard gas onto Iranian civilians. Initially, ten civilians died. However, 25% of the populace of the place still suffers from side effects of mustard gas. At Halabja, sarin was used-this killed 5,000 citizens. At Majnoon Island, mustard gas caused the deaths of 2,500 Iranian citizens. At al-Basrah, the usage of the same gas killed 7,000 civilians. More than 50,000 Iranian civilians lost their lives in such attacks.
I henceforth consider the resolution to be negated
2. Saddam Hussein ruled tyrannical. He wanted the Shia majority to be suppressed, but he got scared that the Iranian might encourage them to step forward and defense themselves, so that"s why he attacked Iran in the first place. He didn"t want the Iranian to be the dominate Persian Gulf state no more. He wanted Iraq to be it.
It began because of the border disputes and some religious issues. Iraq attacked Iran by air. Saddam Hussein hoped they had advantage because they attacked without any formal warning but they only made limited progress since Iran was quick; they already regained all lost territories by June 1982. (2)
(1) The war lasted for 8 years. The United Nations Security Council called for a cease fire but it was ignored by hostiles on both sides.
So the US began helping Iraq. They couldn"t afford to let Iraq lose because they were receiving oil from this nation. So they sent equipment, medical supplies and communications devices to Iraq. All of a sudden the US was fighting alongside Iraq against Iran.
The hostilities continued until 20 August 1988.
The war ended because of a Resolution 598, a UN-brokered ceasefire which was accepted by both sides.
3. You can say that they started a war for nothing, because the war brought neither reparations nor changes in borders.
The war cost both sides a lot of lives; half million Iraqi and Iranian soldiers, with an equivalent number of civilians whom had died with and more with injuries. It also cost economic damage.
So in my opinion this war is not justified. The US should not have interfered in the conflict by sending their troops to fight a war not involving them in anyway. Especially since the only reason they really did this was to make sure their main source of imported oil was safe.
Kuwait began to produce more oil, so the US got another fuel source, and Iraq"s economy went down. Overall this undermines the purpose for the US joining the war.
The opposition has his position confused. DO NOT VOTE ON THIS DEBATE
gg4xwnw forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||0|
Reasons for voting decision: You can't stop me from voting!!!
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.