The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
7 Points

Iraq war was justified

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/21/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,172 times Debate No: 39275
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)




England and Denmark were definitely in it for imperialism. I suspect it being that both countries have had imperial empires, and I don't think it has ended. But that aside, CIA reports show that there were no weapons of mass destruction ( here are some sources for you --

There is evidence about OPEC being involved. It's as if even the USA, as well England & Denmark of course are reviving the imperial company concept at the expense of imperialism that was started with the East India Companies.

France and Germany did the right thing to not go into war. The war on terror is good. However, Iraq hasn't attacked anyone. And the Gulf War was already 12 years before.


!1) Your notion that OPEC was implicated is possible and logical, but your source and is seriously lacking. It states that Britain took a "leading role" in the invasion, while at their peak of 46,000 soldiers on the ground, they still made up less than a third of the total invasion forces, largely led by the 150,000 American soldiers on the ground. (1) The "memos" your source claims are not clearly cited or noted. That being said, Crude Oil is the #1 most traded commodity in the world(2), and factors into nearly every market and economy across the world, especially the developed world. Much of the economic prowess in the Middle East relies on Oil to fund and stabilize their governments and nations, so destabilizing a totalitarian regime and instilling a free market system capable of more efficiently harvest and distribute their oil in theory would take the power away from the regime and allow for a more even distribution of the oil wealth.

Side Note: From what I could discern, your argument is that the war wasn't justified because it was justified with claims you find immoral, OPEC interests and Neo Colonialism. You may have been better off asserting that the motivators for war were not just or moral, or that the entire event was a destructive waste of time and money, which I whole heartedly agree with.

Justifications for the Iraq War:
1) Despite Hans Blix and the U.N weapons inspectors coming up largely empty handed in their search for WMD's, there is no denying that Hussein used chemical weapons against his own people during the Al-Anfal campaign (3), so there was a man in power that had no problem actually using these weapons if he was able to attain them again. This is an undeniable hazard for the region, and the Iraqis themselves. Saddam also quite obviously had aspirations to attain Nuclear weapons, (4)(5) which is clearly something that would be detrimental and destructive for the region. This is a completely legitimate justification for the war, asserting that global and regional security was in imminent danger that could have become much worse.

2) Saddam Hussein spearheaded one of the most brutal and violent regimes the world has known. His crimes are numerous,and do not need my description to be understood. (6) This regime and the countless people who were harmed by it provide another very legitimate justification for intervention.

So to conclude, the Iraq War was justified at every turn, wether it be Economic interests, Regional/Global Security, or Human Rights, there are multiple legitimate justifications to the Invasion. Judgements on the morality of those justifications, the War and it's aftermath are for another debate. Your assertion that the war was not justified is completely unfounded, as I think you may have intended on debating something else....


Thanks and Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 1
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
What lol? This is exactly what's fair. I'm GLAD both of area were deleted. I only voted to counter his obvious vote bomb. So my vote canceled it out. With them both deleted it's still canceled out and this my goal to cancel out Sitara's vote is still a raging success. I know your trying to be all snooty and what not and act like you've won something but I'm sorry to tell you you havnt. Good luck to the both of you in the voting box. As long as it's fair I won't complain.
Posted by Adam2 3 years ago
Haha well fairness plays both ways. If I can't have my vote, neither can you.
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
Keep pushing what Adam? The obviously poor excuse of a vote that sitara did? And your welcome Panda. Though I do believe a moderator deleted both votes so it's all good now.
Posted by Adam2 3 years ago
Thanks for the vote
Posted by theHomelessPanda 3 years ago
@aramer1919 Thank you for the counter vote, it is appreciated.
Posted by Adam2 3 years ago
Keep pushing it.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct, either for CON's proclivity to spam nonsense about England and Denmark, or for posting a one round debate (take your pick)
Vote Placed by Sitara 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Okay this voting thing was explained to me. I do not feel that the war was justified, but I feel that the pro side did a better job at providing a logical argument. I agree with the position that war is needed because of human rights violations, national security, and such. Good job to both of you.