The Instigator
NatashaGreeff
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Debatess
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

It is right to say that America should have never become involved in Iraq's affairs

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,644 times Debate No: 14765
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

NatashaGreeff

Pro

To start this debate off, I would just like to pose a question.. Was it right for George W Bush to send American troops into Iraq?
This question has raised much controversy, and it is understandable why. Many people have different opinions on it, this is very dependant on whether you believe in a bigger picture, or if you look at an individual.
I believe, that George Bush, could not have been more wrong, sending American troops to Iraq. It is true, that it was done with great intentions, George Bush wanted Iraq to be able to build up its own government, creating a stable foundation, on which the 'new' Iraq would be built. Although this is a grand fantasy, is it really all that plausible?
Is it not fair to say that Iraq is responsible for its own fall? Why should the USA get involved in their affairs, it is true to say that Iraq have 'lashed' out on numerous occasions towards the US, but this is because they were provoked, would they have lashed out unless there was a reason? - No, they would not!
So therefore, to say that if the USA had not become involved in Iraq's affairs, we would not be facing this problem now.
Why not adopt the policy of isolationism once more? Was that not successful?
Debatess

Con

George W. Bush sent troops into Iraq for a reason we are not sure of. All the lies he has told lead to an unclear reason why there are troops in Iraq. The lies have ranged from Saddam having links to 9/11 to Iraq having nuclear weapons that they were going to use on us and our allies. So if the reason why are troops are in Iraq is unclear then we have no right to say that it is not right to say that we should have not gone to Iraq.
Debate Round No. 1
NatashaGreeff

Pro

Although this is a good point, there has never been any evidence of 'weapons of mass destruction'. Regardless though, is it not true to say that, Iraq would have never 'attacked' America or the allies unless provoked? I do not see Iraq lashing out towards countries in Africa, and why? - because they never provoked Iraq. I am not talking about whether America should get involved now, I am debating whether America should have got involved when Iraq was facing problems.
Yes, it is a theory that George Bush 'invaded' Iraq because of Oil, and this would have been a sufficient argument to stop me from starting this debate, but the problem, however, is that there is little or no evidence that Big Oil, (Such as the oil in Iraq) an extremely cautious beast in the global corporate menagerie, favoured a war. There is especially no evidence that the U.S wanted anything to do with Iraq's oil supplies. Particularly because that risked destabilizing the world's most oil-rich region, especially Saudi Arabia and the emirates, and this is not what the U.S wants, no country wants to destroy another!
I still believe and have always believes the reason troops were deployed out to Iraq was to help with their issues, such as the unstable government, and my question is was it right to help? I think not, because we have involved ourselves in something we did need to.. Yes, people may say that 'If we didn't 'invade' we would have been bombed!' Well, to be honest I don't know whether this is true, it could be, but if we hadn't provoked Iraq in some way there would be no danger of that whatsoever, and surely provoking them is getting involved in their affairs, and we shouldn't have done it!
Debatess

Con

If an acquaintance of yours were dying in front of you, would you not get involved in their affairs? The same can be said with Iraq, a country is perishing right in front of the US and it is difficult to just watch it die. If we helped Iraq we could of gained a friend and made a perishing country successful. So Americas president George W. Bush thought that all this would be good to gain just by going to Iraq's aide.
Debate Round No. 2
NatashaGreeff

Pro

Although, you have once again made a very good point. We must realise that this is sometimes the best decision.
It is true, that in dark points in history like the holocaust - many people would say that we should have been involved, because it would have saved the lives of many people, but we must remember that Germany has rebuilt itself and is now a strong country once more. If we give a country enough time it will rebuild itself, and start 'the healing process' - all we have done by sending American soldiers in is killed people who didn't deserve to die! Lets face, we haven't got anywhere since we sent the troops out there! The question we should be asking, is are we ever going to get anywhere?
Debatess

Con

What does the holocaust have to do with this? The US true was late in stopping the holocaust but they at least helped at the end. Yes, this is a black mark on US history and I am greatly upset by the US's actions for I myself am Israeli.
Our government is currently as we speak trying to get our troops out of Iraq. It shall take time but something IS happening. But, pro your comment "If we give a country enough time it will rebuild itself" cannot be proven so therefore is an incorrect fact and cannot be played in this debate. We cannot tell what the future will be and during the time troops were sent it was a good idea.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by davidhancock 6 years ago
davidhancock
i would try but to busy defending hitler and japanese rights to nukes
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 6 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
"It is true, that it was done with great intentions, George Bush wanted Iraq to be able to build up its own government, creating a stable foundation, on which the 'new' Iraq would be built."

No, he was paid to privatise the Iraqi oil industry. Or to put it more corretly, to rape that country utterly.
Posted by Amethist17 6 years ago
Amethist17
Defiantly if someone responds to it it will be fun
Posted by Pastafarian 6 years ago
Pastafarian
This will be interesting.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
NatashaGreeffDebatessTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I can not award any points as neither sides arguments were strong enough.
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
NatashaGreeffDebatessTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither debater was savvy enough, or put forward enough evidence to affirm or negate the resolution, and both had poor grammar/spelling. 0 points awarded.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
NatashaGreeffDebatessTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30