The Instigator
Alex_Edwards
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
hophmi
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

It was a bad decision on the part of the U.S. to try to bring democracy into Iraq.

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  
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: 12/22/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 916 times Debate No: 818
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

Alex_Edwards

Pro

While I understand the good intentions of the Bush administration I do not think such a policy can work in the environment in which it was implemented.

1. Since the beginning of civilization the Middle East has been an area ruled by religious theocracies whose ideas completely contradict those of democratic institutions. A primary example of this is the fundamental idea of democracy that an individual should be able to participate in government and have their own opinions and vote on the elections of public officials. To many fundamentalist Muslims, religious leaders should be in charge of the country no matter what and individuals should not be able to speak against that. Another example would be that in a Muslim state it is regarded as completely unacceptable for a woman to be in public with out a vale, whereas in the United States such a requirement would be a violation of free speech. This is why the government we have set up in Iraq is so unstable; we cannot expect to implement an entirely western idea on a culture that inherently rejects the practice and expect it to be able to sustain itself.

2. The tension between the differing religious groups in Iraq makes it impossible to have a stable democracy. The Sunnis and Shiites have been warring with each other for years, this is clearly shown by the appalling number of suicide attacks the groups have directed at each other. A democracy needs a population unified under one banner in order for an elected government to be able to sustain itself. The fact that the country is in a state of civil war makes this an extremely difficult prospect. We completely dismantled the Iraqi army after we invaded; the new Iraqi government cannot control a religious driven civil war by itself, particularly since it is many of groups' goals to dismantle it entirely.

We have been in Iraq since 2003 and have been trying to set up a stable government since the first two months after we arrived. It is now almost 2008 and we have still been unsuccessful in making the fledgling democracy stable enough to fend for itself.

For these reasons, it was a mistake for the United States to attempt to create a democracy in Iraq.
hophmi

Con

Hi, you've made several common assertions as to why it was a bad decision on the part of the US to try to bring democracy into Iraq. I argue that you have have confused this argument with an analysis of why democracy has heretofore been less than successful.

1. The lack of a democratic history in a society is not an argument for why it is wrong for the United States to try and foster democracy in it. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is now almost 60 years old. It is a moral imperative of this and other documents that human beings not live in totalitarian dictatorships. Each society that is today democratic once had a culture of non-democracy, including the United States and Britain. There are many recent examples of previously non-democratic societies, including Muslim ones, becoming democratic. See Indonesia and Malaysia for examples, or in fact, any of the Asian countries that were once thought non conducive to democracy because their collectivist societies were believed unable to appreciate the individual rights inherent in democratic society.

2. We had a civil war here didn't we? Would you argue that democracy was impossible in this country because we had a civil war? And what does the number of suicide attacks, now dropping, have to do with the ability to maintain democracy in society? Israel has had many suicide attacks and has remained a democracy. Suicide attacks may certainly be a cause of developing a stable democratic Iraq, but this should not reflect on the question of whether it was a good idea for the United States to bring democracy to Ir
Debate Round No. 1
Alex_Edwards

Pro

1. In my argument i was not saying that a country not having democracy in the past made it difficult to implement but rather the culture of that society being in complete contradiction to democratic ideals that makes it so difficult. The reason we have so many Islamic groups trying to destroy the government and us is precisely because they do not want a democracy. My examples of how democratic ideas and fundamental Islamic ideas go un-refuted, meaning my opponent either agrees or has no response to them so those arguments still stand. I think we can agree that as Asia is an entirely different part of the world than Iraq they would have different standards; since this debate only pertains to Iraq we must look only at its culture. Since i have shown clear examples of how Iraqi culture and religion negates democracy, and through the sheer amount of empirical evidence of Islamic groups attack us because we have a democracy proves that the culture does not allow for it to take place.

2. My opponent makes an argument saying that the U.S. had a civil war and remained democratic thus proving that Iraq can do the same. However, the United States was built upon democratic ideas and the Civil War was not fought because of them. The South was not attempting to destroy democracy. In Iraq, as i have stated, many of the groups involved in the civil war ARE attempting to destroy the democratic government. Unlike the North during the American Civil War, the Iraqi government does not have a powerful functioning military, we the United States dismantled it after the invasion as I said in my last post (also going un-refuted by my opponent.) Again i stress the fact that the very reason we remain in Iraq is because the fledgling government and military is unable to withstand the military and political pressure being put in it by the civil war and the groups attempting to destroy them. This empirical evidence clearly proves how the civil war going on in Iraq and the insurgency that is trying to destroy the democracy makes the government unable to function on its own. Because the hostility towards the government is precisely because it is a democracy proves that it was a mistake to attempt to make a democracy and thus lose countless civilian and soldier's lives in the violence and cause our continued presence in the country.

Since I have established that the Iraqi culture completely contradicts the ideas of democratic institutions and that the current civil war makes a democratic government unable to function and has cost the lives of countless people I have proven that it was a mistake to attempt to create a Democracy in Iraq.
hophmi

Con

hophmi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Alex_Edwards

Pro

Alex_Edwards forfeited this round.
hophmi

Con

hophmi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Vikuta 9 years ago
Vikuta
The U.S. does not care about establishing democracy in the Middle East.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
Alex_EdwardshophmiTied
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 
Vote Placed by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
Alex_EdwardshophmiTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
Alex_EdwardshophmiTied
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