The Instigator
littlelacroix
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
Ubermensch
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Pulling out of Iraq soon will be a mistake

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: 11/5/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,062 times Debate No: 5892
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

littlelacroix

Pro

It can be argued back and forth to whether or not we should be in Iraq right now, but I contest that it would be a mistake to leave now. John McCain truly said it best, "You can't put a time on victory." The time table presented by Obama would be a mistake.

We have had a military victory in Iraq by taking Saddam Hussein out of power, but we are still not victorious in the fact that we need to help them get back on their feet. If we leave before the Iraqi police are capable of ensuring the peace in the area, it is quite possible that the nation will fall into a similar state to the Saddam regime. If that were to happen, all of the men and women that served and died in Iraq would die in vain. Thank you
Ubermensch

Con

You stated that the U.S military achieved their goal already by deposing Saddam Hussein and that therefore the remaining reason to continue the occupation of Iraq is to ensure the stability of their current government. I believe that the U.S. should withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible because they are not in fact creating a stable nation.

You pointed out that when the U.S. leaves Iraq it is likely that the current government will be overthrown and replaced and I agree. However, I don't believe that the current government that the U.S set up is the long term answer for that country so we should not be worried about that possibility. Countries don't usually respond well to being invaded and having a foreign nation pushing a specific government upon those people. If a country is going to be effective and long-lasting then the people must create their own government. After all, the purpose of a government is to serve the people it governs, so how can a foreign nation decide how to best serve a people that they know nothing about.
Debate Round No. 1
littlelacroix

Pro

Alright, so you already agreed that it is probable that if we leave the government will be overthrown and replaced. And since you agreed with that statement, you also agree with the fact that it is possible that another Saddam regime will rise. By this statement you must be insisting that a Saddam-like situation would be better than what we could be able to create for them with a little more time. Wartime is always hard on a country, but as soon as it does end and the country becomes stable, less lives will be lost. If Iraq is to fall back into its old ways, then people will die consistently over a period of time and that will be worse for the overall public.

Furthermore, the beauty of democracy is that it is able to adapt to the country it runs in. The government that was created a little over 200 years ago by our fore fathers would not have run smoothly today as it did back then. Since it's able to adapt to our changing times, it could do the same in another country if it is run properly. Therefore, with more time, a democracy could be built and adapt to the Iraqi people and that would be beneficial for everyone.
Ubermensch

Con

You began by stating that I had argued that leaving Iraq and accepting the chances that an oppressive regime might take over would be better than securing the long term power of Iraq's current government. However, this is not exactly what I meant. My point is that the likelihood of an oppressive regime coming to power will be the same whether the occupation of Iraq ends in a month or in a decade, so why not give Iraq a head start while also minimizing the tremendous cost that the war has had for the U.S. in lives, money and credibility around the world.

When you argue that the U.S. should remain in Iraq in order to prevent a regime like Saddam Hussein's, you are assuming that the U.S. military's presence is in fact decreasing the chances that an event like that will occur. However, mistakes that the U.S. military/government have made, like practically exiling the entire Ba'ath party and disbanding the former Iraqi military, have in fact fueled the insurgency to unpredicted levels.

You draw a comparison between Iraq now and the founding of the U.S. However, the difference is that the colonists DECIDED that they needed to create their own government separate from Britain, and they formed a government of their OWN CHOOSING. I believe a more accurate comparison is to Germany after the first World War. We dismantled their government and forced a new one upon them. They did not desire nor were they ready for democracy. Under these situations they did not adapt, but instead elected Hitler within the legal framework of the government we forced them to create. And of course that wasn't beneficial to anyone.
Debate Round No. 2
littlelacroix

Pro

I apologize for misunderstanding your argument, but it's ridiculous to say that the likelihood of another oppressive regime will be the same whether we vacate Iraq in a month or in a decade. Now, when you're raising a child, would they be better off if you threw them in the streets at five or eighteen? The answer is obviously eighteen because, while their parents have been watching over them, they have gained new experiences that have helped them along the way. By the US staying and protecting Iraq, we're like the parents to a new country and we're giving it time to experience new things and grow.

Even thought the insurgency has risen to unpredicted levels, we've been able to hold them off. Not only has the Iraqi government been able to start, but it has grown and the Iraqi troops are also growing in numbers. However, if we were to leave now, the high insurgency levels would easily be able to overcome the Iraqi troops. If the US stays to protect the rising government and continue training Iraqi troops, then eventually the Iraqis will be able to control the insurgency themselves. It goes back to my analogy, you have to train them until they are able to "take on the world" by themselves. If you don't then they won't be successful.

I beg to differ that the present-day Iraq is anything like Germany after the first World War. There are two things that differ between the two, destruction and debt. Germany was completely ruined and after the fighting stopped, everyone went back to their countries and left Germany the way it was. The US is assisting in the reconstruction period after the war in Iraq. As a matter of fact, if we were to leave soon, the situation in Iraq would be similar to post-World War Germany. Now on to the debt. After the first World War, the US and its allies demanded that Germany pay reparations. Since Germany's government had fallen and the country was in ruin, there was no way to pay it except to take on mountains of debt. Since they fell in to so much debt, not even 20 years later they found a leader (Hitler), who was willing to risk it all just to get themselves to a whole new level. You see, by you comparing Iraq to Germany, you have only solidified my case that our presence in Iraq is necessary if we would like to avoid another Saddam Hussein, if not even as bad as another Adolf Hitler.

The Iraqi government said that they were willing to attempt democracy since they didn't want a corrupt regime, similar to Saddam's, to take over again. Thanks to our help in Iraq, they have created a constitution, created an army and are beginning to experience freedom that they haven't had for awhile. However, as I have proven, if we are to leave now, Iraq will fall into a similar state of corruption. We need to remain there so that loyalists and terrorists will not attempt to overthrow the democratic system and to retake the government. If we stay in Iraq, not only will we be able to get the Iraqis on their feet, but we will also ensure that the men and women that have died there will not have died in vain.
Ubermensch

Con

Ubermensch forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Excessum 7 years ago
Excessum
littlelacroixUbermenschTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by kels1123 8 years ago
kels1123
littlelacroixUbermenschTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by littlelacroix 8 years ago
littlelacroix
littlelacroixUbermenschTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70