The Instigator
superkamal26
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
msaka33
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The U.S. should have not started the war in 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,772 times Debate No: 30074
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

superkamal26

Pro

The United States should have not started the war in Iraq for the following reasons:

Saddam Huessein was not developing nuclear weapons. The U.S. should have found out for sure if he was developing the weapons before going to war. Even if he was developing nuclear weapons, It doesn't mean he would use it on the United States.

Saddam Huessein did not threaten the United States.

Since he was helping terrorists, the U.S. should have talked to him first to get him stop supporting them and if he continued the U.S. should have sent airstrikes to iraq to kill saddam Hussein and the terrorists.

Although he was mistreating his own people, The U.S. should have not invaded Iraq. It's not the United States's responsibilty to overthrow tyrant governments in other countries and spread democracy. The United states government should care about its own people and make sure that they are safe. Invading another counrty and going to war costs american lives. 4,487 american troops were killed in the Iraq war. The U.S. should only go to war if there is a huge threat to our national security. There was not a huge threat in this case. It is the people in the other countries's responsibility to overthrow their own government, not the United States.

msaka33

Con

While I agree that the Iraq War shouldn't have gone for as long as it did, you are wrong on a few things:

"Saddam Huessein wasn't not developing nuclear weapons"

Weapon of mass destruction, same thing, but you have to remember in 2003, before we started the invasion, we told Iraq that we would be coming over to search for weapons in 3 WEEKS, in other words, we gave them 3 weeks in advance to conceal any weapons they had in there, kinda gives you hint as to how Iran got their weapons

"It doesn't mean he would use it on the United States"

Iraq isn't an ally of the United States, same goes for Iran and North Korea, why do you think there is so much tension between them and the United States? So you can't confirm that he wouldn't have used it on us

"Saddam Huessein did not threaten the United States"

Saddam Huessein was the president of one of the most violent Islamic-militant nations in the Middle East, do you honestly think he was rooting for our country at all? Any leader in the Middle East and Northern Africa would love to see the United States wiped off the map

"Since he was helping terrorists, the U.S should have talked to him first to get him stop supporting them and if he continued the U.S should have sent airstrikes to Iraq to kill Saddam Hussein and the terrorists."

That's exactly what we did, and the weapons weren't there, when you give a country who isn't exactly an ally a 3 week warning that we are coming, what do you think they are going to do? Saddam Hussein wasn't the man to negotiate, he hated the U.S, The airstrikes aren't a perfect plan, airstrikes don't discriminate against civilian life, the airstrikes wouldn't have completed our goal, our mission was to go in, capture Hussein and put a stop to his weapons

"Although he was mistreating his own people, the U.S should have not invaded Iraq, it's not the United States responsibility to overthrow tyrant governments in other countries and spread democracy"

So are you saying then that FDR shouldn't have overthrown Hitler and the Nazi's because it isn't our responsibility to overthrow tyranny? Think about what would have happened if FDR just let Hitler take over Europe and eliminate the entire Jewish population, Hitler's goal was to establish the Third Reich and to make it last 1,000 years, it would have spread to Asia, Africa, and then eventually us.

"The U.S should only go to war if there is a huge threat to our national security"

When the president receives a tip that the Middle East may have nuclear weapons and could possibly be plotting to use them on us, does that not count as a threat to our national security? Think about 9/11, it could have prevented, when you stand by and let other nations push you over, you become a weak link and vulnerable which is exactly what we were on September 11th.

"It is the people in the other countries's responsibility to overthrow their own government, not the United States"

Not every country has the means of overthrowing the government, do you think the people of Cuba have the power to overthrow the Castro regime? In 1962 when they threatened to strike us with their nuclear warheads, was it still not our responsibility to overthrow Castro? When our enemies pose a threat, we take action or we get attacked again, the Iraq War wasn't the most justified war, but we had good suspicion and reason to enter
Debate Round No. 1
superkamal26

Pro

superkamal26 forfeited this round.
msaka33

Con

msaka33 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
superkamal26

Pro

superkamal26 forfeited this round.
msaka33

Con

msaka33 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
superkamal26

Pro

superkamal26 forfeited this round.
msaka33

Con

msaka33 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by skyninja 4 years ago
skyninja
This will be an interesting debate.
Upon what Avamys said, if America needs oil, then that is a problem. We need a major supply from a country we are on bad tensions with, and that will lead to a conflict.
So, a way to fix this is for the US to become more energy-independent.
Just an idea.
Posted by Avamys 4 years ago
Avamys
Every government does things for bad motives. America needs oil, Iraq has loads of it. They want to be the only people having nuclear weapons so no one will be stronger than them or even anywhere near their level. Besides, war causes causalities, and a lot of them are civilians, women and children. There is no win-win situation in war. America already has lots of debts, and wars require a lot of spending. Civilians die in Iraq. I vote for peace.
Posted by beradhodgybeats 4 years ago
beradhodgybeats
does anybody NOT agree with this?
No votes have been placed for this debate.