The Instigator
sam.conran
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Brian17
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The UK was right to go into Iraq

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 9/2/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 837 times Debate No: 37262
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

sam.conran

Pro

This is my first time debating, so please forgive me if I do something wrong. The subject I chose is a pretty controversial one, which is whether we should have gone into Iraq or not. I'm from the UK, so I will be arguing mostly from that side, however, I guess I could extend it to "We [US and UK] were right to go into Iraq".

To clarify, I will arguing pro - we SHOULD have gone in to Iraq

My opponent will have to argue Con - we should NOT have gone in

I hope someone accepts my challenge, and thanks for participating in advance.
Brian17

Con

Hi Sam, why do you think we the UK, should have invaded Iraq? The evidence was extremely flimsy, in fact the whole thing was probably illegal. What has been achieved by this, not a lot, OK we got rid of Saddam Hussein, but there's a whole lot worst tin pot dictators out there! Many of whom are backed-up by the UK government, the so called Department for International Development, with it's ring-fenced budget. Just think of the innocent, UK and US military, who have lost their lives in complete futility and of course all the innocent Iraqis who have lost their lives. Due to Tony Blair and his so called 'evidence', the US was pulled in to a war, which isn't really fighting the 'War on Terror'. Although, many Americans, don't openly admit it, they are now beginning to resent us for a futile war and justifiably so. All it achieved, was another term for George. W Bush (junior) and a hey day in profits for the oil companies. The same could be said for Afghanistan and thankfully so far we've not been pulled in to a bitter civil war in Syria, which stupid Cameron, was thankfully defeated by Parliament. However, I'm sure that's only a matter of time, before both the US & UK, are pulled in to that dispute. There's always other ways of fighting the war on terror, without the need for direct confrontation, sanctions both economic and political, could do a whole lot more damage and be much more effective than any war. That's enough for now, over to you for the next round?
Debate Round No. 1
sam.conran

Pro

Okay, well firstly if the UK and US had not gone into Iraq, civil war would still have happened. Hussein was going to die at some point and sectarianism was intensifying even then. Other countries were interested in Iraq, but unlike the US and UK, they were interested in invasion (Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey) and if we weren't there, there would have been nothing to stop them, leading to many, many more deaths. You can say "Think of all the innocent people that have died" (anything to that effect), but without our intervention, more people would have suffered. And also, that is a major goal which was achieved.

In answer to why I think we should have gone in, Iraq was unbelievably Orwellian (like Nineteen-eighty-four) with torture and executions in public, with the police killing, torturing and raping thousands of innocent citizens. Saddam Hussein and his regime had created the biggest divide in society possible - while millions of subjects starved to death, the rich lived in mansions and palaces. On humanitarian grounds, I think that's enough to want to go in and stop this.

Also, consider this. A state is said to be subject to intervention and a change of regime when the state commits one of the following:


    • Violation of the Genocide Convention - the massacre of Kurdistan, entire villages of people being wiped out
    • Aggressions towards a neighbouring state/occupying their lands - Iran-Iraq war, invasion of Kurdistan
    • Aiding or harbouring international gangsters - Abu Nidal who operated out of Iraqi office, Abu Mussab al Zarqawi (Al Qaeda's deputy) lived for years n Baghdad by invitation of Saddam Hussein
    • Violation of the Non-Proliferation treaty - Use of chemical weapons on Kurds. No he didn't have WMDs, but state documents and books by two high-up Iraqi scientists show Saddam Hussein was trying to get them.


If Iraq had committed one of those offenses, they would be subject to intervention. Not only did they commit one, they committed all of them. Not only did they commit all offenses, they committed them numerous times respectively. In fact, in following with number 1, the Genocide Convention requires all its signatories to do everything they can to stop violations of the convention and to punish those responsible for said violation.
Brian17

Con

You've made some very good points, but let's put them into context. Firstly, let's start with invasion, you may re-call, around twenty years ago, Saddam Hussein's regime invaded Kuwait. The West were right to re-act , Hussein/Iraq had committed an international violation. The pretext or pretence of WMD, was an excuse by the UK, with the assistance of the US to enter Iraq, is that not invasion? Furthermore, in regard to sectarian division and Iraq's abuse of human rights, had been going on for years. When Hussein persecuted the Kurds and used chemical weapons against them and Iran, back in the 1980s, (almost thirty years ago) it was much more devastating than what happened in Syria. Unfortunately sectarian division is rife in the Arab world, as we tragically saw the other day in Syria, it's still going on in Egypt, Libya, etc. Why didn't the West invade Iraq a lot earlier in that case or all the other Arab states? Because, there was no economic impetus to do so and it was an erratic re-action to the events of 9/11. I agree Iraq, was unbelievably 'Orwellian', but there again so is most of the Middle East and many other states. Let's take Pakistan, for example, where the Taliban, either shoots or throws acid in to the faces of young girls, just for attending school and pursuing an education or where homosexuals are publicly humiliated and persecuted. The only exceptional leader of Pakistan, was Benazir Bhutto, suspiciously assassinated, probably organised by Musharraf, claiming he was aware of an impending assassination attempt by the Taliban, but did not pass the information on to those responsible for protecting Bhutto. Does the West invade Pakistan, no they just financially back it instead and turn a blind eye to abuse of basic human rights and ongoing persecution. Also in regard to international gangsters, Osama bin Laden, lived for years in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, before being finally killed, but did the West invade those countries, no they just do business with the former financially and assist the corrupt latter. Also, another international gangster was Augusto Pinochet, the military junta of Chile, who subjugated his people to callous torture and severe infringement of human rights in Chile, back in the 70s. Did the West invade Chile, not at all they supported him. Ironically, Tony Blair the protagonist of your debate, criticized Pinochet's controversial relationship with Thatcher and led Tony Blair to mock Thatcher's Conservatives as "the party of Pinochet". A further irony was after having been placed under house arrest in Britain in October 1998, he was eventually released in March 2000 on medical grounds by the Home Secretary Jack Straw without facing trial. Straw had overruled a House of Lords decision to extradite Pinochet. I agree there were many violations committed by Saddam Hussein, but they were ignored for years by the West, particularly the UK. Similar, atrocities are happening at the moment in Syria, Egypt, Libya and Pakistan and many other states throughout the world, including many African states, but can the West invade them all? Of course not, it would be impossible, but more importantly, economically and politically it would not be in their interests to do so!

Ready for the next round, tomorrow? Do your research!
Debate Round No. 2
sam.conran

Pro

Okay, well in terms of invasion, I'd say that by definition, it does fall under invasion, but we were 'invading' in order to liberate the people of Iraq. When I talked about invasion, I was talking about countries, such as Turkey or Saudi Arabia (and more), invading in order to take control of Iraqi land. They had no interest in freeing any of the people in Iraq - they wanted the land. It was clear that the UK (and US) wanted to intervene in Iraq on purely humanitarian grounds, which brings me on to your next point.

Yes, Saddam Hussein had been persecuting the Kurds and using chemical weapons long before 2003. I won't pretend to understand why Thatcher or Major didn't want to intervene, but what I do know is that almost as soon as Tony Blair got into power, he made it clear that he wanted to go into Iraq and stop the sadomasochistic regime. I have severe doubt that there was any economic impetus for the war (well, for the UK, anyway). Blair wanted to intervene in Iraq long before 9/11; 9/11 just convinced others to join his side of the argument.

Yes a lot of states are very Orwellian, but you're right when you say we couldn't intervene in all of them. In my view (and more importantly, Tony Blair's view) Iraq was leading the way in how not to run a country. Iraq was so unbelievably awful that the other states you mentioned, even though they commit heinous, deplorable acts, were overshadowed by Saddam Hussein's regime. In the 21st century, the UK and the US faced a choice: either we continued collusion with Saddam, or we toppled his regime. I take a firm stance that the latter was, and always was, the right thing to do.

When you say economics, I assume you are talking about oil?
Brian17

Con

Brian17 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
sam.conran

Pro

sam.conran forfeited this round.
Brian17

Con

Brian17 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
sam.conran

Pro

sam.conran forfeited this round.
Brian17

Con

Brian17 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Liberalismisinsanity 3 years ago
Liberalismisinsanity
Are you serious? Iraq was unecessary! Saddam had no weapon, he didn't hide Al-Qaeda, and Bush and Obama killed 2500 Americans!
No votes have been placed for this debate.