The Instigator
ianspigler
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

There Never Should Have Been An Iraq War

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/28/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,559 times Debate No: 20719
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

ianspigler

Pro

Here are my following arguments: 1: We invaded because we thought there were "weapons of mass destruction" but, if that was the only reason we invaded Iraq why don't we invaded every country that we know has weapons of mass destruction. 2: There are nonviolent ways of winning. My example: President Regan in the 1980's, he created an arms race that he knew would bankrupt the Soviets and they did, and he defeated America's #1 enemy without firing a single shot. So why didn't we do that instead? 3: We spent all that money and Iraq has not even been grateful for liberating them from Saddam's iron grip(they even threw a shoe at President Bush), They could at least give us a discount on their oil.
imabench

Con

1) The reason we invaded Iraq was for reasons far more than weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who waged many wars in the Middle East, supported and aided numerous Aab invasions of Israel, threatened to invade Saudi Arabia, did overrun Kuwait, and caused the UN to bring about sanctions against Iraq. Saddam was also known to have an extensive chemical weapons arsenal and has used several chemical weapons against his own people while suppressing many humans rights and threatening world peace.

Meanwhile, after the 9/11 attacks, America is still scrambling how to defend themselves from another surprise attack against people they origionally did not see as a threat while assessing who now has the most power and is the largest threat to national security. America had long assessed its defense against nations militaries but never had addressed that countries known to harbor terrorists or are simply cynical enough to harbor any enemies against the United States. As of 2001 three enemies came up, Iran, North Korea, and Iraq.

So not only does Saddam have a notoriously bad relations not only with the US, or even the West, but even countries in the Middle East do not look kindly towards Saddam seeing as he is one of the largest threats to peace in the most armed area of the world, that being the Middle East.

Point is, we had plenty of reasons to go to war with Iraq, they were a legit threat, other countries feared Saddam, and Saddam was a tyrant towards everyone, including Iraqi's

2) One cannot get what he wants by simply trying to go into an arms race against other nations. Iraq could not be dealt with diplomatically since there had been numerous sanctions against them from the UN to discontinue weapons production which they continued with anyways. Meanwhile all other forms of diplomcay did not yield any results since Saddam was notorious for making agreements with the rest of the world and then months later continue doing whatever the hell he wanted to do.... Iraq wasnt trying to beat the United States in nuclear arms production, they openly harbored enemies against the US and threatened to invade several wealthy oil nations for his own countries gain. Producing nukes wouldnt have stopped him, and UN sanctions werent working either.

3) Now we did spend a lot of money on Iraq but that was because no country ever goes through a forced government change and comes out of it completely fine. The US spent a good amount of money just trying to get iraq back together and give it a functioning working government while getting rid of terrorists and extremists who were now openly waging war against American troops. When Saddam fell from power people were very grateful, but watching Saddam fall was only half of their wish, Iraqi's also wanted a financially and economically better future which they hoped the US could provide. However in 2008 we discovered we cannot even figure out how to give ourselves economic assurance, let alone a third world country on the other side of the world. The realization that the US only brought about half of its promise (deposing Saddam and not helping the country improve) that is when some Iraqi's began to detste American presence. By the way to claim that all Iraqi's are not thankful for liberating them is far from the truth. Most Iraqi's were upset of the US's continuous presence in Iraq when they were not needed.

(The shoe thing was one reporter one time by an Iraqi reporter)

The Iraq war was necessary, our presence there for 8 years though was definately questionable, but the Iraq war was necessary
Debate Round No. 1
ianspigler

Pro

Henry David Throeau, Mohandas Gandhi, Leo Tolstoy, and Martin Luther King Jr. all thought non-violence could achieve their means and it did. For Mohandas Gandhi once said: "And eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Meaning, whenever violence is used vengeful feelings will soon follow, Now we have to be careful that a whole country isn't going to exact revenge on us. Why should we resort to violence to respond to violence? Since that whole culture over there is used to violence maybe some compassion will give them a change of heart. Bad relations between the Islamic world and the West have existed since the Crusades, and this recent "crusade" has only made relations worse, isn't time it this stopped and we made an effort for peace?
- As for "there were more reasons for invading Iraq than (WMD's)... He also massacred his own people" Well bulls@*&%, There were genocides in Rwanda and Guatemala and the U.S.A. did not lift a finger! It is not fair that we invaded Iraq for reasons he was massacring his own people when we did not even pay any mind to the two above-mentioned genocides. besides, do you really believe in your heart that the U.S. goes to war for honest reasons? You don't believe crooked politics play a part in it?
- As for other countries that thought he was a tyrant, the U.S. and other western nations gave him a huge stockpile of weapons (which he later used on his own people) to keep Iran's power from expanding into the middle east, So we obviously din't think he was a tyrant when we were loaning him weapons.
-Lastly, I brought up the whole reporter incident to illustrate a point: They don't want us over there, and I will point out that when Osama Bin Laden died nobody cheered for his death (info courtesy of FOX news) this shows they respected a stauchly anti-western extremeist. They see us as imposing a set of values and traditions foreign to them (and in some cases forbiddened by the Koran.) We should just let sleeping dogs lie.
imabench

Con

1) Non violent protests
The problem with all the people the Pro quotes is that they spearheaded peaceful movements for people WITHIN THEIR OWN COUNTRY, not for situations abroad.

"maybe some compassion will give them a change of heart"
We're not talking about the ugly duckling who only needs love, this is Saddam we are talking about. This guy dropped chemical bombs on his own people and on the Iranians just because he wanted to expand his kingdom. This was a guy who for a while wanted to help exterminate Israel off of the face of the Earth, who harbored terrorists, and who seized power after helping kill the last dictator...... This was NOT a man who could be dealt with simply by showing compassion towards him.

I invite the Pro to look back in time to the last time we tried to show compassion towards a cynical leader.

His name was Hitler.

Appeasement was a term in the 1930's that applied to the foreign policy of letting Hitler annex a few surrounding countries in the hopes that he would be satisfied and not start any world wars or start killing millions of people by both his own hands and through all out war.......... That didnt work so well, and it didnt work for Saddam either when we peacefully asked him to withdraw from occupying Kuwait and he basically told the UN to go f*** themselves...

http://www.historyguide.org...
http://www.omnibusol.com...
http://www.history.co.uk...
http://history.howstuffworks.com...

2) Relations to the Middle East

" the Islamic world and the West have existed since the Crusades"
The United States of America wasnt around during the Middle Ages....

" and this recent "crusade" has only made relations worse, isn't time it this stopped and we made an effort for peace?"
A crusade is defined basically as holy war, this war was not an act of war for religious reasons it was a military operation to remove a tyrant dictator from power and bring peace and stability to a nation that has not lived in freedom since the time of Babylon.... Also we made peace with Iraq, and the resolution here is that the war should not have happened not that it should have ended already, because it already did.

"He also massacred his own people" Well bulls@*&%, There were genocides in Rwanda and Guatemala and the U.S.A. did not lift a finger! It is not fair that we invaded Iraq for reasons he was massacring his own people when we did not even pay any mind to the two above-mentioned genocides."

I invite the Pro to not refer to genocide as bullsh*t during a debate, it might send the wrong message to voters.

I also invite the Pro to use basic brain functions to try to realize that Iraq and Rwanda & Guatemala are two completely different cases. Allow me to summarize

- Rwanda and Guatemala - Genocides,

- Iraq - Genocides, same dictator for decades, numerous wars started with other nations, use of chemical weapons in warfare, invasion of countries that upset international trade, refusal to withdraw from said conflicts, known for harboring terrorists, frequently denounced the civilized world, elaborate weapons programs, refusal to allow weapons inspectors into the country, etc.

See how the odds stack against Iraq yet?

"besides, do you really believe in your heart that the U.S. goes to war for honest reasons?"
Yep...
"You don't believe crooked politics play a part in it?""
Nope....

"As for other countries that thought he was a tyrant, the U.S. and other western nations gave him a huge stockpile of weapons (which he later used on his own people) to keep Iran's power from expanding into the middle east, So we obviously din't think he was a tyrant when we were loaning him weapons."

Im not here to debate that the US has always been right, but if the US gives a country (Iraq) weapons to fight a far more hated enemy (Iran), and then that country that has the weapons (Iraq) starts blowing up its OWN people with those weapons (Iraq again) than not only does that make Iraq look completely psychotic, but it also gives the entire world a very good reason to hate Saddam (using chemical weapons on his own people to create atrocious acts of human rights violations)

As for those events, the Iran-Iraq war happened 20 years before the US and its allies invaded Iraq. In those 20 years Iraq went far from being an unstable ally to a dire threat to world peace, threat to the security of nations, threat to the safety and basic human rights of people, threat to world economies, etc.

" when Osama Bin Laden died nobody cheered for his death (info courtesy of FOX news) "
Pro.................... Osama Bin Laden and 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq.................... Stop watching Fox News.........
Debate Round No. 2
ianspigler

Pro

First, I would like to clarify myself: When I said" Well' bulls$&*" , I was saying that invading Iraq because he was massacring his own people a bulls$^9 reason, not that genocide is bulls%*8. My apologies if anyone took offense and I believe that Con is taking my words out of context. Also, I would like to quote Con " I also invite the Pro to use basic brain functions." A rather low blow, you may not agree with me but, at least do it civilly without berating people.

-Also:"You don't believe crooked politics play a part in it?"" Nope...." Con, you are sounding really naive, Watch: The Fog of War documentary, you'll have a change of opinion.

-If may quote Con again: "Refusal to allow weapons inspectors into the country, etc." Read up on your history Con Saddam didn't want weapons inspectors in because he wanted to implant in the Iranians that he had a WMD so Iran wouldn't invade. (Info: Nat Geo) If he let weapon inspectors in then he cat would be out of the bag and Iran would invade.

-" the Islamic world and the West have existed since the Crusades" The United States of America wasn't around during the Middle Ages...." Why, didn't you know that? Also, I said "West" not America, the term "West" originally referred to western European countries then, eventually that term included America. read your history Con.

-I invite the Pro to look back in time to the last time we tried to show compassion towards a cynical leader his name was Hitler. I would like Con to look back to 1918's France, Versailles to be exact. If we had been a little more lax with Germany and showed some compassion instead of imposing such harsh peace terms, Hitler never would have risen to power. (Info courtesy of Hist Ch).

-" and this recent "crusade" has only made relations worse, isn't time it this stopped and we made an effort for peace?"
A crusade is defined basically as holy war, this war was not an act of war for religious reasons it was a military operation to remove a tyrant dictator from power and bring peace and stability to a nation that has not lived in freedom since the time of Babylon.... Also we made peace with Iraq, and the resolution here is that the war should not have happened not that it should have ended already, because it already did. " - Figurative language Con. I did not think someone would take the word "crusade" and misconstrue it as you did.

-"In those 20 years Iraq went far from being an unstable ally to a dire threat to world peace," Con refuses to acknowledge all of the threats that we got from North Korea, and we know for a fact they have WMD's. Why don't we invade them with the unstable condition that they're in? They seem like a worse threat than Iraq.

Con has also contradicted himself observe:" when Osama Bin Laden died nobody cheered for his death (info courtesy of FOX news) "
Pro.................... Osama Bin Laden and 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq.................... Stop watching Fox News........."
But, Con said in round 2: "Meanwhile, after the 9/11 attacks, America is still scrambling how to defend themselves from another surprise attack against people they originally did not see as a threat while assessing who now has the most power and is the largest threat to national security" According to the latter quote 9/11 heightened our awareness to other threats in the world and we did not wan another attack so we invaded Iraq before they invaded us, according to Con' quotes there is a lose connection between 9/11, Osama Bin Laden, and the war.

-Also, "Stop watching Fox News........." It is a free country Con, I'm allowed to watch whatever news programming I want. However biased.

-"Invasion of countries that upset international trade"- invasions that we helped finance.

-- I would also like to point out to Con that the title of the debate is: "There never should have been an Iraq war." Not, " Was the Iraq war justifiable?" There is no debating that there was an Iraq war and Saddam was a messed up guy, and we went for reasons our government told us. ( I would like to point out that the main reason, that Saddam had WMD's , the U.S. never found any!) But, I am simply advocating that the Iraq war could have been avoided. That the reasons the government told us for going over there had non-violent solutions. That Saddam's crimes against his people could have been stopped if the west quit exporting weapons over there. That sanctions would have worked because you can't build a WMD without parts made in the west! There was an alternative to the war, there was an alternative to all those deaths, there was an alternative to all those fatherless children and, that alternative was peace.
imabench

Con

" I am simply advocating that the Iraq war could have been avoided."
Really Pro? Changing the debate at the end of round 3? This whole debate has been about whether or not invading Iraq was ethical or not, not once did you even mention that the purpose of the debate was that "The War in Iraq could have been avoided"........ Ill just address his final points and get this over with,

" I was saying that invading Iraq because he was massacring his own people a bulls$^9 reason"
How is stopping millions of people from being killed and wiped out by the will of an insane dictator not considered a valid reason for warranting his removal from power? You even brought up how America should have intervened to stop genocides in Rwanda and Guatemala, but when it comes to Iraq genocide just suddenly doesnt matter anymore?

"Saddam didn't want weapons inspectors in because he wanted to implant in the Iranians that he had a WMD"
So refusing to allow peaceful inspectors into the country to conduct normal business because Saddam wanted to scare the living sh*t out of another nation is a perfectly acceptable reason for why he should not comply with international regulations..... If Saddam truly wanted to keep a shroud of mystery over his weapons program because he feared an Iranian invasion more than a US invasion, then he left the US with no other options and Saddam suffered the consequences.

" Figurative language Con. I did not think someone would take the word "crusade" and misconstrue it as you did."
"A holy war undertaken with papal sanction" = The Free Dictionary
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
" any of the military expeditions undertaken by the Christians of Europe in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries for the recovery of the Holy Land from the Muslims." = Dictionary.com
http://dictionary.reference.com...
"Crusades - "Holy Wars"
http://www.hyw.com...

Bicker about the definition all you want, we can all agree that The war in Iraq was not a crusade/holy war

"Why don't we invade them (North Korea) with the unstable condition that they're in?"
Because Iraq lies in the most unstable and most armed part of the world who has already invaded numerous countries numerous times in the 1980's, 1990's, and threatened to invade several other neighboring countries. North Korea had their military run in 1950, got whipped, and have sat quietly ever since. North Korea also doesnt have a history of using chemical weapons on its own people, threatening Israel, jeopardizing world trade in oil, etc.

"according to Con' quotes there is a lose connection between 9/11, Osama Bin Laden, and the war."
9/11 raised awareness for the US to keep an eye on countries that supported, sponsored, funded, and approved of terrorism and terrorist operations. Iraq came up on that list. It most certainly does not mean that Iraq was a cause or reason why 9/11 took place.... Seeing as how the Pro has resorted to wordplay rather than defend his faulty argument that Iraqi's did not cheer the death of a man (Osama) they never had any connection to in the first place, lets count that as a concession.

"-"Invasion of countries that upset international trade"- invasions that we helped finance."
The US only provided a handful of weapons to Iraq 30 years ago in their war against Iran, The US has since provided no funding for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, hostilities against Saudi Arabia, or contributions Iraq made towards the numerous invasions of Israel.

Ok Lets cut to the chase, the Pro can play conspiracy theorist all he wants, but since he changed the resolution Ill address his one and only argument.

"the reasons the government told us for going over there had non-violent solutions. That Saddam's crimes against his people could have been stopped if the west quit exporting weapons over there. That sanctions would have worked because you can't build a WMD without parts made in the west! There was an alternative to the war, there was an alternative to all those deaths, there was an alternative to all those fatherless children and, that alternative was peace."

1) The US was not constantly exporting weapons to Iraq, the deal that did occur happened 30 years ago now and it came with bad judgement on behalf of the US. That being said, since there was no way that the genocides in Iraq could be stopped by "exporting weapons" to Iraq, the only way the genocides could have ended is if Saddam was deposed of, or if the US just waited for them to end...... That means that an Iraq War was necessary to end genocides in Iraq

2) Sanctions do work well, I mean North Korea is still nuclear free today, Burma is still a very stable democracy thanks to sanctions, Iran has made absolutely zero progress in obtaining a nuclear weapon, and Cuba has enjoyed a long period of prosperity since Castro stepped down after economic sanctions were established in the 1960's

Oh Wait, none of that happened, because economic sanctions almost rarely work and rarely are working.

http://hnn.us...
http://www.cbsnews.com...
http://www.alarabiya.net...
http://arabnews.com...

3) "The alternative was peace" or in other words "The alternative was ignoring it"

Lets explore history where the US solved international problems "through peace"
- The US handled the Rwandan Genocide through peace, that ended very nicely with 800,000 killed..
http://www.freerepublic.com...
- The US fought the Cambodian Genocide through peace, 20% of the entire country died in 3 years
http://www.vagabonding.com...
- The US fought the Darfur Genocide through peace, close to 3 million affected and 5,000 still die every month
http://www.darfurscores.org...

So whether or not this whole debate is whether or not the Iraq War was ethical or avoidable, let us recap.
1) Saddam was no innocent man. He invaded Iran and Kuwait while threatening Saudi Arabia and Israel. He authorized the genocide of his own people simply through will. He was caught with huge stores of chemical weapons after being overrun by the US. He was one of the largest threats to world peace for 30 years and had the power to cripple trade in the Middle East. And on top of that Saddam routinely denied peaceful inspectors into his country solely for intimidation reasons against Iran. Even the Pro admits that "Saddam was a messed up guy"

2) Sanctions dont work well at all, they only delay the process if they delay anything at all. Iraq was sanctioned many times and instead the only people who took a hit were the Iraqi people, not Saddam's regime.

3) The US sold weapons to Iraq just once.......... To fight Iran............... 30 years ago........... The US was certainly not selling Iraq weapons constantly while these genocides were going on, so we could not end the genocides by stop selling the Iraqis weapons that we werent selling them.

4) "Creating an arms race to run Iraq into the ground" - The Pro's tactic for fixing Iraq, which I think we can all agree was laughable now....

Therefore, The War in Iraq was unavoidable because peaceful tactics rarely work and because Saddam was outside of anyone's control to be reasoned with peacefully or reasonably.

I thank the Pro for a very interesting debate and I thank the voters for reading
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by ianspigler 2 years ago
ianspigler
Yeah, all the terrorists in Afghanistan.
Posted by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
Iraq had nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden or 9/11

>.<
Posted by morganhill 2 years ago
morganhill
I think that the iraq war was right, because without it the terrorists would still be attacking us because if we didn't go over there Osama would still be alive
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 2 years ago
vmpire321
ianspiglerimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: CON had much better arguments and showed that war was inevitable if Iraq was going to continue their actions...
Vote Placed by Contra 2 years ago
Contra
ianspiglerimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used stronger arguments, Pro could of used stronger arguments including the costs, or the lives taken, or said the Desert Fox operation was successful enough.