the war in iraq is not our war and obama should end it and bring our troops back

the war in iraq would not exist if president bush was not an idiot because iraq was one of the only countries in the middle east not to plan the attack we should not be forcing a way of life on those who do not wish for our way and if this war dose not end soon it will not end for a hundred years because it is a fight we cannot win and a fight that has no true purpose. we should be fighting one of the countries that actually bomed us. bush is using the bombing as an excuse to go to iraq.

First off, I'll thank my opponent for starting this debate and wish her the best of luck.

To start off with, I will first be doing a resolution analysis, then be disputing my opponent's case.


The resolution states that the war in Iraq is not our war, and Obama should end it and bring our troops back.
By literal definition of her statement that the war in Iraq is not our war, just by simply proving that we are fighting in it, it belongs to us and is therefore "our" war. Another meaning for it would be that she meant this is not our war to fight. To win that I will have to prove that we do belong in this war and destroy that argument.
The resolution also states that Obama should end the war. This doesn't say end the war for America, but rather end it in general. To win that argument, I will only have to prove that Obama shouldn't/can't end the war in Iraq.
Since the phrasing of bring our troops back doesn't provide any specific numbers, I will have to assume that it means return ALL troops back home. This means that if I can disprove my opponent's statement of bringing all troops back home, I will win this round.


My opponent has stated that the war in Iraq would not exist, specifically, if president Bush was not an idiot because Iraq was one of the only countries in the middle east not to plan the attack.
However, the United States didn't declare war on Iraq until March 20, 2003. The US did, however, declare war on Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, less then a month after the September 11th attacks. So her logic behind that we invaded Iraq because of 9-11 is completely false, if only by looking at the date alone. If you do not buy that, then I will be going over the origins of the war in my case.
My opponent states that we should not be forcing a way of life on those who do not wish for our way. However, that's not the case. We are merely giving them the opportunity to live how they choose to live, and not just be ruled by a homicidal dictator. If anything, their former leaders are the ones forcing this because they are the ones forcing us to invade and liberate them.
She says that if the war doesn't end soon that it won't end for 100 years, because it is a fight that we cannot win, without any true purpose. She however provides no reason for why we can't win, and I have proved that there is a purpose for this war, so that argument should immediately fall.
She states we should be fighting one of the countries that actually bombed us, which we already are in Afghanistan, so that argument is completely inaccurate.
Finally she says that Bush is using the bombing as an excuse to go to Iraq, but I can't really make an argument to that, due to lack of specifics of what "bombing" she is talking about.
Now I will be going over why Obama shouldn't/can't end the war. First off, Obama doesn't have a plan to end the war(http://www.tnr.com...) . Merely taking all of our troops out wouldn't end the war. If anything, it would just make the war more disastrous in the long-run, because the terrorists would see it as them winning, and would gain much more moral and support, possibly enough to form a major threat against the United States.
Sorry for the long response time, but I had a busy weekend, and best of luck to my opponent. :)

Report this Argument

yes i can under stand ur point however it is not truley our war to fight and will not end just because we take them out however if we are fighting a war it should at least be with a country that is actually our enemy iraq had no major involvement in the 9/11 attack however every other country that was already our enemy did and we should be fighting a justifiable war

I am just going to show you the voters of this round and hope that you will vote con for this debate.

I do not feel that debating her actual 2 round would have any effect, because since she had not brought up any new arguments, it would just be a reiteration of my first round.

She doesn't actually attack any of my points, merely restates her own without any further proof. I will have won this round then because of the lack of offense coming from her second round. A wise teacher once told me that silence is compliance, so everything she has not argued can extend through the debate, because she must agree with them. So since she agrees with so many of my points, then I will have won this debate by default, if only for the severe lack of offense.

I can say the sky is purple, but without any evidence or logic behind it no-one is going to believe me. So without any evidence or logic behind her argument, I will have won this debate because I show clear, thought-out arguments to rash non-responsive ones.

I will also have won this debate in the grammar category because, apparently, my opponent has not heard of spell check or periods.

Overall, the deciding factor of this debate ought to be the sheer irresponsiveness of her arguments to mine which allows you to extend them throughout the debate and, by default, make me win. I have nothing more to say that will help my chances of winning, but I hope that you voters will pick con for this argument. I also thank my opponent for the fun debate and wish her best of luck in the future.

Thank you