The Instigator
Zartacla
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
my.matryoshka
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 10/10/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 712 times Debate No: 5691
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Zartacla

Con

i believe that the war in iraq started out as a good cuase, but that we should have started pulling our troops out once we found Saddam Hussain. Let the Iraqi's have their civil war
my.matryoshka

Pro

Let me start off by thanking my opponent for allowing me to debate him on this important subject. It is my very first debate.

My opponent stated that the U.S. should have withdrawn forces from Iraq upon the discovery of its dictator, Saddam Hussein.

"we should have started pulling our troops out once we found Saddam Hussain. Let the Iraqi's have their civil war"

What my opponent proposes it that the Iraqi people suffer the consequences for the actions of the U.S.'s war in Iraq. I disagree with this.

America should take care of the goings-on in Iraq so long as stability is introduced from the new government, not to finish half the job and get out. Saddam Hussein was a small piece of the puzzle, one piece of many that contributed to America's invasion of the country.

For one, we needed to help the newly formed government form a democracy. Second, the country harbors Muslim extremists that are persistent on harming America, her allies, and their values.

The people of Iraq deserve a fresh start with the help of people who brought on change.
Debate Round No. 1
Zartacla

Con

well lets start off by saying that there is a big difference between withdrawing all our troops, and starting to withdraw our troops.

I also never even hinted that the Iraqi people suffer the consequences of our actions. The Shiite and Sunni have been on the verge of war for years, all the United States did was give them a little push. The Iraqi war started out as Americas war but changed over the years to a civil war.

My opponent also proposes that we need to help countries form a Democratic Government. I disagree. History shows that you can not force a Democratic form of Government on a nation. Any country must choose how and when they want to form any kind of Government.

Lastly my opponent states that the people of Iraq deserve a fresh start. I do agree with this, but what about the many other third world nations that need a fresh start. what about the situation in Dar fur. Is there anything that can be done about Genocide or are we to worried about bringing democracy to a Country that is not ready to receive it?
my.matryoshka

Pro

"well lets start off by saying that there is a big difference between withdrawing all our troops, and starting to withdraw our troops."

Alright, point taken, but I don't believe cutting the amount of troops in Iraq would help those troops left behind or help crush the morale of those who wage war against said troops. If anything, the knowledge of receding U.S. forces would help the insurgency stick it out to the very end, thus leading to more casualties.

You stated in Round 1 that you believe we had a good cause for going into Iraq, but you believe that we should've started to withdraw after discovering Hussein. Again, Hussein was one piece of the puzzle, and a piece most of the public didn't "buy into" (by that, I mean most of the American public believed Hussein was the scapegoat for George Bush's ulterior motives). I don't believe we should've begun a withdrawal because:

1) Capturing Hussein was one of many reasons why we entered Iraq. There are many things we also had our eyes out for, such as: insurgents, terrorist leaders, "weapons of mass destruction", and perhaps oil.
2) It would not have helped the violence following the occupency of Iraq. It would be another Vietnam, where the enemy sticks it out to the very end because he is aware that eventually the Americans will eventually leave. This would lead to more harm against American troops in Iraq during the withdrawal.

"The Shiite and Sunni have been on the verge of war for years, all the United States did was give them a little push. The Iraqi war started out as Americas war but changed over the years to a civil war."

If the invasion of Iraq was the straw that broke the camel's back, why should we turn our back on that? I think we should help the Iraqi people or any legitimate government that forms in the wake of their civil war. U.S. withdrawal leaves the field open for an oppressive government to form, one that might be just like the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Wouldn't that make the original invasion pointless?

My opponent said that no nation in recorded history has accepted democracy imposed on by an outside party. While I agree with this, I must say it's not a good reason to not ever assist a nation in forming a new government. Just because a country should be able to choose when and how, doesn't mean someone shouldn't be allowed to step in. With most of the world now accepting democracy as a form of government, or at least a goal to aspire to, it's a good idea to introduce the Middle-East to the concept.

As for the war in Darfur, I don't think we can compare it with the war in Iraq because Iraq was a nation we believed to possess weapons that could harm the United States or her allies. When we invaded, it was under the pretense that we would find weapons of mass destruction, which could affect America in a big way. It was an issue that the Bush administration linked with the well-being of U.S. citizens and the future of their War on Terror. The only thing that would take U.S. troops to Darfur, I'm afraid, is if we knew Osama Bin Laden or some other head honcho of terror was in the country, which would be disastrous as it would only open up one more front making forces more vulnerable.
Debate Round No. 2
Zartacla

Con

Zartacla forfeited this round.
my.matryoshka

Pro

Extend all my arguments from the previous round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by my.matryoshka 6 years ago
my.matryoshka
Zartaclamy.matryoshkaTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 6 years ago
TheSkeptic
Zartaclamy.matryoshkaTied
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:07