war in iraq

we shouldn't have been over there and the purpose for us going over there in the first place was to find weapons of mass destruction but did we find it no so y r we over there

I'm unsure as to whether my opponent is arguing that we shouldn't have gone over there in the first place, or that we shouldn't be over there now, so I'll refute both points.

Thanks to my opponent for starting the debate.

Please vote for the better argumentation, not what you agree with.

Yadda, yadda, yadda. Let's begin.

His first point that was that the entire reason for going over there was to find weapons of mass destruction, and we didn't find any. Well, right there he gives you a reason for going over: looking for WMD. Just because we didn't find WMD doesn't invalidate the reason for going over there in the first place.

It seemed probable at the time, and it was a major issue of national security.

If I'm playing a game of chess, and I move my knight to protect my queen, when in fact my opponent was never going after my queen, it doesn't mean that I was wrong in defending my queen.

Now, in response to why we're over there now: it's just not a good idea to pull out. The region would collapse and just be worse off than it was before. We have a responsibility to finish what we started.

o yea ur welcome
my opponent stated that we went over to iraq because we thought that they had WMD, which they shouldn't have had in the first place. see back in the persian gulf war, which was a war in kuwait, the iraqis surrendered to the allied forces. now at the end of that war iraq was supposed to get rid of those weapons. so they shouldn't have had them in the first place. Also my opponent brought up the point that we should stay there and if we pull out that that region would collapse and would be worse off then it was before. Now if we pull out now then they wont be worse off b/c before they had a dictator. So i would rather not have a dictator then have one.Has for our economy we are in so much debt and so my ? to you is why should we be concerned about a country that we have fought against in the past? Also if we stayed in the war what do you propose that we do about the debt that we have which is like trillions of dollars?

First of all, I agree with my opponent - they SHOULDN'T have had WMD. But there was a good chance they might. It seemed very probable that Saddam was breaking the treaties. Therefore, my argument about a justified reason for entering the war flows through. I also extend my chess analogy.

And, yeah, it was a dictatorship before. But that doesn't mean it couldn't get worse. The fact of the matter is the region is extremely unstable right now, with factions warring to try to gain power. If we pull out, then our forces, which are currently propping up the democratic government and protecting it, are gone. This means the government will not have nearly enough of the necessary defense. It will collapse, and some Islamo-Fascist faction will take control, setting up another dictatorship. Seeing as how divided we've made that country, a genocide would be even more likely. Thus, I extend my argument about a worse situation developing should we pull out.

My opponent also asked why we're concerned with a country we fought in the past. Well, we're still concerned with Korea, Germany, and Japan. And even though the Cold War never developed into a real war, we are still concerned with Russia. Countries that we've been at war with are of the utmost concern for us.

As far as the economy goes - wars cost money. That doesn't mean it's not worth it.

As far as the debt goes, all those trillions of dollars don't all come from the war. True, it has a lot to with it, but the fact of the matter is that this debt has been with us. Every nation has a debt. This doesn't put us in such a horrible position. I'd also like to point out that every time the US has made a big cut in its debt, a recession has followed.

I look forward to the next round.