Category: News
War in Iraq
This debate began on Friday, March 21, 2008, 2:50:14 PM Pacific Time.
| Who Won This Debate? | ||||
 3 Votes |
8 Votes |
|||
Versus |
||||
Pro ~ Round 1
Many People are against the War in Iraq. I hope to change their mind on it.
Many people think that its all for nothing. I believe they are wrong it isn't. We as the great and powerful country that we are should help other country's so that they can start to grow. When I think of this topic I think of a child on a playground getting bullied and all the other children standing there watching him not offering any assistance whatsoever.
Many People are against the War in Iraq. I hope to change their mind on it.
Many people think that its all for nothing. I believe they are wrong it isn't. We as the great and powerful country that we are should help other country's so that they can start to grow. When I think of this topic I think of a child on a playground getting bullied and all the other children standing there watching him not offering any assistance whatsoever.
Con ~ Round 1
I thank my opponent for offering this topic, and I hope we can have a fun and civil debate.
I'm going to start by going over what my opponent has to say, and then I'll move on to provide my own reasons for being against the Iraq war.
"We as the great and powerful country that we are should help other country's so that they can start to grow." I disagree with this statement for two reasons. First, it makes the issue seem much more benign than it is: We're not talking about helping countries out; we're talking about going to war with them. Second, the statement really has nothing to do with Iraq, since there was already a well grown and established nation before we intervened.
"When I think of this topic I think of a child on a playground getting bullied and all the other children standing there watching him not offering any assistance whatsoever." The problem here is, in the case of the Iraq war, the United State is the bully. We're stepping on the sovereignty of a nation and people; more on this later.
Now onto my own justification.
I am standing in opposition of the Iraq War. Neither the topic nor my opponent's first statement gives any indication that I have to promote withdrawing from Iraq; all I must prove is that it is unjust, so I'm not even going to bother with the question of withdrawal or further strategy in Iraq.
I will show that the Iraq War is unjust for 5 primary reasons.
1. It was begun on false pretenses.
The initial purpose of the Iraq War was to get rid of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. The problem is, it turns out none existed at all at the time of the invasion. I can provide evidence or further examination of this fact if necessary, but I'm pretty sure this is all common knowledge at this point.
2. It sets a dangerous precedent for preemptive war.
Even if Iraq had had a weapons of mass destruction program at the time we invaded, there would still be great injustice in invading the nation. A trend of preemptive war is the most dangerous path the world could go down – more dangerous even than nuclear proliferation. If we can invade a nation to get rid of a threat that doesn't exist yet, it sets the precedent that it is fine to do so. This is not a trend we want to start.
3. It violates the national sovereignty of Iraq.
A world map has boundary lines on it for a reason. Each nation is, by its very definition, independent from the rest of the world. There's no problem with communicating with other nations, and building international stability through peacefully coordinated bodies like the United Nations. But when war becomes the primary tool for settling international issues, the right of nations to rule themselves is violated. This is a problem for Iraq, but also to the world as a whole; for, by stepping upon Iraq's sovereignty, we have set a precedent that sovereignty isn't important. This is a bad precedent for every nation in the world, because it goes against the very essence of nationhood.
4. Many people have died or been displaced as a result of it, and it continues to threaten lives and livelihoods.
The American military casualty count of the War in Iraq as of today is 3996.* Total Iraqi civilian casualties as a result of the war are estimated between 82,267 and 89,778** (and that's one of the lower estimates; some others suggest several hundred thousand or even over a million deaths). The numbers speak for themselves.
4. The monetary cost is staggering.
A recent report by Congressional Democrats regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan entitled 'War at Any Price?' found "that the total economic costs incurred to date -- including "hidden" expenses, such as higher oil prices, interest on borrowing, and the long-term care of injured soldiers -- are already about twice the 800 billion dollars the Bush administration has asked Congress to appropriate through 2008." The report also goes on to say that this total cost could be as high as $3.5 trillion by 2017.*** Again, the numbers speak for themselves.
5. It has destabilized Iraq, as well as the region as a whole.
Whatever else can rightly be said of Saddam Hussein, the fact of the matter is that he kept his nation and its immediate surroundings more stable than they had been in hundreds of years. We got rid of that stabilizing force, and have failed to replace it within a reasonable time frame. The result is that Iraq is going through a bloody civil war, and the Middle East is less and less stable every day. Iran and Saudi Arabia have both threatened to intervene directly in Iraq if this continues, and Turkey has already crossed the border in force a few times. If all three of these nations were to become involved, Iraq would be completely torn apart, and the Middle East would become a hotbed of violence that could easily spill over into the rest of the world. From the standpoint of national and international stability, therefore, the world was better off before we invaded.
The War in Iraq began on false pretenses, has set several dangerous precedents in international affairs, has had staggering human and monetary costs, and has destabilized the region. It is, to put it shortly, entirely unjust.
*http://www.antiwar.com/...
**http://www.iraqbodycount.org/...
***http://ipsnews.net/...
I thank my opponent for offering this topic, and I hope we can have a fun and civil debate.
I'm going to start by going over what my opponent has to say, and then I'll move on to provide my own reasons for being against the Iraq war.
"We as the great and powerful country that we are should help other country's so that they can start to grow." I disagree with this statement for two reasons. First, it makes the issue seem much more benign than it is: We're not talking about helping countries out; we're talking about going to war with them. Second, the statement really has nothing to do with Iraq, since there was already a well grown and established nation before we intervened.
"When I think of this topic I think of a child on a playground getting bullied and all the other children standing there watching him not offering any assistance whatsoever." The problem here is, in the case of the Iraq war, the United State is the bully. We're stepping on the sovereignty of a nation and people; more on this later.
Now onto my own justification.
I am standing in opposition of the Iraq War. Neither the topic nor my opponent's first statement gives any indication that I have to promote withdrawing from Iraq; all I must prove is that it is unjust, so I'm not even going to bother with the question of withdrawal or further strategy in Iraq.
I will show that the Iraq War is unjust for 5 primary reasons.
1. It was begun on false pretenses.
The initial purpose of the Iraq War was to get rid of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. The problem is, it turns out none existed at all at the time of the invasion. I can provide evidence or further examination of this fact if necessary, but I'm pretty sure this is all common knowledge at this point.
2. It sets a dangerous precedent for preemptive war.
Even if Iraq had had a weapons of mass destruction program at the time we invaded, there would still be great injustice in invading the nation. A trend of preemptive war is the most dangerous path the world could go down – more dangerous even than nuclear proliferation. If we can invade a nation to get rid of a threat that doesn't exist yet, it sets the precedent that it is fine to do so. This is not a trend we want to start.
3. It violates the national sovereignty of Iraq.
A world map has boundary lines on it for a reason. Each nation is, by its very definition, independent from the rest of the world. There's no problem with communicating with other nations, and building international stability through peacefully coordinated bodies like the United Nations. But when war becomes the primary tool for settling international issues, the right of nations to rule themselves is violated. This is a problem for Iraq, but also to the world as a whole; for, by stepping upon Iraq's sovereignty, we have set a precedent that sovereignty isn't important. This is a bad precedent for every nation in the world, because it goes against the very essence of nationhood.
4. Many people have died or been displaced as a result of it, and it continues to threaten lives and livelihoods.
The American military casualty count of the War in Iraq as of today is 3996.* Total Iraqi civilian casualties as a result of the war are estimated between 82,267 and 89,778** (and that's one of the lower estimates; some others suggest several hundred thousand or even over a million deaths). The numbers speak for themselves.
4. The monetary cost is staggering.
A recent report by Congressional Democrats regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan entitled 'War at Any Price?' found "that the total economic costs incurred to date -- including "hidden" expenses, such as higher oil prices, interest on borrowing, and the long-term care of injured soldiers -- are already about twice the 800 billion dollars the Bush administration has asked Congress to appropriate through 2008." The report also goes on to say that this total cost could be as high as $3.5 trillion by 2017.*** Again, the numbers speak for themselves.
5. It has destabilized Iraq, as well as the region as a whole.
Whatever else can rightly be said of Saddam Hussein, the fact of the matter is that he kept his nation and its immediate surroundings more stable than they had been in hundreds of years. We got rid of that stabilizing force, and have failed to replace it within a reasonable time frame. The result is that Iraq is going through a bloody civil war, and the Middle East is less and less stable every day. Iran and Saudi Arabia have both threatened to intervene directly in Iraq if this continues, and Turkey has already crossed the border in force a few times. If all three of these nations were to become involved, Iraq would be completely torn apart, and the Middle East would become a hotbed of violence that could easily spill over into the rest of the world. From the standpoint of national and international stability, therefore, the world was better off before we invaded.
The War in Iraq began on false pretenses, has set several dangerous precedents in international affairs, has had staggering human and monetary costs, and has destabilized the region. It is, to put it shortly, entirely unjust.
*http://www.antiwar.com/...
**http://www.iraqbodycount.org/...
***http://ipsnews.net/...
Pro ~ Round 2
This round was forfeited because the debater did not post their argument within the allotted time.
This round was forfeited because the debater did not post their argument within the allotted time.
Con ~ Round 2
Well, it's unfortunate that my opponent chose to forfeit this debate. I was really looking forward to it. If any proponents of the Iraq War would like to challenge me on this, I'd be glad to accept.
Well, it's unfortunate that my opponent chose to forfeit this debate. I was really looking forward to it. If any proponents of the Iraq War would like to challenge me on this, I'd be glad to accept.
Pro ~ Round 3
This round was forfeited because the debater did not post their argument within the allotted time.
This round was forfeited because the debater did not post their argument within the allotted time.
Con ~ Round 3
Again, if any proponents of the Iraq War want a real debate on this topic, you can challenge me and I'd be glad to have a real debate over it.
Again, if any proponents of the Iraq War want a real debate on this topic, you can challenge me and I'd be glad to have a real debate over it.
Member Comments (41)
Only members can post comments.
I challenge you zak. I'm still new at this debate set up.
3 Months Ago
It IS bad because .. GoD didNt maKE uS to fight !!! ..buT to LovE each oTher As onE biG famiLy !!
3 Months Ago
And I wasn't really defending the U.N.; sadolite's the one who brought it up. I was just showing him that the U.N. is irrelevant as justification for the war, because it voted against any action.
3 Months Ago
If it were simply "an extension of the U.S.'s power", then it would have voted to invade Iraq when the U.S. was pressuring it to do so. Obviously, America is the most powerful nation in the U.N.; but that doesn't make it the ONLY one that counts.
3 Months Ago
Well, that and the fact that the United States provides over 90 percent of the monitary and fiscal power to the U.N.
They're pretty much an extension of the U.S.'s power.
They're pretty much an extension of the U.S.'s power.
3 Months Ago
if you didnt realize, the U.N. is a piece of crap. They dont get anything done and corruption runs rampant. Who cares what the UN has to say? I sure dont.
3 Months Ago
Zakk, You are part of the problem and absolutly in no way will you ever be part of the solution and that is not open for debate.
3 Months Ago
sadolite, I just want to point out that this debate had nothing to do with the legality or illegality of the war. If you can't understand the difference between debating legality (which relies on spelled-out laws) and debating justice (which relies on logic and philosophical analysis), then this little comment conversation we're having is pointless.
The U.N. has always frowned upon unilateral military force. If the U.S. wanted to go to war under a U.N. resolution, that would mean getting the U.N. to condone the invasion, and encouraging its member states to join in it. However, and this is KEY, the Bush Administration did NOT appeal to what the U.N. had on the books with regards to Iraq as justification for invading - rather, they falsified a link to terrorism and cherry-picked WMD intelligence. If you really want to make the U.N. a major talking point in discussing the Iraq War, you have to understand that the U.N. DIDN'T VOTE FOR IT.
The U.N. has always frowned upon unilateral military force. If the U.S. wanted to go to war under a U.N. resolution, that would mean getting the U.N. to condone the invasion, and encouraging its member states to join in it. However, and this is KEY, the Bush Administration did NOT appeal to what the U.N. had on the books with regards to Iraq as justification for invading - rather, they falsified a link to terrorism and cherry-picked WMD intelligence. If you really want to make the U.N. a major talking point in discussing the Iraq War, you have to understand that the U.N. DIDN'T VOTE FOR IT.
3 Months Ago
if the liberal media and ideaologic anti-war liberals didnt so steadfastly and ignorantly think about every issue as political, it would be obvious to the American people that the war in Iraq was just and the right thing to do. Time will show that Bush made the right decision. Bush will be the Edmund G. Ross of the 21st Century.
3 Months Ago
Ok then, Since legal doesn't equal justice, then legal documents aren't worth the paper that they are written on. So that would mean that there is no possible way for any two countries to have any kind of written document that both sides can refer to for clarification because all one has to do is argue that legal documents don't necessarily mean that they are just so ether side can just ignore the document or treaty. The legality of the war is not sketchy it is clearly and concisely spelled out in U.N. resolution 1441 that if Saddam Hussein failed to comply his country could and was invaded by the U.S. to remove him from power. Congress also authorized the use of force to remove him. Sketchy? I think not in the least! You need to come to terms with reality, legal documents supersede any personal beliefs you have about the war. The Invasion of Iraq is legal and I defy you or anyone else to prove me wrong on legal terms.
3 Months Ago
Copyright © 2007 WebCorp, LLC™, all rights reserved.