War in Iraq

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.

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/casualties/
**http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
***http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40043

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.

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.