Debate Info

Yes--specific options No--explain
Debate Score:17
Total Votes:18
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 Yes--specific options (4)
 No--explain (4)

Debate Creator

Awen27(541) pic

Could Iraq have been liberated without the war?

Honest question from me. No loadedness. I have an idea of what I think, but I don't have the facts to back it up. So have at it, kids. :D And please give as many facts as possible.

Yes--specific options

Side Score: 7


Side Score: 10
2 points

I hesitate to answer this, because I'm not an expert on war or the like.

But I believe that when we reacted to 9-11, we were too distraught to realize that a quick and quiet coup is less bloody.

And saying "were gonna get you!" is a great way to make someone work real hard at not being found. ie. Bin Laden.

I also know that the educated peoples of the entire middle east are far more open to Democracy and accepting of other cultures. Had we invested in the education of those young people 8 years ago, we might be far far far better off and closer to peace.

Side: Yes--specific options
1 point

Sorry about the random down vote. I don't know who it was, but I feex. :D

Side: Yes--specific options

I, too, am no expert on war but I think a Military Coup might have been arranged if all they wanted was Saddam Hussein dead. If, on the other hand they wanted to set up a democratic state I think that might have also been done with his capture and people at the ready to take over the government of Iraq without setting foot in that land. U.S. Advisors? Yes! U.S. Military intervention? No!

Side: Yes--specific options
1 point

So what would that entail, exactly? Could maybe US intelligence have communicated with Iraqi groups that were for getting Hussein out of power or something like that? Of course, I would hesitate a bit for that because I detest the CIA. X_X However, I do think that less bloody options should have been explored, and could overcome my distaste for the CIA if it would save thousands of lives.

Side: Yes--specific options

Sanctions don't work. The population couldn't do it without support but there was no organized opposition in place to support. Waiting for Saddam to have died would have only led to his sons taking charge. We needed boots on the ground.

Side: No--explain
2 points

Iraq needed outside intervention. Even if Saddam died his sons would have continued his reign of terror. The Republican Guard especially were very loyal to Saddam and his sons so any rebellion would have been easily defeated.

Side: No--explain

As much as I may dislike it, revolution is difficult without violence. Whether a democratic leader is being overthrown by violent rebels, or a tyrant is being overthrown by democratic forces, there will generally be violence.

But. I do not believe that the US entered Iraq to liberate it. Nor do I believe that it would've been the US's place. If I'm wrong about any facts, please correct me, for I'm fairly ignorant on the topic, but shouldn't this be international UN intervention, not national? Much like the Korean and Vietnamese wars...

Maybe I'm wrong. But that's what I thiiiiink should've happened.

Side: No--explain
2 points

No, I don't think that was the US's main, or at least not it's entire, goal. I'm just trying to figure out whether or not it was worth it, whatever the US's intentions...

Side: No--explain