|
Opinion #1
Debater: Tom
|
|
The war was good for both america and Iraq
|
|
I am not an American, I'm a Fleming, but I completly support the war in Iraq and because of the reason that it has brought down another dictator in the Middle East and it has promoted democracy and capitalism to another Muslim country. By saying that the war wasn't or isn't good for the Iraqi's is jus beiing an egocntrist and more nationalistic than all the White activists and Isolationists. If the Coalition's troops do leave ,now, the country would fall into a total chaotic and anarchistical civil war, what would lead to situations as in somalia in the '90 's and it would bring oil and the world economy in danger and that is also bad for leftists and "greens" like, I suppose, you are also!
|
|
|
|
Opinion #2
Debater: The Wild Goose
|
|
Saddam was no saint, but the coalition should leave now.
|
|
Why must the coalition establish a "stable government"? Aside from the practical difficulties faced in establishing one, the likely effects of such an institution are less than appealing. The longer Western forces remain present in Iraq, the more support is created for the kind of radical Islamic terrorism that poses an actual danger to the West (unlike the Arab nationalism of Saddam). The war hawks assert that failure to impose a "strong government" will result in civil war, but what is the main cause of infighting and civil war in Iraq today? The struggle to control the newly forming government, that's what's causing the fighting! Even if a "strong government" were put in place in Iraq, how would it be any different from Saddam's government? Democracy is fragile, and easily disintegrates into something resembling Saddam's regime, in which sham elections provide credibility to a conquering brute. What's to prevent all of this from happening again, if a strong government is created?
|
|
|
Supporting URL[s]:
|
|
http://www.mises.org
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com
|
|
