Martial Law in Iraq Would Have Been a Sound Strategy

Some debaters on the site choose to compile massive projects filled to the brim with sources to provide a point. I am not one of those people. I am in the terminal year of school and i really don't have time for such effort. I was assured that this debate was not to be voted upon. The same way that you find scoring an inhibition upon the debate, a given structure that both parties are limited to also inhibits the debate. If the debate is truly as you said, vote free, then my lack of sources should hardly matter, so long as I replace them with reasoning and logic. MacArthur had the advantage of nuclear arms and firebombs when he occupied japan. There is a key difference between respecting others beliefs when enacting martial law, and aiming two weapons of mass destruction while assuring that their beliefs would be respected under the enactment of martial law. Yes I know Ireland was not under martial law during the Iraq war, but neither was Japan. The Fenians weren't around before Ireland was occupied, they were a result of a foreign empire taking over. The Provos, as they were called during the Troubles, were not related to the original rebels and only took the name as a patriotic gesture. I only wanted to make that distinction clear when listing them. The Troubles have nothin to do with the war for independence and was mentioned so you wouldn't be confused and you wouldn't have to waste your own time chasing down a red herring. You cannot ignore the fact that Japan at the time would not risk defying MacArthur for fear another act of genocide might be committed against their people. The only way you could make Iraq that docile would be to nuke it twice, which would of course be Mutually Assured Destruction now. But on Ireland one last time, the IRA were successful for all their failures, as the marching of several hundred troops into Dublin to occupy it during the war for independence made them look cruel on a public scale, especially with India suffering similar problems. Ireland was liberated in 1921 and became independent. Many Irish would justify the IRA at the time, because the British saw them as terrorists while the Irish saw them as rebels. If you really wanted to keep Iraq peaceful, you would have to assert domination over them first, and establishment of power like the nukes were. But you can't use nukes anymore. My point about the war bonds ties in with the issue of dominance aforementioned. Back after 9/11, people were scared and were looking for safety and revenge. The Bush administration (another side not) established security using the Patriot Act which let them arrest anyone they wanted, and enacted revenge on Iraq. People began to oppose the war when it became apparent Hussein was not responsible for 9/11. This is important. If we were to go back to when America first invaded, byut then have them install martial law, then support would drop even faster when they found out that not only was Iraq unrelated to 9/11, but that the military had established themselves as the new rulers would cause outrage. Resistance would quickly surface, and in light of the most recent American news, the Us would find it very difficult to defend against guerilla fighters attacking their military bases. You're right, war is about destruction, not creation. Chaos, not order. I'm still assuming that America invaded, but I'm saying they should have really left before they could do anymore harm once they realized that the only weapons that Hussein had were the ones the US sold him. Democracy, while flawed in Iraq, still exists. America should, if at all, assist from a distance, much like Libya, enacting political pressure rather than full scale occupation. WII did not occur as a result of America's isolation, it occurred because of a rise in Facism across eastern and southern Europe. It wasn't resolved because of America either, Hitler's defeat in Russia marked the first real defeat he had faced. True, America must engage the world to gain its respect, but are you planning on being loved or feared here? Europe is independent of the US, and doesn't have to adhere to its interests. As a European, I would say that America's refusal to accept legislation against torture or the Kyoto agreement. The US is not a moral force in the world right now. They do not have the authority to invade a country claiming it is to promote freedom, then install military rule. Such would create new opposition abroad, incite anger from the US people, and cost a lot of money which would not be paid for in bonds by a newly angered people. Cases like Ireland and Japan are from a different era, with different issues and different technology. I'm still confused as to whether you solely focus on American interests, or the welfare of the Iraqis, as your option doesn't exactly help them, while you've accused my argument to leave Iraq vulnerable to foreign invasion. (Ironic, isn't it?) I'll be waiting, Duncan.