the war in iraq

"well lets start off by saying that there is a big difference between withdrawing all our troops, and starting to withdraw our troops." Alright, point taken, but I don't believe cutting the amount of troops in Iraq would help those troops left behind or help crush the morale of those who wage war against said troops. If anything, the knowledge of receding U.S. forces would help the insurgency stick it out to the very end, thus leading to more casualties. You stated in Round 1 that you believe we had a good cause for going into Iraq, but you believe that we should've started to withdraw after discovering Hussein. Again, Hussein was one piece of the puzzle, and a piece most of the public didn't "buy into" (by that, I mean most of the American public believed Hussein was the scapegoat for George Bush's ulterior motives). I don't believe we should've begun a withdrawal because: 1) Capturing Hussein was one of many reasons why we entered Iraq. There are many things we also had our eyes out for, such as: insurgents, terrorist leaders, "weapons of mass destruction", and perhaps oil. 2) It would not have helped the violence following the occupency of Iraq. It would be another Vietnam, where the enemy sticks it out to the very end because he is aware that eventually the Americans will eventually leave. This would lead to more harm against American troops in Iraq during the withdrawal. "The Shiite and Sunni have been on the verge of war for years, all the United States did was give them a little push. The Iraqi war started out as Americas war but changed over the years to a civil war." If the invasion of Iraq was the straw that broke the camel's back, why should we turn our back on that? I think we should help the Iraqi people or any legitimate government that forms in the wake of their civil war. U.S. withdrawal leaves the field open for an oppressive government to form, one that might be just like the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Wouldn't that make the original invasion pointless? My opponent said that no nation in recorded history has accepted democracy imposed on by an outside party. While I agree with this, I must say it's not a good reason to not ever assist a nation in forming a new government. Just because a country should be able to choose when and how, doesn't mean someone shouldn't be allowed to step in. With most of the world now accepting democracy as a form of government, or at least a goal to aspire to, it's a good idea to introduce the Middle-East to the concept. As for the war in Darfur, I don't think we can compare it with the war in Iraq because Iraq was a nation we believed to possess weapons that could harm the United States or her allies. When we invaded, it was under the pretense that we would find weapons of mass destruction, which could affect America in a big way. It was an issue that the Bush administration linked with the well-being of U.S. citizens and the future of their War on Terror. The only thing that would take U.S. troops to Darfur, I'm afraid, is if we knew Osama Bin Laden or some other head honcho of terror was in the country, which would be disastrous as it would only open up one more front making forces more vulnerable.