US - Iraq War
Pros and Cons
Video exploring critical thinking and how it leads to great citizen involvement
Last updated on: 1/19/2009 12:14:00 PM PST

Should the US have attacked Iraq?


What do you think? Share your pro or con views and help us foster civil, intelligent discussion on important social issues. If you're looking to attack, harass, demean, or impersonate others, please go elsewhere. Read the rules on submitting comments at ProCon.org. Please note that the pro and con comments and thumbs up/down votes reflect the views of ProCon.org readers and not necessarily of ProCon.org or society in general. Remember to enter your email address so we can notify you if your comment gets posted. Thank you!

PRO (yes) Comments (35)

1,250 characters left

Notify me by email when someone replies to my comments
Also sign up for our free e-newsletters

Sort by: Best | Newest | Oldest

  • +25 +59 -34 Pat Apr. 28, 2011
    "It was a tough but courageous decision to go into Iraq. The region is a mess and it sits on the majority of the world's oil surrounded by terrorists. Is there any doubt that eventually Saddam would find a way to get a nuclear weapon? Unlike North Korea that has been avoided. We now need to help them transition to self government. Sometimes you have to take one step backwards before you can take two steps forward. I don't like the war but what was the option? Containment was a pipe dream as North Korea and Al Qaeda has shown."
    1250 characters left
  • +14 +34 -20 bob Oct. 11, 2011
    "the U.S. has never backed down from a fight. most dont beleive this but it is true that it is impossible to acheive world peace without violence. there is always going to be violence. even debates arguments and competitions are all forms of opposition."
    1250 characters left
  • +10 +32 -22 matthew kratzke Nov. 16, 2011
    "i think we need the war to keep peace throughout the US the people over seas are very couerageous they risk there lives day and night to keep our peace.
    i am13 and i have always wanted to be in the war eer since my uncle went for 4 years that is my opinion"
    1250 characters left
    • +1 +2 -1 Nico Apr. 26, 2012
      "Kid, go for it. If that's what you want to do, God bless you and your uncle. He's a hero to us all. Thank you for reminding us that at the end of the day, everyone can do what they can to keep the peace."
    • -1 +4 -5 Hunter Workman Jan. 10, 2012
      "You're 13, so there's really no point in me saying this, but here goes: This is a prime example of what war does, especially American ones. You're 13-years-old, and your only ambition is to be in something where you will kill be, and take the chance of being killed yourself. There's something serious wrong with this country if we can brainwash children into disregarding the brevity of life and labeling it as "patriotism". This is more a point to anyone who happens to stumble across this: This is what happens when you try to justify a pointless war with propaganda and hatemongering. CHILDREN want to kill people. Am I the only one who sees that a a serious problem? Without even understand (or, as a result, UNDERSTANDING) why we're at war with someone, we can convince children to go along with this Red Scare-esque charade. Perhaps he should ask his uncle whether or not war is fun. I'm saying that from a place of deep respect for soldiers. My dad served in Afhanistan during Operation Desert Storm and again a few years ago, and he has certainly unglamorized not only the war in Afghanistan, but the military in general. This problem goes far beyond whether or not this war is right. It's about what we're doing to a battle-born society."
  • +10 +24 -14 Dustin Isaacs Oct. 28, 2011
    "I sort of stand in the middle on this as of late. I am totally fine with the protection of freedom and helping Iraq establish a stable Goverment. However, I think mush more planning could have went into this. Just like Vietnam, this country is not behind the war. how can our men and women win without support? Instead of the constant rally's to bring them home, why not put that effort into finding ways to keep them safe or send them patriotic support. How did we win WWII? The country worked together instead of divided. We need to come together as a nation and stop being at each others throats."
    1250 characters left
  • +10 +30 -20 Gregory Apr. 28, 2011
    "I believe that the U.S. had no choice but to go back into Iraq and remove Sadaam Hussien. Progress is being made... I believe that we are making progress and believe we need to give the new general a chance to succeed. It cannot be stay the course as it has been. Changes do need to be made to win this war and I think those changes are being made and progress is also being made. I just saw a CNN report about the anti-american war protest. However no mention was made of the Pro-US movement that went on at the same time. We as observers are not getting the whole story from either the press or the media the majority of the time...I also believe that a timetable should be set with the understanding that this is a war and the timetable needs to be flexible as many unexpected things happen during a war... The Iraqi's need to take over their own situation but they also have to be prepared to do that."
    1250 characters left
  • +7 +9 -2 Austin Vutech Sep. 12, 2014
    "There are people in Iraq today, whose sole goal in life if to harm Americans. Al-Qaeda's horrific acts on 9/11 have proven this point. As a country we need to protect ourselves, and sometimes as in WWII, the best defense is offense. What we should have done, was go all out, sending in every resource. We still need to maximize our efforts in hunting and killing every threat to America. We can not let terrorist groups become organized. Obama's great plan of leaving the region has clearly failed with the surge of ISIS. We can not leave the Middle East. We must fight, as we have in the past. We can not keep waiting for someone else to do our dirty work. There is a reason there hasn't been a major terrorist attack in America since 9/11, and that is because we have occupied Iraq. We leave, and ISIS emerges. Clearly, we must do something. We need to bring the fight to them, we are American, not French, we can, and will win this war on terror. We do also have a responsibility to help our allies. Our allies have similar goals to the U.S, so why not, once again lead by example and go in and win this war. No doubt, it will be a doozy, people will die, but at the end of the day we will make America safer, and the world safer in the process."
    1250 characters left
  • +6 +19 -13 matthew kratzke Nov. 22, 2011
    "My uncle served for 4 years in the us army the first two years he was an infintray and support man the las two he was a mechanic ever since then i have alway been intrested in the army no matter what i will be involved in the army somehow i realize the risk and i am willing to lose my life for the freedom of my country those are mty thoughts"
    1250 characters left
  • +5 +22 -17 Peter Jun. 29, 2011
    "I think this issue is rather complicated. I would ask the US Administration to focus the belief factor. In Islam there are groups that sanction terrorism. These groups can be considered deviant to other Muslims but many support them silently. Their only focus is to Islamise the world as taught and they will do anything to achieve as being a martyr is the ultimate. The rewards in heaven as taught cannot be compared to what is got here. As such the only way as I see it is education and the de-islamisation of this belief. It will be difficult as theya re being brainwashed as young as 3 years old. Until and unless you are able to snip at this..you will children as young as 7 or 8..walking into your lobby willing to blow you up."
    1250 characters left
    • +2 +3 -1 Hunter Workman Jan. 10, 2012
      "And American society is any better? You speak of the brainwashing that they are exposed to as children, but ignore the very same thing happening in our everyday lives. To put every speculation to rest (and, indeed, there are many): Islam is NOT about "killing the infidels" or "destroying the Western world". Quite the contrary, in fact. The Qur'an speaks of absolute peace on several different occasions (more than the Bible does, in fact, but people like to ignore that). What most people refer to are the Islamic extremists, who are responsible for many terrorist actions against many countries. I mean, if we want to think bad of countries trying to impose their will on others, we should take a hard look at ourselves as a nation. We spend our whole lives being taught of "patriotism" and the goodness of Democracy against the evil world, that we start to actually believe that we're looking out for justice when we go to war. Come on. As the proverb goes (in a conveniently simple way): "Let he without sin cast the first stone." In America, it's more apropriately put: "Let he without sin cast the first stone. Now, everyone throw rocks at that kid. He's a sinner, I promise.""
  • +5 +24 -19 William Apr. 28, 2011
    "Does the news media have only short term memories? It's been 13 months since I have heard them mention that Saddam Hussein was offering 25,000 or 30,000 dollars to the suicide bombers who killed innocent Israeli civilians. Also, didn't Saddam hire people to kill his [George W. Bush] father? Last but not least: Saddam or his chief weapons inspector had given Saddam exaggerated figures to appear on target with construction."
    1250 characters left
  • +5 +27 -22 Larry Apr. 28, 2011
    "We were right to eliminate a very terrible dictator in Iraq and destroy his regime. We were also right to do it without the UN as this body is so corrupt that it is incapable of following what is right. It either ignores what is wrong or takes so long to make decisions that they are meaningless or without consequence in effecting any kind of positive change. Look at Africa or the oil for food program. Either or both of these areas are enough to condemn the UN and it's procedures and actions. The UN needs to be overhauled and have big changes made if ever it is going to be effective as a world peace keeper."
    1250 characters left
  • +4 +4 0 Brooke M Sep. 12, 2014
    "We, the U.S., should have invaded Iraq because they had access to much of the world's oil..If they had utilized said oil, then utter chaos would reign over the world, for the oil would most likely be used for weapons of mass destruction, fighter airplanes, and more. Saddam Hussein was also abusing the human rights of his people, even the prisoners, the people with the least amount of rights.
    He attempted to get aluminum yellowcake to build nuclear weapons, which he would have used on America if we had not stopped him. He also refused to accept a democracy as his government, which upset the U.S.
    The Bush Doctrine Showed the U.S.'s new foreign policy. This policy opposed weapons of mass destruction and any potential threat to America, which Saddam Hussein was considered.
    Saddam Hussein did many things wrong in the eyes of the U.S. government, and so we invaded Iraq in an attempt to stop him from both terrorizing America and the rest of the world."
    1250 characters left
  • +3 +3 0 Alec G. Sep. 14, 2014
    "One of the greatest priorities of the United States is its safety. It is imperative that the nation protects its citizens and defends against any potential threats. Therefore, the United States acted correctly in attacking Iraq; Iraq being the most prevalent threat to its safety in years. There is a great chance Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, this statement being verified by The United Nations commission report when they said that "[Iraq] had and still has the capability to manufacture not only chemical but biological weapons." The U.S must be certain that Iraq cannot/will not harm its citizens with such weapons. Additionally, after an event such as 9/11, the U.S must take action. Donald Rumsfeld, the former Secretary of Defense, stated that "we do have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members." The U.S cannot take a chance on having another similar tragedy, or a terrorist attack that's even worse, and therefore an invasion of Iraq is vital to the nation's defense. Iraq country has committed human rights violations and United Nations Resolutions Violations. It is a country that, if invaded, will provide nations (particularly the United States) with a security that will maintain the safety of its citizens."
    1250 characters left
  • +3 +5 -2 Josh D. Sep. 12, 2014
    "Yes, I think the United States of America did the right thing by attacking Iraq. When Iraq attacked the United States, it would have been foolish not to respond. If we didn't respond then Iraq probably would've felt like they could attack the United States whenever they wanted and how often they wanted and the United States wouldn't do anything about it. As a country, when a terrorist attack occurs, we must respond and defend the country. The terrorists want to put fear in people and if the United States just sat there and did nothing when they attacked, then the terrorists would've felt like they could control us because we would be to afraid to respond. If the United States did nothing then the terrorists would keep coming and keep causing disasters. If we did not respond then other countries and terrorists would think that the United States is a weak, defenseless, scared country that can't stand up for itself. The United States is not a weak country that can't stand up for itself. The United States has the strongest army in the world. When a terrorist attack happens it gets people mad and they want revenge. Not responding to Iraq would be like saying that it's okay you attacked us and killed a lot of people. It's not okay ever"
    1250 characters left
  • +3 +20 -17 Michelle Oct. 12, 2011
    "I think that there are many reasons for going to war.
    Weapons of mass destruction
    Support of Terrorists
    Murdering of people"
    1250 characters left
  • +3 +25 -22 Bill Apr. 28, 2011
    "The Iraq War CANNOT be understood in isolation from other world and regional issues. If Afghanistan was the harbor and nursery of terrorism, the Arab countries are where it is conceived. Iraq is the ONLY country in the Arab world capable of becoming an economic powerhouse that could offer, for one thing, employment for the 40% of the region's population under 20 years of age. As for the absurd assertion that democracy cannot be exported and cannot flourish in a conquered country, how does one then explain Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines? If the US is only out to gain power and riches from its military efforts, how then do you explain the same list of countries above, plus all of western Europe?

    SOMETHING had to be done to change the environment in the Middle East. The US was the only actor on the world stage with the strength and will to do it. It has been changed!"
    1250 characters left
  • +2 +3 -1 Noah B. Sep. 15, 2014
    "Attacking Iraq was necessary in the beginning stages of the war. There were acts of terror happening throughout the country, and most were spearheaded by "evil" leader Saddam Hussein. At that point in time, they had made threats against our President, George H. W. Bush, and our country. However, there are still many problems I have with the whole situation. Firstly, the execution of the attack was poor. Between the Abu Ghraib prison fiasco and the irrational but constant "Kill or Be Killed" mentality, there was unnecessary violence that could have been monitored much better. Secondly, the amount of time our troops remained stationed in Iraq was extremely overdue. As soon as the Hussein regime was toppled, Iraq had become an unsteady environment. However, that does not require unwanted military action against civilians to help fix the country. There have been many situations, such as in Libya and in Egypt, in which we have toppled a regime and left the country to fend for its own, which can be more helpful in the end. Compared to when the regime ended, the country is almost in worse shape now than it was then. However, invading Iraq was, in theory, a good decision."
    1250 characters left
  • +2 +2 0 Nicole P. Sep. 14, 2014
    "Yes, the United States should have gone into Iraq. While it is understood that it was not the country Iraq that attacked the United States, but a group within the Iraq, attacking Iraq was still the correct move. By attacking Iraq, the United States was not only able to send a message to the people that attacked this country, but the United States was also able to send a message to every other group who wants to hurt Americans. This message was basically that if you attack us, there WILL be reprecussions, and these attacks will not be taken lightly. Another reason we should have attacked Iraq was because of the possibility of losing oil rights. If the United States did not attack Iraq, it would have made us look weak and vunerable. If we did not attack, the world would have thought that we would accept attacks like these and would not retaliate."
    1250 characters left
  • +2 +6 -4 Jeff May. 7, 2013
    "Saddam Hussien was a Mad Man! Pure evil.. more than any serial killer, rapest or thief. How other nations can sit Idle when ANY dictator is this far out of control is beyond me. Look what happened when Adolf Hitler was left to do as he pleased. Saddam needed taken out based on this ALONE! Plus being a sponsor of terrorism just adds to this argument."
    1250 characters left
  • +2 +5 -3 Jeff Kitchen Oct. 22, 2012
    "We ignored Hitler and look what happened there.. Now we had Saddam doing the same thing.. History is a good teacher.."
    1250 characters left
  • +2 +12 -10 Leon Burnes Jan. 20, 2012
    "We're out of the Middle East. So what? We'll be back over there. All it will take is one little bombing, and wa-la. We're at war. Again. We should NOT have left the Afghan battlezone. When we're back over there again, we need to wipe them of the face of the Earth. If you're worried about the civilians, evac them, move them somewhere else, then drop the nuke. Problem solved!"
    1250 characters left
    • +1 +1 0 tyler Feb. 1, 2012
      "i know i've been commenting negatively on some pro comments. i am pro for the war in Iraq. But the ideas and things people have been saying aren't the way to solve the problem. Nuking the middle east would be unauthorized by the U.N. which would anger a lot of countries. And about evacuating the civilians, good luck finding out who the civilians most of the Taliban hide as civilians, attack, then go back into hiding as civilians again. I don't know what needs to be done to win when they are trying to make the war not worth it anymore, and i believe that point happened along time ago i think the initial war was justified but i also think we should have left sooner then we did."
  • +1 +1 0 Natalie V Sep. 14, 2014
    "While it's hard to argue positively for going to war with IRAQ, given continued problems there, I still feel it was the right thing to do. After the war with Kuwait, Iraq remained an enemy of the US. Even without nuclear weapons, Saddam still had gas and chemicals that he could have given to terrorists to use against us. By ousting Saddam, we at least secured his supply of weapons, put in a friendly government, and planted the roots of Democracy for the future. Our presence in IRAQ deterred IRAN from acting up, and secured the flow of IRAQI oil to the West. We now know that terrorist groups like Al-Queda and ISIS want to claim IRAQ for their own. A weakened Saddam may have easily fallen victim to these groups, threatening the whole region, and the West at large.
    Having a friendly government there now makes it easier for us to fight new enemies like ISIS. Rather than involving ourselves in another ground war, we're sending just a few more US troops back to IRAQ to train IRAQI soldiers to fight off ISIS. That is the benefit of having invaded IRAQ years ago.
    Change will come slowly to the mideast, but as IRAQ rebuilds, and prospers, we will look back and conclude that Invading IRAQ in the 1990's was the right thing to do."
    1250 characters left
  • +1 +2 -1 Tim Sep. 2, 2014
    "is this reader's comments section still active"
    1250 characters left
  • +1 +4 -3 Dylan P Nov. 28, 2012
    "im pro bc Saddam Hussein was comiting genoisde and was thought to me making and storing WMD's or also known as (weapons of mass destruction)"
    1250 characters left
  • +1 +6 -5 pro man ... Apr. 19, 2012
    "If the U.S. didn't stop the extreemists in Iraq the U.S. would be at the mersy of WMDs."
    1250 characters left
  • +1 +6 -5 conner elies Apr. 17, 2012
    "yes because they should be helped from the terroist and we have sucseeded in killing binlarden"
    1250 characters left
  • 0 0 0 Nick C Sep. 17, 2014
    "I think U.S had the right to attack Iraq. 9/11 was such a devastating day that America has every right to attack. America was just attack on they own soil. Multiple American airlines were hijacked by terrorists and two were crashed into the World Trade Center. Thousands of Americans lost their lives that day. The families of those who perished should have justice. Also the Shitties and the Shuns are threats to the United States, both are dangerous groups. Iraq has nuclear weapons also and those could be a threat to the country. They can use those at anytime against their enemy. Iraq is a huge threat to America. Their leader, Suddaam Hussien is also a threat, a tyrant also. He was a very evil man, crazy too. Iraq was cutting down our oil too, and that's a very big problem. If we did not attack Iraq, Iraq would probably keep attacking because we did nothing the first time, but we have to defend this country from any evil. Suddam also tried to kill Bush's father with a bomb that was under new cement. Luckily the CIA discovered this odd look on the road. They noticed the new cement and asked the Kuwaits if they laid down new cement and they didn't. So the CIA took pro procautions and safety extracted Bush from the area."
    1250 characters left
  • 0 0 0 Rachael H Sep. 14, 2014
    "This is a very controversial topic that is still being debated today as we try to pull out of Middle Eastern affairs just to be sucked right back in. When the US first become involved with Iraq on bad terms was when we stepped into the Gulf War. Iraq posed a big threat to the US in the sense that they were gaining control of a good amount of the world market's oil. Oil is essential to our country being as advance and fuel dependent as we. With Saddam having control of a lot of oil it could have been easily held over the US. Saddam was not someone to be trusted. He had weapons of mass destruction that he had used on his own people and was in possession of materials that could create a nuclear weapon. With this threatening man in charge of a good amount of essential resource it could have easily spelt disaster for the world. By the US stepping in and attacking we were able to lessen Saddam's control on the oil easing the threat. Also we were able to focus in on terrorism while we were there and start to address the issue of 9/11 by targeting the Al Queda instead of just the country of Iraq itself. So by attacking Iraq we were able to deal with Saddam and later terrorist which is essential to our country's safety."
    1250 characters left
  • 0 0 0 Nina L Sep. 14, 2014
    "I agree with Obama that, "such incursions or nation-building are not appropriate -yet in Iraq and perhaps in Iran and perhaps in other circumstances we think it is". So yes, I am agreeing that the US was right to invade Iraq in 2003. In 1991, Kuwait was invaded by Iraq. It was our responsibility, being allies with Kuwait to help defend them. Then in 1993 after the war, seventeen people were allegedly involved in trying to kill Bush by using a car bomb. After about twelve months of war, the President declared that major combat operations had finally ended. In Abu Graib, prisoners being held there were abused. Then on August 29th 2003, the car bomb that killed seventeen people in 1993 exposed the Shiite leader named Ali Mosque. Him, and 124 others were killed. In 2011 during the month of December, US troops were withdrawn from Iraq. Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat under Iraq's control by using Chemical, and Nuclear weapons. With all these threats, and attacks I talked about above it was the best, and safest decision to go to war. It is important for the US, and all its allies to be protected, and safe from ALL terrorist attacks."
    1250 characters left
  • 0 0 0 Alex P. Sep. 13, 2014
    "Yes, America did the right thing by invading Iraq. After the 9/11 attacks on U.S soil, it showed us that America was vulnerable to terrorists attacks and needed to take a stand against terror groups such as Al-Queda. We as the United States needed to assert our dominance against these groups and prove that America would not let terrorism keep us in constant fear. Although attacking Iraq meant the deaths of thousands of U.S soldiers, it ultimately made not only America safer, but the entire world safer. Nearly a decade has past since the attack on Iraq, but yet again we are still being threatened by new groups such as ISIS. We have learned what playing the defensive role accomplishes and it is simply not enough to keep Americans safe from terrorist attacks. As a nation with a very strong military we will not let these modern threats by ISIS evolve into anything serious. This time we will come out on top and attack first, stopping any threats before they can turn into tragedies. In all, invading Iraq has taught us how to deal with terrorists groups and keep America safe from all threats that may be tossed our way. We are ready for anything."
    1250 characters left
  • 0 +4 -4 dashawn kimbler May. 15, 2013
    "Yes because they were cutting off our oil and was part of the war."
    1250 characters left
  • 0 +6 -6 riley yaeger Apr. 13, 2012
    "YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! they attacked us first!!!!!!"
    1250 characters left
  • 0 +7 -7 Mike Fube Mar. 21, 2012
    "They treatened us"
    1250 characters left
  • -2 +9 -11 Lucas Feb. 18, 2012
    "yes I'm pro because Iraq was building WMD's and America wasnt just gonna sit there and wait until Iraq finnaly worked up the nerve to launch one at us so we attacked first and neutralized the threat to are nations security."
    1250 characters left
  • -5 +11 -16 Muahahah Man Dec. 21, 2011
    "Well, We were only defending ourselves from saddam. I am not dure of my opinion, my my main opinion has been more tipped in the PRO category."
    1250 characters left
  • -8 +23 -31 surfusa Aug. 19, 2011
    "I think war is good..."
    1250 characters left
    • +5 +5 0 Zapatoes Dec. 13, 2011
      "why dont you go out threre and see how it feels"
    • +3 +3 0 tyler Feb. 1, 2012
      "its good until you get your legs blown of from an I.E.D."

CON (no) Comments (34)


1,250 characters left

Notify me by email when someone replies to my comments
Also sign up for our free e-newsletters

Sort by: Best | Newest | Oldest

  • +33 +65 -32 Ron Apr. 28, 2011
    "I am a former Staff Sergeant in the U.S. Marine Corps (64-72) and a Vietnam Veteran (68-69). My attitude during my tour in Vietnam was much like the Marines serving today in Iraq, i.e. dedicated to God, Country, and the Marine Corps. The reality of it was that we were all scared...and doing all we could to stay alive while protecting each other from harm. Every step we took in the jungles of Vietnam was one step closer to death. My point is, as in Iraq, it is a kill or be killed mentality instilled in us thru our training. And, 'innocent' people will be killed. That is a matter of fact. I have no regrets or nightmares over my actions in Vietnam. It actually became a game...fun, after a while...after my first kill. This is the point that former Marine, Staff Sergeant Massey, is making in his book Kill Kill Kill, published in Paris, France. And, Massey is absolutely right. I totally support the immediate removal of all U.S. Troops out of Iraq. However, we still have a job to complete in Afghanistan, a job that should have and could have been finished by now had we not invaded Iraq to satisfy the ego's of Bush and Cheney."
    1250 characters left
    • +4 +4 0 shanice Dec. 7, 2011
      "and ur right innocent people killed but i think some dont care about it but if they do then why r they still doing it"
    • +3 +5 -2 anonymous Sep. 9, 2011
      "Despite differing opinions or actual facts on this issue I just want to say thank you for serving our country, protecting our people at bay, and for flying our colors at home and abroad. I have a relative who is in the military reserves. Thank you again."
    • +1 +1 0 DOUG Mar. 28, 2013
      "GOODWORK"
    • 0 +1 -1 Pheonix Jan. 19, 2012
      "ur so right. me uncle was in the army and just got back. it was so much worse that everybody knew. its totally unnescessary and it is a big contributor to our country's debt too"
  • +23 +50 -27 Marquis Apr. 28, 2011
    "I am a soldier serving in the United States Army. I totally disagree with the war in Iraq. We have been there going on four years and have not showed any progress. What I hate is when the government goes to the media and paints this pretty picture like everything is so great over there. Ask someone who has been over there fighting what it's like and he would say it is pure hell. We are fighting a worthless fight.

    I speak for a lot of soldiers who have no say in the matter of pulling out of Iraq. I just want to know how many lives have to be taken before someone says enough is enough. So the four years of this madness is long enough. To tell you the truth I think Iraq was not the problem. I think it goes deeper than that. Maybe it's the oil. I don't know, but as a soldier who is fighting the war I would like to know what is the real reason that we are fighting."
    1250 characters left
  • +3 +12 -9 Delaney Smith Apr. 10, 2012
    "My dad fought in this on-going war and he, unfortunately, lost his life defending our country. People say that Saddam Hussein was the cause of this war, and he was, but, guess what people. . . he is DEAD! We no longer have a need to be over in Iraq on that suicide mission. Take it from me, don't have your dad get killed for something there is not a need for. My dad was only in town for two of my birthdays, all the rest he was over seas or on a base training. Please. . . get our troupes out of that hell hole!"
    1250 characters left
  • +2 +2 0 Thedita P. Sep. 15, 2014
    "The Iraqi situation could have been dealt with more effectively. The United States government never had any concrete evidence that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had weapons of "mass destruction." The United States had been adamant that such weapons existed, especially after the Yellow cake debate. The fact that, after the war, it became obvious that Iraq never had any such weapons took away some of the United States' justifications for taking action. Even after the United States took action, the continued conflict in the area over the next decade clearly showed a lack of a thougt-out, long term plan. It seemed as if no one stopped to consider the worst case scenario where the conflict would not end in a year or two, but in ten years. After Saddam Hussein was forced to step down, the United States appeared completely incompetent in handling a country whose government was in shambles without becoming completely involved."
    1250 characters left
  • +2 +2 0 Daniel O Sep. 12, 2014
    "The US should not have attacked Iraq. First, one of the reason that we attacked Iraq in the first place was to "spread freedom and democracy". If this doctrine accomplished anything it was turning Iraq further away from democracy and any other American Value. While America said they were attacking Iraq strictly to aid the spread of democracy, they had other motives. Another reason that America attacked Iraq was for the 5 trillion dollars worth of oil. Their attempts were futile in this attempt as well. You would think that America would've taken the hint that they were making no progress when the Iraqi people developed a plot to attempt to take out President Bush with a Car bomb. To conclude, why Attack Iraq when it has no effect at all besides thickening the tension between themselves and Iraq"
    1250 characters left
  • +1 +1 0 Alec G Sep. 14, 2014
    "The United States made a mistake by attacking Iraq due to the fact that Iraq is not a legitimate threat. The cost of the attacks were not worth the reward. The U.S was entirely capable of upgrading its security and defense without attacking Iraq. There is a chance that Iraq does not have ties with Al Queda, or even obtain weapons of mass destruction for that matter. To take such a risk of invading Iraq cost the U.S not only plenty of money, but additionally the lives of U.S soldiers. Nancy Pelosi, a majority leader of the House of Representatives agrees that "[the attacks are] not making America safer." What is making the U.S a safer place after such an event as 9/11 is things like airport security. In order to ensure the U.S's defense, the government must defeat the root cause of this sickness, because treating the symptom that is Iraq did not solve this problem. The U.S does not have many allies in attacking Iraq, and thus the attacks will isolate U.S, as well as "shatter its principles of international cooperation." Furthermore, caused an anti-american sentiment for terrorists, and caused the U.S to be a main target. These attacks simply depleted resources, money, and american lives."
    1250 characters left
  • 0 0 0 Stanley Chan Sep. 14, 2014
    "I believe that the United States of America should not have entered the war against Iraq and should not go back. This past decade was dominated by the problems in Iraq. The United States implemented trillions of dollars and thousands of troops to find suspected "chemical weapons" and oil. If one was to think of the cost vs the benefits, the cost would be more than the actual benefits. Starting off with the suspected chemical weapons, the United States did not have visual evidence or enough intel to make such a call as to declare war on Iraq. Unlike the Cuban Missile Crisis where there was photo evidence, the United States reacted without the right amount of evidence. Secondly, the United States was trying to stop Iraq from dominating the oil within the region. Although, the US has no business on even interacting with the middle east and its oil. Furthermore, the US gets more oil from CANADA than the middle east. The percentage of oil from the middle east to the US is at 12.9%. All of this fighting and we end up with an Iraq that has been heavily influenced by ISIS. All of the time, money, and men were at the cost of starting back at block one."
    1250 characters left
  • 0 0 0 Jack D Sep. 14, 2014
    "On the question should we have gone to war with Iraq? My opinion is that we should have gone to war with them. On todays perspective we really didn't even achieve anything. We did kill Osama but we lost a lot of men in the process. When we went war with them to get oil from them. We wanted oil cause they had like a lot of it. We were low on oil and wanted to regain the oil industry. We did feel a threat from the Iraqi people. We did think they were a part of 9-11 attack so at the time it looks pretty smart but it wasn't. We as a country were scared so we were kind of forced because if we didn't got to war we would look like a weak country. In the long run we didn't win anything from the terrorist because we didn't know who are enemies were they could have been anyone. We as a country were not smart crossing seas to fight the Iraq; we should have found another solution to solve the problem. The United States should have said something to the Iraqi move past it. 9-11 was a really bad incident but we did not accomplish anything in Iraq."
    1250 characters left
  • 0 +5 -5 Gavin Johnson Feb. 5, 2014
    "America has no need to fight another war and loose men and women and come home in a body bag with there children crying and getting takend away"
    1250 characters left
  • -1 +5 -6 tyler Jan. 23, 2013
    "The U.S. should of not attacked Iraq. Iraq did not do anything to us. Some people may think that they had something to do with 9/11 but they didn't."
    1250 characters left
  • -1 +10 -11 Liam Mar. 6, 2012
    "I strongly believe in America, and support our military. Despite this though, I do not believe we should have ever stepped foot in Iraq. America has to learn that we are no longer the police nation that we once were. If for example China invaded the US for the reason that they wanted a natural resource like coal, how would we react? It is easy to see why many of the Iraqi people were so determined to kill us."
    1250 characters left
  • -1 +14 -15 Ron Dec. 29, 2011
    "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorism. The invasion was not supported by the UN unlike the first gulf war which was supported by the UN. This war was nothing more than to increase the United states control over the middle east. Many war crimes were commited by both the US and Iraq against each other and themselves. It brought fear the the average citizen allowing the government more control over their lives (vote ron pual please!). Other peoples agendas are being forwarded at the expense of the US citizen's rights."
    1250 characters left
  • -2 +2 -4 Melia B Feb. 25, 2014
    "no it was not necessary because it didnt change things, it was costly. and promoted more warfare"
    1250 characters left
  • -2 +4 -6 Joseph Aug. 23, 2012
    "I'm against the war simply because we it is a war that we have no need to fight in. BRING OUR PEOPLE HOME"
    1250 characters left
  • -2 +4 -6 Warren J. Monego Jun. 11, 2012
    "There has never been a "truthful" arguement made by any govenment official linking the country of Iraq of the 1990's and a danger to America's national security.
    Ergo, our government went to war, lied to her people to do so, wasted billions and murdered thousands needlessly on the world stage.
    Costing the American people an uncountable scarring to our reputation and public standing which will most likely take several generations to repair if at all.
    All because of the will of a few misguided public officals with far too much power such as Rumsfeld and Wolfawitz (sp) and others who were allowed by the American media, to allow the newcaster in this country to tell us lies in lockstep day after day after day. Until they convinced a nation to go to war. It reminds me of another nations newcasters reporting lies in lockstep in Europe back in the 1930's leading up to a fabricated war and by this time it should ALL Americans!!!
    And ALL Americans should be asking our government. How did this happen to us. How can we be assured that this will never, ever, happen again!
    Warren J. Monego
    sociologist1950@aol.com"
    1250 characters left
  • -2 +7 -9 73774 Apr. 3, 2012
    "i support the marines and every other service that has fought in iraq and i know that its safe to say we should have never attacked iraq we got into a sticky situtation and we made it worse and we made it evenworse not to long ago with the mass slaughter of several civilians also we know that the taliban said they WILL have theyre revenge. the taliban and this war is not one we are use to which is also a huge risk to our troops to be fighting and spilling blood for reasons unknown some went into iraq with torn hearts from 9 11 but in my eyes 9 11 was indeed staged but the loses and tradgedy was still very much real.. anyways iraq is just another vietnam and america is just trying to get as much resources as possible so that we can make money, and war is profitable bush knew this. i think bush made an illogical decision on the hastitiy of war with the taliban and that now that we have this major tension over seas and ghostly threats from the iraq mountains is not what our troops thought they were signing on for and they dont deserve to fight and die for that every soldier lost in iraq was and is a waste of an american life due to a money pinching president and his own advancements and agendas"
    1250 characters left
  • -2 +6 -8 Ahmad Mar. 18, 2012
    "well, if the war on Iraq was to help its people and fight terrorism, then the situation right now should have been better. There should've been a fully capable government that is run by Iraqi people leading the country to peace. I see none of this. all I see is more problems that already existed. The war is not won"
    1250 characters left
  • -2 +7 -9 graham Mar. 8, 2012
    "people died"
    1250 characters left
  • -3 +7 -10 Matthew34 Feb. 14, 2012
    "Look what the war has brought us to. No GOOD!!!!!! I mean seriuosly the war has no benifit. This whole war is just a big mistake. All the soldiers that have died and that are currently over there. Thet sure are brave. Obama says he's gonna bring them back this summer. you can say that again."
    1250 characters left
  • -4 +10 -14 shanice williams Dec. 7, 2011
    "it was all saddam hussein fault that this all started but the war shouldve had stop because they already cought him so why others ex: children and inncents should suffer when they dont want war just the same as us"
    1250 characters left
  • -6 +14 -20 Zapatos Nov. 29, 2011
    "I really think the war on terror is a bunch of nonsence. It's a poor excuse for us to use up all our bullets. Do you know how much money it takes to make a full clip? 9/11 Building 7 the truth is, Iraq didn't pull it. Theres a bunch of other cover ups. Bushed pulled 9/11
    I know many are too proud to accept that our government is not as great as you think it is. That they did something like that. and they just tell false propaganda that they want you to believe. Bin Laden was a CIA tactician, we also funded his purpose of Al'Queda. Do research before you point fingers at people. like how Bush tried to blame the muslim religion.
    Don't think Suddam & Osama's their leader. They PRAY for piece, but all this drama intrigues them. I'm sure i'll get a bunch of thumbs downs, but it's fine. all I can do is fight my point and Attempt to convince you."
    1250 characters left
  • -7 +16 -23 Ben Oct. 25, 2011
    "I don't think the US should of attacked Iraq out of pure revenge of 9/11. That & our US Navy SEALs/CIA got that information wrong about weapons of mass desctruction, sure we got Saddam Hussein but we lost millions to get him. But all in all we shouldn't have and still fight Iraq."
    1250 characters left
    • -1 0 -1 David Dec. 13, 2011
      "And whats even better we were bombing Iraq 7 years prior. One time we take a hit its international war which started for WMD to placing democracy. And the best part 9/11 was just a fast one pulled by our own government to enter the war. QUITE WORLD POLICING AMERICA. YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE THE TOP DOG"
  • -8 +8 -16 David Dec. 13, 2011
    "I fear for you and the rest of the U.S. military. The idea of joining was moral yet ignorant as a world of propaganda and "terrorists" it is easy to fall upon a patriotic American ego. You boys have gotten your selves in life threatening events from the greed and personal decisions of deep backhand deals and entrepreneuring opportunities. I don't think anyone can fathom the degree that our government lies to us. Although, its coming. People are waking up. But it is going to take all American people to take down this beast which is spitting propaganda. 9/11 was an inside job. And anyone who likes to argue that hasn't done their homework.
    - Leaders Of The Free World"
    1250 characters left
  • -8 +29 -37 Abraham Apr. 28, 2011
    "I do not think the US should have attacked Iraq. It was illegal to do so. The Bush administration ignored advice from numerous world leaders not to invade and to give the UN more time to explore options for compliance with resolutions. The ignorance of the Bush administration about the Middle East and the mentality of the people was obvious from the start. I believe it was the desire of George W. Bush to get Iraq's oil and he asked his staff to find an excuse to invade. Iraq was never a "real" threat to the US and there was no justifiable reason except what was contrived as WMD's. The decision to invade has cost thousands of lives and George W. Bush should be held accountable. It is a war he cannot win and his refusal to admit his failure and mistakes will cost many more lives before it is ended."
    1250 characters left
  • -8 +29 -37 Robert Apr. 28, 2011
    "The war on Iraq was based on lies. UN inspection teams, one of which was headed by Scott Ritter,had determined that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction...The offensive carried out by an insufficient number of troops, who were sent into battle with inadequate supplies, e.g., body armor and poorly armored personnel carriers. (recall Rumsfeld's 'You fight with what you have!'), the execrable treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib, the useless sacrifice of US troops whose deaths now number close to 4,000, not to mention the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, show that the Bush Administration has been operating on the basis of and promoting a venomous mythology...

    The civil war now being waged in Iraq can only be solved by the Iraqis themselves. Though we were instrumental in creating this 'failed state,' US presence only fosters its continuation. President Bush and Vice-President Cheney should be impeached for their heartless, conscienceless, heinous behavior and lies that have lead to so much suffering and death."
    1250 characters left
    • -4 0 -4 JP Aug. 19, 2011
      "Hippy!"
  • -9 +24 -33 Sheri Apr. 28, 2011
    "I believe the decision to invade Iraq was predetermined long before 9/11. It's clear to me the war was a foregone conclusion before Bush stole the election. I believe Bush and his cabinet members lied repeatedly to the American people, and opposing or moderate voices were ignored or silenced. They were able to do this by controlling a large part of the media. They also shamelessly exploited 9/11 for their own agendas. They made Americans believe Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis were responsible for the attacks and that more were coming. Anyone who disagreed was branded a traitor, or possible terrorist themselves. This allowed them to strip us of many of our basic civil liberties in the guise of the so-called Patriot Act. I say if we have become a government controlled society without our civil liberties and the basic protections of a Democracy, then, hey, the terrorists that 'envy our way of life and want to destroy it' have already won, haven't they?"
    1250 characters left
    • 0 0 0 WeSaluteYou Jun. 18, 2013
      ""They (Bush and Co.)made Americans believe Saddam were responsible for the 9/11 attacks"
      Really? If this so happened then supply a link Skippy. I have never found or heard any such statement from Bush or anyone else under him saying anything remotely close to this.
      I'm waiting..tap..tap...tap..."
  • -12 +15 -27 Mac Sep. 29, 2011
    "My personal opinion is that Iraq should be left to be whatever and however it wants to be without U.S. interference or interference of any kind."
    1250 characters left
  • -13 +16 -29 Carlo Apr. 28, 2011
    "Iraq under Saddam was a moderate and pro-western country with freedom of religion and very safe day and night for the citizens and the foreign workers. Now it is the center of religious fighting. Extremist religious groups have taken the power, Christians are under permanent danger, women are forced to cover themselves, education has been destroyed, security doesn't exist, and the country has been invaded by foreign forces who have been killing and are killing thousands of Iraqi citizens. All the country infrastructures have been destroyed. And all this happened on the basis of Bush and Blair lies on the motives of the war. The international community should go after those two crooks and put them to trial for crimes against humanity."
    1250 characters left
  • -14 +15 -29 Gavin Ellis May. 18, 2011
    "I think that that we shouldn't attacked Iraq because instead of going for the guy who blew up the twin towers, we went to a guy who we thought had weapons of mass destruction but he didn't have them which was a bad choice by George W. Bush to choose to go after Saddam Huessein instead of Osama Bin Laden."
    1250 characters left
  • -15 +11 -26 Dana Atesalp Jun. 30, 2011
    "No! We had the war technology to prevent the blowing up of the twin toweres. But, many believe the oil men are in control of this country. The reason that we are still in Iraq is because it was the oil men, who put Bush into office and they probably put Obama in office, also knowing that the public would vote in favor of Democrats after being soured on Republicans because of Bush."
    1250 characters left
    • 0 0 0 Kev May. 10, 2012
      "how can another country put bush or obama into office? if you have to be an american citizen to vote, and it would have been expected for a democrat to go into office after a republican cause that as been a trend in U.S goverment for many years, and as far as the technology goes for preventing 9/11, no one thought that could happen, it was only the 2nd time in U.S history that we faced a direct attack(pearl harbor) so no one could have expected it none the less prevent it."
  • -16 +13 -29 Terri May. 9, 2011
    "The fact is that the Bush Administration provided falsified intel to Congress in order to get their approval to invade Iraq. He used the Weapon's of Mass Destruction. He, also, early in the planning stage of this invasion stated that Saddam had tried to kill his Dad. That has nothing to do with oil, and is soling a personal grievance. One that a Head of State should NOT be using.

    It was proven before we invaded Iraq, and verified after, that Iraq had not WMD's. The fact that the Bush Administration changed their supposed reason for invading Iraq after it was found that there were no WMD, only shows the length that the Administration was willing to go to to avoid admitting they were wrong."
    1250 characters left
    • 0 +1 -1 anonymous Sep. 9, 2011
      "Even though Bush represented Americans as a president, I think it really wasn't his decision to go to war,even if he supported it. I think a lot of us forget the huge influence of Congress plays in U.S. politics. I reflect on Bush with mixed feelings."
  • -18 +14 -32 Keo Apr. 28, 2011
    "According to the Final Judgment at Nuremberg, a ruling that has provided all succeeding generations with the classic pronouncement on the illegality of aggressive war: 'War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.'

    So those who are responsible for initiating the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq are guilty of the supreme international crime and must be arrested and tried for this crime."
    1250 characters left
  • -21 +14 -35 spider pig Jun. 14, 2011
    "@*^% no! They could've used the money for much better things like schools or hospitals. Why waste money and kill people at the same time? I want my taxes to go to something better then the military just so they can kill Iraqies! Bush can #*$! himself."
    1250 characters left
  • -25 +10 -35 dr.jimbob Jun. 16, 2011
    "@%& no!!taxes should go to better things then war!!and we are also losing the war to!!taxes should go to diffrent things then war!"
    1250 characters left
    • +1 +2 -1 mac Sep. 29, 2011
      "you need to restate you reason why"
Visit the ProCon.org community on:

© 2014 ProCon.org, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit     |   233 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200, Santa Monica, CA 90401    |    Tel: 310-451-9596