RELIABLE.
NONPARTISAN.
EMPOWERING.
NONPARTISAN.
EMPOWERING.
Should the US Have Attacked Iraq? |
|
ARCHIVED WEBSITE: On March 20, 2003, a US-led coalition of 49 countries invaded Iraq and overthrew the government within three weeks. The US declared an official end to the war on Dec. 15, 2011, although some military personnel and security contractors remain in Iraq as members of the US diplomatic mission. Over 4,000 US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died in the war. Proponents argue that liberating the people of Iraq from Saddam Hussein’s human rights abuses, spreading democracy in the region, enforcing UN regulations, finding suspected weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), and making the US safer from terrorism in a post-9/11 world, all justified the war. Opponents argue that Iraq had no WMDs or connection to 9/11, and that the Bush administration wanted Iraqi oil and any excuse to remove Hussein. They say the attack violated international law, killed countless civilians, wasted billions of dollars, and made the US more vulnerable to terrorism.
PROS & CONS BY CATEGORY
CORE QUESTION
Justifications for Invading Iraq
Saddam Hussein
Weapons in Iraq
US - Iraq Relations
Iraq's Oil
Iraqi Sectarianism
Safety and Security
Insurgency and Terrorism
Prisoners of War
Cost of the War
The United Nations (UN)
US Troop Reduction or Withdrawal
ARCHIVED WEBSITE: On March 20, 2003, a US-led coalition of 49 countries invaded Iraq and overthrew the government within three weeks. The US declared an official end to the war on Dec. 15, 2011, although some military personnel and security contractors remain in Iraq as members of the US diplomatic mission. Over 4,000 US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died in the war.
Proponents argue that liberating the people of Iraq from Saddam Hussein’s human rights abuses, spreading democracy in the region, enforcing UN regulations, finding suspected weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), and making the US safer from terrorism in a post-9/11 world, all justified the war. Opponents argue that Iraq had no WMDs or connection to 9/11, and that the Bush administration wanted Iraqi oil and any excuse to remove Hussein. They say the attack violated international law, killed countless civilians, wasted billions of dollars, and made the US more vulnerable to terrorism.
PROS & CONS BY CATEGORY
CORE QUESTION
Justifications for Invading Iraq
Saddam Hussein
Weapons in Iraq
US - Iraq Relations
Iraq's Oil
Iraqi Sectarianism
Safety and Security
Insurgency and Terrorism
Prisoners of War
Cost of the War
The United Nations (UN)
US Troop Reduction or Withdrawal
|
|
|
READER FAVORITES
 TRANSLATE into 100+ Languages and Dialects |
Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments
