What would be the weakest argument on the Iraq war? The strongest?

Question

Please answer as soon as possible. I am need of answers!!

Answer 1

Weakest:
* Liberation of the Iraqi ppl - they were not in a revolution; therefore, were not asking to be liberated.
* Saddam was a threat - sanctions were working and Saddam was contained.
* Stopping terrorist - per the 911 Commission Report, Iraq had no link with Al Qaida. Our occupation of Iraq has transformed Iraq into a terrorist state.
* Protecting Our Freedoms - this one makes no sense whatsoever
* Spreading democracy - Iraq was a democracy before we invaded it. Saddam was an elected president. Some argue that his elections were fixed.... aren't they all nowadays, to include ours?

Strongest:
* Now that we have transformed Iraq into a terrorist state, we must conquer it.

Answer 2

Weakest argument is that the Americans were worried about the Iraqi people. By removing Saddam the Americans have in reality instigated a civil war. There is no strong argument of any sort for the war. America was simply looking after its own selfish interests - oil. Has America ever invaded another country purely on humane grounds and not out of self interest? Who next Iran or Syria. The presence in Iraq will not stop terrorism and there will never be a settled government there. Pull out now and let the muslims slaughter each other if that is their wish but of course this will not happen until the States find some way of protecting the oil supply. Protectors of the free world - not on your life

Answer 3

On remaining in Iraq now?
The loudest (but weakest) argument is that "we're fighting terrorists over there, so we don't have to fight them over here." First, there isn't a lot of proof (either way) that what we're doing has any significant impact on what terrorists outside Iraq are doing. Or for that matter, on what terrorists inside Iraq are doing.

It's sheer speculation (might be true, might not) that the insurgents fighting against US forces in Iraq would suddenly start attacking US cities if the US left. More likely, they'd continue their own civil war without interference from us. And those terrorists who are planning on hitting the US or Europe probably aren't spending their days planting IEDs along Iraqi highways. They're already overseas planning their attacks.

So, it's highly debatable whether our presence in Iraq is having any effect toward stopping other terrorist attacks outside Iraq.

The other arguments all center around nation-building, helping Iraq establish a new government, bring democracy to the region etc. While the nation building argument may be the strongest (and that too is debatable), the methods we're using are hideously inefficient, and apparently ineffective to achieve that goal.

Answer 4

again, coragryph nailed it.

I'd add that there is a strong argument for an immediate pullout, based on the fact that each person we kill over there is a member of some Middle Eastern family.

For thousands of years, those people have maintained a culture that accepts intergenerational vengeance killings and blood feuds: simply wishing for them to adopt modern "western" social values won't make it happen.

And remember: blood feuds were going strong in the USA even in the early years of the 20th century -- nearly half a century after the War of Northern Aggression (often wrongly labeled the "American Civil War"), in which roughly 205,000 combatants were KIA, a further 415,000 died from other causes directly attributable to the war, and more than 412,200 additional others were wounded casualties of war.

So, out of a population of 3,264,000 people -- 620,000 were killed (approximately 19 percent, or almost "1 out of every 20"), and nearly 2/3 that many were wounded as a result of the war. Another way of looking at it is that the war produced more than 1,032,200 total casualties (including war dead), which translates to nearly 31.6238 percent of the total population (slightly more than "six out of every nineteen people").

That's the level of loss that it took US citizens to stop a war that had only been going on less than 4 years, so when you think about what's going on in the Middle East, it should be pretty obvious that no population is suffering those sorts of losses.

Therefore, war is to them a nuisance or an inconvenience, and the daily losses of a few or a few hundred persons isn't a deterrent nearly so much as it is an inspiration to continue the fight.

.

Answer 5

The weakest would be that we could bring about real & lasting social change & peace...

The strongest (though not mentioned) would be if terrorists became militia's stronger than a countries military (as in Lebanon) Iran, Seria & Iraq (absorbing Kuwait) would control the oil fields and hold the world economy hostage...

Answer 6

Weakest Argument: Defending our Freedom.

Strongest Argument: Preserving and Protecting an Underdeveloped Oil reserve from falling into the hands of the Chinese.

Answer 7

Weakest: America is the defender of the free world on a mission to spread peace and democracy across the globe and fight those bad guys to the bitter end.

Strongest: America is being run by a bunch of insane, short sighted philosophically amoral cranks who have totally screwed up. People of America, save the world, admit your mistakes, impeach George W. Bush and get the neo-cons out of office. Please!

Answer 8

i'm curious, Has each and every conflict constantly ended with the bigger taking on the land of the weaker? And has there ever been a time whilst one team stepped in to help a weaker team from permit's say, yet another team? My element is, you're precise, greed and the tutor of potential has led to many countries the grief of conflict. yet I do see the might desire to step in each and every each and every now and then and help out the underdog. i don't think of the conflict is for construction a bigger u . s . a . and that i don't think of it rather is approximately land nor oil. I do see it as being with regard to the destiny. while you're rather a history considerable, then you definitely might desire to additionally understand that there have been worldwide places that understood the might desire to boost in length as a fashion to convey down a bigger foe. Forces have been joined for the very reason of fixing into larger to impose worry over the weaker and smaller. Face the information, Iran has mentioned, Israel desires to be demolished. Iraq, hates the US and word how the two worldwide places have this might desire to amplify. as quickly as those worldwide places that want us lifeless and out of how, replace into sufficiently vast, what do you fairly think of they are going to do? What does history let us know approximately that. could Hitler have ever in simple terms stopped and mentioned, it rather is sufficient? could Communism, had only sometime mentioned, ok, we've sufficient, permit's in simple terms end right here? Did Hussein ever awaken sometime and communicate to the Iraqi's and say ok, permit's end all this killing and in simple terms get alongside with something of the worldwide? on a similar time as you and that i stay and artwork, somebody, someplace interior the worldwide, is questioning of ways they are able to take from us, our freedoms, protection, livlyhood, protection and happiness. the faster we understand this, the faster we are able to come to reality.

Answer 9

The weakest: Bush stated in his address to the press over a week ago that Sadaam had no ties to terrorist, and there were no WMD's found.

The strongest: Sadaam was a bastard doing mass murders. He even killed many of his relatives...

Answer 10

weakest argument would be that america invaded iraq to capture osama and strongest argument would be america invaded iraq to bring democracy to the Middle East.