I need three arguements for and three arguements against the invasion of Iraq?

Question

Thanks a lot for any suggestions, much appreciated

Answer 1

Against.

1. Terrorism. The invasion has greatklyincreasedsupport for extremists throughout the Islamic world.

2. Illegality. By illustrating (again) its contempt for international law the US has set the causes of world peace & international co-operation back a generation.

3. Afghanistan. The invasion of Iraq means that the action is Afghanistan has not, and never will come to a satisfactory conclusion.


For:

Reasons for the war from a neutral standpoint do not exist.

Its obviously been good for Haliburton.

It has saved the Bush family and some other vested interests the embarrassment of having the truth about the links between the Iran / Iraq war and Gulf War I from coming under close scrutiny - always a risk before, as the evidence was in Bhagdad.

It may be good, in the short term at least, from the Saudi and Israeli perspectives, as having a large US army in the region improves their security.Of course it weakens this security in the long term, because when the US leaves they'll be worse off than they would've been if the invasion had never happened.

Its been helpful to a wide variety of personal interests, but damaging to the Iraqis, (especially the 100,000 dead ones), the US and humanity as a whole.

Answer 2

Against:
1. One should never put troops in harm's way unless sure that it's worth it.
2. The US military's force structure was all wrong for the undertaking. We've maintained too many heavy's, too few MP's, and almost no active duty civil affairs types.
3. The intelligence pointing to the urgency of the invasion was, shall we say, less than robust.
For:
1. Hussein was certainly acting like he was developing WMD's. even if he wasn't doing it. He was just too unpredictable and vicious to leave alone.
2. A stable democracy in Iraq could put a lot of territory between Syria, Iran and Afghanistan, making communications and coordination among various Islamic terrorist groups more difficult, and over the long haul also changing the political climate in Saudi Arabia to one more stable than is currently the case.
3. We're going to be fighting a fourth-generation war against Islamic extremists whether we want to or not. This puts us in a position to do so in a way more favorable to the strenghths of the American military, which is still more focused on third- than fourth-generation warfare. It "shapes the battlefield."

Answer 3

1. After 9-11 we could not allow a head of state who has declared war on the west to get nukes.

2. Saddam signed a treaty after the Gulf War that he refused to honor. He was supposed to allow UN inspectors unfettered access to his facilities. He refused to let them. The UN passed 17 resolutions that it refused to enforce.

3. He admitted he had the WMDs. So did France, and most of the world.

Against

1. You hate war
2. You hate America and think we should bow to the world's evil.
3. You do not believe in our Constitution that mandates that we are a sovereign nation. You believe that some external body should make decisions for us.

Note all of my positive reasons were given by Pres Bush the night before our invasion.

Answer 4

One against.

We destroyed a modern civilized country. Imagine if you had to buy water, and sometimes had a few hours of electricity. But there were few stores that had any water to sell. Imagine living in the Arizona desert without electricity. That's what Iraq is like.

2nd against. The war was based on lies, so that Cheney could save his failing company, Halliburton, buy giving it no bid contracts to take care of the military in Iraq.

3rd against. Right before the invasion, Saddam had offered to surrender to save his country. But we do not invade, Halliburton goes down the tubes. Bush turned him down because Cheney told him to.

Answer 5

for
the government was killing it own people with chemicals and in a genocide manner
the government was stealing every relief package ever sent to the people of the country
we thought there where WMD

against
never proved WMD
Never created a plan to replace the corrupt dictator and government with a functional government
never understood the concept that when two groups of people with in a country that was never a democracy hate each other, that they would continue to kill each other when unchecked.

Answer 6

Limiting only to the invasion -- not the subsequent occupation after Saddam was gone....

For -- deposing a brutal dictator.... and the consequences thereof, meaning less people being killed by said dicator.

Against -- causing massive instability in the region.... and the consequences thereof, meaning more people being killed in sectarian conflict and civil war.

Answer 7

For: Terrorism
WMDs (or the illusion thereof)
Foothold for democracy (or illusion thereof) in the middle east

against:
cost of War
Military casualties
We should have attacked Iran

Answer 8

for: show saddam he cant try an pop a cap in my main man, mr. daddy bush.
acquire real estate in which to place icbm's.
practice, practice, practice.

against; shows our stupidity- should have had navy seal kill saddam.
shows our stupidity- should have had isreal nuke wmd sites.
shows our stupidity- should have had haliburton just steal the oil.