U.S.-Iraq ProCon.org A public service of ProCon.org, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
Home About Us Theoretical Credibility Methodology Glossary Terms of Use Contact Us ProCon Home

1-Minute Overview of the US-Iraq War Debate

"Should the U.S. have attacked Iraq?"

Take one minute to read the information below, and we estimate that you'll know a lot more than most Americans about this topic.
Why This Topic?
When the United States attacked Iraq on Mar. 20, 2003, many unresolved questions, such as preemption, the significance of oil, and weapons of mass destruction, remained that require extensive debate on a global scale. This debate also includes unresolved issues that are paramount to the conflict, such as terrorism, torture, and America's security. This site uniquely exposes both the pro and con sides of these ongoing discussions and controversies surrounding the Iraq War.
PRO CON
PRO: Some proponents believe that the U.S. was justified in its attack on Iraq. The threat from Saddam Hussein, his human rights abuses, and Iraq's United Nations Resolution violations are a few of the reasons cited. They believe that the safety of Americans, especially from the global threat of terrorism, as well as the promotion of democracy in the Middle East, are worth the costs of this conflict. CON: Some opponents believe that the U.S. attack on Iraq was wrong from the beginning because claims of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the Saddam - al-Qaeda link were based on faulty intelligence. Some argue that the cost of the war in casualties, decreased safety, and high financial investment are not worth the price of further U.S. involvement in the conflict with Iraq.

For more information on this topic, return to the U.S.-Iraq ProCon.org homepage.