ISSUES
|
Reasons FOR War
(Without U.N. Approval)
|
Reasons AGAINST War
(Without U.N. Approval)
|
Waiting for Inspections |
War - Yes:
It was not up to U.N. inspectors to find the weapons; it was up to Iraq
to lead the inspectors to the weapons. We had to go to war without U.N. support
because Iraq did not intend to disarm. Waiting for the U.N. inspectors to
finish looking would have been a waste of time. It would also have allowed
Iraq to build more weapons of mass destruction (WMD). |
War - No:
Inspectors did not find evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
War could have been an option later. We had more options than just "war"
or "no war."
For example, we could have started using coercive inspections and other methods of investigation. We could have put more effort
into strengthening Iraqi forces that opposed Saddam Hussein.
We could have enforced private interviews with Iraqi
WMD scientists. We still had more steps before resorting to warfare. We did
not need to skip steps and rush into warfare. |
Finding Weapons |
War - Yes:
We had to attack Iraq because it was the only way to find weapons of mass
destruction. |
War - No:
We admitted that did not know where the weapons were. If Saddam and his closest
supporters escape, we may never find the weapons. We attacked, we looked,
and we did not find weapons of mass destruction. |
World Opinion |
War - Yes:
World opinion does not matter. A U.S. president should be concerned about
U.S. security rather than the popularity of his actions. (Bush) |
War - No:
Starting a war before it is necessary, with a pre-emptive strike, contrary
to international law, and without strong international support, will damage
the security of U.S. citizens. The U.S. has lost credibility in the world. |
Oil |
War - Yes:
By going into Iraq without waiting for the U.N., the U.S. was able to take control of Iraq
and thereby control the second largest source of oil in the world. The U.S.
can sell Iraq's oil to help pay for the war and occupation of Iraq. Iraq's
oil will be "spoils of war " |
War - No:
We are not thieves. Do we want a leader who attacks other countries in order
to control their oil reserves? In May, the U.S. demanded and gained from
the United Nations control of the profits from the sale of Iraqi oil. (The
United Nations held control of oil profits on behalf of the people of Iraq
before the U.S. made this demand.) How does taking control of oil profits
help make the world safe from weapons of mass destruction? How does it help
liberate Iraq? How is this different from theft by an occupying power? |
Terrorism in the U.S. |
War - Yes:
Attacking Iraq will help stop terrorists from attacking the U.S. |
War - No:
Attacking Iraq will cause terrorists to attack the U.S. |
Global Terrorism |
War - Yes:
If we had waited for U.N. approval, Iraq would have worked with terrorists
to attack the U.S. (President Bush) |
War - No:
Iraq would not have worked with terrorists unless we attacked; Saddam wanted
to keep his weapons. (CIA Director Tenet) |
Stopping Al Qaeda |
War - Yes:
We attacked Iraq because it will help control Al Qaeda. It will keep Al
Qaeda from gaining Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). |
War - No:
We know that Al Qaeda is a much greater risk to U.S. security than Iraq.
Attacking Iraq has not helped in our war with Al Qaeda. The link between
Iraq and Al Qaeda has not been credibly made. War with Iraq was not necessary
yet and war diverted our resources from stopping Al Qaeda. President Bush
has had his priorities confused. |
Pre-Emptive Attack - Wise
and Courageous |
War - Yes:
Attacking Iraq before it became a real and present danger to the U.S. showed
wisdom and courage. |
War - No:
No, it didn't. The alternative to war was changing Iraq through wise and
courageous international cooperation. |
Democracy for the Middle
East |
War - Yes:
War will result in a democratic government in Iraq as a model for the Middle
East |
War - No:
War left a power vacuum and the Shiite Muslim majority quickly took control
of southern Iraq after the war. Iraq is more likely to create a theocracy,
modeled after Iran, than create a democracy like the United States. The alternative
to a theocracy is for U.S. administrators to select leaders to rule Iraq
and for Iraq to serve as a model for colonialism, not democracy. |
Liberation |
War - Yes:
War will "liberate" the people of Iraq and the U.S. will rebuild the economy
of Iraq. (Bush) |
War - No:
War has liberated Iraq from Saddam, but in the south of Iraq he has been
replaced with Shiite leaders who are against the presence of U.S. military.
The Bush administration has set up an alternative government from diverse
groups. The question now is whether the Bush administration will allow a
free election to be held. |
Only Option |
War - Yes:
War was the only option. If we did not attack, it would have been like letting
Hitler get away with his aggression before WWII. |
War - No:
Iraq was not a major military power. Iraq was not attacking other countries. Iraq was a very poor and
weak nation. This time, we definitely had time to try other steps. |
Removing Saddam |
War - Yes:
We had to attack Iraq because our only two choices were war or "let Saddam
fool us." |
War - No:
We worked with the people of Kosovo and nations in that region to remove
Milosevic from power. We had similar
options to try with Saddam Hussein. |
Support the President |
War - Yes:
We elect presidents to lead and to formulate foreign policy for us. Presidents
can also recommend that Congress declare war on another nation. Once Congress
decides on war, patriotic Americans must support the effort, even if they
have personal reservations. |
War - No:
One of the main reasons for forming a nation is for self-defense. If we are
being attacked, we should not be arguing about how to respond--leaders should
make decisions. However, if we are attacking another nation that does not
serve as an immediate threat to us, Congress has not declared war, and we
propose to violate international law regarding justifiable war, we are setting
a very dangerous example for other nations. (Under international law, the
United Nations Security Council decides when warfare is justifiable.) |
Violations of U.N. Resolutions |
War - Yes:
War was the only option because Iraq repeatedly violated U.N. demands to
disarm. If we did not attack, the U.N. would have had no credibility. |
War - No:
North Korea and Israel both have weapons of mass destruction. The U.N. has
passed many resolutions demanding that North Korea and Israel destroy their
WMD. North Korea and Israel have defied the U.N.'s demands to disarm. If
violation of U.N. resolutions were really the reason for the U.S. to attack
Iraq now, then the U.S. would also have threatened to invade North Korea
and Israel to force them to disarm. Instead, the U.S. has not threatened
to invade either country. Protecting the reputation of the U.N. was not a
real reason for the U.S. to rush into Iraq. |
Pre-emptive Attack - Safer |
War - Yes:
We must not wait until we actually find weapons to attack--it is safer to
attack first. Saddam could not have been deterred; he even used weapons of
mass destruction (WMD) on his own people. |
War - No:
By attacking without evidence of weapons or U.N. support, we defied international
law and made the world more dangerous. Besides, Saddam
had been deterred from using weapons
of mass destruction against the U.S., even without a second war. |
Pre-Emptive Attack - Morally
Right |
War - Yes:
Saddam is bad; it is our moral duty to attack him, even without finding weapons
of mass destruction. It is immoral to leave a brutal tyrant in power. (Bush,
Cheney, Rumsfeld) |
War - No:
Pre-emptive attacks are morally
wrong. The Pope, Nelson Mandela, and
other leaders on morality agreed that the U.S. move toward war was wrong.
The Pope said,"It
is the duty of all believers, to whichever religion they belong, to proclaim
that we can never be happy pitted one against the other. The future of humanity
will never able to be secured by terrorism and by the logic of war." |
Iraq Must Prove It Has
No Weapons |
War - Yes:
We had a right to attack because Iraq failed to prove it had no weapons.
We did not need U.N. approval |
War - No:
Our system of justice takes a very basic stand: It is "guilt" that must be
proven, not "innocence." By taking the position that Iraq had to prove it
did not have weapons, we violated our own values. The Bush administration
set a very poor example for other nations to follow. |
This is about the U.N. |
War - Yes:
Because the U.N. did not support a war against Iraq, it proves that the U.N.
is ineffective and irrelevant to world peace. |
War - No:
The U.N. did not support a war with Iraq because most nations, hearing the
U.S. arguments, did not find the arguments credible. If the U.S. allows the
U.N. to control Iraq's oil, then the U.S.'s motives will be supported as
being for world peace and the liberation of Iraq. On the other hand, if
the U.S. insists on controlling Iraqi oil, by force if necessary, then the
war was about the U.S. gaining Iraq's oil and it was not about liberation
the people of Iraq. |