Experts
|
|
Agree
|
U.S. Senator, Republican
Agree
I think the president has embarked on a well planned effort to rid the world in this country of the threat of the use of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein.
US Secretary of State 2009-, Democrat
Agree
This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction. And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation.
Politics and Business Magazine
Agree
If Mr Hussein refuses to disarm, it would be right to go to war.
|
|
Disagree
|
United States President
Disagree
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
|
|
Director of International Atomic Energy Agency
Disagree
We trust that we will continue to have your support [inspecting Iraq] as we make every effort to verify Iraq’s nuclear disarmament through peaceful means, and to demonstrate that the inspection process can and does work, as a central feature of the international nuclear arms control regime.
|
|
Arguments
|
|
If you
disagree, then you
possibly
disagree with:
Should the United States invade Iraq?
|
|
The primary reason the US Government stated for going to war with Iraq in 2003 was to rid the country of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). This includes nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These weapons were never found, and many questions were raised regarding the failure of US intelligence.
|
We know that Saddam is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; he's determined to make more. Given Saddam's history of aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond?
|
We have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons programme since the elimination of the programme in the 1990s. However, our work is steadily progressing and should be allowed to run its natural course. With our verification system now in place, barring exceptional circumstances, and provided there is sustained proactive cooperation by Iraq, we should be able within the next few months to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapons programme.
|
|
|
If you
agree, then you
possibly
disagree with:
Should the United States invade Iraq?
|
|
The justification for the Iraq war partly predicated on the assumption that the war would be swift and easy. In 2007, 4 years after the war started, the U.S. Government authorized the “Surge” – an additional 20,000 troops - to quell ethnic violence in the region.
|
I am very certain that this military engagement will not be very difficult. It may entail the risk of American lives and treasure, but Saddam Hussein is vastly weaker than he was in 1991. He does not have the support of his people. And I'd ask one question: What member of the Iraqi army is willing to die for Saddam Hussein when they know he's going to be taken out? So I don't think it's going to be nearly as difficult as some assume.
|
Even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.
|
|
|
If you
agree, then you
possibly
disagree with:
Should the United States invade Iraq?
|
|
The primary reasons the US Government gave for invading Iraq in 2003 was to rid the country of Weapons of Mass Destruction and to free the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. However, many critics of the US believe its government was significantly motivated by a need to secure a cheap supply of oil.
|
We're not there because of oil, and we didn't go there because of oil, we don't remain there because of oil. A lot of oil comes from the Middle East, we all know that, but the reason we remain there is we want to give the people of Iraq a possibility of embracing democracy.
|
I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.
|
|
|
If you
disagree, then you
possibly
disagree with:
Should the United States invade Iraq?
|
|
Despite the terrible loss of life in Iraq, surveys of Iraqi people do not support the claim that Iraqis are worse off since the U.S. invasion.
|
Although April was one of the bloodiest months since the end of the war with terrorists even managing to attack within the much fortified ‘green zone’, Iraqis still prefer the current regime to that of Saddam Hussein two to one.
|
Saddam would still have been sitting in office. OK, that is negative and it would not have been joyful for the Iraqi people. But what we have gotten is undoubtedly worse.
Hans Blix
Former U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector
|
Comments
Collective
Agree
|
|
Edit (wiki edits require login)
|
|
Disagree
|
|
Edit (wiki edits require login)
|
|
Individual
|
