Proponents argue that liberating the people of Iraq from Saddam Hussein’s human rights abuses, spreading democracy in the region, enforcing UN regulations, finding suspected weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), and making the US safer from terrorism in a post-9/11 world, all justified the war.
Opponents argue that Iraq had no WMDs or connection to 9/11, and that the Bush administration wanted Iraqi oil and any excuse to remove Hussein. They say the attack violated international law, killed countless civilians, wasted billions of dollars, and made the US more vulnerable to terrorism.
Debate Question: Should the US Have Attacked Iraq? (Why/Why Not)