CreateDebate


Debate Info

3
1
Yes,the U.S. should have No,The U.S. shouldn't have
Debate Score:4
Arguments:6
Total Votes:4
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes,the U.S. should have (3)
 
 No,The U.S. shouldn't have (1)

Debate Creator

Robin5(13) pic



Should the U.S. Have invaded Iraq

In March 2003 the U.S. invaded Iraq suspecting it was harboring weapons of mass destruction. None were ever found but the ruler of the regime Saddam Hussein was executed. Some say the invasion of Iraq lead to the birth of ISIS

Yes,the U.S. should have

Side Score: 3
VS.

No,The U.S. shouldn't have

Side Score: 1
1 point

There is no such country as I rag ;)

Side: Yes,the U.S. should have
AlofRI(3294) Clarified
1 point

The only reason we attacked Iraq is that Bush had the I-rag on. (Near as I can figure). That could be what Robin5 was thinking.

Side: Yes,the U.S. should have
1 point

Makes sense to me ;)

Side: Yes,the U.S. should have
Antrim(1287) Clarified
1 point

You're very cruel.

We should put that one down to a 'Freudian slip'.

Side: Yes,the U.S. should have
1 point

We can discuss the legitimacy of the war, but we must at least have our facts straight. According to The NY Times:

"From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.

In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act."

Supporting Evidence: The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons (www.nytimes.com)
Side: Yes,the U.S. should have
1 point

If we hadn't, there would be no ISIL, we wouldn't have needed the nuclear treaty with Iran. Sadaam was under control, thousands of Americans would still be alive.

Side: No,The U.S. shouldn't have