Iraq war

So here are some basic reasons that will help convince voters that Con has the better argument. Both conservatives and liberals can likely agree on one point: the economic costs to the United States because of our intervention have proven to be disastrous. So far, we have spent close to two billion on the Iraq war [1]. However, this is likely to balloon to around seven trillion when every cost (including healthcare for veterans is totaled) [ibid or information found in citation one]. That is not to say that every war should be calculated solely based on a cost-benefit analysis. WWII required incredibly social and financial costs, but the reasons and objectives for incurring those costs were justified. The Iraq War is problematic because the reasons behind the intervention were misguided and deceptive, and the result has not lead to a net gain for the United States in any tangible sense. Based on the premise that the financial resources were wasted let me explore a related point: missed opportunities to use those resources to create opportunities that would have benefited the American people. If you are a conservative, it is likely you would that shaving off several trillion from the national debt is good from an economic point-of-view. Moreover, as conservatives have argued in the past, solving debt-related problems creates certainty in the market, allowing more jobs to be created. While I think this suggestion is problematic in its own right, it is the very of a significant portion of the American people. For liberals, who are more sympathetic to government using social resources to create social benefits there are several arguments that if we had used that money at home it would have been a real net positive. There are many ways the government could have used the financial resources of Iraq, however let me focus on one: college education, specifically public college education. It has been calculated that providing free public college education would cost 62.6 billion dollars a year [2]. So far the United States according to government reports "estimates as much as $60 billion was squandered collectively on fraud and corruption in Iraq and Afghanistan" [3]. Now I know Pro the debate does not include debating the other major war of the last decade but I thought it was worth pointing out how distorted our priorities are when we compare war and other social goods. But back to my original point, even if we ended the free public education when it matched against the expected total for the Iraq war, it would still allow the United States to provide that good for a couple of decades. The question is did the war provide a better benefit than providing free college education? Con believes the answer is obvious. Next, for people who believe in a strong foreign policy and advocate that the United States should intervene in countries for strategic reasons, consider this: Iran has been the principal benefactor from the US intervention and new Shiite-led government. Saddam was a despot, no would need to argue that but he prevented the country from religious sectarianism and was a powerful enemy of Iran. Now, Iran has significant power and influence in the region, benefiting the most from the American intervention [4] [5]. Iran"s gains come at the expense of the United States, undermining whatever arguments existed based on increasing our increase and goal in the mid-east region. Pro"s best argument was the Iraq-war toppled a tyrannical leader, therefore whatever initial or later mistakes occurred, the war was just based on this alone. However, while this argument does sound convincing, it"s not particularly good if actually realized or applied as foreign policy. If it applies to Saddam, then it should hold for every tyrannical leader around the globe regardless of cost or lives lost. But only a few war hawks would actually suggest we intervene in North Korea, Syria, or Russia because the United States must ensure that no despotic regime exist in the world. These arguments are only a fraction from the possible ones I could have chosen. However, I hope they provided a definitive answer to the questions: was the Iraq war worth it? Con"s answer is no. The Iraq war was a failure. Please vote Con. [1] http://www.reuters.com... [2] http://www.theatlantic.com... [3] http://www.pbs.org... [4] http://articles.latimes.com... [5] http://www.businessinsider.com...