<p>1) No evidence for weapons of mass destruction, to the point where there was a need to fabricate it
2) Not following UN protocols by ignoring them, thus weakening the UN (try to say thats good =p). Also, US policy alienates the other major powers of the world.
3) Economic costs - it's unbelievably expensive
4) Human costs - over 2000 lives lost now. These are mostly kids barely out of high school.
5) Lack of a clear plan for Iraq. The US invaded without knowing what they planned to do in order to exit.
6) Increase in terroristic activites - the new Iraq is a training ground for terrorists. US soldiers and equipment provide them with convenient targets.
7) (This one's hard to argue) The possiblity of a worse future than Saddam - civil war, a Taliban like government, or an Iran-like government that actually will create WMDs.
8) Ulterior motives for entry - cite oil possilities, providing US companies like Halliburton to chance to rebuild, thus very juicy profits.</p>
<p>I think you should really focus your efforts and zero in on the two following points that tetra gave: </p>
<p>No evidence for WMD's and to this day none have been found. The president sold the war to congress and the people through the argument that Iraq was a possible threat because they were harboring these weapons and could use them to attack the US. Further you can talk about all the allogations that came up with the CIA and how false evidense was given and etc. </p>
<p>Lack of a clear plan for Iraq. The US made a huge mistake by going in without any sort of plan. As has been seen and clearly evident, they did not have any solid plan to get the country back and running. This can easily be seen from the state that the country is in right now. </p>
<p>I think you should stay away from the whole ulterior motive for entry argument cuz that will easily be shut down by a good opponent.</p>
<p>Good Luck even though this post is probably to late.</p>