A panel of University of Wisconsin students debated a possible war in Iraq Tuesday night in front of a crowd of more than 200.

The debate featured three pro-intervention students against three students from the student organization Stop The War!.

The first issue brought up was the United States’ interest in engaging in a war with Iraq.

Chris Dols of Stop The War! claimed a war is being pursued aggressively in order to take the attention away from the current economic problems in the United States.

“All these things are happening at home, when $200 billion is going toward funding the war on terrorism,” Dols said. “[A war] would not only divert interest away from the United States but also … scare North Korea.”

Dols also questioned the United States’ true intent in going to war. “There is something to be said about oil moguls that will now own 11 percent of the world’s oil,” he said. “The whole idea that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction is completely [nonsense].”

Dols also claimed the United States funds would-be terrorists in the Middle East.

“There have been two terrorists: Osama Bin Laden and Timothy McVeigh, [both of whom] respectively were trained and funded by the U.S. military,” he said.

The discussion moved to the possible effects a war might have on the citizens of Iraq.

Melea Carvlin, also speaking against the war, said that past U.S. military activity with the Iraqis has caused great suffering.

“A war in Iraq can only make things worse for the Iraqi people,” said Melea, who told the audience the sanctions the United Nations imposed on Iraq “have devastated the people of Iraq. Over 5000 die every month as a direct result of the sanctions.”

Michael Hahn of the opposing group countered by saying horrid conditions have long existed in Iraq as a result of Hussein’s brutal government, and that something must be done for these human-rights atrocities immediately.

“If women exhibit anything of a free will, they are taken out and beheaded in front of their house, their husbands, their children,” he said.

He went on to say that Iraqi officials had free reign to exert physical and sexual abuse, including removing fingernails and other body parts, impaling others with broken bottles and beating people to unconsciousness.

“The Iraqi people deserve better,” he said. “And the only way they can get that, because they have no rights of their own, is if we remove [Hussein].”

Carvlin rebutted with the claim that the United States has historically and continually supported countries despite egregious human-rights violations. She pointed out that the United States supported Iraq’s war against Iran in the 1980s.

The debate was then directed to the legality of the war. Anthony Carver, in favor of intervention, said military actions by the United States toward Iraq would have U.N. support.

“The president went to the United Nations and made his case,” he said. “The U.N. Security Council passed a resolution 15 to 0, including Syria, to give Saddam one last chance,” said Carver, who argued that Bush made it clear to the Security Council before a vote was made that if this one last chance was not heeded in full, the United States would take aggressive action toward Iraq. Since this information was presented to the council before a vote was made, Carver said, it was taken into consideration when the vote was made.

Dan Hooper said the Geneva Convention Protocol prohibits any preemptive strike, which is what the United States would be engaging in. Further, he explained that the United States will be using certain weapons in this war that are in violation of international law.

He also said the weapons the United States would bear in Iraq would present an equal threat to Iraqi citizens and military personnel.