Is the War in Iraq Justified?

[Nirvana-Eld]

Wasn't it evil when GW Bush declared war on and killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi's for no provable reason? But isn't he a good Christian that follows the Bible's teachings?

Please tell me that you cringe at the sight of this terrible mis-understanding.

This was brought up in a thread concerning the nature of evil and it lead me to wonder about different opinions. And to link this to religion, im going to provide St. Thomas Aquainas' theory on just war. Three things are needed to make a war just.

1) a just cause

2) a just(legitimate) authority

3) a just intent

Personally i think the current war passes this test, but it is up to you. I would like to see facts, statistics, and logic, not the biased opinionated lie seen above.

[Cephus]

I would hope that history proves otherwise. The Kurdish people, which make up a more than decent chunk of the Iraqi population, had been fighting against the government since the early 1980's, the best instance is when members of the Barzani tribe carried out a revolt that killed a couple dozen Iraqi army men in 1983. In retaliation, The Iraqi government comitted an attempted genocide. There was even an assasination attempt that lead to countless more deaths in retalliation. During Saddam's regime, estimates are coming out of Iraq that say he killed at least a million people. They obviously would have done something if they weren't paralyzed by fear. And we now see that since they are openly participating in this democracy with a constant death threat from the insurgents, that they are optimistic about what is to come. Their voter turn-out was far greater than ours here in America, in Tikrit, Saddam's home-town, the turn-out was 80%! you cannot honestly argue with that can you?

Isn't it so nice that we put Saddam and his party into power then? But then again, the US has a long history of putting tinpot dictators in power because they do our bidding. We did it in Afghanistan with the Taliban too.

I really don't see that they would have done anything, "paralyzed by fear" or not. Apparently it wasn't that important to them or it would have been worth seeking military aid from the rest of the world, which they never did. It would have been worth organizing and even dying for.

Now, they are participating in the only form of government that we've given them a chance to have. Is it better than a dictatorship? Certainly. Is it what they've freely chosen for themselves? Absolutely not.

[juliod]

(D$%n it, I was in the middle of writing a brilliant article when my browser crashed.)
Here's an attempt to recreate it.

I'm seeing the results in retorspect and calling them justified from that, the ends justify the means to an extent don't they?

No, not for a second. We've killed between 10 and 30 times as many people in our "war on terror" since 9/11 as the terrorists did then. Doesn't that make us 10-30 times as bad as they are?

Hussein is accused of killing 300,000 people over 25 years. We've killed between 30,000 and maybe 150,000 in Iraq. Even the minimum figure there represents a greater rate than Hussein.

Since our forces and "our" Iraqis are using the same means, and even the same prisons, to oppress the population, we can only claim to be morally worse than Hussein.

I would like to see evidence from a credible source of these mercenaries you spoke of in your first response, because I myself have never heard of them and I don't believe that an army such as that f the United States would need that type of support.

Oh dear, oh dear, I think you need to pay more attention to security issues.

Here is a partial list of contractor casualties in Iraq. It's "partial" because no one feels the need to report on their deaths. Politicians love that. The list includes all types of contractors. Look for those marked "security".

http://icasualties.org/oif/Civ.aspx

Don't believe they are mercenaries? Look them up:

http://www.blackwaterusa.com

And don't claim that these people are "just" security guards. Armed, non-uniformed "civilians" in a war zone are banned by the Geneva Conventions. Their presence also endangers the real contractors, since the insurgents and the population can't tell who is a mercenary and who isn't.

There's a whole world out there you aren't aware of.

I am not under-stating or discrediting Martin van Creveld's accountablity as a historian and a military theorist, yet it seems that his views on the American wars in the second half of the 20th century are very "anit-american".

Nope, he's very pro-American. If you exclude from consideration all sources opposed to your political views, you will guarantee yourself to be wrong every time.

but I'm here to look at the overwhelming inherent good that came out of it and the fact that under the given circumstances, a war with Saddam's regime was totally justified.

War can never be "inherently good". The outcome is [i:1e8dd91775]always[/i:1e8dd91775] worse than any other possability. The death and destruction outweight, many times over, any presumed benefit. In the past we've had war thrust upon us. Now we go out to create this suffering and misery.

There has been little "good" out of this war, and every reason to think it will only get worse and worse. If you had read van Creveld's writings you would see that the long-term beneficiary of our war is Iran. But don't take my word for it. Just remember my words over the next 2, 5, 10 years.

But the problems in Iraq we're a long-time coming, and severe to put it mildly.

No, they were mild to put is severely. Iraq presented no threat, and was overall a peaceful, coherent nation. We are learning that peace and stability is more important than anything else.

I felt like i needed to rant and get up on a soap-box there, sorry.

Fine. Your right. But you are wrong in almost every way.

Your source for your information in your second response is undeniably biased and anti-bush.

So? Are you aware that essentially all media in the US is controlled (biased) by corporations that support the Bush/Cheney administration?

Here's a report from 2003 in the run-up to the war, "In Iraq Crisis, Networks Are Megaphones for Official Views":

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1628

And in any case, do you have to accept the political views of [i:1e8dd91775]Mother Jones[/i:1e8dd91775] in order to accept that administration officials have panned this war for up to 30 years?

On the home-page theres a link to a cartoon parody of the president for God's sake!

You'll find that politcal cartooning is common to even the most serious news sources. Again, if you limit yourself to outlets that vigorously support this war, you will never learn the facts about what is happening, why, and when these facts were known.

I will admit though that at first glance i find this...

Quote:
US oil companies have been granted full, blanket immunity in regards to Iraqi oil by an Executive Order


a little fishy, but for all we know there could have been toally justifiable reasons for that order. We aren't the exactly in the know of government beurocratic process and the purpose of some bills and orders. It is easily mis-interpreted by us, the common man.

I'm not a "common man" and neither are you. We can (and should) form our own opinions about important political issues. You seem a sincere, honest sort of fellow. I suspect you simply aren't aware of what's going on out there, being fed pablum by the corporate crap-media.[/quote]

[The Persnickety Platypus]

I think you guys are overcomplicating the issue.

Why did we (supposedly) go to war? WMD's. Were there any WMD's? No. Thus, the war is unjustified.

Now the issue has conveniently switched to "free Iraq" and "end the oppression". But of course, if we had really cared about these things, we might have started our global liberation campaign in a country a bit more worse for wear. Preferably, one that actually cracks the top fifty for lowest income and living standards. Convenient that the one country we "accidently" invade has access to a quarter of the worlds oil reserves. But of course, the United States has never "helped" unless we expect something better in return, or are in trouble ourselves. I don't see why that would suddenly change.

I dissagree with ever going to war in the first place. However, now that we are here, I genuinely hope something good can come out of it. Since that is now a vague possibility, my feelings towards the conflict have softened slightly. I would not even necissarily advocate a quick pull-out; we made the mess, time to clean it up again. I would hate for thousands of soldiers and civilians to die, and we not even accomplish an established democracy.

[micatala]

I'm seeing the results in retorspect and calling them justified from that, the ends justify the means to an extent don't they?

I'll apologize up front for only picking on one of your points and not addressing all the others, but this one is a particular peeve of mine and I also think is the most important to address.

NO.

The ends do NOT justify the means.

In addition, justifying the war because of the good that might have come of it (and I say this knowing there is already significant disagreement as to whether this is even the case, but for the sake of argument, let's say there has or will be some good that comes from it) cannot, in my view, form the basis for any sort of 'just war theory.'

The effect of this argument, taken to its logical conclusion, would be to implement a policy which says that anyone can use any justification they wish to to go to war, even pre-emptively, even if only to take land away from a weaker country with no other pre-existing justification.

The only real consideration on the part of the aggressor would then be their own calculation of the possibility that 'some good or other' will come of it in the end that will allow them to justify the war. As long as they think this is a reasonable possibility, they can go ahead and then worry about making up a reason later.

Sure, you could say this is a little ridiculous and that we could have and even did see the possible good of a 'free Iraq' occurring as a result of this war. However, this only means we were lucky (and that of course really remains to be seen). If this had not happened (or does not happen), would it be OK to find another 'good' that has come of this war, even if it did not achieve its intended purpose?

In my view, one MUST justify going to war beforehand, and if that justification is not compelling enough or turns out to be wrong, then the aggressor should stand condemned, without being allowed to change the rationale after the fact.

Also, as has been pointed out . . .

No, not for a second. We've killed between 10 and 30 times as many people in our "war on terror" since 9/11 as the terrorists did then. Doesn't that make us 10-30 times as bad as they are?

war always entails a very severe downside. Even just counting deaths, as juliod has done, it seems the bad in this war has far outweighed the good.

This doesn't even consider the long term, and possibly very severe, problems in international relations that this war is likely to be causing for decades. Arguably, the very fact that Iraq came to be ruled by a brutal dictator is partly a result of WWI and the mistakes and poor decisions made by the 'great powers' in its aftermath.

[Cephus]

Why did we (supposedly) go to war? WMD's. Were there any WMD's? No. Thus, the war is unjustified.

The only reason we're in Iraq is because Bush is taking his revenge on Saddam for trying to kill his daddy and doing a lot of ridiculous dick waving at the same time. That's it. It had nothing to do with WMDs, it had nothing to do with saving the Kurds, it had nothing to do with freeing Iraq, *EVERYTHING* has been an excuse for Bush to play warrior.

[juliod]

I would not even necissarily advocate a quick pull-out; we made the mess, time to clean it up again.

Everything we try will fail. We are already following the Vietnam script, switching to air power in order to reduce if possible the amount of US casualties. This of course doesn't work because it kills more civilians and thus increases the support and determination of the insurgency. Which then increases the amount of US casualties.

We are also publically proclaiming the "standing up" of non-existant Iraqi military units.

History says we will loose, and everything on the ground agrees with that. Our political leaders have taken on the strange view that the war in Iraq could be won by a public-relations campaign in the US.

Like humpty-dumpty, we can't put Iraq back together. Civil war seems inevitable, with Iraq fragmenting into at least three pieces. But it seems this will happen regardless of what we do. The only posative action we can take is to ensure that our troops kill no more Iraqis. And of course that we loose no more of our own.

DanZ

[Nirvana-Eld]

Geez it smells so pessimistic in here. I don't have time for a full post b/c i have to wake up early and take a test. But i need to make one clarification. as I stated before, I AM NOT SUPPORTING G.W.'s CAMPAIGN!!! again I AM NOT SUPPORTING G.W.'s CAMPAIGN!!!

Fwew with that out of the way, My intent is to look at Iraq pre-war, and find a justification in taking down a regime like Saddam's. Now i have to go I'll be back on tomorrow probably. (Why don't any more pro-war people chime in!?!)

[juliod]

I AM NOT SUPPORTING G.W.'s CAMPAIGN!!! again I AM NOT SUPPORTING G.W.'s CAMPAIGN!!!

OK. And I'm not opposing this war simply because Dubya started it. I'm opposing it because, as van Creveld said, it is the most foolish war for 2000 years.

My intent is to look at Iraq pre-war, and find a justification in taking down a regime like Saddam's.

Fine. But first determine to what degree that was a desirable goal. No one was sad to see Hussein overthrown. But how much destruction and death was that worth, considering that he would have died eventually anyway?

And consider, have we actually achieved that goal? Because the Dubya administration fears international justice more than anything, we declined to remove Hussein to The Hague. Instead we are conducting a show-trial, which is every bit to Hussein's benefit. Every since he was captured, I have been asking people what they think the chance is that he will be President of Iraq again in the future. It's not highly likely, but I think a real possability.

(Why don't any more pro-war people chime in!?!)

Not many conservatives around here. Which is a pity because it is they that I want to slap around.

DanZ

[1John2_26]

This website runs conservatives out of town on a rail as quick as they post. The fact is that Iraq had WMD's. They had a vast amount of time to move them. Rumsfeld is a perfect person to be involved in all of this because he was around when the US gave the Iraqi's the WMD technology. AND, they used it. The fact that America cannot win wars is because of liberals and not conservatives. That is a fact. Razing the land of insurgents would be the right thing to do in a war. Though I am a moderate on many things, fighting wars against countries like Iraq should have been a complete stomp and celebration. This article (part of it) from beliefnet on end times sheds light on the kinds of people that allow America to become a spineless strip mall of cowards.

From beliefnet.com: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/151/story_15136_1.html

The story of prophecy that has to do with the Jews goes all the way through to the end of the Book of Revelation. Jesus prophesied in Matthew 24. The disciples said, "What shall be the signs of the coming of the ends of the age?" And he said, "The first sign would be deception." Now, theres never been greater deception then what happened on September 11, 2001. In the 1990s, New Age relativism redefined a terrorist as just an "extremist." Bill Clinton and his moral relativism wanted [a Middle East peace agreement] because he was trying to get a postage stamp of himself over Monicas face. By doing that, he sent a signal to the Islamic fundamentalist world that was already in a rage, that America would embrace terrorism.

In the 1990s, Jews were being blown up almost weekly, and we would not acknowledge it as terror. We called it a "cycle of violence." We would not define morality, and we allowed the disintegration of our moral values to affect not only the private life of a president, but also the domestic policy in America and also our foreign policy.

[bernee51]

The fact is that Iraq had WMD's.

A fact? You have proof? No one else has proof. I'm sure the administration would love to see your proof. As would I.

They had a vast amount of time to move them.

To where?

Rumsfeld is a perfect person to be involved in all of this because he was around when the US gave the Iraqi's the WMD technology.

Proving that if you sleep with dogs you get flees.

AND, they used it.

Shouldn't Rumsfield fell guilty about this? Shouldn't Rumsfield be tried for crimes against humanity for his complicity?

Razing the land of insurgents would be the right thing to do in a war.

And how many 'non-insurgents' would die in the process? Thats OK just call them collateral damage.

.....fighting wars against countries like Iraq should have been a complete stomp and celebration.

Fighting wars against anyone should be a very very last option - if an option at all. There are no winners in wars. Only lesser losers. Ask a grieving relative - on either side.