Play devil's advocate. Is there any way to justify the war in Iraq?

[Onlooker]

The problem with the right-wing is they have so little regard for human life that they'll let our soldiers die for a war that serves no purpose other than to prop up the Republican Party.

As far as the war against Iraq, consider:

(1) NO weapons of mass destruction have been found
(2) NO chemicals weapons have been found
(3) NO evidence that Saddam worked with Al Qaeda has been found
(4) Saddam may not have been fully defeated. We're putting some of his generals back in power
(5) Our interests have not been protected. Chalabi, our hand appointed leader of Iraq, has been working closely with the Iranians.
(6) Our interests have not been protected. Gas prices are skyrocketing.
(7) Our interests have not been protected. The war is causing our national debt to climb to Reagan levels.
(8) The war is severely damaging our image in the world

The only good thing about the war that I can think of is that maybe it's helping to create more temp jobs by making so many National Guardsman take leaves to go to Iraq.

[skooooo]

1. I can't think of any justification...

...but I'm really not too surprised it happened. After 9/11, I remember thinking that we would end up just lashing out blindly in anger. That's largely what we've done, at least that's the kind of feeling the * administration has hitched on to and has been able to drive its policy.

After 9/11, I sensed that many Americans were ready to fight anyone.

[keithyboy]

26. Can't eve justify this war to the Devil himself!!

Look, we all knew it was wrong from the beginning. The anti-war protestors and demonstrators world-wide were villified by the US media and the Republican-neocons in this country. We were right; they were wrong...but they are in power.

[CWebster]

2. No

Now only if you could convince Kerry then we would have an alternative to support.

[BlueEyedSon]

3. I guess you could make a weak argument

about the violation of UN resolutions.

Unfortunately, the most logical response would be "coercive inspections" - perhaps blow up a few targets (suspected WMD caches/labs which Saddam denies access to) from the air.

Hmmm.... on second thought change my vote to "no".

[CWebster]

4. Counter argument

The US was carrying out inspections in bad faith, spying under the cover of legitimate inspections.

Israel has violated more UN resolutions than any other country and is a nuclear power. Obviously, the US acts only to suit its own agenda.

[BlueEyedSon]

7. Hey, no fair using LOGIC.

:)

[Cerval]

27. If you were going to make this argument at all...

...you'd have to invade Israel first (I'm not suggesting that this is an option at all so save your flames, all). Israel has been denying a UN Resolution to leave Gaza and the West Bank for more than 30 years now.

[BlueEyedSon]

36. No, because Israel would never use their WMDs on us or our interests.

At least it's much less likely.

Being moral and logical does not completely override self interest and allegiances.

[Cerval]

40. Of course they wouldn't attack us, we sell them tanks and stuff.

But the fact that they have been denying a UN Mandate for 30 years just shows how impotent the UN is...yadda yadda yadda...

Remember, the argument is: because Iraq defied the UN Mandate, the US should invade. I'm just pointing out the double-standard.

[ComerPerro]

5. Saddam is not in power. But that isn't really valid

For several reasons

ONE: Who is in power? Who the fuck knows!!! Its chaos. The administration got so caught up in their rush to war that they forgot to actually formulate a strategy (that is, aside from "bomb the fuck out of them").

TWO: We do not nation-build. Governor George W Bush, in 2000, specifically stated that he does not condone nation-building, and he feels that nation-building efforts by Clinton/Gore were mistakes.

THREE: Many key members of the current administration happen to be people who were involved with supplying weapons to Saddam, which he used to kill his own people while he was allied with the US. This isn't about removing an evil dictator. Its about members of the administration covering their asses and trying to look like saviors.

FOUR: If this were a mission of liberation, why all the hate? Why is it that whenever I troll at a Right Wing message board all I see is shit hateful rhetoric twoards Iraqis and muslims? Why do right wingers what to committ genocide on the very people that they were pretending to care about a year ago?

FIVE: The Iraqi people don't know who they can trust, they don't know if their lives have changed for the better or worse, and they don't know what the future holds. They don't even know what my happen to their country and their lives next week. We have been in Iraq for a year, and the only "progress" we have made is that we are starting to rebuild some of the stuff we destroyed. But there are still daily deaths, firefights in the street, and there are still thousands of Iraqis without power or running water.


Yeah, Saddam is gone. So what? Iraq is a mess, and Bush doesn't give a shit. Its only a matter of time before he washes his hands of everything and turns Iraq over, potentially to someone worse than Saddam.

People rejoice because Iraq will be able to have a democracy. That is all well and good, but what will these people on the right think when the people of Iraq decide to have a country that is based on the muslim faith?

[wtmusic]

6. "Pre-emptive self-defense" is morally wrong. Period.

http://www.asil.org/taskforce/oconnell.pdf

[kiahzero]

13. Preemptive is OK - this was preventative

Preemptive self-defense is protected by international law.

This was not a preemptive war. This was obstensibly a preventative war - we went to war on our terms, rather than waiting and seeing if Saddam would become a threat.

Hypothetical situation: Saddam has chemical weapons, and plans to launch them at the US in 12 hours. The US military attacks Iraq.

That'd be preemptive war - there's an 'imminent threat' (that's why that phrase was so important, IIRC), and we're already going to war, whether we like it or not. The only question is whether we wait for the attack to happen, or strike first.

Another hypothetical situation: The US is sending ships towards Japan in WWII, before Pearl Harbor, to attack. Japan gets wind of this, and strikes Hawaii.

Again, preemptive war on Japan's part - there was an undoubted incoming threat.

Did that make sense?

[wtmusic]

14. Did you read my link?

Pre-emptive self-defense is not OK--it's illegal. It's a myth. I have no idea what you're basing your claim that it's 'protected by international law'.

If a nation is threatened it is legal to strike back, based on a centuries-old doctrine involving two principles: necessity and proportionality. That is just plain old self-defense. Pre-emption is not even at issue there.

[kiahzero]

16. You just described pre-emption

You're threatened, so you strike.

3.
a. Relating to or constituting a military strike made so as to gain the advantage when an enemy strike is believed to be imminent: a preemptive nuclear attack.
b. Undertaken or initiated to deter or prevent an anticipated, usually unpleasant situation or occurrence: The two companies organized a preemptive alliance against a possible takeover by another firm.


I'll see if I can find my sources on the matter.

[wtmusic]

17. you're out of context

"preemptive self-defense" is the myth were speaking of here. Let's keep the terms clear.

[oblivious]

18. Thanks for that link WT.

[wtmusic]

19. Don't mention it!

One of my favorites...

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. Interesting that that link has a Pentagon use of 'imminent threat'

A senior Pentagon source close to Rumsfeld told The Observer that 'Iraq has given the United States every reason to attack under the UN charter, which allows pre-emptive action by nations facing an imminent threat, which Saddam clearly does'

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,755059,00.html (July 14, 2002)

I'd love The Observer to name the source explicitly, but since they ended up in favour of the war, I don't suppose they would.

[wtmusic]

31. An outright, bald-faced lie

Here's what Chapter VII, Article 51 of the charter says:

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs"

IF AN ARMED ATTACK OCCURS. There is no language anywhere, having anything to do with an 'imminent threat'.

[kiahzero]

8. There could be an argument made for humanitarian intervention

Rewind back to February 2003, and it'd be a valid one.

However, the war would have had to be prosecuted in a much different way. We would have had more troops in there, we would have restored basic services ASAP, work would be contracted out to Iraqis rather than US companies, etc.

Having more multilateral help wouldn't have been a bad thing, either, since other militaries are far better trained for nation-building than the US military.

[ComerPerro]

10. The only problem with that, though

Is the fact that Bush attacked Clinton for "nation-building" and tyring to be the policemen of the world.

And, you are right. If this was a humanitarian mission, it would have been carried out much differently. And much more competently.

[wtmusic]

12. Not the only problem

2 million have died in the last ten years in a Sudanese civil war. What has the US done about that?

Any claim of a humanitarian gesture is a smokescreen.

[chelsea0011]

9. NO!!! Started with lies and now continuing with lies.

And still they equate Iraq with 9-11 and terrorism.

[krkaufman]

11. Global economic stability

Iraq needed to be invaded to exercise Western control over the Iraqi oil reserves, in anticipation of Saudi instability and peak oil bottlenecks, in order to minimize oil-related economic fluctuations and extend the lifespan of the oil-based economy.

(Hey, I'm not saying I agree with the rationalization. I just wish they'd tried selling the war on this theme, its *real* justification.)

[oblivious]

15. Perhaps you could argue that Iraq was threatening US vital interests.

Iraq was trying to convince OPEC to switch to payment in Euros instead of US dollars. With Iraq and Iran ready to switch, and Indonesia had switched, I believe, they could have pushed it through. It wouldn't take much to get Venezuela to switch.

This would be devastating to the US dollar, and consequently the US and world economy. With such vital US economic interests at stake, an invasion and change of government to one more friendly to US interests was necessary.

(no personal attacks please -- you asked for a devil's advocate)

[plurality]

20. Sure, lots of people got rich.

Mission Accomplished!

You didn;t actually believe it was about freedom or WMD did you? Tsk, tsk, tsk.

[seabeyond]

22. i dont justify it, i didn't agree with it

but we could have done it in the higher. and Saddam was breaking his signed agreement of 91 and he had kicked out the inspectors and there was a reason to call him on it. he was firing on the no fly zone planes. so Saddam asked for someone to do something. the world did think there were wmd's. he was paying out money to suicide bombers in Palestine working that tension. he wasn't innocent

so, they needed to do something with Saddam to get him to follow the rules or, u.n. truly became hollow.

every single step of the way bush did this war was in site of self greed and interest. every step of the way bush made a poor choice and created a mess.

i don't believe it had to be like this. i think if it was anyone but bush we wouldn't have had to go to war. there was a time when Saddam saw the u.s. was coming in and a quiet message to Washington he would comply and it said he would step down. i am thinking there were other ways, and bush did his testosterone we are the man shock and awe thing.

[oblivious]

24. I know you're playing devil's advocate,but I just want to clarify 2 things

1. Saddam never threw out the inspectors. That was a myth used to help justify the war. I can prove it if you need it.

2. The no-fly zones were illegal. They were not authorised by the UN and they were not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution.
"The issue of no fly zones was not raised and therefore not debated: not a word. They offer no legitimacy to countries sending their aircraft to attack Iraq ... They are illegal."

-- Dr. Boutros-Ghali, former Secretary General of the United Nations

[seabeyond]

25. oblivious, good stuff thanks

so how can you prove in 98 the inspector weren't thrown out. i remembering seeing it. and remembering seeing troops along Kuwait border, and Saddam saying ok bring them back in.

and wasn't the no fly zone to protect the Shiite and Kurds we had screwed in the past. i am not opposed to us taking certain responsibility for our screw up of these people

but technically, if that wasn't part of the u.n. then that isn't technically a reason in going after Saddam. but for me this would just be technically, cause we put these two groups in harms way. though war wouldn't be answer cause, we could have other ways, and did have other ways of dealing with it. it truly was a matter of continued detaining, though we know the embargo's were loosening up and the real reason was going to euro and not dollar, so f*.........these are all just intellectual reason for war, not the reality of what happened

anyway, thanks for info and more, thanks for realization i am just playing devils advocate, not supporting bush

[wuushew]

29. You are suffering from revisionist recollection

here are some headline links from fair.org

http://www.fair.org/extra/0210/inspectors.html

[seabeyond]

30. wuushew

big thumbs up. thank you for the correction. it is certainly significant. thanks

[oblivious]

33. Thanks, wuushew. Here's another link.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0210/S00203.htm

[Mika]

23. 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911

911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911


:evilgrin:

[Cerval]

28. I'm still not afraid. Is that "unpatriotic"?

:evilgrin:

[noonwitch]

32. Only in the sense that Saddam is gone, and he did kill a bunch of his own

back in the 80s, when we supported him. That's a stretch, however, because he hasn't done that kind of thing since the first Gulf War.

[booley]

34. yeppers, becuase we are addicts

Oil is begining to run out and we as a country are addicted to oil.

In times of scarcity of vital resources, it's only natural for natiosn to grab what they can. and the big fish gets the most.

[trof]

35. OK, two words: Peak Oil

http://www.peakoil.net/Default.htm
:evilfrown:

[sendero]

37. I pity the fool....

... who is tasked with trying to make this utterly-predictable fiasco seem like anything other than what it is.

But is seems like being an accomplished liar is pretty lucrative in modern America.

[denverbill]

38. It could have been justified to get rid of Saddam alone.

To me, there is no more justified use of force than replacing a evil dictator or govt with one that is better for the people governed.

For that to be valid, however, there would have to be put in place a mechanism to decide which govts are worthy of replacement. For example, if the UN Security Council votes unanimously. Or even if the world's foremost democracies vote that way (USA, England, Canada, Germany, France, Italy, Brazil, Mexico, Japan, Korea, Norway, Sweden, Finland, etc). If we had gotten something approaching this prior to the invasion, and the invasion had been launched solely to replace an evil dictator with democracy, I would've supported it.

Instead, we bullied around the UN with our one real allie, Britain, and then attempted to convince the world of trumped up charges of terrorism and WMD. Even with that, we couldn't get support from more than a tiny handful of nations.

IMO, if we had gone in with near universal support to get rid of a dictator and free the Iraqi people, and with a well-formulated and widely accepted plan for establishing democracy, we might well have seen those flowers and cheering crowds. Instead, we went it alone, installed our own puppet regime chock full of crooks looking to loot Iraq, ignoring the wishes of the Iraqi people, ignoring world opinion, and then we are all surprised that they think we are occupiers.

[SnohoDem]

39. temp jobs

are not worth the enornous debt. It would be cheaper to have government works projects or just extend unemployment.