OP/ED: Why I Believe the War in Iraq was Justified.

Please note that this article contains my personal opinions on why the Iraq war was justified, regardless of whether or not Weapons of Mass Destruction are found.

People argue that we went to Iraq for several reasons. WMD, Al-Qaeda, Oil, Father-Son 'rivarly', Finishing off Dad's business, are among the favorite reasons with conspiracy theorists. People are now debating that the Iraq War was not justified since we cannot find Weapons of Mass Destruction.

But look at the facts.

We have just implemented (or are about to) a constitution for a country which has suffered oppression and Hitler-style dictatorship for 40(?) years. These people are only just starting to use the internet, eat at MacDonalds, walk around in the street freely. Whether or not there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, we have basically saved the populous of Iraq, and generations of it to come.

They are on the bottom of a steep curve upwards towards a, what we consider, normal life style. Oil funds will no longer be used up on arms and luxuries for the Iraq elite. These people no longer have what we can consider 'war-rationing portions'.

The question is whether or not the result justifies the means. Several hundred Coalition soldiers killed, thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, Iraqis killed in the ccourse of liberation. It's whether or not American and British soldiers, people's fathers, brothers, sons, were killed justly to liberate these people. I personally believe they were. If it is not right for humans to save and protect each other, then what else is society built upon?

Casualties will, obviously, hurt us, but look at it in the long run, how many people have we saved? A potentially infinite number.

They are able to look back to a specific year and say 'This is when my life was saved'.

[Edited on 5-20-2004 by Valhall]

I must say that I am shocked I havent had any replies to this yet... Does no one else have any opinions about this?

First on a funny note, eating at McDonalds is something I wouldn't classify as progress ...

Next:

Please note that this article contains my personal opinions

I wonder why you post this on ATSNN.
Isn't news supposed to be unbiased factual information backed up by verifyable sources?

How do you come to post this thread in the ATS"NEWS"N?
WOuldn't it be better to post opinions and idea's that as you say are your own and not unbiased factual information in one of the many forum category's ATS has to offer?

Then as to what you have been saying, the means don't justify the purpouse. This could have been done a whole different way and definaly shouldn't have been done under false pretences and evidence.

The fact that it all started trough lies and false pretences is what totaly shaters the succesrate of the enterprise of liberating the iraqi people.

You can't obtain peace trough war and you can't show truth trough lies.

It may all be for naught if we only achieve a pyrrhic victory.

My fear is that we will hand over power back to the Iraqis, along with Mr. S.H. and he will somehow make an escape and retake control over the country.

Bravo Matrix

And don't be so quick to say that Iraq will be better... because the government changes over to iraq rule again in june and most likely all hell will brak lose there again with no US soldiers to curb it and some little pig dictator will seize the opportunity to take control again.

Its too soon to say they are better off... in truth they may be worse off before its over.


One more thing... I don't believe the US should get involved in any conflict in another country unless the country is at war and we're asked to step in... Maybe the country likes thier leadership.... just because it isn't democratic does not mean that it isn't right.... see where I'm goin with this... being the devils advocate Or in other words its not our job to force our values on anyone

[Edited on 21-5-2004 by Chevy]

Originally posted by thematrix
I wonder why you post this on ATSNN.

I was wondering the same thing. This should have been posted in the War on Terrorism Forum or somewhere else.

This seems more of a regular post than an actual OP/ED Piece.


[Edited on 21-5-2004 by Ocelot]

Another thing to add to this.
If Iraq hadn't been under heavy(and I mean EXTREMELY HEAVY) santions by the rest of the world, there would have been alot more money for the people in iraq too.

The opression by Saddam, causing his people to starve was due to these sanctions, because he did what any military leader would do when under such a threat as those sanctions. The leader would put as much resources as he can to strengthen his military and goverment, leaving the minimal amount of money and resources available to the people.
Iraq, if not under embargo, would have been an extremely wealthy country, trough all its natural resources.

If the US was under the same situation, it would do the exact same thing, limit its peoples freedom, limit the money and resources that go to the people, to sustain and uphold its military power.

Also, about Iraq killing the Kurds, didn't the exact same thing happen in the US over the last centuries? And actualy still does happen?
Don't you remember the slavery problems in the US, don't you remember the poverty among the black population in the US today.

Originally posted by thematrix
You can't obtain peace trough war and you can't show truth trough lies.

Well you can obtain peace through war. Peace comes about through wars, but peace makes possible the acts of war. They're unavoidably linked, just like good and bad. Throughout history peace has been obtained through war. Many times this is a temporary peace, which isn't a true perpetual peace (which will probably never happen). Truces and armistes aren't true peace, but they are types of peace. And wars allow these things to happen. I'm not saying you can only obtain peace through war, but it is possible.

What I mean is that trough war you can't get peace in the form of a harmonic existence, mainly because wars always end up killing people and those death tolls are always held against eachother.

Thats not peace imho, thats just a halt of fire.

Peace is when you have no more grudges, no more fights, no more disagrements on a scale that war can emerge from it.

First fo all,

The original post is full of the usual Amercian "holier than though BS." Just because people can use the internet and go to McDonald's (BARF...welcome to capitalistic hell) DOES NOT mean the people are better off. Before the many US posters here jump all over me, I'm not saying that the Iraqis aren't better off...that won't be known until much later.

One clear indicator would be population happiness. Are Iraqis happier right now? I think that after the initial jubilation of Saddam's fall washed away...what is left are some very unhappy Iraqi citizens, in a country with no adequate infrastructure (due to American bombing) and an insufficient, inexperienced government.

Faisca....I'm not sure I could possibly diagree with you more. War and peace are contradictory terms...war does not bring about peace....the absence of war brings about peace. I like to refer to this saying "fighting (war) for peace is like screwing for virginity." Neither is going to happen my friend.

I think it has become blatantly clear that the war in Iraq was NOT justified, especially based on the premise that Bush used to initiate it (WMD). This war is a sham...it is a travesty and should be seen as a black mark in American history...nothing positive has come of it for the American citizens, but shame...and it has yet to be seen if any benefit will be had for the Iraqis.

Peace,
Lukefj

[Edited on 21-5-2004 by Lukefj]

The thing that anoys me most of all about this is that if the US and its alies had made a case on the basis of Iraq hurting its own people to discusting extents, they would have gotten backing from the entire world to go in and change the place. If it was done directly and funded by the idea to liberate the iraqi people. And this my deer friends would have been easy to do and get support for.

This has been done before, just look at Milosovic

What happend now is that they went in under the false pretence of an Iraqi WMD threat, and gave it a spin that it was to liberate the iraqi people.

I believe that many think the war is justified by false reasons and because they ignore the real source of the problems. You see it's easy to point the finger to another and focus on one thing only but that way you fail to see the whole picture, you'll fail to understand the problem and come to wrong conclusions.

Why I say this ? Because it's just wrong to say that we're there to liberate the Iraqi people so they can go to McDonalds. What make the Iraqi people so special ? What is the difference between what SH did and what for example Israel is doing to the Palestinians ? Why do you feel it's sometimes right to kill and oppress peoples and sometimes it's not ? Why does it only depends on who is doing it ?

And those things we have to start to realize, a safer world starts with getting rid of double standards. Really.

No matter what you want to come up with, in the end the war is about the oil Iraq is floating on. The oil is the source for all other reaons you'd like to point out. The oil is so important because it kept SH very powerful, in fact the oil will make any Iraqi leader powerful. So that's why it has to be in friendly hands. There are many more reasons, but if you break them all down, you end up with Oil. SH was a dictator, so what, plenty of dictators in the world. So what's the difference ?

I mean face the facts, oil is the most important resource for modern man. And in this time of high tech one must be on top of things to keep things under control.

I say I do understand why SH had to go and why Iraq needs to be in friendly hands, but all I'm saying is that this is NOT the way to do it, this will likely cause even more troubles in the future. And we've seen how things have changed since major combat were over. Now the real problems are going to start. It's not easy to make changes if some don't agree with the changes you'd like to make. And if you force that on peoples, you're likely going to get resistance.

Why do you think Spain is pulling out ? Not because they are cowards, no it's because they have the experience, they know what terrorism is and they know you can't win by fighting it, even with the best army in the world. They know it's not worth the many deaths and pain that will go on for years. They know all about it and don't want to go through that again.

[Edit]
Bosnia was a different story though, there was a war going on there. And because Europe was afraid for the war to escalate to the region so they send peace keeping troops. ANd because the UN troops are not allowed to have bigger military equipment and the tools to fight a war that's why NATO had to be called in.

Inspectors went to Iraq, didn't find anything. Some said send UN troops and force free elections. SH would risk a war if he didn't agree with that plan. Bush said no, no, no, no, we're going in, with or without the UN. So that's a total different story compared to Bosnia.

There was no other options, an invasion was the only way.

[Edited on 21-5-2004 by TigeriS]

Originally posted by thematrix
First on a funny note, eating at McDonalds is something I wouldn't classify as progress ...

Next:

Please note that this article contains my personal opinions

I wonder why you post this on ATSNN.
Isn't news supposed to be unbiased factual information backed up by verifyable sources?

How do you come to post this thread in the ATS"NEWS"N?
WOuldn't it be better to post opinions and idea's that as you say are your own and not unbiased factual information in one of the many forum category's ATS has to offer?

Fair enough, but it was posted by either Valhall or Nerdling (Cant remember who off hand) so they seem to agree with it...

Edit: It's my interpretation of current events....

On another hand.. At a recent school lecture, 'No two countries that have both contained McDonalds have ever warred against each other'... Interesting statistic.


[Edited on 21-5-2004 by browha]

Matrix... you need to do a little research about the extreme heavy sanctions against Iraq

My understanding is that actually they were allowed to sale more oil before the war than afterwards. That whole sanctions thing was smoke and mirrors... on paper he was sanctioned but his oil output was going up ....

Don't kid yourself he never spent money on his country and even with sanctions he had more than enough money to improve things had he so desired... he's a pig dictator period.... but I still say that unless his people have the guts to fight and die for thier freedom and ask the US to "assist them" then the US needs to stay home.

Originally posted by browha
'No two countries that have both contained McDonalds have ever warred against each other'...

LOL Make mine a double quarter pounder with cheese please and why is this news?

Is that really true about McD's???
Hmmmm....could be a conspiracy....

I don't think the "op/ed" belongs here.

I also don't agree with the logic of the post.

I don't think that one state, even a superpower, should intervene in another state's internal affairs. Self-determination is pretty basic to all international relations, in- or outside of the U.N. So the internal state of Iraq is not justification for the war.

I believe there IS sufficient justification for the war.

Member states brought evidence before the U.N. that Iraq was flouting the U.N. brokered ceasefire that was supposed to have ended hostilities in 1991. These states also produced evidence that Iraq was progressing towards several weapons systems banned by the ceasefire, by international law, and by other agreements Iraq had with the U.N.

In 1997, a multinational team of weapons inspectors produced evidence of this program. In 1998, Hussein expelled all U.N. weapons inspectors. At that time, the U.S. acted unilaterally (at President Clinton's orders) by attacking Iraq's WMD arsenal, with subsequent U.N. approval.

After playing a cat-and-mouse game of pretending to authorize new inspectors, and then expelling them, and based on the evidence provided by U.S., U.K., and inspection teams' testimony, the U.N.'s security council approved the resolution authorizing the enforcers of the original ceasefire to intervene in Iraq.

The coalition force didn't go there "to find WMD." They entered Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from control of Iraq, and to replace his regime with one that could be expected to abide by international law.

As unpopular as all this may be in the Western 'street,' these are the "causis bellae" for the coalition invastion.

Thinking about St. Thomas Aquinas' definiton of a just war, this invasion fits. Attempts were made to reach a peaceful resolution (weapons inspectors). The enemy had the option of complying without yielding sovreignty. (Libya has chosen to conform, and was not invaded.) Attempts were made to keep civilian casualities and damage to a minimum. IF Cf withdraw, and return the territory to the subsequent legitimate regime, it will have been a just war, by traditional western ethical standards.

Originally posted by Darkblade71

Originally posted by browha
'No two countries that have both contained McDonalds have ever warred against each other'...

LOL Make mine a double quarter pounder with cheese please and why is this news?

Is that really true about McD's???
Hmmmm....could be a conspiracy....

I'm pretty confident it's true, the lecturer was a well-respected international business man and an old boy of the school....

I'm sorry but I don't buy for one second the justification of an up and coming imperialist nation to INVADE and OCCUPY another soveriegn nation simply on the basis of completely non-existent (or fabricated) 'intelligence'. First of all, to tie this to Dubya's Daddy's war is irrelevant. Bush Sr. left Hussein in power for clear and easily deciphered reasons.....IRAN is much more of a problem and this puppet can be the CIA's chaparone in the middle east. Once the neo-con hawks got their man in the Whitehouse, it was off to the races. The New American Century and the under-currents within the ruling factions of the world let George W. down the golden path. He isn't to blame as he is too stupid and really is only the door man welcoming you to the biggest puppet show to hit town.

Yes Saddam may or may not have been a 'terrible ruler' but how do we really know? CNN, Wallstreet Journal, 'government sources', etc., etc. have all thrown their spin into the mix. It's all part of the game to deceive the people. Tell them something long enough and they will start believing it (eg. terrorist alert to yellow from Sunday noon to Wednesday 4pm?????) Give me an f'n break! Oil and natural gas is ALL that this is about. There was no need to go to IRAQ for anything other than this and at the time it was an easy fit into 'their' plan. Look around the world. Everywhere that there is ongoing #e, the path always leads to oil, gas, globalization and the free markets and the desire for the ruling elite to exhibit complete control upon the sheeple. As one user mentioned, Libya gave up their WMD. Come on now! Libya=member of OPEC, $10B in exports per annum. Don't tell me they didn't make a friendly little deal with Khadaffi????? Bottom line - the US regime is the one that needs to be taken out before it's too late for everyone inhabiting this planet.