Is the war in Iraq justified? (1 Viewer)

[leetom]

General discussion regarding the legitimacy of the Iraq war.

What do you think?

Despite not having any WMDs, was the war still a good idea even for the sole purpose of removing Saddam?

Does the United States, or any country for that matter, have the right to defy the United Nations in order to 'defend' itself'?

 

[Generator]

Theory = no.
Reality = yes.

The UN is a great institution, but it counts for little against the larger nation states (in a political and economic sense).

 

[neo o]

You mean the vested interests of Germany and France are great?

 

[astro]

One of the reasons for the coalition's invasion of Iraq was to supposedly get rid of the WMD and even disable the program. To this date no WMD have been found which really raises the question if the war should have been started. True, Saddam Hussein was a dictator and a brutal dictator and that, but was it worth so much bloodshed and stereotypes which have echoed throughout the western world...
Moreover, even though those militants could have used silent means to attack America, i really think that USA has the capacity to fend for themselves (thier WMD programme)
However, i don't think the genuine aim of Bush and his cronies was to get rid of Saddam because he was *evil*...it was probably because they wanted to the oil and Saddam was in thier way of the black gold...In certain aspects Bush, Blair and Howard can be seen as another axis of evil

 

[neo o]

1) I don't know how many times this has been said, but the food-for-oil programme was much more profitable for the Americans then invading and having to rebuild the countries infrastructure.

There are a number of reasons that I believe lead to Iraq.

- Disarmament of a state that had continually defied the UN and potentially risked the security of the United States. I find it ironic that for a group of people who seem so opposed to the Americans defying the UN, you are completely happy for Saddamn to do it

- Creation of a democratic state in the middle-east besides Israel would hopefully be a move towards increased regional stability.

Also, missile casings of banned weapons were continually shipped out of Iraq in scrap metal exports

 

[Ziff]

They really should have done something about it much earlier (winning back in 1991 would have been a start!). Something should have been done a lot earlier but I don't think what happened and how it transpired was really the right way to do things. There are many continuing issues:
- The invasion was a complete mess: even if the moral intention was good (to remove Saddam) it was never conveyed and obfuscated behind the mess of WMD and in the USA hintings at links to Al-Qaeda which damaged the operation etc
- Many Coalition soldiers and civilians not to mention Iraqi civilians are still being killed
- They haven't been able to destroy the subversive Clerics who have tried to gain power
- They weren't able to fill the power-vacuum quick enough which enabled these random Clerics to take over in areas
- They weren't able to raise international support through the UN or NATO
- The reconstruction effort is very messy, expensive and as said before sees many Coalition civilians as contractors coming under threat
- The system of democracy imposed. Remember, any Arab democracy will be somewhat or even vastly different to a Western democracy. If anything it will "sort of" look like the Iranian system (if any of you had read about it) without the Cleric and the Guardian Council who can override any possibly progressive and democractic legislation on some sort of BS religious grounds which is really just "we want to retain our power"

But was it justified? Depends on what you mean? Legally - not really. In the propaganda they spread to the people - not really.

If we make guess work about a democratic state being the motive or removing Saddam etc etc then yes. But according to the governments this was never the primary aim. If we listen to fringe groups about wanting to establish American dominence in the Middle-East, helping Israel, or simply in a bid for oil resources then obviously it's not justified.

Should the UN be defied? International Law is a funny thing. It only works if everyone co-operates. International Law is really totally useless because it has no power to really enforce anything or any decisions it makes UNLESS individual nations e.g. the Coalition get together and decide to use military power. Remember that the Security Council of the UN is really a heap of crap. There are 5 or so nations with conflicting interests who all hold the VETO power. If one nation vetos something it might be in the face of 150 other nations who all agree. In this respect the UN should be defied if it is not representing the interests of the majority and only representing the opinions of the veto wielding powers.

You really do need a hollistic approach when you're looking at it though. I would say that at the beginning through the propaganda and the law aspects that it's not really justified, neither is it justified now in regards to the poor reconstruction effort, but IF the Coalition are able to haul Iraq from the absolute shit it is in now and haul it out and make it into a model Arab-democratic system that the rest of the Middle-East can use to depose their dictators and kings then I think it could potentially be justifed.

We're really not far along enough in history and don't have the benefit of hindsight yet to be able to really make a judgement.

 

[neo o]

We're really not far along enough in history and don't have the benefit of hindsight yet to be able to really make a judgement.

Nice closing, Agreed

 

[leetom]

Just because the U.S has the power the defy the U.N, this doesn't mean it should. The world needs the most powerful nation to act as a role model to smaller, more trigger happy nations. If the the most powerful nation abides by International Law than smaller nations have no reason to invade their neighbors.

As a result of the U.N being undermined by the most powerful nation (the U.S), the smaller, more trigger happy nations are now justified in any actions such as invading their neighbors in order to 'defend' themselves- because as taught to them by the U.S, it's OK to invade others if you just need to defend yourself.

Neo O- what are the vested interests of Germany and France? To me, they seem to be the only nations that hold the U.N together and without the U.N the world will fall into disorder. Despite their apparant lack of importance in the word today, the world will always need them. I believe it's only France that is doing anything in Darfur as well.

Haha, I agree with Astro in that the U.S wanted the oil that Saddam was doing nothing with. I think Saddam thought he could build the infrastructure to extract vast amounts of oil with, but he preffered to just leave it there to piss the West off.

Neo O- I can't remember that far back, but I thought that the Iraqis were showing complete cooperation with the weapons inspectors last year. As it turns out, they really didn't have anything to hide. And like before, it is the responsibility of supposedly sensible, developed nations to respect the U.N so more tin-pot nations will.

Also, I don't think establishing a democratic country in the Middle East through war is appropiate. We can't just fly around the world smacking everybody in the face with our Western ideals no matter how much better they appear to us . I believe that if democracy is to take a permanent root in a country, it must be brought about by the local people, not a foreign invading force.

Ziff- if somehow Iraq does emerge from the ashes as a functioning Arab-democracy, they very grudingly I will have to give the Coalition some credit. But I really doubt this will happen. If the whole idea of the war now is a longterm plan of establishing democracy throughout the Middle East, I wonder if the U.S expect Saudi Arabia to embrace it as well.

Also, good point regarding the crap veto system. Without it, Israels wall would have been brought down ages ago.

 

[Ziff]

In theory I would say that the Americans shouldn't go around defying the UN, the UN should be the be all and end all of world diplomacy and dispute resolution - the end. That would be in a perfect world where things work as intended though.

My concern is more that America might lose moral impact if they later on under the auspices of the UN start lecturing any other nation about undertaking action (uni or multilaterally) - but it's unlikely that'll happen. You have to remember though that the US did have many other nations support it in various roles and whilst it could be argued that these nations were coerced into it or expecting benefits for their nation's companies or governments from it, you still can't ignore the role the Japanese, Australians, the many EU member states (such as the British, Polish, Hungarians etc - who went even though they were pressured by the French and Germans not to go) and other nations who lent some support to the operation. I still maintain that this entire process could and should have been handled better but the facts are that many nations were involved. It is unlikely small nations will refer to the USA as an example (except for the eratic and lunatic North Korea which is a complete anomoly towards reality).

Smaller "trigger-happy" nations e.g. most of Africa and parts of Asia have been shooting at each other since decolonialisation. It's not something they learnt from America, it's something that's been around with them since long, long before America and its international policies came into the picture (blame the British, French, Dutch, Germans, Spanish, Portugese for that one ). So whilst I agree that perhaps this sets a bad precedent in relation to these small tin-pot dictatorships that are running around I don't think it's as big a concern as say large countries that might take the same angle to things. Small countries may cause problems but large countries could precipitate something much more dire. Russia is already using the unilateral terrorist insurgency angle on the Chechans right?

You say that creating democracy through war is not the greatest way to do it. I don't think it's the greatest way but often the only way to depose a dictator who has brutalised his people, destroyed the infrastructure and demoralised the population through a vast secret police, is through war. Germany (1945), Serbia/Kosovo (1999) and Iraq (2003/4) all needed some sort of force to dislodge the tyrannical and powerful regimes. I don't think the problem is so much that America used force to get rid of Saddam, but as I said before, I think it's because they weren't able to fill the massive power vacuum that occurred after Saddam was deposed quick enough and this is what has led to the current problems. We can't go about smacking people with western ideals but I don't think we can tolerate dangerous, powerful and tyrannical regimes either. There comes a point where you need to dislodge those regimes, the only method is war. The people now have the ability or hopefully will very soon to build up their own systems and own government once the Clerics and Shieks have been brought under control.

 

[pookie1234]

dont start this shit

 

[thorrnydevil]

Its a fact that Iraq did have WMD. Do you wanna know why? Its because the Yanks gave them the WMD. And dont say they used against Iran. The Iraqis had multi-million dollar weapons programs.

Ok-they didn't have UN backing. Who cares! I think that the UN is one of the biggest fraud networks in the world. Yes, they do good work, but, there resolutions are just totally crap. Plus its dictated by the victors of WWII. BTW, how come we dont have a pernament seat on the Security Council? The French do and they where on the Germans side!!! Anyway.

If you ask me, which you are, then I'd say the war was justified.

 

[Ziff]

Its a fact that Iraq did have WMD. Do you wanna know why? Its because the Yanks gave them the WMD. And dont say they used against Iran. The Iraqis had multi-million dollar weapons programs.

Ok-they didn't have UN backing. Who cares! I think that the UN is one of the biggest fraud networks in the world. Yes, they do good work, but, there resolutions are just totally crap. Plus its dictated by the victors of WWII. BTW, how come we dont have a pernament seat on the Security Council? The French do and they where on the Germans side!!! Anyway.

If you ask me, which you are, then I'd say the war was justified.

France was invaded by the Germans in 1940 who administered one part (upto Paris) and the other part of France and the colonies were administered by the Vichy government (a puppet government of the Nazis). France was not on the side of Germany, they were against Germany hence the Government-in-exile headed by Mr de Gaulle.

Anyway, you're stupid so your opinions don't count.

 

[thorrnydevil]

I know this, I do MH as well. Who was in-charge of France though? Mr. de Gaulle of the Vichy Government? I think you'll find it was the Vichy government. And I'm stupid am I? You dont even know me you dick head. FRANCE was on the side of the Germans. You just have to read some simple History books to get an idea. Or cant you read?

 

[Ziff]

If you ally with a country, you are on their side. If you are invaded, you are not on their side.

Simple question, was France opposed to Germany 1939 onwards? Yes, they were. Did they fight against Germany? Yes. Were they invaded? Yes.

Does being invaded mean you're on someone's side? No. It means you are invaded.

Add to this: were the French against Germany from WWI onwards because of a little thing called... WWI? Yes.

Why? Germany invaded France.

Are you stupid? Yes.

 

[thorrnydevil]

Yes, France was opposed to Germany from 1939 to 1940, which is when they where invaded and which is when they signed numerous non-agression pacts. If you dont know, a non-agression pact is a treaty --- BETWEEN ALLIES.

Am I stupid? No
Are you retarded? Yes and dont know what your talking about either

 

[Ziff]

No, the French were invaded. They signed an ARMISTICE with the Germans. There is a HUGE difference. This is an instrument of well basically capitulation, not a pact between two mates.

Read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_during_World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/blitzkrieg.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/fall_france_05.shtml
And any textbook.

If you need more information I'll be pleased to hand it to you. Or do you have an alternative view of history? Maybe one of fiction?

 

[leetom]

Jesus, this thread isn't even a day old and it's already got people abusing each other. Why do all threads in the News, Current Affairs & Politics forum always end like this?

Ah well, I'll still continue and thornydevil and ziff can fight it out as long as they want.

Thornydevil- you say Iraq had WMDs. That's true, there was at least one point in the last thrity years when Iraq had WMDs, but as it would seem, Iraq also got rid of EVERY SINGLE WEAPON at some point in the 90's. And that's why, I think Neo O, they were shipping out old missle casings. But you can't invade a country just because they USED to have WMDs.

The idea behind the United Nations was to prevent anything like WWI and WWII happening again. The original members was the U.K, U.S, France and Germany.

Oh yeah, even if the Iraqis did have WMDs, that's still not good enough a reason to invade. And don't tell me that Saddam could sell WMDs to terrorists, because we all know that that isn't true.

 

[Ziff]

Bah I don't even want to get started on the WMD debate. It's claimed way too many casualties from the Iraqi people to the BBC...

 

[Beaky]

Jesus, this thread isn't even a day old and it's already got people abusing each other. Why do all threads in the News, Current Affairs & Politics forum always end like this?

Topics in this thread involve arguments between two parties.

People can get passionate about what they believe in.

Simple.

 

[Gregor Samsa]

Yes, France was opposed to Germany from 1939 to 1940, which is when they where invaded and which is when they signed numerous non-agression pacts. If you dont know, a non-agression pact is a treaty --- BETWEEN ALLIES.

Am I stupid? No
Are you retarded? Yes and dont know what your talking about either

Perhaps you're confusing France with Russia, as Germany did indeed sign a non-aggression pact with Russia on August 23rd, 1939. However, none was signed in this period between France and Germany. Besides, Vichy France was an artifical coerced state ultimately occupied by the Germans in November 1942... So the nations were not then allies.