Tit-for-tat: Is The War Justified?

Post-9/11 Era Forum

Alright, we who have the capacity for rational thought are growing tired of the mindless objections and insults that have been flinging around this forum. Unless you have something sensible to contribute, don't even bother replying here as your post will be deleted.

I'ts time for some organized discussion. This forum is all over the map from religion to conspiracy to morals to flat out insulting behavor. So here's the deal. Let's make a structured case for both sides for and against. Post your outline version with justifications. I'm going to try to lay out all the primary points for each side here., if I miss something, just post about it and I'll add it to this top post here.

The subject is: justification supporting war vs justifications against war.


FOR:


1) U.N. resolution 1441 specifically authorized all member states to use all necessary means to enforce compliance, specifically noting the Iraq would face "serious consequences" which is a phrase not easily misconstrued since it was used in 1991 and authorized military action then the same as it authorizes military action now. Saddam Hussein & Iraq are in breach of resolution 1441 and each of the number of resolutions that it recalls and re-asserts by failure to comply unconditionally with the U.N. Security Council and under the posession of weapons of mass destruction which the U.N.S.C. has unanimously agree Iraq should not posess.

2) In America's "war on terror", possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in breach of U.N. resolutions is unacceptable given Saddam's history of supporting terrorist activity. "Support" comes in the form of financial aid, technical training, provision of supplies and harboring. Saddam's ability and inclination to support terrorism in these regards makes him a target.

Note that: America's intention of forcibly disarming Iraq is straightforward and accompanies displacement of the regime because the regime refuses to cooperate and fights to the "bitter end". The "bitter end" for them will result in their deaths and therefore will require a transitional government to be put in place in Iraq to restore a controlling body to the nation. The U.S. has ideas for a parliamentry style transitional government which is democratic in nature.


NOT FOR: (These are bogus reasons that supporters cite which are not legitimate justifications)


Saddam Hussein is evil, he gasses and kills his own people, he oppresses the people, he rapes and steals, misappropriates funds, he is a ruthless dictator who deserves to die. The starving people deserve freedom and women should be permitted to show their faces and be treated as equals. Iraqi freedom! Liberate Iraq!

There are several problems with this line of thinking. First and foremost, beyond ensuring compliance with international regulations, it is not the business of the U.S. or the U.N. what happens within their borders. As a "sovereign nation" they deal with their own problems and if the people feel the urge to overthrow their own government, more power to them, but it is not the responsibility of outside forces to see that it happens. Second, what your western beliefs lead you to think about "freedom", "all men created equal", women's rights, etc. are exactly that: western beliefs. Muslims have their own lifestyls, customs, beliefs and those should be respected with a hands-off policy. It is no one's place to tell them that women should be able to show their faces. It doesn't matter how evil or rotten or against your own views what goes on in that nation becomes. If it's within their borders and within international law, then it's their business, not yours. Make no mistake that Iraqi Freedom/Liberation is a potential positive result from the military action we are seeing here, but it is a mistake for the Bush administration and the media to present it as an objective/justification. It is not. There are dozens of countries around the world in equally poor condition and equally deserving of freedom/liberation and if the U.S. made it a goal to liberate them all, it would bankrupt itself, not to mention exhaust itself of soldiers and combat resources. It cannot be the goal of ALL and so should not be a goal for ANY.


AGAINST


(If I missed something, let me know and I'll add it here, these are just off the top of my head.)

1) The U.S. is acting unilaterally without specific authorization from the U.N. Security Council which the U.N. Charter requires before any action is taken and is therefore in breach of international law.

2) The U.S. Bush administration has too many ties to the oil industry and a history of "grabs" for oil in the middle east that strongly evidence that this war is strictly the latest grab for oil in a dirty political game.

3) The U.S. has a deplorable record of foreign affairs and should not be permitted to continue making mistakes that Americans pay for with tax dollars and with their lives.

4) The U.S. should keep its nose out of foreign affairs that don't concern it and should instead focus attention and spending domestically, close the borders to immigrants.

5) War on a Muslim nation can only serve to increase terrorism around the world and in the U.S. in a campaign that is supposed to be designed to reduce terrorism. Thus the war is counter productive to the causes which the Bush administration claims to pursue.

6) (mcbevin) This war, in violating international law and basing itself on the doctrine of pre-emption, sets a very dangerous precedent.

7) War should be a LAST resort after failed diplomacy. The U.S. did not give diplomacy enough of a chance and resorted to battle too quickly.


NOT AGAINST


There are no firmly established connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda. It is wrong to send soldiers in to kill innocent civilians when the U.S. is operating illegally and without just cause. The U.S. fully staged the 9.11.01 attacks in order to polarize the nation in support of U.S. intentions to take over the world. War is wrong! War is never the answer!

Whether Iraq has direct ties to Al Qaeda is irrellevant. The Bush Administration's mention of this was a move to rally public support drawing from public sentiments stemming from the 9.11.01 terrorist attacks, however it is not an actual reason behind the war in Iraq and if Al Qaeda is completely removed from the picture before the end of the situation, it does not diminish the importance or justification of military action. Whether or not the cause is just depends on whether it's legal. Whether it's legal is what should be established here. The lives of a few civilians, and those of a few soldiers, compared to the millions that are at stake in the bigger picture are not of consequence. The discussions about us staging attacks on 9.11.01, moves for world domination are officially "conspiracy theories". This is not to say that conspiracies never exist, this is not to say that this is definitely not a valid conspiracy, however most of the evidence pointing to this is circumstantial and is not irrefutable proof that this is the case. As such this argument should not be used as an argument against the war because it can not be proven at present. Most people realize that war is not the is not the epitome of world peace, but is sometimes a necessary evil. War is what happens when diplomacy fails, tensions escalate, consideration is given to a small, surgical strike and the situation is weighed with retalliation and backup and reinforcements and counter-attacks and so-on until ultimately: you end up with an all-out war to support your original, "surgical" operation. It happens. Nobody likes it, but if it is for the greater good, then so be it. You cannot make an argument on a war on the grounds that "all war is bad" because the human race is a dirty, greedy, evil one which will never cease to produce villains who require force to remove. This is where war comes from.

SO HAVE AT IT.

Again: do not bother replying here unless you have an intelligent response. People are growing sick & tired of slanderous insults and regular mindless drivel. Any bogus posts such as those will be deleted from this thread.

I thought that the primary goal of this war was fighting terrorism!!!Or that's what we were first told.
Then it was to "liberate Iraqis".
Then it is because USA feels unsecured with Iraq.
Then it was fo applyng a UN resolution, but against UN's will!
Now it is because Saddam is evil.


All reasons are good. None is available.
Sounds like Bush's administration tried vry hard tp justify this war.
Because all reason failed, they decided against all to go. Sounds like beeing a desperate move.

Oh yeah: I am a supporter for the reasons cited in the "FOR" section above. I do NOT agree with the thinking of the "NOT FOR" comments, including what you just mentioned: liberation/freedom.. and I find it disconcerting that the government would switch tracks on us in mid-conflict. Still they remain on target with the WMD and so long as they do I regard the rest as propaganda designed to rouse the support of the American people: it seems to have worked.

I will say this though: we'd BETTER DARN WELL find WMD in Iraq. If we do not, it will change the entire situation and make the oppositions' arguments incredibly strong.

Against:
Can a country decide alone and against UN to go to war because it FEELS unsecured by it? Isn't it a dangerous example for other countries, like India or Pakistan, for example?

URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2862343.stm


The US has named 30 countries which are prepared to be publicly associated with the US action against Iraq.
The state department says more countries have now announced concrete support for a possible US invasion of Iraq than during the first Gulf War.
And it says that there are an additional 15 countries which are providing assistance, such as over-flight rights, but which do not want to declare support.
We now have a coalition of the willing that includes some 30 nations



US Secretary of State Colin Powell



"I hope that they will all be able to do everything that is possible within their means to support the coalition militarily, diplomatically, politically and economically," US Secretary of State Colin Powell said.
The list includes countries which are providing troops, over-flight or basing rights, logistical support or assistance with reconstruction efforts.
But the state department admits that only a few of these countries are providing any major military presence in the Gulf, notably Britain and Australia.
Arab absence
And the list is most extraordinary for the countries that are left off - which include all of the Arab states, including those countries where US troops are massing for an invasion, like Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain.
With feelings running high in the Arab world against the possible invasion, presumably these countries felt it wise not to be publicly identified with the US action.
Nor is the main US ally in the Middle East, Israel, mentioned, although it is expected to provide at least air rights for US aircraft to strike Iraq.
And traditional US Arab allies, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, clearly did not want to associate themselves with military action against Saddam Hussein.
Range of support
State department spokesman Richard Boucher explained that the list included some countries, like Japan, which are only prepared to provide post-conflict financial support for the reconstruction of Iraq.
And it includes Turkey, which is still negotiating the extent of its involvement in any war.
Many of the countries on the list are from Eastern Europe, where countries like Romania are providing basing rights, while Poland has offered 200 troops and the Czech Republic is sending a chemical-biological warfare support unit.
It was not clear what support countries like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Bulgaria were providing to the US coalition, but many are seeking US financial or military support through Nato.
And the US had promises of support from some of the countries which are already involved in the war on terrorism, including Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Georgia, and the Philippines.
US image plummets
Meanwhile, a new poll by the Washington-based Pew Research Center indicates that the number of Europeans with a favourable image of the US has plummeted, even among the coalition of the willing.
In Italy, only 34% view the US positively, compared to 70% in 2002.
In Spain, only 14% have a favourable image.
That may explain why Italy and Spain, although strong supporters of diplomacy, are not sending troops to the Gulf.
And even in Eastern Europe, support for the US has dropped from 80% to 50% in Poland.
No-show neighbours
Notable for their absence from the state department list were a number of members of the Nato alliance, including Canada, Belgium, and Norway, as well as France and Germany.
And the US was surprisingly unsuccessful in gaining any allies in its traditional backyard of Latin America.
Only El Salvador, Nicaragua and Colombia - where the US is funding a huge anti-drugs war - were prepared to be identified with the US coalition.
The larger South American nations, like Argentina and Brazil, have followed the example of Mexico and Chile, who failed to back the US attempt to gain a second UN resolution.
And the only two African countries which are on the list, Ethiopia and Eritrea, are bitter rivals who are both seeking US support in a boundary dispute.


Full list of coalition countries:
Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.
Source: US State Department

Half of the countries you list on the bottom there we have liberated before now.....and now after all of this we can add Iraq to the list

The reason that humanitarian issues cannot be used as a reason for us to go to war is that we have such a strong hand in killing people all over the globe.

Not only did we supply Iraq with weapons when we knew he was killing his own civilians, but we supplied Turkey with 80% of the weapons that they used when they were busily slaughtering Kurds on their side of the border. Turkey has been just as, if not more, rough on the Kurds as Iraq has. However, Turkey is a U.S. ally, even if that alliance has been shaky these past few weeks, so you don't read about the genocide in Turkey unless you take it upon yourself to do some research. Turkey has effectively 'cleansed' thousands of Kurdish villages.

The Kurd/Iraqi conflict has a big name publicist. The U.S. gov't wants you to know about it to obtain your support against Iraq. Noone has any reason for you to know about what goes on in Turkey.

What's maddening is that this humanitarian disaster is much worse than what was happening with the whole Bosnia thing.

If you look at Indonesia's (backed by U.S. and U.K.) attack on East Timor, you will see terrible civilian massacres. The history of this same U.S.-backed army is spotted by the deaths of hundreds of thousands of peasants when it first took control of Indonesia. Even the CIA has compared the slaughter here to the crimes of Hitler.

Also consider this, concerning our treatment of Nicaragua:

How odd that you believe there needs to be a standard for what we do use as an excuse for when to go to war and when we don't. We have never had a clear standard before, why should we now? For the US to use a moral argument that we will improve the quality of life for the Iraqi people by removing an evil leader, does not say that this or that HAS to happen in the future.

Noone said the US has to be THE world police, we choose which battles we fight and why we want to fight them. Once this action is done, it does not automatically mean that there ever needs to be another action like this, that is your assumption only.

Also, I never said that the moral reason is the ONLY reason, but just one of the more compelling reasons we should go to war.

"Moralities are subject to interpretation where 8 times out of 10 are they are subject to religious doctrine. You may not impose your religious doctrine on a foreign people who will have nothing of it, period."

Religion has nothing to do with this. The world has defined evil acts and attrocities. The UN cites them in their mandates and there has been a clear history to back up what unacceptable behaviors are, and more commonly slaughtering innocent people at whim is not good policy anywhere.

Your arguments saying that the US has some responsibility in the acts done by Sadam is meaningless when basically every western nation has the same responsibility, and connection. Yet we are attempting to do something about it while many others are not.

As to the previous mentioned cases of attrocities in other countries around the world and at different times, I just have to point out the obvious. The US government's foreign policy is not exactly the same for every country for every similar situation around the world. If you want it to be, then lobby for it, but the problems in these other countries are very complex, and I really doubt we have the time nor energy to accurately recount every foreign policy decision here.

As you have already alluded to, we have limited resources and must choose our battles, but I just don't think we should choose a battle just because some law says so. There is discression in every law in the world, as there should be, and similar cases have different sentences laid down every day all around the world due to the "Vileness" of the act, history of the offender, or intentions of the act. If we only used laws to tell us when to go to war, THEN my friend we would really be in trouble and have a list a mile long.

I believe the people of the US have chosen that this is a just war based on more than a few laws, and I am not bible thumping, this has nothing to do with religion, but a set of world wide accepted standards of behavior that have been aggreed upon in principle; in doctorine through the UN, and are bred in the hearts of all men and women overriding the prejudices of country and religion.

I think that if you are going to legitimately justify this war to the rest of the world in such a way that they can understand it, that it must be on some legal ground, not a moral one. Everyone around the world has different values, some of which are quite different from what we here in the U.S. have & enjoy. If we were to base this war on moral objections, then others around the world would have reason to fear the U.S. by questioning, "are we next?" What would prevent the "morality enforcers" from rolling over anyone with whom they disagree? And if we were to respond to their question with, "oh no, not you..", we begin to build this image of hypocrisy for ourselves - a two-faced nature that is unpredictable and dangerous to have around.

You're right: we choose our battles. There does not need to be a "standard" by which we choose them, however there should probably be some standard form of compliance that makes sense on an international level that other nations would agree with as being a valid template for military combat. Perhaps that's just too idealistically far-fetched. Perhaps it exists and is called the United Nations. Whichever the case we really need it working for us before we go pissing off the entire globe because these days it seems like we're just about the only ones who agree with ourselves..

I think an important thing to remember is this: no one can fight your battles for you. If we go into Iraq with the midset that we are to "liberate" them, we will very simply and quite thuroughly cause an entire nation (Iraq)to become dependent upon us. I hold in high regard the altruistic instinct that urges people to reach out and help those in need, however, we must be careful not to overstep our bounds. Yes, Saddam is a dictator, and yes, he is most likely a mean and vicious person, but to what extent is killing him adressing the symptom and not the problem? just something to consider......

excuse the spelling i type poorly

First of all, excuse my english. It´s my second language and I´m still learning it.

Second, I AM AGAINST THE WAR. I believe that this war will make the world a place more insecure to live than it was before the conflict started. The reason? Simple: violence generates more violence. Maybe Saddam´s ruling will end and the iraki people would be "freed"... but democracy it´s not an exportable institution. It cannot be implanted by the force because it´s against its principles. The U.S. government is commiting the paradox of imposing an institution that persuits the agreement and consense by the utilization of coaction and violence. That is my principal reason to oppose the U.S. and British invasion (with the support of another dozens countries under the title of 'Coalition'). My other reasons? This war is for the oil; it´s to gain the geopolitic control of the Middle East for the benefit of Israel; it´s for the industrial-military (to make them money).

So dear americans, ask these questions:

In terms of security, your lives will be more peaceful? Or you will live in perpetual paranoia every time you travel by plane or you get into the subway and see a muslim seated by yourself?

Who will have the most economic benefit after the conflict ends? I ask myself if that would be you (the common citizen), who will suffer the consequences of a deficiatary budget in astronomic proportions? Or will be the indsutrial-military complex, the oil companies, the jude financial sector or the companies implied in the reconstruction of Irak (ask U.S. vicepresident)?

Why doesn´t the Bush administration do anything in North Korea? They also have an oppresor government and weapons of mass destruction (like atomic bombs).

Are you certainly sure that there´s a connection between Saddam Husein and Osama Bin Laden? Aren´t they enemies? If the connection exists, where are the probes?

If your neighbour´s wife is beaten by him, what do you do? Would you call the police and leave to them the solution of that conflict? Or would you take out your gun, go to your neighbour´s home, force him to leave the house and find a new husband (the one YOU think it´s the best) for the poor and oppressed woman?

What are "mass destruction weapons"? Let me rephrase: Didn´t atomic bombs were weapons that killed thousands of humans, destroy every building in a radius of 15 miles and were only used with that purposes only two times in the history of the Earth by the U.S. army? I say this because one of the many reasons (they are so much that confuses me) that the Bush administration gave to enter this beligerant conflict was the purpose of desarm iraki´s arsenal of mass destruction weapons. In that case, what about U.S. and its atomic arsenal? Don´t forget that the only country in the history of the world who have used the worst weapon of mass destruction was... U.S., killing thousands of civil and indefense people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when there were other alternatives to end the war with Japan. We can discuss that topic, but first I recommend to everyone who´s interested to read the book "The decision to use the atomic bomb" written by Gar Alperovitz.

What does "liberation" means? If it means killing thousands of civilians, destroying ancient cities where the human civilization was spawned, to then implant by the use of the force a democratic regime, reconstruct the destroyed buildings and elaborate new trade agreements concerning about that scarceful natural good known as oil? If someone that I don´t know, that is a total stranger for me, from another culture, country, religion and institutional traditions comes to my home and says that my father is oppresing me and the rest of my family, and his here to liberate me because I can do anything, and then he attacks physically my father´s humanity without concerning the harms that makes to me, my brothers, my mother and my pets, and also destructs the kitchen, blows the living room, demolish the bathrooms and sets fire to my garden. If that happens, I will hate him and I will not be friendly with him never. He could reconstruct my house, buy me new pets and find my mother a husband that he thinks is proper and decent enough without concerning the opinion of me and my family. I will hate him for the simply reason that my home is my home, and the problems inside it concern to the members of my family. And if we can´t do anything against my father´s oppresive ruling, maybe the police and the court can, obviuosly based on previous elaborated laws that, in my case, say that the use of the force is the last action to take.

What does "serious consequences" means? I ask this because if the most common organization who threatens a person or a groups of persons using expressions "pay or face serious consequences" -or the most classic "do that or else"- and then using physical coaction is the mob, this means that the United Nations has a mobbish attitude to its policy to resolve international conflicts (even if they aren´t no international).

Well, I can ask dozens of questions more... but I think it´s enough for today. Please don´t feel that I´m menacing or attacking the U.S. people. I´m against a reactionary government who won the elections not by the popular vote, who has liquify billions in the NYSE, who has lead his country to an economic recession which resulted in an increase of the unemployment indicator, and who has also stopped the redistributing policy made by the Clinton administration by lowering the taxes to the richier ones. I hope that someone can answer my question in a reasonable mode, using argumentative reasons based on solid information. Goodbye.

Alejandro Connolly

Just to finish up on a point I made yesterday (on 'the danger that this war may encourage other countries to try to obtain WMDs as a deterrant from US attack'), when I referenced a report regarding WMD profliferation but I couldn't remember where I got it from. I've found it now -

Vice Admiral Lowell E. Jacoby, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, testified on Feb. 11, 2003, "The long-term trends
with respect to WMD and missile proliferation are bleak. States seek
these capabilities for regional purposes, or to provide a hedge to deter
or offset U.S. military superiority."
http://traprockpeace.org/usefulquotesoniraq.html

Heres a gem of a quote which I think should decide the issue of resolution 1441 once and for all -

John Negroponte, U.S. Ambassador to the UN, urging support for Resolution 1441, quoted in Los Angeles Times, November 8, 2002:

"There's no 'automaticity' and this is a two-stage process, and in that regard we have met the principal concerns that have been expressed for the resolution." He added: "Whatever violation there is, or is judged to exist, will be dealt with in the [Security] Council, and the Council will have an opportunity to consider the matter before any other action is taken."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...raq8nov08.story
http://hnn.us/articles/1326.html

Can I make this point any clearer?

So people can fight the meaning of that resulation 1441, but don´t use those moral aspects for justification of this war. You should remember, when in 70´s red hmers killed over million of people in Kambodia. It stopped when Vietnam occupied the country. And by the western countries Security Council condemns that occupation. So thats for the moral justification.

1 point for Vepsu. (although the US never supported Vietnam's action)

Bebert, you are absolutely right. After the war in Iraq that problem should be resolved. If US don´t do anything to oppress Israeli goverment to agree to create the nation of Palestine. The Arabic nations will never trust US again. Since 1967 Israel has broken UN resolutions dozens of times and if US don´t do anything it claridies that US is following double standarts.

Why should we have to depend on countries such as France, Russia, China or Germany when it comes to our national security and interest. Diplomacy failed the day France said they would veto any resolution that included force. There was no middle ground there. There was no need for an 18th Resolution, Sad**** was in material breach.... he was hiding, playing games, deceiving, and making a mockery of the world as he had been doing for more than at least a decade. Why would France or Germany or Russia agree to use force against a country that they were in business with? No you in America said anything about France and its military affairs in Africa.
Our national interest and the security or Americans is what we should be concerned with, not whether or not the French or Germans or Chinese or the Russians to tell us what is best for us.