Why the Invasion of Iraq couldn't have been justified:

This has got 152 replies on another board:


1. Was there any evidence of WMD in Iraq??

The responses: How can you believe he doesn't have them? He's had them before.... We found a tiny vial of Reisin (or whatever it was). Purely speculative (apart from the last one which isn't evidence of a central WMD programme.)

So at face value & without any guesswork etc.... & answering the question directly.

Is there any evidence of WMD in Iraq??

Answer = No.

Hence the war could not possibly be fully justified regarding this question.

2. Does he sponsor terrorism?

Here is a state that isn't highly recognised as having sponsored state terrorism.

So just on face value:

Is there any evidence they have sponsored state terrorism??

Little if any. I think the most concrete was that guy who met Al-Queda concerning the 11th Sept 2001 attacks on the US. That guy has been shot by Saddam however.

Are there other 'rogue states' with more evidence of state sponsored terrorism??

Nearly all of them. Libya for example sponsored the IRA and 4 large terrorist attacks across the globe.

Hence - attacking them for terrorist reasons is not fully justified.

3. Were you on a mission of liberation?

Randall is one of the few ppl that gets that liberation wasn't in the primary mission statement. The blueprint for the war was in fact drawn up in 1997 by the PNAC & there is no mention there.

So - liberation is an added benefit?? Sure, but since the other 2 reasons weren't fully justified this is kind of clutching at straws in an attempt to justify the invasion.

Purely on face value, Iraq produced university level students.

All of the houses & hospitals that the US are rebuilding were there before they bombed them.

The Mass Grave victims date from 1983 - 1991.

There are people in far more need of liberation than Iraq.


So - in conlcusion, the war wasn't fully justified - which a war has to be in my book.

So: There was another motive. Sure the Moveon ppl may have dropped the argument for No war for Oil. However that is because this startegy wouldn't connect with the US people - being so dependent on oil as they are. They would have to get rid of all their SUV's if oil prices were to rise due to uncertainty in the region. The first analysis of the Libya situation on a US news channel was how the US might be able to get some of their oil.

Why was Dick Cheney's ex-firm given $5 billion in contracts?

Is there a religious aspect to this?? After all, the man put in charge on hunting Bin Laden thinks he is on a mission from Christ:

Bush appointed General William Boykin, who speaks at evangelical Christian meetings, to head the hunt for Osama bin Laden. Boykin once said the war on terror was a fight against Satan, and also told a Somali warlord that, 'My God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol.'

This quote is easy to dig up on google.

Also, Bush is fighting an axis of evil. This was reported in an Israeli newspaper:

"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."


So..... Why did Bush really attack Iraq??

see the moral question post now mike. wmd's or not the analogy in that gives them as good a reason as any if u ask me.

it does not. you cant compare such a thing. also, look at my reply in your morals topic

you can really. weapons or not theres no denyign he was killing scores and scores of his own people and generally doing nothing good for anyoen but himself and his family.

if ur going to help someone getting attacked out on the street then u should be hel-ign countries with their people getting attacked on an international scale.

Look at my explanation of the liberation aspect above.

Yes, and there still is no proof that Bush actually said this. I saw an interview and the answers came straight fromt the horse's mouth. Anything else could just be propaganda.

They interviewed Bush on a television show here about two weeks ago. When asked about the WMD's all he would say is something along the lines of, "We took a dictator out of power, therefore helping the people of Iraq." I am sure there has to be a transcript of it floating around the internet somewhere.

He totally dodged the question each time it was asked, which was about five different times in total. His frustration was obvious.

The problem with helping out every country that we feel is being oppressed is that there's no way to stop. To carry the liberation to its final conclusion, we'd have to liberate China, Russia, Mexico, all of the South American countries, etc. But we won't do that will we? We pretty much backed down to North Korea since they have nukes, we won't go anywhere near China and Russia.

Helping a person getting attacked in the street is a personal decision. If you want to risk your safety to help someone else, go for it. If you don't want to, and can live with not helping them, that's your choice. The problem with a state attacking another country to "help" them is that 1.) they're going to injure a lot of innocent people, probably some of the ones they're trying to liberate, whereas beating 2 muggers down in the street produces a level of zero collateral damage and 2.)in order to wage war, you're going to need to force your citizens to pay for something they don't want, at gunpoint if neccessary. If you want to raise a coalition of people who want to attack Iraq, and have completely private funding, go for it. I don't want to, and shouldn't be forced to through taxes. The government will put me (or would if I payed taxes yet) in jail if I refuse to pay taxes in protest of the war, if I don't want to pay for the murder of innocent people, the government will either threaten me with force in order to remove my money, or they'll throw me in jail and take my money from me any way. If a private entity tried to do this, it'd be a felony called theft. Taxation is theft, plain and simple, and the people that commit it are sanctioned by law. It forces me (or it will) and millions like me to become in a war we find morally abhorent.

Go ahead, help someone being attacked in a street, but don't force others at gunpoint to help, or should I say, fight for you. That's an even worse crime than you'd be fighting.

Adrian

u pay taxes regardless of what it goes towards. no one wants to pay the,m btu lets face it we'd all be up shit creek if we didn't.

basically u dont have a choice of what u pay taxes for but u have a choice who decides what ur tax goes towrads ie the government u vote in. so go and vote, if the government u disagree with gets in it means that most people who have bothered their arse to go out and vote have said yeah we want them in.

Lol - I can see what the next post will be:

not too hard to guess eh mike?

lets face it. u dont get away with rigging elections in countries like ours.