The Instigator
Lordknukle
Con (against)
Losing
26 Points
The Contender
TheHitchslap
Pro (for)
Winning
31 Points

Resolved: On balance, the United States was justified in going to war with Iraq

Do you like this debate?NoYes+11
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 17 votes the winner is...
TheHitchslap
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/16/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,000 times Debate No: 24744
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (46)
Votes (17)

 

Lordknukle

Con

As per a forum request, I herby formally challenge the views of my oppoent.

The resolution is stated above.

The BOP is on my opponent to prove why intervening was justified, which he shall begin in Round 1. To prevent a disadvantage, my opponent cannot post anything short of a rhetorical statement for the last round.

Justified- Legally, economically, morally, or politically correct.

Good luck!
TheHitchslap

Pro

My BOP is to show that Iraq was justified politically, morally, economically, and perhaps legally. I hereby declare that I will show morally through Jeremy Bentham's Utilitarianism (greatest good for the greatest amount of people) and that of the "ends justify the means" (consequential), politically through the regimes gross misconduct of human rights abuses, and legally through a rough outline of the Just War Theory and Iraq's violations of the UN's Declaration of Human Rights. I refuse to go into economics as it is too ambiguous. I agree to terms.

Utilitarianism: Greatest good for greatest amount of people.[1]
Under the Saddam regime (Iraqi Ba'ath Party) gross crimes against humanity were committed. Under the Al-Anfal Campagin, Kurds, Jews, Assyrians, and others were killed off in an attempt for so-called 'Arabization'.[2] Even worse, statistically approx. 50-100k of people were murdered of whom all were non-combatants.[3] 4,000 villages were destroyed, 250 were gassed to the point of no longer being inhabitable.[4] Destroyed 1,754 schools, 270 hospitals, 2,450 mosques, 27 churches and wiped out around 90% of Kurdish villages in targeted areas.[5] This is not only including what the Economist describes as ""one of the last of the 20th century's great dictators, but not the least in terms of egotism, or cruelty, or morbid will to power" as well as �Human Rights Watch�and�Amnesty International�issued regular reports of widespreadimprisonment�and torture of Iraqi people.[6] Thus, we can deduce that the American soldiers served the interests of the Kurds, the Iraqi people themselves, the Jews, and anyone else involved in said disgusting conduct. Under utilitarianism the act of intervention is thus just and the resolution is weakened. No one was limited to the killings of the Ba'ath Party, the loss of American troops at 4,487� does not even come close to the death and misery Saddam caused and can thus be seem as just.[7]

Ends Justify the Means:
To be noted: Iraq voted in a Kurdish minority in their democracy, something the Us failed to do until 2008. Thus in 2005 Iraq did something rather rapidly that took the US another 3 to be able to do.[8] Also just a thought, I shall admit no proof has been shown but interestingly enough the Iraqi invasion ceased in 2011, yet Arab Springs hit the news in 2010. As a political science major I find this rather interesting because with Iraq along with Afghanistan both being liberated I predict part of the Arab Spring was formed because of an 'enlightenment' -in other words- other countries looked toward what was happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, liked it, and wanted the same thing (or at least idea). Sounds like a bit of a stretch? It isn't, historically speaking the same thing happened in France with the invention of the printing press, spreading humanism everywhere.

Legally Part 1:
The UN very clearly states Article 2 of the 1949 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines Genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". In December 2005 a�court�in The Hague ruled that the killing of thousands of Kurds in Iraq in the 1980s was indeed an act of genocide.�The�Dutch�court said that it was considered "legally and convincingly proven that the Kurdish population meets the requirement under the Genocide Conventions as an�ethnic group. The court has no other conclusion than that these attacks were committed with the intent to destroy the Kurdish population of Iraq." [9] Also very important is Iraq's involvement with Terrorism both before and during the war. Although most people believe nothing was connected with Al-Qaeda to justify an invasion, they did form during the invasion in 2003.[10] Thus, the Ba'ath party had allies with Al-Qaeda's subdivision for Iraq specifically during the invasion before the fall of the regime. Furthermore, the founder was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi whom before the invasion was actually FUNDED by Osama Bin Laden [11]. Saddam also supported �Mujahadeen-e-Khalq�and the�Kurdistan Workers' Party�, along with Hamas, and several Palestinian splinter groups, all terrorist organizations.[12]

Although short and sweet, I am far too curious to hear what my opponent will use as a defence to my arguments and attempt to hold up the resolution. I have filled my BOP thus far, and I shall expand on my arguments later.

Sources:
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]Ibid
[4]Ibid
[5]Ibid
[6]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[8]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[10] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[12] http://www.cfr.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Lordknukle

Con

I thank my opponent for his arguments.

I would like to note that both my opponent and I have stipulated to only include the legal and moral sections in this debate, mostly the moral.

Moral

In this section, my opponent argues for intervention due to utilitarianistic.

I attempt to refute why utilitarianism should not be used in this context and use the NAP instead.

Refutation: Utilitarianism

Observation 1: My opponent does not support Saddam Hussein's killings- which means that he believes in an objective right to life

My opponent's main case rests upon that Hussein killed his own people- which was unjust- and therefore intervention on utilitarianistic grounds should be used.

However, by acknowledging that killing is inherently bad in Iraq, he cannot double back and say that some killings were justified to prevent others. Utilitarianism states that rights are not objective- but are subject to whatever creates the greatest amount of happiness in a society; an objective right to life supersedes this.

Furthermore, my opponent is only using utilitarianism one way, in the sense that American intervention was justified because it created the greatest amount of happiness. However, utilitarianism can also be used to acknowledge that the massacre of the Kurds were justified in the eyes of the Iraqis since they were a minority, and majority will of the Iraqis should be taken due to utilitarianistic reasons (1).

As Williams writes in his critique of utilitarianism:

"There is a small minority in a country. The majority doesn't like the minority. They are prejudiced against them. So they decide it would be best to wipe them out... It could be possible that wiping out the minority (if it is sufficiently small in number) might actually bring about the greatest consequences...So their feelings about injustice are discounted, and they are wiped out." (2)

Therefore, my opponent here has a contradiction, in which he believes that the killings of the Kurds are objectively wrong (hence supports right to life), while he advocates a utilitarianistic point of few that deprives American soldiers of their own objective right to life.

Observation 2: My opponent fails to mention that Utilitarianism is forward looking (3)

What this means is that we adopt a utilitarianistic point of view, we should only look at present events and see how our actions will effect future events- past events have no play in this since they already happened.

The atrocities that my opponent listed happened between 1986 and 1989. I would like to point out that none of these genocidal acts that my opponents stipulates to justify intervention happened within a decade of the Iraq War invasion. As such, invading a country for acts that already happened under the pre-tense of the "end justifies the means" is nonsensical- since utilitarianism only cares about future effects of your actions.

In fact, Hussein committed very few genocides/atrocities within a decade before the invasion (4).

For my opponent to justify this point, he must show that Hussein had an inclination to continue on committing these killings- despite a 10 year stagnation- and that the Iraqi casualties of the war would dwarf Hussein's killings, which leads me to my next point.


Point 1: The Iraq War was responsible for the indirect and direct killing of 655 000 Iraqis (5)


As CNN writes (5):

"War has wiped out about 655,000 Iraqis or more than 500 people a day since the U.S.-led invasion, a new study reports.

Violence including gunfire and bombs caused the majority of deaths but thousands of people died from worsening health and environmental conditions directly related to the conflict that began in 2003, U.S. and Iraqi public health researchers said."

My opponent talks about how only 4 000 US soldiers died, but neglects the fact that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died during the war. For the "end justifies the means" argument to be valid, my opponent must prove that the possible future deaths of Saddam Hussein's regime would have totaled more than about 650 000.

Note: This study was taken in 2006 so the death toll surely increased by now.

Moral Argument Summary

1. My opponent has a contradiction in which he argues against a right to life in one area- the killing of US soldiers, but states that the genocide was "disgusting conduct" and with a negative connotation of objective wrong doing- in other words supporting the right to life.

2. My opponent mentions these genocides that occurred but fails to mention that they happened more than a decade before the Iraqi War and they were not continuing on until any time near the Iraqi War. Thus, utilitarianism does not apply in this regard since it is solely forward-looking.

3. I presented empirical evidence that shows that the amount of Iraqi deaths in the war total hundreds of thousands. For his utilitarianistic point to be accurate, my opponent must show empirical evidence that if Hussein's regime was undisturbed, it would have killed more than 650 000 people- despite not participating in any genocides for over ten years before the war.

My opponent also talks about how Iraq voted in a Kurdish minority, which is absolutely irrelevant.

Moral Counter-Argument

I propose the NAP (Non-aggression principle) as the counter moral argument for this debate. I don't have room to elaborate, but my opponent must rebut why the NAP ought to not be used in this situation along with defending his utilitarianistic point.

Legal Rebuttal

- My opponent states that the war was justified because the UN called it a genocide. This does not follow from his original point. The proclamation of genocide is simply a positive point. On the other hand, my opponent somehow infers a normative point from this with no rationale whatsoever.

- Something being listed as a "genocide" in no way justifies intervention unless specific directly within a legal document- which it isn't in the US.

- According to UK lawyers, the Iraqi War was illegal (6):

"The 2003 invasion of Iraq was illegal, a former senior legal adviser to Britain's foreign ministry at the time of the conflict has told a public inquiry.

Michael Wood said on Tuesday that the use of force against Iraq was "contrary to international law" because it had not been authorised by the UN Security Council."

Since the war from the US side was not authorized by the UN Security Council, the war can be argued as internationally unjust, since by participating in the UN, you are supposed to abide by its protocol.


Sources

(1)http://en.wikipedia.org...

(2) http://www2.drury.edu...

(3)http://www.religiouseducation.co.uk...

(4)http://civilliberty.about.com...

(5)http://articles.cnn.com...

(6)http://www.aljazeera.com...

TheHitchslap

Pro

I thank my opponent for his arguments too.
I agree with my opponent ... from here on in only mortality and legality shall be debated.

::Moral
Very short and sweet argument. NAP (Non-aggression principal) is actually based off of concequentialism AND utilitarianism by philosophers such as: David Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich Hayek[1] . Also NAP believes in aggression for self defence and defence of others.[2] As I have shown and my opponent has acknowledged Saddam was a genocidal maniac, thus my opponent has not only dropped this point but actually AGREES with me. I therefore ask for a point, and maintain that morally the resolution is thus negated. Also my opponents point is flawed: as I have shown in previous arguments the Iraqi's have ::VOTED IN A MINORITY PRESIDENT WHO SUPPORTS KURDISH RIGHTS. Thus his maintaining that killing Kurds to maintain happiness for Iraqi's is absurd and a lie, not only that but that was for the happiness of the Saddam Regime; much fewer people in the government than that of civilians. So therefore, he not only agrees with me, but Utilitarianism still stands as well as legitimate in every way shape and form.

:: Genocide In Saddam's Iraqi
All bable and lies. First, from February 11-15 of 2002, Iraqi held a human rights expert. In his report he stated: "reported allegations of gross human rights abuses in Iraq, including summary executions; arbitrary arrest, systematic torture 'in its most cruel forms'; coercion by means of reprisals against a family members; and mass discrimination regarding access to food supplies and health care"[3] Thus, meaning conspiracy to commit genocide and thus leading me to my next point! Yes he was inclined to continue those acts of 'Arabization'. From 1991-1998 during the 1991 rebellion researcher Richard Garfield estimates total child deaths alone at 227,000 as a result of all causes including sanctions.[4] Furthermore, many estimate that Saddam has caused the deaths of over 800,000 people in his regime.[5] This is NOT including the use of rape as a political tool, Kurds not being able to have a job and living in barbed wire and unsanitary conditions, all other forms of torture, the insecurities of believing friends and family may potentially be Iraqi secret police, Iran-Iraq War, and the invasion of Kuwait.[6] Thus, I not only met but excelled my burden of proof, and the resolution is again negated. These taking place in the 90's.

To recap:
Genocides were committed in the 90's, thus my opponent actually lied to the audience!
My opponent claims I must excel 650 thousand people (due to Iraq War) to meet BOP, I have done so as the Saddam Regime killed millions, never mind rape, torture, consistent degrading, and insecurities caused.
NAP is utilitarian thus he agrees with me, and it is also accepted in defence of another. Again, agreed. Point please :)
If the Iraqi's voted in a Kurdish minority for President they could not possibly have been happy to support such executions under the Saddam Regime, thus making it relevant.
Gross misconduct of human rights even went into 2002.

::Legal rebuttal
Again short and sweet. United Nations Resolution 260 (III) signed December 9th, 1948 Titled: Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 1 clearly states
"The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish" [7] As shown before, Saddam did commit a genocide even acknowledged by my opponent, and thus the legality is all within that article. Sanctions did not work, people were still being killed, and thus the US was legally obligated to intervene. Over 142 states have ratified it and thus was a just action to go into Iraq. Iraq signed in Jan 20, 1959 ... showing they knew they were going to be criminally responsible and the US signed in Dec 11, 1948. [8]

The resolution is defeated, the Iraq War was justified.

Sources:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] Ibid
[3] http://www.policyalmanac.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] Ibid
[7] http://www.hrweb.org...
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Lordknukle

Con

I thank my opponent for his arguments.

Also, I would like to politely ask my opponent to refrain from saying "point please" and the like, since that is likely annoying for the readers and detracts from the main message.

Moral

What is the NAP?

My opponent claims that the NAP is justified based on utilitarian grounds and therefore it plays right into his arguments. He is wrong in three main ways:

1. My opponent is wrong in that the NAP is justified solely on utilitarian/consequentialist grounds. In fact, it can also be justified based on Argumentation Ethics, Natural Rights, and Social Contracts. In reality, it really doesn't matter which of these justifies the actual principle (even utilitarianism), since the actual principle remains the same. It's pretty clear that through context, I was not justifying it through utilitarianism.

2. Even if I was to justify it via utilitarianism, it would actually produce that opposite result from what my opponent has implied.

"Some advocates base the non-aggression principle on rule utilitarianism or rule egoism. These approaches hold that though violations of the non-aggression principle cannot be claimed to be objectively immoral, adherence to it almost always leads to the best possible results, and so it should be accepted as a moral rule." (1)

In other words, justifying the NAP through utilitarianism would mean that the Iraq War was not justified since it is the initiation of coercion and force against those who have not used coercion and force against yourself.

3. The NAP states that violence is justified in self-defence of yourself, not of self defence of others. The Iraqi government was violating the rights of Iraqis but did not initiate force or coercion against the US, therefore not justifying aggression. (1)

Kurdish Government

This point is really irrelevant. Like I previously said, utilitarianism is forward looking. The Kurdish government was elected in 2005, while the genocides that my opponent listed happened in the 1980's. An analogy of this would be:

Let's take Nazi Germany. During the Jewish purges, it is safe to say that the majority of Germans wanted the Jews out of Germany and even dead- mostly influenced by the propaganda of Hitler's regime. Therefore, at this point, the purges were utilitarianisticly justified since they produced the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people (the Jews only occupied 0.2% of Germany's population). However, if 20 years later Germany elects a Jewish Prime Minister, it says nothing about the morality of the actions that happened two decades ago and whether they were justified using utilitarianism.

Human Rights Violations in 2002?

My opponent claims that Iraq held a humans right expert that concluded that Iraq was violating human rights. Of course, this is completely irrelevant considering my previous points, but it is necessary to rebut this.

The source that my opponent used stated this:

"2002 February 11-15 - For the first time since 1992, Iraq hosts a UN human rights expert. During the preceding years, the international community documented and reported allegations of gross human rights abuses in Iraq, including summary executions; arbitrary arrest, systematic torture 'in its most cruel forms'; coercion by means of reprisals against a family members; and mass discrimination regarding access to food supplies and health care. " (2)

The same source that my opponent used to state that the attacks are ongoing stated that "during the preceding years...." In other words, the claim that Iraq was violating human rights at that time is false, going by my own opponent's sources. It merely states that Iraq violated human rights in the past, which was already concluded in the previous rounds.

Took place in the 90's or the 80's?

In the previous round, my opponent was talking solely about the Al-Anfal campaign. Now, he has changed his dialect towards a later time frame. However, this point is easily rebutted by my "utilitarianism is forward looking" point since the time frame does not matter, as long as it were in the past and it has stopped. The genocides could have happened 1 second before the invasion and as long as they stopped, they would not be utilitarianisticly justified. My opponent has failed to show the burden of proof that they were ongoing towards the invasion, and thus has not addressed my point.

650 thousand deaths?

My opponent claims that he proved that over 650 000 Iraqis were killed during Saddam human rights abuses- in the 80's and the 90's. Clearly, my opponent did not understand my argument. My argument with the 650 000 killed had absolutely nothing to do with the previous human rights abuses during Saddam's reign. As I stated in my "utilitarianism is forward-looking" argument, the previous abuses were completely irrelevant to the justification. I showed statistics that proved that because of the Iraqi invasion, about 650 000 people died. To rebut this point, my opponent must prove that these casualties would have been caused without the invasion from 2003 (when the war was started) until 2006 (when the article was published). My opponent has failed to meet the BOP for this.

Legal

UN Resolution

My opponent claims that since these acts of genocide happened, according to the resolution, they should have been prevented. However, my opponent is wrong on two grounds:

1. The war was not enacted due to human rights abuses- instead it was enacted due to President Bush supposedly thinking that there were WMDs in Iraq and that Iraq was affiliated with 9/11. (3)

2. In the UN Resolution that my opponent sourced, it does not state that war will be justified for genocide. Instead, it states that the leaders shall be tried for their crimes:



Article 5

The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3.


Article 6


Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction. (4)

Basically, a whole-out war is not necessarily needed according to the UN resolution, similarly to how a whole-out war with Pakistan was not needed to kill Osama Bin Laden.



Legality of the War

My opponent has failed to address my point that the war was illegal by UN standards and therefore counts as a concession.

Summary:

Drops/Concessions:

1. My opponent did not at all address my point about utilitarianism denying any objective right to life. In the first round, my opponent advocated for this right to life, with a clear contradiction from the moral system that he was using.

2. My opponent did not at all address perhaps my strongest point in that "Utilitarianism is forward looking;" past events should not be taken into regard. During this round, my opponent has still used this faulty reasoning for attempted justification, which I pointed out above.

3. My opponent did not at all address the fact that the Iraq War was illegal since it was not passed through the UN Security Council before enactment and invasion.


Sources



(1)http://en.wikipedia.org...

(2)http://www.policyalmanac.org...

(3)http://en.wikipedia.org...

(4)http://www.hrweb.org...




TheHitchslap

Pro

I apologize for my arrogance, however me and Lordknukle are rivals, and for that I thank him for his arguments, but I must ask him to quit eluding my points with generalizations and get to the core criticisms of my arguments.

NAP rebuttal:
My opponent claims Utilitarianism is not used within NAP, despite me listing off 3 separate philosophers -experts within their fields if you will- he has no counters from other experts, only just HIS ideas. I thus extend my arguments within this regard.

Second my opponent raises only one valid point: that in very rare circumstances is consequentialism beneficial for the NAP. I have shown the liberation of Kurds, Jews, Assaryians, and even the Iraqi people themselves due to this aggression, and the President being voted in as a minority proving it justified. The BOP here is now onto my opponent to show otherwise, something he has failed to do.

Third, he uses the exact same source I used, which clearly states "the non-aggression principle does not preclude violence used in self-defense or defense of others." Thus he legitimizes my argument and makes his a dropped point. I extend my arguments, specially because a one Mr Walter Block also furthers this within his article �"The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism (LewRockwell.com, February 17, 2003).

Kurds rebuttal:
My opponent contradicts himself. IF utilitarianism is forward looking then the point IS relevant. How could he state that it is forward looking yet the Iraqi's themselves voting in a Kurdish President is not valid? It was the signal of great change and a bright future for the Iraqi people. How about a more objective statement instead of an analogy. The key player here is Hitler versus Saddam in popularity. The difference is Saddam took over via coup(implying unpopular .. or not enough populism to justify a totalitarian control) , whereas Hitler had the permission of the German people to lead Nazi Germany, BIG DIFFERENCE! Furthermore, my opponent makes a claim of over 20 years difference, yet the newly elected government was in 2005 and in 2004 Saddam was toppled. Thus, it is close enough in time to justify making a statement that this was what Iraqi's actually wanted and have come a long way in a short period of time. My opponent fails again, even if popularity dictates that morally the Jews were out the door, as I have shown the US, Soviets, Canada, UK, Australia, et cetera were all justified to invade Germany because 1) Hitler wanted to 'cleanse' all of Europe, and 2) under NAP it was for the protection of the Jews thus being legitimate. Lord Knukle .. are you a Nazi sympathizer?

Human rights 2002:
My apologies, I used the wrong source
http://jama.jamanetwork.com...

"Nearly half of participating households in 3 southern cities in Iraq reported human rights abuses among household members between 1991 and 2003"

Complete with graphs and surveys .. thus Human Rights Abuses were very much live and active until 2003.

Utilitarianism forward looking rebuttal:
(see above with Kurdish argument)
Furthermore, although no one can prove what place Saddam was looking to attack next, I shall show something of interest to the audience. The accusation of WMD's. He stated before his death that he wanted the world to think he had WMD's. Meaning: he wanted a fight, he wanted to look mean and nasty, this can also be furthered with the filming of his coup. Thus meaning 2 things 1) yes, he was going to continue the attacks and out-intimidate his opponents and 2) he attacked Iran (for nukes) with US support I shall shamefully admit. However, if we funded him should we not have the responsibility to get rid of him as well? This also refutes my opponents claim, that he fully well intended to continue such nastyness in International Politics, thus assisting my argument of Utilitarianism.
http://www.foxnews.com...
I have met the BOP for this, his human rights alone before the invasion was enough, never mind the non-killing's and never mind the wars he caused.

Legal:

1) even in his same source it clearly states the following:
"Other proclaimed�reasons for the invasion�included Iraq's financial support for the families of�Palestinian�suicide bombers,Iraqi government�human rights�abuses,and an effort to spread�democracy�to the country". - http://en.wikipedia.org... Thus making his point bull-and-void as he agrees with me in this regard by using this source. Tell the whole story Knukle.
Number 2) it states very clearly in Article 1: "The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish." ... Now the US and allies tried to protect the Kurds, this did not stop Saddam. They imposed upon him at the UN, he was uncooperative. Again, human rights were incredibly low up until 2003. So what next? Removal. Done and done.
http://www.hrweb.org...
as my opponent states in Article 5: to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts" Thus furthering my point. Death was necessary as all else was tried and nothing worked against Saddam.
And in Article noted by my opponent: Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction" ... no injustice here, Saddam was found guilty by the ICC. You claim it was not necessary, yet all other resolutions were tried and failed. Now human rights counsels work in Iraq today. Progress is being made. Clearly the Iraq war was justified. Also Bin-Laden is a different case entirely, as he is not state sponsored terrorist unlike that of Saddam. Your point is irrelevant, circumstances must be taken into account!

Drops:
*I did address your point, in fact it is YOU who has the contradiction.
*Saddam wanted to look intimidating to continue his genocides without oppression as I have shown with his remarks about possessing WMD's
*The war WAS legal, as this had already passed far before Iraq. This is also without the justification for the invasion of Kuwait which was passed by the UN when Iraq declared it one of her provinces. Thought experiment here: if the US under Bush acted illegally ... why no trial for Bush at the ICC? Why no impeachment charge? Clearly it was legal, as I have shown alone with this one document.

The resolution is destroyed, Iraq War was Justified.
Debate Round No. 3
Lordknukle

Con

I thank my opponent for his arguments.

Moral

NAP

Is my opponent purposefully acting thick-headed? He claims that since he listed three philosophers (economists, actually) who support the consequentialist framework of the NAP (despite the applications being the same between all frameworks), he is automatically correct.

There are four frameworks of the NAP- Social Contract (Locke, Rousseau), Consequentialist (Friedman, Hayek, Mises), Argumentation Ethics (Hans Hermann Hoppe, Rothbard), and Natural Rights (Locke, Spooner, Rothbard). These are the possible frameworks of the NAP. In reality it doesn't matter which one you pick as they all lead to the same conclusion. /end useless point.

My opponent states that the NAP implies that individuals have an obligation to protect others from violations of their property rights. He cites Wikipedia, which ultimately sites Walter Block in this article: http://www.lewrockwell.com.... Nowhere does it state anything about this so called "obligation." I invite the readers to look at this article (it is fairly short and interesting).

The fact is that even though you have an obligation according to the NAP to prevent violation of property rights, it cannot be while your own property rights are being violated. The War in Iraq was responsible for the deaths of thousands of both American soldiers and especially Iraqi civilians (who would otherwise not have had their rights violated).

Utilitarianism is Forward- Looking

Due to my opponent's proficient grammatical skills, it is challenging to discern any argument from my opponent's writing. However, to the best of my knowledge, my opponent's argument follows this syllogism:

Utilitarianism is forward looking- hence you take into account future actions (not past actions)

The Iraqis wanted Hussein eliminated, hence it provided the greatest amount of happiness.

Thus, it was utilitarianisticly justified.

___

Anybody who read my arguments can clearly identify that this is not at all what I was arguing for. My opponent has dropped my original arguments of the # of casualties and instead proceeds to straw man my argument.

Now, my opponent's argument could be valid if we only take into account internal variables (the Iraqi people) but not take into account the intervention of US troops. However, considering that he is arguing for the invasion, this does not stand. When the US troops invaded, they causes many negative externalities while reaching their goal of disposing Hussein. This included the killing of about 650 000 civilians- which my opponent has not proven to exist without the war. Assuming that my opponent's logic is correct, a Civil War would be justified since it only takes into account the wants and consequences that the Iraqi people want. However, by imposing a third party force, ultimately there are negative externalities that my opponent has failed to justify.

Human Rights Violations

It seems as if my opponent now claims that he had a wrong source (even though he directly copy-pasted) from the source into the debate. Regardless, his new source is not better.

Human rights violations are a matter of the Government vs. The People. In other words, they are only related to the actions committed by Saddam Hussein's. Inter-domestic violence does not justify foreign intervention.

From my opponent's source:

"information on human rights abuses that occurred among household members since 1991."(1) This source deals solely with inter-domestic human rights abuses in households and is irrelevant to the current discussion.

Clearly, domestic violence does not justify foreign intervention.

My opponent has failed to bring up evidence that shows that Hussein's crimes were A) Continuing into the late 1990s and early 2000s with great momentum and B) That these crimes would have totaled over 650 000 between 2003 and 2006.

Then my opponent calls me a Nazi sympathizer...lol.

Forward Looking Part 2

Here my opponent states that Hussein bluffed about having the WMDs and therefore not only was the war justified, but somehow my opponent also gets the conclusion that this meant that Hussein would not stop killing his own people- despite about one and a half decades of stagnation of human rights violations.

First of all, I fail to see that war is justified because of a bluff. War by itself is an act of aggression and is only valid if aggression against yourself is passed. The proper course of action in this sense would be to mandate an impartial investigation, instead of launching into a full-out war because there might be WMDs.

Second, my opponent somehow comes to the conclusion that just because Hussein bluffed about the WMDs, he would continue on violating human rights. This is non sequitur. My opponent has failed to justify why this would happen so this point is moot.

Legal

UN Article

My opponent claims that Article 1 states that "The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish." This is true. However, this article in no way states anything about a full-out war or invasion as reprehensible action for committing a genocide.

Furthermore, in the short time of three years of the Iraqi War, 650 000 civilians died in the process (source in R1). This by itself is a genocide masked under the pre-tense of war. My opponent has failed to bring about information that shows that this would have happened without the war during these three years.

I agree that death on Hussein's part was necessary, but disagree on that an invasion was necessary. In that sense, my opponent has not justified an invasion, but merely a removal of Hussein from power.

Why wasn't Bush tried for criminal actions

There have been many groups that have pushed for Bush being tried for criminal actions but convicting the President of the United States is challenging.

This does not preclude that he did not actually commit crimes.

Summary

Drops

- Objective right to life contradiction that I have outlined in all the previous rounds

- Failure to provide information that shows that without the war, the deaths from 2003 to 2006 would have been greater than 650 000.

- Failure to rebut the illegality of the war since it was not passed through the UN Security Council


Vote Con. Resolution negated.

As per the rules of the debate, my opponent can only post a 1-2 line rhetorical statement.

(1)http://jama.jamanetwork.com...
TheHitchslap

Pro

"I sent American troops to Iraq to make its people free, not to make them American. Iraqis will write their own history and find their own way." - George W Bush

Thank you for your time, I cannot post anything more here (due to agreed upon rules) except to vote PRO :)

Puppies!
Debate Round No. 4
46 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by babyy 4 years ago
babyy
Hello dear, my name is Ester, i came across your profile now.So I decided to stop by an let you know that I really want to have a good friendship with you. Beside i have something special i want to discuses with you, but I find it difficult to express myself here, since it's a public site. I will be very happy, If you can get back to me, through my e-mail iD(esteredmond(at )ymail.c o m)
Posted by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
Sorry. Killing to end killing and not even ending killing is *ridiculous.
Posted by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
This was a great debate. Someone needs to recommend this.

Conduct: I find lines like "All bable and lies" to be extremely rude and unmannerly, so pro loses conduct.

Arguments: This was difficult. Very difficult. Pro was able to show that Saddam's regime was killing thousands of Iraqis. But, pro's argument falls apart for threereasons.

One, pro's strongest point, utilitarianism, seemed undefeatable, but con expertly teared it apart. Con used pro's own logic that the war would ruin thousands of additional, innocent lives. The wars contribution would be at best negligable.

Two, although pro did show that Saddam was tyrannical and genocide was happening, pro never refuted the fact that the war killed hundreds of thousands of additional lives, if not millions. This was one of con's strongest points.

Three, pro never even came close to refuting the fact that this war for the US was illegal. While yes, the UN did have the obligation, country law is superior to international law. The latter cannot (at least in the US) supercede the US's laws. Pro provided no documentation that the war was legal on any grounds. Most experts (and con showed this) say it was illegal. Con showed that past actions over decades do not deem action decades later.

Con's arguments were masterful and made a lot more sense than pro's did. The BoP was on pro and he did not fulfill it.

As a side note to all the people voting for pro because he proved that Saddam's actions were bad does not mean the US was justified in declaring war. One, it was illegal and unconstitutional for the US, and as I said earlier, international law (especially UN "law") never supercedes individual countries' laws. The world is not a "United States". Each country is autonomous and must follow their laws. And two, you are correct in saying that Saddam was killing thousands, but you seemed to forget that the war killed hundreds of thousands. Killing to end killing and not even ending killing is really r
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 5 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
lol Oh yeah, but I changed them soon after I noticed that. My laptops keys are slightly messed up.
Posted by YYW 5 years ago
YYW
The sentence seemed to be missing a few words.

Amirite?
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 5 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
@YYW

What is so funny?
Posted by YYW 5 years ago
YYW
lol @ this:

" I give argument points to pro, because he was able to prove that through U.N. documents that what Sadam was illegal, and that the level of attrocities committed justified military intervention in Iraq."

roflmao
Posted by YYW 5 years ago
YYW
I enjoyed this little gem: "All bable and lies." but unfortunately, that's not really appropriate in a debate. Score is a tie, accordingly.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
RFD Part 3:

So, now we have to weigh whether the UN made it imperative to attack Iraq. The answer seems to be yes. The US couldn't remove Saddam from power without invading Iraq and "prevent" and "punish" seems too similar to a full out war that Knukle's argument was negated. What else could be meant by "prevent and punish?" Clearly Hitch showed that the US was legally justified in going into war with Iraq.

{{{{ Summary }}}}

While the legal argument was a clear Hitch win, the moral argument came down to whether utilitarianism could be used or whether NAP should be used. Neither side prevailed. So I'll hand the debate to Hitch based on the legal arguments. The resolution says justified legally OR morally in round 1 as opposed to AND. That one word cost Knukle the debate. If Hitch had the burden to prove morally justified as well, I would almost certainly have voted Knukle.

A point that wasn't brought up and hence wasn't factored into the RFD is an Wnope mentions, the US is basically in denial that the invasion was due to any reason other than WMDs. It is disappointing that Knukle never countered it as it could have led to a win.

Again, good job on both sides. This was very difficult to judge. Each round, I was changing my mind.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
RFD Part 2:

With NAP unweighed, that leaves us with whether utilitarianism is valid. Knukle's rebuttal that the Iraqi people wanted the Kurds gone was negated by them voting for a pro-kurd president. However, this is in turn negated by Knukle's point that Utilitarianism is forward looking. Just because the president was elected in 2005 doesn't mean that the genocides were not utilitarian at that time. Since they could be justified using utilitarianism, this showed that Utilitarianism should not be used to evaluate the war in Iraq. I think Knukle could have drawn the connection better than he did but it was clear enough.

Knukle also turns the sources saying that they mention the "preceding years." Hitch hadn't yet refuted that more than 650,000 deaths would have been caused by Saddam or that the genocides were decreasing.

{{{{ Legal argument }}}}

Hitch argues that a court in Hague ruled that the killing of Kurds amounted to genocide. He also argues that alliances were formed with Al-Queda but since it happenned after the invasion it is irrelevant to the resolution so not weighed in. Knukle counters saying that the court's ruling is a positive statement and that Hitch drew a normative conclusion from it. He also says that genocide doesn't justify intervention unless legally directed and that the US should abide by the UN's protocol being a participant.

Hitch counters with UN's article showing that members must "prevent and punish" genocide." I thought he won the point until Knukle cleanly counters with the argument that the US invaded Iraq to find WMDs, not for genocide. However, Hitch's rebuttal that the genocides were part of the reason for invading Iraq was even stronger and went uncountered.
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
LordknukleTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
LordknukleTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I think it comes down whether intervention to prevent gross violation of human rights is morally justified. It is justified because human rights are not defined internal to the country. The UN defines certain human rights as absolute, and everybody has signed on, whether they obey them or not. being justified does not make it obligatory, nor necessarily wise. The fact was not disputed that Saddam was dictator and abuser of righs.
Vote Placed by Deathbeforedishonour 5 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
LordknukleTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Very good debate. Both had good conduct, spelling, and reliable sources. I give argument points to pro, because he was able to prove that through U.N. documents that what Sadam was doing was illegal, and that the level of attrocities committed justified military intervention in Iraq.
Vote Placed by YYW 5 years ago
YYW
LordknukleTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: A very interesting debate, in that it accounted for two primary aspects of US intervention in Iraq. (1) the positive ana. of wether US interv. was legal and the normative ana. of wether it was moral. CON's legal argument was less persuasive, and while both sides incorporated factual errors, on balance con's normative case was more compelling but pro's legal case was more correct. Both sides had difficulty with the notion of international law, and seemed equally confused over a utilitarian frmwk.
Vote Placed by TheBossToss 5 years ago
TheBossToss
LordknukleTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: TheHitchslap made inappropriate ad hominem attacks, and did not explain how not entering Iraq would cost over 600,000 lives. Thus, conduct and arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
LordknukleTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Microsuck already countered CP, removing my vote. However I will keep the spelling point from R1
Vote Placed by Microsuck 5 years ago
Microsuck
LordknukleTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering KRF and CP
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
LordknukleTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments
Vote Placed by TheOrator 5 years ago
TheOrator
LordknukleTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The pro was able to sufficiently prove that the violations of human rights committed by Hussein's regime was justification enough in attempting to remove it through hostile force. As no other option besides hostile force was presented by the Con, the pro wins the arguments.
Vote Placed by KRFournier 5 years ago
KRFournier
LordknukleTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I think the "forward-looking" objection worked against Con since the only way to look forward is to use the principle of induction, which analyzes the past. Therefore, Pro upheld his burden.