The Iraq War was Justified!
Standard DDO Rules of Conduct Apply!
My BOP is to show that the Iraq War was justified!
I happily welcome an old friend and foe Conservative Politico, and hope a fair better than our previous debate! May the best man win my friend!
Making the Case:
First, I'd like to point to a very important document, known as Resolution 260 III (A) or The Genocide Conventions, which were drafted by the UN in Dec of 1948. The very first line my audience will find reads very loudly and clearly the following:
“Article 1: The contracting parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish“
Now, lets discuss the context of this document, and why it is here today. Notice the date 1948? This document was formulated as a response to the atrocities of the Holocaust. To which the American president proudly proclaimed along with the UN “Never again!” in reference to the holocaust. Indeed, because of the context of the document (which was used in both the Rwandan trials and Yugoslav trials due to the ambiguity of the document it's self which was also found to be legal) the findings were clear: the parties involved have a defaulting responsibility to stop those crimes at all costs. This is a prior, and clearly non-negotiable. In fact this is backed up by several other documents as well! Anyone ever hear of the Geneva Conventions? Although it never actually calls genocides by their actual names, it's pretty clear in Article 50, no state is ever allowed to commit excessive harm to civilians via military means; while not the exact same as Genocide, a Genocide would certainly fall into it's qualification. Case and point, by entering the US was upholding International law, and that even though they may not have went to the UN to justify the invasion, the document was designed to enable a force to circumvent UN approval in order to attack when dire situations (I.E Genocide) called for them. They call the committing of Genocide an act so nasty the person or state becomes an “Enemy of Mankind” or “Hostis humani generis” and as used in Eichmann, Nuremburg, Yugoslavia, and Rwanda, the Principal of Universal Jurisdiction may be used to justify invasion due to this hatred for humanity. There is no doubt, the invasion was justified on legal means.
C2: Lessons in History
Let's look at what my opponent is going to argue during this debate, and ponder the question “what would have happened should we stay out of it?” Even better, can we think of any examples? We have a few:
We see that nothing but death, destruction, and destitute comes from enabling these bullies to having what they want, and it's an outrage that in the face of international law, that each person who signs the document, proceeds to ignore it and with no basis or justification for doing so other than “were not interested”. What should interest them is the preservation of life, otherwise whats the use of the state?
C3: We Funded Them ... But The Logic Still Follows
Yes, there is no questioning it that Suddam was funded by the US during their invasion of Iran, shortly after the Iranian revolution. However, if we built this man up from our own money, and are inadvertently responsible for the death and destruction he caused, do we not have a responsibility to clean up our own mess? I think so, that we were more compelled to go in for putting someone evil like him in power than not. Your parents always allowed you to play with your toys, but they always taught us if you made a mess you clean it up! What makes us so arrogant that we could put such an evil man in power, that we turn around and say “Sorry Iraq, no longer our problem!”? Doesn't make sense.
C4: The Contrarian View
Much to popular misconceptions, my opponent will maintain staying out of Iraq for two main reasons: 1) because it was claimed Al-Qaeda was in there and they weren’t and 2) because the US claimed they had WMD's and they didn't. However, when we look at the Iraqi Resolution passed by Congress, we see actually 12 reasons for going to war not 2. And turns out of those 12, only 2 were “half-right” technically speaking. Iraq ended their nuke program in the 1990's but never ended their gassing of the Kurds, and Al-Qaeda and Saddam didn't get along because it was reported that Bin-Laden wanted a Theocracy while Saddam wanted a secular one. In the resolution, what was the 12 reasons for going to war? The following:
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Lying to your people with a half-truth spun, still wouldn't absolve you of your duties you signed as an enforcer in the face of the international community. No where does it say in the geneva conventions or Genocide conventions "but hold on folks! If your a deomcracy and you lie to your people, then suddenly you can ignore genocides!" I say again, it doesn't absolve the host country of it's duty to uphold such a deliciate law like International Law!
Look folks, hindsight is 50/50. The intelligence at the time certainly made it believable that Iraq had WMD's and was in talks with Al-Q. Foregin policy is also the toughest policy to formulate, as evidence pops up, can you count on it? Or is it counter evidence? You never actually know! Bush faced a tough decision, but here is what he did know, he was facing a brutal man, who was killing his own people, and the UN was telling him NO, when in fact, it's own laws compelled him to say “Yes.” And so as a democrat, and as embarrassing as it is to say, Bush actually did something right! He enabled the Kurdish people to survive to this day. The invasion of Iraq was justified in the eyes of the law, and furthermore, on humanitarian grounds.
ConservativePolitico forfeited this round.
this debate is postponed until further notice, please leave a tie
It will resume it's course shortly.
Sorry about the inconvenience.
postponed, please leave tie, conservativepolitico, when you get the chance I await your challenge
And you shall get the challenge at the appropirate date.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||0|