To what Extent was the USA's 2003 Invasion of Iraq Justified?

Asked by: brandz_lee
  • Not Justification Constitutional Separation.

    Saddam Hussein was tried through a Constitutional Separation process for chemical attacks which had violated International law. This was religious genocide and outside of Germany or the believed United Soviet Socialist Republic limited use in the Afghanistan region. Between 1979 and 1982 a number of 43 separate chemical weapons attacks caused more than 3,000 deaths. By the early 1980 chemical weapons attracts were reported in all areas with concentrated resistance activity in Afghanistan.

    (https://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War )

    Also by Military obligation the United States had reason to secure any and all ammunition or unexploded mentions spent in Dessert Storm as the United Nations was not operating in the interests of United States National Security. As Billions of United States assets had been diploid by U.N request to secure the region.

  • The USA's Invasion of Iraq was not Justified.

    While it is admirable that the USA rid Iraq of Hussein's rule, it is definitely questionable as to whether it was their Right and / or their Responsibility to do so. The reason cited by the United States for invading Iraq was the possibility of WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction), which - as is common knowledge - were never found.
    Furthermore, the hypocrisy ( and irony ) of the United States taking action against these - alleged - WMD's cannot be forgotten, simply due to the fact that the USA itself is the world's foremost nuclear superpower. The operation, later dubbed 'Operation Iraqi Freedom', was the USA's attempt at helping the Iraqi people overcome a tyrannical and corrupt government. However, this was never the USA's problem to absolve or amend.
    History has shown - time, and time again - that oppressed peoples will not allow themselves to remain oppressed, and also that revolutions do not take place solely via the help of other nations, especially not by other nations openly declaring war on them. As can be seen in other places where the United States has intervened, hardly any good has ever come from the USA's "help", such as in Vietnam (where help was not wanted), Korea (which is now two separate nations, one of which is stricken with abject poverty and a Dictatorial leader), Germany during the Cold War (which created so much poverty that it became cheaper for Germans to burn money than to buy firewood), or even in Cuba, where Guantanamo Bay is still torturing and murdering innocent people to this day. According to the Iraq Body Count, over 500 000 Iraqi soldiers and civilians have lost their lives to date, in comparison to the 4 424 American soldiers who died while invading another country while hostile intent.
    Lastly, the notion of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is a complete and utter fallacy. Firstly, is this undeniable truth: One CANNOT invade - and spy on - a country, murder thousands of people, steal oil, equipment, and resources worth MILLIONS, and claim that it is 'all in the name of 'peace and Democracy'. Second: the United States' government claimed that Iraqi citizens lived under an oppressive regime with Saddam Hussein in power. While this was certainly true, there is no evidence that Iraq was better off, once that regime had been removed from power. In fact, the intervention of America in Iraqi politics caused even more in-fighting, rebellions, and conflict than there was originally - this can still be seen in the state of Iraqi politics to this very day! Third, on the question of legality: according to Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the UN at the time, the invasion was indeed illegal. Thus, the notion of the United States invading a country to "bring peace and Democracy" is ridiculous, as the United States blatantly disobeyed the rules of the Security Council.

    Thus, in conclusion, the United States was NOT AT ALL justified in their 2003 invasion of Iraq.

  • Not to any extent

    The 2003 invasion of Iraq was one of the biggest political mistakes in U.S. history. Bush Sr. Could have overthrown Saddam Hussein, but he didn't, so what makes Bush Jr. Justified? We may have liberated Iraq from Saddam's dictatorial regime, but if the Iraqi people wanted our help they would've asked for it. The invasion destabilized the country and opened innocent lives of Iraqi civilians to the desolation of war.

  • It was the most wrong that US has done in the last 30 years

    The invasion of Iraq was an unjustified action made by the US. It was biggest mistake of the last three decades. This invasion did not happen due to Hussein's authoritarian rule. Bush was influenced to launch an attack against Iraq by American oil magnates of the Republican Party. Moreover, it is common knowledge that the existence of weapons of mass destruction is a lie. This awful war has destroyed the balance between Middle East's countries and it was the perfect moment for such terrorist groups as ISIS to take over many territories.

  • Literally no justification whatsoever

    The invasion of Iraq was not justified in any way, shape or form. Saddam did not have WMD's, nor was he behind the 9/11 attacks. Dethroning Saddam and destabilizing the region gave us ISIS and all the problems with terrorism we deal with today. Bush and Cheney should be indicted and tried for war crimes.

  • There is and will never be a justification for the Invasion Of Iraq [2003]

    The American Invasion of Iraq in hopes to remove Saddam Hussein from power was a hopeless and pitiful attempt to help make the region more peaceful and as such it was a horrific example of "American Policing]. The Iraq people at least at some form of peace under Saddam as well as Jobs.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.