Can someone please tell me what they think is?

Question

the strongest argument, on why they believe the war in Iraq is unjust?

Before you answer, re-read the question and think. I hope this will dilute any stupid answers

Chainsaw, that is a very good argument, I am not going to lie

Steve and g, you guys have some good points also

Um, a lot of the arguments against I have seen, do have one flaw, the part about the Iraqi's not appreciating it or they did not help us. In modern day warfare, with the might of the US, what could an Iraqi do to help? They could vote(which they did), they could join the special police force(which many continue to do, even though many die). The Iraqi's have appreciated it.
http://www.glennbeck.com/realstory/iraq-video.shtml

Answer 1

I will play devil's advocate to chainsaw, if only for the mental exercise.

1. We should not topple gov'ts who have not attacked us.

2. We should avoid any appearance of imperialism.

3. Americans won their freedom from England with their own blood. We had other countries to help us, but we were the ones who desired freedom. Every Iraqi expatriate should have joined us in this fight, if indeed they wanted freedom.

4. Since Iraqi-Americans did not come forth to help us, we should have backed off.

5. We did not have a cogent exit strategy. It does not appear as though we have one now.

6. If you are going to find and hunt down Osama, why divert funds and equipment and soldiers until you do? We knew where Saddam was, we did not know where Osama was hiding.

7. Our own revolution was fought by militias using guerrilla tactics. This was very useful against a traditional fighting force. Now we are fighting guerillas all over the region. No wonder it's a bloody mess over there.

An addendum to your's:
The Iraqi's should have been on the FRONT LINE, not waiting for us to do their work for them so they could seize positions of power. We should have trained them before we went in. This on-the-job training they are receiving is not working. There was absolutely no reason to jump in to Iraq. We knew we could take their army easily. The problem is, a power vacuum lead to civil war and anarchy.

Answer 2

I think it was a great idea to get Saddam Hussein out of power. But it should have ended right there. To date, there has never been any evidence of weapons of mass destruction, which was the reason the war was declared in the first place.

From time immemorial, there has been fighting in the Middle East among the countries there, and there always will be. And the wars are all territorial wars. Everyone wants a piece of the other guy's pie, or the whole pie, for that matter.

We freed the Iraqis from a horrible dictator. Were they grateful? Did they show any appreciation whatsoever? Hell no! Terrorism is still at an all-time high, and doesn't show any signs of stopping. Every day our troops are getting killed, and even the citizenry is at risk. What's being accomplished? More and more bloodshed. I say we should butt out and let them solve their own problems in that God-forsaken country. The only time it's justified to declare war on another nation is when we are attacked or threatened. That never happened. 9/11 had nothing to do with it, as that was Bin Laden's doing. It would have made more sense to declare war on him, but he's still in a cave somewhere, probably surrounded by a harem, and Saddam's so-called "trials" are a farce. This war has resulted in numerous deaths and nothing has been accomplished. The attempts of the Iraqis to form some semblance of government have been thwarted by the maniacs who roam the streets and shoot down every moving target.

Is that a sound enough argument for you? If not, read the newspapers every day and watch the news casts.

Answer 3

Saddam was no danger to the U.S. or its citizens, he was contained and could not do much in the way of warfare as we wouldn't even let him fly planes in his own country. While a tyrant, he posed no real threat. The U.N weapons inspectors were doing their job and could find no WMD's. George Bush, pressured the intelligence agency to say that Saddam was a danger and was producing these weapons. This is the same intelligence he sent to congress and why they ok'd this country's involvement in this war. Shorten that up to he just plain lied. His motives are still not known, but I my personal thought on this is the plan was hatched in a meeting with the ceo's of the big oil company's. If you cause a problem in the middle east the price of oil goes up and so does the profit's. Many people are getting rich from this war. That happens in all wars. The economy usually expands to meet the challenges of feeding the war machine. Remember this is just my thought, but it is an honest stab at why we really went to war in Iraq. It is unjust because to many people have died for the cause of freedom when I am not sure the these people wanted it in the first place. 655,000 Iraqi, 3,000 Americans. many more perhaps as many as 30,000 Americans wounded, maimed for life, for a war that don't make any sense.

Answer 4

The problem with chainsaw's argument is that it assumes Saddam didn't allow the weapons inspectors access. This is untrue.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,63249,00.html


Secondly, it presumes that the weapons inspections were the reason for the war. Bush has already said that we need to "finish what we went in there for," which clearly indicates WMD were not the prime target.
http://www.rense.com/general27/bushinsistssaddam.htm

Finally, the whole thing smack of opportunism. Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz, through the Project for a New American Century, had all long before advocated the invasion of Iraq as a means of promoting democracy in the Middle East.

So, I think democracy (or more accurately, capitalism) was the primary motivation. This is not so terrible. But the terrible part is that this is not what the American people were told, and that is inexcusable.

Answer 5

There is no strong argument for it, and that's why it is wrong. Any war should only be used as a last resort. The argument used at the time was some phantom connection between Saddam and 9/11, and WMD's. Neither was sufficient argument to go to war (last resort remember?) in a hurry. Both turned out to be false. Two wrongs don't make a right. Period.

Any argument stating might is right, or suspicion justifies action is simply wrong. The decision to go to war is the most grave thing a human being can do, and Bush blew it.

Answer 6

The reason the war is unjust is because the Bush Administration had NO plans for how to stop a major insurgency, a civil war and run a 3rd world country and they STILL don't have a clue. So the war is unjust because of extremely negligent planning by the Bush Administration that has brought the US another endless insurgent/ civil war just like the last war the US grossly underestimated called Vietnam.

Answer 7

my biggest problem is the timing... not that it's unjust... I mean taking out a dictator and installing Democracy is "just" in my opinion...

we clearly were in a war on terror... going after Osama... then poof, we don't care about the man that murdered 3,000?

and Saddam's links to terror ARE THE SOME OF THE WEAKEST IN THE MIDDLE EAST...

I mean... there are probably a few thousand "just" wars that can be fought out there... but, which ones should we fight and when should they be fought... that's the question...

I think you could have easily make a case for Osama, Iran, N. Korea and Darfur were all more pressing in different ways than Iraq....

Answer 8

I hope you are not holding your breath. Since I below logically explain why we went in, there cannot be a strong argument against it.

1. We defeated Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War.
2. By doing so, we have the right to dictate the terms of his surrender.
3. Since we were the stronger power, what we say goes.
4. Part of that agreement was Saddam was to allow UN weapon inspectors unfettered access.
5. Saddam refused to honor this part of the agreement.
6. Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds in the North.
7. Since Saddam breached the contract, we did not have to honor ours.
8. War is on, we finished the job.

Answer 9

The one thing we keep forgetting is that even tho' Saddam is a SOB, he is their SOB.

There have been more Iraqis die in the three years we have been there than did during the 25 years of Saddam's rule.

So they are better off with our brand of freedom????????
Maybe someday,,,, but it wont be during our lifetime.

Answer 10

We came to bring "Freedom" (supposedly), we have brought a period of anarchy, bloodshed, fundementalism, that did not exist under Saddam Hussein. At least when that bastard was in power, you could be pretty sure that when you stepped out of your house in the morning, you weren't going to have your head blown off by an RPG or with white phosphorous. Just my opinion...