If their is a man who killed over 2 million innocent people because of their religion should we go to war?

Question

This person is Saddam Hussein. Should we go to war with a man who let us search only certain areas of the country for nuclear weapons. A man who said he got rid of nuclear weapons and gave no proof he did ?

Answer 1

Does war bring those people back to life? In any case, the primary questions are what the cost is of the war, whether or not there is an ongoing genocide, and whether or not less drastic options can be used instead. If more people will likely be killed by the war than would have died had the leader stayed in power, war is unjusitified. Overthrowing a leader must be based on saving future lives. Why bring a person to justice if the act of doing so causes even more deaths? In the real world of international politics, killing more people out of "justice" is not justified. Only the expectation of future killings can be the grounds for starting a war, and even this is not sufficient if the war is going to cost more lives than would have otherwise been lost. If Saddam was responsible for the deaths for 2 million (which includes battle deaths from starting wars, and by this logic Bush is responsible for the deaths of this current war), that is very bad, but does not justify starting a war which will likely kill more people than would have died anyway. A war of liberation is only justified if it makes the liberated country better off than it would have been; thus far that has not been the situation. Also, a war to save lives would only be justified if other options were impossible or improbable. This was not the case in Iraq. Saddam allowed weapons inpectors in to the country, and its a reasonable assumption that human rights inspections would have been allowed as well. If he refused human rights inspections and weapons inspections, then you would have a case for war on humanitarian grounds and on the grounds of WMD fears. But he did not refuse weapons inspectors entry, and was never asked about human rights inspections, so there is no valid case based on WMD's or human rights, despite past murders.

Finally, saddam allowed weapons inspectors in to all areas of the country, not just certain ones. according to the inspectors: "The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it." http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

Iraq was cooperating, albeit grudgingly, with inspections. As for proof, how do you prove that you do not have WMD's aside from allowing inspections and saying that you don't have them? Its very difficult to prove a negative. "Iraq was supposed to turn everything over to the UN, which would supervise its destruction and removal. Iraq instead chose to destroy - unilaterally, without UN supervision - a great deal of this equipment. We were later able to verify this. But the problem is that this destruction took place without documentation, which means the question of verification gets messy very quickly." - Scott Ritter, former US weapon inspector in Iraq. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,794771,00.html

"Got rid of nuclear weapons"? He never had nuclear weapons. The WMD's that he had in the past were chemical and biological, never nuclear. That's widely acknowledged now. And the WMD's that he had in the past, even if he still had them, would have been useless - "Iraq manufactured three nerve agents: sarin, tabun, and VX. Some people who want war with Iraq describe 20,000 munitions filled with sarin and tabun nerve agents that could be used against Americans. The facts, however, don't support this. Sarin and tabun have a shelf-life of five years. Even if Iraq had somehow managed to hide this vast number of weapons from inspectors, what they are now storing is nothing more than useless, harmless goo." - Scott Ritter http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,794771,00.html

The war had no justification on humanitarian grounds, nor on WMD grounds. The guardian story quoted twice above is a good pre-invasion article that shows that hindsight is not necessary to criticize Bush's jumping the gun.

Answer 2

Um... have you been paying attention at all? We DID go to war, and last time I checked, old Saddam was sitting in JAIL. Nevertheless, the blood on his hands is the same blood on ours. Who is right and who is wrong? Oh, and about the WMD's. They havent been found because they arent there. Stop clinging so desperately to the last remaining shreds of the lies you have been fed.

Answer 3

What information do you've? What information does united statesa. have? they have been there for thus long, what have they were given to reveal the international? Why are the human beings of Iraq no longer complaining? How does it remember to you if Iraq has nuclear guns? they have not used nuclear guns hostile to the different usa. human beings have used chemical guns hostile to the civilians in Iraq. Why has united statesa. no longer searched something else of Iraq in the adventure that they experience there nevertheless are nuclear guns hidden someplace? guy, carry mutually the information first previously posting such questions. you ought to carry out a touch analyze previously you ask human beings such questions.

Answer 4

Riiiight... because a WAR is going to end a WAR just like drugs are going to stop an addict from killing himself. What innocent lives that are lost are lost. There's no point in killing more to "avenge" the DEAD.

Answer 5

No, we should not go to war and he did not kill 2 million people. He was bad that is true but what came after him is worse.

Iraq will never be okay

Answer 6

We should & we did. Now the Iraqi people will decide his fate.

Answer 7

YOU ARE TOTALLY WRONG.