Who had/has the stronger moral justification?

Question

The USA when it invaded Iraq or the Iraqi Insurgents when they fight against forces currently occupying Iraq

Answer 1

The US did not invade for any moral reason but for financial reasons using the excuse of WMDs (which didn't exist). The reason is the famed petro dollar. Iraq began trading its oil in Euros shortly after the introduction of the Euro in Jan 1999 (for purposes of trading although the notes weren't issued until 2002). This made oil more expensive for America to buy. They had to pay around $1.3 dollars per Euro of Oil. Sure enough after the invasion the oil trade in Iraq switched back to trading in dollars.

Iran has now begun the process of trading oil in Euros. Will the US continue their failed policy of wars for oil or have they learned their lesson? Only time will tell.

As for the morality of the insurgents. Any Iraqi who takes up arms to throw out invaders has the moral right to do so. Think about it if the shoe were on the other foot and the US was invaded. Would US citizens have the moral right to rebel and attack the invading forces? Of course they would.

Answer 2

This is an extremely tricky question. There are people on both sides with pure morale intentions. Some Americans sincerely want to help Iraqis find peace. Some Iraqis sincerely want to expell Americans for the better of their country. But, the problem comes when those who do not have pure morale intentions come into the equations. There are those Americans who follow their sadistic passion for war. And, there are those Iraqi insurgents who are so blinded by rage, that they justify actions which are indescribably terrible.

Unfortunately, both sides are overwhelmed by those people who no longer have pure morale intentions. Therefore, I would say that neither side is morale.

Answer 3

Before you discuss moral high ground why don't you talk to the average person in Iraq? Ever tried? I have friends in Iraq. Shiites. They HATE Al-Qaida, hated Saddam, and were glad we kicked him out. They want a peaceful country where they can be involved in their government without fear. What we are fighting there are people that do not want freedom of any kind. Freedom of speech, religion, press,and any form of women's rights. They hate education and educated people. As long as we fight them there they have alot less resources to come here with. But my friends tell me that as soon as possible they will come back here. They hate our government, not just Bush, but the type of government. They hate our religious beliefs, but most of all they hate the fact that our government allows these things. Do you know that Atheists, gays, and educated women are executable offenses to Al-Qaida? That Liberals would be the first ones that their form of government would get rid of?

Answer 4

US. Saddam was a threat to world peace & stability. Iraq now has a democratically elected govt. The insurgents are fighting this govt.

Answer 5

The reason why you don't have that many troops in Afghanistan is not because there is no longer troops needed, but that you had to shift all of them to Iraq... Afghanistan is somebody else's problem, thanks to the UN.

Though, I don't know if the same people who want out of the UN would be willing to take over the peacekeeping in Afghanistan, which although in name a NATO operation, would have hard time getting any troops if it wasn't because of UN backing.

Answer 6

Kicking out invaders is always the right and moral thing to do.

Answer 7

well... morals is a tricky ground...

but the funny thing is... if they stopped attacking... we would probably leave.. .which is why they are attacking, they want us to leave... ironic eh?

but if it was stable, most of our troops would be gone... look at Afghanistan... it wasn't even stable hardly and we only have like 10,000 there anymore, last time I looked... and that's basically nothing...