What makes Iraq a immoral war?

Question

Immoral: Contrary to established moral principles; violating principles of right and wrong.

Was Saddam that great of a guy that we shouldn't have him taken him out of power and give Iraq back to the people?

But then you say " There wouldnt be as much chaos and suicide bombings as there is now "

Maybe but there still would have been a unnatural amount of deaths under saddams rule
Why didnt the UN force him out of power and take more action against him when he invaded Kuwait. I mean WOW, no fly-zones and sanctions/ bans on trading, that caused hundreds of thousands of deaths amoung the Iraqi population. Then came the oil for food program lasted almost 6 years. Throughout the years the sanctions had to be eased because of the mass malnutrition of the people. Obviously Saddam didnt change , or the Iraqis take a stand against him because of the amount of fear built up over 20+ years amoung the Iraqis That didnt affect him in one bit but it did put more burden on Iraqs people.

But then you say " We went there for the Oil"

OK would you have supported if they say we are going to war to get saddam out of power and free the Iraqis from this ruthless regiem

Look at how long it takes the UN to send a peace keeping force of a few thousand to fight the genocide in Darfur.

seannixon36 war isnt the only option but we need a stronger world wide effort in giving people the basic human rights instead of relying US and its allies to take action

Answer 1

This war is a big business. It's not a war against terrorism.

Answer 2

Remember Saddam was the key to keeping Persia split into 2 countries, Iran and Iraq. When joined together (as they will be again soon) they make a very powerful adversary.

Saddam was no saint, but you must keep in mind that it is awfully convenient that Iraq had the largest remaining untapped oil reserves in the world and that US oil companies are not known to play by the rules (eg: US overthrow of the democratically elected govt. of Iran in 1953 after they nationalized their oil industry).

Thus in 2000 America "elected" 2 oil men from Texas (both families very heavily vested in the industry) who immediately proceeded to draw up plans to invade Iraq. However, they lacked the reasoning to do so. 9/11 gave them the reasoning they needed. Therefore, that is the reason why Bush & Cheney continually attempt to tie the events on 9/11 to Iraq.

So yes, it is an immoral war.

Answer 3

There were 22 reasons given in the authorization to use force in Iraq that the congress passed. Only one of them was the presence of WMD's. The other 21 have all proved out. Additional reasons were given in the Iraq liberation act (again passed by congress). None of the reasons cited were oil. If oil were the reason we would be seeing a lot more of it comming in and it isnt. People have accepted all kinds of propaganda regarding nonsensical reasons for the conflict. The truth is that Saddam was a loose cannon who sponsored terrorism, made repeated threats against the US, and failed to live up to the conditions of an armacist he signed as well as UN resolutions ending Desert Storm. Of course the liberals all ignore these facts because they dont agree with their opinion that all conflict is unjustified. They therefore have to cook up some objectionable reason that they can rally the troops around. Never let it be said that they let facts get in the way of their opinions.

Answer 4

Hmmmmm....hard question. I have a son over there AGAIN so this answer is with an obvious bias. It is immoral (your word) because we created a mess that will have consequences far in to the future and we were not far sighted enough to see this. It is moral because we should not leave these people to be slaughtered, and they will be if we bail now. It is a horrible situation and hindsight is 20/20. Now we must finish what we started, although I am not sure how we will know what that means.

Answer 5

There are worse dictators than Saddam out there. What made him so special that we had to remove him?

Iraq is more unstable and more dangerous since Bush's little quagmire started.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are still dying, but this time by Bush and Maliki's hands.

Answer 6

this could be a query that historians are going to be writing approximately for hundreds of years to return... if our planet final that long. of course, the conflict in Iraq is against the regulation and immoral. It incredibly does not take a rocket scientist to work out that. the priority is that maximum individuals do not % to have self belief that they have supported, funded with their tax funds and flat believed in a conflict that has killed one hundred thirty,000+ civilians. they are able to't... you notice, the human concepts can purely manage plenty guilt. i think i'm asserting that maximum ppl also have a 'want' to have self belief it replaced into for a basically reason. positioned it this way, say a guy got here to you very excited and constructive that for the duration of a million week the kin around the corner replaced into going to explode your homestead. Say he went on and on approximately how he heard this and observed the bombs that they had etc... So, you suggested ok circulate get him and right this is a few funds to circulate purchase the weapons you would be able to desire to get him out. the next day the guy raids the friends homestead, captures him yet interior the technique he kills 3 of the guy's toddlers and his spouse. whilst each and all of the dirt has settled, come to confirm, the neighbor replaced into purely a foul husband, undesirable father and a jerk yet had no weapons, no plan to attack you and replaced into no risk to all of us. Now, how could you experience? could you be unwell on your abdomen? i could. could you be apologetic approximately it? i could. could you be rethinking your determination? i could. could you desire you had gotten greater data? i could. could you desire you had waited and not felt so rushed? i could. And the question that solutions your question is: could you tell your self, "... yet I did what i presumed replaced into staggering on the time." Get it? that's what the concepts could desire to do and say to itself to manage such atrocities. Does it excuse it? No Does it justify it? No Does it make it staggering? No could desire to you be punished? definite

Answer 7

Iraq was not a threat, had not attacked us and was not planning to attack us, yet Bush painted Saddam as an imminent threat. We went in there and basically beat the hell out of a defenseless country. We used previous UN resolutions as justification while ignoring the fact that the security council specifically removed language that would have authorized military action from resolution 1441.

Answer 8

What makes it a moral one?

No, I wouldn't support going to war simply to remove someone whose politics we didn't agree with. That doesn't mean that i support Hussein. If perceived poor treatment of governed people is the only litmus for going to war, why aren't we at war in Africa? Why haven't we invaded Cuba, North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia? Why is war the only option you give?

Answer 9

The immoral part is the lie Bush told to get Congress behind him going there.

Answer 10

Immoral is just another of many ways the liberals get to whine and they do love to whine.

Answer 11

The answer to your question is "Bush beat Gore"

If a Democrat was in the White House... the left would have a very different view of things. Politics as usual.