Anybody care to make the argument why we were right to have invaded Iraq, even though they hadn't attacked us

Question

But Turkey would be wrong to invade, even though they have been (and are being) attacked from Iraqi territory?


Just curious to see if anyone can do it coherently...

Cantcu--I think the UN charter says you can make war of you are actually being attacked, or if authorized by the Security Council.

Cantcu--I think the UN charter says you can make war if you are actually being attacked, or if authorized by the Security Council.

The US State Dept lists the PKK as a terrorist organization. Should be no problem, we go in and clean their clock, but it turns out that what few actually functioning Iraqi security forces there are are Kurdish Peshmerga, who would likely be less than thrilled if Baghdad (or Washington or Ankara) were to enter Kurdistan in force to deal with the rebels.

Iran's in this game, too.

Answer 1

Although your question is fairly loaded, I'll answer to the best of my ability.

No, there was no legitimate reason to attack Iraq. No amount of underground terrorist ninja camps (that was actually an election issue in Wisconsin in 2006 - the state attorney general said that he had heard of, literally, underground terrorist camps wherein they were pole-vaulting, being trained in martial arts and semi-automatic weapons combat. The whole facility was, as I said, supposedly underground and the terrorists-in-training were wearing very ninja-like masks, and if he were elected, "He would put a stop to this.")

Anyway, I've deviated from the point. I apologize. As I was saying, no amount of terrorist ninja camps, funneled funds or supposed links are enough to break International law (which may or may not be Constitutional for us to follow - but that's another debate) and invade a country that did not first harm you.

This isn't a matter of whether I think that Iraq funded anything or if I think they had WMDs or not. This is a matter of our country following International law.

However, I can only agree with our invasion and occupation (and subsequent slaughter of Iraqis) if I think of Doctor Jack.

After the first Gulf War, we put seriously harsh sanctions on Iraq, effectively starving people that had nothing to do with the war or the Administration of Iraq to death. Coupled with our constant bombing raids over Iraqi Kurdistan, we killed literally hundreds of thousands of people. This is a fact not in dispute. We did that.

What are we doing now? Mercy. That's the only thing I can think of. As cruel and wicked as it sounds, we are "finishing the job" that had been started a decade before our invasion. That's the only way I can think of what we are doing there. We are simply putting those poor people out of their misery.

Now, that's not to say I condone what we're doing; there are a million other ways to get these people out of their slump. We could have funded something. We wanted Saddam out; we could have funded a coup or funded some sort of underground movement to maybe establish a rival government to Saddam's regime.

At any rate, no; I cannot say that our invasion and subsequent occupation were or are at all right and/or good, but I try to see the silver lining, no matter how tarnished it may be.

*********

Rick V - I understand your point. No matter how it's sliced, forced regime change is illegal under UN charters, Geneva Conventions and all sorts of other horseschnobber. However, I was just saying...given the lesser of two evils...

As far as the UN goes, I fail to see where the UN has done anything to prevent any genocide (which it was formed to do) or prevent any war. As a matter of fact, all I can see the UN doing is making matters worse.

What needs to be done is make the UN stronger and able to actually wield real power, not just token power and have UNICEF. What we need is something more along the lines of the League of Nations, like we saw after WWI. However, that didn't work out because it was probably hundreds of years ahead of its time.

And yes, this Veto provision also needs to get lost. Along with the P5+1. So we're permanent members of the Security Council. Big deal. What do we get out of that? And what did the other 5 do to stop our illegal invasion of Iraq? Heck: One of them even joined us!

The only way for the UN to work is to give it more power. Problem is that in order to give it more power, the nations around the world have to be willing to divest themselves of their sovereign power and not even America will do that (America, the main architect of the League of Nations, never actually joined it)

Answer 2

Well, the problem here is that it is a war that cannot be won!, the allied forces are stuck between 'a rock and a hard place' Neither of the two main factions want the allied forces in Iraq now that Saddam and his cohorts are gone.

If George Bush snr (probably still pulling the strings) had honoured his word and backed the Iraqi rebels back in 1990 this invasion would not have been necessary.

Whether a civil war took place in 1990 or now is irrelevant it was bound to happen at some point.

If the object was simply to get rid of Saddam then a swift attack with one stealth bomber and one MOAB would have taken the whole lot out in one go! No allied lives lost.

No I cannot find justification.

Insofar as Turkey is concerned, this a different conflict and calls for another question.

Answer 3

----------- Germany and Japan were not allied. Where's your source for this baloney. The US and Japan had been at near war for decades throughout the South Pacific. The attack on Pearl Harbor was not the BIG surprise claimed. The Americans became incredibly scared, yet, the US itself was not attacked just its fleet on a Pacific Island that was not a state of the union.

America didn't enter WWII until after Pearl Habor. I believe the Allies offered to help America before America helped the Allies. The movies, made in America, don't bother much with the huge contribution the Allies made in the war with Japan. Americans also think they won the war in Europe. Americans were surely welcomed by the Allies who had been beating down the Germans for years and fresh troops surely helped. Too bad Americans couldn't have seen their way to help before Japan attacked. We were too busy making money on arms and, some claim, selling also to the Germans.

Al Queda was in no way in league with Iraq. The CIA, FBI, MI5 (UK) found no evidence of such. There is controversy now that the "Al Queda" in Iraq now is a copy cat organization not affiliated with the real Al Queda. Quit lying like Bush for God's sake!

The invasion of Iraq was illegal on a world basis. Iraq had not attacked the US, therefor the American invasion was a war crime. Look it up.

It is wrong for Turkey to invade Iraq (essentially they are fighting the Kurds who claim land in both Turkey and Iraq as their homeland). This battle has been ongoing since, at least, the end of the second world war

Thom -- No, about funding a coup. I know we do it all the time but it is not legall either. We must make the UN work. First get rid of the veto arrangement.

Answer 4

The United States invades other countries saying that it is by the democracy and the good of world-wide peace… but all we know that it is to take for the state the resources from those countries


There is no a sufficient reason so that the United States invades to countries when these have not attacked…

The reason that it is for eliminating the terrorism is lie…


Bye

Answer 5

There is no argument. It violated International law, the Constitution! International law clearly says you cannot attack a country and you need permission from the UN Security Council of which we were a permanent member, but were going to get vetoed by France and Russia!! That is why Bush went around them illegally!Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorist no matter how much Bush lied! Bush is a war criminal!

Answer 6

yes if turkey gets involved it causes a lot of problems with other countries then entering into the war and general stability. Turkey is not well liked by a lot of countries around the area and those countries are looking for a reason to get at turkey

we were authorized to attack becuase they violated the cease fire agreement and 12 un resolutions.

I am not getting into an argument about this just giving you the answer to your question.

Answer 7

In my judgement they were allies of terrorist groups. They funded and trained them. That made them a target. Add to that they were in violation of the surrender accords and several UN resolutions, Saddam needed to go.

Answer 8

I'm so tired of arguing this point. If you really want to find an answer, look it up on yahoo answers and read the 50,000 entries that will come up.

Answer 9

because we think they need more trees...don't kid yourself if it was a riteous fight you'd feel it....did anyone doubt that WW2 was a riteous fight? i think not...there was no gray area, Germany and Japan were undispudedly allied there was no controversy to attack Germany even though Japan attacked us...the only link between AlQaeda and the former Iraqi Government was the Bush administration....

Answer 10

We are asking Turkey not to invade because it would hurt our effort. We are asking Turkey to give us a chance to take care of the terrorists attacking them. But Turkey has every right to hit back, we aren't saying they are wrong. What's wrong is Democrats trying to pass this genocide bill even though they know it would hurt out troops. I have the full story here http://www.truewordtoday.blogspot.com