Is the war in Iraq 'just'?

Answer 1

Yes, it is "just" a big dumb mistake.

Answer 2

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had disrupted international order by refusing to prove he had disarmed which in trun made very real a possibility that Iraqi weapons would have risked falling into the hands of a new breed of international terrorists eager to strike countries around the world with no advance warning.

A limited and carefully conducted war to bring about a regime change in Iraq was morally obligatory, not just right. Failure to act would heave been unjust.

For public authorities to fail to conduct such a war would be to put their trust imprudently in the sanity and good will of Saddam Hussein.

Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks threw the behavior of Saddam Hussein into an entirely new light and Hussein's behavior enhanced the potential danger Saddam Hussein posed to the civilized world a hundredfold.

It matters not that the weapons turned out not to be there. There was no way to know that ahead of time. International terrorists are seeking to procure such weapons and the deliberate appearance on the part of Hussein to be hainding such weapons combined with his proven and well known support of terrorsm presented a "clear and present danger."

The responsibility of determining whether Iraq poses a sufficient threat to justify war falls to civil leaders. Not only do civil authorities have a primary duty to protect the lives of their people, but they are also the closest to the facts and are privy to highly restricted intelligence information.

It would have been far more clear had we walked in on a nealry functioning nuclear warhead, or a vat of weaponized botulism, but that didn't happen. It also does not change what was and was not known in March 2003.

Answer 3

Just what? Take a look at this historical background.

The U.S. did nothing to keep Saddam Huseim under control in the 1970s or 80s when he came (seized power). In fact we provided aircraft and technology to his regime.
1980s Huseim went to war with Iran and we (the powers to be in Washington DC - Regan, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfield et al) were ecstatic. Iran was doing our dirty work in containing Iran after the Embassy Takeover.
1990s President Bush didn't provide clear and convincing proof to Saddam that we were serious about not attacking Kuwait.
The United States (the powers to be in Washington DC, Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfield el al) twisted the intelligence that was available to show that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction when in fact the two major countries that were developing weapons of mass were IRAN and N. Korea. That's IRAN - see that an N not a Q. Hey, maybe that's what happened. The intelligence report was supposed to say Iran and there was a typographical error that made it IRAQ.
Is the Iraq war just, we provide the evidence - you decide!

Answer 4

The 'war' in Iraq is an unconstitutional, illegal, unjustifiable, immoral act of depravity against another sovereign nation that in no way threatened, provoked or attacked the United States. There is nothing "just', moral, right, or decent about this 'war'.

We 'attacked' Iraq because the Bush family has a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein since the days of 1991 Operation Desert Storm when George H.W. Bush was criticized, ridiculed and humiliated for not 'finishing the job' and ousting Hussein at that time; because Dick Cheney coveted all that OIL swimming underneath Iraq's sands; and because the giant U.S. military-industrial complex (which Eisenhower warned us about) needed a new 'war' to boost its sagging profits from too many years of peace.

Bush & Co. lied to Congress, hoodwinked a grief-stricken American people and conned our courageous troops into believing there was honorable purpose to this 'war'.

675,000 Iraqis and 3,900 U.S. soldiers have sacrificed their lives so that a handful of wealthy elitists, industrialists, OIL barons and power brokers can become wealthier and more powerful.

This is the most dastardly deception ever perpetrated on the American public - and the world at large.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and all their war-mongering friends deserve a special OIL-soaked, blood-stained corner of Hell where they can rot eternally, along with:
535 members of the most arrogant, contemptible, wicked, incompetent, cowardly, corrupt Republican-led Congress in U.S. history that stood by and watched Bush run rip shod over our Constitution
-AND-
535 members of the most arrogant, contemptible, wicked, incompetent, cowardly, corrupt Democratic-led Congress in U.S. history that promised to end this vile 'war' if elected, and - to date - has done absolutley nothing to keep that promise. MAY GOD DAMN THEM ALL!!!

-RKO- 11/24/07

Answer 5

I was all for taking out Saddam but not for staying and baby sitting Iraq for years and years. Now it's too profitable for many US companies and we're going to stay as long as they are making money.
Funny thing is that GB said we were not in the nation building business.
“It isn’t the role of the United States to say ‘We do it this way, so should you’“! George Bush 2000

Answer 6

Well, that depends upon your own understanding of "just".

Saddam claimed to have WMD, the world believed him.

Saddam showed he was destroying his WMD, but he didn't prove it. In fact he played games with the inspectors.

Most of the world believed Saddam was still making WMD. DO the research.

So to me after reading the various reports after we went into Iraq, yes this war is just. And it must be won.

Answer 7

were fighting another vietnam. we spend almost 800million a month in iraq our budget for iraq will be at its max on february 1st. also the other fronts we fight on which arent talked about my opinion if we pull out now we kill 100s of ground soldiers. because armored and vehicles are pulled out first leaving all the ground units to get pummeled by insurgents. and yes some iraqis want usw there. its all in the hands of the soldier if were wanted there. its making enemy or gaining ally. some of the reports of soldiers doing wrong things makes our image look bad and adds more insurgents to the fight. so really if its just is a matter of your opinion

Answer 8

No, the U.S. has hypocrite foreign policy. The Middle East will turn against the America. Why you invade other countries for democracy? Maybe reading history and geography and learning Arabic will help. We like China. They are helping us with our permission.

Answer 9

yes

Answer 10

haha. ''sure''

- an iraqi

yea nav8tir you're right, the u.s is not in the nation building business... the nation destruction business is much more fun.

Answer 11

yes, and it helps keep the neocon population down.