Defending the Truth

How about us attacking a country that never threatened us and never posed a threat to us with absolutely no provocation. That seems pretty unjust to me.

Clinton seemed to think that "[the military's] purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world." http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl...ton_12-16.html Clinton and Bush and the rest of the world believed that Saddam was a threat because of "the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security" http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm
Even John Kerry said "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." http://web.archive.org/web/200402042...2003_0123.html

Funny to hear the Kerry and Clinton supporters preach about how this war is unjust...

It isn't odd. Everything in the quotes StevenM posted could have been obtained without having to resort to war. The U.N. inspections were working and Bush has fully proved this fact with his completely unjust war. It has tainted America in the eyes of the world and that will ultimately be worse for America than anything gained from removing a dictator in the middle east.

hev, Steven M answered your original charge of the war being "unjust" by using quotes of leaders that are not of the President's administration, in fact, both individuals quoted are quite opposed to this administration.

He however, challenged your notion of the war being unjust, and yet you still call the war unjust. You say that the United States is tainted in the eyes of the world, and further state that this is far worse than anything gained from removing a dictator.

From your post I take your meaning of unjust to mean that the United States and this administration had no right to attack Iraq without justification. Since WMDs have not been found, this further credits your argument. I believe that you hold that despite the leadership of Saddam Hussein, the Nation of Iraq still had some rights to not fear invasion from another country, again a very valid point.

To counter your point, I would argue that any nation ruled by brute force and one that did not respect the rights of the individual is not a nation. The tryanny of dictatorship is easy to spot, it has four main characteristics, (1) One party rule (Ba'athist), (2) executions without trials or mock trials (Kurds in 1992), (3) the nationalization of private property and ownership (Oil), and (4) censorship. The United Nations and many on the left like to talk about the sovereignty of nations and their right to choose and form any type of government that they wish. Self-determination is wonderful ideal, but it can only apply to those nations who have free societies, or are seeking to establish free societies.

I saw to you that a nation that violates the rights of its individuals has no rights itself. As such, any free nation has the right to attack this nation to protect the individual rights of its citizens. Although their rights may be usurped by their government, they still exist and should still be recognized. Although it is not the duty of free nations to remove those who would deny individual freedom to others, it is their right. If a nation deems it in their national interest to do so, they are not only legally right, but morally right as well. However, that morality is based on what the nation does after removing the party that has abridged the rights of its citizens, if the invader does no better, than that morality is lost. However, if that country seeks to establish a society in that country that respects the rights of the individual, recognizes those rights, and establishes a free social system, morally they are right to do so.

The invasion of Iraq was far from unjust. Although the intelligence that had been used regarding WMDs was incorrect, that intelligence had been relied upon universally. However, the United States removed a dictator from power, and served as a liberator of an oppressed people. We did so at the cost of money, and the lives of soldiers. We were under no obligation to do so, yet we did. We acted justly and morally, and as a result, the people or Iraq today have a better tomorrow because of our courage to do what we knew to be right.

The difference between a weak nation and a strong nation is that the strong nation has the courage to do what it knows to be the right thing to do regardless of what others may think. Many will oppose this notion of self-determination and the use of force as a deterrent, however, we have already seen the results of it. Afghanistan - long opprossed by the Soviet Union, and then the Taliban, today women have rights never dreamed of before. Children, male and female, go to school, women can work outside the home, and slowly the people are reaping the benefits of a free society. Iraq, no longer do people fear death or the rape chambers of the Hussein Ba'athist parties, they are free to work, and even criticize the government. Lebanon, Christians and Muslims together demanded and protested for the government of Syria to leave them alone, and today we are seeing the elimination of that influence.

Once freedom is tasted, it is hard to force someone to swallow anything else. This notion of protecting the rights of those who would ignore the rights of their citizens is misplaced. If a government will not recognize the individual rights of its citizens, why would we assume that it would recognize the rights of its neighboring states?? A dictator who does not recognize the rights of the individuals within his/her own country has no valid claim on any rights themselves.

The war in Iraq is far from unjust, it was morally the right thing to do, and the justice of the war will be shown in the future of Iraq.

dmk

It really feels like you are arguing semantics. Yes you can find justifications that fit AFTER the fact. But the truth is that America was not being threatened by Iraq, and via the U.N. Inspections we knew they had no WMD's. This was further reinforced for me when Hans Blix nearly shit a brick at how America was painting the picture of Iraq for the American people.

It may have been justifiable but certianly not for the reasons given to the American public. The war is without a doubt completely illegal.

Did you read my post? Here's one of the quotes again. "So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." http://web.archive.org/web/200402042...2003_0123.html Virtually everyone in government leadership thought that America WAS being threatened by Saddam. This wasn't just some big lie by Bush to get even.

We were all fed the same lies man.

Who's feeding the lies?

The administration and those who inform them I suppose.