Was Iraq war Justified?

[ummester]

People said the same thing after Vietnam. Probably there is more truth to that statement at this point then there was then. Still if we could get a decent president, better than the guys we have had for the last 20 years or so, maybe that person could turn things around a bit. People talking about the US, in terms of it being an empire, which is a fair statement, is a big part of the problem.

It's hard to get a decent leader when the country is ran by a dual party plutocratic oligarchy. Not impossible, just hard. It would be great for America if that did happen, that a truly independent leader focused on effective change and the future of the country did rise up.

[SerMixalot]

No

It was an illegal war of aggression.

Next question

[Mr Fixit]

No, actually not. It is a simple truth that if you would apply something in its most rigerous fashion, only people who are kind of isolated from anything which could cause problems would be not in trouble.

Thats why everybody wanting to do something along those lines is first and formost applying a huge tube of self-immunization. Meaning an excuse why the standarts they set for others should not apply to them.

The last funny thing I heard in this direction was that somebody was arguing that you know confronting somebody with the factual truth is a form of rape. So sure, then everybody is a rapist the second they start to think for themself. Ok. Is that really something you need to think about? The reason why words like warcrimes, war of aggression or rape are used has most of the time nothing to do with their meaning but with the emotional charge they posses.

And most of the time it is done just for self promotion or self victimisation(thats annoying but not problematic), but sometimes it is also done to create moral equivalents. And thats actually quite dangerous.

If everything is a crime or war crime, we wont be able to stop everyting, but instead the meaning of the word crime or warcrime is deminished. And genocide is in the end as morally problematic as not going to church on Sunday.

I really don't know what you're talking about. Why is the notion that those who wage wars of aggression should answer for it in a court of law problematic?

[Biglose]

I really don't know what you're talking about. Why is the notion that those who wage wars of aggression should answer for it in a court of law problematic?

Because you would need a usefull definition first.

The major problem is, that you would need to start with the worst first, or it would just be silly. Now, then in probably a hundred years you could excavate the skeleton of bush and put it in jail. Yes, I consider that silly.

[Biglose]

If our government gave the first shit about liberating anybody then we'd have 50,000 marines in the Congo right now. No it wasn't justified, and the costs both for Americans and the Iraqi people far outweigh the benefits.

I am more under the impression, that they just fucked it up big time. Their were a lot of calls made after the invasion, which were just blantly stupid.

Laying of the police force entirely. Not putting pressure to write a constitution which protected minorities. Utterly negelecting civil infrastructur while focusing on oil fields and so on...

It is often said, that Iraq was not germany and therefor you could not excpect the same outcome. Let me put it like that: If Eisenhower would have allowed the occupation and the contact with regional powers (SU anyone) to be run as desasterous as it happend in Iraq and sourrounding areas, well europe would proably still be nuclear wasteland. And if they wouldn't had such a capable and hard working man as Lucius D. Clay as Eisenhowers second in command.....

I am not saying they were angelic beeing, Clay made a lot of morally questionable calls (he was probably the archetype of an technocrat) but in the end they were successful. And this success can be directly linked to their courage to make tough calls, their capabilities and their efforts.

And my perception of the iraq war was (I could be wrong) that most of the calls were not made by people who understood what they were doing or even had an interest in actual long term success first (espacially in the case of cheny the interests of some companies).

[DireWolfSpirit]

I really don't know what you're talking about. Why is the notion that those who wage wars of aggression should answer for it in a court of law problematic?

It's not problematic and I think a few from the Cheney/Bush-Lesser regime have been convicted already in the World Court. I know a prominent Spanish prosecutor was prosecuting one of them a few years ago. If Bush Lesser, Rumsfield, Shotgun Dick, Condi or Wolfowitz aren't war criminals than neither were any of the SS from the Third Reich. Perhaps one of them may be "Renditioned" , bound, gagged, shackled, and chaindragged onto a unmarked jet. Where they could be whisked away to face their sentences.

Hang Em High!http://youtu.be/0gscut1p4kY

[Mr Fixit]

Because you would need a usefull definition first.

The major problem is, that you would need to start with the worst first, or it would just be silly. Now, then in probably a hundred years you could excavate the skeleton of bush and put it in jail. Yes, I consider that silly.

There are 'useful definitions' out there. For example, there are Nuremberg Principles, created by none other than United States. Principle VI states:

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

Article 2 of the UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

And then there is, of course, U.S. Army's Law of Land Warfare :

498. Crimes Under International Law

Any person, whether a member of the armed forces or a civilian, who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment. Such offenses in connection with war comprise:

a. Crimes against peace.

b. Crimes against humanity.

c. War crimes.

I ask for nothing more than scrupulous adherence to the letter and spirit of law. The silly defense "all do it, so it's OK" is nonsense. Tens of thousands of people resort to murder every year; hundreds of thousands of women are raped; countless homes are burglarised. Should they all be forgiven simply due to the sheer number of crimes that constantly happen? I think not. Might should not equal right.

[ThinkerX]

I be more concerned about history repeating itself. I get a lot of right wing junk on my Facebook Feed arguing for sending troops to fight ISIS or for massive airstrikes against Iran. People in the comments typically go 'Yeah, lets kill dem bastards!' I point out the way out last few middle eastern interventions went, the responses range from...

'You're lying!' to

'It'll be different this time' to

'that's the price we pay for Freedom.'

It's like these people have done their very best to edit out all memory of just what an unmitigated disaster the Iraq War was.

And I strongly suspect, that should a republican (pretty much any of those currently in the Clown Car) somehow take the Oval Office, then another middle eastern war is highly likely. 'We gotta clean up Obama's mess.' 'Building tanks will put people back to work.' (And it's easier than actually trying to fix problems.)

[Shryke]

What is done is done. No use in crying for spilt milk. I only want to know one thing: when will the perpetrators of this war of aggression answer for the crime against peace? Only when the responsible end up behind bars on long prison sentences and their countries make appropriate reparations, which would hopefully prove that international justice applies to victors and defeated both, will the wider world in earnest begin to accept the leadership of those that like to imagine they have the "burden of leadership" thrust upon them.

Never.

Because that would require the cooperation of the US government and US internal politics completely preclude this outcome from ever occurring.

- there is literally no way one US administration would be able to charge a previous administration with crimes without incredibly broad political support. And that simply does not exist and never will.

- It's politically far too volatile to have one party go after the other party's previous administration.It's a recipe for a clusterfuck no one will touch for what should be fairly obvious reasons.

- and it will especially not ever be dealt with at an international level because the US, even if it did somehow find itself in a position where it somehow could charge these guys, would never let someone else do it..

[Biglose]

There are 'useful definitions' out there. For example, there are Nuremberg Principles, created by none other than United States. Principle VI states:

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

Article 2 of the UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

And then there is, of course, U.S. Army's Law of Land Warfare :

498. Crimes Under International Law

Any person, whether a member of the armed forces or a civilian, who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment. Such offenses in connection with war comprise:

a. Crimes against peace.

b. Crimes against humanity.

c. War crimes.

I ask for nothing more than scrupulous adherence to the letter and spirit of law. The silly defense "all do it, so it's OK" is nonsense. Tens of thousands of people resort to murder every year; hundreds of thousands of women are raped; countless homes are burglarised. Should they all be forgiven simply due to the sheer number of crimes that constantly happen? I think not. Might should not equal right.

Are you aware, that even a lot of nazis walked? Are you aware that even the Nurnburg trails were a far shot from a slam dunk?

Look, they need one guy who tells in court how saddam gased his family. We intervend for humaterian reasons, sorry we could not prevent them from butchering each other afterwards but we tried.

And lets just look what would need to happen afterwards(lets say it was done in the EU and US), every dignitary from nearly every muslim country would be arrested the second they step onto western soil. And guess what? Their cases would be slam dunks. Because sharia law is a crime in its own right and the prove of that can be easily optained by looking at the legal code of said country. And it would not stop there, china, russia and a lot of asien countries too have legal codes which are basically criminal from a human rights perspective. And thats really a 0 , 1 choice.

And that is in addtion to the problems Shryke brought up, and it would amplify those issues. Because you end up with the simple fact, that parts of the policy could be found with the next administration. Or the privious one. Take the cosovo war for example, the west did not have any UN legitimisation for that war either. And most of our reasons turned out to be not true afterwards.

So lets see, that would mean we would need to arrest the clinton government, and at least the german red/green coalition, the british and french government of that time on the europeen side, too.

So it is very simple: If you do not get too close to the nazis, you are more or less safe. (So a genocide of one million or at least 20+% of your population is kind of the starting kondition)

[TrueMetis]

So if a conviction isn't a hundred percent we shouldn't even try. That's... interesting.

[Biglose]

So if a conviction isn't a hundred percent we shouldn't even try. That's... interesting.

No, if the conviction chance is less then 50% one should think twice. And as a result of that action you would need to take further action to stay consistant which would more or less destabelize the world, I do not think so.

Sure arresting W. Bush does not seem such a big deal, but now go and arrest Bill Clinton. And again it would not be just the US. The british (And a lot of europeen) governemnt would be subject, too.

Handeling cases like that would severly endanger any humanitarian intervention in the futur. It would lead to more warlords considering genocide as an option, since the chance they will be stopped would decline.

All in all it would make the world a worse place.

And yes, I also stand this position for example in regards to Joseph Kony. 2004 or 6 I am not sure there was the offer to drop the charges in den Haag and allow him and his fighter to lay down their arms. I supported it.

The world community did not, Bush tried to catch him but due to the terrain and the lack of assistance by local governments it failed. And everybody knows about the massacers that followed.

[TrueMetis]

No, if the conviction chance is less then 50% one should think twice.

You didn't say that though.

And as a result of that action you would need to take further action to stay consistant which would more or less destabelize the world, I do not think so.

Sure arresting W. Bush does not seem such a big deal, but now go and arrest Bill Clinton. And again it would not be just the US. The british (And a lot of europeen) governemnt would be subject, too.

As Mr. Fixit said, that many people commit a crime is not a reason not to try and enforce the law. Indeed it is all the more reason to.

ETA: And if holding our governments responsible would destabilize the world, that's all the more reason to get it over with. Cause they're going to collapse anyway. But I'd like to think that Western Democracy isn't so pathetic.

Handeling cases like that would severly endanger any humanitarian intervention in the futur. It would lead to more warlords considering genocide as an option, since the chance they will be stopped would decline.

All in all it would make the world a worse place.

And yes, I also stand this position for example in regards to Joseph Kony. 2004 or 6 I am not sure there was the offer to drop the charges in den Haag and allow him and his fighter to lay down their arms. I supported it.

The world community did not, Bush tried to catch him but due to the terrain and the lack of assistance by local governments it failed. And everybody knows about the massacers that followed.

The chance of being stopped is already essentially nil. This is not an argument.

[Biglose]

As Mr. Fixit said, that many people commit a crime is not a reason not to try and enforce the law. Indeed it is all the more reason to.

ETA: And if holding our governments responsible would destabilize the world, that's all the more reason to get it over with. Cause they're going to collapse anyway. But I'd like to think that Western Democracy isn't so pathetic.

It would be fun, really. To have for example hillary clinton arrested mid presidential campaign for the drone strikes which are a clear violation of international law.

Then maybe we get a president trump, because since he never was in government, there is nothing which could fall on him I guess.

Honestly, sometime I wish that some peoples wishes would just come true. (But then I remember that life has no savegames)

[ummester]

As Mr. Fixit said, that many people commit a crime is not a reason not to try and enforce the law. Indeed it is all the more reason to.

ETA: And if holding our governments responsible would destabilize the world, that's all the more reason to get it over with. Cause they're going to collapse anyway. But I'd like to think that Western Democracy isn't so pathetic.

I agree with your sentiment but lack your faith in Western Democracy.

[Mr Fixit]

Never.

Because that would require the cooperation of the US government and US internal politics completely preclude this outcome from ever occurring.

- there is literally no way one US administration would be able to charge a previous administration with crimes without incredibly broad political support. And that simply does not exist and never will.

- It's politically far too volatile to have one party go after the other party's previous administration.It's a recipe for a clusterfuck no one will touch for what should be fairly obvious reasons.

- and it will especially not ever be dealt with at an international level because the US, even if it did somehow find itself in a position where it somehow could charge these guys, would never let someone else do it..

Unfortunately, this is true. We should not stop trying though. With enough effort, public awareness, and political goodwill, perhaps one day things change. If not with regards to the Iraq War, then with some other war down the line.

And that is also why the US no more has and is unlikely to have moral superiority over and trust of other nations. It is by example that leaders should lead, in good and in bad. When things go sideways, it is imperative that we acknowledge our mistakes and make up for them. Only then will we have the power of arguments on our side, as well as the right to champion a worthy cause in good faith.

[TrueMetis]

I agree with your sentiment but lack your faith in Western Democracy.

I try not to let my cynical side have too much control.

[Mr Fixit]

So it is very simple: If you do not get too close to the nazis, you are more or less safe. (So a genocide of one million or at least 20+% of your population is kind of the starting kondition)

The Balkans would like to disagree. For some reason, they seem to be almost the only ones that deserve to be tried under international law. Probably something to do with "primitive barbarians on the wrong side of the current geopolitical puzzle".

[Arakan]

The Balkans would like to disagree. For some reason, they seem to be almost the only ones that deserve to be tried under international law. Probably something to do with "primitive barbarians on the wrong side of the current geopolitical puzzle".

Let's not go there Mr. Fixit. It is true that the ICC will never go against the really mighty and that is unfortunately the nature of power and humanity itself. But that has nothing to do with "those Balkan people are primitive barbarians". The Balkan countries are weak and they basically have no real political alternative to cooperate with the ICC.

But an American or Russian in The Hague? Not bloody likely. Same goes for a Chinese.

It isnt just but the world is not just.

[Lord Freypie]

I be more concerned about history repeating itself. I get a lot of right wing junk on my Facebook Feed arguing for sending troops to fight ISIS or for massive airstrikes against Iran. People in the comments typically go 'Yeah, lets kill dem bastards!' I point out the way out last few middle eastern interventions went, the responses range from...

ISIS has very little to do with Saddam regime.

ISIS is spreading, and trying to destabilize new countries every day, while Saddam was impowerished and surrounded.

ISIS has as stated goal the destruction of everything not following their interpretation of Islam. They declared war to the world including most other muslim countries.

ISIS has no legal basis or international recognition.

ISIS support to terrorists groups/attacks in Europe/Maghreb is proven, including against members of NATO

No nation oppose strikes against ISIS.

About massive ground invasion only reluctance may come from Russia fearing US overthrow Assad in the same move, but if it's with his support they'd be fine.

Not to say such an attack may not have bad side effects, it's just completely different.

Unprovoked strikes on Iran on the other hand would be far worse for US image even than Irak war was, as Iran is in friendly terms with all emergent countries like India, China, Brazil etc.. and US would look like complete Israel pawns striking them, aggravating their image even in sunni world.