Was the Iraq War justified?

Soothfish said:

What do you mean by justified? Morally? Strategic? Those are very different things

Click to expand...

"Justification" always means moral justification.

But in terms of strategy, the ingoing strategy of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz was also critically wrong--and the generals told him so. In fact, the Army Chief of Staff disputed Rumsfeld publicly on the error of the strategy to the point that Rumsfeld fired him. All of the senior 4-star generals--the ones who had been junior officers on the ground in Vietnam--had to resign in order for Rumsfeld to have his war.

It was so strange--the Iraq war was one that the military actively resisted. The generals did not want it, intelligence advised against it. They said this publicly as much as men under orders could, and it came out in the media, but not even the generals could hold back the dogs of war. Even when Rumsfeld bristled in public, "War is not a military decision, war is a political decision," everyone still clamored for war. America had gone insane. Or there was a principality of war involved.

I think you are right, but only insofar as that not all Americans agreed to that decision. Therefore, those who did not agree, can not be put into a generalized assumption that they do by saying that America is insane for this decision. The truth behind much of this is kept back from the majority of American citizens by the mainstream media's bias in favor of the war on Iraq. I think you are more correct in saying that there is a principality of war involved. Which is evidence of Satan's control over this world system as revealed by Scripture.

Mediate said:

The United Nations council, the same institution who instated the Geneva Convention after WWII, for the purposes of avoiding and deterring any further war of such catastrophic magnitude, have signed, sealed and convicted America of committing the most heinous international crime under the statutes of that Convention - an unprovoked war. In effect, Bush stands convicted of the same crime as Adolf Hitler.

Click to expand...

I would say that Bush and Blair are worse than Hitler. My reason for claiming this is that the Versailles Treaty and the nature of the Soviet Union were such that it would have been reasonable for a German to see both as a threat. Look how JFK reacted to the Cubans when he believed that if was being armed by the Soviets.

Iraq posed no threat whatsoever to the US and UK despite it being under sanctions between Gulf War I and II.

Superhero Sam said:

I have researched about this topic (ie, the Christian perspective of the Iraq War), and I have found articles which say that the Iraq War was a just war, but I have also found other articles written by Christians who believe that the Iraq War was wrong.

What's your perspective on this issue?

Click to expand...

I believe it was just.

BUT: Here is a fact that pretty much everyone overlooks. First, consider Korea. Most people do not know that the North and South are still at war. They signed a ceasefire that has been in effect since the 50's, but technically they are still in a state of war. If either side violates the ceasefire the shooting can resume.

At the end of the First Gulf War we also signed a ceasefire with Iraq. There were certain conditions, such as Iraqi jets not being able to fly below a latitude on the map. Saddam Hussein violated the terms of the ceasefire many many times. Every violation was all the legal justification we needed to go in and finish wiping him out.

So forget Bush Jr., WMD's, the UN votes, and all the rest..... ....for years we had the legal treaty right to wipe out Saddam at our discretion.

PopesFollower said:

So forget Bush Jr., WMD's, the UN votes, and all the rest..... ....for years we had the legal treaty right to wipe out Saddam at our discretion.

Click to expand...

"Legal treaty right" does not equal "just." There have been more than a few unjust treaties enacted by the US.

The fact is that the US government did not have the evidence it claimed for justification. Post-facto rationales do not make the action just, because justness is a matter of knowledge and intent.

If an man's evil actions turn out for the good, that does not make his actions just.

Donald Rumsfeld new there were no stockpiles of WMD because his chief intelligence advisor--a former boss of mine--told him so. I know because I was working Iraq WMD intelligence for that same man before he went to work for Rumsfeld.

FreeSlave said:

From a christian perspective the Iraq war was vary bad because Christianity in Iraq dropped from 1.5 million to just over 200 thousand after the war.

From my personal view the Iraq war was wrong because Iraq was not a threat to us like Iran is today but because of Iraq America will not support another major war in the middle east till there is another 9 11.

Click to expand...

How is Iran "a threat to us"?

PopesFollower said:

I believe it was just.

BUT: Here is a fact that pretty much everyone overlooks. First, consider Korea. Most people do not know that the North and South are still at war. They signed a ceasefire that has been in effect since the 50's, but technically they are still in a state of war. If either side violates the ceasefire the shooting can resume.

At the end of the First Gulf War we also signed a ceasefire with Iraq. There were certain conditions, such as Iraqi jets not being able to fly below a latitude on the map. Saddam Hussein violated the terms of the ceasefire many many times. Every violation was all the legal justification we needed to go in and finish wiping him out.

So forget Bush Jr., WMD's, the UN votes, and all the rest..... ....for years we had the legal treaty right to wipe out Saddam at our discretion.

Click to expand...

RDKirk said:

"Legal treaty right" does not equal "just.".........

Click to expand...

I didn't say it did. But in this case, the Iraq war was both just AND legal.

RDKirk said:

........There have been more than a few unjust treaties enacted by the US...........

Click to expand...

Oh, Boo Hoo. I don't listen to that crap. America has been a beacon of freedom and a liberator of nations such as the world has never known. The world would be a dark place right now were it not for us.

We are not perfect, but then again Mother Theresa was not perfect either. But I'd rather have a world full of Mother Theresas than a world full of Eva Brauns.

PopesFollower said:

I didn't say it did. But in this case, the Iraq war was both just AND legal.




Oh, Boo Hoo. I don't listen to that crap. America has been a beacon of freedom and a liberator of nations such as the world has never known. The world would be a dark place right now were it not for us.

We are not perfect, but then again Mother Theresa was not perfect either. But I'd rather have a world full of Mother Theresas than a world full of Eva Brauns.

Click to expand...

When you say "we"--your who call yourself "popesfollower"-- why are you not talking about the Kingdom of Heaven? Of what nation are you a citizen, and to what nation are you an ambassador, a pilgrim, and a sojourner?

I still don't understand how we got into it and may never. How did Iraq tie in with 9-11? Still I don't blame out military. A soldier goes where he/she is told to go and fights whom he/she is told to fight. The military is not a democracy. I blame our political leaders and those that pull their strings.

NewEnglandGirl said:

I still don't understand how we got into it and may never. How did Iraq tie in with 9-11? Still I don't blame out military. A soldier goes where he/she is told to go and fights whom he/she is told to fight. The military is not a democracy. I blame our political leaders and those that pull their strings.

Click to expand...

War is good business. There is lots of money to be made, and anyone who asks questions is not patriotic, probably a traitor.
Soldiers are professional killers, and these days, that is their own choice, if not whom and when to kill.

Finn, until we have leaders who are willing to go all in if they want to go to war, I say stay the freak out. I hate ISIS as much as anyone, but do you want to see our military sent in to fight them with a worthless petulant punk like Obama commanding them? I find Bush disgusting. He said this would be a 50 year war, but did nothing to increase the size of the military. He kept sending in our National Guard reserves, and using our enlisted personnel like horses to be rode until they dropped. How many marriages did he destroy, how many of these brave people had their houses foreclosed? I have nothing but disgust for Bush, and nothing but complete contempt for progressive pieces of garbage like Obama. I would never want to see my son sent to fight for these pathetic excuses for leaders. Let them go themselves, and let this Dave in CA go sign up and fight if he is so driven. Maybe he did, and I'm being unfair to him, but the way he attacked you was beyond the pale. He was painting a self-portrait in his attacks on you.
Java training in chennai | Android training in chennai

nivin said:

Finn, until we have leaders who are willing to go all in if they want to go to war, I say stay the freak out. I hate ISIS as much as anyone, but do you want to see our military sent in to fight them with a worthless petulant punk like Obama commanding them? I find Bush disgusting. He said this would be a 50 year war, but did nothing to increase the size of the military. He kept sending in our National Guard reserves, and using our enlisted personnel like horses to be rode until they dropped. How many marriages did he destroy, how many of these brave people had their houses foreclosed? I have nothing but disgust for Bush, and nothing but complete contempt for progressive pieces of garbage like Obama. I would never want to see my son sent to fight for these pathetic excuses for leaders. Let them go themselves, and let this Dave in CA go sign up and fight if he is so driven. Maybe he did, and I'm being unfair to him, but the way he attacked you was beyond the pale. He was painting a self-portrait in his attacks on you.

Click to expand...

You just don't get it! We don't want to win the war, which isn't really a war, since congress has not declared war, because as long as we're fighting business can sell stuff to the government. One company can sell weapons and supplies, and another company, owned by the same capitalists to be sure, can sell supplies for re-building to contractors, still owned by the same people, and at every step there will be huge profits. The dead soldiers and civilians are just regrettable collateral damage. It's business! It's the American way!
Meanwhile, the the rest of the world watches in amazed contempt as the taxpayers not only fund the war, but pay outrageous prices for medical care, and higher education. Americans are very good slaves, lazy and ignorant, and easily distracted by inappropriate content and sports. Historians, if there are any, will look back, and mark the fall of the republic to the presidential election of 2000 when the pathetic lard-butted electorate never looked up from cleaning their guns to notice that they had just been shafted.

"Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land ruled by greed, and the home of the slave?"

America is going to eat it and die.

nivin said:

He kept sending in our National Guard reserves, and using our enlisted personnel like horses to be rode until they dropped. How many marriages did he destroy, how many of these brave people had their houses foreclosed?

Click to expand...

A point on this. Only as far back as within living memory--prior to the Cold War after WWII--the US only barely maintained a standing army. Between major wars, the army was commonly reduced to close to the bare minimum needed to keep the wheels on the bus. It was only with the Cold War (beginning in earnest with the Korean War) did the policy of keeping a "two and a half simultaneous wars" standing army in force. But even though that's within living memory, the US has such a terrible political attention deficit syndrome, people tend to think today that a "two and a half simultaneous wars" standing army is not only normal but proper.

And as Graccus has been alluding, US industry and commerce has grown to feed the needs of a "two and a half war" standing army. This is the "military-industrial complex" that President Eisenhower warned of. It sprouted during his presidency--he watched the environment change from a Department of War that stood down during peace to a Department of Defense that remained constantly ready for two and a half simultaneous wars, and he saw how that created an entirely new continuous "Daddy Warbucks" economy. My point is: The way it is today is not the way it always had been.

Of course, a real question is: What is the nation doing wrong politically that the prospect of fighting two and a half simultaneous wars should be considered "normal?"

Up until the 80s, the military Total Force (active forces, Guard, Reserves) was proportioned so that the bulk of the Total Force was active duty. During the 80s, Congress re-proportioned the Total Force to make the major portion the Guard and Reserves. This was done to prevent the president from carrying out another Vietnam War with the active duty force without needing Congressional approval to call up the Guard and Reserves. It also leaned a bit back to the concept of not having such a huge standing force.

But that is the reason you see the Guard and Reserves being relied on so much for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--it's working just as designed. It's just that the Congress of the early 80s did not expect the Congress of the early 2000s to roll over so easily for the president.

Avniel said:

Who gives us the right to "liberate."

Click to expand...

Nobody at all.

psalms 91 said:

And neother do any who left this country or did what you did. I served during Vietnam and while I didnt agree I most certanly doid not agree with turning my back on my country. I saw the people that hated the soldiers and they are still in my mind as ungratful, unpatriotic, and lucky that they live in a country that would tolorate this. I think everyone that left or refused should have been jailed

Click to expand...

Why?

Superhero Sam said:

I have researched about this topic (ie, the Christian perspective of the Iraq War), and I have found articles which say that the Iraq War was a just war, but I have also found other articles written by Christians who believe that the Iraq War was wrong.

What's your perspective on this issue?

Click to expand...

Well, Saddam needed to be booted out of Kuwait, period. However, this raises two questions:

1. Why did Saddam believe he could invade Kuwait without there being repercussions(i.e. military action) from the vastly superior west?
2. Overall, what did it accomplish when it was all finished?

Looking at the Mideast now, its more unstable than it ever was before, and I'm sure a lot of individuals/officials within our government and the Mideast made quite a bit of money off of our two campaigns in Iraq. At the US taxpayers' expense, of course.

Waterwerx said:

Well, Saddam needed to be booted out of Kuwait, period. However, this raises two questions:

1. Why did Saddam believe he could invade Kuwait without there being repercussions(i.e. military action) from the vastly superior west?
2. Overall, what did it accomplish when it was all finished?

Looking at the Mideast now, its more unstable than it ever was before, and I'm sure a lot of individuals/officials within our government and the Mideast made quite a bit of money off of our two campaigns in Iraq. At the US taxpayers' expense, of course.

Click to expand...

Saddam "needed to be booted out of Kuwait" for one certain reason: The certain reason is that the US has an agreement standing since 1972 to protect Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in exchange for them selling their oil only for US dollars. That is Nixon's 1972 "petrodollar" agreement to keep the US dollar supported after Nixon floated the dollar's value on the world market.

I would speculate that since Saddam had had US support in his war with Iran (I'd played a part in that support myself) and was the primary nation keeping Iran at bay, the US would not interfere with his purely regional actions. He telegraphed his invasion weeks in advance and the US failed to make a clear stand against him (apparently not realizing that diplomatic subtleties were lost on him). Heck, the DIA and CIA argued for two weeks whether (DIA, seeing the military buildup) or not (CIA, thinking politically) Saddam was even preparing for an invasion.

They played us good didn't they?
Hang in there brothers.