Why the Iraq war was morally right

Those who bleat that the war on Iraq was illegal or unnecessary should stand by the mass graves in the killing fields of Hatra.

The remains of mothers with unborn babies and bodies of toddlers still clutching toys bear pitiless testimony to the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein. Many had been shot in the back of the head, their bodies bulldozed into makeshift graves. In a second grave were the bodies of their husbands and fathers, massacred with machine guns. To end this evil was the reason we went to war. When the world found out about atrocities the Nazis committed in the Holocaust, it said: Never again.But Saddam was as evil as Hitler. We could not stand by and do nothing. It is pointless politicians arguing about dodgy dossiers or United Nations resolutions. The truth is that Saddam was a monster determined to be the first Arab nuclear ruler and the world is better with him in prison, not in power. Britains' Lib-Dem leader Charles Kennedy accuses Tony Blair of leading us into “an illegal war.” Why doesn’t he talk about the illegal acts committed by Saddam over 24 years?

The poison gas used to murder thousands of Kurds and Iranians. The invasion of Kuwait in 1990 which needed half a million American and British troops to reverse. His attempt to assassinate former President George H. Bush (Dubya’s dad) in 1993. The way he harboured one of the bombers who attacked the World Trade Center that year. Has Kennedy forgotten how Saddam never told the truth about weapons of mass destruction and ejected U.N. weapons inspectors? Or that the need to keep a huge U.S. military presence in the Middle East was the reason given by Osama Bin Laden in 1998 for his declaration of holy war on America? America and Britain could not have gone to war for a more valid and honourable cause than the destruction of Saddam’s evil regime.
The horror of Iraqi mass graves.

 

I don't think anyone disputes that Saddam was an evil man. However, George W. Bush is an equally evil man. So, would some country be justified in attacking the U.S. and killing me and other innocent people? "Liberating" us from our evil dictator?

We are killing thousands upon thousands of civilians over there. We are doing the very thing you despise Saddam for doing....does that make any sense? What good is that doing I ask you. The people fighting back are just Iraqis who want their country back, much the same as I would possibly be doing if we were under attack here. Understand? The weapons we are using in civilian-occupied cities are not ones a military would use if they cared about civilian deaths. It's obvious they don't. We are there for black gold. We are not doing Iraq any favors.

We got Saddam, now let's get the f*ck out.

 

People aren't against the Iraq war because they thought Saddam was a great guy. People are against it because we rushed into war on false pretenses, weakened Iraq, basically handed over bunkers full of weapons to insurgents, took our eye off Bin Laden (the person responsible for the attack on our soil), lied about WMD, and lied about al-quida connections. If we were going to war to liberate suffering people, or get rid of threats there were, and still are worse men and larger threats than Saddam. We got ourselves into a mess in Iraq, and we never should have been there in the first place.

Reported civilian deaths in Iraq due to this war have been as high as 100,000. We cannot get control over the region, we cannot gain the trust and favor of the Iraqis, and we have pretty much forgotten about the man who organized an attack on our own soil.

This was a poorly planned war that couldn't have been started at a worse time, and the Iraqi people are suffering due to our terrible planning. We could have done a better job removing Saddam, and we should have. But there was no reason to do it now, and cause this kind of trauma for Iraq and it's people.

 

Oh you can't really compare George Bush to Saddam. Even the anti-Bush film Fahrenheit 9/11 tries to portray him as a simpleton rather than a tyrant who ignored warnings on the threat of terrorism and did not know what to do without the help of his advisors on hearing of the September 11th attacks. Bushs' only reall crime is to have a low IQ and to have been pushed into the role of President by his wealthy family. Deep down he is not a bad man just an incompetant one, who would be better off doing a less demanding job.

 

If the insurgents are "Iraqi" people, then why are they targeting places with civilians present? You morons need to realize that all the civilian casualties there are not created by the US troops. 2/3's are created by the insurgents. Oh, and Bush is in no way doing to America what Sadam did to Iraq. More later, I have to go work for the opressing man to feed my disinfranchised family. LOL.

 

Maybe you should stand by the graves of our children who have been killed for a lie.If the media would start showing the metal caskets of our soldiers being loaded up on cargo planes like they showed during nam,this would motivate the people to put an end to the oil war.

 

By the way, I am addressing the original poster, and I am fully AGAINST war by this post. A few people seem to have misunderstood my post and thought that I was actually supporting war. I do not, and I do not support the hypocrisy of the American government either.



Dude, please shut up with that bullshit. And please lose your pathetic indignant tone. You seem to quickly forget that we placed Saddam in power. IS HE THEREFORE NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY? Including everything that he did while in power? And besides, all morals aside, let's talk about it in logical terms. Are you willing to go sign up today, and be shipped out to Iraq like a pawn? If so, then perhaps I will give your opinions value, but if not, then please shut the fuck up with the indignant tones, because it reeks of hypocrisy.

 

Young man,I gave my all with 21 months in vietnam.I have seen infinatley more of our corrupt govt then you have.There are many more dictators/govts that our country installed into power that are just as bad.Since you support this war, the question is, do you have the balls to go??? If not,then you shut th fuck up! I
did what I thought was right over 30 fucking years ago.I enlisted when I was 17 fucking years old,not sit around on a computer talking shit you don't have ANY fucking experience with."Indignant tones"????? I fucking EARNED it in BLOOD kid,just what the fuck have you EVER DONE?

 

I really would like to know how many billions of our tax dollars was given to Saddam over the years? The America government didn't seem to have any problem with the fact Saddam was a bad person when he was doing our biding for decades in the middle east. I also wonder how much of that money was spent to purchase weapons? So basically the United States has spent Billions of dollars,killed thousands of people,waisted hundreds of soldiers lives,not to mention the thousands of U.S. soldiers who have been wounded to get one man? I guess the moral of the story is you don't try to kill a Massachusetts cowboys daddy.

 

Actually the "he tried to kill my daddy" myth was debunked quite some time ago. Even that is nothing more than another in the roster of lies used in turn as each fraudulent excuse was debunked one by one leaving in the end only the Saddam was a bad man excuse with any basis in fact (though insufficient to provide legal justification for transnational war of unprovoked aggression).

 

I'd like to know how much they spent on the drug war in south america too.I often wonder how many innocent people have been killed for all the years that has been going on,as well as all the dictators that "our" govt has installed,only to regret it later.Other countries have contributed to saddams killing machine too.Lots of russian weapons etc.

 

And who "debunked" that theory the CIA? A conserative newspaper? Pioneers for Bush? Swiftboat Veterans for the truth? Or perhaps even Rush Limbaugh? Or some other special interest group? I guess the next thing you'll tell me is the American Government never lies.

 

You're absolutely right, the images of saddam hussein's regime are horrible, and are exaclty what the american people will see if they keep GWB and his crazy, religious fundamentalist administration in power. We went over to Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people, not go there, take out saddam and do exactly what he did and then defend ourselves by saying "oh we can do it, saddam hussein did worse, so that excuses us from anything". We are supposed to be over there helping these people, but instead, soldier's signal to cars to stop is the same as the symbol to have a good day, so when the cars don't stop, the order to fire is given, thousands of innocent iraqis are being killed all in the name of "liberation", that is bullshit. You have every right to have your own opinion, and to share it, that is what democracy is, but when the US starts shuttung down Iraqi independent news sources and ousting people who speak up against the occupation, that is not liberation, that is tyranny.

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

Youre throwing the wrong accusations at the wrong person friend. I suggest you read my posts before suggesting that I of all people would defend the cesspit of corruption that fancies itself the capitol of the "free world".

 

Oh, the US government didn't regret putting him there, they were happy as apple pie. What better way for the US to make money and exploit the poor and suffering than to install a US friendly dictator in that region, just like Karzai, the UNOCAL adviser who was placed to lead afghanistan...

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

Reguardless of your political ideology. You made a statement I believe to be false. I was hoping you would provide a shread of evidence from an unbaised source that may shed some light on this matter?

 

There has been many "leaders" installed at our govt's wish,later to be hailed as cruel etc....... Dictators fall out of favor and so on."The more things change,the more they remain the same" sigh.

 

Well now, since that word has become such a verbal football these days, do pray tell first enlighten me as to what you consider an "unbiased" source?

Every source has a bias, friend.

 

The humanitarian justification for the invasion of Iraq relies upon the pragmatic argument that it is acceptable to cause some suffering to prevent more suffering.

Human Rights Watch - a body which supports humanitarian military intervention - has condemned this invasion because this pragmatic argument does not add up in the case of Iraq. The atrocities cited as justification for humanitarian intervention mostly happened during the 1980s, and all happened in the period up to the crushing of the Shia rebellion following the 1991 gulf war (something which could have been prevented by coalition forces but wasn't).

So during the Anfaal in 1988, or the massacre of the Shia in 1991, there would have been a case for humanitarian intervention to prevent ongoing or imminent genocide. Despicable as they are, these atrocities were historical and did not present a case for humanitarian invasion of the country in 2003. While Saddam's regime was brutal and repressive, there is no evidence whatsoever that these kinds of activities were ongoing or imminent. They simply had not been happening in the 12 years prior to the 2003 invasion. This is not to suggest Saddam's regime was not brutal - it was. There was political repression, there were summary executions in the thousands.

But the level of suffering inflicted upon the people of Iraq as a direct consequence of this military intervention vastly outweighs that inflicted by Saddam upon the people of Iraq over the whole 12 years prior to this invasion. We are talking in the order of magnitude of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed or injured as a consequence of this war, not to mention the ongoing and future effects of unexploded munitions, infrastructural collapse, the use of depleted uranium, and an ongoing civil war.

So on the purely pragmatic grounds for invading Iraq as a humanitarian intervention - on the grounds of causing some suffering to prevent more suffering - this justification fails.

 

Yeah, if we cared so much about the Iraqi's (like our thread started implied) then why the hell did we pretend to support them, only to let them be slaughtered when they tried to rebel against Sadam in the 80's?

Anyone who thinks our gov't gives two shits about the Iraqi's needs to use a bit more brainpower. This war was not morally right,