Resolved: On balance, the United States was justified in going to war with Iraq

Also, I would like to politely ask my opponent to refrain from saying "point please" and the like, since that is likely annoying for the readers and detracts from the main message. MoralWhat is the NAP? My opponent claims that the NAP is justified based on utilitarian grounds and therefore it plays right into his arguments. He is wrong in three main ways:1. My opponent is wrong in that the NAP is justified solely on utilitarian/consequentialist grounds. In fact, it can also be justified based on Argumentation Ethics, Natural Rights, and Social Contracts. In reality, it really doesn't matter which of these justifies the actual principle (even utilitarianism), since the actual principle remains the same. It's pretty clear that through context, I was not justifying it through utilitarianism.2. Even if I was to justify it via utilitarianism, it would actually produce that opposite result from what my opponent has implied. "Some advocates base the non-aggression principle on rule utilitarianism or rule egoism. These approaches hold that though violations of the non-aggression principle cannot be claimed to be objectively immoral, adherence to it almost always leads to the best possible results, and so it should be accepted as a moral rule. " (1)In other words, justifying the NAP through utilitarianism would mean that the Iraq War was not justified since it is the initiation of coercion and force against those who have not used coercion and force against yourself.3. The NAP states that violence is justified in self-defence of yourself, not of self defence of others. The Iraqi government was violating the rights of Iraqis but did not initiate force or coercion against the US, therefore not justifying aggression. (1)Kurdish GovernmentThis point is really irrelevant. Like I previously said, utilitarianism is forward looking. The Kurdish government was elected in 2005, while the genocides that my opponent listed happened in the 1980's. An analogy of this would be:Let's take Nazi Germany. During the Jewish purges, it is safe to say that the majority of Germans wanted the Jews out of Germany and even dead- mostly influenced by the propaganda of Hitler's regime. Therefore, at this point, the purges were utilitarianisticly justified since they produced the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people (the Jews only occupied 0.2% of Germany's population). However, if 20 years later Germany elects a Jewish Prime Minister, it says nothing about the morality of the actions that happened two decades ago and whether they were justified using utilitarianism. Human Rights Violations in 2002? My opponent claims that Iraq held a humans right expert that concluded that Iraq was violating human rights. Of course, this is completely irrelevant considering my previous points, but it is necessary to rebut this. The source that my opponent used stated this:"2002 February 11-15 - For the first time since 1992, Iraq hosts a UN human rights expert. During the preceding years, the international community documented and reported allegations of gross human rights abuses in Iraq, including summary executions; arbitrary arrest, systematic torture 'in its most cruel forms'; coercion by means of reprisals against a family members; and mass discrimination regarding access to food supplies and health care. " (2)The same source that my opponent used to state that the attacks are ongoing stated that "during the preceding years. .. ." In other words, the claim that Iraq was violating human rights at that time is false, going by my own opponent's sources. It merely states that Iraq violated human rights in the past, which was already concluded in the previous rounds. Took place in the 90's or the 80's? In the previous round, my opponent was talking solely about the Al-Anfal campaign. Now, he has changed his dialect towards a later time frame. However, this point is easily rebutted by my "utilitarianism is forward looking" point since the time frame does not matter, as long as it were in the past and it has stopped. The genocides could have happened 1 second before the invasion and as long as they stopped, they would not be utilitarianisticly justified. My opponent has failed to show the burden of proof that they were ongoing towards the invasion, and thus has not addressed my point.650 thousand deaths? My opponent claims that he proved that over 650 000 Iraqis were killed during Saddam human rights abuses- in the 80's and the 90's. Clearly, my opponent did not understand my argument. My argument with the 650 000 killed had absolutely nothing to do with the previous human rights abuses during Saddam's reign. As I stated in my "utilitarianism is forward-looking" argument, the previous abuses were completely irrelevant to the justification. I showed statistics that proved that because of the Iraqi invasion, about 650 000 people died. To rebut this point, my opponent must prove that these casualties would have been caused without the invasion from 2003 (when the war was started) until 2006 (when the article was published). My opponent has failed to meet the BOP for this. LegalUN ResolutionMy opponent claims that since these acts of genocide happened, according to the resolution, they should have been prevented. However, my opponent is wrong on two grounds:1. The war was not enacted due to human rights abuses- instead it was enacted due to President Bush supposedly thinking that there were WMDs in Iraq and that Iraq was affiliated with 9/11. (3)2. In the UN Resolution that my opponent sourced, it does not state that war will be justified for genocide. Instead, it states that the leaders shall be tried for their crimes:Article 5The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3. Article 6Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction. (4)Basically, a whole-out war is not necessarily needed according to the UN resolution, similarly to how a whole-out war with Pakistan was not needed to kill Osama Bin Laden. Legality of the WarMy opponent has failed to address my point that the war was illegal by UN standards and therefore counts as a concession. Summary:Drops/Concessions:1. My opponent did not at all address my point about utilitarianism denying any objective right to life. In the first round, my opponent advocated for this right to life, with a clear contradiction from the moral system that he was using.2. My opponent did not at all address perhaps my strongest point in that "Utilitarianism is forward looking;" past events should not be taken into regard. During this round, my opponent has still used this faulty reasoning for attempted justification, which I pointed out above.3. My opponent did not at all address the fact that the Iraq War was illegal since it was not passed through the UN Security Council before enactment and invasion. Sources (1). http://en.wikipedia.org... (2). http://www.policyalmanac.org... (3). http://en.wikipedia.org... (4). http://www.hrweb.org...