The Iraq War was Justified!

Thank you for the rebuttals I would first like to note, that my opponent mistakes a fallacy; namely, the appeal to history. At no point did I ever claim that “the old ways were best” or make any sort of appeal to tradition (as it is more commonly known as). The question does require the consideration of effects on the country after an invasion or no invasion. Thus, the consideration of other genocides and their outcomes should be considered to determine it's legitimacy to further the scope/context of this issue to understand a legitimate reason for invasion. C1: Legality In summary, my opponent seems to be suggesting here that all international law really is, is coercion of the strong over the weak; it's legitimacy is called into question here. What is interesting is now my opponent seems to suggest that the other genocides I had mentioned previously, should be disregarded yet at the same time, the basis of his argument also rests on the notion of coercion by states to show the illegitimacy of International Law by using historical examples. However, my issue isn't the hypocrisy of this argument (that would be an appeal to hypocrisy) but rather the context in which his argument rests on. For instance, he uses the example of the native peoples in the US who get displaced during the countries history. The context is not applicable here as a legitimate example for several reasons: 1) at this time, while an honour system in war may have existed, it widely varied from country to country (Napoleon versus Czar Alexander for instance) so those norms of war were not universal 2) it isn't until the Geneva Conventions and UN that the norms of War do become universal and 3) that the times my opponent uses didn't require the consent of the parties involved, the UN is the complete opposite, and can only work on a pure voluntary/consenting basis. What's it's legitimacy? The legitimacy of consenting to sign and abide by the treaty in the first place. Remember, they didn't have to sign the treaty, and they could even note their reservations before agreeing to terms for each and every individual country. For instance, the US pledges it would be fine with the conventions, on the condition that it doesn't interfere with the US Constitution. If it does, then the Constitution trumps and there is nothing the International Community can do about it. [http://www.preventgenocide.org... ] The fact of the matter is both the US, and Iraq consented to the document, and pledged to undertake all the rights and responsibilities placed in the document. There was no coercion here, and I thus submit that this argument stands. C2: My opponent then goes on to claim that even if the law it's self was legit, then the document contradicts my position, namely articles 5,6, and 8. My opponent is quoting out of context. For instance, article 5 states “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.” Now to give effect, or to provide effective penalties clearly implies that other methods outside trials may also be used. My opponent quoted article 6, mainly that the consent of the offender is needed or the competent international community takes over (which Iraq did consent to, they did so through the conventions) and shows through the UN Charter Article 41, and 42 that only intervention is allowed through the organs of the UN. The issue here is also very clear as well, that they may be called upon, and both article 41, and 42 they may take action, this clearly implies that they may also reject getting involved at all leaving the country considering invasion in the first place the ability to do so legally. I readily admit that the US didn't pursue it, because the UN only works on the voluntarism principals it was founded upon, and furthermore, at no point is authority centralized upon the courts even by admission by my opponent in his own charters he selects. They may rule, or make a recommendation but it is up to the parties to enforce them. Ergo "prevent and punish"“Article 39; The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations” [http://www.un.org...]C3: US on Trial My opponent asserts through the tortures of the prisoners in abu Ghariab and the US's imposition of sanctions against Iraq, furthermore, this goes as far back as the 1980's in Guataemala. First, I shall concede to Guataemala incident. However, this is irrelevant, the question isn't if the US is guilty of crimes themselves (which I again concede for this specific example) but if the Iraq War was justified. Secondly, I thereby submit to my opponent the Just War Theory (JWT), because this "War on Terror" my opponent notes, and the Geneva Conventions I noted earlier denounced as illegal "excessive civillian causalites" The problem is we were up against a uniformless enemy, a form of ideology that the US was trying to combat and no matter how ineffective or silly that notion may be, it was taken out of the Genocide conventions before being finalized. And the Just War Theory does take into consideration Jus Ad Bellum, and Jus In Bello, mainly that the reason for war is "just" (a grave public evil is being committed... genocide) and the conduct combatants adhere to must be maintained (military necessity) mainly that the deaths were not excessive, but due to the nature of the combatants here, that civilian deaths realistically can only be minimized. Harm caused to civillians was minimal, and often times unintentional (which if intent was shown, soldiers were court marshalled). My opponent notes the sanctions, but that only assists my argument, that this was a last resort action because all other methods were tried. And finally, as noted, the Oil-for-food program was mean't to impact the Iraqi state, but not harm civillians, however the reaction of Iraq was outright refusal to cooperate for years [https://en.wikipedia.org...] realistically, thats the fault of Iraq, not something the US should be held accountable for, the US tried to assist the people of Iraq and the program failed. Simply put what else was there? Conclusion:The Principals used in Nuremburg, Eichmann, Yugoslavia (Univerisal Jurisdiction and Enemy of Humanity) were used to establish the legitimacy of international law, furthermore, we see that the consent of parties is strikingly different than this pseudo-imperialism my opponent tries to use to make a point. The documents all show the legality of the Iraq War, and the humanitarian history of the US for Iraq, coupled with the theoretical framework used for War and the documents of International Law, the Iraq War was justified. We both agree Saddam was a criminal, and there is no question that at times the US may act similarly (Guatamala) but that is irrelevant here, and furthermore, lets be realistic, one knows accidents happen in times of War regardless of if parties intentionally kill an innocent or not. But that's the key difference, the intent, and when fighting an ideology during the War on Terror, or taking over a whole country, those rates can only be minimized (and they should pragmatically) not completely abolished (realistically). The US never had the intent to kill Iraqi non-combatants, but the regime it's self. That's the difference, and the principal of military necessity justify this position. Thank you!Hitchslapped!