The Iraq War was Justified!

I happily welcome an old friend and foe Conservative Politico, and hope a fair better than our previous debate! May the best man win my friend! Making the Case: C1: Legality First, I'd like to point to a very important document, known as Resolution 260 III (A) or The Genocide Conventions, which were drafted by the UN in Dec of 1948. The very first line my audience will find reads very loudly and clearly the following: “Article 1: The contracting parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish“ Now, lets discuss the context of this document, and why it is here today. Notice the date 1948? This document was formulated as a response to the atrocities of the Holocaust. To which the American president proudly proclaimed along with the UN “Never again!” in reference to the holocaust. Indeed, because of the context of the document (which was used in both the Rwandan trials and Yugoslav trials due to the ambiguity of the document it's self which was also found to be legal) the findings were clear: the parties involved have a defaulting responsibility to stop those crimes at all costs. This is a prior, and clearly non-negotiable. In fact this is backed up by several other documents as well! Anyone ever hear of the Geneva Conventions? Although it never actually calls genocides by their actual names, it's pretty clear in Article 50, no state is ever allowed to commit excessive harm to civilians via military means; while not the exact same as Genocide, a Genocide would certainly fall into it's qualification. Case and point, by entering the US was upholding International law, and that even though they may not have went to the UN to justify the invasion, the document was designed to enable a force to circumvent UN approval in order to attack when dire situations (I.E Genocide) called for them. They call the committing of Genocide an act so nasty the person or state becomes an “Enemy of Mankind” or “Hostis humani generis” and as used in Eichmann, Nuremburg, Yugoslavia, and Rwanda, the Principal of Universal Jurisdiction may be used to justify invasion due to this hatred for humanity. There is no doubt, the invasion was justified on legal means. C2: Lessons in History Let's look at what my opponent is going to argue during this debate, and ponder the question “what would have happened should we stay out of it?” Even better, can we think of any examples? We have a few: Rwanda, where the Clinton Administration was completely complacent in acting when they fully well knew a genocide was imminent. Making them de facto criminals as argued in my previous essay here: http://pierretrudeau2.blogspot.ca... We all universally agree the disgust and failure of the UN to act, and is commonly cited as a reason for the UN to fall, so then why should we stay out if we see what happened when we do in Rwanda? Clearly invasion was the right thing to do! What about the Republic of China and Tibet? Where so may Tibetan monks have been persecuted, they flee to India? What about Burundi? No intervention again during the Hutu/Tutsi killings What about East Timor? Where the Indonesians starved, raped, and attacked the people residing there? We see that nothing but death, destruction, and destitute comes from enabling these bullies to having what they want, and it's an outrage that in the face of international law, that each person who signs the document, proceeds to ignore it and with no basis or justification for doing so other than “were not interested”. What should interest them is the preservation of life, otherwise whats the use of the state? C3: We Funded Them ... But The Logic Still Follows Yes, there is no questioning it that Suddam was funded by the US during their invasion of Iran, shortly after the Iranian revolution. However, if we built this man up from our own money, and are inadvertently responsible for the death and destruction he caused, do we not have a responsibility to clean up our own mess? I think so, that we were more compelled to go in for putting someone evil like him in power than not. Your parents always allowed you to play with your toys, but they always taught us if you made a mess you clean it up! What makes us so arrogant that we could put such an evil man in power, that we turn around and say “Sorry Iraq, no longer our problem!”? Doesn't make sense. C4: The Contrarian View Much to popular misconceptions, my opponent will maintain staying out of Iraq for two main reasons: 1) because it was claimed Al-Qaeda was in there and they weren’t and 2) because the US claimed they had WMD's and they didn't. However, when we look at the Iraqi Resolution passed by Congress, we see actually 12 reasons for going to war not 2. And turns out of those 12, only 2 were “half-right” technically speaking. Iraq ended their nuke program in the 1990's but never ended their gassing of the Kurds, and Al-Qaeda and Saddam didn't get along because it was reported that Bin-Laden wanted a Theocracy while Saddam wanted a secular one. In the resolution, what was the 12 reasons for going to war? The following: Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors. Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region." Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population." Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people". Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zonesfollowing the 1991 Gulf War. Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq. Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations. Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers. The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them. The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism. The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power. Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. Lying to your people with a half-truth spun, still wouldn't absolve you of your duties you signed as an enforcer in the face of the international community. No where does it say in the geneva conventions or Genocide conventions "but hold on folks! If your a deomcracy and you lie to your people, then suddenly you can ignore genocides!" I say again, it doesn't absolve the host country of it's duty to uphold such a deliciate law like International Law! Conclusion: Look folks, hindsight is 50/50. The intelligence at the time certainly made it believable that Iraq had WMD's and was in talks with Al-Q. Foregin policy is also the toughest policy to formulate, as evidence pops up, can you count on it? Or is it counter evidence? You never actually know! Bush faced a tough decision, but here is what he did know, he was facing a brutal man, who was killing his own people, and the UN was telling him NO, when in fact, it's own laws compelled him to say “Yes.” And so as a democrat, and as embarrassing as it is to say, Bush actually did something right! He enabled the Kurdish people to survive to this day. The invasion of Iraq was justified in the eyes of the law, and furthermore, on humanitarian grounds. Thank you! Hitchslapped!