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

MoralNAPIs my opponent purposefully acting thick-headed? He claims that since he listed three philosophers (economists, actually) who support the consequentialist framework of the NAP (despite the applications being the same between all frameworks), he is automatically correct. There are four frameworks of the NAP- Social Contract (Locke, Rousseau), Consequentialist (Friedman, Hayek, Mises), Argumentation Ethics (Hans Hermann Hoppe, Rothbard), and Natural Rights (Locke, Spooner, Rothbard). These are the possible frameworks of the NAP. In reality it doesn't matter which one you pick as they all lead to the same conclusion. /end useless point. My opponent states that the NAP implies that individuals have an obligation to protect others from violations of their property rights. He cites Wikipedia, which ultimately sites Walter Block in this article: . http://www.lewrockwell.com.... Nowhere does it state anything about this so called "obligation. " I invite the readers to look at this article (it is fairly short and interesting). The fact is that even though you have an obligation according to the NAP to prevent violation of property rights, it cannot be while your own property rights are being violated. The War in Iraq was responsible for the deaths of thousands of both American soldiers and especially Iraqi civilians (who would otherwise not have had their rights violated). Utilitarianism is Forward- LookingDue to my opponent's proficient grammatical skills, it is challenging to discern any argument from my opponent's writing. However, to the best of my knowledge, my opponent's argument follows this syllogism:Utilitarianism is forward looking- hence you take into account future actions (not past actions)The Iraqis wanted Hussein eliminated, hence it provided the greatest amount of happiness. Thus, it was utilitarianisticly justified. ___Anybody who read my arguments can clearly identify that this is not at all what I was arguing for. My opponent has dropped my original arguments of the # of casualties and instead proceeds to straw man my argument. Now, my opponent's argument could be valid if we only take into account internal variables (the Iraqi people) but not take into account the intervention of US troops. However, considering that he is arguing for the invasion, this does not stand. When the US troops invaded, they causes many negative externalities while reaching their goal of disposing Hussein. This included the killing of about 650 000 civilians- which my opponent has not proven to exist without the war. Assuming that my opponent's logic is correct, a Civil War would be justified since it only takes into account the wants and consequences that the Iraqi people want. However, by imposing a third party force, ultimately there are negative externalities that my opponent has failed to justify. Human Rights ViolationsIt seems as if my opponent now claims that he had a wrong source (even though he directly copy-pasted) from the source into the debate. Regardless, his new source is not better. Human rights violations are a matter of the Government vs. The People. In other words, they are only related to the actions committed by Saddam Hussein's. Inter-domestic violence does not justify foreign intervention. From my opponent's source:"information on human rights abuses that occurred among household members since 1991. "(1) This source deals solely with inter-domestic human rights abuses in households and is irrelevant to the current discussion. Clearly, domestic violence does not justify foreign intervention. My opponent has failed to bring up evidence that shows that Hussein's crimes were A) Continuing into the late 1990s and early 2000s with great momentum and B) That these crimes would have totaled over 650 000 between 2003 and 2006. Then my opponent calls me a Nazi sympathizer. .. lol. Forward Looking Part 2Here my opponent states that Hussein bluffed about having the WMDs and therefore not only was the war justified, but somehow my opponent also gets the conclusion that this meant that Hussein would not stop killing his own people- despite about one and a half decades of stagnation of human rights violations. First of all, I fail to see that war is justified because of a bluff. War by itself is an act of aggression and is only valid if aggression against yourself is passed. The proper course of action in this sense would be to mandate an impartial investigation, instead of launching into a full-out war because there might be WMDs. Second, my opponent somehow comes to the conclusion that just because Hussein bluffed about the WMDs, he would continue on violating human rights. This is non sequitur. My opponent has failed to justify why this would happen so this point is moot. LegalUN ArticleMy opponent claims that Article 1 states that "The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish. " This is true. However, this article in no way states anything about a full-out war or invasion as reprehensible action for committing a genocide. Furthermore, in the short time of three years of the Iraqi War, 650 000 civilians died in the process (source in R1). This by itself is a genocide masked under the pre-tense of war. My opponent has failed to bring about information that shows that this would have happened without the war during these three years. I agree that death on Hussein's part was necessary, but disagree on that an invasion was necessary. In that sense, my opponent has not justified an invasion, but merely a removal of Hussein from power. Why wasn't Bush tried for criminal actionsThere have been many groups that have pushed for Bush being tried for criminal actions but convicting the President of the United States is challenging. This does not preclude that he did not actually commit crimes. SummaryDrops- Objective right to life contradiction that I have outlined in all the previous rounds- Failure to provide information that shows that without the war, the deaths from 2003 to 2006 would have been greater than 650 000. - Failure to rebut the illegality of the war since it was not passed through the UN Security CouncilVote Con. Resolution negated. As per the rules of the debate, my opponent can only post a 1-2 line rhetorical statement. (1). http://jama.jamanetwork.com...