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

My BOP is to show that Iraq was justified politically, morally, economically, and perhaps legally. I hereby declare that I will show morally through Jeremy Bentham's Utilitarianism (greatest good for the greatest amount of people) and that of the "ends justify the means" (consequential), politically through the regimes gross misconduct of human rights abuses, and legally through a rough outline of the Just War Theory and Iraq's violations of the UN's Declaration of Human Rights. I refuse to go into economics as it is too ambiguous. I agree to terms. Utilitarianism: Greatest good for greatest amount of people.[1] Under the Saddam regime (Iraqi Ba'ath Party) gross crimes against humanity were committed. Under the Al-Anfal Campagin, Kurds, Jews, Assyrians, and others were killed off in an attempt for so-called 'Arabization'.[2] Even worse, statistically approx. 50-100k of people were murdered of whom all were non-combatants.[3] 4,000 villages were destroyed, 250 were gassed to the point of no longer being inhabitable.[4] Destroyed 1,754 schools, 270 hospitals, 2,450 mosques, 27 churches and wiped out around 90% of Kurdish villages in targeted areas.[5] This is not only including what the Economist describes as ""one of the last of the 20th century's great dictators, but not the least in terms of egotism, or cruelty, or morbid will to power" as well as ï¿½Human Rights Watchï¿½andï¿½Amnesty Internationalï¿½issued regular reports of widespreadimprisonmentï¿½and torture of Iraqi people.[6] Thus, we can deduce that the American soldiers served the interests of the Kurds, the Iraqi people themselves, the Jews, and anyone else involved in said disgusting conduct. Under utilitarianism the act of intervention is thus just and the resolution is weakened. No one was limited to the killings of the Ba'ath Party, the loss of American troops at 4,487ï¿½ does not even come close to the death and misery Saddam caused and can thus be seem as just.[7] Ends Justify the Means: To be noted: Iraq voted in a Kurdish minority in their democracy, something the Us failed to do until 2008. Thus in 2005 Iraq did something rather rapidly that took the US another 3 to be able to do.[8] Also just a thought, I shall admit no proof has been shown but interestingly enough the Iraqi invasion ceased in 2011, yet Arab Springs hit the news in 2010. As a political science major I find this rather interesting because with Iraq along with Afghanistan both being liberated I predict part of the Arab Spring was formed because of an 'enlightenment' -in other words- other countries looked toward what was happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, liked it, and wanted the same thing (or at least idea). Sounds like a bit of a stretch? It isn't, historically speaking the same thing happened in France with the invention of the printing press, spreading humanism everywhere. Legally Part 1: The UN very clearly states Article 2 of the 1949 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines Genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". In December 2005 aï¿½courtï¿½in The Hague ruled that the killing of thousands of Kurds in Iraq in the 1980s was indeed an act of genocide.ï¿½Theï¿½Dutchï¿½court said that it was considered "legally and convincingly proven that the Kurdish population meets the requirement under the Genocide Conventions as anï¿½ethnic group. The court has no other conclusion than that these attacks were committed with the intent to destroy the Kurdish population of Iraq." [9] Also very important is Iraq's involvement with Terrorism both before and during the war. Although most people believe nothing was connected with Al-Qaeda to justify an invasion, they did form during the invasion in 2003.[10] Thus, the Ba'ath party had allies with Al-Qaeda's subdivision for Iraq specifically during the invasion before the fall of the regime. Furthermore, the founder was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi whom before the invasion was actually FUNDED by Osama Bin Laden [11]. Saddam also supported ï¿½Mujahadeen-e-Khalqï¿½and theï¿½Kurdistan Workers' Partyï¿½, along with Hamas, and several Palestinian splinter groups, all terrorist organizations.[12] Although short and sweet, I am far too curious to hear what my opponent will use as a defence to my arguments and attempt to hold up the resolution. I have filled my BOP thus far, and I shall expand on my arguments later. Sources: [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]Ibid [4]Ibid [5]Ibid [6]http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://en.wikipedia.org... [8]http://en.wikipedia.org... [9] http://en.wikipedia.org... [10] http://en.wikipedia.org... [11] http://en.wikipedia.org... [12] http://www.cfr.org...