The Iraq War

Debate2.2 -As I stated, I do not need you to convince me that life was horrible under the Ba'ath regime. So please, no more hypotheticals. I don"t want to try and argue over which fascist state was the worst. It"s pointless and doesn"t pertain to the debate you instigated. -The Libertarian Platform supports war when it follows the rules of our Constitution, and when there is clear and present danger to our national security. Iraq posed no such threat to national security. Saudi Arabian oil is not a matter of national security. Speaking of Saudi Arabia, Freedom House Index lists them as one of the 9 Worst Human rights offenders in the world. (1) So maybe we should go there and topple that regime too instead of painting them as a potential victim of Saddam as you do. (1) http://www.freedomhouse.org... -The argument against America being world police, while cliche and overused, is legitimate. We are not do not have the means to be the ultimate authority in the world, and should not be that authority. -Again, your attempts to emphasize the brutality of Saddam are not relevant, as i said before, so maybe I should be clearer. I know and understand that Saddam Hussein was a scourge upon humanity, and is personally responsible for the deaths of thousands. I'm not denying or debating that. -Also I really don't see why your attempts to demonize me and the non-interventionist contingent are at all relevant. We are not "drowning in a sea of blood" and I never ever, ever attempted to "justify" Saddam's crimes. I am not your enemy. AMERICAN RESPONSIBILITY By your logic, I can safely assume that you think America is responsible for every atrocity in the world. I find that very inaccurate. That's like saying that you yourself are responsible for every murder in your city because you could have been patrolling the streets and slums, potentially preventing and avenging murder, and because you don"t do this, you are responsible for every murder that happens. R32; That is a heavy load for you to carry. Such is the load you place on America. I feel compassion for the people of the world, but also the people in my own country, who the American government IS responsible for. But we as a nation cannot save everyone. It is a hard and brutal truth that people will always die and suffer. The United States cannot be singlehandedly responsible for stopping every single evil person in the world as you insinuate. And at what cost to our own? How many American lives have to be spent? Must we sacrifice everything we have in a futile attempt to enforce military hegemony on the world? By your logic we should currently be fighting dozens of these wars in North Korea, Iran, etc. in the name of human rights and WMD"s. We could not support that type of policy. We would collapse. The purpose of NATO and the U.N is to enforce and ensure peace worldwide. Those organizations receive the majority of their funding from the United States already. Maybe the rest of the world should step it up, and assume their responsibility to their fellow humans. Or maybe the global mechanisms communally created to stop this kind of thing should stop it. Since we waged war in Iraq, we ARE DIRECTLY responsible for thousands of deaths. Our tax dollars financed the deaths of countless Iraqi citizens. Also we are now largely responsible for whatever happens in the nations' future. State-building and peace-building are some of the most intricate and complex processes in the political spectrum, and once you militarily intervene, you are responsible for rebuilding what you have helped destroy. We somewhat constructed a negative peace, lacking reconciliation or rebuilding, two of the most critical aspects of a stable, positive peace. If you study the history of theory behind peace building and state-building it is commonly accepted that negative peace is prone to relapsing into conflict. POST WAR RAMIFICATIONS II Iraq is still plagued by systemic issues of violence, violence and discrimination against women, poverty etc. It is still considered a failed state as I previously mentioned. The current democracy is feeble at best, struggling to hold power in a chaotic nation, with crippled infrastructure, and millions of displaced and disenfranchised Sounds prime for the taking if you're a young radical group. Just like the kind of new radical group that so many sadistic leaders rose to power with. The region has a history of foreign occupations and wars, which led up to Saddam. Our occupation has left the nation in a similar state. Bombings and violence are still widespread (1), an estimated 350 were dying every day due to continued violence after withdrawal (2) there is still cyclical injustice against women, and racial instability. The American Incursion left Iraq in a state of internal turmoil. Human Rights Watch claims that Iraq is "Falling Back onto Authoritarianism" (3) So how successful has this "Just and Noble" war actually been? (1)http://topics.nytimes.com... (2)http://www.isn.ethz.ch... (3)http://www.alarabiya.net... WMD's So if you want to use the possible potential for Saddam to maybe acquire Nuclear weapons as a justification for invasion, we should also now Invade Iran and North Korea right? Possibly even China? That way we can really just make sure the "good guys" are the only ones with nukes. Wrong. It"s that kind Alpha mentality that runs rampant in authoritarian regimes. A SUMMATION OF YOUR POINTSR32; So your justification for the Iraq war seems to hinge on two points: That there was some sort of a possibility that maybe, 10 or more years down the road, Saddam might have been able to get ahold of some nuclear technology. Largely ideas based on assumptions and guesswork. ---This argument creates a standard that any nation deemed evil must be disarmed and dismantled by the U.S. Again, while seemingly admirable, this also is not realistic. If China invaded the U.S in an attempt to disarm us under the guise of morality, we would resist, leading to war. Disarmament is not a process that can be done through force. That is the purpose of the NPT and diplomacy. To avoid war. To avoid death and destruction. To work together as a global society to make a safer world. That America has the ultimate responsibility to be the saviors of all people in the world, and if we do not intervene militarily, we are culpable for whatever happens to them. ---While admirable on a moral basis, this claim is wildly unrealistic. You are creating a black and white standard for evaluating the world, and people. (such as me and my "compatriots" who would be "drowning in blood") The world is not so simple. The absence of military action does not implicate the United States in the deaths of those thousands of people. War is not the answer. I don"t believe that waging war in a death and war stricken region is an intelligent way to foster peace. DID THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS? No. America"s Iraq incursion cost us hundreds of billions of dollars, as we occupied the nation for many years after we destabilized the regime(your main motivator for war). We lost thousands of American lives in a futile effort to combat insurgent factions while slaughtering thousands of innocents. We leave in our wake an unstable democracy in a region filled with ethnic and religious hate, active insurgency (1), ruined infrastructure and a highly dysfunctional economy (2). Sure, maybe the government isn"t murdering people anymore, but the bar is still pretty low. Iraq is a failed state, with a bleak future at best, and is prime real estate for continued ethnic and religious conflict. Their new Prime Minister, Al Maliki is already showing signs of Authoritarianism, discouraging protests, and "cracking down" on political opponents. (3,4) We have yet to see what true effect American interventionism will have. (1)http://www.hrw.org... (2)http://www.aljazeera.com... (3)http://topics.nytimes.com... (4)http://www.isn.ethz.ch...