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

I apologize for my arrogance, however me and Lordknukle are rivals, and for that I thank him for his arguments, but I must ask him to quit eluding my points with generalizations and get to the core criticisms of my arguments. NAP rebuttal: My opponent claims Utilitarianism is not used within NAP, despite me listing off 3 separate philosophers -experts within their fields if you will- he has no counters from other experts, only just HIS ideas. I thus extend my arguments within this regard. Second my opponent raises only one valid point: that in very rare circumstances is consequentialism beneficial for the NAP. I have shown the liberation of Kurds, Jews, Assaryians, and even the Iraqi people themselves due to this aggression, and the President being voted in as a minority proving it justified. The BOP here is now onto my opponent to show otherwise, something he has failed to do. Third, he uses the exact same source I used, which clearly states "the non-aggression principle does not preclude violence used in self-defense or defense of others." Thus he legitimizes my argument and makes his a dropped point. I extend my arguments, specially because a one Mr Walter Block also furthers this within his article ï¿½"The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism (LewRockwell.com, February 17, 2003). Kurds rebuttal: My opponent contradicts himself. IF utilitarianism is forward looking then the point IS relevant. How could he state that it is forward looking yet the Iraqi's themselves voting in a Kurdish President is not valid? It was the signal of great change and a bright future for the Iraqi people. How about a more objective statement instead of an analogy. The key player here is Hitler versus Saddam in popularity. The difference is Saddam took over via coup(implying unpopular .. or not enough populism to justify a totalitarian control) , whereas Hitler had the permission of the German people to lead Nazi Germany, BIG DIFFERENCE! Furthermore, my opponent makes a claim of over 20 years difference, yet the newly elected government was in 2005 and in 2004 Saddam was toppled. Thus, it is close enough in time to justify making a statement that this was what Iraqi's actually wanted and have come a long way in a short period of time. My opponent fails again, even if popularity dictates that morally the Jews were out the door, as I have shown the US, Soviets, Canada, UK, Australia, et cetera were all justified to invade Germany because 1) Hitler wanted to 'cleanse' all of Europe, and 2) under NAP it was for the protection of the Jews thus being legitimate. Lord Knukle .. are you a Nazi sympathizer? Human rights 2002: My apologies, I used the wrong source http://jama.jamanetwork.com... "Nearly half of participating households in 3 southern cities in Iraq reported human rights abuses among household members between 1991 and 2003" Complete with graphs and surveys .. thus Human Rights Abuses were very much live and active until 2003. Utilitarianism forward looking rebuttal: (see above with Kurdish argument) Furthermore, although no one can prove what place Saddam was looking to attack next, I shall show something of interest to the audience. The accusation of WMD's. He stated before his death that he wanted the world to think he had WMD's. Meaning: he wanted a fight, he wanted to look mean and nasty, this can also be furthered with the filming of his coup. Thus meaning 2 things 1) yes, he was going to continue the attacks and out-intimidate his opponents and 2) he attacked Iran (for nukes) with US support I shall shamefully admit. However, if we funded him should we not have the responsibility to get rid of him as well? This also refutes my opponents claim, that he fully well intended to continue such nastyness in International Politics, thus assisting my argument of Utilitarianism. http://www.foxnews.com... I have met the BOP for this, his human rights alone before the invasion was enough, never mind the non-killing's and never mind the wars he caused. Legal: 1) even in his same source it clearly states the following: "Other proclaimedï¿½reasons for the invasionï¿½included Iraq's financial support for the families ofï¿½Palestinianï¿½suicide bombers,Iraqi governmentï¿½human rightsï¿½abuses,and an effort to spreadï¿½democracyï¿½to the country". - http://en.wikipedia.org... Thus making his point bull-and-void as he agrees with me in this regard by using this source. Tell the whole story Knukle. Number 2) it states very clearly in Article 1: "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." ... Now the US and allies tried to protect the Kurds, this did not stop Saddam. They imposed upon him at the UN, he was uncooperative. Again, human rights were incredibly low up until 2003. So what next? Removal. Done and done. http://www.hrweb.org... as my opponent states in Article 5: to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts" Thus furthering my point. Death was necessary as all else was tried and nothing worked against Saddam. And in Article noted by my opponent: Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction" ... no injustice here, Saddam was found guilty by the ICC. You claim it was not necessary, yet all other resolutions were tried and failed. Now human rights counsels work in Iraq today. Progress is being made. Clearly the Iraq war was justified. Also Bin-Laden is a different case entirely, as he is not state sponsored terrorist unlike that of Saddam. Your point is irrelevant, circumstances must be taken into account! Drops: *I did address your point, in fact it is YOU who has the contradiction. *Saddam wanted to look intimidating to continue his genocides without oppression as I have shown with his remarks about possessing WMD's *The war WAS legal, as this had already passed far before Iraq. This is also without the justification for the invasion of Kuwait which was passed by the UN when Iraq declared it one of her provinces. Thought experiment here: if the US under Bush acted illegally ... why no trial for Bush at the ICC? Why no impeachment charge? Clearly it was legal, as I have shown alone with this one document. The resolution is destroyed, Iraq War was Justified.