The Iraq War was Justified!

I enjoyed this exchange, and I greatly admire the intellect my opponent has displayed during the discourse of this debate. History, Legality, and US Foreign Policy:Rwanda: I know the debate isn't about this specifically, however, I must reply, having read Romeo Dallaire's Shake Hands with the Devil this Canadian General showed evidence and his own testimony that the forces in Rwanda even knew about the genocides were going to happen before they actually did and still refused to do anything, and the only forces to enter were Belgium, and Sudan soldiers dawning the UN Barrets. Dallaire was told to stand down, even when he knew where the arms caches to committ the genocides were and even varified. The UN prevented him from doing anything. Secondly, as I noted earlier my opponent cites the failures or inconsistencies of US foreign policy during the course of this debate. As I noted earlier this is irrelevant, he makes an appeal to hypocracy when doing so. The problem with places such as Guatamala, for instance, or indigenous removal during the US presidency of Andrew Jackson, or the Iran-Contra affairs is the context in which they take place to justify their legitimacy or not. For instance, the native removal lacked UN body existing at that time to set up a framework of legality or not. Whereas today we do, and we're only talking about Iraq under Bush Jr. Not any other time of war. Furthermore, I agree that what is inconsistant is the application of enforcement, but that's precisely why me and my opponent agree here and discus Rwanda, we see what happens when it is unenforced, a national outrage and death ensure, which is an argument for invasion not against it. My opponent further submits the conduct of the US was poor, that the framework for the legitimization is unfounded. But the documents notes that they (being the US and Iraq) were never coerced into signing, thus the consent of both parties still remains to the document, so I kindly disagree with my oponent here, he should accept the framework for it, this is also because of Nuremburg, Eichmann, Yugoslavia, etc. .. And although the conduct was poor, this ignores the scandals in which the people prosecuted for it, and furthermore, ignores the JWT. Even then, it's once again an appeal to hypocracy and is irrelevant. There will always be unintentional deaths in War, what matters is the intention in which it takes place. Which was to liberate a people who were massively persecuted. Should they have been left to fend for themselves they would have surely died. The articles: but it does state may, they have the option of giving that consent or not, and even then it is widely known that the UN only can enforce her laws on the basis of voluntarism. The UN can only make recommendations, not enforce the laws it's self, that it requires on it's members. Canada's handling of the native pop. is an example of this. Furthermore, as noted earlier the cases of Yugoslavia, Nuremburg, Eichmann, etc. . All put the genocide conventions in context, that an "exception" can be made legally for the party enforcing the law, so long as other means have been tried. The Iraqi Oil for food program didn't work, what esle was there? Invasion. Iraq didn't despute it's legitimacy, nor did it make an exception to the conventions to recognize her constitution over those docs when signing (as noted earlier) case and point, the competent UN organs can be consulted, but the US did simply by using the Conventions. Finally the JWT may use any of those justifications for invasion, I make the case for military necessity due to the pragmatic application of war, a general would be a fool to invade and expect so much as 1 civillian casualty to be criminal, it realistically isn't possible when all other means were tried and death still resulted espescially in the Iraqi Oil program. What else was there? Death by being idle? Or death via invasion for liberation? In short, I still feel the legality of the war is justified. The basis of International Law in which it rests upon may indeed be flawed, but it is necessary. It saved the Kurdish people. Why Vote for Me? Indeed, this shall be a tough case, I have a worthy foe however, here is why I feel I won. -The framework of International Law was used in Eichmann, Nuremburg, etc. .. so the legality of the framework in it's practical application may be flawed, but it does work and is enforceable. -The Genocide Conventions, Geneva Conventions justify invasion when considering the Oil for Food Program and it's failures, you cannot force Iraq to take food. -UN works on the principals of vulintarism-The inconsistancies of the application for war is Irrelevant (appeal to hypocracy)-Justified on principal (enemy of man, universial jurisdiction, etc. .) and humanitarian grounds (no despute that Saddam was a tyrant in need of removal. -The conduct of the US was poor at times, however those people were arrested and tried when they happened. Outrage ensued by public. -We have seen the effects of genocide before, they are not pretty, and thus, there should be no question that invasion was the way to go (espescially Rwanda and the prior knowledge) -There was 12 reasons for going to war, the US only got 2 half-wrong. One of which was the killing of kurds, which is covered under the conventions. Thank you to my opponent for a pleasant exchange! I hope we have the fun of debating one another again in a later date! *Shakes opponents hand* Thank you! [removed due to people complaning about conduct in my other debates, even though it's just a signature and in no way was mean't to be disrespectful apologies to my opponent if he did find it distasteful]