The Iraq War was Justified!

my opponent may use by all his pleasure events during or even after the Iraq War to justify his position, which is why I didn't proceed to limit the scope, I have no quarrels with this if he so chooses that route, and I agree that I will not just list off the benifits of the Iraq War to the US, I have a slightly differing argument I assure you. Goodluck to my opponent. Making the Case: C1: Legality...that's because I'm arguing that the US was compelled to go in! ;) Resolution 260 III (A) or The Genocide Conventions, which were drafted by the UN in Dec of 1948. The very first line my audience will find reads very loudly and clearly the following: “Article 1: The contracting parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish“This document was formulated as a response to the atrocities of the Holocaust. To which the American president proudly proclaimed along with the UN “Never again!” in reference to the holocaust. Indeed, because of the context of the document (which was used in both the Rwandan trials and Yugoslav trials) the findings were clear: the parties involved have a defaulting responsibility to stop those crimes at all costs. This is a priori, and clearly non-negotiable.The Geneva Conventions never actually mention a "genocide" within it's text, however in it my audience can find the following line: "Article 50: Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly." No state is ever allowed to commit excessive harm to civilians via military means; while not the exact same as Genocide, a Genocide would certainly fall into it's qualification. The US was upholding International law, and that even though they may not have went to the UN to justify the invasion, the document was designed to enable a "backdoor" to UN approval in order to attack when dire situations (I.E Genocide) called for them. In fact, the UN and International Law required the US to enter even on principlled grounds, reffering to parties committing acts of genocide as “Enemies of Mankind” or “Hostis humani generis”. This principal was used in several high profile cases, mainly Eichmann, Nuremburg, Yugoslavia, and Rwanda, the Principal of Universal Jurisdiction may be used to justify invasion due to this hatred for humanity. There is no doubt, the invasion was justified on legal means. C2: Lessons in History Let's look at what my opponent is going to argue during this debate, and ponder the question “what would have happened should we stay out of it?” Even better, can we think of any examples? We have a few: Rwanda, where the Clinton Administration was completely complacent in acting, making them de facto criminals as argued in my previous essay here: http://pierretrudeau2.blogspot.ca... should we stay out if we see what happened when we did in Rwanda? Clearly invasion was the right thing to do!What about the Republic of China and Tibet? Where so may Tibetan monks have been persecuted, they flee to India?What about Burundi? No intervention again during the Hutu/Tutsi killingsWhat about East Timor? Where the Indonesians starved, raped, and attacked the people residing there? If the invasions of Yugoslavia never occured, then Melosovic would still continue his pruges, if we didn't invade Afghanistan Bin Laden very well may have been continuing to terrorize us to this day, and if we didn't invade Iraw an aincent civilization would have been wipped out, along with the Iraqi marshes (which is some of the oldest wetlands known to man and needed for scientific inqiry) and it's an outrage that in the face of international law, that each person who signs the document, proceeds to ignore it and with no basis or justification for doing so other than “were not interested”. What should interest them is the preservation of life, otherwise whats the use of the state? (We see with anarchism in Revolutionary Calationia that having a well trained army is essential, Francisco Franco beat them with ease) C3: We Funded Them ... But The Logic Still Follows Yes, there is no questioning it that Suddam was funded by the US during their invasion of Iran, shortly after the Iranian revolution. However, if we built this man up from our own money, and are inadvertently responsible for the death and destruction he caused, do we not have a responsibility to clean up our own mess? I think so, what makes us so arrogant that we could put such an evil man in power, that we turn around and say “Sorry Iraq, no longer our problem!”? C4: The Contrarian View Much to popular misconceptions, I suspect my opponent will maintain staying out of Iraq for two main reasons: 1) because it was claimed Al-Qaeda was in there and they weren’t and 2) because the US claimed they had WMD's and they didn't. When we look at the Iraqi Resolution passed by Congress, we see actually 12 reasons for going to war. Of those 12, only 2 were “half-right” technically speaking. Iraq ended their nuke program in the 1990's but never ended their gassing of the Kurds along with making life wuality so poor for them, they couldn't possibly have survived, and Al-Qaeda and Saddam didn't get along because it was reported that Bin-Laden wanted a Theocracy while Saddam wanted a secular state. In spite of this, Al-Q still assists Saddam Hussein as "Al-Q in Iraq" as a response to the US invasion. So what exactly were the 12 reasons for going to war? -Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors. -Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."-Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."-Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".-Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zonesfollowing the 1991 Gulf War.-Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.-Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.-Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.-The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.-The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.-The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.-Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. Lying to your people with a half-truth spun, still wouldn't absolve you of your duties you signed as an enforcer in the face of the international community. No where does it say in the geneva conventions or Genocide conventions "but hold on folks! If your a deomcracy and you lie to your people, then suddenly you can ignore genocides!" I say again, it doesn't absolve the host country of it's duty to uphold such a deliciate law like International Law! Conclusion:The Iraq War was justified on humnaitarian grounds, legal grounds, and principal. Thank you! Hitchslapped!