The Second Gulf War (Iraq war) can be defended

Let's be clear. This is not a debate about the history of American interventionist policy. It's a debate about whether one specific intervention was justified. I don't have to justify every action that the USA and Britain ever did in the Middle-east in the 20th century in order to conclude that one specific intervention was justified. They are separate but linked issues. I do not believe we should have overthrown Mossadeq in 1953 - that was undemocratic and wrong. That does not mean that I can't justify a separate intervention in order to overthrow a different and extremely barbaric leader. Foreign policy is never consistent rather it is pragmatic. Mistakes are made. But one mistake made does not mean that we subsequently cannot justify another intervention. I really think that this point needs to be re-though - it just doesn't make any sense. The second gulf war is a separate war to the first gulf war which is separate to the Iran-Iraq war. They are not the same thing. If you want to talk about different foreign policy actions then we can take the debate elsewhere but let's not bring in different interventions. American foreign policy goes far beyond hostages in the Middle-east. Fundamentally, it was about oil. More recently, it has been about fighting terrorism, protecting refugees and civilians and conserving stability. If you're going to claim that Foreign policy intervention has been about servicing the needs of weapons manufacturers then you need to think again. This may have been a minor factor but oil and trade was the main motivation along with the context of the cold war and a general policy of upholding capitalist democracy in the developing world. I do not justify the USA or any power selling chemical weapons - it's immoral and illegal. But I don't have to justify that in order to justify the 2nd gulf war. As far as the ethics of intervention go, I don't think your response is quite fair. Now, obviously there is a limit to what any country can do. We can't stop every single case of oppression but what we can do is intervene when the case is so unbelievably egregious and the level of suffering is so high (which it was in the case of Baathist Iraq). This is not about rushing to the aid of any country that "cries poverty". However, if a country "cries massive levels of war-crimes and genocide" then I think we should intervene. What is so immoral about intervening to end massive levels of human suffering? I agree that the Middle-east is complicated. Western intervention has been riddled with complete cock-ups and shocking levels of arrogance, ignorance and self-righteousness. However, even if mistakes have been made that doesn't stop us from intervening to solve greater problems. Some interventions have been successful. The first gulf war removed Iraqi forces from Kuwait thus fulfilling that objective and preventing Saddam from dominating the Middle-east. Our bombing campaign against Isis has clearly greatly helped to remove a murderous and brutal power from northern Syria and Iraq. Mistakes should not stop us from intervening to end massive levels of suffering because the biggest mistake of all is NOT intervening and condemning millions of people to oppression and murder. I do not want to "relocate" WMDs onto Iranians. I condemn ALL use of chemical weapons. But just because the West has occasionally been hypocritical that doesn't mean that we can't condemn or even intervene to end even more egregious use of WMDs. My humanitarian argument still stands. I'm not arguing that nuclear weapons did exist in Iraq. I am arguing that, based on evidence, Saddam was trying to obtain these weapons. Thus, having given Iraq another 10-15 years, Saddam could have gone nuclear - what a massive foreign policy disaster that would be! There is crystal clear evidence that Iraq used chemical weapons extensively (chemical weapons ARE WMDs btw). Just look up the attacks on Halabja and Najaf. Saddam had a right-hand man called "Chemical Ali" - I wonder why... It was WRONG to say that Saddam had nuclear weapons. But it was right that Saddam pursued his goal of getting them and if we hadn't had intervened then can you imagine President Trump having to deal with Saddam as well as Kim-Jong Un? I simply cannot believe that you had the cheek to argue that Saddam's invasion of sovereign Kuwait was justified. Iraq claimed slant drilling - which had absolutely no evidence for it. Iraq invaded because they wanted to end their fiscal misery. Kuwait was further bringing its oil price down because it was trying to compensate for the increase in prices after the Iran-Iraq war. But NONE of this matters. Invading a sovereign country with no warning or political pressure is WRONG and ILLEGAL. There is evidence that Saddam wanted to invade Saudi Arabia. Iraqi troops actually invaded Saudi Arabia during the 1st Gulf war: https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... I cannot prove that the intervention in 2003 could not lead to another war. Neither can I say that American intervention in the European war in 1941 would not lead to a future war. What I can prove is that the 2nd Gulf war released thousand of Kurds and Marsh Arabs who were being starved and murdered in concentration camps in the Iraqi desert. I can say quite confidently that it ended the suffering of more people than it killed. Ever wondered why Iraqis celebrated in the streets while toppling murals of Saddam? Maybe because they were glad that they had been liberated and given freedom and democracy? Yes it wasn't perfect but at least it formed the basis for progress and development. The redeployment of troops is unfortunate but separate - it was about Isis and terrorism and not about the actual government of Iraq. The allies did not provide the necessary infrastructure and aid to the new government after invading - this was a bad mistake. But now Iraq is back on its feet and can improve. To conclude: My opponent's main claim is that I somehow have to justify every Western action in the Middle-east in order to defend one operate intervention. I have shown why that is not true nor fair and why the intervention in question was morally justified. My opponent then claimed that we can't do everything. I agreed that we have limits but that in the rare cases of extreme suffering we can intervene and should intervene. My opponent is yet to counter my argument that the regime was destabilising and a strategic threat to the whole world. Thus I think I still have a convincing and strong case for the why the 2nd gulf war was justified.