|
|
Post by Mr. Daniel on May 13, 2013 8:57:50 GMT -5
Was the Iraq War (2003) a Just War?
|
|
ellez
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by ellez on May 16, 2013 8:58:36 GMT -5
I do not think the pre-emptive strike on Iraq was just. "Catholic Ehtics in Today's World" records that weeks before the US invasion Iraq allowed United Nations inspectors to search for weapons of mass destruction. After finding nothing, the inspectors pleaded President Bush for more time but he he refused. The fact there was another option to explore before going to war shows it was not the last resort. Without weapons of mass destruction Iraq did not pose a "real and certain danger" to the US and for this reason we shouldn't have started war.
|
|
|
|
Post by isobellaantelis on May 20, 2013 17:38:00 GMT -5
I also agree with Ellez. There was no reason for us to go into battle. When looking at the 7 principles of the "Just War Theory," the Iraq war does not pass all of the criteria needed to be met before going into war. The seven are: Just Cause, Right Intention, Comparative Justice, Proportionality, Right Authority, Last Resort and Reasonable Chance of success. Some of the criteria is met but all seven have to be met for a it to be just. One of the main reasons this war was not just was because of a threat that was posed to our country. As Ellez said, the treat did not pose any danger and there was no reason to start a 8 year war over a false threat.
|
|
|
|
Post by aniathomas on May 20, 2013 18:13:31 GMT -5
When ellez said that the war was "the search for weapons of mass destruction" yes america did use dangerous weapons and but Iraq was the real threat of danger to all and considering what isabella said america did not seek to find other was to seek peace, but the war was a way in protecting the whole world from terrorism. But i disagree with isobella with the intention, the war was suppose to bring peace to the government in Iraq, and the Saddam Hussein government had to be over thrown some way. This war was not a just cause war because it was fought to bring peace and justice to the whole world, because before all the people living in Iraq wore not living in peace and the human dignity of other people living in the world was threatened. Also considering the vindication of rights of all people wore taken away from the people living in Iraq mostly. The war itself was moral because it was a comparative justice, where the reason for war was greater than human life since america wanted to save many, and spread peace helping the iraqi
|
|
|
|
Post by isobellaantelis on May 20, 2013 18:26:00 GMT -5
I understand some of the points that Ania makes but I disagree about what the intentions our country had for going into war. One theory believes that Bush’s intention for war was to protect our oil supply and not to protect American people. Catholic Ethics in Today’s World states that it may have been ”a ‘slap in the face’ to the United Nations and in particular to those nations (France, Germany, and Russia) That consistently opposed military intervention Iraq.” (170). This theory shows that President Bush was more concerned with having power and protecting Americas oil supply instead of trying to bring peace throughout the world. Even though this is just one theory, it gives a lot of evidence on why we had the wrong intentions for going into war.
|
|
ellez
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by ellez on May 22, 2013 10:05:53 GMT -5
There are many points for and against the Preemptive strike being a just cause to start war in Iraq. One concept that always confuses me is the competent authority's duty to their nation in relation to the world. Should a country's leader start a war to preserve the human dignity and rights of another nation while risking the lives of their own people?
|
|
|
|
Post by dmelson on May 22, 2013 20:10:47 GMT -5
I agree with ellez, there are quality points for and against sending troops into Iraq. Even though many people regret doing it, i feel it was necessary to ensure the safety of our country. 9/11 shook the confidence of safety for the American people. The government could have taken other initiatives to try to protect the country after 9/11 but, i belive that to truly help gain the feeling of saftey back, we have to invade Iraq. This action might not have been completely "just" but it was completely necessary to ensure the safety of the American people.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterjuska on May 22, 2013 21:30:08 GMT -5
I have to disagree, in that there was not much proof that Iraq was a threat, i.e. did they truly possess WMD's or not. The only threat was a bunch of extremist terrorists living in a cave. We didn't have to waste several lives in an all out war. Instead of wasting so many lives and resources, we should have just sent out the SEAL team, killed Bin Laden, and have been done with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by joecarini on May 23, 2013 9:04:32 GMT -5
I agree with peterjuska because there needs to be enough proof to go to war and for it to be just. Going to war should be the last resort for a country because i believe the U.S did not go to war with Iraq as a last resort. We could have done many other things to solve the problem without going to war. Its just not cool man.
|
|
|
|
Post by danhoffmann45 on May 23, 2013 11:20:11 GMT -5
I think tha many of the people on this thread are misinformed. We did not go into iraq to hunt out terrorists. We also did not go to war in search of WMDs. Additionally, the gulf war did not go against the orders of the United Nations, rather, the force that the United Stated led was a group, sanctioned and provided by the UN themselves. The real reason that we attacked Iraq was because Saddam Hussein invaded the peaceful, neighboring nation of Kuait. President bush intervened inorder to stop the unwarranded agression of Iraq. This makes the action, a just war on the side of president bush and the United Nations. So it is just cool man...
|
|
|
|
Post by williamreckamp on May 23, 2013 20:00:46 GMT -5
I have mixed feelings about this war. On one hand I feel like we went to war out of a sense of revenge because of the 9/11 attacks so going to war would be unjust. On the other side we also went to war to find weapons of mass destruction and like Dan said stop unwarranted aggression of Iraq which would make it just. From these two sides I fell like we can't really decide whether is was a just invasion or not.
|
|
nico
New Member
Posts: 43
|
Post by nico on May 27, 2013 17:24:57 GMT -5
I strongly think 9/11 allowed us to invade iraq we would of never had the support of the people with out it. it put fear into american people hearts of an other muslim extremist attack and sound of a war with one of its goals to reduce muslim extremist aggresssion sounded good.
|
|
|
|
Post by saramwhite on May 27, 2013 21:28:11 GMT -5
I think that we went to war because we were fearful of another attack and this was our way of protecting ourselves from another invasion. I think the U.S. could not think of any other way of defending the country without the war and that negotiation may not have been an option. Though like William said this could have been a war of revenge because of 9-11, which would make it unjust. I think it is hard to say if the full purpose for going to war was just or unjust because of these possibilities.
|
|
