Iraq War Was Just When It Began

REACT- PERHAPS IT ESCAPED YOUR RAZOR SHARP ATTENTION THAT THE PROFESSOR IS FROM AFRICA? AND SERVED AS A DEPUTY AMBASSADOR TO SOME NORTH AFRICAN COUNTRIES?

i guess youll be telling me to go to---new york.

Mr Nyang says the the war was "just" at its inception. Yet the rationale for the war itself was a pack of lies, so the inception of the war could not have been just.

Unless Mr Nyang would now like to argue that there are "just" lies...

None of the above worked well to sustain American image and effectiveness. Lastly, I would say that the justness of the war lies in America's "victor's justice" and in the global disaffection with the Hussein dictatorship and its arrogant defiance of UN rulings.

Sigh...at least you are consistent. CONSISTENTLY WRONG. Victor's justice? Aren't you picking out your office drapes before you have been given a job?....perhaps not. SEVENTH BIG HOLE

Define global disaffection I think you will find a shrinking return on your investments EIGHT AH AH AH EIGHT BIG HOLES IN YOUR ARGUMENT said the Count.

It is true that former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan described the war as unjustified.
YES, BY COMPARISON HE WAS QUITE AN OPEN, HONEST, INTELLECTUAL. HIS HUMANITARIAN INVOLVEMENT IN CIRCUMVENTION OF CRUEL AND UNUSUAL HARDSHIPS ON IRAQI CITIZENS MOST SUSCEPTIBLE TO THE QUESTIONABLE SANCTIONS SPEAKS VOLUMES TO THE MANS HUMANITY. THAT, sir, IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE MILK OF HUMAN KINDNESS. Please file that away for future reference should you again become confused. NINE BIG HOLES IN YOUR ARGUMENT

But the fact remains that America's failure to make the war a cakewalk as suggested by former defense secretary Rumsfeld, did lay the foundation for the culture of disbelief about the war and its direction.
SEE DOWNING STREET MEMOS AND EXPAND YOUR MIND. TEN BIG HOLES IN YOUR LITTLE HOLEY ARGUMENT...

We voters in the U.S. are now condemned by history to eventually decide whether it was a just or an unjust war.
THE FIRST DRAFT HAS ALREADY DECIDED AND IT LOOKS FAIRLY UNIANIMOUS. SEE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING REFERENCES FOR STARTERS. AMERICAN THEOCRACY BY KEVIN PHILLIPS, STATE OF DENIAL BY BOB WOODWARD, AGAINST ALL ENEMIES BY RICHARD A. CLARKE the list goes on and on and on...these are just a few in my personal collection. Go to an internet search engine and type on the key words BUSH STUPID WAR and you will get hit after hit after hit after hit
Let's see ELEVEN HA HA HA ELEVEN BIG HOLES IN YOUR PATHETIC WEAK ARGUMENT.
WHAT I REALLY FIND SCARY IS THAT YOU HAVE THE VOTE. WELL, NOT REALLY SINCE WE ARE HURTLING TOWARDS FASCISM, THE VOTE REALLY IS JUST AN ILLUSION. KIND OF LIKE YOUR HOLEY ARGUMENT. Howard University....I am shocked. I am also sorry for not contributing. I've been in a little war of my own since I left. I will try to do better in time. Love and Respect, one of your Alums who took what you had to offer to heart. AH AH AH!

Civilized? Kind of like this war is the act of a civilization perhaps...anyway:

Fourthly, the justness of the war cannot be effectively explained to both the American and the Iraqis. If one perceived the struggle as a tale of two sufferings, then one could make the point that the elimination of Saddam was widely appreciated. But the festering nature of the post- Saddam war helped undermine and evaporate the milk of human kindness linked to both American military superiority, on the one hand, and American diplomacy on the other.

Just like with this war, within your argument one finds the seeds of its own destruction. Clear and concise: CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS. Clear enough or do I have to break it down for you some more? FOURTH BIG HOLE!!!! MILK OF HUMAN KINDNESS? MILK OF HUMAN KINDNESS?? WHAT KIND OF HUMAN WOULD EVEN ATTEMPT TO ASSERT THAT MOTHERS MILK HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH DEMON SEED? FIFTH AND SIXTH BIG HOLES!!!!!! [THAT IS SO FOUL THAT I AM COUNTING IT TWICE]

I was right on one thing. We can have a civilized discussion and be on opposite sides. Hindsight is often 20/20 on these issued. I would have loved for Bush41 to finish the job, but he would have overstepped his bounds of the UN authorization in the first place.

However gassing the Kurds was wrong then as it would be now, I don't care who was president at the time, evil is still evil and those pictures still haunt me. And as a member of the security council the US is in a position to do such a thing as enforce those resolutions once they have those blessings. However this is old soup and if we knew then what we know now? Honestly I don't know.

*Thirdly, the war was justified if it was effectively conducted to get rid of a violent dictator. However, this claim has been badly affected by the large number of Iraqi and American deaths in spite of our military superiority.*
After all of the death, and suffering to put into place the questionable sanctions, we just could not wait to let them take full effect. No Sir, we had to rush in and topple Saddam only to face the fact that there was already a very strong, underground insurgency taking shape. One that has challenged our self-important, self-centered concept of superiority on ANY level. Not just military. NOW THAT IS PATHETIC! THIRD BIG HOLE! damn son, you ain't doing so hot for a Howard Man.

"Secondly, the atrocities perpetrated by the Hussein regime against the Kurdish and Shia created a parallel to the genocide claim against Hitler and the rulers of Serbia after the collapse of Yugoslavia" Villification. Another sign of a WEAK argument. You forgot to add the barbaric methods employed by that demon of all demons Abraham Lincoln when he put down those peace loving Southern Rebels. Darn it, had that darn devil had been stopped, you might be enjoying the life of a cotton picking UNCLE TOM idiot right now. SECOND BIG HOLE

First of all, the imposition of a No-Fly Zone under Hussein clearly sent out the signal that the sovereignty of Iraq was not guaranteed by article 2, paragraph 7 of the UN (The Domestic Jurisdiction clause). Iraq under Hussein lost that legitimacy and the claim of a just war directly or indirectly flowed from it. The regime was illegitimate. It was a rogue state if we can borrow from the political language of former U.S. Secretary of State Albright. A game of definitions Sir? How disappointing. A man from Howard University? How just was that impositoin of a No-fly Zone Sir? And exactly under what set of circumstances was it called for? Do the research and you will come up with your FIRST BIG HOLE.

I can see from the Professors remarks that he is trying to weigh things fairly and i respect that.
A person doesnt always have t spout ones particular philosophy to be deserving of consideration- what a bore if i could only talk with myself-

jihadist- you know he was speaking in the second half from the perspective of the US and not personally- you are such a monkey-

Norrie Hoyt you said-

Iraq was not worth the bones of one American soldier. And look at the casualties!

In Islam i the Qur'an it states that, If you kill one person unjustly- it is as if you had killed the whole world.

i would respectfully have to disagree on the value or devaluation of any life

peace all

jihad cracks me up

Mr. Nyang -- this was never a "just war" because other means (including strikes and assassination attempts) could have always been employed against Saddam without killing so many lives.

Nor was there any bad intelligence. The CIA testified the summer before the invasion they did not view Saddam as a threat to the US.

Your justification to invade Iraq is similar to the Viet Nam atrocity logic to "destroy the village in order to save it, "

I remember seeing on television how Iraqi Christians BEGGED their US counterparts to stop Bush from invading and destroying their country.

Didn't work.

Bush has destroyed this MANY times over their worse case scenario.

It is immoral what has been done to Iraq. just plain immoral. But I hear mainly silence from Christians on this -- and a lot of arrogance from the evangelicals to let Bush continue to torture.

Sickening. You'll create more atheists this way.

The rational of taking US to war is NULL, none of the causes were true, except the expedetion of Neo-cons. Its the vague theory Dick Chaney, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfwitz, Douglas Faith et. el. triumph for war. No question in mind, it's a neo-cons agenda.

I do not know if Bush has the moral compass to raise an alerm or draw a conclusion about a ideological debacle. President is desperate to win, but his hawkish strategy do not looks like any winning agenda, besides increasing troop level.

How indegenious Bush to say - "it's a battle for ideology"? Is he an idealogue? Is he a preacher? Does not his aggressive action equally inflict pain & breed hatred? How democratic it is to push democracy in a undemocratic way?

The only "Just War",
Is a war fought in self defense. John Kerry said it nicely, "America doesn't go to war because we want to, but because we have to..." We did not "have" to go to this war. If we do it would be justified. The days of the U.S. "having" to go to war were almost over, because no country would attack us. Now we go to "war" against unseen terrorists in nations around the world because of 9/11. It's really more of a conflict with terrorists than a "war" between nation states. Some of that action may be "just", but this invasion and occupation of Iraq does not fit that description.

Mr. Nyang admits he supported the invasion of Iraq before it took place and he offers five points to justify the struggle against Saddam Hussein's regime and the ills associated with it. Let me offer one counterpoint that existed prior to the invasion.

There was no doubt that Saddam Hussein and his regime would easily be deposed. But then what would happen next? The answer to this question is what realpolitik demands.

Whatever this administration's motives were for invading Iraq, it lacked a coherent and practical post-war plan.

The administration's invasion of Iraq was unnecessary given the absence of an imminent threat to America posed by Saddam Hussein's regime. But it was also ill-considered for lack a post-war plan.

Mr. Nyang may have high-minded ideals. But practicality is not his forte.

This war was criminal on our part even if Saddam was evil.Why is it our place to overturn another countrys leadership.If and when the Iraqis wanted to overthrow Saddam that should have been left up to them.America cant police or own other countrys when in our own country we cant even afford health care among many other problems.Bush should have been a dictator in another country.Iraq cound use another dictator type leader as the newly elected Democratic leaders havent a clue on how to run a country so maybe Bush could be their leader and at least we wouldent have to listen to his hair brained plans for Iraq.

The invasion of Iraq may have been considered "just" in the early stage by many Americans based on fabrications and lies predicated by this administration. But the invasion was always illegal, always an act of international aggression, subject to international justice under the Nuremburg accords.

Mr. Bush should be called to account for that agression and all subsequent "evils resulting from that original act of aggression."

what a stupid column.who made you the moral authority to remove dictators.maybe you should go to africa.there's a few dictators responsible for mass killings you could overthrow.oh yeah thats right there's not much oil there so you can just let them kill each other.i can't believe that americans are that ignorant and brainwashed by fear.

Dr. Nyang:

This war started as just? Skipping your logic, for a moment, consider this. Isn't it pretty close to a truism that resort to violence is illegitimate unless it's been shown that constructive alternatives won't work? In this case, constructive solutions were never really tried, so the question of violence never justly arose. So that's that.

But let's also take your own logic for a spin and see how it holds up.

First, you argue that Iraq lost its right to sovereignty because it's a "rogue state." Well, what is a rogue state? Say, a state that routinely violates international law and thereby earns the contempt of the world? By this definition -- or pretty much any other that I know of -- the U.S. is a rogue state. The World Court found us guilty of the "unlawful use of force" in Nicaragua, and we responded to the ruling by attacking "soft" (read: civilian) targets. That's terrorism. The examples go on and on. Thus, by your logic, the U.S. should be overthrown. Which country do you propose should do the honors?

Second, you argue that Hussein's atrocities -- the worst of which happened about 18 years ago -- justified the invasion. Well, the U.S. supported Hussein during this period and indeed helped with his use of chemical weapons. We are guilty of many of the same crimes. Again, then, our government should be overthrown, and it doesn't really matter who does the overthrowing.

Third, you say the war would have been justified had it been "effectively" conducted, meaning not a "large number" of Iraqi and American deaths. Was there anything prior to the war that led you to believe the impact on civilians would be anything less than devastating? And again, why not insist that non-violent alternatives be tried before the resort to violence?

Fourth, presumably responding to public opinion polls in Iraq and elsewhere, you are dismayed that since the fall of Saddam, there has been an evaporation of the "the milk of human kindness linked to both American military superiority, on the one hand, and American diplomacy on the other." What on earth gives you the idea that Iraqis EVER linked American military might to human kindness, or ever would have? Moreover, what American diplomacy are you referring to?

Fifth, you essentially reiterate a previous point by saying that the war's justness lies in "global disaffection" with the "arrogance" of the "Hussein dictatorship." The world hates the U.S. and President Bush more than it ever hated Hussein. Again, by your logic, the U.S. is to be overthrown.

So, you have two options. You can be intellectually consistent and begin calling for the overthrow of the U.S. government, or you can be intellectually vapid and let the U.S. off the hook while lamenting the utterly predictable disaster that has taken place in Iraq.

Muhatma Ghandi got it right. The Indian term is "ahimsa", roughly translated to mean non-violence. He with the help of his bretheren effectively removed the English empire from their land through non-violent means. There was much suffering, much loss of life but in the end the people and the nation maintained their soul and dignity. We on the other hand have lost ours.

It is unfortunate that the vernacular of our nation and that of much of the world is centered around violence and terms of violence. There can be no freedom when violence is imposed, neither on those who it is imposed upon nor with the perpetrators of the violence. The question of "Just War" is therefore mute and oxymoronic.

Prof. Nyang!

I am shocked and dismayed :)

Any Muslim knows that the invasion of a country that do not attack you or trangress your territory is not a just war. And to fight agaist oppression. And to sue for peace when the enemy is so inclined etc. etc. The Quran said so :)

Why do you think all Muslim majority country in the world supported the UN coalition when Iraq invaded Kuwait; did not support Iraq when it declared and waged war against Iran; and did not support the US-led "coalition of the willing" to "liberate" Iraq? Even the UN refused to sanction the invasion and occupation of Iraq under its auspices. Even then, the whole world knew the WMD excuse is fallacious, even Colin Powell.

The only Muslim country that supported the US-led coalition to invade Iraq that I can recall offhand is Morocco. They offered to give a few hundred or two thousand monkeys to clear landmines if I remember correctly. I don't know for certain if these monkeys actually went to Iraq as part of the coalition troops. The Moroccans could be sending an ironic message though - they just don't want to be involved in this Iraq monkey business.

If the arguement is that Saddam the dictator needed to be removed, then you have a serious flaw with Just War's requirement of proportionately. The number of people killed as a result of this war are way out of proportion to the goal of ousting Saddam.

You see, I would love to have a $75,000 BMW roadster, but if it costs me $250,000, it's not worth it. It's great and all that I have the BMW, but I got screwed in the process and am now bankrupt and about to lose the mortgage on my house. It's great and all that Saddam is gone, but Iraq's screwed.

Greg said: " And I did listen to both sides of the debate and at the time I felt it was the correct thing to do. I think the admistration listed the wrong reasons why they went into Iraq. Bush simply could have used all the UN resolutions that were violated in conjucntion with Iraq's harboring of terrorists to justify the military action along with proof of the domestic terror, gassing the Kurds etc."

What terrorists were being harbored? That theory was blown out of the water long ago.

Gassing the Kurds took place in the eighties (under Ronald Reagan) and it was just fine with us then. Saddam was our buddy because he was fighting Iran. Why all the outrage nearly 20 years later?

U.N. resolutions were violated? How is it our job to redress those grievances?

Sorry Greg - it was wrong then and it's wrong now.

It is without doubt an unjust war. The Bush administration knew all along that they were presenting faulty intelligence to the American people. There were no weapons of mass destruction and further cooperation with the UN would have revealed this (again). It is unjust to the American people after 9/11 that they were presented with the argument that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 when it was known that it did not. The "war on terror" was directed in the wrong place-and they knew it. It is unjust that the Bush Administration did not go after Bin Laden when they should have and that now there are more terrorists than before. I think that the history and the facts need to be remembered correctly, especially for people who teach. It is true that Sadaam was a dictator-but there are many others and many more who suffer around the world. It is America's selfish interests that led us to Iraq. And that is unjust-especially to America's young who are serving in the military. It makes me so angry when I remember sitting around with my friends at the time Bush starting going after Iraq. We all sat there with our mouths hanging open "what? I don't get the connection". Please let's remember how things really happened!

This war is a war that never should have been fought in the first place. As BA'Al has stated Saddam posed no threat to us on anyone else in 2003. Since Bush didn't feel the need to answer to anyone to go to war Iraq, then what that says to me is that he was going after Saddam regardless of the opinions of the U.S citizens and the rest of the world.

There is no such thing as a just war, for wars are forced upon men and nations for reasons of survival, national or leadership interest! The war in Iraq was driven by vengeance on the part of the United States for the September 11, 2001 attacks and dictated by its global interests and access to Middle East oil. The rationale of ridding the region of weapons of mass destruction and spreading American beliefs of freedom and democracy, while noble is not primary. Nonetheless, it is in the best interest of the United States and the western world for the US-led coalition to complete its mission in Iraq. The cost of subjugation and pacification however must be economically and politically reasonable and must lead to long term stability of the region. As the cost and casulaties in Iraq escalate, a viable win-win solution must be found with bipartisan support. To withdraw from Iraq for reasons of costs and overbearing tactical defeats will be a big blow to global peace and the region's development. It will likewise be a disaster for the Bush administration that will eventually reflect on American prestige. Religion will play a significant if not a complex role in this exacerbated conflict. The war in Iraq must be won at reasonable cost.

Greg

Maybe you are right about the Hussein-Pol Pot comparison. Lets start from that. The right way to proceed then would have been to amass a truly international force to do it after international agreement that it was essential, and then gone in with sufficient force to ensure the security of the aftermath. Bush I did that in the early 90s, Bush II did none of those things -- not because he couldn't, but because he didn't want to, he didn't think he needed to answer to anyone. In 2003, Saddam Hussein was completely hamstrung. He had no real effective military, there were inspectors crawling all over his country all the time, and he was not in a position to do much serious damage. He didn't have WMDs, a fact that the UN weapons inspectors tried to point out in 2003 (but they were shouted down).

Yes, the Hussein family got what they deserved. But I don't think the 600,000 dead Iraqis deserved it, or the 30,000+ dead and maimed Americans. And our own country is worse off now.

So it would be better if that monster and his sons (also monsters) were still in power, doing the best to emulate Stalin and Pol Pot? Because that is precisly what everyone seems to be saying. The three of them got what they deserved. And I did listen to both sides of the debate and at the time I felt it was the correct thing to do. I think the admistration listed the wrong reasons why they went into Iraq. Bush simply could have used all the UN resolutions that were violated in conjucntion with Iraq's harboring of terrorists to justify the military action along with proof of the domestic terror, gassing the Kurds etc.

youre right about that- china has been courting africa for awhile now-

however- i would contend that for about 2 years now
ive been watching the media beat the drums of war for iran- and iran is definitely a muslim country- i do not hold any illusions that the us has any hesitancy to attack muslims at all- it seems we hav been preparing the public for some time now to become acclimated to war in iran- as a matter of fact- on the main message board- some sheeple have been hinting darkly that we MUST stay in iraq for that very reason.

You write "Whether the war was just is now contaminated..."

You completely miss an essential point. The war is not any more contaminated now than it was from the start by what we now know was willful manipulation of intelligence, and a conscious conflation of Saddam Hussein with the attacks on 9-11.

Another question you fail to address is whether or not there was a reasonable hope that this war could have succeeded in its objectives without producing the sectarian disaster that we see. In fact, a host of people predicted the result that we see. Bad as Saddam Hussein is, and I shed no tears for him, there are probably more than 600,000 Iraqis who have been killed in this war, and much of the population now lives in misery and fear. I think we had an obligation to not make things worse.

Doesn't a "just war" have to consider the likely consequences, and does it not need to be prosecuted competently? But everyone who pointed out the obvious was shut out of the debate, and their patriotism was impugned (as it still is in certain circles).

I hate to repeat myself, but the ONLY justification for war is self defense, when you are attacked (none of that preventive or preemptive nonsense filled with loopholes).

I must say I respectfully disagree with Vicoria's comments as they pertain to inaction in Sudan. Sudan does have oil, and China is its main consumer. Thus, there are 2 major reasons why there has been no humanitarian intervention in Sudan: 1) China has shown a willingness to use its Permanent Seat on the UN Sec Council to veto military measures aimed against its ally in Khartoum, and 2) the US is too preoccupied in Iraq to pose a credible threat. Moreover, invading another Muslim land like Sudan would probably provoke even greater Muslim hostility toward the US, no matter how noble the cause. Unfortunately, the future of humanitarian intervention (which qualifies as a "just" war) is in peril b/c of the failed Iraq adventure.

Whether or not it is just seems to be moot since Bus chose to break the lwas of the US which he took an oath to maintain when he went into office-

some relevant sections of THE WAR POWERS ACT

SEC. 2. (b)
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

CONSULTATION

SEC. 3.
The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

1) THE CONGRESS WAS NOT CONSULTED
2) THE REQISITE CONDITIONS WERE NOT PRESENT

PEACE

I was against it from the start for countless reasons, but these are the main ones:

First it took away emphasis on the real culprits of 9-11 who are still at large on the borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan. This was such an obvious arrogant diversion it borders on criminal.

Second it was clear those that concocted this plan had no clue about how the mideast works, and that invaders and occupiers have always been considered the enemy, and not liberators. Consulting the British and studying their history would have helped us immeasurably.

Thirdly, fighting an army with convential means is one thing, but this kind of gorilla warfare is always going to lead to defeat. When you can't tell the difference between friendly and non-friendlies then you're in trouble. The Russians found out the hard way. We didn't learn from this.

And finally while Hussein was a tyrant that we helped early on, he was by no means the only tyrant in the world. But our thirst for oil clouded the adminstration's judgement. Securing oil was the only issue of concern.

In conclusion this war was the wrong war at the wrong time. Those that try to keep returning to the same mantra of genocide, evil tyrant, thwarting UN sanctions, did not step back and see the big picture and are mearly trying to cover their you no what for agreeing with it in the first place. This diversion has greatly tied the hands of the US, and has thoroughly compromised its security and standing around the world for many decades to come. Good job boys!

Mr. Nyang,

There is no such thing as a just war. War is like a lightning strike that kills randomly and indiscriminately. There is no justice in that.

Otto von Bismarck, Chancellor of Germany, said that the whole of the Balkans was "not worth the bones of one Pomeranian grenadier."

Iraq was not worth the bones of one American soldier. And look at the casualties!

US helped Hussein to execute those people. US has executed Hussein. Wouldn't it logically followed that US should execute itself?

The war may have been justifed, perhaps just, given what was believed by most people and most governments in 2003. But those beliefs turned out to be false. Continuing to fight when it is clear those beliefs were wrong constitutes engaging in an unjust war.

No country has the right, in the absence of a clear danger to itself, to engage in a war/occupation of another country. Much less does it have the right to impose a system of government upon it.

The US is doing both and is in fact engaging in an unjust war.

I was against the war form its inception because i suspected the motives were not what they were stated as. The international community had held sanctions for almost 15 years before our last invasion- no one was concerned about the medicine and food that was denined the children of iran at that time- most people are barley aware of it- we didnt care about saddam's regime when we were putting him not power and providing him with arms to fight the iranians-

in the same frame of time weve witnessed the genocide of the sudanese and have done nothing to help their situation- they are a poor country- theyre not bordering one of the richest oil producers in the world-

time has proven that the pre-emptive strike was based on faulty intelligence-

i suspect there will be more revelations in the future.

peace