War in Iraq is politically and morally unjust.

Hello SDMB users,

I have been presented with a debate motion which I’m finding virtually impossible to argue effectively. It seems any news reports or arguments I read arguing that the war on Iraq isn’t politically or morally justified have obvious counter-arguments and, more importantly, facts and statistics to back up these criticisms.

So, for any devout anti-war activists on this website, I implore you to help me argue my case in opposing this war. Moreover, if anyone can see obvious faults in these arguments, please point them out, since I’d hate to use something which can easily be contradicted.

Thanking you,
Bravo.

Um, so you’re asking for help with your homework?

well maybe politically unjust, but definetly not morally unjust…c’mon!Is it better to leave them under Saddam? That would definetly be morally justified wouldnt it? Its the moral angle of this conflict that appeals to me inspite of all the shit thats come with it. I like the idea-naively idealistic as it sounds-that we are going to liberate the Iraqi people from the demon that Saddam is. Sorry bud, cant help you there.

Very naughty asking people to do your homework for you, and in the wrong forum too. However, for some good anti-war points I’ve seen, read Abe’s posts here, and this thread with contributions from Collounsbury, who has the word on the street regarding how the Arab world is greeting this war.

welby:

  • In short, yes, though I don’t see why that isn’t morally justified :wink: I can’t seem to grasp any solid anti-war arguments from weeks or filtering through the media, so I’d like to see if the supremely educated masses here can provide me with some.

minega:

  • I agree that it would be sinful to do absolutely nothing in toppling Saddam, but the impression I got from anti-war propaganda slogans is that there were other viable alternatives, but the Bush Administration are more concerned with capturing oil interests in Iraq to listen to these.
    Additionally, aren’t there other oppressive regimes in the world which are almost equally as threatening and evil as Saddam? Why aren’t they as much of a concern to the U.S. Government than Saddam?

Please note that I’m just speculating here - in comparison to the vast majority of people on these boards, I’m totally ignorant of anything relating to Iraq, so don’t crucify me asking questions which you find blatantly obvious or idiotic.

Thank you,
Bravo.

Well then, examine the options:

  1. Wait: Certainly we could wait, Saddam’s got to die sometime, and the transition of power in countries that are dictatorships don’t often go smoothly. Perhaps in 5 or 10 years (maybe longer) Saddam will kick off and there will be revoloution. Of course, that doesn’t do anything to alleviate the problem of human rights violations, but it’s an option.

  2. Increase sanctions: Good choice, make it economically difficult for the people of Iraq. Of course, this doesn’t really affect Saddam much, he’ll still get his dinner. So the sanctions don’t really do anything but increase the day to day problems faced by Iraqi citizens.

  3. Leave the region alone. Let’s just drill the oil we’ve got and ignore the problem until it goes away. Or pay higher prices. Or both.

What I’m trying to demonstate here is that EVERY argument has a counter, and many of the things you’ll read or hear will be easily contradicted. The threads that jjimm pointed you to are an excellent place to start, but I don’t think there’s silver bullet of logic out there that will win this debate for you.

First of all, thank you for your replies.

jjimm - those links were excellent, particularly Abe’s posts. His arguments have convinced me that I’m going to try and realign my argument and say that the Iraqi war is politically and morally unjust, but I don’t suggest backing down from it now since consequences would be disastrous. Perhaps I can get away with this, arguing that it shouldn’t have happened, yet there’s nothing to do about it now.

Also, what forum should I have posted this in? Pardon my error but I’m a new user :smack:

welby - are those the only alternatives to the war? I got the impression from anti-war slogans that there were equally viable politically alternatives available. Didn’t some weapons report from Hans Blix suggest that Iraq was decommissioning his weaponry at a satisfactory rate or something?

Thanks again,
Bravo

Well, no, of course not. The decommissioning of weapons, though, goes to point one: Waiting.

Which anti-war slogans in particular are you thinking about? There are tons of alternatives, depending on who you talk to. My point was to demonstrate that for every argument there’s a counter argument. More of a “good luck” thing than anything else.

To be perfectly honest I’m not quite sure - who are the main anti-war activists? Would you be able to tell me why exactly France (along with some other countries - the Senior Council of the U.N. I think) and groups such as Amnesty International oppose this war, if it should realistically liberate the Iraqi people, topple a vicious and evil dictator and negate the danger of chemical and biological weaponry emanating from Iraq?

Thanks,
Bravo

Fine, who do you want to ask? The bored IT guy killing time at work or the 40 year old conspiracy nut posting from his moms basement?

Here are the basic anti war arguments:
-The US does not have the right to attack a nation that did not attack it first
-There is little or no threat from Sadaam so war is uneccessary
-Non-voilent methods (sanctions, inspections) would achieve a better result
-All war is bad
That’s it. The rest of the arguments you hear are specificly anti-Bush. Going to war should not be based on whether you like or dislike the Comander in Chief.

Bravo, please ignore msmith537’s oversimplification of his opponent’s side, and look for reasons more comlex than those he’s stated. Of course, he is right with respect to a number of anti-war advocates, but for example, he missed out the ‘selfish’ reasons for the West not wanting the war:

The potential destabilisation of currently pro-Western regimes around the Islamic world is getting closer due to this war (see Collounsbury’s thread).

The massive recruitment to terrorism that will be engendered (see above).

The damaging of current international bodies (UN, NATO, EU) by disagreement over the war could end up destabilising the current world in ways currently unimaginable.

You might want toquote something or paraphrase from this article which explains the problem with the Bush doctrine in historical and legal terms. To the right of the article itself you’ll find links to other articles and editorials on the same theme.

At this time I’d like to say that the words “politically” and “unjust” should really not be used together.

Neurotik - why do you say that? It’s going to be difficult to avoid using them together if they’re stated specifically in the motion title.

jjimm -

  • Although, as Collounsbury emphasises, anti-American feelings are swelling in the Islamic world, wouldn’t they theoretically disappear if Saddam is toppled and Iraq is liberated? I don’t see how I can use this information in my argument - how does Islamic civilian response to the war relate to its moral or political justification?

Thanks again,
Bravo

Yeah I’ll add a fifth and sixth reason:
-It’s just not worth it
-It’s too scary

(when it comes down to it, most things are pretty simple. )
Look, jjimm. If you want to do this guys homework for him, knock yourself out. I’m sure he’s more than capable of deciding which argument to use on his own.

And Bravo. I suggest that you go to a reputable source to do your research. Not an anonymous message board. In spite of what you may think, 99% of the people on this or any other board are not experts and are only stating their opinions.

  1. It’s redundant. Can you think of anything that would be “politically unjust” that isn’t already morally unjust? I can’t. Unjust is unjust and morally goes a lot better with unjust than polically.

  2. Politically speaking, just and unjust are abstract terms. It may be a good idea to follow a just course of action, in terms of politics, because it will be advantageous to you but not in and of itself. Politics and morality exist in two different, yet coexisting and overlapping, spheres. But they are still different.

  3. I think by politically unjust they meant illegal.

But yes, it’s in the motion title so you are stuck. I’m just saying as a general rule of thumb…

Bravo, you need, I think, to step back from that question for a bit and make a distinction between questions of utility (what works/what doesn’t - costs vs. benefits) and the many grounds (utilitarian and otherwise) for judging morality (cost/benefit analyses can have an impact on perceived morality but morality is more abstract and “higher”–it never reduces to them). It is typical to judge politics in terms of utility, but morality has many other components–it cannot simply be quantified.

Take this example: a lawyer believes that a murderer whom s/he is defending is guilty; so s/he defends him very poorly so that he’ll be found guilty and won’t end up back on the street.

There may be some utility there if the lawyer turns out to be right; but the lawyer’s decision is immoral on a number grounds: there are moral principles at stake: s/he has taken an oath promising to defend his/her client; what if the lawyer is wrong in his/her belief?; the legal system is set up to provide justice and fairness in the abstract and now the lawyer has taken things into his/her hands.
So back to the war. It seems to me that these are the questions at stake for you.

  1. Is the war just/moral? (utility arguments + others)

  2. Is the war politically effective? (mainly a question of utility - though perceived morality affects political utility)

Deeper question:

  1. To what extent does the war’s political effectiveness impact its perceived morality (and vice versa).
    Note: towards the end of the second page of this thread a poster asked someone to make the utilitarian case for the war being unjust on utilitarian grounds. I offered him a fairly simple outline for that kind of argument. I’m not suggesting it’s a great argument, but it might be worth a look. He hasn’t gotten back to me yet ;). (If you do use that argument, no need to quote me - in fact, please don’t - but please don’t plagiarize either. Leave that to British intelligence :wink: )

I don’t know Bravo - do you think anti-Americanism/anti-Westernism will ‘disappear’ following the removal of Saddam? I don’t. I’m sure it might diminish somewhat, but the current military incursion would leave further feelings humiliation. Look up the Jessica Stern Harvard study on the root causes of terrorism - ‘humiliation’ comes out top. (Can’t find the study, but here’s a related article.) Hope this gives you food for thought.

I echo msmith537’s thoughts on doing your research for yourself, and these being opinions only.

And msmith537, if by “too scary” you mean the total destabilisation of the region, causing it to break into dozens of smaller warring factions and unleashing a tide of anti-Western terrorism, then yeah, I agree with you, the consequences could be very scary indeed.

Must dash!