Is the Iraq war justified; why or why not?

^ the man has a firm point!

crap this was supposed to be a comment -_-

No, a war is NEVER justified unless a country is defending itself, defending its people or defending its allies.

US and British secret services claimed that Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction. BTW, the info came from an ex Iraqi state secretary who fell out with Iraqi leadership over internal power quarrels, and who then fled to London.

Now that guy wanted to have his position back and told USA and GB that Hussein was building weapons of mass destruction in order to attack other countries. Which was a lie. But they believed him without further checking.

Then USA and GB with the help of Spain and some other countries aggressively invaded Iraq. Using the “weapons of mass destruction” as a diplomatic smoke screen. The real reason why anyone wanted dominion over the Iraq is the oil. The real reason for the war is weapons industry lobbyism.

Yes of course, Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator, too. But there are dozens of countries led by evil dictators. Being led by an evil dictator isn’t usually an acceptable cause for a war. It’s an acceptable cause for a people’s revolt. But not for a war.

As an addendum to what has already been answered here… it is important to note that the person elements within SISMI… Italy’s [Military Intelligence and Security Service]… named as the mastermind behind the Nigerian Yellowcake forgeries was the same guy who brought us Iran/Contra… and the same person who has steadfastly sabre-rattled for military intervention in Iran. Michael Ledeen. http://funadvice.com/r/160444evigl

Ledeen… along with his cohorts in the neocon think tanks… American Enterprise Institute and former PNAC… the Project for a New American Century… are no doubt the cabal of fascist leaning Straussians who orchestrated and carried out the controlled demolitions of WTC buildings 1,2&7 on 9/11/2001… to realize their ambitions of an American takeover of the Middle East and Central Asia after the decline of the USSR, and necessitating a “New Pearl Harbor” opined for in their “Rebuilding America’s Defences” paper.

Remember his name and writings once we have either been duped into the next war with Iran following the next false flag event… or been cajoled into it through the standard humanitarian argument. The real deal is about a global hegemony for western banking usury.

We didn’t need Iran… Afghanistan… Libya… Uganda. We don’t need Syria or Iran or Pakistan. We don’t need an executive with war powers. We don’t need any state large enough to decimate entire populations while ignoring the will of its own. But this is what we’ve got. Largely through the collective ignorance and an unwillingness to consider unpopular truths.

I think we need to keep in mind every pancake has 2 sides…in other words, not just absorb one partys bashing ‘talking points’ as is so popular today. Convienent, but not whole truth.

Wars of aggression, like my government’s wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, are never justified.

I feel Afghanistan was justified. With such a weak central government it became a base and training ground for terrorist groups. We actually had pretty good reason to invade Afghanistan. Invading Iraq was egregious and would be considered by international law a war crime if anyone else had done it.

We invaded Afghanistan because the government there said that if we wanted them to extradite bin Laden to us for trial, we would have to show them some prima facie evidence that he was a legitimate criminal suspect. Rather than complying with this basic principle of international law, we invaded their country (which had been completely non-aggressive toward us) and overthrew their highly distasteful but internationally recognized government.

By your reasoning, we now have good reason to invade Yemen, Somalia, and probably a half dozen other countries. Moreover, by that reasoning, Iraq had good reason to invade Iran, and Syria to invade Lebanon, etc.

The USA’s invasion of Iraq is considered a war crime by those who apply international law even-handedly, and Afghanistan no less so. But our government can get away with such crimes because its permanent seat and veto power on the UN Security Council protects it from any international legal consequences.

Meanwhile, the bipartisan domestic legitimacy of American imperialism protects it from any political consequences, too, but there’s nothing exceptional about the USA in that regard.

It was widely held (not just by the US) that the Taliban was simply stalling rather than sincerely questioning US requests. Overthrowing the Taliban was a UN operation so it at least had some legitimacy. Invading Iraq was part of a neocon wet dream of flooding the world market with cheap Iraqi oil leading to decades of prosperity fueled by cheap energy. Many neocons thought Invading Iraq would be a piece of cake like Desert Storm was with few causalities and a grateful population welcoming us with flowers and honey. There was also the idea that Bush 41 didn’t finish the job since he never took Hussein out of power and thought Bush 43 should.

I don’t see how the discussion about IRaq is relevant to whether the aggression against Afghanistan was “legitimate.” The simple way to test whether the Taliban was “simply stallling” or “sincerely questioning” was for the U.S. government to obey the law and see if the Taliban followed suit or not. Rough analogy: If the police come to search my home, and I say I won’t let them in until they show me a warrant, does their suspicion that I may resist their entry even if they were to come back with a warrant entitle them to break into my home without one? Your statement that “overthrowing the Taliban was a UN operation” is simply false. The UN had no involvement (since it has no ability to police the actions of any permanent Security Council member state) until after the Taliban fled Kabul leaving Afghanistan with no functioning governmental authority, which the UN then stepped in to create.