Is the War on Iraq a Just War?
...t people from atrocities perpetrated by their governments, or three, are needed for self-defense. The need for war on Iraq to enforce international law is controversial, and though it is used as justification by the Bush administration, it cannot be a genuine reason, since the Bush administration is not a supporter of international law. Even if this is not THEIR reason and even if they are hypocritical in citing it, it may still be a good reason. The second is controversial, because even though Iraq has been guilty of atrocities in the past, the Iraqi government is not currently guilty of large-scale atrocities. And the third, is extremely controversial and the main argument for the war ( 9/11). Second, it must be conducted by legitimate authority. With this you could say it goes both ways. On one hand the U.S. government is a proper authority. On the other hand, the United Nations is a proper authority and opposes the war on Iraq. Third, the intentions of the U.S. government are not clear. Some talk from Washington and continuing argument from Tim Blair, that war will serve long-term goals of democratization. Since Bush ran as a critic of any attempts by U.S. government to use its military force for any purpose other than the direct protection of its interests, it is hard to believe that this is the intention. Is the intention of removing a leader who has mistreated citizens, invaded his neighbors, and used chemical an biological weapons against both neighbors citizens justified? In my opinion, yes. The United States clearly has a reasonable chance of success. This implies that the Iraqi’s should not fight back, regardless of how unjust the actions of the U.S. might be. Resistance of the Iraqi’s will only cause suffering and death to its own people. Concern about...