I’m writing a paper on the just war theory and applying it to the war in Iraq. One of the conditions for a just war is that it must be a last resort. So what are some alternatives to the war in Iraq that could serve to prove that the war was not a last resort?
I already noted the following:
await an actual confirmation of WMD (if any) from the UN inspectors.
the Bush administration could advance to the International Criminal Court and indice Saddam on accussations of yaaddaayada.
the US could end its roll as the largest supplier of arms to the Middle East region. (I’m not so sure about this one, though)
Iraq's army didn't put a fight against USA. So they are safe and alive. If I had to fix iraq I would invite ex-iraqi army over. Ask them to get organized the way they were before us led invasion. Change the top leadership in army.
And let them control iraq. Then tell them to hold election etc.
This is very quiq and solid plan BUT its against america's ego.
if you live in th US perhaps it'd be better for you not to give an honest truthful paper on this subject.
btw the war is supposed to be over so alternatives at this present time are a)pull troops out and leave iraqis to police themselves b)maintain troops to achieve strategic goals ie bases for an attack on iran, control of oil, prevent iraq from splitting into two equally extremist states etc.
btw2 iraq has been an overwhelming success for the US. it has suffered minimal military and political consequences. if you look back to the american media and public wanting to help free iraqis of a 'claimed'(unproven till this day) tyrant and contrast that to recent concerns for the two american soldiers needing plasters for cuts and bruises per day even though iraqis are being blown up in their thausands. the iraq public never mattered to anyone, everyone knew it was a chance to burn some sand niggars
muslim nations need to look after their national defences. consequence for aggression is a must. wmds are needed by countries such as iraq for basic survival, america is not the friend of the world it claims to be. infact america should be forced into having a much less intrusive foreign policy for the sake of peace. americans are murderers and everyone knows it
the case for war on iraq was always based on a pack of lies so the only goal was war, making the alternatives to the war itself pointless. more evidence that the danger is america itself
pal trust me there's a lot of people here that are upset with the war - don't let the media fool you. and i'm not going to write a paper on the side of an argument i oppose just because it's what my teacher would agree with. and btw my teacher is a flaming liberal, so it's not a problem anyways. ;]
“Alternatives” are required when a problem exists. In case of Iraq, the “problem” was WMDs, and everyone later found out that it was a lie. As far as Americans are concerned, Iraq was not a problem in the first place.
Iraq was attacked because Israel wanted America to do it. WMD’s or no WMD’s.
http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23083
WASHINGTON, Mar 29 (IPS) - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 – the 9/11 commission – in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.
”Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 – it’s the threat against Israel,” Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation.
”And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don’t care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,” said Zelikow.
The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington’s desire to defend the Jewish state.
I'm writing a paper on the just war theory and applying it to the war in Iraq. One of the conditions for a just war is that it must be a last resort. So what are some alternatives to the war in Iraq that could serve to prove that the war was not a last resort?
I already noted the following:
- await an actual confirmation of WMD (if any) from the UN inspectors.
- the Bush administration could advance to the International Criminal Court and indice Saddam on accussations of yaaddaayada.
- the US could end its roll as the largest supplier of arms to the Middle East region. (I'm not so sure about this one, though)
Help will be much appreciated.
i dont think there were any alternatives left, they already had economic sanctions and had isloted iraq from the world since the gulf war in 1991. however u cud say that dialogue shud have beeen continued to the very end, but seriously what good was that doing, the iraqis were insisting they had nothing to hide, while the americans insisted that yes u do have something to hide. talks were just going in circles. the IAEA were given access to all iraqi facilities and they failed to find anything.
u can only have dialogue if both sides r willing to cooperate and reach a peaceful solution, but in this case the americans werent. bush wanted to have greater military presence in the middle east and war was something he wanted no matter wat the iraqis agreed to.
