A great argument is now present in the media about supporting the American invasion of Iraq. Is it really ethical to support such an invasion of a country? This paper will discuss the facts starting up from political facts leading into ethical ones. To start, we must first know that when we deal with an issue in an ethical or, to be more general, philosophical way, we should consider the issue is it should be not as it is. Meaning that, if we consider what is going has a wrong origin, then we must not consider our dealing with the consequences ethical or not. Let’s start with some facts.
* Around 2 million people were killed in Iraq since the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. * The American invasion of Iraq allowed the interference of a lot of other countries in the Iraqi situation whether it’s beneficial or not to Iraqis. * No destructive weapons, the main reason of the American war, were found. * People all over the world no longer trust the ally forces to be forces of applying justice and democracy for people in countries ruled by dictators. * The Iraqi culture was almost destroyed.
* A huge amount of terrorists, threatening the whole world and especially the region, consider Iraq as the safe shelter for them. * Iraqi people are now spread into fighting groups depending on their sects and ethnic origin, thus Iraq is no longer considered a unified country. I guess the facts mentioned above are agreed on by most people in the domain, what they might debate on is the causes of these facts. After 9 \11, the Americans, supported by the allies, started preparing for the invasion of Iraq. Their strongest excuse was the possession of Iraq for hugely critical weapons that may harm the whole world. Let us assume that the real aim of the war was to eliminate these weapons to keep the world a safe and a better place to live in. At this point thinking of war on Iraq is not yet the only solution, thus war at this early stage is not yet ethically excused. The Americans did not provide any technical evidence that the old Iraqi government had destructive weapons nor had the intentions to attack any other country. If having the weapons means that Iraq should be attacked, then a lot of other countries should be also attacked. And if the reason is intentions, taking the invasion of Kuwait as an example, then other countries like Russia who recently attacked Georgia should also be attacked and the government should be replaced. What most destroy the American rumors of critical weapons is that after the war, these weapons just disappeared. The allies had no reason to attack Iraq, and their public aim is obviously a lie. If the whole story was based on a lie, would supporting this war be moral or ethical? The answer needs no debate, it is obviously NO.
We discussed before whether the causes of war on Iraq were considered ethical, and we got to a certain conclusion. Now we are going to discuss the consequences of the war to realize whether the un ethical causes lead to ethical consequences, thus we can decide whether its ethical to support the war or not.
The beginning point will be with the number of murdered people in Iraq. Latest statistics showed that over 2 million people were killed since the war in 2003. The main argument of people supporting the invasion, or at least considering it ethical, is that the American forces did not kill this number of people. They support their saying by considering that the only way for the Americans to preserve and assure their 2003 victory in Iraq is by protecting people and helping to turn Iraq into a calm atmosphere. Thus these people were killed by the groups that claim to be the resistance. Accordingly, the ethical duty is to support the Americans that want to keep Iraq in its best suit in defeating these groups that are causing genocides to Iraqis. Let us assume that this claim is true and Americans have no other reason for staying in Iraq except this. What we miss here...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document