Is WMD really the deciding issue in the Iraq war?

Would WMD change the minds of the anti-war crowd?

Published on July 13, 2004 By Madine In Politics

Ever since a few weeks after coalition forces marched into Iraq, people who were against the war before it began have put forward the argument that the war is not justified because of the lack of WMD. This has also been used by people who were in favor of the war (like John Kerry and John Edwards) to criticize the Bush administration.

I have a question for the people on this site who are opposed to the war. If there had been several tons of chemical and/or biological weapons found in Iraq, would you change your mind and say the war was justified? If so, why? If not, what level of WMD, if any would be needed to justify the war?

There is a legitimate argument that President Bush put too much emphasis on WMD and not enough on other reasons. A failure in delivering an effective argument does not imply that the war was the wrong decision however.

If people want to argue that the presence of WMD stockpiles was a decisive issue in justifying the invasion of Iraq, then they better be able to explain why they would have supported the war if WMD stockpiles were found.

Comments (Page 3)

emk111

on Jul 15, 2004

Bush went to war on the claim that Iraq was an imminent threat because they possessed and would use WMDs against us. Bush still claims Saddam was a threat because he had the capability of creating WMDs. These are specious claims. Every industrialized country in the world has the capability of creating WMDs. The fact is, the inspections were working. Saddam had destroyed his WMDs. He was no threat to the US.

Of course the war would have been justified if we had found ICBMs and if Saddam had used chemical warfare as a defense against our troops.

The world is less safe because we invaded Iraq. The Middle East is destablized. Iraq is a marketing tool for AL Qaeda. We responded exactly as Bin Laden and his cohorts wanted us to.

Madine

on Jul 15, 2004

Bush went to war on the claim that Iraq was an imminent threat because they possessed and would use WMDs against us.

He did not say Iraq was an imminent threat. I have a quote a few posts up where Bush says it would be a mistake to wait until the threat is imminent.

Iraq is a marketing tool for AL Qaeda.

Iraq was a marketing tool for Al Qaeda long before we invaded. One of the "justifications" for bin Laden's fatwah against the US was that 500,000 Iraqis were killed due to US sanctions.

Solitair

on Jul 16, 2004

Sorry Brad,
that was suppossed to be tongue in cheek (hence the symbol) but it does read a little harsh. I know you do care about others opinions, or else you would not bother debating with them so much.

Point taken on the difference between US and UK. In the UK we had Blair making WMD the single issue (indeed other issues were denied). But we did have Bush trying to convince the rest of the world to join in, and for that WMD was also the only issue. Internally within the US other issues may have got more attention, but certainly not on a world stage.

So for 95% of the world's population WMD was the primary issue. The debate still rages as to what the US 5% population believed or were told.

Paul.

Solitair

on Jul 16, 2004

Madine,
you asked

explain why they would have supported the war if WMD stockpiles were found

To do this one must argue that WMD were indeed the decisive issue in

justifying the invasion

The important word here is Justice. Legally a country may only invade another if attacked itself or if imminent threat requires pre-emptive action. Therefore the invasion of Iraq is only legal or justified IF that imminent threat is found. Hence why for many WMD was the decisive issue. Hence why it was the single issue used by the US internationally.

Hence I can understand anyone argueing that unless WMD are found the war was wrong. If WMD are found the war was right.

Paul.

Madine

on Jul 16, 2004

The British legal justification for war against Iraq.

I think though that when talking about the justification for the war, most people are referring to more of a moral justification ("Was it the right thing to do?") than a legal one.

Hence why for many WMD was the decisive issue.

I'm sure that there are many people who think that. However, there are people who were opposed to the war from the start when the WMD question was still up in the air. They opposed the war for other reasons, and even if there had been WMD stockpiles in Iraq, they still would have been opposed to the war. For these people, whose opinion would not be swayed even if there were WMD, it is disingenous to argue that WMD was a decisive issue.

Solitair

on Jul 16, 2004

Ah a 'moral' justification.

Unfortunately people have completely difference senses of morals, and so the question

Was it the right thing to do?

will get different answers from different people.

I disagree that those who were not swayed by WMD should not be allowed comment. Jsut because they were not convinced to support the war does not invalidate any arguements they may have about whether that was the decisive issue in the arguement. It just means that they were not swayed, not that no one tried to sway them, and WMD may indeed have been the decisive arguement put forward by others in trying to sway them.

Paul.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!