• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why was the Iraq War Illegal?

Why was the Iraq War Illegal


  • Total voters
    41

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
64,720
Reaction score
33,055
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
:) Those who believe it was so are more than welcome to opine.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,637
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
:) Those who believe it was so are more than welcome to opine.
But why would anyone want to make a fool of himself?

On the other hand, I know only very few Germans that think the invasion was legal.
 

Coin

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
949
Reaction score
371
Location
Albania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It can be called a dirty job but for me it was legal.

Bush bypassed the "system" pretty well to make an illegal action as legal.
 

JumpinJack

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Messages
6,628
Reaction score
2,971
Location
Dallas, TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
We went in without UN authorization, as I recall. The UN, and in particular, France, was correct. They wanted PROOF of weapons of mass destruction, rather than "belief." They wanted the inspectors to finish and find some proof. So far, the inspectors had not found any proof that Iraq had WMDs, if you recall. But Cheney & Rumsfeld had a different agenda. As Wolf testified later before Congress, they decided to tell the people we were going in for WMDs because it was easier for the public to understand. The real reason, he said, was complicated and political. That was his testimony....that they had lied to the world. France caught the lie....and stupid people here gave up french fries! (mistakenly believing french fries were, well, french)

Iraq represented a new policy, as well. First time we attacked another country who had done nothing to us or done an action that required us to invade them to protect our interests. It was new, unprecendented policy. And our stupid congress people fell for it. Including KERRY. Which is why I'm suspicious of Kerry's decision regarding Syria now. He says "trust me, I know Syria used Chem weapons." He has a track record of not being able to judge so-called evidence properly, so I wouldn't go by Kerry's judgment on this. I do, however, trust Obama's judgment.
 

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Under Just War Theory it had the required elements. A just cause, being a last resort, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used. Legal all the way.
 

DaveFagan

Iconoclast
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
10,090
Reaction score
5,050
Location
wny
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Iraq posed absolutely no threat to the USA. Now the OILY issue. Iraq sold OIL in Euros and that threatened the US Dollar supremacy. Iraq didn't sell to USA OIL corporations. The Iraq War changed the price of OIL in Iraq to US Dollars and brought the Iraq OIL into Western Big Energy Corporation distribution networks. It profited the Energy corporations to FUEL the War. After the War the Iraq OIL entered the Big Energy Distribution Network to provide huge additional profits. It is only good business for Energy Corporations to promote/market Wars because it is really good for their business. Wait a Minute, holy mackerel, low life, scumbag lobbyists wouldn't be trying to buy Congressmen and women to gin up wars that produce huge profits for Big Energy. Of course they would. That just good marketing, Corporatist style.
C
 

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
We went in without UN authorization, as I recall. The UN, and in particular, France, was correct. They wanted PROOF of weapons of mass destruction, rather than "belief." They wanted the inspectors to finish and find some proof. So far, the inspectors had not found any proof that Iraq had WMDs, if you recall. But Cheney & Rumsfeld had a different agenda. As Wolf testified later before Congress, they decided to tell the people we were going in for WMDs because it was easier for the public to understand. The real reason, he said, was complicated and political. That was his testimony....that they had lied to the world. France caught the lie....and stupid people here gave up french fries! (mistakenly believing french fries were, well, french)

Iraq represented a new policy, as well. First time we attacked another country who had done nothing to us or done an action that required us to invade them to protect our interests. It was new, unprecendented policy. And our stupid congress people fell for it. Including KERRY. Which is why I'm suspicious of Kerry's decision regarding Syria now. He says "trust me, I know Syria used Chem weapons." He has a track record of not being able to judge so-called evidence properly, so I wouldn't go by Kerry's judgment on this. I do, however, trust Obama's judgment.
I am thinking maybe you were too young to actually remember that war and how it unfolded? I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Iraqi War Resolution : Text of Iraq War Resolution, Page 2

Digest some of the reasons given to Congress. The fact of the matter was we had an agreement with Saddam after the first Gulf War...he broke that many times. We, under the Clinton Admin, then passed this: The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 [United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq]. He repeatedly violated the no fly zones, he ignored 16 UN resolutions, he was waiting for a regime like the current one so he could reactivate his nuke program...GW wasn't playing that game.

And you do not seem to have a lot of depth on your history. Lets see, did Spain attack us in the Spanish American War? Did North Korea attack us when we aided South Korea? Did Vietnam attack us? Did Grenada attack us, did Panama attack us? Did Saddam attack us in the first Gulf War? No to all of those...and all before the 2003 Iraq War. You have a lot of reading ahead of you there.
 

DVSentinel

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
5,647
Reaction score
1,579
Location
The Republic of Texas.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
:) Those who believe it was so are more than welcome to opine.
Because a bunch of ***** leftist cowards don't believe that evil should be stopped or confronted, that it will just magically disappear while they run around showing their "concern" for all the poor Americans but say "screw you" to everyone else in the world. NM that there are probably far more Iraqi's that believe in what used to be the American dream than there are Liberals who do. Sad but true, many of the people in enemy countries are actually better Americans than Demo's are.
 

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Iraq posed absolutely no threat to the USA. Now the OILY issue. Iraq sold OIL in Euros and that threatened the US Dollar supremacy. Iraq didn't sell to USA OIL corporations. The Iraq War changed the price of OIL in Iraq to US Dollars and brought the Iraq OIL into Western Big Energy Corporation distribution networks. It profited the Energy corporations to FUEL the War. After the War the Iraq OIL entered the Big Energy Distribution Network to provide huge additional profits. It is only good business for Energy Corporations to promote/market Wars because it is really good for their business. Wait a Minute, holy mackerel, low life, scumbag lobbyists wouldn't be trying to buy Congressmen and women to gin up wars that produce huge profits for Big Energy. Of course they would. That just good marketing, Corporatist style.
C
Possibly true, but I have seen those aspersions being tossed around before. Never seen anybody come close to backing them up. But I am game, give me the facts and proof. :)
 

Medusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
39,862
Reaction score
7,845
Location
Turkey
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
lt was illegal because it wasnt defensive
 

Perotista

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
25,489
Reaction score
18,388
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
lt was illegal because it wasnt defensive
Actually I think it was quasi legal as congress did approve of the war via resolution. I do not know if that makes it constitutional. Much more legal than Obama's Libyan operation. But the way I read the constitution, congress must declare war, not by resolution for a war to be considered constitutional. So every war we have been involved in since WWII, could in a way be said to be unconstitutional. But with congressional approval, they may have been legal or quasi legal if you will.
 

Medusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
39,862
Reaction score
7,845
Location
Turkey
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Actually I think it was quasi legal as congress did approve of the war via resolution. I do not know if that makes it constitutional. Much more legal than Obama's Libyan operation. But the way I read the constitution, congress must declare war, not by resolution for a war to be considered constitutional. So every war we have been involved in since WWII, could in a way be said to be unconstitutional. But with congressional approval, they may have been legal or quasi legal if you will.
hi pero ,
whether a foreign policy decision made by any government is constitutional or not doesnt determine its legality
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
117,930
Reaction score
34,006
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
lt was illegal because it wasnt defensive
It certainly was defensive. Saddam had violated 17 Chapter 7 UNSCRs, the last of which promised dire consequences. He was firing on US aircraft, selling food from oil and faking a WMD program.

It was also defensive for the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs, the children being intentionally starved, the victims of institutionalized rape and the Iraqi people in general.
 

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
hi pero ,
whether a foreign policy decision made by any government is constitutional or not doesnt determine its legality
Don't know how they do it in Turkey, but it is legal here. While that may sound arrogant, I sure trust US a lot more than the UN, or, for that matter, Turkey. When your country has done half as much good as the US has around the world, maybe then you could legitimately bring up whether you think its legal or not. In the meantime, have a good evening....
 

Perotista

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
25,489
Reaction score
18,388
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
hi pero ,
whether a foreign policy decision made by any government is constitutional or not doesnt determine its legality
Howdy Medusa, I suppose you're right as to in one's own mind anyway. But the way our government works, if something is constitutional, it is at least legally binding. At least as far as the federal system goes. I thought Iraq was a mistake from the get go, but once congress gave it approval via a resolultion, (resolutions for me is the wrong way to go, we went to war on an opinion of congress, not a declaration) I did my best to ensure its success.
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,510
Reaction score
50,094
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
:) Those who believe it was so are more than welcome to opine.

It was more-or-less authorized by Congress... but speaking in very strict, very Constitutionally-literalist terms, there was no formal declaration of war. Now, it has been true for some time that the Prez can commit military forces up to 90 days without Congressional authorization, and whether a declaration of war as such by name is required is a debateable point given how far we've strayed from the Constitution...

But anyway, I wasn't opposed to the Iraq war itself... but I thought there should have been a proper Congressional declaration of war.
 

Medusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
39,862
Reaction score
7,845
Location
Turkey
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
It certainly was defensive. Saddam had violated 17 Chapter 7 UNSCRs, the last of which promised dire consequences. He was firing on US aircraft, selling food from oil and faking a WMD program.

It was also defensive for the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs, the children being intentionally starved, the victims of institutionalized rape and the Iraqi people in general.
kurds were bombed 25 years ago and USA was aware of it .

they ignored .lets admit eco

the government never agrees with you
 

Thrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
20,295
Reaction score
9,800
Location
Texas, Vegas, Colombia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It was more-or-less authorized by Congress... but speaking in very strict, very Constitutionally-literalist terms, there was no formal declaration of war. Now, it has been true for some time that the Prez can commit military forces up to 90 days without Congressional authorization, and whether a declaration of war as such by name is required is a debateable point given how far we've strayed from the Constitution...

But anyway, I wasn't opposed to the Iraq war itself... but I thought there should have been a proper Congressional declaration of war.
I thought the anti-war folks had a good point in demanding a formal declaration of war... even it is is just a formality.

I opposed going to war in Iraq ( I volunteered nonetheless)... but I sure as hell supported ending Saddam.

in any event, it wasn't an illegal war.
 

Medusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
39,862
Reaction score
7,845
Location
Turkey
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Howdy Medusa, I suppose you're right as to in one's own mind anyway. But the way our government works, if something is constitutional, it is at least legally binding. At least as far as the federal system goes. I thought Iraq was a mistake from the get go, but once congress gave it approval via a resolultion, (resolutions for me is the wrong way to go, we went to war on an opinion of congress, not a declaration) I did my best to ensure its success.
but your constitution doesnt govern this world ,it governs only USA :mrgreen:

it means l (the world countries )dont have to accept your constitution
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
15,472
Reaction score
20,326
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
:) Those who believe it was so are more than welcome to opine.
I need clarification...are you talking about the Iraq Invasion of 2003 under Bush Jr., or the original Gulf War authorized by the UN that Bush Sr. was involved with?
 

Medusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
39,862
Reaction score
7,845
Location
Turkey
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Don't know how they do it in Turkey, but it is legal here. While that may sound arrogant, I sure trust US a lot more than the UN, or, for that matter, Turkey. When your country has done half as much good as the US has around the world, maybe then you could legitimately bring up whether you think its legal or not. In the meantime, have a good evening....


even if all the parliament members agree that we should attack syria ,it is still illegal

l am not interested in what some governors claim to be legal

l have a mind and heart
 

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
even if all the parliament members agree that we should attack syria ,it is still illegal

l am not interested in what some governors claim to be legal

l have a mind and heart
I too have a mind and heart...what is your point? What is illegal about it? Under whose laws? There is no true governing World Body that can make that determiniation. Too much corruption and intrigue going on at the UN. So, whose word are we going to take for it? Medusa's? I rather think we can figure it out on our own, thank you very much for the input.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,926
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
It certainly was defensive. Saddam had violated 17 Chapter 7 UNSCRs, the last of which promised dire consequences. He was firing on US aircraft, selling food from oil and faking a WMD program.

It was also defensive for the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs, the children being intentionally starved, the victims of institutionalized rape and the Iraqi people in general.
Post of the day!
 

Medusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
39,862
Reaction score
7,845
Location
Turkey
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I too have a mind and heart...what is your point? What is illegal about it? Under whose laws? There is no true governing World Body that can make that determiniation. Too much corruption and intrigue going on at the UN. So, whose word are we going to take for it? Medusa's? I rather think we can figure it out on our own, thank you very much for the input.
l am against all wars in favor of imperialism

is it clear now ?
 
Top Bottom