Why was the Iraq War Illegal?

[cpwill]

Those who believe it was so are more than welcome to opine.

 

[joG]

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]

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.

 

[WCH]

Those who believe it was so are more than welcome to opine.

Anyone who chooses " No UN Authorization" is a subversive. IMHO

 

[JumpinJack]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

lt was illegal because it wasnt defensive

 

[Perotista]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ?