Was the Iraq 'war' legal?

[there4eyeM]

"i know, this is such a dead issue you have to wonder what the libs are trying to hide that is current by dragging it up again. it's like clinton bombing iraq to call attention away from a blowjob"

Not being a 'lib', this obviously does not apply to me. It has been in the news, however, as we are at the tenth anniversary of this embarrassment to, and destruction of a large part of, American power.

 

[whitehall]

Radical lefties are like goldfish. They have no concept of history and every trip around the bowl is a whole new world. Korea was illegal, Vietnam was illegal and Clinton's splendid little bombing campaign on a defenseless country in Europe was illegal. Iraq was legal and by the book. Bush gave Saddam about a year to comply with UN sanctions and Congress voted overwhelmingly to support the Iraq resolution.

 

[Spoonman]

'Legal', yes. A country that declares war in response to aggression has every legal right by international definitions.
When Japan attacked the US, Congress declared war. That was legal by the constitution and legal by international law.
Iraq was totally the opposite.

so did yugoslavia ever attack us? or what about korea? Vietnam?

Good question(s).

There are gradations of military action. Like them or not, Korea and South Vietnam were allies, or at least friends, and they were attacked. The intention was to defend them, not destroy, invade and supplant their enemies. Not that I agree with those actions necessarily, particularly Vietnam (where a settlement was interfered with by the US), but it isn't the same as a doctrine, foreign to the spirit of America, of pre-emptive war. Our forefathers would not be happy with that.

well i think by defending we are pretty much seeking to destroy, invade and supplant the enemies

 

[Billo_Really]

Radical lefties are like goldfish. They have no concept of history and every trip around the bowl is a whole new world. Korea was illegal, Vietnam was illegal and Clinton's splendid little bombing campaign on a defenseless country in Europe was illegal. Iraq was legal and by the book. Bush gave Saddam about a year to comply with UN sanctions and Congress voted overwhelmingly to support the Iraq resolution.

It wasn't Bush's call to decide if Iraq was in violation of UN resolution 1441 and the US resolution had conditions Bush ignored.

BTW, Israel is in violation of over 200 UN resolutions. Should we attack them?

 

[there4eyeM]

Where did anyone, 'left' or 'right' say anything about Korea or Vietnam being legal?

In any case, in looking at the anniversary of this invasion, Iraq is the subject.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There are international treaties that define this fairly well. Congress approved US participation in these treaties. By the Constitution, that makes these treaties US law as well as international law.

The invasion of Poland by Germany was in self defense, by their interpretation. To everyone else; it was purely aggressive. Poland did not invade, attack, or even threaten Germany.

Did Iraq attack the US? Did Congress declare war?

You did not answer my questions.

Did you think that was a response to your questions? It was a declaration of facts. In retrospect, however, those questions are addressed. Perhaps you just need to meditate on it.

:yawn:
My questions remain unasnwered. No need to wonder why.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This doesn't tell me who determines if a war is in self-defense

That's a pretty stupid question.

Translation:
You have no idea of what the answer might be and don't want to have to admit it.
Do you have an answer that actually addresses the question, or not?

How did the US (or any other state) becoming a member of the UN nullify any and every other means of creating and arbitrating international law?

Becoming a member state to the UN means that you will honor its Charter.[/QUOTE]
Which then necessitates that the UN is the sole source of international law and the sole arbiter thereof.
Show this to be true.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Radical lefties are like goldfish. They have no concept of history and every trip around the bowl is a whole new world. Korea was illegal, Vietnam was illegal and Clinton's splendid little bombing campaign on a defenseless country in Europe was illegal. Iraq was legal and by the book. Bush gave Saddam about a year to comply with UN sanctions and Congress voted overwhelmingly to support the Iraq resolution.

It wasn't Bush's call to decide if Iraq was in violation of UN resolution 1441 and the US resolution had conditions Bush ignored.

The UN charter specifically allows a state to act in its own self-defense.
Who determines if any such action is in self-defense?

 

[kiwiman127]

Radical lefties are like goldfish. They have no concept of history and every trip around the bowl is a whole new world. Korea was illegal, Vietnam was illegal and Clinton's splendid little bombing campaign on a defenseless country in Europe was illegal. Iraq was legal and by the book. Bush gave Saddam about a year to comply with UN sanctions and Congress voted overwhelmingly to support the Iraq resolution.

Exactly who was threatened by Iraq?
Not to bash Israel but they had more violations of UN Resolutions (102) than Iraq ever had, so this claim is selective bullshit.
This was a "war of choice" because "W", well OK Cheney, had a hard-on for Iraq.

 

[Rozman]

Kinda late in the day to bring this up don't ya think.

 

[hortysir]

-Who decides if a war is in "self defense"?

If you are attacked, it's pretty obvious your actions are in self-defense.

This doesn't tell me who determines if a war is in self-defense

-When did the UN become the sole source and arbiter of international law?

When the US became a member state.

How did the US (or any other state) becoming a member of the UN nullify any and every other means of creating and arbitrating international law?

How can you cite "international law"?
How is the US answerable to any other country as to it's behavior?

See how that works?

 

[Billo_Really]

Translation:
You have no idea of what the answer might be and don't want to have to admit it.
Do you have an answer that actually addresses the question, or not?

No, it's just a stupid question!

WTF is your point here?

Which then necessitates that the UN is the sole source of international law and the sole arbiter thereof.
Show this to be true.

No it doesn't necessitate that. You have the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Statutes, Nuremberg Principles and they all make up what is referred to as International Humanitarian Law (IHL).

What is your fuckin' point?

 

[Billo_Really]

The UN charter specifically allows a state to act in its own self-defense.
Who determines if any such action is in self-defense?

Iraq did not attack us.

Therefore, military action against them was not in self-defense.

 

[blackhawk]

Opinion: Why Bush, Blair should be charged with war crimes over Iraq - CNN.com

Excerpt:

"Article 1 makes clear that the main purpose of the U.N. is to "maintain international peace and security and to that end to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace" and to act in accordance with justice and the principles of international law.

It is for the U.N. to determine what collective measures should be taken -- not for individual states to take unilateral or bilateral action. This is not rocket science, but the simple application of restraint and respect for the rules that Britain and America agreed to when they signed the Charter.

But this is not what happened 10 years ago at the behest of U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Their agenda was quite different -- to remove a dictator, Saddam Hussein, whose regime was abhorrent.

MORE: Iraq's Baby Noor: An unfinished miracle

But regime change, however desirable, is not permitted by the Charter. If it were, the powerful nations could go round the world picking off the weak -- or more particularly the states thought to be hostile to their own ambitions."

If you want to go by the strict legal standard of one country declaring war against another then the last legal war the U.S. waged would have been World War 2

 

[yidnar]

Opinion: Why Bush, Blair should be charged with war crimes over Iraq - CNN.com

Excerpt:

"Article 1 makes clear that the main purpose of the U.N. is to "maintain international peace and security and to that end to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace" and to act in accordance with justice and the principles of international law.

It is for the U.N. to determine what collective measures should be taken -- not for individual states to take unilateral or bilateral action. This is not rocket science, but the simple application of restraint and respect for the rules that Britain and America agreed to when they signed the Charter.

But this is not what happened 10 years ago at the behest of U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Their agenda was quite different -- to remove a dictator, Saddam Hussein, whose regime was abhorrent.

MORE: Iraq's Baby Noor: An unfinished miracle

But regime change, however desirable, is not permitted by the Charter. If it were, the powerful nations could go round the world picking off the weak -- or more particularly the states thought to be hostile to their own ambitions."

yes the Gulf war that started in 1991 was legal.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Was the Iraq 'war' legal?

No.

 

[yidnar]

Was the Iraq 'war' legal?

No.

so we should have just let him invade Kuwait ??

 

[there4eyeM]

Was the Iraq 'war' legal?

No.

so we should have just let him invade Kuwait ??

What happened when China invaded Tibet or Vietnam?

 

[there4eyeM]

One man is cruel to his family and nasty to his neighbors. One day he is sitting in a bar when another man, not in the family nor a neighbor, walks in and punches him.
When questioned, the attacker says it was in self defense. Would the police agree?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The UN charter specifically allows a state to act in its own self-defense.
Who determines if any such action is in self-defense?

Iraq did not attack us.
Therefore, military action against them was not in self-defense.

You avoided the question yet again, so I shall ask again:
Who determines if any such action is in self-defense?