Why was the Iraq War Illegal?

Thrilla said:

ok, so you opposed Iraq invading Kuwait... now we're getting somewhere.

soooo.. what do you think should have happened to Iraq after their invaded Kuwait?

ask them nicely to leave?... sanction them?.. or force them to leave with violence?

Click to expand...

okay but it ended years ago but 9/11 attacks were used to overthrow saddam

we agree again ?

Medusa said:

9/11 attacks were used to overthrow saddam

Click to expand...

Not at all.

17 violated Chapter 7 UNSCR's
Firing on the no-fly zone put in place to prevent further genocide
Repeated invasions of neighbors
A (fake) WMD program
Institutionalized rape
Repeated genocide
Selling food for oil, starving 400k children

And a host of other reasons were used to overthrow Saddam.

Thrilla said:

well, accomplishments include the demise of a tyrant and the existence of a functioning democracy...

Click to expand...

One tyrant out of the way leaves the door open for another in the Middle East. Iraq is still at war with an insurgency we stirred up. With us gone, they're free to continue their violence uninterrupted, which they are. Democracy doesn't work without the means to defend it. Iraq doesn't have those means now that we're gone.

Medusa said:

okay but it ended years ago but 9/11 attacks were used to overthrow saddam

we agree again ?

Click to expand...

I don't know what your answer is.. so i don't know if we agree or not..

9/11 was the catalyst, sure... but anyone with a functioning brain knew Bush would try what was long standing US policy ( regime change in Iraq)

I was opposed to Iraq invading Kuwait.. yes.. and I fully supported Iraq being forcibly removed from Kuwait... and I wholeheartedly support killing any and all tyrants

Gaugingcatenate said:

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.

Click to expand...

The statements are facts. Nothing in that paragraph requires proof. It is a compilation of historical facts.

DaveFagan said:

The statements are facts. Nothing in that paragraph requires proof. It is a compilation of historical facts.

Click to expand...

Yeah yeah yeah, have heard that before. This is debate, prove your statements. You are a fellow conservative, I expect better.

I voted no, it was not illegal, but only because it had tacit congressional approval and could invoke UN resolution. I would have voted yes if there was an option for it being illegal because it got congressional approval due to misinformation and misleading.

cpwill said:

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

Click to expand...

Really very simple: it wasn't illegal. A sovereign state has the right to use military force to defend its essential interests. And besides, Iraq was in violation of its cease-fire-agreement with the US after the 1990-91 war.
Technically one might argue that this wasn't legally a war since there was no official declaration of war (unfortunately the tradition of actually declaring war died with World War II). But this doesn't make the use of military force illegal.

A dishonest question with dishonest choices.

Illegal according to whose laws?
You certainly can not only apply American laws. It involved two Nations. I would imagine that it was illegal based on Iraqi law.
The UN was against our actions. But the UN does not create Laws.

The poll author is looking for some type of vindication of our actions by narrowing the field.
But, word games aside, there is no vindication.

Our Congress was lied to.
Our people kept their eyes, ears, and minds closed because we were afraid.
We invaded a Nation without cause or reason.
We lost thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of American lives ruined by injury.
We directly killed no less than 130,000 Iraqi men, women, and children.
We indirectly caused up to 1,000,000 Iraqi men, women, and children to die.
We destroyed an infrastructure older than our own nation.
And we are still responsible for the continued bloodshed.

Our soldiers fought with honor and can only be viewed with honor, as they did what we asked them to do.
But those responsible for the lies will one day answer to a higher power.
And upon that day, it will be clear to them that they broke the laws of our God.

Painter said:

A dishonest question with dishonest choices.

Illegal according to whose laws?
You certainly can not only apply American laws. It involved two Nations. I would imagine that it was illegal based on Iraqi law.
The UN was against our actions. But the UN does not create Laws.

The poll author is looking for some type of vindication of our actions by narrowing the field.
But, word games aside, there is no vindication.

Our Congress was lied to.
Our people kept their eyes, ears, and minds closed because we were afraid.
We invaded a Nation without cause or reason.
We lost thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of American lives ruined by injury.
We directly killed no less than 130,000 Iraqi men, women, and children.
We indirectly caused up to 1,000,000 Iraqi men, women, and children to die.
We destroyed an infrastructure older than our own nation.
And we are still responsible for the continued bloodshed.

Our soldiers fought with honor and can only be viewed with honor, as they did what we asked them to do.
But those responsible for the lies will one day answer to a higher power.
And upon that day, it will be clear to them that they broke the laws of our God.

Click to expand...

You do know that most of what you wrote has no basis in fact, right?

Artevelde said:

You do know that most of what you wrote has no basis in fact, right?

Click to expand...

I would bet not. For example, the vast majority of rational studies of Iraqi death tolls put the death count caused by the war at 100K-200K. The one-million figure is probably that Lancet study that got laughed out of intelligent discourse, finding it's ways instead to the sub-basements of liberal bile and anger, to fester and mold and mutate into something hideous and hateful, unable to show it's face in civilized company without ridicule.

cpwill said:

I would bet not. For example, the vast majority of rational studies of Iraqi death tolls put the death count caused by the war at 100K-200K. The one-million figure is probably that Lancet study that got laughed out of intelligent discourse, finding it's ways instead to the sub-basements of liberal bile and anger, to fester and mold and mutate into something hideous and hateful, unable to show it's face in civilized company without ridicule.

Click to expand...

I'm not really a betting man. But you are right.

cpwill said:

I would bet not. For example, the vast majority of rational studies of Iraqi death tolls put the death count caused by the war at 100K-200K. The one-million figure is probably that Lancet study that got laughed out of intelligent discourse, finding it's ways instead to the sub-basements of liberal bile and anger, to fester and mold and mutate into something hideous and hateful, unable to show it's face in civilized company without ridicule.

Click to expand...

There is no point in debating the Iraq Invasion with you. Anyone that still thinks there is any justification for going there, is quite simply beyond hope or reason.

There is no study that shows less than 100,000 deaths. That is 100,000 deaths too many. These people were God's children just as you and I are.
And worth no less than we are.
The reason that some people view the larger results in contempt is because they only view us as responsible for people we directly killed.
Other people accept responsibility for the sectarian violence that we opened the door for.
While others also include the Iraqi's still dying as a result of destroying their infrastructure. This would be deaths attributed to lack of proper resources, medicine, health care, deaths from poverty, and etc.
This is why I put forth 2 categories. Direct and Indirect.
The deaths are still adding up each and every day at an astounding rate. With no end in sight.
At what point is our responsibility finished? What if the sectarian strife continues for 50 years? Will we be responsible until Iraq is as secure as it was before we took it apart? Or did our responsibility end once we left?
These are the questions that result in vastly different numbers.
Attacking numbers without reason is pointless. If you disagree, then it is not the numbers to which you find fault, it is the extent of our responsibility.

Here are several different calculations. Not one of them shows the full indirect extent of the death caused as an indirect result of our actions.
And not one of them calculates the future deaths that continue to pile up.

For the sake of argument, say it was only half of the lowest number. 45,000
Can you imagine just how many ended lives that truly is? If they were all in a row they would stretch for over 25 miles.
Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It may be illeagle but considering the American dollar needs oil to be worth anything my need not to starve makes me think the war was necessary besides Their dictator may or may not have weapons of mass destruction but he was slaughtering his people a vast amount in fact dropping gasoline and bombing them it could have become a genocide if we did not intervene

Painter said:

There is no point in debating the Iraq Invasion with you. Anyone that still thinks there is any justification for going there, is quite simply beyond hope or reason.

Click to expand...

:roll:

There is no study that shows less than 100,000 deaths. That is 100,000 deaths too many. These people were God's children just as you and I are.

Click to expand...

Full agreement - which is why I was so willing to fightthe Iranian-backed Shia and Syrian-backed Sunni terrorist groups that caused the majority of those deaths.

And worth no less than we are.

Click to expand...

Agreed. That's why we protected their lives with our own.

The reason that some people view the larger results in contempt is because they only view us as responsible for people we directly killed.

Click to expand...

That is who we killed. AQI, the Sadrists, they all get credit for who they killed.

While others also include the Iraqi's still dying as a result of destroying their infrastructure. This would be deaths attributed to lack of proper resources, medicine, health care, deaths from poverty, and etc.
This is why I put forth 2 categories. Direct and Indirect.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm aware of the different inputs. But the 1 million number is still unrealistic. That number basically takes every single Iraqi who died over the last 10 years and blames the U.S. for it :roll:

The deaths are still adding up each and every day at an astounding rate. With no end in sight.

Click to expand...

No - now it's on them. We left too early, I agree; but we still left them a functioning, representative government with the ability to control its' borders and secure its' populace. A better place with a much better future than when we found it.

Attacking numbers without reason is pointless. If you disagree, then it is not the numbers to which you find fault, it is the extent of our responsibility.

Click to expand...

No - the 100 - 200K measurements include those killed by the sectarian violence, and the terror campaigns.

JumpinJack said:

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.

Click to expand...

The UN shouldn't exist in the first place, for us to then worry about anything they authorize.

cpwill said:

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

Click to expand...

Can't say if it was strictly illegal or legal because those are hard terms to define internationally but I will say it was unjustified, shady, and borderline illegal because it was a war of choice with no precipitating event and the justification for war was just an excuse for other geopolitical reasons that were the real reasons behind war.

cpwill said:

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

Click to expand...

We weren't attacked and there was no declaration of war. Also, the entire premise for going in there was built on lies and misinformation.

Un biased said:

It may be illeagle but considering the American dollar needs oil to be worth anything my need not to starve makes me think the war was necessary besides Their dictator may or may not have weapons of mass destruction but he was slaughtering his people a vast amount in fact dropping gasoline and bombing them it could have become a genocide if we did not intervene

Click to expand...

Yeah, cause we sure made things better :roll:

JumpinJack said:

We went in without UN authorization, as I recall.

Click to expand...

You recall incorrectly, probably because you've been lied to repeatedly by the leftstream media until you believed it. The fact of the matter is that the UN Security Council unanimously authorized the Coalition's use of force against Iraq with the adoption of UNSCR 678.

JumpinJack said:

The UN, and in particular, France, was correct. They wanted PROOF of weapons of mass destruction, rather than "belief."

Click to expand...

France voted to authorize the Coalition use of force against Iraq and actively participated in Coalition military operations in Iraq from 1991 to 1998.

JumpinJack said:

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.

Click to expand...

Again you recall incorrectly. The fact of the matter is that UN weapons inspectors found tons of WMD in Iraq.

That's wrong. You say it had the required elements. The required elements, as we were told, were that:
1. Iraq was involved with 9/11;
2. Al Qaeda was involved with Iraq in some way;
3. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

That's it. Those were the reasons given, and no others. It turned out that all three reasons were WRONG. If you remember, hitting Iraq was discussed by Rumsfeld almost immediately after 9/11, per Richard Clarke (the White House terrorism czar), before they even knew who hit us. One thing Clarke knew: Al Qaeda did it, and Iraq had nothing to do with it.

The war was very destructive for the country, leading to a Great Recession ultimately, loss of trust in us by other countries around the world, cost of billions of dollars we are still paying for, and not shutting down Al Qaeda in Afghanistan as effectively as possible because of the diversion of Iraq (costing us American lives and tons of money over a decade).

Finally...one of the most important costs (and the White House was warned about this): THE IRAQ WAR IS WHAT HAS ENABLED IRAN AND NORTH KOREA TO FURTHER THEIR NUCLEAR PROGRAMS and establish their countries more in the world.

Our leaders outright and intentionally lied to us. Wolf testified to that before Congress (remember the hearings?).

The real reasons for going to war: Bush wanted to get back at Hussein because his dad hadn't finished him off; and oil. (Cheney's company Halliburton walked away with billions from the Iraq War, due to no bid contracts, payrolls for fake jobs, and outright stealing of buckets of cash.) Remember how the U.S. did NOT protect the museum (some of the oldest artifacts in teh world were there, since Iraq is where the FIRST CITY IN THE WORLD was located), but DID protect the oil rigs.

I don't consider it totally illegal, I do believe though that Bush did manipulate Congress into going in somewhere under false pretenses. Whether or not he knew there were no WMDs we might never know the truth, so I guess I will give him the benefit of the doubt.