Was the Iraq war illegal? Poll

Youpolls ^ | 11-29-2009 | AFP

[DBlake]

Ministers in Britain were secretly told that the United States were set on "regime change" in Iraq...

[JoeMac]

Not to wax philisophical here but what IS legal?

[shoptalk]

Secretly told?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Regime change in Iraq became a stated goal of United States foreign policy when Public Law 105-338 (the "Iraq Liberation Act") was signed into law by U.S. President Bill Clinton. The act directed that:

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

[darkside321]

Was the Iraq war illegal? Poll

---

stupid question. there exists something like a legal war?
war is war.

[himno hero]

try this... lies my father told me....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPoQk

which are all out in the leftists field now...

[icwhatudo]

secretly told that the United States were set on "regime change" in Iraq

Secret? Clinton said it was official US policy.

[A_Former_Democrat]

Was the election of Barack Obama legal?

Where’s the polls on that?

[JoeMac]

When it comes to war I mean?

[A.Hun]

Ministers in Britain were secretly told that the United States were set on "regime change" in Iraq

What a huge secret. Congress passed a law stating that and Bill Clinton signed it in 1998.

Iraq Liberation Act

[JoeMac]

Bravo! Good question and one that deserves answering.

[BenLurkin]

Iraq’s ceasefire terms violations made it VERY legal.

Bush Is Right on Iraq: The Issue Is Compliance, Not Inspections
by Brett D. Schaefer and Baker Spring
Backgrounder #1592

President George W. Bush’s resolve in confronting Iraq over its decade-long record of defiance of the United Nations has succeeded in getting Baghdad to agree unconditionally to the return of U.N. weapons inspectors. Their mission will continue to be to search out and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ballistic missiles. While Baghdad’s recent letter acquiescing to the inspections is promising, it does not mean that the crisis has been defused or that further confrontation with Iraq can be avoided. As the President has reminded the U.N. and Congress, the real issue is not the inspections but Iraq’s consistent failure to comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions, which require it to disarm, cease supporting terrorism and violating the human rights of its people, and account for those missing from the Persian Gulf War.

Because Iraq failed to comply with these resolutions even when U.N. inspectors were in Iraq, the return of inspectors is no guarantee of success in enforcing U.N. resolutions. The Security Council should adopt a new resolution that documents Iraq’s violations of existing U.N. resolutions, demands compliance, and authorizes the use of force if Iraq fails to comply. It should not adopt a resolution that merely commends Iraq for allowing the inspectors to return

[himno hero]

NOW! Thats the best yet!

[icwhatudo]

The Act found that between 1980 and 1998 Iraq had:

1. committed various and significant violations of International Law,
2. had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed following the Gulf War and
3. further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.

The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change." The Act was passed 360-38 in the U.S. House of Representatives [3] and by unanimous consent in the Senate. [4] US President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law on October 31, 1998.

SOME SECRET!

[SnakeDoctor]

Wars are either just or unjust, not legal or illegal. The Iraq war is just.

“Laws of war” is a goofy concept to begin with. Laws much have an enforcement mechanism ... the UN cannot exercise mandatory enforcement.

The laws of war are written by the victors, and are largely irrelevant during the war. The losers are prosecuted, the winners are not.

Not only that ... but laws of war are entirely unenforceable against more powerful militaries. If the US truly committed a war crime — who could do anything about it? The UN could raise the greatest military force it could muster, and we could likely crush it where it stood.

A law without an enforcement provision is a legal irrelevancy.

SnakeDoc

[americanophile]

Yes, it's an absurd question. There's no one law, so no controlling authority. Was it authorized by the U.S. Constitution? Probably. Was it funded by Congress? Yes. Was it authorized by the United Nations? Essentially, yes. Does this law control? To the extent that it's an international treaty obligation yes, so long as it doesn't abrogate or violate the Constitution. Insofar as its ‘law’ adopted by an organization whose members include governments not based on popular sovereignty and general suffrage, it's invalid per se.

[eyedigress]

The power was given to the President by congessional vote to “use force”. That is pretty clear to me.

[dog breath]

I like the philosophical question posed as to what makes a war really legal?

[Ditter]

Wow! Unexpected results.

[freeforall]

Dictators have no rights!

[parsifal]

I found this the other day. Doesn’t make Cheney look too good. Curious how much is true. The first article. Just read down some.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/11/guest-post-instead-of-fixing-the-u-s-economy-or-creating-jobs-for-americans-obama-will-spend-the-money-in-afghanistan-and-iraq.html

parsy, who is watching the Monk marathon