Originally Posted by FeelTheLove
What law? What law? You chose to be blind. Nazis butchers were hung for the crime of "waging agressive war". The US signed the UN Charter, where we agreed to not wage agressive war. And your "Cease fire violations"? Those were between the UN and Iraq - in fact legally speaking, the entire Gulf War I was between the UN and Iraq. Absent a direct attack or provable threat, under Internationa Law we hand no unilateral right to enforce anything in Iraq. The UN did not declare war on Iraq, we did. The UN said Hussien didn't have any WMDs. Bush said they were "being duped". The UN refused to give its support and permission to invade Iraq. So, instead of abiding with the the UN Treaty, we violated International Law, and invaded the place the same way Hitler invaded Poland. "premeptively". What did we "preempt"? Atom bombs? Nerve gas? All lies. A pack of fucking lies. Your claiming your opinion that what Bush did was right is a 'fact", when the fact is we had no valid legal reason to murder women and children by the thousands by bombing their cities, shelling their towns and indescriminately machine gunning kids who got in the way. Where is the "Pearl Harbor" here? Where is the "Lusitania"? What gave you bloodthirsty bastards the right to kill these people and to turn their country into a slaughterhouse?
There is some truth to the legal question raised in this post but I hardly feel that name calling people Nazis helps to get the point across. My understanding from my Law classes is that an war which is not sanctioned by the UN is illegal. However there are question such as the US never decleared war on Iraq in writing, the fact that the US government said that as Iraq was in their mind in violation of UN resolution 1441 (think it was that one) by not co-operating fully with UN weapons inspectors allowed for the use of force. Finally to my mind the rule of law that the UN writes in the form of resolutions is always in any situation going to be uneven at best as each security council member has a veto that can only be overriden by a 2/3rds majority in the general assembly, which they can hardly ever get the numbers for.
I would also like to remind this particular member that in both the cases of Pearl and the Lusitania are not as clear cut as you would make out. The Lusitania was a ship carrying both passengers and war materials, and that the Japanese felt pushed into a corner when they attacked pearl after the US cut off oil to them. I am not defending the actions of either the Germans or the Japanese but as in this case there is no black and white, and I doubt that untill many of the documents surrounding the Iraq war become open to the public we will not know the whole truth.
Finally I do not think the Bush administration enjoys starting wars and is blood thirsty, if this was the case I am sure they would not have bothered to come up with any reason and in fact waited untill 2003 to do it when they could have invaded Iraq for no reason much earlier, yet they have also not invaded Iran and North Korea. There is no real economic advantage to a war like this as it may help certain areas of economy but the sheer cost makes war in general so prohibitive to a nation. War is an extention of diplomacy by other means. In this case the US invaded Iraq because it was deemed vital to the national interest to do so at the time. It turned out that the war was based on less than true intel, regardless of that fact Saddam was a man who ran a regime based on extreem evil. I think that Iraq is a mess now as a result of BOTH Saddam and the invasion but in 10 or even 20 years we will see a stable and democratic Iraq.
I think people should stop debating the reason for the war and if it was right or wrong as like it or not the facts are now as such:
American and other forces are committed to Iraq.
They cannot be pulled out at this stage as the US is past the point of no return for troops to be pulled out.
It will be a long and hard slog to finish the job.