I'm not sure if it comes down to being legal or illegal. even though the UN did not give approval does not mean that we cannot take action ourselves if we feel that that country is a threat. as snowglobe has pointed out Saddam was technically the "leader" of Iraq regardless of how he got there but he also was the one who invaded Kuwait back in 1990 allowing his troops to kill innocent people , rape the woman and loot the country which is why we was over there back then. At the end of that war he agreed to adhere to certain guidelines specifically the UN inspections for chemical weapons which he later blew off for 10-13 years. I figure after talking to him for that long trying to get him to stand up to what was agreed to that our going in to correct this problem might be reasoning for us to have the right if not "legality" to our actions. the problem is nobody knew if he had WMD's because UN inspectors was never given the freedom to do their inspections properly. If anyone thinks that Saddam having access to chemical or biological weapons would not sell them to a terrorist faction to be used in the states is much more secure in their world and how they think it is then i am i'm afraid. that is a danger to us here in the states and hope to never see that happen here.
2006-08-20 17:48:23
·
answer #1
·
answered by M T 2
·
3⤊
1⤋
I don't know how you people can keep on denying that there were WMD's in Iraq. There is plenty of evidence of a variety of WMD's being in Iraq in the years just prior to the invasion when none were supposed to be there at all, but you all just ignore the evidence when it's presented to you. That Sadam was not directly behind 9-11 matters little to me. He represented a hostile muslim regime in the region who had not cooperated fully with weapons inspectors according to terms of surrender agreed to after the Gulf war, thus giving us legitimate cause to take military action. The president made a declaration of war on terror and the majority of Americans supported that. The truth is that most people had unrealistic expectations of what war meant after the relatively low casualties of the Gulf war and as casualties mounted and coupled with leftist propaganda a large segment of the public began to lose their nerve. This makes the comments from the libs about Korea all the more Ironic. For those of you asking why we aren't taking action against North Korea, I have one question; When we do take action against N. Korea are you going to enlist? My guess is not. You'll then start citing reasons justifying N.K.'s actions and complain that we are being a bully again. Some might get behind it in the beginning as long as there's a democrat in the white house, but it wont last. I know this because that's what libs do....and I know what is behind the actions and propaganda of the left.
2006-08-20 20:26:42
·
answer #2
·
answered by RunningOnMT 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
All war is illegal unless it's in self defense.
Iraq proposed no threat to other nations after the first Gulf War and was a completely broken country after 12 years of UN sanctions.
They had absolutely no connection with any attack on the USA, those people came from Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan both enemies of Saddam Hussein as was Al Qaeda.
2006-08-20 19:21:40
·
answer #3
·
answered by brainstorm 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
1. Sadaam was kept in check by the sanctions the United Nations put on him.
2. We did not need to go into Iraq when there were no WMD's found.
3. The person who was suppose to be responsible for 9/11 is STILL AROUND.
4. With Iran, Lebanon, N. Korea, and other countries who harbor terrorist groups, we needed to be concerned about them.
5. This is only for Hallburton and other big businesses to get more money.
The war is not illegal, just greed and stupidity by bush. If it were illegal, then that makes the soldiers criminals as well. The soldiers are doing their duty, orders, and responsibility as a soldier. I refuse to condemn a soldier.
2006-08-20 17:35:00
·
answer #4
·
answered by linus_van_pelt68 4
·
2⤊
2⤋
Justed wanted to comment on this post by:
ILoveMySailor
Level 3
my husband is over there right now, missing out on all the 'once in a lifetime things' that our boys will and have done. whats the point in being over there, you used to hear about **** going on all the time, and its like the news reports nothing, why keep the troops over there if theres no reason to.....let them be where they want to be, with there spouses and families!
I dont understand this. Yes you can be against the war but your reasoning behind it makes no sense. Your husband volunteered to go into the military. So with that you know he is going to miss certain one time events in his life. I am in the Army and have 3 kids. I have missed these same things throughout my career. Whether we were at war on not, especially with him being in the Navy, he is going to miss these things.
I guess I just dont understand how you support him if you hate the fact he is in the Navy and job most likely is to be on a ship and away from home.
2006-08-20 17:58:15
·
answer #5
·
answered by JB 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
I can oppose the war without thinking that it is illegal. I oppose the war in that it was unnecessary and counterproductive. Unnecessary, because we had Iraq pretty well bottled up, and couterproductive for three reasons, 1) it distracts our national power from the war on terror, 2) it creates a new area of instability for terrorism to grow (like Afghanistan and Somalia) and 3) in order to win the war on terror we have to set the conditions by which people do not grow up wanting to hate and destroy the united states. This isn't a genetic problem, it is learned behavior, and being seen as an invading power makes more people hate us, not less.
2006-08-20 17:32:24
·
answer #6
·
answered by Charles D 5
·
6⤊
2⤋
If the weapons of Mass Destruction have been stumbled on have been is the information? undesirable US distant places coverage bring about those wars. Even the CIA antagonistic Operation Iraqi Freedom. this could join reasons why Secretary of State Colin Powell did no longer stay. all and sundry that criticized George Walker Bush by skill of telling the certainty as to how secretive his manipulations of the regulation have been compelled by skill of the FBI. teach information of the WMDs. Even veterans of those warfare found out they have been lied to.
2016-10-02 08:29:43
·
answer #7
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is against international law to invade a foreign land unprovoked. It is illegal to invade a country without the permission of the the United Nations whose treaty we signed.
It is immoral to lie to the American public and the world in order to fabricate a reason to make this invasion. The United Nations ordered us not to invade without proof of the lies Bush was telling the world. But, since we pay so much money to the United Nations and bribe so many other countries with "foreign aid", they go along with us.
That of course does not stop the world from hating us due to our war mongering.
2006-08-20 18:07:06
·
answer #8
·
answered by lcmcpa 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Oppose the war? You want a logical reason for opposing the war? Is this a serious question? What is the logical reason for the "war" in Iraq? Is it a war? I thought it was just an intervention into a dysfunctional family squabble. Or an intervention into a civil war. Logical reason for opposing the war? Who opposes it? Everyone is all for it. It's the greatest thing since sliced bread! What a great way to blow a Trillion Bucks. Opposing the war is so yesterday. Now in August 2006 we're just numb to the whole thing. Let the joke go on all you want, who gives a rat's butt?
2006-08-20 17:36:45
·
answer #9
·
answered by 5375 4
·
0⤊
4⤋
Bush lied about the weapons of mass destruction, they have never been found, and what has been found was over 20 years old and was no longer useful. And logic tells you that in a civil world you only attack a nation that poses a threat to you or has attacked you, and Iraq was nether. Iraq had no terrorists despite what Bush and Co. said (but it sure does now huh). these are just a few. If were going to send our brave men and women to die lets be sure its a worthy cause.
2006-08-20 17:36:28
·
answer #10
·
answered by The Prez. 4
·
2⤊
2⤋