We invaded Iraq under two assumptions. 1) That they had WMD and 2) under the war on terror, anyone who harbored Al Queda is against us. Now we find they had no WMDs and with the recent article release had nothing to do with Al Queda, Saddam actually considered them a threat to his government. Bottomline we have no justification for invading Iraq now at least to the nations of the war. What's going to happen, are we consider war criminals or a rogue nation?
2006-09-09 07:19:35 · 13 answers · asked by choyryu 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
There is no law against the US invading iraq, so no we did not invade illegally
there is how ever laws on how wars can be fought, that how the term war criminal was made, to refer to people who broke the laws. internation law can get very complicated. the laws and rules are different in each country. its like driving on the rignt in the US is legal, but if you did it in England you will be arrested. but the English police arent going to arrest anyone in the US even though they are doing something "illegal"
the US government or any other can invade any country they want to for any reason, and it wont be illegal. any country has the right to go to war with any other. they just have to face the backlash other countries may use on the agressor country. such as operayion desert storm/ desert shield. the invasion of kawait wasnt illegal as in iraq never signed a law saying they couldnt do it. but the internation community decided it was wrong and to use military to stop them.
we are not war criminals because we as a government and military as a whole are following the established rule of warfare, both internal rules as well as all international treaties.
there are a few instances of individuals breaking the rules, they are the criminals not the US government, the US civilians or US military...
2006-09-09 07:35:29 · answer #1 · answered by gooslegeek 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Choyryu,
Those were not the "assumtions" we invaded on. stop listening to the Anti-Bush rhetoric that the liberals keep spouting off please.
At the start of the war EVERYONE on both sides, Liberal and Conservative. Democrat and Republican were for the invasion.
1) We did not invade on the assumtion of WMD's. We invaded to remove Saddam from power as Cosequences of his refusal to cooperate with and abide by the UN resolutions put in place after the end of Desert Storm (Gulf War I). Saddam had repeatedly refused to work with the UN weapons inspectors and deliberately mislead the world as to whether he had them or not.
An Example: take a person who is ranting and raving and threatening people and the police stop and corner him. he keeps hiding his hand behind his back and claiming he has a gun. the Police are going to ask only so many times to "Let me see your hands NOW!" before they finally decide to shoot his ***! and they would be justified and it would be that individuals fault. This is basically what Saddam has done.
As to him not having any and that none were found. WRONG.
Saddam DID have the WMD's and has used them both on the Iranians and on his own Kurdish people. Since the Invasion we HAVE found some WMDs though not as many as we thought he had (Faulty intellegence). over 500 Artillery shells designed for Nerve Gas have been found. Sarin Gas bomb exploded against our troops during the early part of the invasion. Mobile Bio-Weapon labs have been found.
He DID have large stockpiles before the war. what happened to them? we dont know. if Saddam did get rid of them as he was supposed to then why didn't he let the weapons inspectors verify it as he was supposed to. that would have saved him a lot of trouble. It is very likely they are buried out in the vast desert somewhere and without intel knowing exactly where it would be inpossible for us to find them (We can't dig up the whole desert)
And yes Saddam had very little to do with Al-Qaida. but you are wrong in listening to those who claim that is our reason for invading Iraq. If so we would have more likely to have invaded Iran with their well known support and funding of Terrorist organizations.
Iraq and the War on Terror are two seperate things. The war in Iraq was about UN resolutions from the previous war. Afghanistan was about the war on Terror.
However today in Iraq it IS about the terrorists. because after we won the war, Saddam was gone, and Iraq had a new Government freely elected. The insurgents today are NOT Iraqi's but foreign fighters answering the Terrorists call to fight America.
2006-09-09 07:51:30 · answer #2 · answered by CG-23 Sailor 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I don't think bush "illegaly" invaded Iraq. In the beginning I was on his side, but now I think he is pretty much bullsh*tting around by keeping the troops there. I say that because there aren't and WMD's like you said, and Saddam Hussein has been found, so what else is there to do? Nothing if you ask me. A lot of people I know think it is because of oil, but who knows? I heard that bush made a comment saying something like, "As long as i'm president, we will not leave Iraq". I dont know whether to call him a war criminal or what, its hard saying
2006-09-09 07:58:17 · answer #3 · answered by josh.isaiah 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
If the police raid a house under suspicion of illegal drugs and find none are they the criminals?
The war was sanctioned by the UN and Iraq failed to live up to the agreement of the 1st gulf war.
They also fire missiles at our aircraft while we we carrying out a UN resolution.
2006-09-09 07:28:09 · answer #4 · answered by Bill 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Those were reasons why the UN (every liberal's dream.org) passed articles stating that Iraq must submit to inspections. Iraq did not comply, THAT was our legal basis for invading, not just some US feeling. Lets get this straigt people.
2006-09-09 07:28:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
No. We went through the legal channels. Just because the UN whines about it doesn't mean anything. The world has very little respect for the United Nations these days. The only use they have now is humanitarian aid.
2006-09-09 07:25:29 · answer #6 · answered by Souris 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Rogue nation. Those actions don't rise to the level of war crimes by international treaty definition.
Bush has committed war crimes, as US law (18 USC 2441) defines them . But that's a differnet issue.
2006-09-09 07:24:09 · answer #7 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I personally am not a war criminal.
2006-09-09 07:20:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
NO We are not war criminals!!!!
2006-09-09 09:26:25 · answer #9 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, I don't think anybody is going to arrest us!
2006-09-09 08:38:00 · answer #10 · answered by Fitforlife 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋