Why do people keep saying the war in Iraq is an "illegal war"?

Question

First there is no such thing as an "illegal war" all that has to happen is war needs to be declared, which it was. Believe it or not the leader of any soveriegn reserves the power to declare war on any other nation, at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all.

Answer 1

War has not been declared. The last time congress declared war was in 1941, right after Pearl Harbor.

As regards the War Powers Act, which many think authorizes the president to send troops into combat, let me ask you a question:

If you hired me to watch your home for a week while you were on vacation, and paid me $200, how would you feel when you returned, if you found a "family" of hippies living there? You probably wouldn't be too happy. But I would tell you that I found these hippies at the homeless shelter, and told them that they could watch your home, in my place.

You hired me to watch your home. You did not give me permission to delegate that job to someone else. In like manner, the Constitution say that only congress can declare war (article 1, section 8). It doesn't give congress the authority to pass a law giving the executive branch one of the specified powers that is assigned to congress.

Answer 2

nicely Bush reported that Saddam and Bin encumbered were friends. in truth wasn't Saddam training Bin encumbered's adult males for him? Now any histroy student who has studied the middle East would keep in mind that Bin encumbered hated Saddam and Saddam's ideology and kit in Iraq. in truth Bin encumbered hated that Iraq allowed Christianity and diverse forms of religion. So why did George Bush insist there replaced right into a link between both? Has he understand get admission to to information that any historic previous student has? What are his advisers doing? What about the Iraq 9/11 link? numerous human beings have claimed that the Bush administration were recommended that Iraq had not some thing to do with 9/11 yet Bush persevered to point Iraqi links to 9/11? Wait a minute! Are those extremely truths or is this basically extra B U l l S H i t?

Answer 3

er incorrect, we prosecuted both japanese and german leader on the base that there war was illegal. i not up on the legal lingo but basically a illegal war is a aggressive war like if tommorrow france invaded spain simply because it want spanish land and had no other justification it would be considered illegal. the only legal war is one considered to be fought in self defence or one with un security council approval such as the first gulf war were a international coalition was organized to throw iraq out of kuwait after it had waged aggressive war. just in case you complain about the un enforcing its law on america the us was the main propent of these laws. the reason people consider it illegal although i don't agree with them is because the war was fought on the base of that iraq had violated un security council rule concerning wmd the bulk of these charge proving to be false and because it was conducted without un security council assesent for the invasion.

Answer 4

Leftwing liberal losers keep saying it is an illegal war, but it is the same people that encourage illegal immigration into the USA where illegal immigrants break federal laws by sneaking across our borders.

The fact is we have approx 50 coalition member nations with us in Iraq, not all of them doing the fighting but providing medical, engineering, logistical, and other support. The list of these coalition members is at the link below. There is nothing illegal about the coalition of forces in Iraq.

Iraq under Sadaam Hussein was a misbehaving nation that has ignored many UN resolutions. He has invaded a neighboring country (Kuwait), has used weapons of mass destruction (againsn Iran and Kurds), has directly funded terrorism (USD$25,000 cash to any family who had a member die committing a suicide bombing), and continued to be a threat post 9-11 as 9-11 emboldened him. He wanted to get even with the USA for the first gulf war and therefore had to be taken out. 50 other nations with us just proves the point.

Answer 5

Read Article I, Section 8, item 11 of the U.S. Constitution. It specifically states:
"The Congress shall have the power to...
declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water."
That's what makes this an illegal and unconstitutional war, like ALL 'wars' in which the the U.S.A. has been involved, have been since World War II.
Iraq in no way threatened, provoked, or attacked the U.S. We wanted to invade Iraq for three simple, lame reasons:
1) The Bush family had a personal vendetta against Hussein ever since the days of Desert Storm when George H.W. Bush was criticized and humiliated for not 'finishing the job' and ousting Hussein at that time;
2) Dick Cheney wants all that OIL swimming underneath Iraq's sands so that he and his Exxon buddies can get richer and richer and richer while they continue to feed Americans' dependency on cheap, easily-accessible foreign OIL;
3) The giant U.S. military-industrial complex needed another 'war' to boost its sagging profits. Ever since World War II, big companies realize how profitable 'war' could be, and bought off politicians, hired pricey lobbyists, and formed special interest groups to encourage and promote 'war'. Thus, the U.S. became involved in the Korean Conflict; the Cuban Missile Crisis; the Cold War; Vietnam and Desert Storm all for PROFIT. Not one of those 'wars' was declared by Congress.
This 'war' in Iraq is going on al because two of the largest U.S. government contractors have direct ties to the White House: Halliburton (Cheney's former employer) and the Carlyle Group (in which George H.W. Bush, many of his former cabinet members, and a family by the name of binLaden are investors and associates). George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are both former oilmen who understand the oil companies' need for all that easily-accessible OIL underneath Iraq's sands.
If we really intend to be out of Iraq anytime soon, why is the U.S. building the largest embassy in the world on a 104-acre site in downtown Baghdad overlooking the headquarters of the 'new' Iraqi puppet government installed by the Bush administration?? We won't leave Iraq until we've sucked every drop of OIL out of that land. -RKO-

Answer 6

Then I take it you defend war crimes too. Your same defense can be applied to Hitler, Napoleon, Saddam, the Japanese Army leaders, Atilla, .... A war started under false pretenses is an illegal war. We had no legal authority to invade and occupy Iraq.
When a president mis leads the nation using falsified intelligence it is an illegal war. Vietnam was an illegal war too.

Answer 7

Regime change is NOT a legal basis for a war under United Nation rules - which most countries have signed up to.

We were LIED to about WMD.

America invaded Iraq because it could, and Bush needed to "show" the American people the War against terror was being won. Americans are unable to fight secret wars with intelligence assets, they dont have the mindset for it.

Answer 8

Okay, then how would you explain it to be legal then? Why did Bush order the invasion of Iraq when the UN didn't sanction it? Certainly wasn't because of WMDs because, after 3-4 years of searching that tiny country, there haven't been a single shred of evidence for that; wasn't because of 9/11 because there wasn't anything linking Saddam to that day; wasn't "liberating the Iraqi people" because, really, who would spend over $100 billion to "liberate" a country and not ask anything in return?

And for that keeping terrorists down bullcrap, you wouldn't be having that problem if Bush hadn't invaded without reasonable cause. How would you like it if I went to your home and told you how to live?

Answer 9

I don't think it was declared, and people will argue that Congress has to declare war.

Nevertheless, it's mostly liberals who are chanting this - you know, the ones that can't even tell the difference between executing criminals and being Pro-Life.

Continuing with my point, these same liberals are whining about the innocent people over there getting killed, but the are for the murder of the unborn of here.

Answer 10

"The grand strategy authorizes Washington to carry out “preventive war”: Preventive, not pre-emptive. Whatever the justifications for pre-emptive war might be, they do not hold for preventive war, particularly as that concept is interpreted by its current enthusiasts: the use of military force to eliminate an invented or imagined threat, so that even the term “preventive” is too charitable. Preventive war is, very simply, the “supreme crime” condemned at Nuremberg."