Are we supposedly violating our own laws, or "international law"?
2007-01-11 14:30:29 · 10 answers · asked by WJ 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The UN failed with 17 resolutions. The US intervened and pull the slack for the UN (as usual) The war was voted on and approved. Bush cannot and did not make this decision by himself.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
2007-01-11 15:07:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Its not an illegal war. The United States of America had every right to go into Iraq again. Its amazing how people babble about it being illegal war. In fact, I never heard of an "illegal war" before. Where in US law does it prevent america from attacking a nation?
2007-01-11 23:08:49 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
both, and both have legal binding force in the US. if in doubt, look at article 6 of the united States constitution.
the US law is based on US law that says it's illegal to lie to congress in any circumstances. That includes fixing intel for a war, and we have since learned through the downing Street memo and other sources that that is exactly what happened.
2007-01-11 22:35:26 · answer #3 · answered by The Big Box 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Because they hate Bush. They consider anything he does to be illegal. They think that his very existence is illegal.
2007-01-11 23:07:19 · answer #4 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Both. International law IS our law, once we ratify a treaty. And the UN Charter is a treaty we ratified.
2007-01-11 22:34:25 · answer #5 · answered by Longhaired Freaky Person 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Because they are against war so much, that they will find any reason necessary to attack its legitimacy. These people are scared to stand up to the worldwide threat that is radical Islam.
2007-01-11 22:35:49 · answer #6 · answered by 3rd parties for REAL CHANGE 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
beats me. i guess 10 years of Saddam violating agreements and constructing weapons wasn't enough justification to remove him from power.
2007-01-11 22:35:48 · answer #7 · answered by political junkie 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's the trademark of the Democrats' and Liberals' sour grapes. Second question -- No.
2007-01-11 22:35:38 · answer #8 · answered by JudiBug 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I am guessing that they call it that because the reason that we went to war in Iraq was because Saddam had WMD's. But he didn't, so I guess that would be why.
2007-01-11 22:33:24 · answer #9 · answered by greencoke 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
it is just the American culture to break law they make....
PBB was their idea....
NATO was their idea...
so it is ok for them to break their own law...
2007-01-11 22:34:57 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋