WHY IS IT THAT THE DEMOCRATS/ LIBERALS CALLED THE WAR IN IRAQ, ILLEGAL???

Question

When the Democratic party voted in Congress in favor of the war. What make it, illegal?? Is it that once you go into a fight and things don't go your way, it's time to quit and come home?? I don't understand???

Answer 1

We had ever reason to believe Iraq would and could attack the US. If anyone thinks we should sit by and idly wait to be attacked again and then retaliate, then none of you belong in the military. You cannot and should not always be on the defensive side of a war, you must be on the offensive side if you want to win. Saddam had used chemical weapons on his on country many times. He had killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. You need to do a Little history review on Sadam before you ever judge why we went there. You can find a plethora of books on Sadam with very graphic pictures showing you what this man did to his own people. We had to take the offensive. Think what would have happened in this country after 911 we were attacked again and this time by chemical attack. That could have brought this whole country to its knees just begging not to let it happen again. All I can say, is thank god Pres bush was in power after 911 because Clinton would have never done a thing. We had 8 terrorist attacks on US during Bills watch and retaliated on ZERO!

Answer 2

no longer only Liberals say that the Iraq conflict became an unlawful act---one which grew to grow to be this usa (u.s.) right into a TERRORIST usa. i'm a lifelike, each and every from time to time somewhat conservative on some topics, and that i'm also a militia veteran...the invasion of Iraq became UNPROVOKED (Iraq hasn't ever once attacked u.s. and they'd NO involvement in any respect interior the 9/11 attacks that the Bush administration ALLOWED to happen with the intention to drum up a faux "excuse" the customary public ought to "purchase" to illegally invade Iraq. I save hoping that the Iraqi authorities will document conflict crimes rates adverse to the Bush administration and that the United countries will convene a conflict Crimes Tribunal with the intention to prosecute Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowicz and anybody else quilty of profiteering. in view that Bush's own brother Marvin and his maternal uncle and cousin Wirt Walker I and Wirt Walker III were in value of protection by ability of Securacom (now Securatec, Inc.) for the international commerce center, Dulles international Airport from whence 2 9/11 planes flew, United airways (2 planes were United), Riggs economic corporation (discovered to have laundered money for 2 of the hijackers by ability of Bush's Saudi-perfect-pal Prince Bandar's spouse---see "The Bush Crime relatives tree" and also Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11"), and the REINSURER of the international commerce center, i ought to go with to work out an study into those 3 besides.

Answer 3

You cons always tend to forget, that yes .. the dems along with the republicans voted for the war in Afghanistan... that was a good thing... Then came up Bush's great plan for Iraq.. all voted yes on that too.. BECAUSE.. Bush lied about the WMD! He lied! Got that.. and that is why it was voted upon. Besides, he had made it clear he was going anyway, no matter what the Democrats or Congress thought about it. he was going after Saddam to get even for Daddy and he was going to use the might of America to help him. just what a weakling would do, given a little power.

So don't blame Iraq on anyone, except the Bush administration, they knew exactly what they were doing and they lied to get their way.. Simple!

Answer 4

Alberto, going there to fight and destroy these imaginary weapons of mass destruction was legal in every way. Being that nothing was found and the fact we are still there ingadged in a no win struggle with a group of religous fanatics is illegal,and dispicable. The way Bush now will consider others opinons, only after the democratic majority is an insult to every American in this nation and tempers are riseing as or patience or depleating. We all know who is behind this obtrousity but to politicl correst to openly say it in fear we get booted out.of the spotlight. It's co-operation with the ones makeing millions of dollars off of it and this administration can't figure a way out without loosing thousand of lives and billions of dollars. It's simpler going in than ti is getting out and Bush and his buddies are definetly going to leave it to the next president who will be a democrate to solve.

Answer 5

when you understand, please share with me.

i often have asked on these forums the same question. (when answering someone.)

especially since Bill Clinton sent our military in Iraq for the same reason in 1998. he gave a very interesting speech about it, in which he said that the only way for the world to be safe would be regime change in Iraq. said the world dares not trust Saddam because he'd used WMD's before, and on his own people.

guess that gets ignored in favor of the "bush is taking their oil!!"

i thought we don't get any oil at all from Iraq- isn't most of it from Venezuela?

Answer 6

Its not that things didnt go their way, but that it is time to promote a democrat for the next presidential election. That means anything a Republican does is wrong by them from here on out. This is only the beginning.

Im not a Democrat or a Republican, but I find it hard to stand behind any liberals with the way they behave.

Answer 7

Let me try and make this simple for you:

The US claimed that they were invading Iraq to root out weapons of mass destruction. There was no talk of "democracy" and "nation building" in 2003...that talk only emerged when the initial reasons for invading were found to be baseless. If you recall back to 2000 when Bush ran for President, he stated his opposition to "nation building".

Therefore, the war was not a defensive one. Saddam posed no threat to the United States, nor our allies in the region. We withdrew forces from Afghanistan where a murderer still roamed free, sipping tea in the mountains.

Therefore, it was illegal and highly immoral. And to speak of "nation building" while hundreds of thousands are slaughtered in Darfur, wars rage in Somalia and Ethiopia and oppressive governments elsewhere (who make Saddam look like a choir boy) roam unfettered is sickening and disingenuous.

Answer 8

Do you like the word "immoral" better? On 9-11 we were attacked by terrorists from various countries. None were from Iraq. Yet our government responded by attacking Iraq who had nothing to do with 9-11 and who where not a threat to the U.S. Imminent or otherwise. I call that immoral.

Answer 9

Easy answer. If we attack a country it should be for defence as they attacked us or declared war on us. Iraq did neither. In WWII Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us.

The Twin Towers were attacked by people working for Osama Bin Laden not Saddam Hussain.

Under international law it is illigal to attack another nation when unprovoked. I hope all of the above explains why people so strongly oppose this war.

Answer 10

Like Tink said. For liberals, getting votes is more important than being on the side of America.