Can someone please explain why this war is "illegal"?

Question

If so, why doesn't someone take legal action against it?

Answer 1

There is nothing illegal about it. We aren't under United Nations law despite what the left wants.

The world is a better place without that mad man and his psychotic sons running around.

Answer 2

The preemptive attack against Iraq was based on the threat of WMD and the support of terrorism. There was an ongoing search for WMD when the U.S. attacked Iraq. None were found before or after the attack. They wanted more time to search. There haven't even been any proven ties to terrorism.

Bush gave Hussein 2 days to leave the country and step down or be attacked. Of course, he didn't leave and there was still an ongoing search for WMD.

The UN says this was illegal (I have to agree) and there is very little doubt that Bush and Co. will be charged with war crimes. Germany is moving forward with that.

Answer 3

Many believe that this war is an illegal war based on international law. It was not approved by the UN.
The UN does not recognize the concept of Preemptive War,
This is the concept that the US went to war in Iraq.
A German Court has brought charges against Don Rumsfeid for the torture charges, and are contemplating charges of illegal use of force.
Time will tell if charges are filled against the Pres. and Vice Pres., but that wouldn't happen until a they leave office.

Answer 4

The reason the Iraq war is illegal is because all the claims that America made regarding Iraq's "Weapons of mass destruction", "ability to deploy said weapons", "intent to use said weapons", "links to known terrorist groups" and "involvement in the 9/11 terror attacks" were simply that. Claims, assertions and speculations. They had no hard evidence to justify their case and in fact made up most of the intelligence that they used to convince the American congress and other nations that an invasion of Iraq was necessary because Iraq was " a serious threat".

Just because you think a country is intent on creating war does not give you the right to invade that country. Any invasion of any nation without justification is in itself an act of war.

In addition to this America, with the assistance of other countries, most notably Britain, did not allow the United Nations to verify America's claims and proceeded to war without authorisation by the United Nations. Thus rendering the Iraq war illegal on this point alone.

In fact Kofi-Anan, Secretary general of the United Nations declared the that the US-led invasion of Iraq was "an illegal act that contravened the UN charter"

So after the invasion of Iraq did the American's find any evidence to link Iraq to terrorist groups which might have added some legitimacy to the war on Iraq?....Answer, No!!, none at all.

Did they find any evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction which might have actually legitimised the war on Iraq in itself?....Answer, No!! In fact on this point America was severely embarrased. The Iraq Survey Group, set up by the Bush administration to look for evidence of weapons of mass destruction concluded "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, the Iraq Survey Group judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible Indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter". and with that statement America's justification for the invasion of Iraq lay in tatters. Thus rendering the Iraq war illegal on this point alone.

Why doesn't someone take legal action against America?

FEAR!

Answer 5

Congress voted yes to the permissiont o invade Iraq.
the UN Security Council Resolution 660 through 1441 gave permission to member states ( that includes the US ) of doing anything nescessary to deal with Saddam.

There is nothing illegal.

Add to that that the USA is not a member of the International Court and that court cannot try anyone in the administration for war crimes anyway.

Answer 6

Sure...I'll explain...

The United Nations charter has a provision which was agreed to by the United States formulated by the United States in fact, after World War II. It says that from now on, no nation can use armed force without the permission of the U.N. Security Council. They can use force in connection with self-defense, but a country can't use force in anticipation of self-defense. Regarding Iraq, the last Security Council resolution essentially said, “Look, send the weapons inspectors out to Iraq, have them come back and tell us what they've found -- then we'll figure it out from there.” The U.S. was impatient, and decided to invade Iraq -- which was all pre-arranged of course. So, the United States went to war, in violation of the charter. Making the war in Iraq an “illegal” war. Whether congress agreed to it or not. Also....

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are being sued for violation of 18 USC 2441. Germany is taking action.

Google "Rumsfeld War Crimes Germany" see if anything comes up.

Also the whole premise of invading Iraq has been nothing but one lie after another. The whole Bush Administration has been nothing but lies, lies, lies.

Answer 7

Not a chance.
If there are three things this country is good at (relative to everybody else) it's :
- Military Spending
- Making Movies
- Lawyer(ing)

There's some charges about specifically our treatment of foreign combatants and habeus corpus and the wiretapping.

But to actually question our invasion of a recognized sovereign country without appropriate reasoning or provocation has not been formally presented by the Hague...

That is the question though.
What gives USA the golden pass to invade Iraq any more than Switzerland to invade and occupy Turkey?
Or Iraq to invade Kuwait?

International treaties and rules of engagement have been developed in the last century to restrict and contain inter-country military activity.

Is the USA threatening the integrity of those rules in order to meet the following objectives:

- assimilating hostile nations.
- securing the worlds most invested source of oil.
- slowing the growth of China.
- subsidizing the military industry.
- exploring 21st century military technology.
- slowing inflation.
- gathering intelligence through the battlefield
- destroying enemy resources
- appeasing your political base
- responding to your party philosophy
- opening the middle-east to western trade
- securing safe passage for western industry to develop
- gaining a second term

I say yes.
And the cost of life, particularly non-US citizen life, is not adequately represented in the value analysis...imo.
The long term reprecussions imo are not complementary to a long term peace plan.
-----------------------------------------------------------
regarding actual charges, here is some reading....

Here is a paltry two links:

*A case of the US supreme court ruling against bush policy.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/06/supreme_court_rules_in_hamdans_favor/

*A case charges Internationally brought against Rumsfield
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1557842,00.html



*Here is a link describes charges from the masses:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War

Answer 8

It is not illegal. Liberals whine and cry that it is to turn people against the current administration. What would John Kerry have done if he were president? What would Hillary have done?
EXACLY WHAT THEY SAID THEY WOULD DO WHEN THEY CALLED ON PRESIDENT BUSH TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST IRAQ IN RESPONSE TO THE 14 OR 15 UN RESOLUTIONS THAT WERE IGNORED.

Answer 9

This invasion and occupation of a soverign nation is illegal because of the reasons our government contrived to go there. All have proved false. Not one has stood the smell test.

You may very well see the time when this regime is brought up on war crimes for it's blatant disregard for the truth.

Answer 10

Very good point. It is not illegal. Otherwise you would see legal action against it.