Was the Iraq war a war of aggression?

Question

Do you feel the invasion of Iraq was a war of aggression? Why or why not? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression

Answer 1

good question. I read what they had to say on that site you gave, but found it hard Reading and frankly boring. I found this other site that used more every day language and was easy to understand. I'll post it at the bottom when I finish. What it gets down to was a preemptive strike legal in this case. Article 51 of the United Nations covers that pretty good. I know here in the U.S. self defense is legal and even encouraged if you are attacked by someone who wishes to do you harm and you can't call a cop right then. But is it ok for you to go to this guys house and attack him first even though he has bragged that he is going to attack you when he gets the chance. No it's not. But of course we are dealing on a much larger scale here. I think Bush is an honest man (maybe not the brightest) who takes his oath to defend this country seriously. We had 9/11 happen and at the same time we see this mad man Saddam telling us he is working on weapons of mass destruction and will use them against the U.S. when he has the chance, plus he violated sanction after U.N. sanction. And know he was a terrorist in his own right killing thousands of his own people using terrible methods. Bush went to congress with what he thought was real and alarming intelligence which they all read and agreed with him that either Saddam complies with U.N. sanctions or we will take him out. For some reason he gave us the bird so we took him out. What's followed was both good and bad. A ruthless killer and co. were taken out. A country was allowed to install their own government without being ruled by a dictator. But no one knew what the outcome would bring. It doesn't matter what we all think now should we have or shouldn't have we are there and need to defeat Islamo terrorists but we can't do it by fighting a politically correct war and they have no rules. Heck I don't know what to think any more . Maybe it was illigal but maybe too it was the "right" thing to do. http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert

Answer 2

Guns Again we pass that field green artillery piece squatting by the Legion Post on Chelten Avenue, its ugly little pointed snout ranged against my daughter's school. "Did you ever use a gun like that?" my daughter asks, and I say, "No, but others did. I used a smaller gun. A rifle." She knows I've been to war. "That's dumb," she says, and I say, "Yes," and nod because it was, and nod again because she doesn't know. How do you tell a four-year-old what steel can do to flesh? How vivid do you dare to get? How explain a world where men kill other men deliberately and call it love of country? Just eighteen, I killed a ten-year-old. I didn't know. He spins across the marketplace all shattered chest, all eyes and arms. Do I tell her that? Not yet, though one day I will have no choice except to tell her or to send her into the world wide-eyed and ignorant. The boy spins across the years till he lands in a heap in another war in another place where yet another generation is rudely about to discover what their fathers never told them. Copyright © 1993 by W. D. Ehrhart The Distance We Travel, Adastra Press, 1993 This poem is currently published in Beautiful Wreckage, New & Selected Poems, Adastra Press, 1999

Answer 3

I think it is.

But, the US argued that there was imminent threat from Iraq's WMD. Although later proven to be false threat.

The US is basically saying 'we thought that guy was going to shoot at me' when in fact, the suspect did not have weapons and was not aiming at us.

These international laws have little meaning in war on terror. The White House lawyers actually argued these type of international laws will slow us down in war on terror and they actually argued we should not(or should not be required to) obey these laws.

I think so called 'preemptive war' really falls on this category of war of aggression. And I think that's why UN did not give us green light for Iraq.

I think the answer is yes. But I think the US gov is arguing such war is required in order to keep the country secure.

I'm sure you heard the gov's argument that we're fighting 'new and different enemies and we need to fight them using new tactics.' I think they're implying existing laws don't apply to them in war on terror.

Answer 4

Beckett and cantcu have it right. International law allows nations to use military force only when under attack. or when authorized by the UN Security Council, like the coalition to oust Saddamn from Kuwait was authorized.

No member nation has the right to unilaterally exercise military force any time they think resolutions have been ignored, and the specific resolutions in question explicitly required a Security Council vote before military enforcement could commence. Bush had our proposed resolution authorizing military force withdrawn when it became clear that it was about to lose 13 to 2, and not by some obstructionist French veto that he could wiggle around.

The bottom line is that they didn't attack us, and we attacked them. It's like seeing a guy in a bar and feeling intimidated by him, and fearing that he has some kind of plan to hurt you, so you sneak up behind him and smash a bottle over his head before he can do anything to you.

In this situation, when there is no evidence before the court that the victim had any plan or inclination to attack the assailant, who's going to go to jail?

Answer 5

We invaded and occupied a sovereign nation that hadn't attacked us first, so, yes, I feel it is a war of aggression. We can't say it was to end a humanitarian crisis, since more people are dying now than ever. We can't say it was self-defense, since there is no evidence to support that they were a threat to us. We can't claim we were upholding UN resolutions, since the UN didn't approve of the invasion. Besides, so many righties say the UN was/is corrupt and anti-American, I wouldn't think they would say a UN resolution had any validity.

Answer 6

No. I think the Iraq War is a war Bush started just for the heck of it. Shoot, he said when he first became President that he wanted to be a war President.



The fact that we elected an asshole like Bush absolutely drives me nuts sometimes. It goes to show us how fooled we were, and that we shouldn't vote for someone just to stop something from happening, especially when that someone is an idiot like Bush.

Answer 7

They didn't attack us, and we had absolutely no authority, under a treaty we signed, to unilaterally invade a sovereign nation. That is against International Law, and something Bush will have to deal with soon!

Nothing in any of the resolutions gave us any authority to do anything. That can only come from the Security Council and Bush knew Russia and China was going to veto it, so he decided to violate international law!

Answer 8

Actually war was never officially declared. An invasion was ordered and thats that.

Answer 9

Wars of aggression are only wars of aggression if "the enemy" attacks first... If "we" attack first it's always a perfectly legitimate act of self-defence... (at the time, later these views sometimes are modified or even reversed)

after you read the wikipedia article, http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/icc/usindex.htm makes good reading...

Answer 10

I definately feel that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was aggressive, yes. And it's a disappointment that iraq violated 13 U.N. resolutions relating to inspections and disarmamnet as a result of that aggression, which required us to go BACK AGAIN, and whoop some Saddam and sons ***.