English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

For those of you who think it wasn't illegal; please read the bill which states that the President must PROVE Iraq is a threat and/or aided the 9/11 terrorists which he never has.
http://www.usis.it/pdf/other/H.J.Res.114_RDS.pdf

Cheers!

2007-08-18 23:54:11 · 28 answers · asked by ccruns 2 in Politics & Government Politics

28 answers

Your question should read: Why do you feel Bush invaded Iraq legally?

I thought I was coming here to defend my opinion that this war is based on lies....but you already share that same belief.

For the first person: what UN vote was that? Last I saw Powell resigned in disgust over giving false information that Bush supplied him at a UN meeting.

2007-08-19 00:02:51 · answer #1 · answered by powhound 7 · 5 2

That's odd, the Dem "sweethearts" were calling for something to be done about Saddam and Iraq as far back as 92....long before President Bush was in office.
So if President Bush was wrong, lets place the blame right in the laps of all those Dems you guys love so much as well.
And maybe, just maybe, if Clinton and his cronies had done their job right there wouldn't have been a 9/11. Think I'm kidding? Google the UNOCAL Oil Co. and the Taliban at the same time

2007-08-19 11:50:24 · answer #2 · answered by jonn449 6 · 0 0

it is impossible to come to a logical conclusion based on feelings.


We have created a focal point for the War against terrorists, a war that they declared on us........in Iraq.

Not in New York, not in London, or Paris or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we are doing two important things.

(1)We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is a terrorist. Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad people, and the ones we get there we won't ha ve to get here. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.


WMDs were only one of 23 UN resolutions that Sadam violated.

While Sadam and laden were opposed by faith, they were united in hate against America........
Sadam allowed Zaraqawi to build an Al Qaida camp in Iraq.

Laden was exploring the option of moving his operations to Iraq

Sadam provided training manuals for Al Qaeda

Sadam funded the attack on the USS Cole.

Sadam paid a reward to the spouses of suicide bombers
The bottom line is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away if we ignore it.

2007-08-19 07:51:51 · answer #3 · answered by ? 2 · 1 1

I have read it, and would ask what you would consider proof? An attack? You see, almost 100% of Congress considered Iraq a threat. Most prominant democrats had come forth stating that they were a threat and had WMD.

That being said, look at it this way, we absolutely know that Iraq was supporting terrorism. (You can say that it was not 9/11 terrorists, but terrorism is terrorism).

Finally, if it WERE illegal, the dems would have shown it and impeached. They were gunning for Bush when they won the 06 election. They wanted payback for Clinton's impeachment. So, your armchair legal analysis does not change the fact that there was no law broken or Bush would have been impeached.


Daddy Bruce...if people like you would listen to yourself, you would realize that when you say that Bush lied about WMD, you also state that both Clintons lied, Kerry lied, most of the democratic candidates for president lied, 3/4 of Congress lied, the CIA lied...the list goes on and on.

And to those of you who still talk about the oil...I wish that if we were there for oil, we would AT LEAST take some of the oil to pay for reconstruction. WE HAVE NOT TOUCHED ONE DROP!

Saddam had broken the peace treaty signed after the first war, so we were legal for going back in based on that alone, so get over the "international law" BS.

cantcu...are you smoking crack? The security council is the only one who can declare war???? WE ARE A SOVEREIGN NATION!! AMERICA HAS NEVER GIVEN THAT SOVEREIGNTY UP TO THE UN! Hopefully, we will keep ID10T liberals like you out of the white house so they do not give up that sovereignty.

2007-08-19 07:03:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 4

The US didn't invade Iraq because of 911 (although unfortunately it was presented that way by the media and the administration). The US invaded Iraq to impose the UN security resolution forcing Sadam to allow inspection of nuclear sites. This is not a war of any kind, so your law doesn't apply. The UN is supporting this action, as evidenced by the presence of troops from many other countries, including Germany, England, Australia and Holland. These countries are taking casualties, so this is by no means about Bush or the US.

2007-08-19 07:16:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

I know he invaded it in violation of international law, violating treaties and the US Constitution. He bypassed the Security Council, and used instead old resolutions that didn't give him authority to do anything! The Security Council ARE THE ONLY ONES who can authorize a war, however, we were never invaded by Iraq and they had nothing to do with 9/11, and Bush was NEVER going to get authorization to unilaterally attack a nation that had not attacked us!.

In 1998 Clinton took out almost all of Iraq's weapons in Operation Desert Fox, including the nuke plant! And the Republicans were claimimg it was illegal. Clinton didn't invade Iraq! Clinton didm't get one person in the military killed over the 4 day operation which took out 53 military targets the 1st night!

Most of that resolution is a bald face lie that was fed to them by Bush, just like Colin Powell!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZTLmOoPzjs&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o

And no one authorized him to torture prisoners! And there wasn't one damn weapon of Mass Destruction!

The Cheney in 1994 isn't the liar we have today!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I&mode=related&search=

2007-08-19 07:46:57 · answer #6 · answered by cantcu 7 · 0 0

Yawn,

Any timeone invades another country one does it illegally. (Smile).

But Bush had the full support of congress at the time and it isn't a war but rather a police action.

What we should have done was the unthinkable and included Iran in the unthinkable act. Poof a new parking lot for China.

2007-08-19 07:36:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

no no, america is god in the world no. America gave weapons to iraq durring the iraniraq war, and now their getting them back. Their essentially cleaning up their crap. Now, you find that a solid idea, but there is people dieing every day in Iraq, their natural resources being destroyed and stolen by America, Korea, Germany etc... Their making iraq worse then before believe it or not. Innocents are dieing. If america felt like a heroin, then why dont they help africa from the guerrila wars? What, it doesnt aid america in any way, so no they wont go. No $$$ no go. How about israel and palestenian war, ironicly, america is helping the powerful, aka israel.

Why does USA not allow iran to have a nuclear plant, but israel has 11. Does that seem fair to you.

This is all a political game. Please do not rely on any website that is owned by the president.

2007-08-19 07:01:48 · answer #8 · answered by Ge1st 1 · 5 2

Of course the war mongering Bush's war in Iraq is ILLEGAL..

In one answer on the board some yahoo stated that the UN had voted on this war and concluded that it was legal which is pure CRAP !!!!

As usual ,the US CHOOSES THE INTERNATIONAL LAWS IT AGREES TO FOLLOW AND GIVES THE FINGER TO THOSE THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH.

Even Blair's own international jurist told him this war was ILLEGAL.

Proving that a country faces a threat DOES NOT de facto ligitimize any war .

A FACT that most ignorant Americans do not know is that the same International Law that declares Bush's Iraqi war illegal is EXACTLY the same International Law that the US and others LEGALLY used to war against Iraq in the Gulf War.

Like always,the monumentally hypocritical Americans does what it wants only because "MIGHT IS RIGHT" and many cannot wait until China is the world's only super power and they do unto the US as the US hath done unto Iraq.

I know,it is never the same thing is it dearies ??




http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1305709,00.html

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6917.htm

2007-08-19 07:23:33 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 4

Because Bush refuses to open the Downing Street Papers which were already leaked from the British side which proves Bush ignored the proof Saddam had no WMD's and invaded anyway which proves he knowing lied to congress about his reasons for going to war which is an impeachable offence and hopefully will see him and Cheney arrested for murder.

We're going to open the downing Street Papers in 14 months and there's not a damn thing Bush can do to stop it either...

Maybe Bush should take Rove's lead and spend the next 14 months with his family before he starts prison....Hey Bush... even Rove knows it's coming.

2007-08-19 07:22:55 · answer #10 · answered by easy_game_101 2 · 0 3

fedest.com, questions and answers