2007-09-20 04:46:58 · 20 answers · asked by Hello 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I of course mean not him personally.... but by giving the order for US troops to enter Iraq.
2007-09-20 04:47:43 · update #1
Regime change to depose the government of Iraq was set as US policy during the Clinton Administration.
Congress, using the same information Bush, Germany, England, France and the UN had approved the invasion after Saddam violated UN Mandates for 13 years.
Your point?
2007-09-20 04:56:48 · answer #1 · answered by Bob W 5 · 6⤊ 5⤋
The invasion was not illegal according to international law as someone above me stated.
After the 1991 liberation of Kuwait and partial invasion of Iraq UN restrictions were set in place. These restrictions were to be adhered to in order for Saddam Hussien to stay in power.
The Iraqi government violated these restrictions for years.
During the invasion of 2003 the Iraqi government moved money, weapons, and other assets to other Middle Eastern countries.
Just because they didnt find WMD's doesnt mean that they werent there prior to the invasion. If the Iraqi government had nothing to hide then why did they not allow UN inspectors unrestricted access as indicated in the 1992 cease fire agreement?
According to the 1992 cease fire agreement and the fact that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussien violated that agreement the US had a legal right to dispose the government of Iraq according to international law and UN mandate.
All parties involved signed the agreement in 1992 that agreement was binding.
The invasion was not illegal according to US law, had it been it would have never happened or been blocked by congress or the US Supreme Court.
2007-09-20 12:14:24 · answer #2 · answered by h h 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Yes surely it was totally illegal. Who gave him the US or any other country to attack or invade Iraq or any other country. Until and unless some one attacks them directly and the attack is not based on accusations.
2007-09-28 11:13:59 · answer #3 · answered by search2seek 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No doubt it was illegal according to the constitution.
A president was given power to call up troops to counteract
some invasion, threat etc.
On that basis--the power to go to Iraq and reinvade that totalitarian dictatorship after studying the situation, after exhausting other options and after demonstrating a need to do so--the present occupant of the White House sent troops there; he did so precipitately, with no WMDs, no evidence, no purpose, no strategy, no plan, no report from the UN inspectors demonstrating the need, inadequate equipment, and after a campaign of broken promises, false statements, big "lies" and fear-mongering innuendos.
No. The decision was immoral, unethical and illegal by our constitution.
2007-09-20 23:11:00 · answer #4 · answered by Robert David M 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
A foregone conclusion, YES! but then, when you think about how much money the country spends developing all those high tech weaponry of theirs, they surely needed some where to unload them. Hoping Israel to use em against Palestine, or the Hizbollah would be fine but they needed war not just a battle.
Its not a question of why Iraq, but rather that why not Iraq? After all it was US who put Saddam up there in the first place -- remember how you tried to use him against Khomeini?
Too bad, it's all at the expense of the taxpayer's money. But then, put the blame on yourself coz you were dumb enuff to elect an even dumber person into office (forgive those who voted against him then).
Provoking, eh?
2007-09-20 12:46:05 · answer #5 · answered by hisham d 2 · 0⤊ 4⤋
No it wasn't an invastion, it was a war, and another thing is that we kicked out the next wanna be Hitler and also stabilized that country's freedom! I know there is still violence but at least there is not someone every two seconds telling you what you can and cannot do!
2007-09-20 12:36:25 · answer #6 · answered by chris b 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
No. Under the terms of the Cease Fire from the first war and the UN Resolutions, just about any member nation of the UN had a right to go in finish him off. The bigger question is why does the UN never back up any of its resolutions? When the flop really hits the fan, they always look to the US to do something. Somalia, Bosnia, Lebanon.
2007-09-20 11:56:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 5⤋
yes - he found a ' pretext ' for invasion - and excuse - strike fear into the people about WMD - made the people beleive that WMD attack from iraq was imminent and that iraq and al queda were linked and growing
2007-09-20 13:44:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
he had the UN's approval and US law. As well as world sentiment. We did not go in alone but as a coalition of countries. So reguardless of how you feel the effort is progressing, it is a legal action.
2007-09-20 12:02:31 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 4⤋
What the hell is a legal invasion of another country? I think he lied to get the American people on board but war is war, the country that's being invaded could care less if it's an illegal or legal invasion. LOL!
2007-09-20 11:53:02 · answer #10 · answered by bettercockster7 c 2 · 3⤊ 8⤋