Why do people say Operation Iraqi Freedom is illegal? Didn't the US Congress authorize the use of force?

Question

Bush didnt just send our soldiers to Iraq without asking for permission from Congress. He requested permission and he got it. Case closed. The War was and is legal.

Here is the proof.

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

Answer 1

Note the critical statement of "DISCOVERY THAT IRAQ HAD LARGE STOCKPILES OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS....." THERE WAS NO DISCOVERY. THAT IS A LIE NOT JUST BAD INTELLIGENCE

This is from your link:

"Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998."

Man - what a bunch of hooey. Bush kicked out the UN inspectors when he gave Saddam two options: step down or war. "After failing to secure U.N. authorization to use force to disarm Iraq, President Bush gave Saddam 48 hours to step down or face war in a speech Monday night. Iraq rejected the Bush ultimatum"

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/17/iraq/main544280.shtml

Since this was all based on lies, this is illegal.

Answer 2

People like to say that Bush is stupid.But this dumba** was able to talk most of congress (and might add most of the liberal part of congress as well) to going to war.So who's really the dumba**es in this case.Either he's a genious or a retard but he can't be both.I recently said that Bush was doing a lousy job with foriegn policy.But it looks like I was wrong.The more I look into it,the more I realize that Bush was the one who crippled Al Qaida.Local Sunni tribes in Iraq have turned on them,they're hiding out in Pakistan after losing their main base of opperations in Afghanistan,and they're on the run from Ethiopian forces in Somolia.Sudan offered Bin Laden on a silver platter three times when Clinton was in office and he did nothing.Now people want talk about how Bush is allies with Bin Laden? Why isn't Clinton getting this kind of treatment? Looks like I was wrong for not blaming Clinton for 9/11.If he would have took Sudan up on that offer all those years ago 9/11 would not have happened.I'll admit that back then terrorists weren't seen as a big threat.But they offered to hand Bin Laden over.Clinton could have captured him with almost no effort at all.And if anyone wants to say we are losing in Iraq,then all I ask is for you to tell me what gun battles our soldiers have lost.Also this whole thing about WMD's.There were WMD's in Iraq.In fact,I remember CNN telling us about 300 liters of Sarin found in a shack not too long after Saddam was toppled.And don't think that wasn't enough.If placed strategically,that much sarin will wipe out more than half of Phoenix.The reason why Bush said there were no WMD's is because the majority of Americans don't have any idea what sarin can do.Which means the media would have mislead the people and said that 300 liters is not enough to go to war over.But I know what this stuff can do.Just look at what it did on the Tokyo Metro.I think this war was perfectly justified if you ask me.

By the way,congress also had the same amount of access to the intelligence as the Bush Administration.So even if they were lied to by Bush,they could have uncovered it without a problem.

Answer 3

Gonzales and other ex-Command Generals who served in Iraq are watching their reputations go down the drain because moderate American people are questioning their leadership. What is obvious about the Iraq War is that it is a total failure and the generals are the designated fall guys.
We went to War over Weapons of Mass Production, which were not present in Iraq in 2003, and none have been found up to this point. And the Bush Administration has changed to purpose of the War every few months it seems as one excuse for the failure of the Iraq invasion and occupation comes to light followed by another formula of necessity is brought down by the facts.
As far as illegalities goes, it is unconscionable to lie to the Congress of the United States and the American people for the purpose justifying an invasion of a sovereign Nation. Had the Congress been informed of the real facts, it is very doubtful that it would have passed the The Resolution for War Against Iraq.

Answer 4

It is something I have never been able to figure out: people claim to be so much smarter than animals, yet animals will quit doing things that is self-destructive or endangers their colony/pack/herd/whathave you.
Humans will believe a LIAR more readily than an honest person. If the Liberals say something, it must be true, especially the Liberals in Congress, Liberals in the Supreme Court and the Liberal Media.
Yes, President Bush had "permission", making it legal in all aspects. But Liberals want to use it against Bush, so they lie. Look at the smear campaign the Democrats have against Bush now for failing to sign their legislation pretending to help children!
That is why our country is in such a mess; people don't want to bother with facts, they just want to rant and rave.

Answer 5

The United Nations or NATO or whoever didnt authorize it though. And although it comes as a shock, Amercia is not the boss of the world. Congress's permission isnt sufficent to send allies into war as well, especially when the basis for the war is a big fat lie.

Answer 6

Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits use of force between nations (except in very limited circumstances of self-defence). This is the most important article of the United Nations and was written in the aftermath of World War II so that tragedies like World Wars might never happen again.

Answer 7

Legal from the standpoint of the US, but not according to the UN or most of the rest of the world. Iraq is not part of the United States, is is a sovereign country. Therefore the US is supposed to abide by INTERNATIONAL law concerning the use of force. These international laws were broken.

In addition, by your logic, if the Mexican government voted to invade the US it would be legal...this is certainly not true.

Answer 8

What precisely is rhsaunders talking about? Despite more than a year of hunting for them, not a single WMD was found by anyone. The UN Weapons Inspectors should have been allowed to finish their job - instead they were kicked out 24 hours before the invasion so that they weren't killed by "friendly fire".

Answer 9

There's such a thing as International Law. According to it, you can't invade another country just because you FEEL like it.

It was illegal.

Case closed.

(Go to the UN site.)

Answer 10

Because some people like to change things to fit their own version of history.

For the record Iraq was under cease fire accords signed in 91 that gave us the right to start shooting again as soon as they violated it. Which was as soon as Slick Willie took over.