Iraq had consistently failed to comply with UNSC resolutions, committed crimes against humanity, (if not outright genocide). However, reasons given, e.g. WMD and links to terrorism and Al- Qaeda were fallacious.
This question is not about whether the war was justified or not, (I don't believe it was) - but whether it was or was not a breach of international law, and thereby 'illegal'.
2007-11-26 06:30:49 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
No, failure to comply with a signed surrender treaty reinstates the former state of war. IE, the gulf war. Not just those violations, but committing acts of war, such as firing on US warplanes in the no fly zone.
2007-11-26 06:33:36 · answer #1 · answered by booman17 7 · 8⤊ 1⤋
The reasons for the Congress authorizing offensive military operations against Iraq can be found in the link provided in the source box below. It is the text of Public Law #107-243. There is scant mention of WMDs in that law. Nor is there specific mention of connections to Al Queda by Hussein and the Ba'athist regime in Iraq.
The reasons cited in this public law are almost identical to those contained in Public Law #105-338 (Iraq Liberation Act) of 1998. The second link below is to the text of that law.
2007-11-26 15:27:42 · answer #2 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The short answer is "No," it was not illegal.
Resolution 1441 cited the failure of Iraq to abide by Resolution 678 and the former invoked the enforcement measures in the latter.
There is also the issue of blatant treaty violations of both U.S. and U.K. treaties by Iraq.
The issue of whether or not there were any WMDs is not really relevant to the issue of legality.
2007-11-26 14:41:58 · answer #3 · answered by texreiver 1 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Sorry Mr. Liberal, but we don't subscribe to the socialistic "International Law".
Bet you want us to join the EU and pay for things with the Euro too right? Do you also support socialized medicine?
How about spending as much time studying The Declaration of Independence or The Constitution as you do "International Law" though I am sure the liberal NEA will all but outlaw the study of the afore mentioned documents before too long.
2007-11-26 14:40:03 · answer #4 · answered by elmar66 4 · 5⤊ 1⤋
There was NO DIRECT THREAT to America, so therefor the invasion was ILLEGITIMATE. And while people are citing U.N. mandates and violations, what about Israel ? The most violations of U.N. resolutions BY FAR, and no action whatsoever has been taken against them, ponder that if you can stand the conflicting thoughts.
2007-11-26 15:20:55 · answer #5 · answered by HP 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No breach of international law so it was and is not illegal.
He was in violation of UN resolutions and continued to fire on US aircraft in the no fly zone. We were justified in attacking them.
2007-11-26 14:35:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
Nope, that doesnt mean people cannot strongly disagree with us being their but trying to turn everything we disagree with into an illegal act is getting old
2007-11-26 14:41:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
What law says no war, international or otherwise?
2007-11-27 11:52:02 · answer #8 · answered by Scouse 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
International law is a farce. they do as they please and expect America to follow their made up rules. regardless of so called international laws America has to do what is best for America! So no I don't think it was illegal
2007-11-26 14:34:26 · answer #9 · answered by hunting4junk 4 · 6⤊ 1⤋
Think this administration should be brought to trial for this invasion of Iraq, we have killed and maimed hundreds of innocent people.
2007-11-26 14:41:40 · answer #10 · answered by Dave M 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋