2007-12-24 19:32:17 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
typical troll question. how is this war ilegal? a)under the conditions of the un brokered cease fire agreement the use of force was authorized because saddam banned the weapons inspectors. b)congress gave the executive branch the authorization to use force in order to expell saddam. so tell me how was this war illegal? you could possibly argue that its immoral but this argument for illegality has little basis. and by the way do you think that our vital national interests in the region are worth protecting? in hindsight its very easy to pass judgement however the decision to go to war was supported by not only the administration but a vast majority of both republicans and democrats in congress and the majority of americans at the time. i hope this has enlightened you troll.
2007-12-24 21:17:56 · answer #1 · answered by mikedelta 3 · 10⤊ 1⤋
I noticed you showed no proof of an illegal war.
The war in Iraq however is legal.
Congress voted on it and authorized it which makes it constitutionally legal. If that wasnt true why would the dems say they are going to try to stop the war by cutting off funding if it was illegal they would try to stop it by legal means
Saddam & Iraq violated 14 UN resolutions that should have been enforced by the UN but they didnt have the balls to.
They also violated the cease fire agreement they signed with the US at the end of the 1st Gulf war.
Those gave us legal reason to go to war against iraq.
Disent is patriotic just like serving in the military is patriotic, but when you disent you need to have a just cause to disent and you also have to be informed. you have neither so you just come off sounding stupid.
2007-12-24 22:20:21 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 0⤋
Do you understand the meaning of the words, Illegal and patriotic? Here is the definition of both according to Wiktionary.
- Illegal
1. (law) Contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law.
2. Not permitted by rules
-Patriot
1. A person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country.
Now, I would like you to cite which law or rule we have violated. The bottom line is that the government of the United States of America can go to war with anyone at anytime for any reason. If it could be proved, that the president mislead the public into going to war, you could say that he committed illegal acts, but that does not make the war illegal. The war might be immoral, but it certainly is not illegal.
According to the definition of the word patriot, all one has to do is love, support, and defend his or her country. Patriotism is not dependent of the actions of the country being supported, only the actions of the person doing the supporting.
In conclusion, it has always been patriotic to support your country, regardless of weither you agree with the actions of said country.
2007-12-24 20:56:27 · answer #3 · answered by Danny 6 · 10⤊ 2⤋
It's not but since the USA has never been involved in neither a illegal war or occupation it's not us your talking about.
as a matter of fact in the entire history of man there has never been a illegal occupation or war, there is no such thing.
2007-12-25 01:36:16 · answer #4 · answered by darrell m 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
where does it exactly say this war is illegal? Just because you do not like the grounds in which you believe this war is going does not make it illegal. Do some service before you b***h about our service.
2007-12-25 11:54:33 · answer #5 · answered by twackman4life 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
How is it illegal again? Oh you did not support your comment. When was the last time you tried to french kiss a light socket?
MONTEE: I have never had someone e-mail me before because they disagreed with me, wow. BTW It does not suck to be me. It is actually pretty cool! I got an education, good job, loving family, and a clue!
So here is the Answer to your question.
Their is no answer, because your question is flawed. You are making an unfactual statement that only allows the answers you want to have a response to the question posed.
So, I'll correct your question. The war is not illegal.
ARTICLE II, Sect 2, US Constitution ( http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Section_2_2 ) states:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.
Now in case you are wondering, this means the President can order the Armed Forces, where and when he desires.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal22/warpow.htm)
Allows the President to conduct action for up to 6 months w/o Congressional approval. Congressional Approval is required to continue Military action.
This approval was granted by congress in 2002. Public Law No: 107-243 (http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf).
We'll I'm sure your now going to say it violated International Law. However United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 (http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm) gave Iraq its last chance to comply with International Demands.
Get this part, Even though they did not have the WMD everyone thought they did, they STILL stonewalled UN Weapons Inspectors. The Iraqi's require "Iraqi Monitors" during interviews with UN Officials, and forbid UN inspectors to fully inspect many buildings. Hans Blix stated 2-23-2003 Hans Blix states that Iraq still has not made a "fundamental decision" to disarm, despite recent signs of increased cooperation. Specifically, Iraq has refused to destroy its al-Samoud 2 long range missiles. (These are not a WMD, and Iraq is permitted "battlefield" missiles. However, Iraq's missiles were limited by UN instruction to a diameter of 600mm, and the Al-Samoud II has a diameter of 760mm). These missiles are deployed and mobile. Also, an R-400 aerial bomb was found that could possibly contain biological agents. Given this find, the UN Inspectors have requested access to the Al-Aziziyah weapons range to verify that all 155 R-400 bombs can be accounted for and proven destroyed. Blix also expresses skepticism over Iraq's claims to have destroyed its stockpiles of anthrax and VX nerve agent in Time magazine. Blix said he found it "a bit odd" that Iraq, with "one of the best-organized regimes in the Arab world," would claim to have no records of the destruction of these illegal substances. "I don't see that they have acquired any credibility," Blix said .
On 3-23-2003 Blix said. Hans Blix reports to the UN Security Council. Blix says, "No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found," saying that progress was made in inspections which would continue.[9]. Blix files a 173 page document with the Security Council which says that inspectors discovered an undeclared Iraqi drone, with a wingspan of 7.45 m (24 ft 5 in), suggesting an illegal range beyond 150 km. US satellites tracked test flights of these drones, which were mentioned by Secretary of State Powell on March 5. Powell claimed that the test flight far exceeded the legal range agreed to by Iraq under UN resolutions. The Iraqis showed journalists this 'drone'. It was primitive, and could only be flown within "line of sight". Blix was strongly criticized in some UK and US press for not having found and declared this large model aircraft.
Time-line link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_disarmament_crisis_timeline_2001-2003
So Iraq continued to violate all resolutions against it, finally cultimating in Military force to bring them into effect.
If all of this is a little too much to comprehend thats okay. Just go back to licking your window, and I'm sure your mom will be getting your bath ready here anytime.
2007-12-25 01:54:57 · answer #6 · answered by Think for yourself 6 · 7⤊ 1⤋
Why is it illegal? Its not. How can it be an occupation when Iraq wants us there.
Do you have anything else or the silly buzz words you heard in a freshmen dorm somewhere!
2007-12-25 01:41:33 · answer #7 · answered by mgabel 2 · 8⤊ 1⤋
When did you get admitted to the bar association? Your not? Well, I guess that shows how much of an expert you are in determining what is legal or not.
2007-12-25 20:48:29 · answer #8 · answered by joseph b 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
how is it illegal? and it became patriotic when americans put there lives at rick to help another.
2007-12-24 20:10:31 · answer #9 · answered by akgirl 1 · 11⤊ 2⤋
This war is illegal. I wore the uniform so I can say it! So don't give me that crap about the uniform. What part of BUSH LIED to us does anyone not understand? I think that it was proved that the Bush adm. knew about the fact Iraq what no WMD. How about the fact that Halliburton was associated with the Bush adm? Are people stupid enough to not know these things? Don't just read US Media, read world media from other countries so you can see. I'm so sick and tired of all you hardcore I can shut anyone up conservative bastards not understanding this. I'm conservative and I can admit this crap. Don't get me going about freaking Bush and the Bin Laden family...
THIS WAR IS NOT PATRIOTIC...
Give me a gun if Russia or China come knocking on our door, but don't bother with this BS.
2007-12-24 22:51:33 · answer #10 · answered by ignorance_intolerant 2 · 2⤊ 12⤋