Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Was the Iraq war illegal? Poll
Youpolls ^ | 11-29-2009 | AFP

Posted on 11/29/2009 12:09:20 PM PST by DBlake

Ministers in Britain were secretly told that the United States were set on "regime change" in Iraq...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: belongsinchat; iraq; pollsoniraq; spam

1 posted on 11/29/2009 12:09:20 PM PST by DBlake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DBlake

Not to wax philisophical here but what IS legal?


2 posted on 11/29/2009 12:13:02 PM PST by JoeMac (''Dats all I can stands 'cuz I can't stands no more''. Popeye The Sailorman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBlake
Secretly told?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Regime change in Iraq became a stated goal of United States foreign policy when Public Law 105-338 (the "Iraq Liberation Act") was signed into law by U.S. President Bill Clinton. The act directed that:

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

3 posted on 11/29/2009 12:13:41 PM PST by shoptalk (Defend principles, not personalities. Personalities will always break your heart.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBlake

Was the Iraq war illegal? Poll


stupid question. there exists something like a legal war?
war is war.


4 posted on 11/29/2009 12:14:57 PM PST by darkside321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoeMac

try this... lies my father told me....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPoQk

which are all out in the leftists field now...


5 posted on 11/29/2009 12:15:45 PM PST by himno hero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DBlake
secretly told that the United States were set on "regime change" in Iraq

Secret? Clinton said it was official US policy.

6 posted on 11/29/2009 12:16:14 PM PST by icwhatudo ("laws requiring compulsory abortion could be sustained under the existing Constitution"Obama Adviser)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBlake

Was the election of Barack Obama legal?

Where’s the polls on that?


7 posted on 11/29/2009 12:16:19 PM PST by A_Former_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoeMac

When it comes to war I mean?


8 posted on 11/29/2009 12:16:49 PM PST by JoeMac (''Dats all I can stands 'cuz I can't stands no more''. Popeye The Sailorman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DBlake
Ministers in Britain were secretly told that the United States were set on "regime change" in Iraq

What a huge secret. Congress passed a law stating that and Bill Clinton signed it in 1998.

Iraq Liberation Act

9 posted on 11/29/2009 12:16:55 PM PST by A.Hun (Common sense is no longer common.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A_Former_Democrat

Bravo! Good question and one that deserves answering.


10 posted on 11/29/2009 12:17:54 PM PST by JoeMac (''Dats all I can stands 'cuz I can't stands no more''. Popeye The Sailorman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JoeMac

Iraq’s ceasefire terms violations made it VERY legal.

Bush Is Right on Iraq: The Issue Is Compliance, Not Inspections
by Brett D. Schaefer and Baker Spring
Backgrounder #1592

President George W. Bush’s resolve in confronting Iraq over its decade-long record of defiance of the United Nations has succeeded in getting Baghdad to agree unconditionally to the return of U.N. weapons inspectors. Their mission will continue to be to search out and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ballistic missiles. While Baghdad’s recent letter acquiescing to the inspections is promising, it does not mean that the crisis has been defused or that further confrontation with Iraq can be avoided. As the President has reminded the U.N. and Congress, the real issue is not the inspections but Iraq’s consistent failure to comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions, which require it to disarm, cease supporting terrorism and violating the human rights of its people, and account for those missing from the Persian Gulf War.

Because Iraq failed to comply with these resolutions even when U.N. inspectors were in Iraq, the return of inspectors is no guarantee of success in enforcing U.N. resolutions. The Security Council should adopt a new resolution that documents Iraq’s violations of existing U.N. resolutions, demands compliance, and authorizes the use of force if Iraq fails to comply. It should not adopt a resolution that merely commends Iraq for allowing the inspectors to return


11 posted on 11/29/2009 12:18:06 PM PST by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: A_Former_Democrat

NOW! Thats the best yet!


12 posted on 11/29/2009 12:18:13 PM PST by himno hero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo
The Act found that between 1980 and 1998 Iraq had:

1. committed various and significant violations of International Law,
2. had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed following the Gulf War and
3. further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.

The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change." The Act was passed 360-38 in the U.S. House of Representatives [3] and by unanimous consent in the Senate. [4] US President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law on October 31, 1998.

SOME SECRET!

13 posted on 11/29/2009 12:19:10 PM PST by icwhatudo ("laws requiring compulsory abortion could be sustained under the existing Constitution"Obama Adviser)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DBlake

Wars are either just or unjust, not legal or illegal. The Iraq war is just.

“Laws of war” is a goofy concept to begin with. Laws much have an enforcement mechanism ... the UN cannot exercise mandatory enforcement.

The laws of war are written by the victors, and are largely irrelevant during the war. The losers are prosecuted, the winners are not.

Not only that ... but laws of war are entirely unenforceable against more powerful militaries. If the US truly committed a war crime — who could do anything about it? The UN could raise the greatest military force it could muster, and we could likely crush it where it stood.

A law without an enforcement provision is a legal irrelevancy.

SnakeDoc


14 posted on 11/29/2009 12:19:37 PM PST by SnakeDoctor ("Talk low, talk slow, and don't say too much." -- John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoeMac
Yes, it's an absurd question. There's no one law, so no controlling authority. Was it authorized by the U.S. Constitution? Probably. Was it funded by Congress? Yes. Was it authorized by the United Nations? Essentially, yes. Does this law control? To the extent that it's an international treaty obligation yes, so long as it doesn't abrogate or violate the Constitution. Insofar as its ‘law’ adopted by an organization whose members include governments not based on popular sovereignty and general suffrage, it's invalid per se.
15 posted on 11/29/2009 12:20:28 PM PST by americanophile (Sarcasm: satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DBlake

The power was given to the President by congessional vote to “use force”. That is pretty clear to me.


16 posted on 11/29/2009 12:21:27 PM PST by eyedigress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBlake

I like the philosophical question posed as to what makes a war really legal?


17 posted on 11/29/2009 12:22:03 PM PST by dog breath
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBlake

Wow! Unexpected results.


18 posted on 11/29/2009 12:22:25 PM PST by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoeMac

Dictators have no rights!


19 posted on 11/29/2009 12:23:19 PM PST by freeforall (Answers are a burden for oneself, questions are a burden for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DBlake

I found this the other day. Doesn’t make Cheney look too good. Curious how much is true. The first article. Just read down some.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/11/guest-post-instead-of-fixing-the-u-s-economy-or-creating-jobs-for-americans-obama-will-spend-the-money-in-afghanistan-and-iraq.html

parsy, who is watching the Monk marathon


20 posted on 11/29/2009 12:23:23 PM PST by parsifal (Abatis: Rubbish in front of a fort, to prevent the rubbish outside from molesting the rubbish inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dog breath

I like the philosophical question posed as to what makes a war really legal?


easy :-) just explain why you want to fight it. let the other side explain it why they want to fight it too. then ask every single human if they agree on this. and after every one said yes you can start your 100% legal war ;-)


21 posted on 11/29/2009 12:27:46 PM PST by darkside321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DBlake

Remember war is good, until it conflicts with a leftist and Homo-Leninist agenda; just look at Africa, Middle East and Bosnia…


22 posted on 11/29/2009 12:28:02 PM PST by ntmxx (I am not so sure about this misdirection!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBlake
I was secretly told by ministers in Britain that they were going to lie with this caper.

Who you gonna believe? ;-)

23 posted on 11/29/2009 12:28:25 PM PST by steelyourfaith (Time to prosecute Al Gore now that fellow scam artist Bernie Madoff is in stir.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBlake

There is no INTERNATIONAL LAW since there is NOT ONE BIG GOVERNMENT of the world!

Case closed!
This is a bad HOAX from the libtard propaganda machine(obaMAO involved?)


24 posted on 11/29/2009 12:29:39 PM PST by Ulysse (a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBlake

i’d say that bush’s intellegance on iraq was probally 80%- i would have liked to have seen photos, or a team go in there to varify- the commander in chief needs to be 100% positive before he puts americans soldiers in harms way. i think bush was alittle aggressive towards iraq, but it is a 2 headed coin also- are we better off with S. Hussein gone? yeah, i think so


25 posted on 11/29/2009 12:37:17 PM PST by chicken head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBlake

“Either war is obsolete or men are’’.


26 posted on 11/29/2009 12:37:57 PM PST by JoeMac (''Dats all I can stands 'cuz I can't stands no more''. Popeye The Sailorman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBlake
People don't understand that Bush didn't authorize the war, Congress did.
Bush just acted on it to protect our interests and freedoms.
Rightfully so.
27 posted on 11/29/2009 12:42:54 PM PST by MaxMax (Obamao can't play in the Olympic reindeer games)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBlake

Was the Iraq war illegal?

Yes 50%

No 50%

You voted: No


28 posted on 11/29/2009 12:50:59 PM PST by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBlake

It wasn’t illegal.

We were in a state of cessation of hostilities form Gulf War I.

Iraq had repeatedly broken 17 of the 29 requirements for a continued “Cessation of Hostilities”.

In the lense of 911, we were done and had every right to resume hostilities. However, we went to the U.N. and sought their stamp of approval, for resumption and to enforce our 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which was signed into law by all 100 Senators, at that time and Bill Clinton, the then current President.

The United States acted as lead in a coalition of several countries and with the consent of the U.N.

Was the Iraq war Illegal? No. It had lasted 12 years longer than necessary.


29 posted on 11/29/2009 12:51:52 PM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shoptalk

Yep. It was the intent of the United States Government to remove the Sadaam Regime.


30 posted on 11/29/2009 12:53:27 PM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: parsifal
Actually it was Clinton, not Bush, who made regime change in Iraq official US policy. Then there was the UN who approved military action in Iraq with all the countries in Coalition participating in the Iraq War (bet you just forgot about all of that, didn't you?).

And in the end, Cheney didn't make much if anything out of Iraq oil, so there was really little if anything behind all the anti Bush conspiracy oil mongering which was always light on facts and strong on what ifs, anyway. But Bush and Cheney haters will probably never let the facts stop their dishonest hatefest.

31 posted on 11/29/2009 12:56:10 PM PST by Post Toasties
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Post Toasties

I always thought the WMD stuff was kaa-kaa, and said so here, but once we went in, I shut up about it. Still the point is, why did we knock off Saddam? FWIW, I don’t hate Cheney. Not fond of Bush but more over economic stuff than this. I am just curious about the truth.

parsy, who remembers the hoopla about invading Iraq


32 posted on 11/29/2009 1:01:14 PM PST by parsifal (Abatis: Rubbish in front of a fort, to prevent the rubbish outside from molesting the rubbish inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DBlake
The legal basis for troops in Iraq was a UN Mandate.

When that expired, Dec 31, 2008, the legal basis was the Status of Forces Agreement aka Iraq Security Agreement

33 posted on 11/29/2009 1:05:52 PM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: parsifal
Still the point is, why did we knock off Saddam?

The new Iraq government, not 'we', executed Saddam, if that's what you mean. That was their option, of course. You may mean something else than this, but its impossible to tell from what you posted so far.

You may have felt that WMD's didn't exist before the Iraq War, but few others believed that. Right before the Iraq War, even Democrats in Congress were creating legislation and making speeches against Saddam for having WMD. Now these nauseating LW hypocrites are pretending they were never on board the WMD wagon right up to the beginning of the Iraq War.

34 posted on 11/29/2009 1:14:52 PM PST by Post Toasties
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: DBlake

The left is making a mad dash for ‘regine’ change in the US. Their goal is a solidly totalitarian govt.


35 posted on 11/29/2009 2:04:16 PM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBlake

[[Was the Iraq war illegal? Poll]]

How about a better poll?

Were the actions of Saddam, putting people through meatgrinders while they were alive, setting people in fore- Stripping the meat from peopel whiel they screamed for mercy, throwing people off tall buildings, beheadign htem, raping them- Were those actions illegal, and a massive travesty that the world COULD NOT IGNORE?

‘Was the Iraq war legal’? Cripes!


36 posted on 11/29/2009 2:14:10 PM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

‘Was the Iraq war legal’? Cripes! It was a freaking duty to take out that madman which the UN IGNORED for years! If anythign, waiting as long as they did to do absolutely nothing shoudl be concidered illegal- NOT the waR!


37 posted on 11/29/2009 2:15:42 PM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

Yes 53%


38 posted on 11/29/2009 3:18:11 PM PST by Right Wing Assault (The Obama magic is fading.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Assault

well that settlews it then- people’s opinions are more important than stopping a mass murderer- swell- lovely world we live in- Hooray for us- to hell with anyone else


39 posted on 11/29/2009 7:03:13 PM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson