The Iraq war is illegal

Lord Bingham has stated that the legal advice given to Tony Blair regarding the Iraq war was flawed and he went on to describe the invasion of Iraq as a ''serious violation of international law''.

Lord Bingham has just sepped down from his position as a law lord in one of the most respected legislatures in the world.

 

What aspect of international law is he referring to?

 

Is any war "legal"?

I'd like to know by what authority the legality of a war is determined.

Wars can be immoral.

When the aggressor is not defending, or when the aggressor greatly over-reacts in defense, the aggressor's behavior can be immoral.

In the case of Iraq, Bush never presented any shred of sufficient justifying evidence that Saddam Hussein was about to receive a clandestine Soviet nuke in Iraq's three-way deal with China and Russia, brokered by the French, or that Iraq was about to obtain-create a true WMD from any other external or internal source.

Nor did Bush ever present any shred of sufficient justifying evidence that Saddam Hussein was supporting Al Qaeda in Iraq.

The lies that Bush had the CIA tell about "here's evidence ... oops, we were wrong" are meaningless in the matter.

Clearly America invaded Iraq to steal Iraq's oil distribution rights so that Saddam wouldn't be able to divert America's share of Iraqi crude to China in that three-way deal once the sanctions against him choosing new trading partners expired, sanctions which were soon to expire ... when America invaded.

Rather than take Saddam out with CIA stealth and technology, America scatter-missiled all of Iraq, slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, nearly half of whom were children with a median age of eight years-old.

Without question, America's behavior was grossly immoral.

Whether America's behavior was illegal is unclear to me.

Regardless, America owes a tremendous reparation to the people of Iraq.

 

If a country attacks you then it is perfectly reasonable to defend yourself.

It is difficult to justify beeing the aggressor.

As in Afghanistand and Iraq.

 

In terms of international law, the United States has a sound legal argument for not only war in Afghanistan but also Iraq. Afghanistan was a war of self-defense anyway. The Taliban was harboring Bin Laden (who attacked the United States), and refused to give him up, thus putting the accountability on them.

 

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan have ever attacked the US.

 

That is not what determines a war's legality in terms of international law.

 

Neither country was attacking the US.

Nobody had discovered WMD in Iraq.

The weapons inspection had not finished but the inspectors and the UN wanted to finish it.

The US did not want the weapons inspection to finish because they knew full well it would reveal that there are no WMD in Iraq.

So if you don't think attacking a non-aggressing country on a trumped up charge is not illegal you would probably have been quite successful in Adolph Hitler's government.

 

Don't you think that this is all a bit pointless....I mean discussing the legality of advice given to a jag-off like Blair?

 

Er why?

 

okay......whats going to happen?

 

You have made no actual legal arguments here. Legally speaking, the US had all the authority it needed under any of the 17 Security Council Resolutions on Iraq.

Legally speaking as well, the UN does not dictate international law. Only the SC Resolutions have the technical binding power of international law, and you will be hard pressed to defeat the argument that 17 of them carried no authority, no matter how you twist and turn it.

 

Attacking a country that is not attacking you on the basis of fabricated evidence has got to against international law becauise otherwise there would be no international law on subject

 

Well, hate to break it to you, but in the case of Iraq, it was not illegal.

 

Interesting.

At least you admit that the US attacked Iraq on a trumped up charge.

BTW it was illegal.

You just wait until Bush has officially gone and watch the fireworks