How conservatively simplistic not much thought went into that answer. Typical "Ostrich Syndrome" response. Great job GIX.

__________________
AMERICA LAND OF THE FREE HOME OF THE BRAVE--BECAUSE OF OUR CONSTITUTION.

The Congress agreed to war but it was based on The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story.

I think a new survey/poll needs to be taken again by asking the Iraqi people right now whether they want Americans in Iraq.

__________________
AMERICA LAND OF THE FREE HOME OF THE BRAVE--BECAUSE OF OUR CONSTITUTION.

To start.

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...089158,00.html

To continue....


Documentary evidence has emerged showing that the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, changed his mind about the legality of the Iraq war just before the conflict began. The damning revelation is contained in the resignation letter of Elizabeth Wilmshurst, a legal adviser at the Foreign Office, in which she said the war would be a "crime of aggression". She quit the day after Lord Goldsmith's ruling was made public, three days before the war began in March 2003.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0324-02.htm


Realistically, one cannot seriously expect the disputants -- much less their national electorates -- to wade through numerous legal documents, most of which contain rigorous and not-occasionally tedious reasoning, to find the correct answer. Thus, it seems prudent to proceed directly to the world's most authoritative answer to our pressing question du jour: "Was the Iraq War legal, or illegal, under international law?"

And The World's Most Authoritative Answer Is ... Among the world's foremost experts in the field of international law, the overwhelming jurisprudential consensus is that the Anglo-American invasion, conquest, and occupation of Iraq constitute three phases of one illegal war of aggression. [3]

Moreover, these experts in the international law of war deem both preventive wars and preemptive strikes to be euphemistic subcategories of outlawed wars of aggression.

And the experts' answer would hold true regardless of whether their governing legal authority was: (A) the UN Security Council Resolutions that were passed to implement the conflict-resolution provisions of the UN Charter; or (B) prior treaties and juridical holdings which have long since become general international law.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle6917.htm

British Attorney General's Advice to Blair on Legality of Iraq War (March 7, 2003)
In his legal advice to British Prime Minister Tony Blair on the legality of the Iraq war, Attorney General Lord Goldsmith describes regime change in Iraq as a disproportionate response to Saddam Hussein's alleged failure to disarm, illegal in the eyes of international law. Goldsmith stresses that in terms of legality, "regime change cannot be the objective of military action."

Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor (August 25, 2006)
A prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg, Benjamin Ferenccz, believes US President George W. Bush’s aggressive war in Iraq constitutes a “supreme international crime” capable of prosecution in an international court. Claiming that the atrocities of the Iraq war were “highly predictable," Ferenccz points to the UN Charter, which unequivocally states that no nation can use armed force without UN Security Council permission. He convincingly argues that, due to his invasion of Iraq and the subsequent acts of the US military, Bush should face charges for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein. (OneWorld)

Blair in Secret Plot with Bush to Dupe UN (January 29, 2006)
Leaked White House documents reveal that UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George Bush planned to invade Iraq regardless of whether or not they won UN approval. Though Blair has asserted that the final decision to invade was made only twenty-four hours before the war began, the leaked documents from a high-level meeting between Bush and Blair indicate that the decision was made before the Security Council discussed - but never adopted - a second resolution authorizing war against Iraq. (Mail on Sunday)

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...k/lawindex.htm


An investigative report published by Knight-Ridder in early October of 2002 showed that US intelligence analysts had serious misgivings about invading Iraq. The report showed that intelligence officials largely found no evidence to support the Bush administration's position that Saddam Hussein posed an immediate threat, but they were being squelched, while at the same time the intelligence community was being placed under intense pressure to find justification for Bush's position.


The "Downing Street memo" (occasionally DSM, or the "Downing Street Minutes"), sometimes described by critics of the Iraq War as the "smoking gun memo", contains an overview of a secret 23 July 2002 meeting among United Kingdom Labour government, defence and intelligence figures, discussing the build-up to the war—including direct reference to classified United States policy of the time. It clearly states that, "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

FINALLY,

UN Security Council resolution 1441 - written by and pushed through by the United States to strengthen the power of UN inspections and weaken the ability of Iraq to evade them - was modified before passage so that military action to enforce the resolution is possible only with explicit Security Council authorization. In order for such authorization to go forward, Iraq would have to do something rather brazen and stupid which - while it certainly cannot be ruled out - has thus far forced a reluctant Saddam Hussein to cooperate with the new inspections regime

>>>Well, lemme see here.

1. The Nazis agreed that they had to go to Poland.
2. The Polish government wanted the Nazis there after the new government was formed.
3. The Poles wanted the Nazis there. Otherwise they would have had to deal with the Stalinists (you can subsititute Shias or Sunnis for Stalinists, if you wish).

Ergo, Hitler's invasion of Poland was perfectly legal.

>>>I am glad somebody asked that. He's fighting for Ehud Olmert, Bibi Netanyahu, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and the rest of the Israel-first Neocon brigands, of course.

Still doesn't make it illegal, wrong maybe but illegal no.
Has the UN deemed the invasion illegal? Hitler BROKE treaties when he attacked Poland and other countries that was why that was illegal.

__________________
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Welcome to AWE Flyhigher.. Mind if I ask what you're using to get so high?

If you don't want to answer that question, how about this one? If this war was about oil, where is it?

It must be the same thing Crow's using.. *LOL*

Crow - I don't think "regime change" was ever formally declared to be an objective of the British Government. Here's the letter submitted by the UK Ambassador to the United Nations that laid out the British justification for military action (UN Document S/2003/350):

Now here's my question to you... if Iraq was in material breach of the terms of the 1991 ceasefire by not providing "an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure" of all aspects of it's weapons programmes (As required by Resolution 687 [1991]), then wouldn't the Gulf War ceasefire itself then be rendered null and void? In effect, wouldn't the Coalition then be operating under the same authorization it was originally given in 1990 (Resolution 678)?

Just because the president wants to do something and those over payed, under worked puppets called congressmen say it is OK, it does not make it right or legal, isn't anyone tired of having someone telling you what is best for you??