Misplaced Pages

Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:40, 22 May 2007 editRaggz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,711 editsm →The United Nations and the 2003 Invasion← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:37, 25 September 2024 edit undoKlbrain (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers87,920 edits Merged content to Legality of the Iraq War#Legitimacy, redirecting; AfD-merge; see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq (easy-merge)Tag: New redirect 
(448 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
#REDIRECT ]
{{see also|Views on the 2003 invasion of Iraq|Opposition to the 2003 Iraq War}}


{{Iraq War}} {{R from merge}}
{{R to section}}
==Countries supporting and opposing the invasion==
===Countries supporting===
Support for the invasion and ] included 49 nations, a group that was frequently referred to as the "]". These nations provided combat troops, support troops, and logistical support for the invasion. The nations contributing combat forces were, roughly:
Total 300,884 - 98% US & UK
The ] (250,000 83%), the ] (45,000 15%), ] (3,500 1.1%), ] (2,000 0.6%), ] (200 0.06%), and ] (184 0.06%), these totals do not include the 50,000+ soldiers of the ] forces that assisted the coalition. Ten other countries offered small numbers of non-combat forces, mostly either medical teams and specialists in decontamination.


]
]
]

]

===National Opposition===
Saudi Foreign Minister ] said the U.S. military could not use Saudi Arabia's soil in any way to attack Iraq. After ten years of U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia, cited among reasons by Saudi-born ] for his ] attacks on America on ], ], most of U.S. forces were withdrawn in 2003. According to the '']'', the invasion secretly received support from ].

== The United Nations and the 2003 Invasion ==
The ] (by Article 39) determines what is a legal act of international aggression and what is not. Article 24-1 requires that UN "...Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf." The United Nations Security Council has considered the 2003 invasion, and has elected not to find any violation of international law. Although there are many members who disagree with this decision (including the ]) Article 25-1 requires that "the Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter" once a decision is reached.

], drafted and accepted unanimously the year before the invasion, threatened "serious consequences" to Iraq in case Iraq did not comply with all conditions and stated that the Security Council shall "remain seized of the matter." ], the ], and ] made a joint statement claiming that this did not authorize the use of force but a further resolution was needed. On the day of the vote the US ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, said that in the event of a "further breach" by Iraq, Resolution 1441 would require that "the matter will return to the Council for discussions" but that the resolution did not prevent any member state from acting "to enforce relevant UN resolutions and protect world peace and security. " The resolution did not authorize member states to use force, and by its terms had no effect on the UN Charter's prohibition against the use of force by UN member states against fellow member states.

"On November 8, 2002, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1441. All fifteen members of the Security Council agreed to give Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its obligations and disarm or face the serious consequences of failing to disarm. The resolution strengthened the mandate of the UN Monitoring and Verification Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), giving them authority to go anywhere, at any time and talk to anyone in order to verify Iraq’s disarmament."<ref>United States Department of State: Fact Sheet, February 25, 2003 http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/fs/2003/17926.htm</ref>

:*Iraq has been and remains in material breach of prior Security Council resolutions.
:*The resolution gives Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations and establishes an enhanced inspections regime. Iraq is obliged to deliver within 30 days (December 8, 2002) a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems.
:*False statements or omissions in declarations required by the resolution and failure by Iraq to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of the resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations." The requirements are listed below.
:*The Council demanded that Iraq cooperate “immediately, unconditionally and actively with UNMOVIC and IAEA.”
:*The Security Council recalled that it has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of obligations under Security Council resolutions.

Beginning from the end of the ] in 1991, the Iraqi government agreed to , which called for weapons inspectors to search locations in Iraq for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, as well as weapons that exceed an effective distance of 150 kilometres. After the passing of resolution 687, thirteen additional resolutions (699, 707, 715, 949, 1051, 1060, 1115, 1134, 1137, 1154, 1194, 1205, 1284) were passed by the Security Council reaffiming the continuation of inspections, or citing Iraq's failure to comply fully with them. On ], ] the Security Council passed resolution 1194 which unanimously condemns Iraq's suspension of cooperation with UNSCOM, one month later on ] Iraq officially declares it will cease all forms of interaction with UNSCOM.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994).

The period between ], ] and the initiation of ], ], ], contained talks by the Iraqi government with the United Nations Security Council. During these talks Iraq attempted to attach conditions to the work of UNSCOM and the ], which was against previous resolutions calling for unconditional access. The situation was defused after Iraq's Ambassador to the U.N., ], submitted a third letter stating the position of the Iraqi government on October 31 was "void". After weapons inspections resumed, UNSCOM requested arms documents related to weapon usage and destruction during the ]. The Iraqi government rejected this request because it was handwritten and did not fall within the scope of the UN mandate. The UN inspectors insisted in order to know if Iraq destroyed all of its weapons, it had to know "the total holdings of Iraq's chemical weapons." Further incidents erupted as Iraqi officials demanded "lists of things and materials" being searched for during surprise inspections.
] (TLAM) is fired from an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer during the fourth wave of attacks on Iraq in support of Operation Desert Fox]]
On ], ], U.S. President ] inititated ] based on Iraq's failure to fully comply with the inspectors. Clinton noted the announcement made by the Iraqi government on October 31, stating they would no longer cooperate with ]. Also noted was the numerous efforts to hinder UNSCOM officials, including prevention of photographing evidence and photocopying documents, as well as prevention of interviewing Iraqi personnel.

Inspection teams were withdrawn before the Operation Desert Fox bombing campaign and did not return for four years. The no-fly zone enforced by the United States, ] and ] - also legality disputed - became a location of constant exchange of fire since Iraqi Vice President ] instructed Iraqi military to attack all planes in the no-fly zone. In late 2002, after international pressure and more UN Resolutions, Iraq allowed inspection teams back into the country. In 2003, ] was inspecting Iraq but were ordered out despite their pleas for more time. There is no credible evidence of WMD production(see ]) and no WMDs have been found to date after 1991 (See below and ]). ] has since admitted that "much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong" .

Prior to invasion, the United States and the United Kingdom attempted unsuccessfully to secure a United Nations resolution explicitly authorizing force on the grounds that Iraq was allegedly in violation of various previous resolutions. As prior U.N. consent was not garnered, invasion of Iraq should be termed as a war of aggression led by the coalition forces. In addition to assertions regarding possible ], the United States and the UK also asserted that the use of pre-emptive military force was legal under the original U.N. resolution from the 1991 Gulf War.

The United States structured its reports to the ] around alleged intelligence from the ] and ] stating that Iraq possessed ]. The U.S. claimed that justification rested upon Iraq's violation of several U.N. Resolutions, most recently ]. U.S. president ] claimed Iraq's supposed WMDs posed a significant threat to the United States and its allies , but offered no evidence that Iraq had the intention or the means for delivering a WMD attack against the U.S. U.N. inspection team ], before completing its UN-mandate or completing its report was ordered out by the UN because the US-led invasion appeared imminent.

===Weapons of Mass Destruction===
No militarily significant WMDs have been found in Iraq since the invasion, although several degraded chemical munitions dating to before 1991 have been. {{fact|date=May 2007}} On ], ] a report was released through the ], stating that since 2003, approximately 500 degraded chemical munitions have been discovered dating from before 1991 in Iraq, and "likely more will be recovered." <ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html| author= |title=Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq| format=|year= June 21st, 2006|work=Fox News | accessdate=2006-04-29}}</ref> The weapons are filled "most likely" with Sarin and Mustard Gas.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf| author= |title=De-classified Report| format=|year= June 21st, 2006|work=House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence | accessdate=2006-04-29}}</ref> However, the ] states that these weapons were not in usable condition, and that "these are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html| author= |title=Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq| format=|year= June 21st, 2006|work=Fox News | accessdate=2006-07-26}}</ref>

In January 2006, '']'' reported that "A high-level intelligence assessment by the Bush administration concluded in early 2002 that the sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq was 'unlikely.'" The Iraqi government denied the existence of any such facilities or capabilities and called the reports lies and fabrications, which was backed by the post-war prima facie case that no WMDs were evident or found.{{fact|date=May 2007}}

The leaked ], an internal summary of a meeting between British defense and intelligence officials, states that Bush Administration had decided to attack Iraq and to "fix intelligence" to support the WMD pretext to justify it. A transcript of a secret conversation between President Bush and PM Blair leaked by a government whistleblower reveals that the US and UK were prepared to invade Iraq even if no WMD were found (NY Times, March 27, 2006 ; see also the ]). British officials in the memo also discuss a proposal by President Bush to provoke Iraq, including using fake UN planes, to manufacture a pretext for the invasion he had already decided on. (NY Times, March 27, 2006 ). Best evidence of that false intelligence has been ] uranium story because on 14. march 2003 (before invasion) it has become public knowledge that president ] signatory has been forgery

The WMD capability of Saddam Hussein is still under debate and is one of the most controversial political topics today, despite numerous investigations.{{fact|date=May 2007}} Proponents of the invasion of Iraq cite the 2004 Butler Commission Report, which declares the importation of uranium from Niger was "well founded", the 2003 Iraqi Survey Group Report which found:

<blockquote>''By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999. Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.''</blockquote>

The 2003 Iraqi Survey Group found numerous signs of destruction of official Iraqi Regime documents and equipment. Supporters of the Iraqi War state that because of this, the full WMD capabilities of Iraq prior to invasion will never be known. Supporters also point to existing WMD infrastructure outline in the 2003 Iraqi Survey Group which found Saddam Hussein had the capability to produce weaponized anthrax within 3 weeks of UN sanctions being removed.

Former adviser to Saddam Heussien, General ], maintains that many WMD-related materials were moved from Iraq to Syria before the ] in spite of the findings by the].

The final report on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, issued by Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, concluded in April 2005 that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction had "gone as far as feasible" and found nothing. Duelfer also concluded that "it unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place," while noting that "ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials" .

===Human Rights Violations===
The human rights violations of the Saddam Hussein regime stretch back even before the events of the first ].{{fact|date=May 2007}} In 1988 the ] took place in Iraqi ], and was carried out by the cousin of Saddam Hussein, ].{{fact|date=May 2007}} A document signed by Ali Hassan al-Majid is quoted as stating, "all persons captured in those villages shall be detained and interrogated by the security services and those between the ages of 15 and 70 shall be executed after any useful information has been obtained from them". This target group covered any male of fighting age. The events of the Anfal campaign have often been compared with the events of the holocaust in their similarities of mass graves and concentration camps.{{fact|date=May 2007}} In 1991 after the Iraqi forces were expelled from Kuwait, the regime of Saddam Hussein cracked down on uprisings in the Kurdish north and Shia south. It is stated between this time over 40,000 Kurds were executed and 60,000 or more Shi'ites.

In 2000, two human rights groups, ] and the Coalition for Justice in Iraq, released a joint report documenting the doctrination of children into a fighting force. These children as young as five were recruited into the ] or Saddam's Cubs. The children would be separated from their parents and undergo military training. Parents objecting to this recruitment would be executed and children jailed if they failed to comply, these jails were later noted by ] in an interview with ].

== The International Criminal Court and the 2003 Invasion ==
This court is a court of last-resort, and has determined that it has no jurisdiction regarding the 2003 invasion for a number of complex reasons that are within the ] article.
== The Court of Public Opinion and the 2003 Invasion ==

===Polls===
According to the Gallup Poll 2003 of 41 countries: "The survey results show that approximately half of the citizens in the world are not in favour of military action against Iraq under any circumstances.". According to a mid-January 2003 telephone poll, approximately one-third of the U.S. population supported a unilateral invasion by the US and its allies, while two-thirds supported war if directly authorized by the U.N. .
]
Most teachers of international law have said (16 International Law Professors "War Would Be Illegal," '']'', March 7, 2003) that the US and other coalition governments' invasion of Iraq was an unprovoked assault on an independent country which breached international law. In particular, the U.S. and members of the U.S.-led coalition have signed (and ratified in the case of the U.S.) the ] and are therefore bound by it. Under Article 2, Number 4 of the UN Charter, "All Members shall refrain... from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state..." This is known as the "Prohibition of Aggression." Resolution 1441 was not intended by China, Russia and France to authorize war. The coalition formed around the USA argued that another understanding of the resolution is possible, although ] expressed his opinion: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
The Government of the United States stated that the UN Security Council Resolutions authorizing the ] to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi forces, in addition to ], gave legal authority to use "all necessary means," which is a diplomatic synonym for war. This war ended with a cease fire instead of a permanent peace treaty. Their view was that Iraq had violated the terms of the cease-fire because Iraq was allegedly developing WMD, and thus made the invasion of Iraq a legal continuation of the earlier war.

There was precedent for the Bush Administration's position regarding UN authorization to use force. In 1998, after Iraq was still uncooperative with UN inspection teams, the U.S. and the UK launched a bombing campaign against the country. The Bush Administration argued that President Bill Clinton took military action in 1998 based on the same basic WMD intelligence and under the same UN authority that was used to justify the action in 2003. In 1998, the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Peter Burleigh stated, ''"Following Iraq's repeated, flagrant and material breaches of its obligations under resolutions 687, 707, 715, 1154, 1194, 1205 and others - in addition to its failure to fulfill its own commitments - the coalition today exercised the authority given by Security Council resolution 678 (1990) for member states to employ all necessary means to secure Iraqi compliance with the Council's resolutions and restore international peace and security in the area."''
The United States and United Kingdom claimed, and continue to claim, that it was a legal action which they were within international law to undertake. Some in the media have called the good faith of the Security Council into question on this matter. One argument is that the United Nations itself, along with the three opponents of the Iraq War on the Security Council, France, Russia, and China, all benefited financially (in some cases, perhaps illegally) from transactions with the Saddam Hussein regime under the ]; and that the leaders of these three countries, along with ], fought against a second UN resolution not out of higher principle but in order to keep these contracts. Nevertheless, opposition to the war was widely popular amongst the populace of nearly all nations except the United States. Additionally, the resistance of the Security Council and the UN as a whole to the invasion of Iraq has not only been attributed to legal challenges but also to ] and a resentment of the cultural and economic dominance of the USA.{{Fact|date=February 2007}} In the case of France, mostly US commentators have suggested it was an attempt to court the ] world and its local ] population.

Ferenccz, a chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein for starting "aggressive" wars--Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq. <ref>OneWorld.net, ] 2006</ref> Saddam Hussein was convicted and executed for ], and although charged, was never tried for starting ]. "There was no authorization from the U.N. Security Council ... and that made it a crime against the peace," said Francis Boyle, professor of international law, who also said the U.S. Army's field manual required such authorization for an offensive war. <ref>The Seattle Times, ] 2006</ref> Under the principle of ] it would make all policymakers involved in this alleged ] criminally liable for war ].

===Germany===

The German Federal Administrative Court on ] 2005 found that the war and Germany's involvement in it met with grave concerns in terms of the rules of public international law. However, the Court did not make it totally clear that, in its opinion, the war and the contributions to it by the German Federal Government were outright illegal.<ref>Nikolaus Schultz '''' of ] ] in the ] No. 1 (1 January 2006), citation from sectin "D. Comments"</ref>

===United Kingdom===
====Opinion of the Attorney General====

On ] ], the UK government published the given by the ] ] on ] ] on the legality of the war. The publication of this document followed the leaking of the summary to the press the day before. In the document, Lord Goldsmith weighs the different arguments on whether military action against Iraq would be legal without a second UN Resolution. He said,

<blockquote>I remain of the opinion that the safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further resolution to authorise the use of force... Nevertheless, having regard to the information on the negotiating history which I have been given and to the arguments of the US Administration which I heard in Washington, I accept that a reasonable case can be made that resolution 1441 is capable in principle of reviving the authorisation in 678 without a further resolution </blockquote>

He concluded his analysis by saying that "regime change cannot be the objective of military action".

====Downing Street memo====
{{main|Downing Street memo}}

On ] ], a known as the Downing Street memo, detailing the minutes of a meeting on ] ], was apparently leaked to '']''. British officials did not dispute the document's authenticity, and UK Prime Minister ]'s spokesman has called the document "nothing new." The document describing the full advice of Lord Goldsmith:

''<blockquote>The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult.</blockquote>''

and states furthermore that

''<blockquote>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. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action..... It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.</blockquote>''

On ], ] and 89 members of congress asked ], in a , to answer some questions about the document, including whether he or anyone in his administration disputes its accuracy. The Bush Administration has stated that they will not answer the questions. While neither the US or UK government has denied their authenticity, and high-ranking officials in the UK government have confirmed their veracity, critics of the memos contend that they cannot be authenticated.
There was much dispute over the statement "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" and critics of the Iraq War believe this to mean that instead of the policy being determined by an unbiased examination of the facts and intelligence, the facts and intelligence where being selectively used to justify a predetermined policy. However, defendants of the war interpret parts of the document as expressions of concerns regarding Iraq and WMD:
''<blockquote>Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD...</blockquote>''
''<blockquote>For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one...</blockquote>''

====English court rulings====

The Law Lords ruled in a case brought before them in March 2006 that the British Government had not broken English law when it took part in the invasion of Iraq. {{fact|date=May 2007}}

===Ireland===
Five peace campaigners using an axe and hammers attacked a US navy plane in February 2003 as it was refuelling at Shannon airport, Ireland, on its way to Kuwait, where it would deliver supplies to be used in the impending war. The peace saboteurs caused $2.5m worth of damage to the plane. The jury decided that the saboteurs had a lawful excuse because they were acting to prevent an illegal war in Iraq and acquitted the saboteurs. ('']'', October 17, 2006, free archived version at http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1017-24.htm last visited 10/17/06).

===United States===
Under ], Section 8 of the ], the right to declare war ] the ], whereas the President is given the title of ] and thus general authority over the armed forces. Congress has not authorized a declaration of war since ] instead using "authorizations of force". In response to the ] and ]s, where the President authorized the use of military force without consulting Congress, however, Congress passed the ] stipulating (among other things) that the President had to seek Congressional approval to wage war.

Since the passing of the War Powers Act all Presidents have uniformly maintained that it is an infringement on the President's rights as commander-in-chief, but have nevertheless always requested congressional permission when required by the resolution; Congress, on the other hand, has largely maintained that it acted within its constitutional authority, but nevertheless has uniformly consented to all presidential requests under it. The Iraq War was no exception: in October 2002, the U.S. Congress passed the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq" , in response to presidential request under the War Powers Act. It stated that
<blockquote>
The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to -
:(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
:(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
</blockquote>

The resolution goes on to say that the authorization "constitutes specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution." Section 5(b) says that
<blockquote>
the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces.
</blockquote>

On ], ], Rep. ] (R-TX) submitted to the House International Relations committee a proposed declaration which read, "A state of war is declared to exist between the United States and the government of Iraq." It was rejected<ref>Paul, U.S. Representative Ron, Office of (2002). . Accessed on ] ].</ref>, as all such suggestions since World War II have been. The first Circuit Court of Appeals stated that "...the text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war." The Court of Appeals decision goes on to cite Massachusetts v. Laird stating "The court found that other actions by Congress, such as continued appropriations to fund the war ... provided enough indication of congressional approval" .

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides that treaties of the United States, along with federal law and the Constitution itself, ] (]). The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the United States and is therefore the law of the land in the United States on equal footing with acts of legislation. The ] stated in '']'', "By the constitution, a treaty is placed on the same footing . . . with an act of legislation. . . . if the two are inconsistent, the one last in date will control the other".<ref>{{ussc|124|190|1888}}</ref><ref> Page 2</ref> The authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq was passed in 2003, many years after the UN Charter.<ref>{{cite news|title=United States Practice in International Law Volume 2, 2002–2004 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |author=Sean D. Murphy}}</ref>

=== Christian opposition to war ===

During the buildup to the war, one hundred Christian ethicists issued a statement condemning the war as morally unjustifiable. Their brief statement, which was published in the Sept. 23 edition of the , read as follows: "As Christian Ethicists, we share a common moral presumption against a preemptive war on Iraq by the United States." The group included scholars from a wide array of universities, including traditionally left-leaning Ivy League schools as well as more conservative institutions such as Lipscomb University, in Nashville, Lubbock Christian University, in Lubbock, Tex. (both affiliated with the Churches of Christ), and the Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond.<ref>http://chronicle.com/daily/2002/09/2002092302n.htm</ref>

=== Opposition view of the invasion ===
{{main|Opposition to the Iraq War}}
] did not regard Iraq's violation of UN resolutions to be a valid case for the war, since no single nation has the authority, under the ], to judge Iraq's compliance to UN resolutions and to enforce them. Furthermore, critics argued that the US was applying double standards of justice, noting that other nations such as ] are also in breach of UN resolutions and have nuclear weapons; this argument is not a black and white matter, , as some claim that Iraq's history of actually using chemical weapons (against Iran and the Kurdish population in Iraq) suggested at the time that Iraq was a far greater threat. Others claim, also, that this contradicts previous U.S. policy, since the US was one of many nations that supplied chemical weapon precursors, even when well aware of what it was being used for.
], the Italian philosopher, has offered a critique of the logic of pre-emptive war.

Although Iraq was known to have pursued an active nuclear weapons development program previously, as well as to have tried to procure materials and equipment for their manufacture, these weapons and material have yet to be discovered. President Bush's reference to Iraqi attempts to purchase ] in Africa in his 2003 ] are by now commonly considered as having been based on forged documents (see ]).
], who has been a British Middle East correspondent for 29 years, warns in his book "The great war for civilisation" that history is repeating itself. Fisk, in the Dutch TV news program ]: "It is not just similar, it is 'fingerprint' the same". In 1917, the ] invaded Iraq, claiming to come "not as conquerors but as liberators". After an insurrection in 1920, "the first town that was bombed was ] and the next town that was laid siege to was ]". Then, the British army intelligence services claimed that terrorists were crossing the border from ]. Prime minister ] stood up in the house of commons and declared that "if British troops leave Iraq there will be civil war". The British were going to set up a democracy in Iraq. In a referendum, however, a king was 'elected'. "They decided they would no longer use troops on the ground, it was too dangerous, they would use the Royal Air force to bomb villages from the air. And eventually, we left and our leaders were overthrown and the ] party, which was a revolutionary socialist party at the time - Saddam Hussein - took over. And I'm afraid that the Iraq we are creating now is an Iraq of anarchy and chaos. And as long as we stay there, the chaos will get worse."

==See also==
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*
*
*{{cite news
| author =
| url = http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/38604/
| title = Could Bush Be Prosecuted for War Crimes?
| publisher =
| date = 2006-07-10
|accessdate = 2006-07-10
}}

]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 17:37, 25 September 2024

Redirect to:

  • From a merge: This is a redirect from a page that was merged into another page. This redirect was kept in order to preserve the edit history of this page after its content was merged into the content of the target page. Please do not remove the tag that generates this text (unless the need to recreate content on this page has been demonstrated) or delete this page.
Categories:
Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq: Difference between revisions Add topic