You haven't answered the question. The legality of the war is not open to your belief. Either you can point to governing law or you cannot. I point out Bush violated UN RES 1441. You tell me that "I don't believe he has broken the law..."
Can you see why your answer is no answer at all?
The Iraq population isn't dying by accident my friend.
You said "War is self defense. We have rules of engagement. No innocent persons are intentionally killed in war."
The Iraq war is not about Self Defense--if it is, then show me.
And the Pentagon anticipates collateral damage, loss of innocent life, when a city is bombed and shot up.
By your own criterion of " lack of due process", the killing of a fetus is wrong. The Iraqi people had some due process in the form of UN monitoring, mediating and investigating their situation. Bush ordered the attack of Iraq in the face of the UN law and the UN WMD findings. So I guess I'm saying, there is no and never was a justified, legal war in Iraq.
If the war is not justified--THE REASON FOR KILLING--is not justified. That my friend is murder. Whether intentional, with mitigating circumstances or by extreme negligence.
This is where killing is murder...because the reason for the killing makes it so.
Iraq violated numerous UN resolutions, including the resolution that ended Desert Storm. The entire world, including numerous members of Congress, both before and after Bush took office, both Democrat and Republican, believed Saddam was a threat to our national security and needed to be disarmed. There was plenty of precedent for Saddam engaging in acts of unprovoked aggression, including his invasion of a sovereign country (Kuwait) and attempt to invade another (Saudi Arabia) before we stopped him. He dropped missiles on another country (Israel) unprovoked. He tortured and murdered his own people. He used WMDs on his own people. He pillaged his country's resources. He repeatedly threatened the United States. He sponsored terrorism. He had unlimited resources. He repeatedly obstructed UN inspectors. Congress gave Bush the authority to use force in his discretion. Bush is the Commander in Chief and can order military action without a declaration of war, just like we did in Desert Storm, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Vietnam, and Korea. Congress endorsed the war AFTER it started and has continued to fund the war. Numerous other countries have contributed both armed forces and money to assist with the war. The UN has never said the war is illegal.
No one factor stands alone. I think all of these factors have to be considered when determining whether we should have invaded.
So, there it is, again. That has to be about the umpteenth time I've stated on this board why I believe the war was justified.
You know we're not going to agree on this issue.
We made a preemptive strike to defend our country, which I consider self-defense. Or to quote John Kerry: "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is
a real and grave threat to our security." Plus, I've already mentioned our ROE. We only intentionally kill combatants who are a threat. We don't intentionally kill civilians in war. The ones who do and who violate the ROE are prosecuted (like the link I provided earlier shows).
And I have to apologize to Colossus for hijacking his thread. Sorry mang.
