As a practical matter, this war has nothing to do with Iraq I. Spin it any way you want, but we were sold invading Iraq on WMD, Mohammed Atta meeting with Iraqi agents, etc. Fictions.

It's a shame the left media takes such advantage of the ignorance of people. ...oh well you'll never understand...Ignorance is Bliss on to something more intelligent.........

Searchingformyredwine : You are Zero politics .
You called me a comedian and you are a robot .

You call people ignorant ...etc.
You do not know how to debate and just say anything like a parrot .
You call me names ....just look to yourself : Zero politics and very ignorant .

I dont listen to the media. I go by what I see with my own eyes The police are the ones who take our rights. The police are almost entirely military. Therefore the military takes our rights.

for those forgetful Americans now against the war - search Wikipedia for polls at the start of the war .......

A USA Today/Gallup Poll indicated that 75% of Americans felt the U.S. did not make a mistake in sending troops to Iraq in March 2003.

911 woke America up and people not only wanted to catch the perpetrators but also wanted to start cleaning up troubled hot spots as well to prevent the type of terroism here in the US that Israel has faced for so long. George told ya it was going to be difficult and now you have abandoned him for trying to do what the people asked.......

A PURE PROPAGANDA FOR THE PRO WARS !.

this vid has to be watched for its information and then feel free to research the topic yourself http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Khut8xbXK8

No about people forgetting

Oh no not the kitty kat version again.....

Was The Iraq War Legal, Or Illegal, Under International Law?

"Advantage is a better soldier than rashness." -Montjoy in Wm. Shakespeare's Henry V, 3.6.120

Evan Augustine Peterson III, J.D.

09/17/04 "ICH" -- During a BBC radio interview on Wednesday, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan created a controversy by reiterating his long-held position that the Iraq War was illegal because it breached the United Nations Charter. [1] On Thursday, the imperial leaders of the "Coalition of the Willing" retaliated by vehemently arguing that their Iraq War was, to the contrary, legal. [2]

Obviously, this dispute raises a legal question: "Whose opinion is correct, and whose is incorrect?" Additionally, we should be asking ourselves: "Who decides? (i.e., 'Whose jurisprudential opinion shall be dispositive for purposes of resolving this dispute?')"

It seems eminently reasonable -- even for the disputants -- to conclude that the optimal source of guidance on this question of international law would have to be the world's foremost experts in the field of international law. Hence, the UN's chief and the coalition's leaders need to know how the world's top international law experts would resolve their jurisprudential dispute. And we, the people, need to know who's right and who's wrong here.

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. [4]

Readers who need to "trust but verify" (i.e., to corroborate) for themselves that the experts' overwhelming opinion is exactly as stated above should read a document entitled "15 January 2003." (Find it by scrolling down approximately one-fourth of the way, after you've clicked onto this ES website: http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/bbiraqwar.htm "The Legality Of The Iraq War" .) Why?

That document was drafted and signed by the world's foremost international law experts -- the prestigious International Commission of International Law Jurists -- to provide ultimate proof of their authoritative opinion concerning the legal status of war against Iraq. Furthermore, this large body of eminent international law experts explicitly stated that they'd drafted their legal document in order to advise Messrs. Bush and Blair prior to the invasion: (1) that it would be blatantly illegal under international law for the Anglo-American belligerents to invade Iraq; and (2) that their joint decision as Commanders-in-Chief to commence hostilities would constitute prosecutable war crimes.

Skeptical readers who don't regard this highly-authoritative conclusion as an adequate answer are invited to undertake the legal reasoning for themselves at the ES website. Note that every applicable Article in the UN Charter, and every relevant UN Security Council Resolution, is cited and analyzed therein. And readers who continue to scroll down the ES website will find a succession of articles which summarize the opinions of noteworthy individual experts on international law. These, too, strongly confirm that the invasion of Iraq constituted an illegal war of aggression under international law. [5]

Finally, ambitious readers will learn what non-credible source was most responsible for propagating the fictitious pre-war claim that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon (hint: yet another uncredentialed neocon think-tanker from the thoroughly-discredited American Enterprise Institute).

Three Conclusions It is the overwhelming consensus of the world's foremost international law experts that: (1) UN Secretary General Annan's opinion is correct (i.e., true) because the Iraq War was, indeed, illegal; and

(2) the opinion of the "Coalition of the Willing's" leaders is incorrect (i.e., false) because their Iraq War was NOT legal.

(3) Therefore, Americans must break free of the neocons' self-delusional groupthink mentality by learning to differentiate between fact and truth, which are all-too-easily confused. For instance, it's an undeniable fact that Messrs. Bush and Cheney have been arguing along the campaign trail that "The Iraq War was legal!" Nevertheless, the mere fact that they've been vehemently arguing that point certainly does NOT make it true! Their argument is flawed by a logical fallacy called an ipse dixit (i.e., "something asserted but not proved"). As we've already seen, their argument is just plain WRONG AS A MATTER OF LAW! Therefore, Messrs. Bush and Cheney are making a false argument (i.e., deceptively asserting something that is untrue).

The Bottom Line Americans should reject the temptation to vote for Messrs. Bush and Cheney, because: (1) both men were advised beforehand that their decision to commence the invasion of Iraq would be blatantly illegal under international law; (2) they invaded nonetheless, and now they're cynically attempting to mislead the public again by falsely arguing that "The Iraq War was legal!"; (3) however, their argument is legally-meritless nonsense -- the current equivalent of their earlier false argument that torture is a legal method for the US military's interrogation of prisoners; (4) they've repeatedly demonstrated their disdain for universal human rights and democratic governance under the rule of law; and

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6917.htm

Experts tried for 4 hours to get the truck that was stuck under the overpass out - then a little boy suggested if you would just let the air out of the tires.........

pointless as is this war as most americans agree

Ah, but polls showed Americans supported the war 3 to 1 in early 2002.

We were lied to! WMD... Imminent danger... Link to 9/11...

No, that was proved to be true later......

None of it was proven true. It was all bull****.

Yes it was a great case study in brainwashing and propoganda however after the emotions of 911 settled cognative reasoning set it and now we are pissed we were so misled

Can everyone say O.....I......L......?????

If one's trade power gloabally is starting to look a little sketchy, if one's political leaders are meglomaniacs...

If one's whole concept of truth is based in smoke and mirrors..and that's how a nation is fed...

What can you expect, but NO truth on what Iraq was about.?

Ever heard the statement ...two sides to a story?

Wonder what iraq's version of the truth on the War in Iraq is...

OOPS communication error....The no was for your belief that the polls were 3 to 1 because of WMD Imminent danger link to 911

I meant that those things were proved after the polls were taken.....

Seven months prior to the September 11 attacks a Gallup poll showed that 52% would favor an invasion of Iraq while 42% would oppose it. [3] (Wikipedia)

Listen to Marshall Goering in the Nuremberg trials "It is natural for the common people to not want war but, after all, it is a country's leaders who determine policy and it is an easy matter to convince the people. Whether they have a voice or not, the people can always be made to do what their rulers wish. It's easy. All you have to do is tell them they are under attack and condemn the pacifists for their lack of patriotism and for exposing their country to danger".