CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:40
Arguments:34
Total Votes:42
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 The war in Iraq was legal (28)

Debate Creator

Jody(1356) pic



The war in Iraq was legal


Malcolm Shaw QC
Professor of international law, Leicester University

Was the war in Iraq legal? "On the basis of the intelligence we had at the time and the publicly available knowledge, there was a credible and reasonable argument in favour of the legality of the war. The authorisation to use force in [UN resolution] 678 included the restoration of international peace and security as well as the liberation of Kuwait. Resolution 687, after the 1991 ceasefire, included getting rid of... weapons of mass destruction. 

The run of resolutions after that shows there was still backing for it in the security council. The possession of such weapons constituted a threat to international peace and security. Resolution 1441 [in 2002] reiterated that. It was the common belief of the security council that Iraq had such weapons, and that they constituted a breach of binding resolutions. We know [from the Blix report] that Iraq did not fully cooperate. Through that period there was a long series of security council resolutions condemning the Iraqis for what was believed to be their possession of WMD."

Add New Argument
3 points

https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/57826901dd0895c3488b47b0-750-563.jpg

"Legal?" - Blair

"Yeah, let's say it's that." - Bush Jr.

Jody(1356) Clarified
0 points

Yes legal Ming................................................................

3 points

The war in Iraq was legal

Hello J:

Nahhh.. We were lied into it..

excon

Jody(1356) Clarified
0 points

We were lied into it.

Who lied to you? Why did they lie to you?

excon(13179) Clarified
3 points

Who lied to you? Why did they lie to you

Hello J:

Cheney lied to me.. Why??? I guess he wanted to go to war.

Look.. If he didn't lie, where ARE those WMD's?

excon

PS> If you're asking whether I believed him or not, of course I did.. Who would think their government would LIE them into a devastating war? But, of course, when NO WMD's were found, the truth became evident - at least to me.

0 points

Nahhh.. We were lied into it..

Perhaps, but we were lied into Libya, Syria and ISIS being the JV team as well, eh Con?

Not enough warring going on nowadays though to even mention, eh Con?

excon(13179) Disputed
2 points

Perhaps, but we were lied into Libya, Syria and ISIS being the JV team as well, eh Con?

Hello again, bront:

Try to focus... THIS debate is about Iraq..

What's INTERESTING, though, is IF we didn't illegally invade Iraq there wouldn't BE an ISIS...

DUDE!

ecxon

3 points

You can make the case that it was "legal", just about as easily as you can make the case that Trump's "obstruction of justice" was legal. The legality was based on LIES, the "intelligence" ("that was available to the public at the time"), made it legal, but was also based on lies …. exactly like today.

Then, there's the morality. Neither situation was moral. If it's based on lies, it's immoral. :-)

Hootie(661) Disputed
2 points

The legality was based on LIES, the "intelligence" ("that was available to the public at the time"), made it legal, but was also based on lies …. exactly like today.

Well said, Alfie. The Bush Administration looked at the rules and from there sat down and worked out how they could lie the country into the war they wanted. But that still didn't make the war legal, anymore than inventing a false alibi makes killing a shop clerk legal. The US was legally obliged to obtain a UN resolution authorising military action and it did not obtain that resolution. Hence, the war was illegal.

Jody(1356) Disputed
1 point

The war was perfectly legal and necessary the U S owe nothing lest of all respect to to a deeply corrupt organization who oil for food program was an absolute scandal ......

.FOR over a year, investigators have pored over questions of mismanagement and corruption at the United Nations. On Monday August 8th, they produced their firmest—and most painful—conclusions to date. An independent commission has found that Benon Sevan, the former head of the UN's oil-for-food programme in Iraq, “corruptly benefited” from kickbacks while he was in charge. Another UN official, from the procurement office, is accused of soliciting bribes. The UN's biggest-ever humanitarian undertaking seems to have become its biggest-ever scandal.

A harsh light began to shine on Mr Sevan after his name appeared on documents found in Iraq after the American-led invasion of 2003. Under the programme he ran, Iraq, though shackled by trade sanctions, could sell oil to buy food and medicine for its people. But the Iraqis negotiated the right to choose buyers and sellers in the programme. This gave Saddam Hussein's government the ability to use oil concessions as a way to buy friends and influence. Among those alleged to have been bribed with oil vouchers are several European politicians

2 points

Can't agree with you on this one.

The aggressors of very act of war could claim to have been justified by simply declaring that they had acted on false information.

Just as the west claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, so Hitler claimed that the invasion of Poland was a consequence of Polish aggression known as the Gleiwitz incident.

Hootie(661) Disputed
1 point

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1406490/Long-list-of-Saddams-violations.html

It does not matter which resolutions Saddam violated you stupid, ridiculously hypocritical halfwit. Military action is always illegal without a specific UN resolution authorising it in any situation where both parties are member states.

Israel has violated more resolutions than any state in UN history you sneering Jew hypocrite. Why aren't you campaigning for the invasion of Israel, twat?

Amarel(4987) Disputed
1 point

Their resolutions aren’t conditions of a cease fire with the US. Iraq broke those conditions. The US needs to seek UN approval reasons only of diplomacy. Which is what we do. It’s optional. If you think not, tell me about UN consequences.

1 point

Your lawyer obviously hasn't read the UN Charter, has he?

The UN Charter reads in article 2(4): All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.

This rule was "enshrined in the United Nations Charter in 1945 for a good reason: to prevent states from using force as they felt so inclined", said Louise Doswald-Beck, Secretary-General International Commission of Jurists.[1]

The law is absolutely clear that it was illegal. Your lawyer mentions "the intelligence we had at the time" because he wants to retroactively legalise an illegal act on the basis that we were lied into it. If you tell me my girlfriend has killed my mother and I believe you and strangle her, that does not make the act legal, does it?

1 point

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament threatened a legal challenge against the government in 2002 if it went to war without a second security council resolution. Several lawyers and Kofi Annan, the then UN secretary general, are among those who have since described the invasion as illegal.

The original advice by the UK attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, was indeed that a war without a second resolution would be illegal, but Chilcot highlights the fact that by the time Goldsmith gave a subsequent oral statement he appears, mysteriously, to have changed his mind.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/07/blair-chilcot-war-in-iraq-not-blunder-crime