CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
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."
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.
Did Hans Blix lie to you? Because he is the one who reported he was not being granted the full access required of Iraq per the cease fire. “Cease fire”, is not a permanent condition. It relies on certain terms being met. Saddam was in constant breach of most of those conditions. Just to be sure though, the UN had yet another resolution and found that, yep Saddam still isn’t abiding by terms of the cease fire.
It’s really not as though the VP lied and everyone got on board, including every single intelligence agency and Congress.
Interesting you believed it fully at the time but changed your mind to fit with a new revised narrative
Hello again, J:
Nahhh.. I changed my mind when the FACTS ON THE GROUND didn't support it..
Look.. I fought in Vietnam because I BELIEVED what my leaders told me.. When the facts on the ground didn't support it, I changed my mind.. You wouldn't?? Some people are so fucking rigid that facts ON THE GROUND won't change their minds.. We have some of those people here..
Nahhh.. I changed my mind when the FACTS ON THE GROUND didn't support it..
But you said Cheney wanted to go to war why ?
Look.. I fought in Vietnam because I BELIEVED what my leaders told me.. When the facts on the ground didn't support it, I changed my mind.. You wouldn't??
I change my mind on something if a convincing argument is put forward , your government acted on intelligence it had at the time , what should they have done?
Some people are so fucking rigid that facts ON THE GROUND won't change their minds.. We have some of those people here..
Yes you’re right , people that believe alternative facts
your government acted on intelligence it had at the time , what should they have done? why ?
Hello again, Jody:
Manipulated intelligence ISN'T intelligence. It's propaganda.. Cheney MANIPULATED the INTELLIGENCE.. The PROOF is that we didn't FIND any WMD's..
Plus, there was plenty of evidence to the contrary.. The United Nations weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, SAID so. He was in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. Prior to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Ritter stated that Iraq possessed no significant weapons of mass destruction..
Scott Ritter was a nobody.. Dick Cheney was the most powerful man in the world..
Who manipulated intelligence and for what reason? How is one meant to tell if intelligence is propaganda.? You did admit you believed your government at the time didn’t you?
Cheney MANIPULATED the INTELLIGENCE.. The PROOF is that we didn't FIND any WMD's..
Did he indeed? That’s not proof that’s called new information after the fact
Plus, there was plenty of evidence to the contrary.. The United Nations weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, SAID so. He was a weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. Prior to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Ritter stated that Iraq possessed no significant weapons of mass destruction..
Scott Ritter was a nobody..
Do you think our leaders should take into account the words of as you put it “nobodies”?
Dick Cheney was the most powerful man in the world
Well it WAS Cheney. Who knows why? Some say it was because Saddam put out a contract on Poppy Bush.. Some say we should have DESTROYED Saddam for invading Kuwaiti.. Maybe he actually believed he could make them democratic.. Maybe he wanted to change laws against torture.. I dunno.. He's a bad guy.. I don't know what makes him tick..
Look.. I'm not in to your long winded paragraph by paragraph arguments.. So, I'm not gonna engage you.. Save those for nom. I'll just ask you ONE question..
Did the invasion of Iraq turn out to be good thing or a bad thing?
Some say it was because Saddam put out a contract on Poppy Bush.. Some say we should have DESTROYED Saddam for invading Kuwaiti..
Some say? They say? right got ya
Maybe he actually believed he could make them democratic.. Maybe he wanted to change laws against torture.. I dunno.. He's a bad guy.. I don't know what makes him tick..
Maybe , maybe , I don’t know .....oookay as I thought
Look.. I'm not in to your long winded paragraph by paragraph arguments.. So, I'm not gonna engage you.. I'll just ask you ONE question..
Long winded , it’s less the size of yours by half as half the words are yours ,I agree you are a tad long winded ...translation......You only have maybe , dunno , who knows
Did the invasion of Iraq turn out to be good thing or a bad thing?
It was necessary and considering if it hadn’t happened think about this
.....Tony Blair, then the prime minister of the United Kingdom and a key U.S. ally at the time of the invasion, recently told the BBC, "If we hadn't removed Saddam from power just think, for example, what would be happening if these Arab revolutions were continuing now and Saddam, who's probably 20 times as bad as Assad in Syria, was trying to suppress an uprising in Iraq? Think of the consequences of leaving that regime in power."
Why does any president lie to go to war? Why did Nixon lie about his secret plan to end the war in Vietnam? Why did JFK lie about a ship being attacked so he could go to war? Why did GW Bush send an army to Afghanistan, when company of special forces could have done the job??
So, I don't have an answer as to why Cheney lied to get us into a war? If you wanna make me the bad guy for not knowing what's in his dark heart, I'm good with that.
One thing the above makes abundantly clear, is that our founding fathers were RIGHT when they gave CONGRESS, and ONLY Congress, the power to declare war..
Why does any president lie to go to war? Why did Nixon lie about his secret plan to end the war in Vietnam? Why did JFK lie about a ship being attacked so he could go to war? Why did GW Bush send an army to Afghanistan, when company of special forces could have done the job??
So, I don't have an answer as to why Cheney lied to get us into a war? If you wanna make me the bad guy for not knowing what's in his dark heart, I'm good with that.
I’m not making you a bad guy I’m asking you a question not one of yous can answer the why?
You really think countries want to go to war but you don’t know why?
One thing the above makes abundantly clear, is that our founding fathers were RIGHT when they gave CONGRESS, and ONLY Congress, the power to declare war..
Think of the consequences of leaving that regime in power.
Hello again, Jody:
I do.. Saddam was a Sunni Muslim.. ISIS is Shia.. If we left Saddam in charge there would have been NO ISIS, 4,000 Americans and 100's of 1,000's of Iraqi's wouldn't have been killed..
That would be a preferred outcome. George W. Bush, not only broke the economy, with Darth Cheney's help, he shattered the Middle East.
I do.. Saddam was a Sunni Muslim.. ISIS is Shia.. If we left Saddam in charge there would have been NO ISIS, 4,000 Americans and 100's of 1,000's of Iraqi's wouldn't have been killed..
That would be a preferred outcome. George W. Bush, not only broke the economy, with Darth Cheney's help, he shattered the Middle East.
Fabulous solution leave Saddam in charge , maybe we should have adapted that attitude towards Hitler in World War Two?
What's INTERESTING, though, is IF we didn't illegally invade Iraq there wouldn't BE an ISIS.
And if you didn't fund, train and finance the Mujahideen there would be no al Qaeda, or indeed any such thing as fundamentalist Islam in the first place. US leaders have always loved people like Jody, because he buys into all their bullshit without a second thought. He's an obnoxiously stupid idiot (a bit like yourself in fact, but for different reasons).
"As early as June 1979, and perhaps earlier, the United States had already commenced a series of covert operations in Afghanistan designed to exploit the potential for social conflict." (Ahmed 2005, p7)
"Agence France Press reported that the United States launched a covert operation to bolster anti-communist guerrillas in Afghanistan at least six months prior to the 1979 Soviet invasion of the country." (Ahmed 2005, p7)
"Central to the US-sponsored operation was the attempt to manufacture an extremist religious ideology by amalgamating local Afghan feudal traditions with Islamic rhetoric." (Ahmed 2005, p8)
AHMED, NAFEEZ MOSADDEQ, 2005, The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation And The Anatomy Of Terrorism. Moreton-In-Marsh, Gloucestershire, England: Arris Publishing Ltd.
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. :-)
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
Gibberish , read it again and weep ..... "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."
That’s enough to justify the war , it’s amazing you shriek at what’s legal and illegal in an attempt to bolster your rabid hatred of the US you mocked and pissed on the memories of those in 9/11 and again blamed the Americans who planned the whole thing with of course the help Jews , you’re like a broken record and need a couple of new arguments
The UN literally does not matter. Broken resolutions don’t matter. The reason Iraq’s resolutions mattered to the US (though not much to the UN) is because they were specifically terms of a cease fire with the US. The UN as more than a diplomacy tool is a fiction.
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?
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.