Illegal Wars

[marharth]

The reason people say the Iraq war was illegal had to do with more then getting it approved by congress.

 

The actions done in the Iraq war, and the cause of the invasion is the reason people think it is illegal.

That being said, it seems that the wars were legal to GO INTO, but the actions done in Iraq may be considered illegal, and the true cause of the invasion may be considered illegal.

The situation in Libya seems legal for now due to the UN.

I must have missed when Obama presented his case to Congress and received approval under the War Powers Act. Once having gained such approval any conflict is constitutionally legal. The Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts have such legality but Libya ...not yet. BTW way the first two conflicts had UN resolutions sanctioning Coalition actions there.

I am saying the situation in Libya seems legal. I am not saying it is legal.

 

There is more to war legality then getting congress approval.

 

The US is acting under international laws to help its allies (get oil). I don't think its fair to say that it is illegal just yet.

 

We shouldn't be in Libya right now, and we shouldn't of gone to Iraq.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also off topic from my reply, I find it funny when people say "Libya and Iraq are the same!" then say they supported the Iraq war but not the no fly zone.

 

If they are the same you should support both of them right?

[csgators]

Also off topic from my reply, I find it funny when people say "Libya and Iraq are the same!" then say they supported the Iraq war but not the no fly zone.

 

Considering that the Iraq War really started when Iraq invaded Kuwait I wouldn't say they are the same. We already had troops committed to the no-fly in Iraq before the invasion. It is a very different situation in Libya where there is a very real chance we will end up with a new regime that supports al-Qaeda unless ground troops are committed to help pick the new government. For the record I did not and still do not support the war in Iraq, I just think there was a lot more justification for it than there is in Libya.

[Aurielius]

The reason people say the Iraq war was illegal had to do with more then getting it approved by congress.

 

The actions done in the Iraq war, and the cause of the invasion is the reason people think it is illegal.

That being said, it seems that the wars were legal to GO INTO, but the actions done in Iraq may be considered illegal, and the true cause of the invasion may be considered illegal.

The situation in Libya seems legal for now due to the UN.

I must have missed when Obama presented his case to Congress and received approval under the War Powers Act. Once having gained such approval any conflict is constitutionally legal. The Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts have such legality but Libya ...not yet. BTW way the first two conflicts had UN resolutions sanctioning Coalition actions there.

I am saying the situation in Libya seems legal. I am not saying it is legal.

 

There is more to war legality then getting congress approval.

 

The US is acting under international laws to help its allies (get oil). I don't think its fair to say that it is illegal just yet.

 

We shouldn't be in Libya right now, and we shouldn't of gone to Iraq.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also off topic from my reply, I find it funny when people say "Libya and Iraq are the same!" then say they supported the Iraq war but not the no fly zone.

 

If they are the same you should support both of them right?

I don't think that it's your purview to tell me when you think that I'm off topic..once again. I never said I supported the other conflicts but rather understand the rationale for engaging in them.

[marharth]

The reason people say the Iraq war was illegal had to do with more then getting it approved by congress.

 

The actions done in the Iraq war, and the cause of the invasion is the reason people think it is illegal.

That being said, it seems that the wars were legal to GO INTO, but the actions done in Iraq may be considered illegal, and the true cause of the invasion may be considered illegal.

The situation in Libya seems legal for now due to the UN.

I must have missed when Obama presented his case to Congress and received approval under the War Powers Act. Once having gained such approval any conflict is constitutionally legal. The Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts have such legality but Libya ...not yet. BTW way the first two conflicts had UN resolutions sanctioning Coalition actions there.

I am saying the situation in Libya seems legal. I am not saying it is legal.

 

There is more to war legality then getting congress approval.

 

The US is acting under international laws to help its allies (get oil). I don't think its fair to say that it is illegal just yet.

 

We shouldn't be in Libya right now, and we shouldn't of gone to Iraq.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also off topic from my reply, I find it funny when people say "Libya and Iraq are the same!" then say they supported the Iraq war but not the no fly zone.

 

If they are the same you should support both of them right?

I don't think that it's your purview to tell me when you think that I'm off topic..once again. I never said I supported the other conflicts but rather understand the rationale for engaging in them.

Sorry if I made it seem like I was saying you were off topic, not what I meant.

 

I was saying "Also off topic from my reply" to separate my reply to you from the following text that did not have to do with your reply.

[DeTomaso]

The eighteen-year-old Hamza bin Laden, successor of his father Osama in the military leadership of al-Qaeda is still operating in the eastern Pakistani provinces, the Pakistani secret service reports (Al Jazeera). That qualifies Gaddafi's statement fueling the 9/11 fears of the West on the actual influence of al Qaeda cells among the Libyan rebels. These cells are there, no doubt, but probably twice as many if not more you'll find sleeping in any European country, always equipped with a student ID card, waiting for the clarion call for action.

 

I doubt a role of al-Qaeda, even a minor one, in the battle for Libya. And because it has started as an Arab revolution by the people for the people we should not operate with troops on the ground, or it might end as the colonial remake of the West Gaddafi is writing on the wall.

[evilneko]

I must have missed when Obama presented his case to Congress and received approval under the War Powers Act.

 

He hasn't, yet. He may not ever plan to do so, as he seems to think the engagement will be brief. The War Powers Act doesn't require Congressional authorization unless the forces are to remain longer than 60 days.

 

He's headed for another situation like Clinton got into with the Bosnia/Serbia/Yugoslavia conflict, though IIRC that never came to anything.

 

I'd support the Libya campaign more than Iraq. Bush went into Iraq under false pretenses and (obviously) without a good plan for the aftermath (he should've asked his father why he didn't kick Saddam out back then...). In Libya, the Libyan people, the UN, and the Arab League have asked for our help. We're there in support of people fighting to get out from under an oppressive regime--much like the French were here for us in our own revolution.

[Aurielius]

I must have missed when Obama presented his case to Congress and received approval under the War Powers Act.

 

He hasn't, yet. He may not ever plan to do so, as he seems to think the engagement will be brief. The War Powers Act doesn't require Congressional authorization unless the forces are to remain longer than 60 days.

 

He's headed for another situation like Clinton got into with the Bosnia/Serbia/Yugoslavia conflict, though IIRC that never came to anything.

 

I'd support the Libya campaign more than Iraq. Bush went into Iraq under false pretenses and (obviously) without a good plan for the aftermath (he should've asked his father why he didn't kick Saddam out back then...). In Libya, the Libyan people, the UN, and the Arab League have asked for our help. We're there in support of people fighting to get out from under an oppressive regime--much like the French were here for us in our own revolution.

LOL..sorry but if you see an exit strategy with our involvement in Libya, please elucidate to me. This engagement lacks even the short planning that the Gulf War's had; it's military objectives are vague, for insurgents that we know almost nothing about and whose actual military potential or command structure is laughable at best. They (the rebels) are a disaffected rabble not an military force in the field, with Afghanistan at least we had the Northern Alliance and in Iraq the Kurds. Other than the virtue ( to you) of being initiated by the left, it has no clear short term military goals that make tactical sense much less an exit strategy.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Aurielius

[grannywils]

If I am understanding the last two posts, they seem to have more to do with military strategy than with the legality of this war vs. the Iraqui war. I'm not complaining, just making sure I understand. I'm not into war at all, so do not understand some of the tactics that are frequently discussed here. But I do want to say that I do not believe for one minute that there was any planning for our removal from the Gulf War, and we still seem to be fighting it. Those who got us into it shouting "shock and awe" have tiptoed quietly away, and we are all still paying the price in lives and debt. I still have no idea (based on what I've been told by our government and our media) what's its military objectives were. As far as this latest "military action" is concerned, I am certain that what Aurielius says regarding the forces with whom we have chosen to take sides is correct. They no doubt lack experience, man power and equipment. That's why they invited us, would be my guess. However, right, left or in between, in my opinion there is no virtue (Aurielius' word) in our presence in it; whether or not it has short term military goals or a clear exit strategy. We need to stop trying to solve the problems of the world and see if we can get our own worked out. I'm not talking about Isolationism. I'm talking about reality, folks. We cannot afford this anymore on so many levels. I believe we have a military now that thinks it is playing video games, but they are playing with the lives of our young people and those of nations around the world. If we are going to go to war, it has to mean something. This is not a schoolyard. Ok, I will stop ranting. This is the wrong thread for that. Sorry.

[stars2heaven]

At least he didn't enter the war on false pretenses. :rolleyes:

 

Sorry to change the topic, I know this thread has moved on, but I thought this statement deserved a little more discussion than it got. First off, I'm a staunch liberal and voted for Obama. Just saying this to show that what I'm about to say does not come from any sort of feeling of NEED to contradict everything that man does like some people seem to have.

 

Anyways, I found his comments regarding the need for military action to prevent a humanitarian disaster completely disingenuous. If our agenda there were entirely moral then I could name a dozen other places around the world where people are being massacred that we could have sent our military to intervene that barely even got a mention in the media. Second, history has shown that imposing no-fly-zones doesnt prevent the winning side from massacring the other side just as they intended to in the first place.

 

When you look at what we have done in places like Iraq and Libya and the reasons we have been given for those actions, they do not make much sense when considering places where we have done nothing at all.

 

As a result, I do think we have gone to Libya under false pretences. It's just a little bit more convenient to say that it's for moral reasons than to give the real reasons that might be less desirable to hear.

[csgators]

As a result, I do think we have gone to Libya under false pretences. It's just a little bit more convenient to say that it's for moral reasons than to give the real reasons that might be less desirable to hear.

 

I agree. Are we now going to go in to the Ivory Coast where 1,000 bodies have been discovered? The French seem to be thinking about it. All the while NATO wants us to kill more Libyans.

Edited April 3, 2011 by csgators