Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

6 Bumps

Why was Iraq illegal?

You are saying that Obama is legal in Libya because of the coalition, yet Bush had twice as many coalition forces and support as Obama does with Libya. Plus Bush had authorization from Congress and majority support of the nation.

Coalition Countries - Iraq - 2003

Afghanistan,
Albania
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Hungary
Italy
Japan
South Korea
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Philippines
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
Uzbekistan

Coalition - Libya - 2011

United States
France
United Kingdom
Italy
Canada
Belgium
Denmark
Norway
Qatar
Spain
Greece
Germany
Poland
Jordan
Morocco
Qatar
United Arab Emirate


Answer Question
 
Carpy

Asked by Carpy at 5:01 PM on Mar. 21, 2011 in Politics & Current Events

Level 39 (114,053 Credits)
Answers (36)
  • Bush sent troops independent of the UN. He made it a US- Iraq issue instead of it being a "Hussein is a psychotic leader that needs to be stopped by the world" issue.

    THAT is where Bush screwed up. He didn't wait for the UN.

    Aside from that can't we just stop trying to compare Bush and Obama?! It's useless, pointless and just goes nowhere!
    meandrphoto

    Answer by meandrphoto at 5:05 PM on Mar. 21, 2011

  • I didn't know it was. A lot of dems wanted to go to war in Afghanistan.
    lovinangels

    Answer by lovinangels at 5:05 PM on Mar. 21, 2011

  • THAT is where Bush screwed up. He didn't wait for the UN.


     


    Neither did Clinton. We are not bound to the UN we are a Sovereign Nation

    Carpy

    Comment by Carpy (original poster) at 5:08 PM on Mar. 21, 2011

  • Carpy, (I am totally open to being corrected, by the way), my memory of Iraq was that UN did not grant us approval to declare war, but we did it anyway. They were against us going in.

    That being said, Bush acted constituionally, as well. He felt as if US was under imminent threat, and acted accordingly to that perception. The problem was only an international one, though, because we acted against "international" will which makes us a little "wishy-washy" in their eyes.

    Both presidents, though, have been completely legal and "constitutional".

    Half joke: Clinton could get away with alot more because everyone wanted to get in his pants . . . LOL!
    ImaginationMama

    Answer by ImaginationMama at 5:10 PM on Mar. 21, 2011

  • my memory of Iraq was that UN did not grant us approval to declare war, but we did it anyway. They were against us going in.


     


    Do we abide by our own concience or that of the UN?  If we need UN approval what is the purpose of our constitution?  We do not as a nation live by the dictates of the UN or any other body aside from our own constitution.

    Carpy

    Comment by Carpy (original poster) at 5:11 PM on Mar. 21, 2011

  • IMO~ The question is International Law vs. US Constitution and which one the President of the United States holds a higher allegiance to.
    Iraq has been called illegal because of international law violations (even though it had support in the US by Democrats and Republicans in congress)
    Libya is being questioned as illegal under the US constitution (by Democrats and Republicans)

    In the end, it comes down to semantics and the definition of "war"
    grlygrlz2

    Answer by grlygrlz2 at 5:15 PM on Mar. 21, 2011

  • – collapse
    Neither did Clinton. We are not bound to the UN we are a Sovereign Nation
    >>>>
    So is Iraq and Libya. Invading a sovereign nation with out provocation is without exception, wrong.
    adnilm

    Answer by adnilm at 5:16 PM on Mar. 21, 2011 (hidden) + expand

  • It is better to have approval. We live in this world amoung a lot of other major players, and in order to keep our global status, we must play by world rules as much as we can.

    In instances where there was disagreement, such as with Bush, we act as we feel we must to remain safe.

    We follow both our own rules, and the world rules, just as a family follows its own rules, as well as societies. Depending on the situation, we do what we feel is best for us and the world.
    ImaginationMama

    Answer by ImaginationMama at 5:16 PM on Mar. 21, 2011

  • Iraq was only "illegal" according to liberals, because they didn't like Bush. Liberals still love Obama, so it's all good, and he's allowed to make up and circumvent "the rules" as he sees fit.
    LoriKeet

    Answer by LoriKeet at 5:24 PM on Mar. 21, 2011

  • My personal opinion, we were attacked by Al Queda which was based in Afganistan. That had more precedence than looking for "WMD's" that didnt exist in Iraq. We should have waited for the UN to back us. Not only that, what made the conflict in Iraq so controversial is the method in which we went in. We INVADED a country that had done nothing to the US. I'm not saying Hussein shouldnt have been brought down, but there was a better way we could have done so. Not to mention there were so many Geneva violations in each conflict.
    ArmyWifeAshlie

    Answer by ArmyWifeAshlie at 5:27 PM on Mar. 21, 2011

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.