What percentage of Americans believe Iraq War was illegal and pre-emptive?

We have seen polls that show 70% of Americans believe Saddam was behind the attacks of 9/11. With those types of poll numbers, how can we believe that the public is informed enough to know the arguments against the invasion of Iraq, such as the illegality, the pre-emptive strategy, and the lies behind the invasion? Quite the opposite, should we not assume that the public is not informed about this war and the reasons for going to war? How can we believe any polls by the media with numbers such as the 70% above? How can they not be informed on such a basic fact and expected to be informed on other matters relating to the invasion of Iraq? In fact, how can we believe any polls relating to Iraq that is from the major media sources?

Well kentuk, in our house that would be 100%

Our house too all of us believe it was immoral and the ends don't justify the means.

Anyone who does not is considered an Enemy of the State.

to show how the corporate controlled media is failing in providing the public with accurate information. If the public can be so disinformed about something as big as 9/11 they can be disinformed easier on less critical issues.

But then again 95% of Americans believe the world was created in 7 days when a crusty old bearded fart cast his majic spell.

"Know a tyrant, he will deprive you of information"--Voltaire.

With the polls, our argument is with the media. They have failed to inform the people. How else could one interpret the 70% poll figures? Yes, they could say that the Administration was very good with their propaganda but that is an admission of failure also because their job is to counter such propaganda.

Framing your case this way is something you could get, well, into the Press. It does not come off as a partisan issue. Sixty minutes did something on this, but they did not beg the all important larger question: how can the US be so ill-informed on such a vital issue with a "Free Press"?

Answer: Something is seriously wrong with the "Free Press" and, because the bias is slanted in favor of what Bush wants the public to believe to further his case for war, you can argue against the Press as being "Liberal" as well.


Excellent topic. I'm bookmarking this topic.

You really can fool all the people all the time.

Frankly, I consider the invasion of Iraq to be preemptive, but not actually illegal. Wrong, certainly. Misguided, definately, but not illegal. ergo, the strict answer to your question is: no.

?? Please explain further. Pre-emptive attacks based on lies and not in self-defense are "illegal". I don't see how you could argue otherwise?

was violated by this continuation of hostilities?

Which states that no nation may unilaterally attack another nation? That is why we went to war in Gulf War I, correct? If it was wrong for Saddam to do it, why is it correct for us to do it? As for "continuing hostilities", what nation divided Iraq into thirds with no-fly zones over the northern third and southern parts of the country? What nation imposed sanctions that created hardships and starved many Iraqis for 10 years? As for not "complying" with UN sanctions, the UN did have inspectors in that country for many years after Gulf War I and destroyed many, many weapons. In fact, they destroyed many more than our military occupation has done. It was an illegal invasion by all world standards. There was no threat of an "imminent" attack. Our leaders lied about WMDs, etc. What more reasons do you need before you can say it was "illegal"?

Which says:

UN Charter, Section 1, Article 2, Items 3 & 4

3 All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

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, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

And the UN Charter DOES matter. At least it does according to the US Constitution, Article VI:

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Which means, that violating a treaty signed by the President and ratified by Congress (which the Charter was...the US wrote most of it, for God's sake) is the same as violating a law passed by Congress.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors (and probably Felonies...).

I had not heard it explained quite so clearly before...

It's very difficult to make a legimate, rational argument that the invasion of Iraq was illegal. It could be justified as a resumtion of hostilities following Iraq's failure to comply with the provisions of the cease-fire agreements that halted Gulf War I or as an attempt to enforce the many U.N. resolutions. One may not agree with the rationale but that does not make the war illegal.

Secondly, what is inherently wrong with a pre-emptive war? Was the U.S. attacked by Cuba before we enforced the blockade during the Missle Crisis? Blockades are by definition acts of war. That was certainly a pre-emptive act and, incidently, one taken unilaterally. I certainly don't remember the French or German navy playing a role in that action. Was the recent U.S. invasion of Haiti (done to effect regime change) pre-emptive? If not, what form did Haiti's provocation take? Arguing against the Iraqi war because it was "pre-emptive" is a very weak reed.

It is up to the UN. Many nations have not abided by UN resolutions. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a horse of a different color. We had "proof" that missiles were in Cuba. We didn't just "think" they were there. We had photographs. We had no such proof of WMDs and nuclear materials in Iraq. That is comparing apples and oranges, I think.

we were simply enforcing the cease fire that ended GWI that the Iraqi government had shown no desire to comply with. we were certainly within our rights to do so.

OK, the Cuban Missle Crisis was different because we had "proof". Now explain to me how the existence of missles there justified our unilateral, pre-emptive act of war (blockade) against Cuba.

For extra credit, explain why whatever justification you offer made our actions "legal".

I'm not trying to get into a flame war. I'm just pointing out that the U.S. has acted militarily many, many times in a pre-emptive and/or unilateral fashion under Republican and Democratic administrations. This does not necessarily make the Iraqi war right and proper, but it certainly does mean that it is not unique in our history.

The many claims by DU-ers that the Iraqi war is somehow different from anything that has gone before indicates either an appalling lack of historical perspective or an large dose of intellectual dishonesty. Either way, such claimes dramatically undermine the credibility of those who seek to criticize the war. There are ample reasons to oppose the war without citing bogus ones like "pre-emptive" and "unilateral".

All nations have a right to self defense. In the case where missiles are pointed at your nation, you have a right to a pre-emptive strike. You do not have the right to lie and make up threats that do not exist as a pretense to go to war or to invade another country.

Iraq is not "unique" in our history? When was the last time we invaded a country that was not a threat to us? You may accuse others of "intellectual dishonesty" but I think you may need to look in the mirror. If you want a good cool drink of water, you got to dig a little deeper in the well.

To answer the question, "When was the last time we invaded a country that was not a threat to us?":

Well, let's see:
How about Haiti a few years back?
Before then how about Panama?
And before that say, Grenada?
And before that the Dominican Republic?
And before that, ....well, you get the idea.

and not on a par with the invasion of Iraq. And how many lives did we lose in all those "invasions"? We still adhere to the Monroe Doctrine in our hemnisphere with or without UN sanctions. By the way, do you recall the UN reactions to any of these "invasions"? Why did not the whole world turn against us as they have with Iraq?

You asked for examples where we had recently invaded a country that was no threat to us. I provided 4, one from the Clinton Administration, one from Bush I, one from Reagan and one from Johnson.

Now you tell me that those were not "invasions" but "police actions".

Could you please elaborate on the difference? I'm putting together a simple table to see if I can spot the difference

Action.......Pres......did U.S. troops....reason for action
.......................enforce policy by
.......................military means?
-------......---------....------..........------------------
Iraq.........Bush II........Y..............regime change
Haiti........Clinton........Y..............regime change
Panama.......Bush I.........Y..............regime change
Grenada......Reagan.........Y..............regime change
Dominican R..Johnson........Y..............regime change

Could you please add a column entitled "some thing which differentiates these in principle" to help me understand the difference. Note that size of force involved or casulties taken or inflicted are not differences in principle, only in detail.

And please remember, I'm not trying to justify the Iraqi war. I'm just pointing out that criticizing as somehow unique due to pre-emtptiveness or unilaterialism is historically inaccurate.

As to why the world criticized some of these actions and not others, I don't know. I seem to remember the OAS had a few words of condemnation regarding the Dominican Republic. Why did the world largely welcome the "peace in our time" proclamation by Neville Chamberlain? Why did the world not act to stop Italy's brutal campaign in Somilia? We have to face the fact that, in hindsight, world opinion is often terribly wrong. Maybe that is the case now, maybe not. Only history can judge.

Simply going into another's country could by definition be called an "invasion". Or we may call them "police actions" or "wars". I do not wish to partake in that game. I will give you the point that we have been guilty of invasions, police actions, and wars in the past. However, I do think Iraq is different, even if by degrees. Such as 98.6 compared to 212 degrees. At one, you can boil to death.

Grenada, as I recall was to "rescue" some American medical students. However, many thought it was to get the attention away from Reagan's disaster in Beirut where 247 Marines were killed just a few days before? Panama? Yeah, we knew that Noriega was a two-bit criminal and we didn't like the way he waved his machete on the TV...so Poppy took him out, even though he had worked with our CIA for years.

Haiti, Dominican Republic? Hardly serious threats but we did need to send in the Marines to take care of business. However, I don't recall that we were asked to spend $87 billion to rebuild any of these countries? So, although they may similar in the military interdictions, they are quite different in the money and lives that are being expended. And they are very different in the geo-political threats they engender in that part of the world. And we never had to go to the UN to ask for help in Grenada or Haiti...

I would differ with you on Vietnam and Korea. I would add the disclaimer "unless requested or due to treaty obligation" to your definition of an invasion as "Simply going into another's country". Our military went into South Korea at the request of the South Korean government and the same is true for South Vietnam. While reasonable people can disagree as to the wisdom of either of those two actions I would hardly label them as invasions in the same sense as what we did in Iraq, Panama, Haiti or Grenada. None of those countries reuested our involvement, nor was any of them activly engaged in hostilities with any or our allies.

To address your other point, while we may not have spent $87 billion to rebuild Haiti we did foot the bill for a lot of reconstruction and infrastructure development there. I may be wrong but I think we are still spending money there. Likewise, I think we are still paying for our presence in the former Yugoslavia.

I agree with you that "Iraq is different, even if by degrees." That is pretty much the point I was trying to make, the ONLY difference is one of degree. In other words the Iraqi war did not signal some new policy or set any sort of precedent. I must say that those who object vociferously to the Iraqi invasion but meekly acquiesed to that of Haiti because of a difference "by degrees" seem to be saying that pre-emptive, unilateral military action to topple regimes we don't like is OK, so long as the cost is cheap - hardly a position that reflects a principled stand.

Lastly, as to your point that "we never had to go to the UN to ask for help in Grenada or Haiti..." I'm glad that you agree with me that those actions were unilateral in nature, precisely the point I was trying to make earlier.

Since 70% of the people believed Saddam was behind 9/11, what credence can we put to any polls having to do with Iraq?

WASHINGTON - The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq violates the basic rules of the United Nations Charter requiring countries to exhaust all peaceful means of maintaining global security before taking military action, and permitting the use of force in self-defense only in response to actual or imminent attack, two U.S. legal groups said Thursday.

The U.N. Security Council's refusal to approve a resolution proposed by the United States, Britain and Spain clarified that the weapons inspection process initiated by Security Council Resolution 1441 last November should have been permitted to continue before military action could be authorized, added The Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy (LCNP) and the Western States Legal Foundation (WSLF).

The two groups, the U.S. affiliates of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA), supported an open letter signed by 31 Canadian international law professors released Wednesday that called a U.S. attack against Iraq "a fundamental breach of international law (that) would seriously threaten the integrity of the international legal order that has been in place since the end of the Second World War."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0321-10.htm

with his comments about France and Russia...This Administartion evidently did not exhaust all means for resolution and made no serious attempt. Their trips to the UN were covered with lies from Colin Powell and George W Bush.

I believed that it was wrong from the get-go.

killing 1000's of Iraqi citizens is illegal.. and done on a bunch of lies . Put whatever spin you want on 'pre-emption' and 'illegal war' but all the acts from the maiming of one innocent child from a cluster bomb to dozens dying from a missille is 'illegal' to me, no matter what anyone says

check the latest polls

70%?? I doubt that is the case now.