Home > Politics, News & Issues > US Politics > US Leaders
Created on: June 30, 2007
The invasion of Iraq in 2003 has created a political crisis, largely because it has bogged down into a situation where many of our troops are being killed. What has remained largely unsaid is the toll taken on Iraqi civilians. Their deaths have been "accepted" as something that simply happens in war. However, once you see that the invasion itself was certainly illegal, those deaths take on a new meaning. They can be described as nothing short of murder.
The UN Charter is very explicit concerning the use of force. In Article 2, section 3, it states that, "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered." Section 4 continues the requirements - "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."
Our action in Iraq is, on the face of it, a direct violation of these requirements. However, critics of this argument state that 11 UN resolutions passed since the first Gulf War required Iraq to allow inspection, and so on, that it openly violated. Yet the Security Council never authorized force against Iraq - this action was taken by the US alone.
Another common criticism is the inherent right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN charter. This applies even when there is an "imminent threat" of invasion or any other reason to believe that we were defending ourselves. It is important to note that while many think President Bush used this key phrase, "imminent threat" in the 2003 State of the Union address, what he actually said was, "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late." In short, Bush made it clear that this standard did not apply.
There is little doubt that the UN Charter forbids the invasion of another nation without UN approval. Indeed, Kofi Annan said as much in an interview with the BBC on September 14, 2004: "When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: 'Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter
Below are the top articles rated and ranked by Helium members on:
Judging George Bush's performance as president
by James Boyd
George W. Bush achieved the same degree of success as President that he has attained in all of his previous endeavors; failure.
What will the legacy of George W. Bush be? Leaving office with bleak approval ratings, and hostile media, the current and
As a president, George W. Bush has given us all great reason to dislike him, but even greater reason to distrust him. How
by Ben Cramer
From a Canadian perspective, George W. Bush has been a great president. On foreign policy, he has made advancements in trade
by Peter Stern
There are many charges Democrats could file against Pres. George Walker Bush - but they won’t. If you or I did
View All Articles on: Judging George Bush's performance as president
Helium Debate
Cast your vote!
Is Media Matters breaking the law in its 'war' on Fox News?
Click for your side.
Featured Partner
The Responsibility Project is the brainchild of Liberty Mutual Insurance. As an insurance company, we like responsible people. Because people who believe in doing the right thing don't just make better people, they make better custome...more