Whatever Happened to Saddam's Report to the United Nations?

[Solomon]

When Iraq produced it's report to the UN as required by the UN Resolution, the media, right away trounced on it as totally unreliable. Iraq had been so demonized, that no one took their report seriously.

Since it turned out that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, doesn't that make Iraq's Report totally compliant with UN mandates, especially so in the case where, as here, they had allowed in the inspectors to verify their report?

Did we commit war crimes against Iraq?

[struggle4progress]

1. Dandy question! Don't know.

Remember that foreign press story about a year ago that USA had PO'd the UN by seizing copies of the declaration and providing only censored copies? Got a Senator or Congressperson willing to track it down for you?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

2. What do you mean?

OF COURSE the US committed a war crime by invading Iraq. There was NO THREAT to the US from Iraq, which was even admitted BEFORE the war by the Bush cabal. All that the war was based on was a possible FUTURE threat.

By definition, a pre-emptive war is on the edges of a war crime (war of aggression being a war crime) but with a credible immediate threat such as massing troops on a border, it just manages to stay on the right side of the line.

However, there was never even a suggestion of an immediate threat from Iraq against the US, just a claim that at some point in the future a threat may arise.

So the final standard that had to be met for the war to be considered legal would have been if the UN security council had passed a resolution authorising armed intervention to enforce previous UN resolutions.

There was no such resolution which, coupled with the lack of a threat from Iraq against the US or any of its neighbours, makes the invasion and occupation of Iraq a war crime on a par with the invasion and occupation of Poland in 1939.

I can't believe that this is still even in question on DU. We KNOW there were no WMD. We KNOW that evidence for such weapons was fabricated. We KNOW that there was no immediate threat to the US or its neighbours by Iraq. We KNOW that there was no UN resolution authorising armed intervention.

Therefore we KNOW the invasion and occupation of Iraq is a war crime. It's that simple.

[RapidCreek]

3. The problem with your post....

is that it was not a pre-emptive war. Preempt means to prevent from happening or taking place. Hussien was not preparing for war....with us or anyone else. There was nothing to preempt.

The war was nothing more than an imperialist invasion, plain and simple.

RC

[Devils Advocate NZ]

4. Not at all...

I defined what a pre-emptive war was, and said that the invasion of Iraq did NOT meet that definition.

Read my post again. You will see that I said that a pre-emptive war was on the edges of a war crime and required there to be some immediate tangible threat (such as troops massing on a border) which was NOT the case with Iraq.

Other than that, you are right. The Iraq war WAS an imperialist invasion, and it was also a war crime.