Architects of Iraq War ADMIT It Was Illegal

The chief American prosecutor for the Nuremberg war crime trials – Robert H. Jackson – stated:

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

Forget third-hand allegations … the architects of the Iraq war admit that they initiated a war of aggression, not a war to defend America from imminent attack.

Influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded in 2003 that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal:

“International law … would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone“, and this would have been morally unacceptable.

Indeed, U.S. government officials have admitted that everyone knew that Iraq didn’t have weapons of mass destruction.

A top Bush administration adviser –  Philip Zelikow said that the Iraq war was launched to protect Israel.

And the following Bush officials admitted that the Iraq war was launched for oil:

• George W. Bush

• Key war architect – and Under Secretary of State – John Bolton

• Former Bush speechwriter David Frum (referring to Dick Cheney)

• A high-level National Security Council officer

• 4 Star General John Abizaid, the former commander of CENTCOM, with responsibility for Iraq

• Many others

Of course, this is "old news" (#15) ... except that the U.S. did the same thing in Libya, and is now doing the same thing in Ukraine, Syria and elsewhere.

Comments

[Augustus]

So why are the international courts failing to bring charges?

Because you can be assured that if Geo Wash reports it, it is distorted Bull Shit.

Hussein had violated UN mandates, UN legal.

John Kerry, Hillary clinton, and Joe Biden all supported the authorization for use of force in Iraq, US legal.

[Paveway IV]

Israel has violated UN mandates - they occupy the Golan  (among other violations and war crimes). When should we attack? 

To assign any validity to UN mandates as 'law' is a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the government can cede legal authority or responsibility to an artificial organization that it and a bunch of other governments created, nor does it define any U.S. obligation to uphold any decree of the U.N. In fact, the constitution specifically prohibits this and describes supporting such an institution as an act of sedition and/or treason.

You can hate on George all you want, but the original framers of the Constitution would have taken up pitchforks and torches at the thought of the U.S. government creating a more supreme cabal masquerading as a sort of a 'super-government' above the U.S. - and despite the phony rules of participation and the appearance of a democratic process.

[NidStyles]

The UN is meant to fail.

[Harbanger]

Mr. G Washington is still stuck on Bush's fault.  Obama is a well intentioned puppet of his neocon masters.

[The Joker]

You missed the punchline.

Of course, this is "old news" (#15) ... except that the U.S. did the same thing in Libya, and is now doing the same thing in Ukraine, Syria and elsewhere.

[dreadnaught]

pray tell what did Oblama have to do with starting the war in Iraq, or making up fancy fairy tales about the WMD's?   5000 of our boys (that they will admit to) died for nothing;

Oh yea, another Million expendable civilians in Iraq too. And BILLIONS of "your tax dollars as Payoffs"

[Harbanger]

I blame dreadnaughts and all the Democrats that voted for the Iraq war.  Go search "democrats who voted for Iraq", it's a very long list.  I know, they lied, but they're politicians they all lie, you should know that.  Besides you can't blame any President because they're all puppets.

[DaveyJones]

most criminal law does not provide you a defense simply because you are "a puppet." THe law has plenty of absolute lines in the sand

[mastersnark]

LOL, federal employees holding other federal employees accountable. Good one, denaliguide.

[0b1knob]

Isn't the entire concept of "legal war" an oxymoron?

[The Joker]

You be thinking of "holy war".

[Ghordius]

the two concepts are indeed related. "just" war and "holy" war have both a commonality: morals

but while morals can change (otherwise human sacrifices would still be in vogue), there is one constant in "just war": defense

all war-capable entities, be them groups, clans, countries or nations generally speaking see defense from aggression as a "just war", particularly, but not exclusively, if unprovoked

so yes, there is something like "just war", in history. there were many istances of a polity that suddently faced an aggressor, sometimes even "out of the blue", literally

plenty of polities faced invaders, be them Mongol hordes or Hittites or Assyrians or Persians or Romans or colonial powers landing. The Incas Empire faced Pizarro, for example

there is legal war, there is something resembling just war. it's just that they are a minority out of the total of conflicts that are claimed to be just

[piratepiet]

"all war-capable entities, be them groups, clans, countries or nations generally speaking see defense from aggression as a "just war", particularly, but not exclusively, if unprovoked"

Which particular conflict did you have in mind when you found it necessary to add "but not exclusively" ?

[Ghordius]

many of them, an excellent example would be the Hundred_Years'_War. Or a lot of clannish vendettas

[piratepiet]

I do not know the peculiarities of this extensive case ( one hundred years ! ), but generally it seems  disingenious to me to invoke self-defence in a provoked war.  I mean a provocation with the intent to cause a war, or a provocation leaving the other side with little choice but to start one.  The maritime blockade of Japan by the USA could be an example of the latter according to some(body).  But it is a grey area.