Iraq war was illegal, Dutch panel rules

S

StrongTurd

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
1,490
Reaction score
1
The war in Iraq had "no basis in international law", a Dutch inquiry found today, in the first ever independent legal assessment of the decision to invade.

In a series of damning findings, a seven-member panel in the Netherlands concluded that the war, which was supported by the Dutch government following intelligence from Britain and the US, had not been justified in law.

"The Dutch government lent its political support to a war whose purpose was not consistent with Dutch government policy," the inquiry in the Hague concluded. "The military action had no sound mandate in international law."
Click to expand...

Not that this should come as much of a surprise to anybody but if international law was truly impartial instead of the politicized power game that it is, then technically where does that leave Bush and Cheney? Surely they should be brought to The Hague to be tried as war criminals. Indeed this will never happen which even further erodes the last vestiges of credibility that the US military had left.

Guardian UK
 
StrongTurd said:
Not that this should come as much of a surprise to anybody but if international law was truly impartial instead of the politicized power game that it is, then technically where does that leave Bush and Cheney? Surely they should be brought to The Hague to be tried as war criminals. Indeed this will never happen which even further erodes the last vestiges of credibility that the US military had left.

Guardian UK
Click to expand...

Note that the same clowns will say that the illegal bombing of Serbia/Kosovo by NATO forces in 1999 was legal, even though a group of lawyers got together that time in the US to want to impeach Clinton. Bias everywhere - this is all just a fiasco.
 
Morgoth said:
would love to see what justification the American lovers on the forum would give for this one :)

oil don't count!
Click to expand...

Well the justification that France was dealing with Saddam Hussein. Heck half of Western Europe was. Business is business. DOn't believe the Hague hypocrites.
 
StrongTurd said:
Not that this should come as much of a surprise to anybody but if international law was truly impartial instead of the politicized power game that it is, then technically where does that leave Bush and Cheney? Surely they should be brought to The Hague to be tried as war criminals. Indeed this will never happen which even further erodes the last vestiges of credibility that the US military had left.

Guardian UK
Click to expand...

Congress had to authorise funding for the war.

If Bush & Cheney lied to Congress, then that's who they should be held accountable to.
 
I don't have any problem with the finding, I just think it's funny that they only come to this conclusion after the whole debacle.

Even if there were no WMD's most people would have said F'it just invade anyway and get rid of Saddam. But then who could have foreseen the terrible loss of life in the war with the insurgency? If they could have foreseen that, then they would def. not have gone in.

I still say that the "war on terror" should have been an ideological war, not a physical war.
 
We had the ideological war already, it was the cold war. This is something else.
 
Those Dutchmen are quite utterly and truly useless. Next they will have a panel to rule that the sky is blue, except in Rotterdam where it is always orange except if you are a foreigner. Idiots.
 
So some Dutch panel says so. Good for them :erm:



Garyvdh said:
I don't have any problem with the finding, I just think it's funny that they only come to this conclusion after the whole debacle.

Even if there were no WMD's most people would have said F'it just invade anyway and get rid of Saddam. But then who could have foreseen the terrible loss of life in the war with the insurgency? If they could have foreseen that, then they would def. not have gone in.

I still say that the "war on terror" should have been an ideological war, not a physical war.
Click to expand...

I dunno. You don't recall the predicted death tolls before the war. I recall predictions that Baghdad would be surrounded and would have to taken house by house. Thousands of casualties were expected for that battle alone. In the end the U.S just drove right in. Instead they got a low intensity insurgency lasting years. People forget the invasion was a complete walkover.

I'm sure after 9/11 when 3000 people had been killed in 2 hours that the thought of 5000 Americans would die in the resulting war over 9 years they wouldn't have been quite so shocked.
 
There was no reason to invade Iraq, it was all based on their fabricated evidence. Please show me the WOMD Saddam had the whole premise of the war was based on. Let's be objective and honest here. Afghanistan they had every reason, Iraq not.
 
PeterCH said:
Note that the same clowns will say that the illegal bombing of Serbia/Kosovo by NATO forces in 1999 was legal, even though a group of lawyers got together that time in the US to want to impeach Clinton. Bias everywhere - this is all just a fiasco.
Click to expand...

NATO (read: US) bombed the wrong side in Yugoslavia.
 
ponder said:
There was no reason to invade Iraq, it was all based on their fabricated evidence. Please show me the WOMD Saddam had the whole premise of the war was based on. Let's be objective and honest here. Afghanistan they had every reason, Iraq not.
Click to expand...

The Iraq war was needed to liberate the oil wells for democracy. For decades, those oil wells have suffered untold misery under Saddam Hussein's tyrannical rule. Now those long-oppressed wells are pumping their first barrels of crude as free and equal wells in the global petroleum marketplace. They have joined the ranks of the world's liberated oil wells, enjoying the same rights as their democratic brethren around the globe
 
Afghanistan is just as illegal.

The Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden if they could prove that he had something to do with 9/11. America didn't have any evidence besides propaganda evidence used to brainwash people watching American media.

So they just invaded.

Btw..
 
MrHands said:
The Iraq war was needed to liberate the oil wells for democracy. For decades, those oil wells have suffered untold misery under Saddam Hussein's tyrannical rule. Now those long-oppressed wells are pumping their first barrels of crude as free and equal wells in the global petroleum marketplace. They have joined the ranks of the world's liberated oil wells, enjoying the same rights as their democratic brethren around the globe
Click to expand...

LOL... That's complete nonsense.

With the Iran-Iraq war escalating, President Ronald Reagan dispatched his Middle East envoy, a former secretary of defense, to Baghdad with a hand-written letter to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and a message that Washington was willing at any moment to resume diplomatic relations and eventually provided Saddam with all the weapons he needed. Including those weapons that were used against the Kurds.

Iraq was used by America to gain back control of Iran which was lost during the Revolution.

And Iraq was pumping out huge amounts of Oil. Iraq's mistake is that a few months prior to the invasion announcing that they would no longer sell oil in dollars and were moving to selling oil in Euro's.
 
Double Talk

Get over it

I just WISH they would invade ZIMBABWE

got a crack pot dictator there with "oppressed" people

( and they do not need ANY propaganda in order to do it )


MW
 
MidnightWizard said:
Get over it

I just WISH they would invade ZIMBABWE

got a crack pot dictator there with "oppressed" people

( and they do not need ANY propaganda in order to do it )


MW
Click to expand...

I don't think Zimbabawe has anything they want. Anyway it's corrupt enough that they could just use bribes to get what they wanted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X