Was the Invasion of Iraq Justified?

[I wrote this up while doing some research this morning, I think worth some time to read, you could also watch the video on YT.]

“The making of aggressive war is a war crime”

The United Nations had not sanctioned or permitted the Iraq war. Therefore, Bush and Blair may have to face criminal charges at the Hague. George Galloway heads the discussion which aired on Press TV.

Under several sections of the Geneva Conventions, investigation is done under two heads, says Ali Mohammad Azhar.

War crimes are killing, torturing, and detaining under inhumane conditions. Anyone who is aware of such, not only the perpetrators, are guilty of war crimes.

Mr. Mansfield a prominent legal counsel was also sourced by Al Azhar.

Bush and Blair were supported by the United States Congress and the UK Parliament. So they’re hands are clean. It is a contrary point of view, however.

Is it unfair to blame them for a political decision which was made with support from the US Congress and UK parliament?

“It’s ridiculous” says David Casavis, one who says he would be lawyer for Bush and Blair if asked.

Kofi Anan had said the war was illegal. Galloway argues that this is “not ridiculous”.

The fact that Saddam invaded Kuwait and Iran, according to Casavis, was reason enough to kill half a million children, according to his statements of support for the two leaders.

The chief prosecutor to the United Nations and the secretary general of the United Nations, neither of whom are politicians, were correct in saying that both Bush and Blair had committed war crimes. IN Tehran, he speaks next to the man, Ayer, who has filed against Blair, and his colleague who has filed against Bush in The Hague, hope they would be called to Kuala Lumpur to give evidence (which later took place, after the airing of this program).

“You don’t get a much more serious person than the chief prosecutor”, says Galloway.

It’s illegal to plan and orchestrate a war, which is not a direct threat. By that definition alone, Bush and Blair did something illegal.

Galloway mentions Bush had the power to enter into the war without the Senate’s approval, but in fact he did get authorization from the Security Council.

“The evidence has been building up… and it’s quite obvious the occupation was unnecessary.” And “they did not find anything.” comments one female audience member.

“Their leaders have killed their own people, that’s why Saddam Hussein was tried in The Hague”, says another woman. “This is the point of what a witch hunt is”… “This just seems… that now they have an opportunity to put the blame on other people”. He’s looking at it legally (Acampo), but she doesn’t agree with that. She wants to look at the issue from a completely political perspective.

Another member says that millions of Iraqis have been killed up to date, so it doesn’t seem justified, and suggests that their lives are worth less than American’s lives, for example.

In other words, because Saddam had killed his own people, doesn’t justify killing Iraqis in an “illegal war” or even in an invasion to catch a criminal like Saddam Hussein. Saddam was tried in The Hague and executed for war crimes. Bush and Blair have not been tried, though the Kuala Lumpur meeting found them guilty of war crimes.

The [Vietnamese]  war criminals were prosecuted for waterboarding at the end of the war. Why are Bush and Blair not also prosecuted for the actions of their government, which knew about the torture and interrogation techniques which were clearly inhumane and against human rights and/or the Geneva conventions?

Patrick Basham says he doesn’t believe the war was justified. “I think the war was a mistake.” But he believes it is wrong to criminalize the political questions. He believes people are just making themselves to “feel better” but it is correct to assert that these policy makers, the President and Prime Minister, made decisions which others would disagree with, “generally believed they were doing the right thing” and “logically doesn’t make sense”. “There has been a double standard but not compound an error by then going after other people, whether Bush or Blair [or others in power] who are currently unpopular”. He is saying, this doesn’t justify going after all the other people who supported the war.

“That at least has the intellectual consistency of applying one standard to all” replies Galloway.

David Casavis says “… some things are unwise, but not illegal”. “Bush was not interested in Iraq, he not interested in anything but Mexico.”” …when we were attacked at the World Trade Center that changed everything.”

“Iraq had nothing to do with the World Trade Centre though”, counters Galloway.

Casavis continues, “Colin Powell presented … at the UN that proved to be wrong. And our own state department contradicted that… but you enter into war with the facts that you have.”… “Unwise but not illegal”.

“It’s not a coincidence that Nixon was pardoned and then you have several illegal wars after that”, says an ex-soldier, and a spokesperson, who served in Iraq and now walks with a cane, by his own admission participated but now is against [illegal] wars.

“The US has a long list of war crime”, says one woman. “I stood in the United Nations lobby and watched Colin Powell lie through his teeth and he knew he was lying about the supposed facts that got us into Iraq. That was wrong, that was criminal and it really must be prosecuted.”

“Well, he himself [Colin Powell] now describes it as a blot on his career record” reminds Galloway.

Admiral Elmar Schmaehling, an ex-military man, joins the debate from Berlin. Asked why he thinks torture took place, he says, “Because Bush and Mr. Blair they both believe that they are superior to everybody as persons and as states. And so they think they can do this. And they can do [whatever they like of] all kinds of war and aggression and crimes without having to expect consequences.” He believes that torture is clearly against international law and making excuses for it is clearly wrong. “I’m very astonished that Mr. Bush even today defends the use of torture…”

A young man with a European accent comments next, “What I see is that there are two ideologies here, one is the humanitarian [looks at the value of the human being] and the other one is emphasizing the Western culture conquering culture.” “And we are [at] a point to decide which world, which way we are going.”

“You remember about the Nuremburg process and the values of the society were set up [after] the Second World War. And Bush and Blair respect it and follow those values when they invaded Iraq.”

“And I have in my mind the image of Churchill and Roosevelt and Stalin. Stalin was a war criminal and in place of Stalin I could put uh, Saddam, and the other two, Churchill, Blair, Roosevelt, Bush.” And we could judge Churchill and Roosevelt as war criminals with the values and that ideology which we respect today, he adds.

Galloway says it is a long time since he has heard Bush and Blair compared to Roosevelt and Churchill.

The titles of war criminal, atrocities perpetrator, etc. were titles given to Bush and Blair by their own western people, says, a man via satellite from the Tehran audience. It is very obvious that they have committed atrocities, he says, and should receive justice. A woman in the audience speaks next, “can anybody answer me, why…” is her only question, and response to the debate. She says, “it is a matter of geography.”

Galloway responds, "...perhaps a three letter word, O-I-L".”

So we discover that usually a debate like this comes down to the question of resources, and motivations for the war, and we have to wonder, were the motivations of Bush and Blair pure or evil?