Invasion of Iraq was legal but of Quesionable Legitimacy

by Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke | November 29, 2009 at 03:24 am

501 views | 24 Recommendations | 15 comments

Saddam Hussein's Iraq had been a thorn in the eye of the United States since the days of Bill Clinton. The U.S. Administration advocated regime change prior to George W. Bush's arrival on the scene. The question was how to go about it.

Under George W. Bush this regime change became reality with the invasion of Iraq and subsequent removal, trial and execution of Saddam Hussein.

An inquiry by the British Parliament is now investigating the legality of this war, particularly Britain's involvement.

The former British Ambassador to to the United Nations, Jeremy Greenstock, stated that the "Iraq war was legal but of questionable legitimacy". He said that the UN had not voted to support it.

According to Greenstock, the UN favoured to wait until October 2003 before resorting to force. France had proposed a three to four months ultimatum and and Saudi Arabia and other Arab states were interested in working to get Saddam Hussein to go into exile.

He said the military wanted to get on with it and the U.S. did not want to start and operation in the summer months.

When asked if the military tail was wagging the diplomatic dog, Greenstock said "Yes of course"

The March 2003 military invasion of Iraq was "legal but of questionable legitimacy" because the U.N. Security Council had not voted to support it, a former top British diplomat said last week at a parliamentary inquiry examining Britain's role in the war.

Jeremy Greenstock, the British ambassador to the United Nations from 1998 to 2003, told the inquiry that he had favored waiting until October 2003 before resorting to force. He said the French in March were proposing a three- to four-month ultimatum to Baghdad, and the Saudis and other Arab governments were interested in working to get Saddam Hussein to go into exile.

But, he said, "the soldiers probably wanted to get on with it," and the United States "did not want to start a military operation in the summer months."

Asked whether he thought "the military tail was wagging the diplomatic dog," Greenstock answered, "Yes, of course."

1 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Sign In or Join to post comments

aurealeus

at 06:01 on November 29th, 2009

I'm happy to hear that finally, there might be some sort of investigation that might expose the invasion of Iraq for what it is. Hopefully it will spark a similar investigation in the U.S.

Only thing that matters to warmongers is profiting from war.

There is no money in waiting, ultimatums and exile.

As for the UN, who cares whether they supported it. They're just as bad as imperialist warmongers in their lust for power, lurking patiently in shadowy wings until an opportunity presents itself to step in and declare their illegal authority over sovereign nations.

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 06:05 on November 29th, 2009

Thanks for commenting, I agree on the part of the UN. Unfortunately it needs major reform. It is totally dysfunctional.

aurealeus

at 06:21 on November 29th, 2009

The UN needs to focus more on working to find viable solutions to issues like world poverty, abuse, hunger, child soldiers, and other humanatarian issues and stay out of world governance.

YankeeJim

at 05:47 on November 29th, 2009

No doubt the US government embarked on regime change beginning with the Clinton administration. As the article indicates, the question is legitimacy of the process. I think that the free nation parties lost their patience, and the arrogance of George W. Bush tilted the balance of reason in the wrong direction.

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 05:55 on November 29th, 2009

You may be right there, there could also have been some personal motivation.

marianmo

at 06:09 on November 29th, 2009

i believe the first bush was involved in this saga..

aurealeus

at 06:12 on November 29th, 2009

But of course. The writing is on the wall.

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 07:04 on November 29th, 2009

Well yes Herbert Walker Bush had the first Gulf War after Saddam invaded Kuwait. That was war sanction by the UN. The UN did not give a mandate to capture Iraq though, thus Bush 41 withdrew US forces. How did Saddam Husseins Assassination attempt play into this?

aurealeus

at 08:21 on November 29th, 2009

Saddam Hussain and the politically-incorrect "War on Terror" was the scapegoat utilized to legitimize the invasion of Iraq.

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 07:05 on November 29th, 2009

Did Dick Cheney have score to settle? He was Secretary of Defense then.

aurealeus

at 07:27 on November 29th, 2009

To understand completely, one must not only look at the political intentions or reasons but at the men in the shadows pulling the strings.

I believe there is an silent undercurrent at work in most, if not all, military operations throughout the world... to control both natural and human resources in favor the world's financial power elite through the corrupt world banking system.