# Was the war in Iraq Illegal **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 15, 2003, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-war-in-iraq-illegal/219214 "2003-12-15T23:40:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2003, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-war-in-iraq-illegal/219214/1 "2003-12-15T23:40:50Z")
I know we’ve done this before, several times, but I wanted to start this tread to really nail this down. In another thread, Sailor claims its a slam dunk case…that the US’s actions in Iraq were ‘illegal’ because they violated ‘international law’. To my mind, in order to show that the US actions are illegal, first we’d need to look at the relevant international laws with reguards to US actions in Iraq. I’ll let the war is illegal side present their own arguements, but [this](http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm) seems to be the most referenced article, dealing with CHAPTER VII, articles 39-51 of the UN Charter. These seem to be the relevant passages: From Charter of the United Nations: Chapter VII > [@](#): > > Article 39 > The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security. > > … > > Article 41 > The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations. > > … > > Article 51 > Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. There is more there, but it seems fairly…sparse to base an entire ‘legal’ system on. It seems to me that Article 51 gives member nations some wiggle room to pursue their own agendas, within limits, but I conceed that this is only my interperatation of it. I’m currently researching the laws that are BEHIND these statements (if any), but so far haven’t found anything relevant. I’ll rely on the illegal crowd to fill in what they think is relevant in any case. Next we’d need to look at how our own constitution reguards international law…what takes precedence? Was congress’s actions illegal, or were they within their rights to grant the President the powers necessary to go to war in Iraq? Here, things seem murky to me. The [US Constitution](http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlevi.html)Article VI > [@](#): > > This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; **and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;** and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. This seems to clearly say that all treaties made shall be “the supreme law of the land.” This seems to run counter to the appearent intent of the founding fathers, that the Constitution shall in fact be the supreme law of the land, which can be ammended but not superceeded. It begs the question, if an international treaty ratified by Congress is found to violate the constitution…what takes precedence? Does the treaty hold precedence in this case over the Constitution, thus nullifying it? Or does (as was appearently the intent of the founding fathers IMO) the Constitution take precedence over any ratified treaty until and unless the Constitution itself is ammended? It seems that Article VI is and has been at the heart of the debate over this issue for a LONG time…since Jefferson at least. This OP is getting overly long now, and I really want to let both the illegal war and legal war sides present their own cases, so I’ll cut off here and wait to see if Sailor and others want to present their sides as to why the US’s actions were either legal or illegal. My own position (which appearently infuriated Sailor, for which I’m militantly unconcerned) is that the war was neither legal nor illegal, as the international laws in effect are vague and ambiguous on setting out the exact parameters by which a country is in violation. I base a lot of this on the fact that I’m unaware of any body actually filing charges against the US for an ‘illegal’ act, as well as the old standby that a person (or country) is innocent until FOUND to be guilty…and until a ruling is made by a properly impowered body, its shear arrogance to say it was definitively an ‘illegal’ act…or a ‘legal’ one for that matter. No judgement has been made…therefor IMO, any assertions are pure speculation. I think a good case could be made that the US actions weren’t ‘legal’ (i.e. the US had no legal justification for war)…but thats not exactly the same thing as saying they are ‘illegal’ (i.e. they BREAK the laws). On the domestic side, it seems that Article VI is a contridiction, thus making the issue also murky as far as the Constitution goes. I’m looking for a Supreme Court ruling atm to see if they decisively ruled on this, but no luck so far. At a guess, they have decided not to touch this one at all, but thats just based on what I’ve read so far. Reguards, XT ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2003, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-war-in-iraq-illegal/219214/2 "2003-12-15T23:50:32Z")
You have to understand that laws and treaties ratified by Congress are always subject to to review by the SCotUS, if challenged, and that the court will use the Constitution as the guide to determine if the law (or treaty) is valid (under the Constitution). In this sense, the Constitution is a higher authority than any law (or treaty). Until and unless someone successfully challenges in court the act of Congress that allowed Bush to use force in Iraq, then that act is legal. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-war-in-iraq-illegal/219214/3 "2003-12-16T00:46:56Z")
It’s a violation of the UN Charter and international law. It’s also a _prima facie_ violation of US law although there’s not much case law for this kind of thing. Regardless of US law, there’s no question it’s a vioaltion of international law so the anser to OP’s question is yes, and although the OP didn’t ask it’s also stupid and immoral. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-war-in-iraq-illegal/219214/4 "2003-12-16T01:28:33Z")
**DtC** : Can you expand on the _prima facie_ argument about US law? To the extent that there is such a thing as International Law, I would agree that the war was a violation of that. I would not have called the war either stupid or smart, but I’d certainly call it moral. Taking out a brutal dictatorial regime is a moral act. ---
**Author:** ![Fang](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/96bed5/32.png) [@Fang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fang)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-war-in-iraq-illegal/219214/5 "2003-12-16T01:38:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*It’s a violation of the UN Charter and international law. It’s also a _prima facie_ violation of US law although there’s not much case law for this kind of thing. > > Regardless of US law, there’s no question it’s a vioaltion of international law so the anser to OP’s question is yes, and although the OP didn’t ask it’s also stupid and immoral. \*\* Can you explain _which_ international law it is in violation of? Is there any treaty which the US signed and ratified that specifically bars offensive war without the explicit consent of the UNSC? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-war-in-iraq-illegal/219214/6 "2003-12-16T01:46:46Z")
Fang, read through the Charter: Chapter VII. I believe that that is the relevant document with reguards to this arguement. If there is another international law or treaty in effect, I’m not aware of it so maybe one of the guys will post that in a following post. BTW, reading through the Charter: Chapter VII, I don’t see the verbage ‘illegal’ used at all. Is this implied? I found this also, that might be relevant…it goes through the US’s case against Iraq in some detail. There are 7 parts to it. I’ll only put in a few things and let others read through to see if they find anything relevant. [The case of the US vs Iraq; US claims, Part 1 of 7 : Violations of UN Resolutions](http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/020914/2002091429.html) > [@](#): > > UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990 > > \*\*\* Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq’s illegal invasion of Kuwait) “and all subsequent relevant resolutions.” > > - Authorizes UN Member States “to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.”\*\* > > … > > UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991 > > - Iraq must “unconditionally accept” the destruction, removal or rendering harmless “under international supervision” of all “chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities.” > > - Iraq must “unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material” or any research, development or manufacturing facilities. > > - Iraq must “unconditionally accept” the destruction, removal or rendering harmless “under international supervision” of all “ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities.” > > - Iraq must not “use, develop, construct or acquire” any weapons of mass destruction. > > - Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. > > - Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq’s nuclear weapons program. > > - Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs. > > \*\*\* Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.\*\* As I said, there are 7 parts, so its a bit lengthy. However, if we are going to talk about the legality, I thought that maybe laying this info out might be helpful to set a base line for the US’s case. -XT ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-war-in-iraq-illegal/219214/7 "2003-12-16T01:47:59Z")
Examine the order of events: 1. US attacks and soundly defeats Iraq when it attempts to invade a US ally, Kuwait. 2. US maintains no-fly zones and police actions in the region, to ensure that Iraq doesn’t act up in the future. 3. Iraq forces repeatedly and continually fire AA weapons at US forces patrolling the no-fly zone, established due to Iraq invading an ally of the US. 4. A decade later, US attacks and trounces Iraq yet again. Unless someone can establish any of those steps to be “illegal”, I fail to see how you can call the recent war “illegal”. Was it “illegal” for the US to come to Kuwait’s aid? No. Which would then follow that the enforcement of sanctions against Iraq was also fully legal. Which would then follow that Iraq’s attempts to attack US patrolling jets would justify any action that the US wanted to take against Iraq. Frankly, the only thing I’m upset about is the fact that we let Iraq violate sanctions for over a decade before doing anything about it. Further, I’m also upset it required a lie about the Universal Bugbear to motivate America to have a passion about it, when there was ample reason to do it to begin with. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-war-in-iraq-illegal/219214/8 "2003-12-16T01:48:27Z")
Umm, did you read the first post **Fang**? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-war-in-iraq-illegal/219214/9 "2003-12-16T01:53:35Z")
> [@](#): > > 1. A decade later, US attacks and trounces Iraq yet again. That’s the illegal part right there. The US has no authority to enforce UN resolutions. It was anon-defensive invasion, which made it an aggressive act which made it illegal. Without self-defense you have no justification. Period. ---
**Author:** ![Fang](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/96bed5/32.png) [@Fang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fang)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-war-in-iraq-illegal/219214/10 "2003-12-16T01:55:30Z")
I did read it. I don’t see anything in there that bars member states from taking aggressive action without the UNSC’s consent. It certainly gives the SC power to make decisions on international security and have access to military resources to enforce those decisions, and possibly even stop a particular action after the fact, but I don’t see anywhere that requires states waive their right to wage offensive war. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-war-in-iraq-illegal/219214/11 "2003-12-16T02:10:02Z")
Fang, from my reading, Articles 41 and 42 address this, though I assume that there must be other documents that flesh this out, as the language is totally ambiguous…and again, fairly sparse IMO. I’m still looking for the treaties and other documents behind these articles. From CHAPTER VII ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION > [@](#): > > Article 41 > The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations. > Article 42 > Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations. What this says, appearently, is that only the SC can AUTHORIZE the use of force. Countries not authorized are in violation of the treaty. However, I’ve yet to see how in violation=illegal, unless this is implied or I’m missing something. I was reading earlier (I’ll try and find the cite again) that the SC can and will bring violators before the counsel, and that actions can be taken against nations that are in violation (action was vague, but I assume sanctions and such can be imposed). Afaik, this hasn’t happened (yet) to the US re: Iraq. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-war-in-iraq-illegal/219214/12 "2003-12-16T02:34:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*That’s the illegal part right there. The US has no authority to enforce UN resolutions. It was anon-defensive invasion, which made it an aggressive act which made it illegal. Without self-defense you have no justification. Period. \*\* _snipped from above_ UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990 - Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq’s illegal invasion of Kuwait) “and all subsequent relevant resolutions.” - Authorizes UN Member States “to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.” If I understand correctly, this wording was hammered out by the US for the express purpose of finishing the job. What the UN DIDN’T sanction was a specific engagement (the French, German, and Russian veto). The only case I can see in Saddam’s defense would be to say he played the shell game for so long it became impossible for him to account for his own equipment as required by UN mandates. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-war-in-iraq-illegal/219214/13 "2003-12-16T02:41:44Z")
Of course, it may be difficult to impossible to find a statute which says murder is _illegal_ so I guess murder is not “illegal” either. It also depends on what the meaning of “is” is. Not. Reminds me of the Bush camp denial that the president had ever said the threat from Iraq was “imminent”. ---
**Author:** ![Fang](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/96bed5/32.png) [@Fang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fang)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-war-in-iraq-illegal/219214/14 "2003-12-16T02:53:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > \*\*Of course, it may be difficult to impossible to find a statute which says murder is _illegal_ so I guess murder is not “illegal” either. \*\* [Not that hard](http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1111.html): > [@](#): > > Sec. 1111. - Murder > (a) > > Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree. Any other murder is murder in the second degree. > > (b) > > Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, > Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life; > Whoever is guilty of murder in the second degree, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life I don’t know what kind of law this “international law” is that’s based not on statutes but on whatever the people who are in favor of it say it is. Or perhaps it is based on vague generalities hinted at in the UN charter. Either way, that may be good enough for you, but you’re not going to convince me of it. Outside of the general moral idea known as “natural law”, law is not law without laws. Also, was the action against Kosovo illegal? ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-war-in-iraq-illegal/219214/15 "2003-12-16T03:09:49Z")
Um Fang. . . I think you are missing my point. Your citation does not contain the word “illegal”. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-war-in-iraq-illegal/219214/16 "2003-12-16T03:18:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Fang \* > I don’t know what kind of law this “international law” is that’s based not on statutes but on whatever the people who are in favor of it say it is. Or perhaps it is based on vague generalities hinted at in the UN charter. Your ignorance on this matter is astounding. It has been discussed on this board extensively and I recently cited and linked to several pages. I am not going to do it all over again. You can do a search if you like. > [@](#): > > Either way, that may be good enough for you, but you’re not going to convince me of it. Good. It will save you the search and it will save me having to repeat myself. You choose to remain in your ignorance. > [@](#): > > Outside of the general moral idea known as “natural law”, law is not law without laws. You show your ignorance. International law _is_ law. the fact that you are ignorant of it doe not mean it does not exist. The fact that you proclaim your intention to remain in your ignorance only reflect upon yourself, not about the objective facts. > [@](#): > > Also, was the action against Kosovo illegal? Dunno. You tell me. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-war-in-iraq-illegal/219214/17 "2003-12-16T03:33:26Z")
DtC > [@](#): > > That’s the illegal part right there. The US has no authority to enforce UN resolutions. It was anon-defensive invasion, which made it an aggressive act which made it illegal. Without self-defense you have no justification. Period. How was it ‘illegal’? Because the US was in violation of UN resolutions? Countries are in violation of UN resolutions all the time. Was NATOs acts in Kosovo also considered ‘illegal’? They didn’t have UN authorization afaik, and according to your logic, only the SC can authorize the use of force. Again, its the ‘illegal’ thing…but WHY illegal? Where are you getting that from? Is this an english thing (I really want to know this…it isn’t a dig) that in violation=illegal? Is it assumed? Is it infered? Sailor thinks I’m playing semantics games here, but I really want to know this. To me, from my reading, countries are in violaton of UN resolutions all the time (especially, appearently Israel)…but you don’t say that a countrys acts that are in violation of UN resolutions are ‘illegal’. Is this a special case? Because there was a war involved? Were the acts of the NATO countries equally called ‘illegal’? -XT ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-war-in-iraq-illegal/219214/18 "2003-12-16T03:37:22Z")
**DtC** has still not fleshed out his _prima facie_ argument about the war being illegal according to US law. I’m interested to see how something **explicityly authorized by Congress** could be considered illegal. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-war-in-iraq-illegal/219214/19 "2003-12-16T03:37:27Z")
Sailor, can you at least post links that you think show international laws the US was in violation of? I’ve posted the UN Charter, Chapter VII, but surely this isn’t all of it. I know you’ve already posted stuff elsewhere, but do you think you could post some of it HERE? I, for one, would appreciate it. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Fang](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/96bed5/32.png) [@Fang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fang)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-war-in-iraq-illegal/219214/20 "2003-12-16T03:40:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > **Your ignorance on this matter is astounding. It has been discussed on this board extensively and I recently cited and linked to several pages. I am not going to do it all over again. You can do a search if you like.** If insulting other posters is the best you can do, I think that reflects the strength of your argument. I am not asking for a whole background in international law. In fact, I am not even asking for the basis of international law’s authority, though that’s a legitimate question. I am asking for one treaty or law that in some way (but clearly) prevents any country from taking aggressive action against another country without the prior consent of the UNSC. > [@](#): > > **Good. It will save you the search and it will save me having to repeat myself.** Please don’t misinterpret me. When I said “you’re not going to convince me”, the implication was clearly that arguments based on “it’s law, and you should believe me because I know and you don’t” wouldn’t cut it. If you don’t want to defend your position, that’s fine, don’t post to the thread. But if I say that I would like one believer that the Iraq war was illegal to provide a citation for that claim, there’s no sense posting just to say, “No, I won’t, and by the way you’re an idiot.” > [@](#): > > **International law _is_ law. the fact that you are ignorant of it doe not mean it does not exist.** You can keep saying that but it doesn’t make it any more true. In any case, I’m once again not asking for you to justify the existence of international law, I’m asking for a justification of the Iraq war going against international law. If you don’t want to provide a cite that’s fine, but don’t fill up the thread with content-free posts. > [@](#): > > \*\*Dunno. You tell me. \*\* Well, I would think it the other way around, seeing as how you’re the international law expert here. However, the reason I mentioned this is that NATO specifically did an end-run around the SC because they knew Russia would veto any action (sound familiar?) against Serbia. Since the action in Kosovo was clearly not in self-defense, and not approved by the UNSC, I am asking whether the self-proclaimed proponents of international law would call it illegal. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-war-in-iraq-illegal/219214.md?page=2)