Just a reminder of the FACTS; bUsh's invasion of Iraq was in fact ILLEGAL.

US Constitution's "supreme Law of the land";

The international legal rules governing the use of force take as their starting point Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits any nation from using force against another. The charter allows for only two exceptions to this rule:

-when force is required in self-defense (Article 51) or

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter1.htm

-when the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII).

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm

Under Article 51, the triggering condition for the exercise of self-defense is the occurrence of an armed attack ("if an armed attack occurs"). Notwithstanding the literal meaning of that language, some, though not all, authorities interpret Article 51 to permit anticipatory self-defense in response to an imminent attack. The application of the basic law regarding self-defense to the present U.S. confrontation with Iraq is straightforward. Iraq has not attacked any state, nor is there any showing whatever that an attack by Iraq is imminent. Therefore self-defense does not justify the use of force against Iraq by the United States or any state.

Added to this, bush himself has repeatedly said Iraq was a "future threat", that we "can't afford to wait until a future attack becomes imminent" and that he "never said the threat from Iraq was 'imminent'".

As well, the "gold standard" of US intelligence is the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate, in which CIA Director George Tenet called the threat from Iraq "low";

George Tenet; "My judgment would be that the probability of him initiating an attack--let me put a time frame on it--in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now, the likelihood I think would be low."

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0306/S00211.htm

The Bush administration's reliance on the need for "regime change" in Iraq as a basis for use of force is also barred by Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

Article 2(4) barring the threat or use of force has been described by the International Court of Justice as a peremptory norm of international law, from which states cannot derogate. (Nicaragua v United States, 1986; ICJ Reports 14, at para. 190)

Equally, Chapter VII does not apply, as the Security Council clearly voted against invading Iraq and have in fact declared the invasion illegal and in violation of the UN Charter.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1200535.htm

Under the US Constitution, George W. bUsh's invasion of Iraq is in fact illegal.

Lawyers Tell Senate: Use of Force Against Iraq Without New Security Council Resolution Is Unlawful; Urge Congress to Uphold U.N. Charter
http://www.wslfweb.org/docs/iraqpr.pdf

Iraq War was Illegal and Breached UN Charter, Says Annan
http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/sep/16iraq.htm

UK's Mr. Lord Goldsmith admitting regime change would be ILLEGAL
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=457242005

British military chief reveals new legal fears over Iraq war

The man who led Britain's armed forces into Iraq has said that Tony Blair and the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, will join British soldiers in the dock if the military are ever prosecuted for war crimes in Iraq.

In a remarkably frank interview that goes to the heart of the political row over the Attorney General's legal advice, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, said he did not have full legal cover from prosecution at the International Criminal Court.

'If my soldiers went to jail and I did, some other people would go with me,' said Boyce.

Pressed by The Observer on whether he meant the Prime Minister and the Attorney General, Boyce replied: 'Too bloody right.'
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1474276,00.html

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

...influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal. In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London:

"I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html

October 19, 2005; British Law lord damns "illegal Iraq war'

One of Britain’s most senior judges last night accused ministers of producing “half-baked” criminal justice reforms and then blaming judges for the failings of the system. Lord Steyn, a law lord, also launched a scathing attack on ministers over the Iraq war, accusing them of “scraping the bottom of the legal barrel” to justify their case.

He said it was a “fairytale” to suggest that the Iraq war did not make London a “more dangerous place”.

Lord Steyn echoed the views of Lord Alexander of Weedon, QC, his predecessor at Justice, with a robust attack on the legality of the Iraq war. Lord Alexander’s view that the war was illegal “reflected the overwhelming view of international lawyers and was undoubtedly correct”.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1832270,00.html

Canadian law professors declare US-led war illegal

The US-led coalition’s war against Iraq is illegal, declared 31 Canadian professors of international law at 15 law faculties.

A US attack “would be a fundamental breach of international law and would seriously threaten the integrity of the international legal order that has been in place since the end of the Second World War,”
http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2003/msg01357.html

Australian legal experts declare an invasion of Iraq a war crime

Forty-three Australian experts in international law and human rights legislation have issued a declaration that an invasion of Iraq will be an open breach of international law and a crime against humanity...

...the indictment of the German Nazi leaders at the 1945-1949 Nuremberg War Crimes Trials was precisely for carrying out preemptive military strikes against neighbouring countries. They were tried and convicted of “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances”.
http://law.anu.edu.au/cipl/Media/Waging%20war%20crimes%20Feb03.pdf

War on Iraq was illegal, say world's top lawyers

-Professor Philippe Sands QC Director of the Centre on International Courts and Tribunals, University College London

-Professor Robert Black QC Professor of Scots law, Edinburgh University, and architect of the Lockerbie trial in The Hague

-Professor Sean Murphy Associate professor of law at George Washington University, Washington DC

-Professor Vaughan Lowe Chichele Professor of Public International Law, All Souls College, Oxford

-Professor James Crawford Whewell Professor of International Law, Jesus College, Cambridge

-Professor Mary Kaldor Professor of global governance, London School of Economics
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2003/0525warillegal.htm

Iraq War Illegal, Lawyers Say

Most experts in international law say they are not convinced either by the argument that military action against Iraq is authorized by earlier U.N. resolutions nor that the U.N. Charter allows self-defense against a perceived future threat.
http://middleeastinfo.org/article2270.html

War would be illegal

We are teachers of international law. On the basis of the information publicly available, there is no justification under international law for the use of military force against Iraq.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,909275,00.html

It's a very simple fact; George W. bUsh's invasion of Iraq is illegal. It is illegal under US law. It is illegal under international law. Simple. Fact.

When the sanctions came off, Saddam would pump too much oil and drive down prices-

Really.

:sarcasm:

as long as the World runs on oil, those who control The Oil control the world.

I am constantly amazed at how that simple, concrete concept can be construed as a license for "pre-emptive self-defense".

More proof of what I learned the hard way in contract law: that if someone wants something bad enough, there is no language that can stop them.