Offical Reasons for the Invasion of Iraq

I'm curious to know the official reason(s) why we launched our 2003 invasion into Iraq? No politics please, I just want to know the official government reasons if they are known. Thanks.

If my memory serves me well, the war was sold as a preemptive move against Iraq because they had, or were trying to obtain, weapons of mass destruction or the means to produce them.

As you well know, the 'reasons' changed quite a bit over the years.

I think the official reasons were the Iraqi government's failure to adhere to UN resolutions and the cease fire of 1991.

The official reason why we invaded iraq is becouse our government at the time were horing themselves out to half the world and half the ceo's in the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

I'm curious to know the official reason(s) why we launched our 2003 invasion into Iraq? No politics please, I just want to know the official government reasons if they are known. Thanks.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Silent-Pariya

The official reason why we invaded iraq is becouse our government at the time were horing themselves out to half the world and half the ceo's in the world.

---

Please respect Ice's wishes, it's a question that can be answered without political spin.

Wheres the fun then:laugh4:

:oops:

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOO BUSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I believe the actual 'justification' given is being mixed up with the international law that authorized the invasion. The justification was WMDs and Iraqi ties to Al-Qaeda. The acual legal authority comes from UN Security COuncil Resolutions 1441 and 678.

Resolution 678 was passed prior to the First Gulf War and stated (relevant portion in bold):

Quote:

---

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

---

Resolution 1441 was passed in 2002 and demanded that Iraq comply with previous UN Resolutions. It emphasized the section of 678 which authorized "all necessary means" to enforce resolutions against Iraq.

Quote:

---

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

---

Essentially what it came down to legally was the US claimed that 678 was still in effect and applied to the situation in Iraq. This is a relatively strong claim as it seemed that the resolution was "relevant" to the older issues and even if it wasn't the "restore peace and security in the area" section applied. Thus 1441 was covered by 678, which authorized all necessary means. So, it was then a question of whether Iraq had failed to comply with 1441. If it did fail to comply, as the US and its allies claimed, then military invasion was authorized by 678. If it had complied with 1441, then military invasion was not authorized by 678.

Whether or not 1441 was complied with is a discussion which would be extremely difficult to have from an objective historical perspective at this time. I suggest that if you wish to discuss it, you take it to the Backroom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Silent-Pariya

The official reason why we invaded iraq is becouse our government at the time were horing themselves out to half the world and half the ceo's in the world.

---

Please don't post crap.

Thank you to everyone else who posted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

I believe the actual 'justification' given is being mixed up with the international law that authorized the invasion. The justification was WMDs and Iraqi ties to Al-Qaeda. The acual legal authority comes from UN Security COuncil Resolutions 1441 and 678.

Resolution 678 was passed prior to the First Gulf War and stated (relevant portion in bold):



Resolution 1441 was passed in 2002 and demanded that Iraq comply with previous UN Resolutions. It emphasized the section of 678 which authorized "all necessary means" to enforce resolutions against Iraq.



Essentially what it came down to legally was the US claimed that 678 was still in effect and applied to the situation in Iraq. This is a relatively strong claim as it seemed that the resolution was "relevant" to the older issues and even if it wasn't the "restore peace and security in the area" section applied. Thus 1441 was covered by 678, which authorized all necessary means. So, it was then a question of whether Iraq had failed to comply with 1441. If it did fail to comply, as the US and its allies claimed, then military invasion was authorized by 678. If it had complied with 1441, then military invasion was not authorized by 678.

Whether or not 1441 was complied with is a discussion which would be extremely difficult to have from an objective historical perspective at this time. I suggest that if you wish to discuss it, you take it to the Backroom.

---

Thanks, this is what I'm looking for. What exactly was resolution 1441? My knowledge on the subject is rather limited.

1441

There's the wiki.

So 678 authorised force , 687 suspended that authorisation , 1441 said that it could reauthorise force from 678 for violation of 687 but had the provision that it would have to be voted on , France and Russia were going to veto that vote so some bright spark ignored 1441 and claimed that 678 was all they needed despite the fact that 1441 required them to go back to the security council to reuse 678 .
Simple isn't it .

Yep, it was a mockery of the UN, but it wasn't the first, and it won't be last.
Just yesterday I've seen on discovery Bush Junior speech right before invasion: "Iraqi army can do the right thing if it allows coalition forces to find and destroy wmd".