Quote Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
When politicians use religion to get their illegal wars on it's very much a part of politics. If we really were democracies instead of plutocracies that hold elections every few years we'd have accountability for doing so too.
...there was no "illegal war" on Iraq, we just called them out for failure to follow the lack of an OFFICIAL treaty that had been set up after the first Gulf War.

On 17 March 2003, Peter Goldsmith, Attorney General of the UK, set out his government's legal justification for an invasion of Iraq. He said that Security Council resolution 678 authorised force against Iraq, which was suspended but not terminated by resolution 687, which imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction. A material breach of resolution 687 would revive the authority to use force under resolution 678. In resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq was in material breach of resolution 687 because it had not fully carried out its obligations to disarm. Although resolution 1441 had given Iraq a final chance to comply, UK Attorney General Goldsmith wrote "it is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply". Most member governments of the United Nations Security Council made clear that after resolution 1441 there still was no authorization for the use of force. Indeed, at the time 1441 was passed, both the US and UK representatives stated explicitly that 1441 contained no provision for military action.

We did not use RELIGION to attack Iraq.....we used shitty ENGLISH intelligence and a "wait and see" United Nations