"International Law" is not the same as "National Law". National Law is defined by national legislative bodies - Congress, Parliament or similar - which also provides for a police force to enforce it, a judicial system to judge breaches, and a penal system to punish them. It is "top down" - the legislature makes and enforces rules on people whether thy like it or not. International Law is a whole set of treaties which contries sign up to of their own accord - and (if they don't mind breaking their word) can back out of whenever they want. It is more like a whole set of club rules: if you break the club rules, the club can only fling you out or, if you want to stay in, impose a punishment which you accept as the price for staying in the club. The club cannot send you to prison for merely breaking club rules. Assuming, for the purpose of this argument, that the invasion of Iraq was illegal (which is not an open and shut case, whatever you and I may think), either their own legislatures (Congress, Parliament) have to take steps against them - which isn't going to happen, because their own parties dominate these assemblies; or a club of countries to which the US and UK both want to belong have to threaten to chuck them out unless they take action against the two leaders. But there is no such club - nobody whose opinion the two countries care about cares *enough" to muck up clubs like the UN, Nato, the EU by ejecting two of the worlds five richest countries. Or, to put it more cynically, might is right.

It wasn't illegal. The President is the Commander in Chief and can order our military forces into a war any time he wishes. He doesn't need the Congresses, the American people or anyone else's permission. He only needs the Congress for a "Declaration of War". He can keep them there as long as he wants and will. There was no declaration of war in the Korean War or Vietnam. For the current administration the war must end in a victory. Any other ending would be to admit they were wrong and all the deaths and expense of war were wrong. It will be up to the next administration of whatever party to end the war.

apparently despite oil being the reason for the war now, it was officially started because america thought they had nuclear weapons, which went against what they told the UN or something. of course, no weapons have been found to date, but who cares? a country is being raped under the guise of being saved. ironic isnt it? the only good thing to come out of this war was hussein being captured.

Who exactly can arrest Bush? He is the president of the United States. Essentially only Americans can make the decision about what to do.

The problems in Iraq have nothing to do with oil. Saying that is simply another popular, yet untrue, claim of those that do not care for the U.S. and/or it's leader. And the idea that Iraq is now being 'raped' is sad to hear. Extremists are piling into that country at an alarming rate, purely out of hate for the rights of the 'Western Free World', killing innocent men, women and children who truely desire to live without oppression. People can say what they want, but the Middle East has been a nest for pain and hatred for a long, long time - and that pain and hatred was carried to the U.S. via airplanes. The events of Sept. 11th weren't the first time the U.S. was attacked because of these 'beliefs'; it was merely the straw that broke the camels back. Pretending that the U.S. has caused the problems that have plagued the Middle East for Centuries is pathetic. Wars of hate for one's own brother based on religion (among other things) have dominated the land year after year. And now, the outside world has finally been dragged in on a grande scale. Someone refused to let that hatred go unchecked when it was brought to their doorstep. That someone was the U.S.