>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441
>>>>
>>>>Did you think I don't remember or can't read? That resolution authorized weapons inspections in Iraq, not an invasion or occupation.
>>>
>>>It demanded full compliance too.
>>
>>And what did the "or else" clause say? There was none. That would have required a different resolution.
>
>
>The nice thing about precedent in International Law is that there really isn't any.
>
>To deem Americas actions as illegal, there would have to be UN Resolution against them too.
>
>But there won't be because we'd use our veto power to stop it.
>
>Therefore, its technically legal.
>
>That's the standard understanding of it from a legal perspective.


Dr. Helland doth speak in circles. Please don't change the subject and hope everyone forgets how we got here, OK? Here is your statement that got us on this track:

"The UN Resolution allowed it. We are there legally."