>>>>>>
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."
Don't the terms of the cease fire from the first Gulf War authorize force to enforce abrogation of any part of the agreement ?
Charles Hankey
Though a good deal is too strange to be believed, nothing is too strange to have happened.
- Thomas Hardy
Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm-- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.
-- T. S. Eliot
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
- Ben Franklin
Pardon him, Theodotus. He is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.
