I think the whole legal authority for the 'no fly zones' was wrapped in that and that included more thoroughgoing intervention.

But of course international 'authorization' - like God - is on the side of the most artillery <s>

>I'm no expert but I thought that resolution 678 authorized the use of all necessary means to enforce resolution 660 to force Iraq to cease certain activities that included threatening international peace and security as well as the repression of its civilian population (see resolution 688) and threatening its neighbors (see resolution 949). Wasn't that part of the justification that congress signed off on (the authorization to use force) in Oct of 2002?
>
>
>>>>>>>>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 ?