>>>>>>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."


Indeed.

We're enforcing a resolution that was a final demand for compliance with international law as determined by UN Resolutions.

The legal precedent that exists to determine how that compliance is enforced, well, it simply doesn't exist.