>>>>>>>
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 ?
If that's the case, how come we were lobbying for a new UN resolution and so angry at France and Germany for not going along with it?