I'm not sure if you're referring to the UN in general or the Bush administration's Iraq policy, but either way I wasn't alluding to the honey/vinegar metaphor. Basically, the UN is a political/diplomatic reality that must be taken into account when pursuing foreign policy. A nation-state acts in what it perceives to be its national interests. The extent to which it is in a nation's interests to act within the UN framework (and that framework has constrained or improved behavior between nation-states) defines the functional extent of UN authority and international law.

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,

1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwil, to do so;

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

3. Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the present resolution;




Now, in what LEGAL manner do *you* say that this was an illegal war? There still existed a state of war between the UN-authorized forces from 1991, and Iraq was in breach of the truce terms which it signed. Please cite ANY international authority that states the continuation of the the Gulf War was illegal, or that the US was NOT operating under the authority of UNSec Resolution 1441, since it was enforcing the terms and conditions of an Article 7 Binding Resolution, to which the UNSECCOUCIL unanimously agreed to. Are you saying that it's ILLEGAL to enforce the will of an Articel 7 resolution, which says BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY? 


I sincerely doubt it..

I've read both of your posts twice, and I still don't see the "actual words" stating that a member state is authorized to invade and occupy Iraq for the purpose of REGIME CHANGE and establishing permanent military bases.

However, I do see in the quotes above references to the Security Council. As I've pointed out before, the Security Council DID NOT authorize the invasion in 2003. There was a big deal about the 2nd vote for that authorization. Bush lobbied the members hard for their votes, but he called it off when he saw he would lose that vote.

And I'll ask the question again. The UN inspectors were readmitted to Iraq with access to every site in order to determine whether Iraq was in compliance regarding WMD. Why weren't they allowed to finish their work and make that determination?

I've read every post. I have so far recieved the personal opinions of you, Mr. Peisi, Kofi Annan, and some lawyer's website.
The issue is the legality of a US invasion of Iraq....I've showed the resolutions that laid out ceasefire agreements, the resolutions that allows for any means necessary as an option by member states to enforce an article 7 resolution and any subsequent resolution, which there were many that Iraq was also declared to be in major breach of. You ahve countered with internet JUNK. Now, I ask you, please cite the LEGAL authority that states that a continuation of the Gulf war, that a US invasion of Iraq,was illegal; according to the pertinent resolutions, or the US Constitution, or the War Powers Act.
I ask you, when regarding the legality of the Iraq war, NOT why inspectors were or were not allowed to continue their 12-year quest to find what we found in 12 months, but instead, why...according to WHAT....would you consider enforcing the terms and conditions of a unanimous, article 7 resolution, which says "by any means necessary" to be illegal? Dare I say you can't do it.

SuperChicken, your entire argument is predicated on the assumption that by invading Iraq the US was enforcing UN resolutions. The Bush administration doesn't give a rat's ass about the authority of the UN. They invaded for their own reasons. You have yet to post the "actual words" in any UN resolution or in the UN Charter granting any member state the authority to use force for the purpose of REGIME CHANGE. You can't, because it is a violation of the UN Charter.

The dictates of Resolution 1441 were being carried out by the inspectors, who were there to determine whether Iraq was in compliance. Bush put an end to that enforcement. Why? What imminent threat was posed while Iraq was crawling with inspectors and the world's greatest military was poised to strike at the slightest provocation? If this war "preempted" anything, it was the inevitable finding by the inspectors that Iraq HAD NOT reconstituted its WMD programs. The primary rationale for this war (and public support for it) would have evaporated along with the "mushroom clouds" Bush conjured up.

You are of the opinion that the resolutions that launched the first gulf war gave any member state the authority to do what the US did in 2003. For example, if Russia had invaded and occupied Iraq, set up military bases and changed Iraq's oil transactions from euros to rubles, no doubt you would have defended those actions as legal. My guess is you don't give a rat's ass about UN legalities any more than John Bolton and that you would have screamed bloody murder if Russia took those actions.

We can go back and forth like this about UN legalities ad infinitum. It's a waste of time. If you want to address the topic of this thread, I'll respond. If not, feel free to knock yourself out.

Just because it is legal does not make it right.

A man may be convicted of murder and sentenced to death. It is legal.

New evidence comes about years later and clears him of the crime. Now what?

The UN Resolutions do not take into account intangible circumstances like Saddams need to appear strong in the face of an enemy like Iran or his people.

I make no excuses, only intention is to shine light on other possibilities.

"any means necessary" does not imply "any actions necessary". Does not set out the extent to which any means are to be used. Any means is not any means in any form. Any means are to enforce the resolution. Physical extermination of the entire population would enforce the resolution; any means does not mean any means to any extent.

British Attorney General legal advice to Blue Liar prior to the war:

" Any force used pursuant to the authorisation in resolution 678 (whether or not there is a second resolution):


-must have as its objective the enforcement the terms of the cease-fire contained in resolution 687 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions;
- be limited to what is necessary to achieve that objective; and
- must be a proportionate response to that objective, ie securing compliance with Iraq's disarmament obligations.
That is not to say that action may not be taken to remove Saddam Hussein from power if it can be demonstrated that such action is a necessary and proportionate measure to secure the disarmament of Iraq. But regime change cannot be the objective of military action. This should be borne in mind in considering the list of military targets...."

any questions?