|
There is no contradiction. I made 2 points:
1. The UN Charter WILL apply; and
2. Even so, the breadth and depth and sheer number of UN resolutions regarding Iraq made the war perfectly legal under that very Charter anyway.
In short, under the UN Charter making war is illegal except in defense or when approved by the UN. The resolutions surrounding Iraq made war an approved consequence if Iraq did not disarm. Iraq did not disarm -- or if it did, it did it in secret, which is unlikely and would have been STUPID. Therefore, even though the UN did not give a green light on the final, final, final approval for military action, the severity of the language in earlier Resolutions are tantamount to explicit approval. Just because the US/UK were kind enought to ask for approval a 4th or 5th time does not take away the fact it was approved thrice already.
Haven't read your link yet, but I will.
[Edit] I do not argue, nor would I, that preemptive force in self-defense is legal (absent imminence). That's a stupid stupid silly silly small-brained notion. If that were the case, any war any time any where is arguably valid. Bush was wrong to consider it a fair argument -- it shows just how much that idiot warhawk Wolfowitz can bend his ear.
Now, in the face of IMMINENT harm, this has some weight. For instance, Israel in 1967, facing enemies on all sides lining up tanks and threatening to attack. Another hypothetical for instance: if Kuwait had of attacked Iraq as Iraq was stockpiling the border to attack Kuwait. You'll find few of these instances, though.
[ 07-28-2003, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]
__________________
 
|