|
Last time I post on this "legality of war" issue:
1. Resolutions 686/687
2. 17 resolutions since then
3. Resolution 1441 (While I disagree with your conclusion, I'll concede this one because I don't need it to be right - and think you present your case well, BTW)
4. Saddam signed a cease fire. Failure to abide by the cease fire terms nullifies the cease fire. After a cease fire is nullified, fighting by either party is not illegal. War was never un-declared. If you want to see evidence of violation of the cease fire, see numbers 1-3 above. Technically, the cease fire was dead as dead when the UN inspectors pulled out the first time, and likely long before then.
Note I'm not taking President Bush's side here. The "preemptive strike is a form of self-defense" notion he argues does not pass the straight-face test with any legal mind, and I don't assert it above. I'm telling you the reasons the war is legal, and I'm applying the law the ICJ would. You knocked out (I will concede for purposes of argument) only the R1441 justification. That is not the only justification I argued in the link.
But, let me finally state my absolute disgust with the "take measures, pass protocols, resolve to think about it, and sit on our hands" crowd. As a general rule, I abhor those who say they will do something and then do not do it. 4 months ago I supported the UN. At this point, I can't wait to see it fail, and to see those HUNDREDS of treaties turn to dust, allowing my country to run amuck as it pleases.
I'm not *for* the US's constant manipulation of international law, mind you - or the aforementioned "running amuck." The US is woefully stubborn in its unwillingness to compromise, as indicated by its refusal to sign on to the human rights treaties and the international criminal court.
But, (1) the war in Iraq issue is NOT one of those instances, and (2) while the fall of the UN will result in human tragedy, it serves the UN right for not being able to do anything whatsoever of substance.
__________________
 
|