Does any UN resolutions on Iraq give the US permission for war

[supercrash]

I am having a prblem sorting this out, Does the previous resolution give authority to use force against Iraq ?

I would seem to me that they don't, because Jr. was back there looking for permission before he went to war

Whats the Shissel my drissel ?

[mikehiggins]

1. No resolution gives a member state authority to go to war

without permission. If you recall, way back in the day, the US only got permission to defend Korea because the Russians stalked out in protest from the Security Council meeting.

Since Stalin wasn't anxious to let China become a dominant force in the Communist bloc, it is likely this stunt was designed to save face but allow the US to engage China's surrogates in N.Korea.

When MacArthur's troops rolled back the N.Korean offensive, the Chinese entered the war directly, which led to the current half century face off.

Nothing in the UN resolutions gave the US unquestioned authority to unilaterally invade Iraq. That is why BushCo went to so much trouble to build up Iraq as a threat in the minds of the US public. Any nation has to right to defend itself against attack, and even to launch an attack against enemy forces massing for aggression.

Only BushCo could imagine that to refer to a bunch of poorly motivated ground forces half a world away from our borders.

The Iraq invasion violated international law but no one has the balls to call us on it. So it goes in a nation held hostage.

[forgethell]

3. I don't think it

is that anybody lacks the "balls"; it is that they lack the ability. The UN is toothless.

[wuushew]

2. A more vexing question is when U.N. resolutions expire

Our justification for war was based on a 12 year old U.N. policy which by denying the more recent vote the U.S. then acted apon. If resolutions never expire shouldn't someone invade Israel for the hundreds of violations it has committed going back decades?

[forgethell]

4. They have, several times,

and got their rear-ends handed to them every time. that's why they no longer do that, and instead send their daughters to die in suicide bombings.

[dpbrown]

5. The US keeps the UN "unarmed" then "enforces" for it subjectively

That way the UN is the tool of the US when it wants to take action against another country, and the US can claim the UN is useless whenever it can't stop aggression in another part of the world.

It's never about the UN being "toothless", only about the US keeping the UN unarmed so it doesn't pose a threat to US lawlessless.

[durutti]

6. No.

There's a consensus among serious scholars of international law that the invasion of Iraq was illegal.

[K-W]

7. The UN has no real authority over the US

The UN is in no position to take action against the United States, we could destroy the UN if we really wanted to.

[proud patriot]

8. No

and because of this not only is the bush admin in violation of
international law , but breaking the U.N. Charter puts
them directly in violation of the U.S. Constitution as well.

[Iverson]

9. a good point

Treaties to which we are signatory are legally binding. This is one of the points I raised before my city council in supporting a pro-peace resolution.

It failed 6-1.

The rule of law just isn't good enough when the right wing wants to wage war.