On our own we would need a legal basis for action -- there was no legal basis -- ourtside of what could be provided by the UN.
Of course there was. Kuwait was invaded and asked our help in defending themselves. Kuwait did not need to ask for UN permission to defend themselves, even if they planned to march to Baghdad to do so, and once Kuwait asked for our help, we also did not need UN permission. Asking for UN support was a political move to bring greater pressure on Iraq, not a legal move to gain permission.
It astounds me that you still do not understand this basic principle that every nation has a right to self-defense and does not need UN permission to exercise that right, including asking for help from its allies.
By your standards, NATO is a meaningless pact because no member could take military action in defense of another member (or of itself) without first asking UN permission.
There is no legal basis now outside of what could be provided by the UN. The UN Security Council, not the US, decides what actions are, or are not, authorized to be taken in the name of the UN.
Who said anything about taking actions "in the name of the UN?" If we took unilateral action, it would obviously NOT be in the name of the UN. But unilateral action is not, on its face, illegal or contrary to the UN charter. |
