Your argument might hold more water if the invasion had been sanctioned, and even led, by the UN. Unless the US fancies itself as the unilateral enforcer of UN resolutions, then the response must be initiated by and sanctioned by the UN in order to be justified as being on the behalf of the 'world community'.
Instead, we simply thumbed our noses at the UN, because they would not play by our rules and timeline. Which is fine, but you can't then go back and claim that we're doing it on the behalf of the UN.
And, in the court of world opinion, more nations and people are against our actions than for them. So, you can't appeal to the wider non-UN 'community' as justification.
Just as in US law, there needs to be a system of justice, along with a pre-defined enforcement process, that the world can live by. When countries become vigilantes, then they bare the responsibility for producing the proof that their actions were justified. Based on the UN resolutions, that proof is WMD. Back to square one. |
