>>>Iraq signed the "accord" with the UN as the counterparty. Not the US.<<<
Indeed
Good. Then we agree that US didn't have the right to decide in UN's place what to do about Iraq.
The US and UK, as permanent members of the UN, enforced UNSC 1441, after those 90 days passed without full compliance being realized.
Which is exactly the same thing as saying "Zonder, as a resident of Monaco, shot down her neighbour whose dog was pissing in her garden, after the Police of Monaco didn't punish her neighbor after 90 days".
Face it. UN could, if it wanted to, use force against Iraq. It didn't. US/UK acted as unlawful vigilantes in this, with NO legitimacy.
Zonder dear... please provide and example of where the UN has ever "directly decided" that hostilities against another state were in order??
Hawk dear... Why would I have to do that?
The counterparty was the UN, not the US. If UN wanted to order hostilities, it could. But it didn't. That doesn't make it OK that US/UK invaded Iraq AGAINST EXPLICIT DECISION of the UN to the CONTRARY.
And then tell us why they would take such an unprecedented course of action merely to enforce a UNSC that already has the authority of "all necessary means" backing it?
I would love to continue your education, if only I could understand what you are trying to ask. |
