Reply #68: Nope [View All]

Here's the full text of the SC resolution you're talking about. You should read it.

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2003&m=October&x=20031016151238yesmikk0.6846125&t=usinfo/wf-latest.html

How do I know you haven't read the resolution? Because the first twelve words are:

Underscoring that the sovereignty of Iraq resides in the State of Iraq.

You didn't even read the first twelve words after the reaffirmation clause. So which part of the resolution did you feel retroactively authorized the invasion?

Here's an idea. Instead of replying to this immediately, take a day or two. Read up on international law. Read the relevant resolutions. Read the U.N. Charter. Read the U.S. Constitution. Then come back and we can discuss it. Right now you're just grasping at things to support your position that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was legal, which is based on faith, not fact.

Here's some more from the U.N. Charter, by the way.

The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council , with the exception of measures against any enemy state, as defined in paragraph 2 of this Article, provided for pursuant to Article 107 or in regional arrangements directed against renewal of aggressive policy on the part of any such state, until such time as the Organization may, on request of the Governments concerned, be charged with the responsibility for preventing further aggression by such a state.

The term enemy state as used in paragraph 1 of this Article applies to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory of the present Charter.