Originally posted by Thrawn
No you are wrong and apparently haven't actually even read any of the applicable Security Council resolutions.
Read them yourself. I've posted the link often enough.
http://www.csis.org/mideast/reports/iraq_unres.html#687Originally posted by Thrawn
A paper trail which you conveniently fail to provide. Can you please tell me exactly which UN Security Council resolution the US is acting under?
And again.
http://www.csis.org/mideast/reports/iraq_unres.html#687Originally posted by Thrawn
Here is some of the text on the last resolution adopted by the Security Council regarding Iraq (1441).
"Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,"
"2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,863569,00.html
Bear in mind that this resolution was written by the US government and the US government voted for it's implementation.
So the UN Security Council reaffirmed the sovereignty of Iraq, and then the US invaded it.
It's quite simple, actually. The U.N. has reaffirmed the sovereignty of all nations since it's formation. In your mind that means the U.N. has never once supported the use of force. It didn't support it in Korea. It didn't support it in Viet Nam. And, of course, it sure as hell doesn't support it in any region of the Middle East. And we all know the term "strong consequences" simply means sticking out your tongue and/or flipping the bird.
http://www.csis.org/mideast/reports/iraq_unres.html#687Originally posted by Thrawn
And although Iraq was in material breach the Security Council decided to "afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council;", following the system as sponsored by the US. Then the US decided to ignore it's own system and invade Iraq.
The US is itself in violation of UN resolutions, the same crime it accused Iraq of. And is also in violation of the UN Charter.
Again ...
It's quite simple, actually. The U.N. has reaffirmed the sovereignty of all nations since it's formation. In your mind that means the U.N. has never once supported the use of force. It didn't support it in Korea. It didn't support it in Viet Nam. And, of course, it sure as hell doesn't support it in any region of the Middle East. And we all know the term "strong consequences" simply means sticking out your tongue and/or flipping the bird.
http://www.csis.org/mideast/reports/iraq_unres.html#687Originally posted by Thrawn
Arlo, next time you want to tell people they are wrong regarding UN "mandates" it might help if you had a passing knowledge of them.
Irony can be funny.
http://www.csis.org/mideast/reports/iraq_unres.html#687Originally posted by -dead-
The requirement for any UN sanctioned invasion is a resolution sanctioning said invasion to be passed by the UN Security council. With no such sanction for the Invasion of Iraq, you can't use the UN as justification. You'll have to look elsewhere for the casus belli: the UN dog won't hunt.
Bellyache all you like about the UN - right or wrong, it did not sanction the invasion at all.
The best you can get off the UN is 1441's provision of "serious consequences" a threat tempered with the reaffirmation of "the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States".
Again ...
It's quite simple, actually. The U.N. has reaffirmed the sovereignty of all nations since it's formation. In your mind that means the U.N. has never once supported the use of force. It didn't support it in Korea. It didn't support it in Viet Nam. And, of course, it sure as hell doesn't support it in any region of the Middle East. And we all know the term "strong consequences" simply means sticking out your tongue and/or flipping the bird.
08 November 2002
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441
The Security Council,
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990 (to) 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
(Look at all the cooperation, would ya?) 
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and
its intention to implement it fully,
Recognizing the
threat[/i] Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990)
authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area[/i],
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991)
imposed obligations [/i]on Iraq
Deploring the fact that Iraq
has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 [/i]
Deploring further that
Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687[/i]
Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people[/i],
Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has
failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq[/i],
Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that
a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein[/i],
Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance[/i],
Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,
(Which pretty much means Iraq, Kuwait and the neighboring states need to stay within their own borders and not invade each other. THAT MEANS YOU, IRAQ!)[/i]
Commending the Secretary General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary General for their efforts in this regard,
Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,[/i]
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Decides that
Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991)[/i];
2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution,
a final opportunity (this means "last chance") 
to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that
it will face serious consequences (Which doesn't REALLY mean ... just sticking out a tongue and/or flipping the bird)as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
