Originally posted by Arlo
Interesting opinion, even if it's wrong. The U.S. acted on U.N. mandates that were written in response to Iraq failing to comply with previous mandates that were enacted (the initial measures) at the time of cessation of hostilites during Desert Storm. You can't spin away that paper trail. But you can try. 
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".
Both the US and UK ambassadors to the UN stressed that these "serious consequences" were not an automatic validation of an invasion:
"As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. " - Ambassador John Negroponte of the US.
"We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about “automaticity” and “hidden triggers” – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response, as a co-sponsor with the United States of the text we have adopted. There is no "automaticity" in this Resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in Operational Paragraph 12." - Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock of the UK
The other veto powers make it equally clear:
The French said this: " in the event the executive president of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission or the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency reports to the Security Council that Iraq has not complied with its obligations, the Council would meet immediately to assess the seriousness of these violations and draw the consequences. France welcomes the fact that all ambiguity on this point and all element of automaticity have disappeared from the resolution."
The Russians: "At all stages of this work, we were guided by the need to direct the process of a settlement onto a diplomatic and political path and not to allow a military scenario. As a result of intensive negotiations, the resolution just adopted contains no provisions for the automatic use of force. It is important that the resolution’s sponsors today officially confirmed in the Security Council that that is their understanding and that they provided an assurance that the resolution’s objective is the implementation of existing Security Council decisions concerning Iraq through inspections by the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). That is an objective shared by all members of the Council.
In that connection, it is of fundamental importance that the resolution clearly confirms that all Members of the United Nations respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq and of all other States in the region. It is also confirms the need for full implementation of resolution 1382 (2001), whereby members of the Security Council undertook to seek a comprehensive settlement of the Iraq problem, which assumes the lifting of sanctions. "
The Chinese: "As the co-sponsors pointed out during their statements, the purpose of the resolution is to achieve the disarmament of Iraq through effective inspections. The text no longer includes automaticity for authorizing the use of force. According to the resolution, only upon receipt of a report by UNMOVIC and the IAEA on Iraq’s non-compliance and failure to cooperate fully in the implementation of this resolution shall the Security Council consider the situation and take a position.
We are also pleased to note that at the request of many members, including China, the resolution has now included some important elements, e.g.'reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighboring States,' ”
It's also worth noting that all further Security Council Resolutions on Iraq prior to the invasion (1443, 1447, 1454) reiterate "the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq" but none mention the "serious consequences".
And finally, the US,UK & Spain did draw up this resolution proposal:
http://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/res-...ar03-en-rev.pdf but it was withdrawn due to lack of support.
