Quote:
Originally posted by ktsnake
Exactly what do you think "Serious Consequences" meant? I don't think anyone was surprised that the interpretation of the US was that it meant military action.
|
"Serious Consequences" is a very vague term legally... regardless what these "Serious Consequences" were to be still had to defined and authorized through the UN... just as it happened back in 1991, but that time the US went in under UN authority. This time however there was no such authority granted at the UN, to impose "Serious Consequences" or what they entailed... hence the use of military force to violate the sovereignty of Iraq's borders (which all the nations involved in the first conflict affirmed) constituted a breach of among other resolutions 1441 ironically.
Threaded Mode