Quote:
Originally posted by RACooper
"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.
|
That's definitely one way of looking at it. However, the people that agree with me have the bigger guns and all the money. When it comes to deciding "International Law" (which has been a joke thus far in my opinion), I think those two things can be very important determining factors. Might doesn't always make right, in this case, those with the might just happen to also be right.
Hybrid Mode
