Us Marine Faces Execution In Iraq....

[Kevin]

Originally posted by RACooper
Alright then I will

I read through resolution 1441 and I didn't see anything that stated that a breach of the resolution would mean the use of armed force... in order for that to happen there had to be a vote in favour of this course of action. The US didn't bring an amendment or new resolution calling for the use of armed force against Iraq, therefore the action was not legally sanctioned by the UN.

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.

[RACooper]

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.

[Kevin]

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.

[Kevin]

Also, as for the issue of Iraq's Soveriegnty, please read the article that PhiPsiRuss posted in another thread.