SOC,
“This is why the anti-war countries want a new resolution; they know damn good and well that we could start right now on the basis of 1441 if we felt the need.”
Actually, only the Security Council is allowed to authorise the initiation of a conflict and only with a specific resolution, clearly stating that the use of force is permitted.
“Besides, UN backing doesn’t justify or define the legality of a war.”
Actually, it does and it’s the only body in the world with that authority.
“All of 2 wars have been officially backed by the UN in the last 50 years or so: Korea, and Dsert Storm. Does that mean we should all be smited for participating in Bosnia?”
Peacekeeping involvement in Bosnia was governed by specific SC resolutions.
“Or for bombing Libya in 1986?”
An illegal act of war, however you look at it.
“Or for trying to fix what the obviously imperialistically-challenged French messed up in Southeast Asia?”
Yes, thats it, use a conflict where your military killed millions of people as justification for another one.
What worries me most about this war is not that people will die or that one nation will illegally attacking another and illegally changing its government – its the precedent. Any government could use US and UK arguments to attack its enemies without cause, without a declaration of war, maybe even without warning. Why wouldn’t India attack Pakistan tomorrow with a massive preemptive nuclear strike? It can argue that Pakistan is run by an unelected government, which sponsors terrorist groups, which restrics the rights of its own people etc. Don’t even get me started on WMDs. ‘Pakistan is a threat not just to India’s democracy but to the freedom and libery of the international community and of civilized nations around the world’ They would say and they wouldn’t bother with international law or the security council or anything, they’d just launch lots of nukes.
Sign In
