Stocks in a NOSE DIVE....Thanks to OBAMA!

[BlindBoo]

A previous UNSC resolution was used as one of the justification for the invasion in the post I was responding to. As a signatory to the UN Charter we do have a certain responsibility to uphold that Charter. Furthermore UNSCR 1441 was in effect at the time. It superseded the prior resolutions. It was only a matter of time before they would determine if Saddam had restarted his WMD programs.

The UN does NOT supersede our sovereignty.

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.
Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

[FONT=Guardian Text Egyptian Web, Georgia, serif]Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan[/FONT]

The UN clearly stated in UN Res 1441 that Iraq was in 'material breach' of the cease fire that was in effect. That means RESUME FIRING!

There was no automatic resumption of military action included in SCR 1441 for any reason. In fact there was no authorization for a military response whatsoever in SCR 1441. The SC agreed to reconvene if the inspectors reported they were hindered in any way. Also the Bush administration reneged on it promise not use military action until the final inspections of Iraq were complete.

When the cease fire was violated, the US did not need permission from the UN for anything. Bush gave Saddam ample warning before attacked.

There was no automatic resumption of hostilities built into the ceasefire if Iraq violated the Sanctions it imposed on Iraq. As the most powerful nation on earth, of course we didn't need permission. With our veto power, the UNSC is impotent. However, the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN and it violated the UN Charter. It was an act of aggression and was not an act of self defense.

 

[TooTall]

A previous UNSC resolution was used as one of the justification for the invasion in the post I was responding to. As a signatory to the UN Charter we do have a certain responsibility to uphold that Charter. Furthermore UNSCR 1441 was in effect at the time. It superseded the prior resolutions. It was only a matter of time before they would determine if Saddam had restarted his WMD programs.

The UN does NOT supersede our sovereignty.

The UN clearly stated in UN Res 1441 that Iraq was in 'material breach' of the cease fire that was in effect. That means RESUME FIRING!

There was no automatic resumption of military action included in SCR 1441 for any reason. In fact there was no authorization for a military response whatsoever in SCR 1441. The SC agreed to reconvene if the inspectors reported they were hindered in any way. Also the Bush administration reneged on it promise not use military action until the final inspections of Iraq were complete.

When the cease fire was violated, the US did not need permission from the UN for anything. Bush gave Saddam ample warning before attacked.

There was no automatic resumption of hostilities built into the ceasefire if Iraq violated the Sanctions it imposed on Iraq. As the most powerful nation on earth, of course we didn't need permission. With our veto power, the UNSC is impotent. However, the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN and it violated the UN Charter. It was an act of aggression and was not an act of self defense.

Iraq had continually made threats with SAM's to our and our allies that were enforcing the no fly zone. When you are engaged in a shooting war and a cease fire is negotiated, as soon as that cease fire is violated, it is not an act of aggression to resume the shooting war. Period

 

[BlindBoo]

A previous UNSC resolution was used as one of the justification for the invasion in the post I was responding to. As a signatory to the UN Charter we do have a certain responsibility to uphold that Charter. Furthermore UNSCR 1441 was in effect at the time. It superseded the prior resolutions. It was only a matter of time before they would determine if Saddam had restarted his WMD programs.

The UN clearly stated in UN Res 1441 that Iraq was in 'material breach' of the cease fire that was in effect. That means RESUME FIRING!

There was no automatic resumption of military action included in SCR 1441 for any reason. In fact there was no authorization for a military response whatsoever in SCR 1441. The SC agreed to reconvene if the inspectors reported they were hindered in any way. Also the Bush administration reneged on it promise not use military action until the final inspections of Iraq were complete.

When the cease fire was violated, the US did not need permission from the UN for anything. Bush gave Saddam ample warning before attacked.

There was no automatic resumption of hostilities built into the ceasefire if Iraq violated the Sanctions it imposed on Iraq. As the most powerful nation on earth, of course we didn't need permission. With our veto power, the UNSC is impotent. However, the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN and it violated the UN Charter. It was an act of aggression and was not an act of self defense.

Iraq had continually made threats with SAM's to our and our allies that were enforcing the no fly zone. When you are engaged in a shooting war and a cease fire is negotiated, as soon as that cease fire is violated, it is not an act of aggression to resume the shooting war. Period

There were no provisions for no fly zones in the cease fire. Every time his forces lit up our jets on radar not only did we know it but those locations also became targets themselves. Furthermore the UN resolutions authorizing the use of force did so in regards to rescuing the tiny Kingdom of Kuwait not as a reason to invade and occupy Iraq and remove Saddam from power.