Quote:
Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?
I'm not arguing that it was "illegal" either...at least not according to our Congress...it may be by UN standards though...in fact, didn't Kofi Annan declare it as such?
Sure, 678 was applicable, in fact, in the first paragraph of 687 is states as such...now go on and show me where 687 authorized the removal of Saddam...it didn't.
|
Kofi Annan was only Secretary-General of the UN, though - he wasn't King of the World. His opinion doesn't carry the force of law. Would it have been a good move for the US & UK to obtain a second Security Council Resolution? Yes. Was it necessary? I don't think so.
Resolution 687 by itself only put obligations on Iraq to comply. Resolution 1441 by itself only confirmed that Iraq hadn't complied with Resolution 687. Resolution 678 was the authority Coalition forces used to use "all necessary means" to deal Iraqi non-compliance with the relevant Security Council resolutions.
You can't view these Resolutions individually - they're all tied together.