How many of you believe that the Iraq war was authorized by the UN?

Question

Wow, billy d, you are quite gifted at being wrong.
1. 1441 did NOT contain any enforcement language. It merely warns of "serious consequences".
2. The UN NEVER ruled that Iraq was in violation of the ceasefire.
3. The whole point of the UN is that the Security Council is responsible for international peace and security. Not individual rogue states.

Answer 1

Not me.

That was all George W. Bush.

Answer 2

Military action in Iraq was not authorized by a direct UN resolution, but having read UN resolution 1441 myself which demanded Iraq's cooperation with weapons inspectors (which he did not give) it did indeed contain the terms of its own enforcement; hence an additional UN Security Council Resolution was not necessary.

Although I've been an opponent of the war, legally speaking there is ground in several ways to say the war was within the legal framework of international law. On march 3, 1991 Iraq signed a cease fire that was only a temporary suspension of U.S. hostilities in exchange for their cooperation in several areas which they first violated in 1993 and then practically every year after that.

The UN Charter also provides legal justification for military conflict in order to "preserve international peace and security". There are four conditions under which it is considered to have been breached and Saddam met all four.

Recently added: What the **** are serious consequences man? We're going to throw some stinkbombs at your next daughters wedding? If a nation violates the borders of another state, violates the nuclear non proliferation treaty, hosts internationally wanted criminals, or commits genocide then it has violated "international peace and security". Iraq did all four of those. I never said that there was a direct un resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq; i said the one passed contained the terms of its own enforcement hence serious consequences.

While I've always thought the war in Iraq was wrong, if it had my support it would only be if Bush had at least taken more time in consultation with other nation and gotton a direct and specific resolution that said "WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!". But to say that serious consequences is a coded message is naive; everybody knew what it meant, and it wasn't the only legal ground for the war.

Answer 3

While there were many, many resolutions pouring forth from the UN, they did not nor do they have the authority to authorize this or any war. The Iraq war began when Iraq invaded Kuwait. That conflict was never resolved. There was only an agreed upon cease fire which Saddam was routinely violating along with all of those UN resolutions and mandates.

When America entered Iraq to unseat Saddam, it was a commencement of that same war. The UN has no war authorization authority. Nor any realy crediblity if you ask me.

.

Answer 4

Authorization by the UN becomes a technicality at this stage. Even if it had been authorized, that would not make it any better. Too many mistakes, which cannot be undone, have led to the current sorry state of affairs.

Answer 5

Probably a lot of us---because we have Fox News and
Rush to tell us what to think !

In actuallity having been there (Iraq/Iran) for 4 years I
was one of the hundreds of Civilians who knew this
"war" to get the US involved in a religious/civil
dispute between the Sunnis and Shiites and oust
the one man who had them under control with an
"iron hand" would be a mistake !

But who wants to listen to a Civilian who was on the
spot ?

Answer 6

I'm going to confidently estimate that this number is somewhere between 60 and 80 percent of the evangelist population in Canada and the States.... no kidding. That 60 to 80 percent just don't know either way, and wouldn't doubt it when asked this question. Heaven forbid we call that ignorance.

Answer 7

I know that it wasn't, although Billy D gives an interesting answer that I was not aware of. Still, within the US, what business does the UN have overseeing our actions? The answer is none. The UN is ineffective at overseeing Iran, they were ineffective with Iraq, and North Korea. Why should we allow them to oversee us? We shouldn't. Let our government decide what it does. We don't need an international community of countries telling us how to do things.

Answer 8

I bet even most of the 26 percenters don't believe the UN authorized the Iraq war. That one is all on GWB!

Answer 9

The UN is not a world government (Though many of you uber-libs wish it was a total world government)... they have no power in authorizing anything in terms of declaration of war..... so your point is moot and your question is inane

Answer 10

I believe


that you have asked this same question too many times
Maybe if the worthless UN could enforce their own weak pathetic resolutions then there would not be a war And the libs do support the UN right?

Answer 11

I suppose like everything in the world it is open to interpretation depending on what side you want to support. Mulitple UN resolutions did authorize the use of force but again it is open to interpretation these days.