This is incorrect:
U.N. Resolution 678 -starting the war in 1990- spells 'attack Hussein in Kuwait' so that Kuwait is freed.
'attack Hussein in Iraq' is nowhere in the U.N..
'attack Hussein in Iraq', that's Bush outside of the U.N..
678 :
authorizes use of all means necessary to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;
660:
demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990;
661:
sanctions if 660 is not followed;
662:
demanding, once again, that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990;
determined to bring the occupation of Kuwait by Iraq to an end and to restore the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Kuwait;
determined also to restore the authority of the legitimate Government of Kuwait.
The objective of resolutions referred to in 678 is having Iraq out of Kuwait and having the state of Kuwait reinstated.
This goal for which the use of force was authorized is accomplished in 1991 thus ending the authorization to use force, unless the U.N.S.C., which remains seized of the matter – not the U.S. – decides otherwise
The authority of the U.N.S.C. in this matter is further stressed and accepted by the U.S. in all following resolutions including:
687: ceasefire conditions
34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.
1441: threat of serious consequences
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
687 was the ceasefire which also said that the U.N.S.C. remains seized of the matter.
It was up to the U.N.S.C. - not the U.S. - to decide if Iraq violated the agreement, and if yes how to react to that violation.
Any action by the U.S. without U.N.S.C. authorization is a violation of 687 and all other Iraq resolutions after it.
The U.N.S.C. did not again authorize the use of force against Iraq despite desperate U.S. attempts to obtain such authorization in February 2003.
It is the U.N.S.C. – not the U.S. made of Bush, Perle, Powell, etc. – who had the authority (as recognized by U.S. in its signature) to authorize further use of force.
The U.N.S.C. didn't authorize further use of force against Iraq.
Thus, the Bush war in Iraq is illegal by world standards.
U.N. Resolution 687 -a ceasefire in the war of 1990-, doesn't spell 'attack Hussein in Iraq'.peptoabysmal said:
U.N. Resolution 678 -starting the war in 1990- spells 'attack Hussein in Kuwait' so that Kuwait is freed.
'attack Hussein in Iraq' is nowhere in the U.N..
'attack Hussein in Iraq', that's Bush outside of the U.N..
678 :
authorizes use of all means necessary to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;
660:
demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990;
661:
sanctions if 660 is not followed;
662:
demanding, once again, that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990;
determined to bring the occupation of Kuwait by Iraq to an end and to restore the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Kuwait;
determined also to restore the authority of the legitimate Government of Kuwait.
The objective of resolutions referred to in 678 is having Iraq out of Kuwait and having the state of Kuwait reinstated.
This goal for which the use of force was authorized is accomplished in 1991 thus ending the authorization to use force, unless the U.N.S.C., which remains seized of the matter – not the U.S. – decides otherwise
The authority of the U.N.S.C. in this matter is further stressed and accepted by the U.S. in all following resolutions including:
687: ceasefire conditions
34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.
1441: threat of serious consequences
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
687 was the ceasefire which also said that the U.N.S.C. remains seized of the matter.
It was up to the U.N.S.C. - not the U.S. - to decide if Iraq violated the agreement, and if yes how to react to that violation.
Any action by the U.S. without U.N.S.C. authorization is a violation of 687 and all other Iraq resolutions after it.
The U.N.S.C. did not again authorize the use of force against Iraq despite desperate U.S. attempts to obtain such authorization in February 2003.
It is the U.N.S.C. – not the U.S. made of Bush, Perle, Powell, etc. – who had the authority (as recognized by U.S. in its signature) to authorize further use of force.
The U.N.S.C. didn't authorize further use of force against Iraq.
Thus, the Bush war in Iraq is illegal by world standards.
Where does it say relevant resolutions prertinent to reinstating Kuwait in the U.S. explanation on the vote for 1441? It does not. In their explanation, which is what I was addressing, they explicitly said to enforce relevant UN resolutions.