[Stan Hunts]

I shall rest easier tonight knowing that the Marshall Islands and Latvia are awake. I think you miss my point.

My point was that, you cannot be heard to justify this war on the basis of a UN Resolution that the UN refuses to defend. If every nation in the world had a few people in Iraq, that does not change the reality that we led the charge without UN approval.

I am not saying that our action was wrong. But to justify it on the sole basis of the UN Resolution is to hide behind something for which we had no respect in the first place. If the UN is only a useful tool for US aggression, we then contribute to its impotence if we are heard to justify our actions on the basis of its Resolutions.

[new cruelty]

I am not saying that our action was wrong. But to justify it on the sole basis of the UN Resolution is to hide behind something for which we had no respect in the first place.

That you are not saying the actions of the United States is wrong gives some validity to your comments. I think there is more to this than just 1441, but since that is the focus of this thread and your point of contention with recovering democrat, I offer that the converse is more likely- the United Nations has no respect for itself and in turn shied away from its responsibility to enforce its own resolutions. And rather than hide behind 1441, the United States is cramming it down the throat of saddam hussein and those who side with him.

[Recovering_Democrat]

I shall rest easier tonight knowing that the Marshall Islands and Latvia are awake. I think you miss my point. My point was that, you cannot be heard to justify this war on the basis of a UN Resolution that the UN refuses to defend.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough for you in my original post. I'll try again. :) There were scads of reasons for going into Iraq, in my opinion. But those ninnies screaming now about the supposed lack of WMDs are saying that was the only justification for going into Iraq, and without WMDs, there was a sinister Bush reason for doing so. They are wrong, even by their own standard of "doing it by the U.N.". U.N. Resolution 1441 was being breached by Iraq. The President, authorized by the declaration of Congress and by 1441 itself (the "serious consequences" clause) enforced the U.N. Resolutions dating back to 1991.

If every nation in the world had a few people in Iraq, that does not change the reality that we led the charge without UN approval.

Show me where the U.N. disapproved of our action. What vote of the Security Council passed such a disapproval?

I am not saying that our action was wrong. But to justify it on the sole basis of the UN Resolution is to hide behind something for which we had no respect in the first place.

You should understand now this is not the sole basis of our action, at least in my opinion. But it is a sufficient basis.

If the UN is only a useful tool for US aggression, we then contribute to its impotence if we are heard to justify our actions on the basis of its Resolutions.

Balderdash. What contributes to the U.N.'s "impotence" is the weak-kneed "leaders" who infiltrate and populate that institution, refusing to take a stand against the human rights abusers and terrorists of this world. Enforcing the will of the world (in this case, Iraq's complete compliance with a score of Resolutions) creates legitimacy for the U.N.