[ReignOfError]

Iraq, as run by Saddam, was generally accepted as a country with a legtimate & acknowledged government. They had a place at the UN (dictator protection league - go figure) and had embassies pretty much worldwide.

Knocking over the acknowledged government of a country is usually considered an act of war.

Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. An international coalition, led by the US, came to Kuwait's aid. None of those countries was in a formal state of war with Iraq -- Kuwait was, and the international troops were just there to help free Kuwait and defend Saudi Arabia.

The shooting stopped due to a cease-fire. There was never a formal peace treaty. If Saddam failed to abide by the terms of the cease-fire, then hostilities would resume. It's a fine distinction, but an important one in the world of international law.

[ctdonath2]

Ergo, the claim that we didn’t need to declare war because the ceasefire was violated doesn’t hold. Iraq was run out of Kuwait - end of “police action”. For a ceasefire violation to warrant toppling a government, when the violation has nothing to do with the act that started the conflict, is an issue of war.