Are we now in violation of international law even if we weren't in the

[Toots]

beginning. we used UN resolution # *&%# I can't remember the actual number I think 1410 but probably wrong but that is beside the point. We were on very shaky international grounds when we began but after it has been proved there were no WMDs and Saddam has been removed there is no legitimate reason for our continued occupation of Iraq and I believe we do so in violation of international law. Our justification of bringing Democracy to Iraqis is not a legitimate reason for occupation and killing. Why does not the UN speak up?

[mmonk]

1. They did

and we were called belligerents (US and UK) whenever there was talk about the situation from the UN.

[indepat]

2. Being polite, suspect belligerents was the nicest tag the UN could use

[htuttle]

5. I believe it's also a legal term from the Charter itself

[bullimiami]

3. it is all war crime from the planning to the present

premeditated. proof is pnac.
aggressive war.
torture.
plunder and wholesale robbery and corruption.
occupation.
chemical weapons.
depleted uranium.

these guys are up international shits creek if anyone has the guts to charge them.

[Norquist Nemesis]

4. Probably because who controls the purse strings also has

a whole shitload of power. From what I've read, we've (via Bush and his vision to "reform" the UN) have made covert threats to cut funding. I don't recall exactly, but I think it's about 40% of the UN's budget. That's quite a chunk. :(

[NV Whino]

6. 1441, I think.