Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Proud Liberal Dem

(24,412 posts)
10. If memory serves
Thu Mar 27, 2014, 04:07 PM
Mar 2014

The UN Resolution that put the inspectors back in Iraq (1441?) stated something about "serious consequences" if it did not comply. Iraq, of course, DID comply with the UN and allowed the inspectors back in and they found no evidence of new/recent WMD activity. My understanding was that Bush/Cheney wanted to go back to the UN for a second resolution explicitly authorizing war but, as I recall, nixed the idea because they believed that they would not win it (and why would they since Iraq was actually in compliance per the UN weapons inspectors?) and decided to go into Iraq anyway as Bush/Cheney believed they had the authority. So, no, the UN did not explicitly authorize war and even if you take the "serious consequences" line in the initial resolution to be defined as war, Iraq was found by the UN to be in compliance with the resolution, so any kind of military action or other "serious consequences" should not have been imposed. Like with the IWR in Congress, it's all real "fuzzy" legally speaking, as to what was "approved". Of course, "fuzzy" was just the way the Bush (mis-)administration liked things, so..............

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Did the UN authorize our ...»Reply #10