Dragonlich

I understand that. I just hope you read my location tab: I'm not a Yankee, I'm Dutch.

Anyway... as long as the UN is *not* democratic (and it isn't), I will not trust them, nor will I respect them. To paraphrase many other people: I do not accept moral judgments from an organization that has Libya as head of it's human rights commission, which had recently nominated Iraq as head of it's disarmament commission, and which denies membership (and even entry to it's halls!) to Taiwan because China says so.

As for international law: I suspect you're no expert in the field. Neither am I. However, recently, a Dutch international law expert explained that those laws are *not* fixed and firm. They are deliberately vague and open to interpretation, and might not even be legal in the first place.

Think about it: if the US can argue it has the right to attack Iraq, it will most certainly have made sure that is indeed the case. If France argues that the US cannot attack Iraq, they will have done the same. Apparently, both sides are right. How can this be, if international law is clear?

You have to remember that the UN charter is not the only set of international laws; there are countless other agreements (laws) and treaties. In fact, any time the UN passes one of their vague resolution, it becomes part of the vast library of international laws. There is *always* some law or rule that supports your side of the argument, just like there is always a law or rule that opposes it.

Now, even if I were to accept that international law was clear, simple and just; what about the enforcement? The UN is theoretically capable of enforcing the rules. In practice, they're always dependent on the (economic/military) support of the member countries. You get a sort of ad-hoc militia (or lynch mob) every time the UN tries to enforce their rules. That is hardly the basis of realistic international law enforcement.

We all know the end result: In simple terms, the UN talks and talks, while the "criminals" can do whatever they want. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want to live in a world where that is the case, especially when the "good guys" are criticized for breaking the rules when they decide to confront a "criminal".

Where is the enforcement in the case of Iraq? Sanctions were criticized for killing the Iraqi people, and they didn't even work. War wasn't an option either, according to you. What then? Do you have any other options?

By the way... just curious here: did you agree with NATO's intervention in Kosovo? That war also didn't have the UN's seal of approval, because Russia opposed. In fact, where were the peace protesters then? Could it be that many people are only opposed to the war in Iraq because 1) the US did it alone, and the US is seen as evil by many, and 2) Iraq has oil, while Kosovo does not...