Quote Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
The US invasion was entirely legal from a UN standpoint; resolutions passed in the wake of the First Gulf War ensured that and Saddam had violated Cloud's lauded international laws countless times. The fact that neither the real violations of Saddam (Not to mention other regimes such as Zimbabwe and North Korea) are not strongly punished by the UN, and neither is the popularly percieved illegal attack by the coalition, plainly shows that the UN enjoys pretty much no power whatsoever.

Point is that there's pretty much nothing to fear from the UN for any parties. Only nations which actually take action (Legal or otherwise) are the ones who are getting things done.
That is where you are wrong because the those violations never had an outline in them as to the concequences. Since there is no concequence stated there must be a resolution of what an acceptable punishment is. War was not an acceptable punishment. I don't care if it got voted down for corrupt reasons. That just goes to show that UN has yet another problem.

The president just couldn't declare war on Afganistan after 9-11. He still had to get congress approval first(which he did immediatly). Unless these things are outlined a head of time it isn't legal...more or less in reference to declaring war on another country in the international community...and such.

It isn't the UN that is fear but it is the UN that should be feared. If they pass something and it isn't followed then everyone needs to enforce some sort of penalty. If not then why have the UN at all?