The Iraq War retrospective Thread

[Jester]

I'm not wishing to take either side, but a quick browse did lead me to a footnote that may be something he is referring to. Specifically the second paragraph, but I'm including the whole footnote for some vague context.
That could be read to say that the UN is not a valid proper authority and so things should be only considered in terms of the nation in question itself (in this case the US). Course the last line also is somebody saying the UN is the only proper authority. My point is more that there seems to be disagreement outside of those on this forum of if the UN is a valid proper authority. If you side with the people saying the proper authority is the US then you argueing in regard to the UN being the proper authority isn't going to count for much. Once again, not saying where I side personally. Just explaining that I can see where kandrathe could get some justification for saying that the use of the UN as a proper authority is disputed.

Thanks, that does clear some things up.

However, this merely raises the question of whether a nation, *in the case of an existing just cause for war*, can act without the United Nations authority. That would be an interesting case, and I would likely accept war from a nation whose case for just war was ironclad, but simply lacked the political support of the UN, or who was blocked by a veto. However, since the US does not have such a cause for war, it is somewhat irrelevant whether they would be justified in declaring war if they had one.

And, of course, it is only a footnoted list of arguments people of made, and is hardly itself a refutation of my argument. Some of the cited articles might have convincing arguments against me, but then, some of them obviously support my position on this issue. I haven't read them, so perhaps a more curious poster will weigh the arguments more carefully.

-Jester