McGentrix wrote:I believe I said "These have given the US administration the legal footing they need to support the war." Not that the UN authorized the the US to invade Iraq.
Not exactly. You were attempting to interpret
woiyo's previous remarks. He had said:
"Iraq ia a war of enforcement and as a RESULT of 9-11, pre-emptive military action was taken to enforce UN Resolutions broken over the past 10 years."
In response to that I asked:
How could the invasion be characterized as enforcing UN resolutions when it was done without UN authorization?
Upon which you stated:
Joe, I believe woiyo is speaking of past resolutions. 1440 and the 600's pertaining to the cease fire in 91. These have given the US administration the legal footing they need to support the war
So, in the context of the discussion, I was talking about authorization when you intruded into my conversation with
woiyo. Now, if you had nothing to say about authorization, then there was no point in you intruding. Your remark would have been irrelevant. On the other hand, if by "legal footing" you mean something like "authorization," then your remark was relevant. So which is it?
McGentrix wrote:You're the lawyer here Joe (right? I got Joed on this recently...), I am sure you can appreciate the subtleties of the law in this regard.
Yes, I do. I am, however, convinced that you don't.
