Quote:
Originally Posted by bugalugs
No - nothing negates Article 51:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
And if Iraq were ever to carry out an armed attack against the USA or Australia or the UK or anyone else, then those countries would be well within their rights to exercise their right of self-defence.
But of course, Iraq did not carry out an armed attack against the USA or Australia or the UK or anyone else in 2003. Those countries invaded illegally without provocation.
|
We have already established that they did attack us, both through surrogates and in firing on our planes.
Quote:
|
I don't understand what you mean by "Note the first part of my post.". I addressed all of your last post
|
No you did not. I am talking about where I was talking about sovereignty.
Quote:
|
And you ask If it were illegal, where are the sanctions against the US? It is because - as we have already determined - it is the UN Security Council that has the power to determine what is or is not illegal under Article 39. As you may recall - the USA and the UK are both permanent members of the UNSC with the power of veto. That is why there have been no sanctions against the illegal invaders.
|
You don’t even read your own sources do you? It plainly states that we would have no vote in a matter such as that.