Comment War Precedent (Score 3, Insightful) 454
"On March 17, 2003, Lord Goldsmith, Attorney General of the UK, set out his government's legal justification for an invasion of Iraq. He said that Security Council resolution 678 authorised force against Iraq, which was suspended but not terminated by resolution 687, which imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction. A material breach of resolution 687 would revive the authority to use force under resolution 678. In resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq was in material breach of resolution 687 because it had not fully carried out its obligations to disarm. Although resolution 1441 had given Iraq a final chance to comply, UK Attorney General Goldsmith wrote "it is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply"."
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Legal_justification
I for one do not trust our governments to tell me the truth, or engage in wars unless necessary anymore.
Check out the new Slashdot iPad app
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Legal_justification
I for one do not trust our governments to tell me the truth, or engage in wars unless necessary anymore.
Check out the new Slashdot iPad app