You have not got a leg to stand on. Thats why you are just ranting and misrepresenting my arguments. How about you actually raise the legal points and attack my argument instead of attacking me?
1. Resolution 678 authorized force against Iraq to eject it from Kuwait and to restore peace and security in the area.
2. Resolution 687, which set out the cease-fire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace and security in the area.
3. Resolution 687 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force under resolution 678.
4. A material breach of resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under resolution 678.
5. Resolution 1441 determined that Iraq was and remained in material breach of resolution 687, because it had not fully complied with its obligations to disarm.
6. Thus, the authority to use force under resolution 678 was revived.
Resolution 678 contained the authorization to “use all necessary means” No time limit on its duration had been established in the operative part of resolution.
The combined effects of resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 under Chapter VII of the UN Charter render the war legal.
Simply telling me I am wrong and going round in circles attacking the poster and not the post is not going to make the Iraq war illegal and never will.
David, your grasp of the intricacies of international law surrounding the invasion is, to put it kindly, limited. Below you can read a damning critique by eminent QC., Phillippe Sands regarding the legality of the invasion and the Chilcott report:
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n15/philippe-sands/a-grand-and-disastrous-deceit You will find that your interpretations of the resolutions you listed perhaps lack something in understanding. If you can't be arsed to read it in full here are a few relevant sections that deal specifically with the requirement of a new resolution and legality of the invasion.
"... Even so, Chilcott devotes much of his opening statement on the legality. Distinguishing between substance and process, the inquiry concludes that "the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a basis for UK military action were "far from satisfactory." "Far from satisfactory" is a career ending phrase in mandarin speak, a large boot put in with considerable force. As late as January 2003, Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, told Blair that lawful war required a further Security Council resolution, before later changing his mind - his written advice of 7 March found a second resolution "preferable" (rather than indispensable) - and then changing it again, offering a final view on 17 March: since Iraq was in "material breach" of the existing Security Council resolutions, "the authority to use force under Resolution 678 was, "as a result" revived." Taking the documents of 7 and 17 March together, Chilcott notes that on the legal view finally adopted, war would be lawful only if there was evidence that Iraq had committed "further material breaches as specified in Resolution 1441." The resolutions in place were well understood and debated at the time leading to millions worldwide in the biggest protests ever seen taking to the streets. At the UN the US/UK were out on a limb against the overwhelming international consensus.
The US/UK were self evidently going to war regardless of legality and desperately searching for even a fig leaf to justify their actions. Goldsmith's advice appears, to the impartial observer, to have been in some way coerced. He was changing with the wind and under intense pressure to give "legal cover" to the already made decision to go to war.
The argument is so strained as to be laughable. Phillippe Sands spells it out for you anyway and goes on to say:
"He homes in on a key question: on what basis did Blair take the decision that Iraq was in further material breach? "Not clear", Chilcott answered, somewhat generously, since the evidence before the enquiry showed that Blair consulted no one but himself - not the UN weapons inspectors, not the Joint Intelligence Committee, not anyone. Playing God and weapons inspector, Blair simply made up his mind that Iraq was in material breach. "Given the gravity of the situation," Chilcott adds, "Lord Goldsmith should have been asked to provide written advice explaining how, in the absence of a majority in the Security Council, Mr. Blair could take that decision." This is a pretty damning indictment of the claims to legality through previous resolutions. It should also beg the question why were US/UK seeking a new resolution in the Security Council, if as you contend, the resolutions in place already justified invasion.
When it became obvious that the US/UK did not have the support for a new resolution authorising force and had no chance of getting one through the UN, there was suddenly legal advice justifying action from the AG, albeit it secret and contrary to his previous advice. Anyway Sands goes on:
"
The report goes further in its criticism of the processes followed in obtaining a legal sign-off. Senior ministers were not consulted. "Normal practice" was cast aside: it was "unusual" for the attorney general rather than a minister to offer an explanation in parliament. Ministers, senior officials and the cabinet weren't provided with the written advice of 7 March: the cabinet wasn't told how Blair had reached his views on material breach. The cabinet "should have been made aware of the uncertainties", but was not. Goldsmith should have provided full written advice explaining the full legal basis for action and setting out all the risks of legal challenge.
These are forceful criticisms. They are given added heft by the inquiry's failure to be persuaded by Blair and Straw's claim that France was to blame "for the "impasse" in the UN", and by it's blunt rejection of the idea that the UK had upheld the authority of the Security Council. Rather, "in the absence of a majority in support of military action we consider the UK was,in fact, undermining the Security Council's authority." You should read and consider those words carefully. There is an absolutely overwhelming consensus among international lawyers that the invasion was illegal. Your unsupported and dubious interpretations of international law and the authority contained within UN resolutions are pretty desperate stuff.
As mentioned in previous posts, that sailed over your head, the ICJ ( International Commission of Jurists), probably the preeminent authority on international law have the following to say:
"The invasion of Iraq was neither in self defence against armed attack nor sanctioned by UN Security Council resolution authorising the use of force by member states and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression"
When you previously attempted to argue in favour of the legality of the invasion you selectively quoted from several lawyers in international law. The lawyers and sources that you did present actually thought the opposite of what you attempted to imply.
Anthony Aust QC was one of the sources who you quoted "selectively". Sir Menzies Campbell, whose support you claimed but then attacked as an opportunist, despite previously considering him a reliable source, when it turned out that he was unequivocal in his opinion that the 2003 invasion was illegal.
Elizabeth Wilmshust, legal adviser at the FCO resigned after Goldsmith reversed her legal opinion on the legality of the war. Any number of experts on international law have given detailed opinions on the illegality of the invasion.
Against this weight of expert opinion and analysis all that you have offered is your own derisory views on resolutions about which you know nothing. There are no impartial experts arguing for the legality of the Iraq invasion and it is a dwindling, sorry band of warmongers and apologists that you are currently associating with.
Read the link in full and from there you will be able to read the many sources cited in the full article. A who's who of experts in international law in agreement that the invasion was illegal. If you open your mind and read you may learn something.
Kofi Annan the UN secretary general at the time declared the invasion illegal. Do you have any understanding at all of the sheer weight of expert opinion that you are attempting to argue against. I have pointed out to you previously that I am schooling rather than debating you and this remains true.
You would be better served to go and do some reading before commenting further because your contributions so far embarrass you.