This should maybe be in Great Debates but i am actually hoping for a factual answer to this question. The ethical and practical implications should be ignored for the sake of this thread (there are plenty of other threads around here getting into just that anyway).
By ‘legally’ attack Iraq I mean within the bounds of international law. Obviously the US can hang the law and do as it pleases but I hear on the radio frequently that other countries (e.g. Germany and France) feel a UN resolution to attack Iraq is necessary to stay within the bounds of international law.
From my perspective it would seem the US already has all the legal justification it could want to attack Iraq.
[ul]
[li] Iraq takes regular potshots at US/Allied aircraft and has been for years. So far they’ve only managed to nail a few unmanned drones. Nevertheless doesn’t shooting at another country’s aircraft that are legally where they are supposed to be constitute an act of war?[/li]
[li] Saddam Hussein is in breach of his initial surrender agreement from the Gulf War. Technically doesn’t that allow the US to say the war is on again?[/li]
[li] Today on NPR someone mentioned that Saddam Hussein offers $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers and the person speaking mentioned that essentially constitutes an act of piracy which throughout history has been justification enough to go to war.[/li][/ul]
There may be other items (feel free to list any if you like). Those alone however would seem to me to be enough justification for the US to say to the UN that we are going to war and we are NOT in violation of anything. The UN may not like it but that’s a different issue.
Any scholars on international law around here who can say just what international agreements have to say about all of this?