Originally posted by Aristotle
So there you have it. Those are two completely legitimate reasons to attack another country. Both of which are legal under international law.
All of which begs the question:

Why has the Secretary General of the U.N. declared the U.S. to be acting illegally?

I should state that I disagreed vehemently with the decision for the U.S. to invade Iraq, and I do believe that Bush has made a mess of things there. However, the U.N., in declaring this act illegal, has once again shown itself to be both inept and irrelevent.

Firstly, even if Kofi were the appropriate authority to make such a statement (he isn't, by the way. The Secretary General does not make findings on International Law), and even if he were not incorrect in the first place, his opinion couldn't have less impact on the actual behavior of the U.S. Most Americans probably aren't even aware he said anything

Secondly, even if the U.S. were violating International Law, the Secretary General has only resulted in betraying a scary fact... It doesn't matter. The more of a fuss world leaders make, and the more such histrionics don't at all impede the actions of the U.S., the more free the U.S. will feel to do as it wants, and the less respect our citizens and government will have for world leaders and international agencies (if it is even possible for the U.S. to care less then it does now).

If leaders like the secretary general wish to have any influence in the foreign policies of the U.S., they will have to acquire at least a modicum of common sense, and be much more realistic about the relative power of the rest of the world to that of the U.S.