Reply #3: Picture is from Steve Bell's cartoon in today's Guardian :-) [View All]

[muriel_volestrangler]

I've just scanned the argument. My (subjective) summary is:

The UK's historic position is only consistent with the Security Council determining if Saddam has made a serious breach of UN resolutions - and Straw said in Parliament the breach must be "something significant"

The US, and only the US, agured that any breach of UN resolutions gives the right to attack him, and the member countries can decide that for themselves without further discussion in the UN

A 2nd resolution is the preferable route; it's no use saying that a veto (or threatened veto) of a 2nd resolution is 'unreasonable'; if a 2nd resolution is impossible, or defeated, then the reports of UNMOVIC and IAEA are crucial in determining the significant breach.

For military action to be lawful, it must also be proportionate to the cause (ie stopping the breach of the UN resolution): "But regime change cannot be the objective of military action. This should be borne in mind in considering the list of military targets and in making public statements about any campaign."

My comment: Blair reversed the UK's stance that the Security Council should determine a breach of UN reoslutions, and caved in to the US's assertions (and no other country supported the US in that). Blair (and Bush), by ignoring the request of Blix to allow the inspections to continue, did not show that the invasion of Iraq was necessary to enforce the UN resolution. The invasion was therefore illegal. Blair's subsequent comments of "I'm glad we got rid of Saddam" just dig a deeper hole for him - he was warned that such an objective was illegal.