CarolC,

Regarding your post, 08 Jul 04 - 02:03 PM,

"It is Iraqi non-compliance with UN resolutions that is invoked to justify action being taken independently. The US from day one was very clear on this to both the United Nations Security Council and to the regime in power at that time in Iraq." (Teribus)

Possibly so, Teribus. But in your 07 Jul 04 - 04:21 AM post, you said this:

"The terms of the Safwan ceasefire had been broken, therefore the ceasefire was invalid freeing any coalition member to resume hostilities." (Teribus)

That statement is quite correct correct CarolC, what is incorrect in your understanding is what you stated in your 07 Jul 04 - 10:53 AM post. My reason for stating so comes directly from the preample to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441:

"Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,"

From your post 07 Jul - 10:53
"This (UNSC Resolution 687) is the ceasefire agreement that Iraq would have had to be in violation of since the Safwan ceasefire had become obsolete many years before the timeframe in question."

Now as 687 was based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations contained therein, and Iraq clearly had not, in the opinion of the UN, abided by the provisions and obligations required by 687, evidenced by the following passages from the preamble to 1441:

"Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

          Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,"

I would say that the terms and conditions of the Safwan cease-fire and 687 had been broken - wouldn't you? The UN certainly thought so.

That cease-fire being broken the wording of Resolution 678 with regard to authorisation applies:

"Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,"

That the US violated UN resolution 1441 when it invaded Iraq - is your opinion, shared by others and stated as their opinions by others

The US and it's coalition partners made it perfectly clear that any material breach of 1441 on the part of Iraq would require action by the UN. If the UN refused to act, the US and its coalition partners would act independently. During the UNMOVIC/IAEA inspection period there were five material breaches noted, the UN prevaricated so the US held true to its word and attacked, giving due notice to all.

"The US attacked Iraq because it wanted to." (CarolC's opinion)

"Incorrect, the US attacked Iraq because they felt they had to, they did not believe they had any choice." (Teribus's opinion) - I never said it was anything other, I certainly did not state it was a fact - don't put words in my mouth CarolC