Why such rage, GUEST, at the presentation of a differing point of view?

It's my personal belief that a pacifist can become a nonpacifist, and vice versa, without prejudicing his or her good faith, but it's just an opinion.

The UN Charter is a fact, but how it ought to be applied in any specific instance is also an opinion.

You've noticed that the words "legal" and "illegal" do not appear in the articles of the Charter that you've provided. That is not an accident.

If the Security Council or the General Assembly or members acting independently believe that the coalition governments are critically in violation of the Charter (rather than technically or trivially), they will so resolve. They have not done so; apparently, they have not even decided to debate on the issue. If they debate it, they will probably not pass a resolution. If they pass a resolution, essentially nothing will happen except that the governments found in violation may very well withdraw important support from the UN.

Not even France, Germany, or Russia is talking about a movement to censure, much less place sanctions on, the coalition governments. In their opinion, evidently, it's not worth their trouble.

None of the major post-war powers would have signed the UNO agreement, and acceded to the articles of the Charter, unless they believed they had plenty of wiggle room, or could do pretty much as they pleased anyway.

I believe that's how national governments operate. Your opinion may differ, and I don't begrudge you your views.

The critical issue is what the coalition governments ought to do to prevent a disaster in Iraq.

Or so it still seems to me.