The question in this thread is, is this scheduled war legitimate, which I take it means the same thing as legal. There are other threads focusing on whether it's a good idea, or right or wrong.

Given that the United States and the United Kingdom have bound themselves to abide by the United Nations Treaty, there is no way in which this war can be legal, unless and until there has been a resolution, carried by a majority on the Security Council, with no permanent members voting against it, which specifically authorises the use of military force.

There hasn't been one, and there appears to be no immediate prospect of one. The war which is due to start within the next few days will therefore undoubtedly be illegal, no question about it, so far as I can see. And I wouldn't see it any different if I was in favour of it happening.

That resolution people keep quoting, 1441, just talks about "serious consequences" - it doesn't even mention military action - here is a link to it. If you go for a walk on a rainy day without wrapping up properly, that can have "serious consequences", you might get a really bad cold. It's a meaningless term in itself.

And the new resolution that's supposed to make all the difference if enough countries can be bribed bullied or cajoled it voting for it or abstaining, that is even more vacuous. And don't believe me, here is a link to the text. It goes on at length about how Saddam has failed to cooperate - but when it come to the crunch, what does it say should be gone? It says that in the light of all this the Security Council "Decides to remain seized of the matter."

Which means, in the normal sense of language, it will keep paying attention to what is going on, and decide at a later date what to do about it. And it won't make any difference at all to the illegality of this war, at this time.