Seems to me that arguing over whether it is legal, or legit is a pointless exercise unless there are some real consequences for breaking international law in this way. Blair is still trying to justify himself legally - mainly I think because he has signed up to the international court, but Bush obviously doesn't care a hoot about the legality. So what should be done?

I think since it is the UN charter that will be broken, the UN should lay down the consequences. Veto holding members who break the UN charter in this way should lose their veto. When you look at the huge number of resolutions about Israel and Palestine that have failed solely because of the US veto (and occasionally Britain joining them), might this make a real difference to US policy? And might it free the UN to have a real impact on the Palestinian situation?

What do others think?

Bagpuss