Ebbie,

"bb, I fail to understand how it is that you - and others - on the one hand cite Saddam's non-compliance with the UN dictum and on the other hand scoff at the UN. "


"Question: Was the UN resolution a valid one? "

YES, and Saddam DID NOT comply- The UN stated that he was in substantual non-compliance.


"If it was, was the fact that it/they were in no hurry to go to war over the noncompliance also valid?"

The wording of the resolution was that it was the LAST CHANCE for Saddam to comply with his obligations under the resolutions OF THE PRECEDING 14 years, and of the CEASE_FIRE TERMS. When a cease-fire is determined to be no longer valid, the ORIGINAL CONFLICT, authorized by the UN, is restored to an active state.

"Conversely, if the UN refusal to go to war was NOT a valid response,"

and it was not, since a state of war ALREADY existed upon Saddam's non-compliance with the cease-fire terms.



"If the UN's refusal to go to war over Saddam's noncompliance was valid then why did the US go to war unilaterally? Is the US not a member of the UN body? What happened to rule of law?"

Under UN rules, the resolution authoizing military action was put in abeyance by the cease-fire- UPON VIOLATION, the original resolution takes effect again. Same as in North Korea. ( no peace treaty ever signed)

"By the way, I don't want to hear about the oil for food scandal that the UN is alleged to have been involved in UNTIL we/you are equally incensed and curious as to what happened to the billions of dollars that have not been accounted for that were given by Americans to American corporations in Iraq. Aren't you up in arms about that? "

I did not bring that up at this time. IF there are unaccounted-for funds, they should be investigated, and if violations of law are found, the responsible parties should be prosecuted- IN ALL CASES.