Hitler got domestic approval to attack Poland too. He didn't get approval from the general community of nations around him. Same basic principle.

The USA only quotes the will of the UN when it's specifically convenient for the USA and thwarts it, defies it or simply ignores it when it's not. They use the UN as a rubber stamp for what they want to do, when and if enough of the UN's members can be cajoled, bribed or badgered into it. When the UN agrees to something, they say, "Look! We have UN backing for this." When the UN disagrees, they ignore that fact and simply quote the last time in the past that the UN still was agreeing with them, and they blandly ignore the fact that they NO LONGER have the UN's support or agreement. The UN did not authorize or agree with the USA's 2003 attack on Iraq, it was made in defiance OF the will of the UN...while quoting earlier UN statements from prior to that time.

How pathetically transparent. How utterly self-serving. How dishonest. Pretty well no one is fooled by this rank duplicity except some people in the USA, I guess...

The UN Security Council withheld approval for the 2003 attack on Iraq. They did not authorize it. You can't change that. It's history. It's on the record. The USA still attacked Iraq anyway, regardless. That was an illegal act of aggression, just as illegal as Hitler's attacks on Poland, Norway, Holland, Denmark, Russia, and various other places during WWII.

The only places Hitler ever had a legal basis for attacking were the UK and France, given that they had declared war on him first...and they did that over the illegal German attack on Poland. Remember?