Did the UN authorize our 2003 invasion of Iraq?

[cthulu2016]

My memory may be going... I seem to remember that the UN did not, and that the USA admitted that it would not, but then argued that an earlier resolution had authorized the thing so no more voting was needed, and then invaded.

But now I am informed that the earlier resolution really did authorize us to invade and occupy Iraq and install a government there.

Goodness! And here I was so sure I remembered that being a bizarre fiction the Bush WH promulgated...


Follow-up question:

If you believe the UN actually legally authorized our invasion of Iraq, when did you start thinking that?

Yesterday, or today?

[Rex]

1. I guess everyone forgot about us Going it Alone with the Coalition of the Willing.

We didn't even let UN weapons inspectors finish touring sites. Shock and Awe was full upon Iraq, even as the UN was fleeing for their life.

[KoKo]

3. True...

But, history is being re-written...before our very eyes.

[Capt. Obvious]

2. Of course they did

in the same way that Democrats didn't vote for war but for diplomacy.

[berni_mccoy]

4. Did the US seek authorization? I think that is the question you should be asking....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024736441

[Capt. Obvious]

5. A few people here are confused then

Several times it's been claimed that we went in with U.N. backing.

I assume that's what this OP is about.

[nationalize the fed]

6. The UN did not authorize the 78 day bombing and subsequent invasion of Serbia

either. "There wasn't time" to seek approval was the thing said at the time.

That was the first PNAC war, for whoever is interested.
The PNAC website was taken down (newamericancentury.org) but the Wayback machine tells the truth

http://web.archive.org/web/20020205133621/http://www.newamericancentury.org/balkans.htm

The failure of the Serbians to sign the Rambouillet accords was the technical reason given for the start of the war. Even Henry Kissinger criticized the Rambouillet accords

"The Rambouillet text, which called on Serbia to admit NATO troops throughout Yugoslavia, was a provocation, an excuse to start bombing. Rambouillet is not a document that an angelic Serb could have accepted. It was a terrible diplomatic document that should never have been presented in that form." —Henry Kissinger, Daily Telegraph, 28 June 1999
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambouillet_Accords

[RobertEarl]

7. Question is: What does Obama think?

Does Obama think Iraq invasion was a war crime or just an honest mistake?

Someone needs to pin him down on that because a lot of us are not clear how he is thinking.

[okaawhatever]

8. The invasion was never voted on because Russia promised to veto it. So did France. That is one

of the problems with the UN Security Council situation. The way it is currently configured we wouldn't have been able to get UN approval to go into 30's Germany or Stalin's Russia if they had veto power at the UN.

But that wasn't the point Obama made. What he said was that the US and other countries worked with the UN on Iraq for 13 years prior to invasion. Sanctions, resolutions, inspections, etc. Hussein wasn't complying with most of them. That is a completely different run up to Iraq than the Russian run-up to Crimea. Russia didn't once try to accomplish anything through the UN. Ethnic Russians in the Crimea hadn't filed a complaint with the UN. The leaders of Crimea hadn't been using gas on their own citizens, or mass murdering their minority populations. If Russia had gone through the UN to complain about the treatment of ethnic Russians in Crimea and the US vetoed a resolution against it, then Putin could say the two things were similar.

[dawg]

9. Shhhhh! We're supposed to be supportive of the Iraq War today.

It serves the Party's interests.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

10. If memory serves

The UN Resolution that put the inspectors back in Iraq (1441?) stated something about "serious consequences" if it did not comply. Iraq, of course, DID comply with the UN and allowed the inspectors back in and they found no evidence of new/recent WMD activity. My understanding was that Bush/Cheney wanted to go back to the UN for a second resolution explicitly authorizing war but, as I recall, nixed the idea because they believed that they would not win it (and why would they since Iraq was actually in compliance per the UN weapons inspectors?) and decided to go into Iraq anyway as Bush/Cheney believed they had the authority. So, no, the UN did not explicitly authorize war and even if you take the "serious consequences" line in the initial resolution to be defined as war, Iraq was found by the UN to be in compliance with the resolution, so any kind of military action or other "serious consequences" should not have been imposed. Like with the IWR in Congress, it's all real "fuzzy" legally speaking, as to what was "approved". Of course, "fuzzy" was just the way the Bush (mis-)administration liked things, so..............

[sinkingfeeling]

11. Not until May 2003, after the US had invaded Iraq.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/un/timeline.shtml