Reply #53: I wouldn't say that the UN Charter "advocates" pre-emptive war but its [View All]

[Hosnon]

wording definitely allows for that argument to be reasonably made. It is a continuum and the Bush Administration simply pushed it further than before and probably beyond what it allows.

NATO and the UN are not part of each other - two separate organizations. Action by a UN member nation does not require action by a NATO member.

Based on the defense aspect of Article 51, the Administration argued that is what it was doing invading Iraq. If valid, it is legal, internationally, and legal until the UN takes over - which it has yet to do.

Again, I don't think their idea fits into the "defensive" exception. All I'm saying is the argument exists, is valid, and is what the Bush Administration attempted to use.