posted on Mar, 9 2003 @ 08:58 PM
There is a need to post some sort of evidence before making these sweeping assertions. It is simply untrue to say that the UN approved the Afghan
We will recall that, prior to 9-11, the Bush administration was frankly dismissive of the U.N. Congress was delaying the payment of U.S. arrears, and
America had no ambassador to the UN. After 9/11, the Bush administration changed its tune: Congress paid the second of three arrears payments without
further conditions, and the Senate confirmed an American permanent representative to the UN.
Bush proceeded along two pathways: first to get 9-11 defined as an Act of Terrorism (in U.S. law it was ń in international law, the situation was
unclear: because there is no real definition of ěterrorismî (as ATS posters have often noted).
Bush and Koh-Lin then escalated ěterrorismî into an act of war (without any sanction from international law and without any solid evidence of direct
Afghan governmental support: that situation still pertains to-day).
To a degree, the move to ěterrorismî was intended to exploit earlier and rather feeble UN resolutions:1269 (1999) of 19 October 1999 and 1368 (2001)
of 12 September 2001, which were reaffirmed in 1373: all essentially condemned terrorism but failed to define it and made dealing with it a national
rather than an international matter.
Then, when the invasion was a fait accompli: the UN got on the bandwagon and Russia agreed to the ěrebuildingî in Security Council Resolution No. 1378
which was unanimously adopted on November 14.
In short, a pusillanimous UN and no backing in International Law, nor any UN approval, for the invasion.