YOu just dont get it.
Oh I get it alright. I just don't think this matters at all to my POINT. Just because the final UN paperwork wasn't ratified until a couple of months later doesn't mean that EVERYONE (except the Serbian scumbags) wasn't in agreement on what had to happen in Kosovo and who had to do it and when. They'd been debating this for YEARS as the serbs just kept killing. So the Spring came and...boom. Goodbye fascists.
But NO ONE has ever ratified our second invasion into Iraq, have they? In fact, they're STILL protesting it around the world.
Regardless, as I have said repeatedly, this is IRRELEVANT to my point about which conflicts I have felt were justified and which were not. I've stated my opinion repeatedly and rather than accept this as my position, you've resorted to nothing but badgering insults and irrelevant semantic arguments.
And while I'm glad you've final decided to cite some actual information here, I only provided that information to educate YOU about your gross mischaracterization of my positions and OPINIONS.
I will call your attention to the part about "Security Council". Made up of 12 member nations. 12 Nations decided. Iraq had over 40. So who has the bigger mandate?
I would have to say that 100% of the Security Council voting yes for action in Kosovo is a FAR bigger "mandate" than NO ONE voting for the Invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Why you continue to maintain that we were justified in invading Iraq in 2003 because we were authorized to do so in order to libertate Kuwait in the first Gulf War is beyond me. Even the Bush administration knew that wouldn't fly and so pursued their own NEW resolution for the 2003 action - as discussed here...
"Facing a losing vote as well as a likely veto from France and Russia, the U.S., UK, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Italy, Japan, and Australia eventually withdrew their resolution.
With the failure of its resolution, the U.S. and their supporters abandoned the Security Council procedures and decided to pursue the invasion without U.N. authorization, a decision of questionable legality under international law."
So even the ADMINISTRATION felt there were two distinct Gulf War conflicts requiring separate authorization from the UN. When it was obvious they didn't have that mandate, they withdrew the resolution and went into Iraq on their own accord anyway. And that's why we're in the situation we find ourselves today.
Wikipedia has been shown, by a court of law, not to be authoratative.
The peer-reviewed SUMMARIES may not be, but its SOURCES are far more likely to be withstand (ed.) legal examination. And that is what I keep pointing you to. The summaries just happen to match my opinions in some cases and should be weighed accordingly.
And the MSM? Yea, like journalists know what the hell they are talking about?
Is there anyone in this world you'd find an authoritative source on anything, especially if they don't agree with your position?
REAL MSM journalists (NOT infotainment like Fox News) cite their sources, so again, I ask you, what would YOU cite as authoritative? Because all the info I have provided, even the stuff you are quoting back, still has its roots in authoritative documentation.
And whether you agree with my positions or opinions or not, at least mine are based on the real world, not some imaginary land where a scumbag butcher like Slobodan is supposed to get my sympathy.
The free world is glad he's gone and so am I.
A pacifist does not believe in war. You do.
Even self-avowed pacifists believe we need to call the police from time to time.
So if you want to claim I am not a "black or white" pacifist, so be it. The world is a complex place, and I'm better educated than to make such over-reaching gross generalizations.