No, because most UN resolutions do not entail an agreement by the United States armed forces to cease just hostilities, once commenced. Under the traditional law of nations & the credibility of great powers, that matters.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @ObiWine_Kenobi
Both of those things, however, are essential to the legitimacy of the foreign policy of the United States of America and the commitments it makes.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @ObiWine_Kenobi
International relations are about credibility of threats and promises, not law. We agreed to halt a war on these conditions. When he breached them, we could enforce that or admit we never meant them.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @ObiWine_Kenobi
You seem incapable of grasping that the issue is one of credible promises, not law or morals as such. The cease-fire in 1991, like any US commitment (including on trade), was either backed up or not. Failing to back it up sends a message.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
"Saddam was right" summarizes where your argument leads.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.