You still haven't answered the question of who decides what is legitimate. That's why I brought up resource acquisition as from Japan in WWII's standpoint that certainly was a legitimate intervention. The problem with justifying an intervention on humanitarian grounds again comes to who determines its a humanitarian intervention. Again Saddam partly justified invading Kuwait on humanitarian grounds. Yes there is a doctrine but that is a doctrine that is nebulous in itself since a singular country invoking it is bypassing the organization that was supposed to be set up to decide internationally and multilaterally what is a legitimate humanitarian intervention. Under that doctrine any country can invade another and just claim they are acting humanitarian interests since if you look hard enough there's going to be some group that feels oppressed in every country. This goes to the dysfunctional nature of the UN. You can have every country agree on something and no action happen as long as one of the 5 veto wielding country disagrees. That's why the UN couldn't take action in Bosnia because of Russia, no action on Israel because of the US, no action on NK because of the PRC, no action on Cote d'Ivorie because of France. A criteria regarding genocide is moot if one of the 5 veto wielding countries doesn't see it that way.
No surprise all you hangout people voted yes to this poll and no to the clinton poll. For the record I don't think clinton is either but have you forgotten we are fighting a war? not your conventional type of war but the kind where the enemy blends in with civilians until they are ready to strike. I mean are you people Americans or not? Have a little national pride and patriotism and quit listening to the communist media who are still stuck back int eh 60's and 70's talking about Vietnam.
Yes, I did answer your question - there is no single authenticating source as of now. However, your examples fall rather short when comparing to them to Iraq. The intervention in Iraq was not a single country deciding to invade antoher country. Nor was it an intervention to acquire resources. There is a doctrine that says intervention for humanitarian reasons could be legitimate while there is not one that resource aquisition could be legitimate. Further, the UN was not 'set up to decide....what is a legitimate humanitarian intervention.' I'll point out that neither the intervention for Bosnia nor Kosovo were UN operations.
So it was a group of countries primarily led by the US who decided it was legitimate. That still doesn't mean the UN which was set up as the International agency that decided either the Iraq invasion or Balkans missions were legitimate. Again legitimacy is totally relative. For instance the Warsaw Pact collectively decided in 1968 that it was legitimate to move into Czechoslovakia. That there was a group of countries deciding to intervene for ostensibly humanitarian reasons since they argued a counter revolution was devestating to stability and safety of the people and region. Again your argument of what "humanitarian" legitimacy isn't fixed and self-serving.
Yeeeesssss. So was the intervention in Bosnia and the intervention in Kosovo, so was Afghanistan, so was (really) the first Gulf War. I'm not sure where you are getting this about the UN being set up to decide what interventions were and were not legitimate. Nor would I agree that any non-UN intervention is illegitimate or illegal. Yeeesssssss. Yes. Yet I would not categorize the intervention in '68 as the same as the intervention in Bosnia - would you? You're arguing with yourself - of course it depends on the situation. That, however, does not translate into being legitimate or not. The Security Council could vote to invade Italy - that wouldn't make it legitimate just because the UN was the mechanism. Nor are non-UN interventions illegitimate or 'illegal.' That's because there is no fixed criteria. Hello? My criteria isn't self serving at all - the lack of a fixed criteria simply means you cannot on face declare an intervention illegal unless the intervening country comes out and says it is for resources or to commit genocide or some other non-humanitarian/self defense reason. That's the point. So saying 'oh the intervention in Iraq is illegal' is silly. There is no basis for such a declaration other than saying 'it is against the UN Charter.' If that is the basis then all other interventions must also be illegal and illegitimate. I am not ready to say Bosnia and Kosovo were illegal and illegitimate. I don't think most other people are ready to do so either. You've got the argument backwards. I am not saying the intervention in Iraq meets the required criteria. I am saying there is no required criteria - hence it is nonsensical to claim someone has violated it.
