"The big question: If a second resolution falls, Blair will have to decide whether to go to war in any case. Would it be legal for Britain to do so?
Going to war without a new UN resolution backing military action would be illegal despite claims to the contrary made by Britain and the US. This is the near-unanimous view of international lawyers, and was supported this week by the UN secretary general. "If the US and others were to go outside the security council and take unilateral action they would not be in conformity with the charter," Kofi Annan said.
Some international lawyers say war is justified - with or without any further resolution - because Saddam has not honoured the UN-backed ceasefire terms after the 1991 Gulf war.
However, the widespread view in Whitehall is that a new, strongly-worded UN resolution was needed before a war could be regarded as being backed by international law.
This view is believed to be shared by Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, who yesterday had a meeting with Mr Blair and Mr Hoon."
In my opinion US & Brit going to war without backing by the UN nations would be stupidity. The whole point in having a UN association is to bring about unity between countries when making decisions like this. US/UK should resign from the UN if they go against UN overal majority. The UN nations should then be moved to France!
qwerty