Dunno either OP but your query makes me lol.

UN says it's illegal because the UN didn't say it was legal.

I didn't vote for the UN, so I don't see why I should give a shit.

Don't know, don't care. But I guess it has to do with it being either a provoked or unprovoked war. Though the definition of provoked may vary.

>>10290005
There is a certain set of treaties and agreements broadly called "International Law". They regulate many things, including war, and going to war against these regulations is an "illegal war".

The UN charter for example is basically a non-aggression pact, when you join the UN you forfeit your "right" to wage war other then in self-defense.

UN is a waste
Interferes in countries rights
With "experts"
Federal Republics often forget they are states, states should be independant

>implying commies care about legalities and don't just use the idea of illegality of war as another string to their bow to criticise evil capitalism

>>10290237

That makes total sense.

You don't want countries waging war on each other for no reason now. The toll it takes on civilians is terrible.

>>10290293
It is basically, through it's predecessor, the "solution" to what was back then the rampant problem of war for territorial gain, monetary reasons, prestige etc. The UN/LON basically made the classic landgrab unfashionable.

That is why everyone went so apeshit when Saddam tried to pull one in Kuwait. He basically tried to do what any european nation was doing a hundred years ago.

>>10290237
Has no clue, has never read charters, has no idea what the UN is supposed to do or anything else.

Protip: The UN charter isn't a non-aggression pact. It's a declaration of statement. Meaning you probably won't do these things, but nothing is stopping you from doing them anyway.

>>10290436
2/10, bad troll. And I quote:

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Violation of the "international peace" as defined by the UN charter is the justification behind UNSC armed interventions, like in Kuwait.

You retard.

>>10290719
Hey idiot. If you actually read what you copypasta'd you'd already know that the forum exists to give nations a place to talk about the issues. Declaration of Statement.

Anyone can belong to the UN without agreeing to the full thing. AKA "signatory with reservations"

>>10290761
You tremendous retard. Go read up on the UNSC resolutions, especially 660, 665 and 678. You will see these justify the use of force/economic/naval blockades against Iraq because endangers international peace and security, as described in Chapter 1 Article 2.

And then gb2 school.