But once again Congress approved a similar resolution after 9/11. In the shock and pain in those days, and with a fear of being labeled unpatriotic, it was decreed that the President could wage war on terrorism anywhere he saw fit, with not standards of proof needed.
I think we will look back and say the war in Afghanistan achieved most of it's goals and there was a very provable terrorist presence, but that Iraq will be cited as how the resolution was misused.
This is why I am curious as to what people think reasonable justification is. And with the question of reasonable justification, how to you measure it? Is it lives lost? Potential of lives lost? Threats to neighbors and friendly nations? Threats to civilian across the globe?
In many cases, I think the international war on terror might be better managed by the UN if it was properly funded and supplied, but as the U.S. owes the UN billions, and many other nations don't pay their dues, how can this organization to preserve world peace do it's job?
That brings up another question of the U.N. security council, if they do more to hurt or help the credibility and effectiveness of the UN.