Iraq and Kosovo: The Same, But Different!

Well is just plain silly:
Justice Richard Goldstone, of South Africa’s Constitutional Court, said today there was no evidence of imminent attack by Iraq against the US and its allies.
Under international law, countries can only go to war with the approval of the United Nations Security Council or in self-defence.
Justice Goldstone said neither criteria applied to a war with Iraq.
“There’s absolutely no evidence that I’ve seen or heard indicating that the United States is under imminent threat of attack from Iraq and all the more so Australia,” he told ABC Radio.
“It would clearly be held to be illegal under the charter.
“It’s highly unusual, I don’t know of any example of military action being used, save for humanitarian purposes in the case of Kosovo, without the Security Council.”
Justice Goldstone said the Iraq and Kosovo situations were different and there was no case for unilateral action against Iraq.
“This would be a first time ever of military action being taken absent of a Security Council resolution which is not in self-defence and which is not for humanitarian purposes,” he said.
Well, my first reaction as I read this gibberish was to raise the example of Kosovo — but he did it for me! But of course, Kosovo was different. Why? Because Mr. Goldstone says so, that’s why!
I must have missed the It’s-OK-If-Richard-Goldstone-Says-So (But-Not-If-George-Bush-And-Most-of-Europe-Does) clause in the U.N. charter.