> "the one principle was that waging war for territorial gain is no longer acceptable." Why is this the only one principle that is relevant? Doesn't grabbing n

> "the one principle was that waging war for territorial gain is no longer acceptable." Why is this the only one principle that is relevant? Doesn't grabbing natural resources & other assets [1] constitute as a kind of territorial gain? Why is anything UN related relevant now when it wasn't relevant when the United States was invading Iraq? >"But actually invading a country which doesn't threaten you and annexing part of its territory? Didn't happen after 1945." At least the first part of this statement is factually incorrect. I can't think of how Iraq that is nowhere close to the United States was a threat to it. Doesn't destroying an independent country's government and installing your own chosen leaders count as some kind of territorial grab? Sure that isn't the definition of annexing, but if I'm ruling your country and calling it by its old name, what is the difference? [1] O&G in Iraq :: most lucrative contracts to American O&G giants. Similar for some other industries in the country.