As a charter nation in the united nations we have a duty to abide by the organization we help to conceive .That the U.N. made clear that it did not support the invasion of Iraq it is clear we acted in a manner inconsistent with regulations contained in military code of conduct .
Seeing as how the U.N. resolution is ambiguous and orders from the president must be followed by the military it would seem that the generals and pentagon belief it is a war sanctioned and legitimate at all levels . So in keeping with the finest traditions of the military is it capable of meeting its needs when officers refuse to follow orders and deploy to the areas deemed necessary in defending our nation . Not where the officer is willing to serve .
2007-01-04 02:58:23 · 8 answers · asked by -----JAFO---- 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The UN resolution is not ambiguous, and therefore you are right, we have violated its Charter and the Iraq war is illegal.
It has been a principle of military justice for decades that soldiers are not required to obey illegal orders, whether they come from a President or whomever.
2007-01-04 03:07:22 · answer #1 · answered by Longhaired Freaky Person 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Two things...
One, he is only one officer. Even if there were 10, there are more of us who have served, are serving, and will continue to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Two, the UN ALSO has resolutions that Iraq refused to abide by and therefore the attack on Iraq was not only justified but long over due. In the same respect, we have uncovered just how inept and corrupt the UN is in the Oil for Food Scandal. The UN did NOT follow up on the process and skimmed MILLIONS of dollars off the top. While the UN wasn't watching, Saddam spent BILLIONS building new palaces (from which I am typing this), and spending outlandish amounts of money on his family and estates.
The UN is irrelevant and has been since 1954.
2007-01-04 03:08:10 · answer #2 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
"As a charter nation in the united nations we have a duty to abide by the organization we help to conceive ."
No we have no such duty. Just because we helped create the UN, does NOT in any way, give it authority over the US.
2007-01-04 03:02:25 · answer #3 · answered by Ricky T 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I had merely requested that question merely at the moment.My opinion,Watada is a shame and a coward.it truly is a voluntary protection stress.You dont chosen who you wrestle or which conflict you wrestle in.you're obligated to safeguard this usa both overseas and relatives,this is the pastime of the protection stress.If the little wimp didnt favor to wrestle in a warfare,he might want to in no way have enlisted.He has a good to regulate his thoughts.yet to publically aspect with the anti warfare move,he's spitting contained in the face of this brothers scuffling with this warfare.You dont act in antiwar pastime even as donning an military Uniform.
2016-12-01 19:47:47 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In answer to your main question, no.
That's why any solider refusing to perform his duty should have the book thrown at them, to deter such treason.
Do a Yahoo search: "Eddie Slovik."
I'm not much concerned about the UN. We had no authority to go to Bosnia or Kosovo, but we did.
2007-01-04 03:09:39 · answer #5 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
the UN is worthless but as far as officers go most just get in the way! OORAH I was a grunt in NAM
2007-01-04 03:13:02 · answer #6 · answered by paulisfree2004 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We just need to have a public hanging of the punk. I would gladly volunteer to be the executioner.
2007-01-04 03:20:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The problem is we aren't defending our nation!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN5yvoIsnnE
2007-01-04 03:03:08 · answer #8 · answered by cantcu 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋