We did not get permission from the UN to go towar, does that mean we are in Iraq illegally?
2007-12-07 14:45:40 · 9 answers · asked by You know the Drill 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
yes we did,much like the Japanese did when they bombed Pearl Harbor...
2007-12-07 14:50:06 · answer #1 · answered by cantonbound 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Articles 41 and 42 of the U.N. Charter (which is a treaty and part of the supreme law of the United States under Article 6, clause 2 of the Constitution) declare that no member state has the right to enforce any resolution with armed force unless the Security Council decides there has been a material breach of it resolution, and determines that all nonmilitary means of enforcement have been exhausted.
So yes. But you know how Bush & Co. feel about the UN--they're not important until they need them.
2007-12-07 14:59:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, if you continue to read the UN Charter and not just pick out what helps your case, it goes on to say that a country does not need permission from the UN if it is acting in "self - defense". I've never personally worked with the Bush administration, but that's most likely why they said Iraq was a threat to the US.
2007-12-07 15:13:46 · answer #3 · answered by Ollie 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The most corrupt body of fascist criminals. We do not need the permission of the UN. We should usually do the opposite for our own national interests. They love to have us fund their socialist agenda and then veto anything that will help us. An outdated and ineffective body. But to answer your Q, We only went in after Saddam violated 19 UN resolutions. We had the blessing of the UN, but they didn't have the balls to back us up to enforce their international mandate. Send the wimps to Brussels and let somebody else pay to allow them to exist. Not US tax payers hard earned cash.
2007-12-07 15:01:40 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, because we aren't actually "at war." It is merely a preemptive action. We may have violated a few old treaties, but no we haven't violated international law that I know of. That's not to say it isn't possible - after all, I don't trust Bush at all.
2007-12-07 14:51:33 · answer #5 · answered by cyanne2ak 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No, there is not such thing as international law. Only treaties between nations. We do not answer to the UN.
2007-12-07 14:50:21 · answer #6 · answered by protoham 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
yes we were under UN mandate! Saddam refused to comply with weapon inspectors.
2007-12-07 14:50:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Oh my.
-Permission?
That's why they call it war.
2007-12-07 14:52:25 · answer #8 · answered by mark623112 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Pre-emptive war is, by definition, against international law.
2007-12-07 14:48:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 5⤋