|
This is a from a letter printed in our local paper. I have
never heard this question before. Do any of you know if his statements have
merit? Or is there a 'clause' which would let Bush off the hook?
Thanks for all your help! :<)
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the United States and President
Bush do not receive the required number of U.N. Security Council votes for going
to war, yet decide to go to war without the full backing of the United
Nations.
The charters of both NATO and the United Nations require its members to
defend any sovereign member nation against an unprovoked preemptive attack by
all means possible, both diplomatically and militarily.
Would that mean the United Nations would have to come to the defense of
Iraq in the event of an attack by the United States and other members joining
the coalition? It's something to think about.
It could mean the end of the United Nations as an effective means of
maintaining peace and stability throughout the
world.
|
