Soldier's Iraq war stance backed

As reported here, Lt. Watada is attracting people who don't have a clue, to defend his decision to not deploy with the Stryker Brigade, specifically retired Army colonel and diplomat, Ann Wright, who while speaking at University Lutheran Church in Seattle stated that Lt. Watada has the right to disobey "illegal orders", adding " "The country of Iraq did nothing to the United States of America," said Wright, who resigned from the U.S. Foreign Service in 2003 because of the war. "

Well, Col. Wright, I beg to differ with your statement that Lt. Watada is free to disobey his orders to deploy, and that Iraq "did nothing to the United States of America", on the following grounds:

- Saddam ordered a "hit" on former President Bush, which in and of itself, is an act of war, which makes the Iraq War a legal enterprise all by itself;

- Several UN Resolutions, established at the end of the first Gulf War, were either not complied with in full, or were totally ignored (UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991, which states in part that "Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."; UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991, which states in part that, "Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs."; UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998, which states in part that "Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."; and UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002, which makes demands in part for an "immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons."), with the penalty of non-compliance with those resolutions being that military action could be resumed at any time.

So, Col. Wright, how is it that a) the deployment orders to Iraq are "illegal", and b) that Lt. Watada has the right to disobey those deployment orders? The deployment orders to Iraq are completely legal, and Lt. Watada has an obligation to fulfill those orders, whether he likes them or not.

"While Watada, 28, has said he is not a conscientious objector and that he would serve in Afghanistan, he focused on the war in Iraq in his Monday comments." Well, isn't that nice? Lt. Watada says he would go to Afghanistan, but doesn't want to go to Iraq. Lt. Watada does not have the right to pick and choose which orders he will or will not obey.

"Because of his public comments, he is under an administrative investigation by the Army. " and " faces a potential court-martial, imprisonment and possibly hard labor.", which is what I hope happens!