Pages: 1 2 3 … 10

 

2008-11-26 03:20:10
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6396|eXtreme to the maX
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop … -Iraq.html

Former senior law lord, Lord Bingham, says Britain broke international law by invading Iraq
Britain violated "international law and the rule of law" by supporting the US invasion of Iraq five years ago, the country's most respected judge believes.

Lord Bingham, who retired in September as senior law lord, said in his opinion Lord Goldsmith's advice to then-Prime Minister Tony Blair on Britain's invasion of Iraq was "flawed".

It is thought to be the first time that Lord Bingham has expressed his views about the legal advice given to Mr Blair by the former Attorney General. The issue never came before Lord Bingham while he was sitting as a judge.
In Lord Bingham's view, the effect of unilateral action by Britain, the US and some other countries had been to undermine the foundation on which the post-1945 consensus had been constructed.
This set out that force – except in self-defence or to avert an impending humanitarian catastrophe – could not be used unless formally authorised by the United Nations' Security Council.

Lord Bingham summarised the former Attorney General's reliance on three interrelated Security Council resolutions as authorising the Iraq invasion.
On March 7, 2003 Lord Goldsmith considered that UN resolution 1441 could revive the authority to use force which had been suspended but not revoked in earlier resolutions.
Ten days later, Lord Goldsmith told MPs it was "plain" that Iraq had failed to comply with its disarmament obligations and was therefore in material breach of resolution 687.

This justified the use of force because "all that resolution 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraq's failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force",
Lord Bingham concluded this was "flawed" because "it was not plain that Iraq had failed to comply in a manner justifying resort to force and there were no strong factual grounds or hard evidence to show that it had".
It was also up to the entire Security Council to decide whether Iraq had failed to comply with the resolution.

Lord Bingham noted that Lord Goldsmith's argument for the invasion had been described as "unconvincing", a "bad argument" and "fatuous" by three other leading QCs.
Lord Bingham said: "The moment that a state treats the rules of international law as binding on others but not on itself, the compact on which the law rests is broken."

Last night, Lord Goldsmith said: "I stand by my advice of March 2003 that it was legal for Britain to take military action in Iraq. I would not have given that advice if it were not genuinely my view.
"Lord Bingham is entitled to his own legal perspective five years after the event, but at the time and since then many nations other than ours took part in the action and did so believing that they were acting lawfully."

Justice Secretary Jack Straw added: "Lord Goldsmith's advice that military action was lawful and in accordance with Security Council Resolutions was shared by many member states across the world.
"I do not accept Lord Bingham's conclusions, which do not, I am afraid, take proper account of the text of Security Council Resolution 1441 nor its negotiating history."
PS Lord Goldsmith was a government appointee, and Tony Blair's former flatmate.
His original advice was that the invasion would be unlawful without a further security council resolution, which he changed at Blair's request.

Jack Straw is a total fuckwit.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-11-26 03:32:56)

Fuck Israel
2008-11-26 05:38:34
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|7032|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann
Jack Straw turned into a wanker the minute he let Pinochet escape extradition.  It will be like N.Ireland, in 30-40 years the UK government will say probably "yeah we were wrong to invade bla bla blah" but it was 40 years ago nothing can be done about it, it all happened so long ago..

Last edited by IG-Calibre (2008-11-26 05:39:42)

2008-11-26 10:47:08
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6513|Escea

Dilbert_X wrote:

Former senior law lord, Lord Bingham, says Britain broke international law by invading Iraq
Britain violated "international law and the rule of law" by supporting the US invasion of Iraq five years ago, the country's most respected judge believes.
Always nice to see these guys suddenly think something was wrong after they leave.
2008-11-26 20:29:27
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/3474078/Former-senior-law-lord-Lord-Bingham-says-Britain-broke-international-law-by-invading-Iraq.html

Former senior law lord, Lord Bingham, says Britain broke international law by invading Iraq
Britain violated "international law and the rule of law" by supporting the US invasion of Iraq five years ago, the country's most respected judge believes.

Lord Bingham, who retired in September as senior law lord, said in his opinion Lord Goldsmith's advice to then-Prime Minister Tony Blair on Britain's invasion of Iraq was "flawed".

It is thought to be the first time that Lord Bingham has expressed his views about the legal advice given to Mr Blair by the former Attorney General. The issue never came before Lord Bingham while he was sitting as a judge.
In Lord Bingham's view, the effect of unilateral action by Britain, the US and some other countries had been to undermine the foundation on which the post-1945 consensus had been constructed.
This set out that force – except in self-defence or to avert an impending humanitarian catastrophe – could not be used unless formally authorised by the United Nations' Security Council.

Lord Bingham summarised the former Attorney General's reliance on three interrelated Security Council resolutions as authorising the Iraq invasion.
On March 7, 2003 Lord Goldsmith considered that UN resolution 1441 could revive the authority to use force which had been suspended but not revoked in earlier resolutions.
Ten days later, Lord Goldsmith told MPs it was "plain" that Iraq had failed to comply with its disarmament obligations and was therefore in material breach of resolution 687.

This justified the use of force because "all that resolution 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraq's failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force",
Lord Bingham concluded this was "flawed" because "it was not plain that Iraq had failed to comply in a manner justifying resort to force and there were no strong factual grounds or hard evidence to show that it had".
It was also up to the entire Security Council to decide whether Iraq had failed to comply with the resolution.

Lord Bingham noted that Lord Goldsmith's argument for the invasion had been described as "unconvincing", a "bad argument" and "fatuous" by three other leading QCs.
Lord Bingham said: "The moment that a state treats the rules of international law as binding on others but not on itself, the compact on which the law rests is broken."

Last night, Lord Goldsmith said: "I stand by my advice of March 2003 that it was legal for Britain to take military action in Iraq. I would not have given that advice if it were not genuinely my view.
"Lord Bingham is entitled to his own legal perspective five years after the event, but at the time and since then many nations other than ours took part in the action and did so believing that they were acting lawfully."

Justice Secretary Jack Straw added: "Lord Goldsmith's advice that military action was lawful and in accordance with Security Council Resolutions was shared by many member states across the world.
"I do not accept Lord Bingham's conclusions, which do not, I am afraid, take proper account of the text of Security Council Resolution 1441 nor its negotiating history."
PS Lord Goldsmith was a government appointee, and Tony Blair's former flatmate.
His original advice was that the invasion would be unlawful without a further security council resolution, which he changed at Blair's request.

Jack Straw is a total fuckwit.
Yeah I remember the "resolution" solution... Apparently the first 10 years of resolutions was not enough but I guess he thinks 1 more resolution woulda done the trick and Iraq woulda fell in line. Yeah right. Smart guy
2008-11-26 20:31:03
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

M.O.A.B wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Former senior law lord, Lord Bingham, says Britain broke international law by invading Iraq
Britain violated "international law and the rule of law" by supporting the US invasion of Iraq five years ago, the country's most respected judge believes.
Always nice to see these guys suddenly think something was wrong after they leave.
Well ya gotta wait until the court of public opinion fully chimes in before ya take a stand on issues like this. Wonder what his opinion woulda been if this war was considered the right thing to do by the public.
2008-11-26 23:04:17
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6396|eXtreme to the maX

MOAB wrote:

Always nice to see these guys suddenly think something was wrong after they leave.
As a judge the convention is they don't comment on political matters until after they retire.

Lowing wrote:

Yeah I remember the "resolution" solution... Apparently the first 10 years of resolutions was not enough but I guess he thinks 1 more resolution woulda done the trick and Iraq woulda fell in line.
A final UN resolution was required to authorise military action, without it the war was illegal.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-11-26 23:04:41)

Fuck Israel
2008-11-26 23:14:42
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

MOAB wrote:

Always nice to see these guys suddenly think something was wrong after they leave.
As a judge the convention is they don't comment on political matters until after they retire.

Lowing wrote:

Yeah I remember the "resolution" solution... Apparently the first 10 years of resolutions was not enough but I guess he thinks 1 more resolution woulda done the trick and Iraq woulda fell in line.
A final UN resolution was required to authorise military action, without it the war was illegal.
Sorry, the US does not need UN approval in dealing with issues of our own national security. The US practically begged the UN do offer something other than idol threats, that they had no intention of backing up. They refused.
2008-11-27 03:30:06
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6396|eXtreme to the maX

Lowing wrote:

Sorry, the US does not need UN approval in dealing with issues of our own national security. The US practically begged the UN do offer something other than idol threats, that they had no intention of backing up. They refused.
Iraq did not threaten US security.

It was never put to the UN, although the UN had backed the US up to that point.
Anyway, its not a question of 'the UN backing the US'. Its supposed to be a committee, not a rubber stamp for US imperialism.
Fuck Israel
2008-11-27 05:52:23
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6580|Éire

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/3474078/Former-senior-law-lord-Lord-Bingham-says-Britain-broke-international-law-by-invading-Iraq.html

Former senior law lord, Lord Bingham, says Britain broke international law by invading Iraq
Britain violated "international law and the rule of law" by supporting the US invasion of Iraq five years ago, the country's most respected judge believes.

Lord Bingham, who retired in September as senior law lord, said in his opinion Lord Goldsmith's advice to then-Prime Minister Tony Blair on Britain's invasion of Iraq was "flawed".

It is thought to be the first time that Lord Bingham has expressed his views about the legal advice given to Mr Blair by the former Attorney General. The issue never came before Lord Bingham while he was sitting as a judge.
In Lord Bingham's view, the effect of unilateral action by Britain, the US and some other countries had been to undermine the foundation on which the post-1945 consensus had been constructed.
This set out that force – except in self-defence or to avert an impending humanitarian catastrophe – could not be used unless formally authorised by the United Nations' Security Council.

Lord Bingham summarised the former Attorney General's reliance on three interrelated Security Council resolutions as authorising the Iraq invasion.
On March 7, 2003 Lord Goldsmith considered that UN resolution 1441 could revive the authority to use force which had been suspended but not revoked in earlier resolutions.
Ten days later, Lord Goldsmith told MPs it was "plain" that Iraq had failed to comply with its disarmament obligations and was therefore in material breach of resolution 687.

This justified the use of force because "all that resolution 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraq's failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force",
Lord Bingham concluded this was "flawed" because "it was not plain that Iraq had failed to comply in a manner justifying resort to force and there were no strong factual grounds or hard evidence to show that it had".
It was also up to the entire Security Council to decide whether Iraq had failed to comply with the resolution.

Lord Bingham noted that Lord Goldsmith's argument for the invasion had been described as "unconvincing", a "bad argument" and "fatuous" by three other leading QCs.
Lord Bingham said: "The moment that a state treats the rules of international law as binding on others but not on itself, the compact on which the law rests is broken."

Last night, Lord Goldsmith said: "I stand by my advice of March 2003 that it was legal for Britain to take military action in Iraq. I would not have given that advice if it were not genuinely my view.
"Lord Bingham is entitled to his own legal perspective five years after the event, but at the time and since then many nations other than ours took part in the action and did so believing that they were acting lawfully."

Justice Secretary Jack Straw added: "Lord Goldsmith's advice that military action was lawful and in accordance with Security Council Resolutions was shared by many member states across the world.
"I do not accept Lord Bingham's conclusions, which do not, I am afraid, take proper account of the text of Security Council Resolution 1441 nor its negotiating history."
PS Lord Goldsmith was a government appointee, and Tony Blair's former flatmate.
His original advice was that the invasion would be unlawful without a further security council resolution, which he changed at Blair's request.

Jack Straw is a total fuckwit.
Yeah I remember the "resolution" solution... Apparently the first 10 years of resolutions was not enough but I guess he thinks 1 more resolution woulda done the trick and Iraq woulda fell in line. Yeah right. Smart guy
No lowing, one more resolution might have provided the platform upon which to invade Iraq 'legally'. This thread has nothing to do with Iraq or Saddam per se, rather it is to do with the legality of invading any nation without the requisite proviso to do so.
2008-11-27 05:57:04
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6580|Éire

lowing wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Former senior law lord, Lord Bingham, says Britain broke international law by invading Iraq
Britain violated "international law and the rule of law" by supporting the US invasion of Iraq five years ago, the country's most respected judge believes.
Always nice to see these guys suddenly think something was wrong after they leave.
Well ya gotta wait until the court of public opinion fully chimes in before ya take a stand on issues like this. Wonder what his opinion woulda been if this war was considered the right thing to do by the public.
I guess we'll never know because it was never considered by the masses to be 'the right thing to do'.
2008-11-27 06:06:34
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6580|Éire
Here's a thought lowing...

Using your mentality on the issue of self defence and foreign policy Iraq would have been well within their rights to attack the US and topple the Bush regime because, as it turns out, the US were a very real and credible threat to Iraq's domestic security (i.e. the same reason the US cited for an invasion of Iraq) ...in fact, Iraq would have been even more in the right than the US because Iraq were never actually a credible threat to the US whereas the US have proven for all to see that they were a very real threat to Iraqi security. Furthermore, again using your logic, Iraq would not have been culpable in any International court of law for their actions as they were just acting in self defence.

See what happens when you start ignoring the global community and the process of obtaining resolutions?

Last edited by Braddock (2008-11-27 06:08:09)

2008-11-27 06:51:38
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

Lowing wrote:

Sorry, the US does not need UN approval in dealing with issues of our own national security. The US practically begged the UN do offer something other than idol threats, that they had no intention of backing up. They refused.
Iraq did not threaten US security.

It was never put to the UN, although the UN had backed the US up to that point.
Anyway, its not a question of 'the UN backing the US'. Its supposed to be a committee, not a rubber stamp for US imperialism.
The US will decide its own national security threats without permission from the UN. After 911 and a decade of of bullshit from the UN about Iraq ( who admitted Iraq was a global threat), the US did what it percieved needed to be done.
2008-11-27 06:53:08
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/3474078/Former-senior-law-lord-Lord-Bingham-says-Britain-broke-international-law-by-invading-Iraq.html


PS Lord Goldsmith was a government appointee, and Tony Blair's former flatmate.
His original advice was that the invasion would be unlawful without a further security council resolution, which he changed at Blair's request.

Jack Straw is a total fuckwit.
Yeah I remember the "resolution" solution... Apparently the first 10 years of resolutions was not enough but I guess he thinks 1 more resolution woulda done the trick and Iraq woulda fell in line. Yeah right. Smart guy
No lowing, one more resolution might have provided the platform upon which to invade Iraq 'legally'. This thread has nothing to do with Iraq or Saddam per se, rather it is to do with the legality of invading any nation without the requisite proviso to do so.
Once again the US does not need UN permission in regards to our own national security. The US put forth a case that Iraq was a threat and the UN even agreed. Yet they did nothing, so the US did.
2008-11-27 06:54:13
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Always nice to see these guys suddenly think something was wrong after they leave.
Well ya gotta wait until the court of public opinion fully chimes in before ya take a stand on issues like this. Wonder what his opinion woulda been if this war was considered the right thing to do by the public.
I guess we'll never know because it was never considered by the masses to be 'the right thing to do'.
Only because the masses lost revenue in its dealings with Iraq.
2008-11-27 07:24:21
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6580|Éire
Iran should, using lowing's logic, develop the necessary technology needed to protect itself from foreign aggression and strike against the US as it poses a very real threat to its national security... a UN mandate should not considered necessary in this regard and no legal recourse should be expected from the International community for such a course of action.

That's how the Americans do business these days and in light of this other nations will have to start doing the same.
2008-11-27 07:39:13
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|6961|UK

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:


Yeah I remember the "resolution" solution... Apparently the first 10 years of resolutions was not enough but I guess he thinks 1 more resolution woulda done the trick and Iraq woulda fell in line. Yeah right. Smart guy
No lowing, one more resolution might have provided the platform upon which to invade Iraq 'legally'. This thread has nothing to do with Iraq or Saddam per se, rather it is to do with the legality of invading any nation without the requisite proviso to do so.
Once again the US does not need UN permission in regards to our own national security. The US put forth a case that Iraq was a threat and the UN even agreed. Yet they did nothing, so the US did.
Iraq wasn't a threat to the US...turns out Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone.  Imaginary weapons got ya spooked.

The UN didn't agree with the US.  The security council (lol) told you bitches to fark orf. 

US = fail
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
2008-11-27 10:28:42
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6580|Éire

m3thod wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:


No lowing, one more resolution might have provided the platform upon which to invade Iraq 'legally'. This thread has nothing to do with Iraq or Saddam per se, rather it is to do with the legality of invading any nation without the requisite proviso to do so.
Once again the US does not need UN permission in regards to our own national security. The US put forth a case that Iraq was a threat and the UN even agreed. Yet they did nothing, so the US did.
Iraq wasn't a threat to the US...turns out Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone.  Imaginary weapons got ya spooked.

The UN didn't agree with the US.  The security council (lol) told you bitches to fark orf. 

US = fail
Not only were they not a threat to the US but Saddam - who the US accused of being an unstable lunatic who was not to be trusted on the issue of restraint when it came to weapons - was in fact incredibly restrained, to the point of not even using his airforce while being INVADED by his supposed arch nemesis the USA... doesn't seem like the actions of a guy who was supposedly planning to destroy the world!
2008-11-27 10:37:57
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

Braddock wrote:

Iran should, using lowing's logic, develop the necessary technology needed to protect itself from foreign aggression and strike against the US as it poses a very real threat to its national security... a UN mandate should not considered necessary in this regard and no legal recourse should be expected from the International community for such a course of action.

That's how the Americans do business these days and in light of this other nations will have to start doing the same.
It might appear that way and I can definately see your point. However if you think I am going to support the US having to answer to,  and get permission from the UN for all of its affairs, I will not. IF the UN does not like it, then they are free to excuse themselves from the state of NY and move on down the road. The US does not need them.
2008-11-27 10:50:17
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

m3thod wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:


No lowing, one more resolution might have provided the platform upon which to invade Iraq 'legally'. This thread has nothing to do with Iraq or Saddam per se, rather it is to do with the legality of invading any nation without the requisite proviso to do so.
Once again the US does not need UN permission in regards to our own national security. The US put forth a case that Iraq was a threat and the UN even agreed. Yet they did nothing, so the US did.
Iraq wasn't a threat to the US...turns out Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone.  Imaginary weapons got ya spooked.

The UN didn't agree with the US.  The security council (lol) told you bitches to fark orf. 

US = fail
Not hardly, the UN itself recognized Iraq as a threat to global security as well as the democrats that now are so conviently against the war.

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm    "Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,"

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp   <---- hell, I even snoped it for ya
2008-11-27 11:12:26
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|6961|UK

lowing wrote:

m3thod wrote:

lowing wrote:


Once again the US does not need UN permission in regards to our own national security. The US put forth a case that Iraq was a threat and the UN even agreed. Yet they did nothing, so the US did.
Iraq wasn't a threat to the US...turns out Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone.  Imaginary weapons got ya spooked.

The UN didn't agree with the US.  The security council (lol) told you bitches to fark orf. 

US = fail
Not hardly, the UN itself recognized Iraq as a threat to global security as well as the democrats that now are so conviently against the war.

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm    "Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,"

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp   <---- hell, I even snoped it for ya
Bollocks.  Iraq wasn't a threat to global security, the US thought Iraq was a threat to global security.  BIG difference.  Compunded by the inability to differentiate between saudis and Iraqistanis no less.

Recognoise what? Non existant weapons threat to international peace and security.  Take your bush propaganda and shove it.

LOL @ ur snopes.  You believe what politicans say?! Give me a break.  From day one the Iraq war was bullshit, i knew that, hell i was at University at the time and everyone around me knew it was bullshit. I still dont know how you people believe the shit you are shovelled.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
2008-11-27 11:15:50
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7052

M.O.A.B wrote:

Always nice to see these guys suddenly think something was wrong after they leave.
ya.....

clinton did the same thing
2008-11-27 11:28:12
Lotta_Drool
Spit
+350|6473|Ireland
Iraq broke the ceasefire treaty by shooting at US planes in the no-fly zone and booting out the UN inspectors.

England is filled with retards if they need more ' legal ' reasons than that.

1991 Cease-Fire
The 1991 Gulf War ended in a cease-fire agreement, ratified by the UN Security Council as Resolution 687. The cease-fire was conditional upon Iraq's acceptance of the provisions of the Resolution. Some of those provisions included:

Requiring Iraq to dismantle all WMD and all long-range missiles *under international supervision* (article C).
Requiring Iraq to abandon all future WMD programs (article C)
Comply with UN restrictions on the importation of conventional weapons (article F)
Permenantly abandon support for terrorism (article H)
As there was no peace treaty following the cease-fire, the Gulf War coalition retained the right under international law to resume hostilities if Iraq violated the terms of the cease-fire. UNSCR 1441 found Iraq in material breach of the cease-fire.

Last edited by Lotta_Drool (2008-11-27 11:31:20)

2008-11-27 11:32:11
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

m3thod wrote:

lowing wrote:

m3thod wrote:


Iraq wasn't a threat to the US...turns out Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone.  Imaginary weapons got ya spooked.

The UN didn't agree with the US.  The security council (lol) told you bitches to fark orf. 

US = fail
Not hardly, the UN itself recognized Iraq as a threat to global security as well as the democrats that now are so conviently against the war.

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm    "Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,"

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp   <---- hell, I even snoped it for ya
Bollocks.  Iraq wasn't a threat to global security, the US thought Iraq was a threat to global security.  BIG difference.  Compunded by the inability to differentiate between saudis and Iraqistanis no less.

Recognoise what? Non existant weapons threat to international peace and security.  Take your bush propaganda and shove it.

LOL @ ur snopes.  You believe what politicans say?! Give me a break.  From day one the Iraq war was bullshit, i knew that, hell i was at University at the time and everyone around me knew it was bullshit. I still dont know how you people believe the shit you are shovelled.
Well if you are not going to believe what was actually written in the UN resolution I can not help ya. I proved to you what the UN attitude and concern was at the time. Nothing more I can say if you refuse to acknowledge it.

Nope I do not believe what politicans say, I did however PROVE to you what they DID say in regards to Iraq, ans what they DID say was, Iraq was considered a threat at that time.
2008-11-27 14:21:03
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6580|Éire

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Iran should, using lowing's logic, develop the necessary technology needed to protect itself from foreign aggression and strike against the US as it poses a very real threat to its national security... a UN mandate should not considered necessary in this regard and no legal recourse should be expected from the International community for such a course of action.

That's how the Americans do business these days and in light of this other nations will have to start doing the same.
It might appear that way and I can definately see your point. However if you think I am going to support the US having to answer to,  and get permission from the UN for all of its affairs, I will not. IF the UN does not like it, then they are free to excuse themselves from the state of NY and move on down the road. The US does not need them.
And yet Iran have to satisfy their every inquiry? Good consistency there lowing. And by the way, the UN are not based in New York, there HQ is on International soil... it is not considered property of the US.
2008-11-27 18:43:09
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Iran should, using lowing's logic, develop the necessary technology needed to protect itself from foreign aggression and strike against the US as it poses a very real threat to its national security... a UN mandate should not considered necessary in this regard and no legal recourse should be expected from the International community for such a course of action.

That's how the Americans do business these days and in light of this other nations will have to start doing the same.
It might appear that way and I can definately see your point. However if you think I am going to support the US having to answer to,  and get permission from the UN for all of its affairs, I will not. IF the UN does not like it, then they are free to excuse themselves from the state of NY and move on down the road. The US does not need them.
And yet Iran have to satisfy their every inquiry? Good consistency there lowing. And by the way, the UN are not based in New York, there HQ is on International soil... it is not considered property of the US.
Um I think the consistency is there, it took over 10 years of bullshit UN resolution bombardment until the US said fuck it, the US tried diplomacy and is not given credit for it. It is rediculous and down right stupid to think that only one more UN resolution was needed to get Iraq to comply.

I beleive the UN did nothing but stall for as long as possible to keep the money flowing into and out of Iraq by the UN members.

Tell ya what, the UN is free to move their sorry asses to any other country they choose. Do not give that "technically" bullshit.

The US has embassies in other countries and the UN is in the US. You can call the soil it sits on whatever you like.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 … 10

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard