It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Stop Press - US and UK have Uranium Enrichment Plants

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by eternally_damaged
I'm sorry but that is one the funniest things I have ever read, the fact that certain countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons, whilst others are not

Why is this funny? Its an important facet of international law. The iranians got their nuke tech through a treaty agreement in which, in exchange for nuke power tech, they agreed to permantently give up any ability to research and develop nuke weapons and to be permantently open to the international regulatory agencies.

Everyone is allowed to have the bomb, except for countries that have signed binding and legal documents promising to never ever develop them.


the US are "allowed" to harvest nuclear weopons, as long as they follow the international laws agreed by the UN

No. The US invented and obtained Nuke Weapons independantly. Like any nation that develops them independantly and without accepting help under the NPT, it is fully legally permited to have and use them.

but remember the US haven't really got a clean record of listening to the will of the UN

Irrelevant. The UN has no authority on the matter.

they tend to make up their own mind regardless of what the UN or the rest of the world thinks of it.

That's a problem for the UN and the rest of the world then.


Who started the the war in IRAQ and Afghanistan?

Afghanistan? That war was started by the taliban in concert with Osama bin Ladin and his international terrorist organization, Al-qaida. As far as the Iraq War, when history looks back on this period of Terror Wars, its going to see 911 as the opening shot and Iraq as merely a theatre in the greater wars that follow.


Sandman210372
It is as simple as this, if you fail to adhere to any of the above then it is illegal.

And just what section of international law did the US not adhere to in going to war with iraq? War is not illegal.

[edit on 4-2-2006 by Nygdan]




posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 05:29 PM
link   
WP,

Originally posted by WestPoint23Yes the US has ratified the UN charter, which makes us binding to it, that does not mean however that our own laws are discarded. Once again the UN is not a world government.

Which is why I specifically emphasized in my very first post that under US law our actions were legal. You seem incapable of comprehending the difference between international law and domestic law.


I think where your confusion arises is that you think that the US Constitution and the UN Charter are contradictory.

The US Constitution states how the US declares war. The UN Treaty and various others to which the US is a signatory states when war is legal.

The invasion of Iraq was illegal under the Constitution and the Charter.

As for my confusing international law and domestic law, since I have taken (and passed ) Masters classes in both I am quite confident in my understanding of each area.

Now if you wish to continue to exhibit your lack of knowledge and understanding of this rather complex issue, then be my guest.

Cheers

S



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sandman210372
Dear all,

I am not sure if this has escaped everyones notice but both the US and the UK have both Uranium Enrichment programs AND Nuclear Weapons Development programs. Furthermore they have deployed Nuclear Weapons systems


Not sure about the UE programms, but the Nuclear development in the UK has been common knowledge for years.

When did the UK deploy its nuclear weapons as stated above? Where did they deploy from? and where were they deployed to?
This link might help explain some things about the UK nuclear program.

[edit on 4-2-2006 by Bikereddie]



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   
BikerEddie,

I think if you read that link of yours it will answer some of your questions.

Might also want to try www.wikipedia.org and search on V-Bomber force, Polaris, Trident etc.

Also have a look at the Royal Navy website.

Cheers

S



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   

The US Constitution states how the US declares war. The UN Treaty and various others to which the US is a signatory states when war is legal.

The invasion of Iraq was illegal under the Constitution and the Charter.


No, the Iraqi invasion was not illegal under the US constitution. Also, where specifically was the Invasion of Iraq illegal under the UN charter?



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   
WP,

You are wrong.

Cheers

S



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sandman210372
WP,

You are wrong.

Cheers

S


HAHAHA I love that statement. That is used by someone who knows he is wrong, but does not want to admit it.
HAHAHAHAHA too funny.

WP I clearly vote for you WATS for this month.

If Iran wants to get out of the NPT they can. But their president did not think about that, so yes what they are doing is illegal.



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Ok cheers, I would just like to point out Article 51 of the UN Charter.



Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.


As you can see under Article 51 the countless attacks upon our fighter jets patrolling the No-Fly zones would have alone given the US the right to retaliate against Iraq.

[edit on 4-2-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Sandman: Back to your original Q, who or what are the Iranians protecting themselves from? Surely not the US, as they seem to be making the reverse ‘happen’, not a very clever intell. strategy if that is the case… You base your original thought on this premise: that Iran has been ‘illegally invaded’ twice in the last thirty years, it has not. Do you know of any other reasons Iran would need Nuclear Weapons? I can’t think of any, oh hold on a minute…

Do you think Iran should have Nuclear Weapons capability? If yes, why? Surely not to protect themselves, as that idea has been defunct. Forget those that have capability already, that is not justification, they may be wrong but that doesn’t mean they will allow Iran to be wrong with them…

Did you say you are a Law Grad?

3S



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Alot of time we need an analogy...

for eternally_damaged

In the United States, you can get a license at 16 years of age to drive a car.
everyone is allowed, but you have to take a test and prove you are responsible enough for the right.

If during my drivers test, I say "CANADA NEEDS TO BE WIPED OFF THE EARTH!" If I had a car I could do it right now....

I'm probably not going to get my drivers license.

-DT



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Sandman,
I dont know what you were trying to prove, but you have so far gained zero ground on your argument. You clearly had an ulterior motive when you started this thread. What is the real reason you started this thread? In my opinion, you seem to feel the urge to do anything you can to try and undermine the current actions of the US and UK. You showed me your true motives when you brought up the legality of the current conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan. War was not declared on Afganistan, but military engagement was approved in the Senate by a vote of 98-0. War was not declared on Iraq, but the Senate voted to send troops there as well by a vote of 77-23, a better margin than for Operation Desert Storm which went down as a vote of 52-47 to go to war in the early 90's.

US Declaration of War

[edit on 2/4/2006 by ludaChris]



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luxifero
I've taken numerous classes as i'm also centrified in this area of studies, and I still don't understand the point of you asking a member to take a class which can range between 4-6 hundred dollars these days, exclusive of text book prices, to somehow decry his argument, do you?

Here is the point I was getting across, one which you failed to grasp one who is "centrified in this area of studies": Before spouting off and making assertions that have no validity or merit, try doing some research, hence perhaps take a crash course in International Studies/International Relations 101. Money, nor laziness, should prevent one from seeking a higher understanding or knowledge. To save that alleged money, the Internet, when used effectively with common search engines, provides adequate means to save money and provide a degree of understanding and knowledge of that which was mistakenly and carelessly asserted, Luxifero.

And if you have had said such courses as you asserted, his argument and assertions are based on what international studies paradigms: realists, liberalists, revolutionists, rationalists, neo-liberalists, Marxists, or neo-realists?

Let me know, k?




seekerof



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Every time I listen to seekerof talk. I stare straight ahead and some drool trickles from my mouth as I sit in amazement....lol

-DT



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sandman210372
To save yourself further embarrassment you might want to read up on your Constitution and the US's responsiblities under the UN Charter and the myriad of international treaties to which the US is a signatory.

It is as simple as this, if you fail to adhere to any of the above then it is illegal.

Therefore since the US has done this their actions are illegal.

International Law 101 for Seeker.

Might want to try again.

Actually, Sandman210372, International Law is what to you?
Something legal and binding?
You are aware that International Law only matters if it matters to the state; if it does not, then there is no legal and binding, nor enforced, International Law, merely interpretations, for International Law never trumps national interests.

The UN can make some International Laws and even pass condemning resolutions, but heads up, the UN cannot enforce said International Law or those damned resolutions. Enforcement comes by way of international action by one, a few, or the many/majority. The best the UN can do is continue to issue those damned non-binding resolutions and authorize economic sanctions, if approved by the veto-carrying body, which no nation is bound to do; it is optional to national interests. That being said, the UN Charter is non-binding and unenforced.

Furthermore, International Law is and has a number of systems:
Roman--Justian's Law--set of books.
Napoleonic Code--1803.
Both of the above are what the Europeans, except the UK, go by.

Common Law--judge-made law.
The above is what the UK and the US, as well as other Commonwealths use.

Oriental system--code.
The above is utilized by the Asian nations.

Islamic Law--Sharia law.
The above used by Arab nations.

As such, International Law is a set of principles, written or unwritten, that are used as basic customary guidelines and parameters--none which are binding, none which are enforced by a neutral international enforcing agency, organization, or body, and no state is bound by those International Laws if they conflict with national interests.

Accordingly, Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon against customary law, which they agreed to follow [ie: a treaty called the NPT], because it is in their national interests to do so. A treaty is only binding when a state remains in constraint of said treaty, thus, for the treaty to be non-binding, the state must exit from said treaty. Has Iran withdrawn from the NPT? If it has not, Iran is legally bound to uphold the principles of said treaty.

Thats International Law 101, Sandman210372.

"Cheers".





seekerof

[edit on 4-2-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 09:57 PM
link   
How many times do we have to go over this. We got ATTACKED. Now its time to kill em all and let "God" sort em out.

Train



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 10:56 PM
link   

You are aware that International Law only matters if it matters to the state; if it does not, then there is no legal and binding, nor enforced, International Law, merely interpretations, for International Law never trumps national interests.





Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon against customary law, which they agreed to follow [ie: a treaty called the NPT], because it is in their national interests to do so. A treaty is only binding when a state remains in constraint of said treaty, thus, for the treaty to be non-binding, the state must exit from said treaty. Has Iran withdrawn from the NPT? If it has not, Iran is legally bound to uphold the principles of said treaty.

Thats International Law 101



Im confused seekerof, so its ok for the US to violate international law but its not ok for Iran??? can u clarify this for me?



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist
Im confused seekerof, so its ok for the US to violate international law but its not ok for Iran??? can u clarify this for me?


How did the US violate international law?



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Well first of all, with their illegal war in Iraq, for starters....

Not to mention the whole phony ''War on Terrorism''......a thin cover for the ''War on Dissent.''



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sandman210372
WP,

You are wrong.

Cheers

S


Is this you're dad by any chance? www.prisonplanet.com...

I see no wonder alot of people have been totaly wrong lately.



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by LetKnowledgeDrop
Well first of all, with their illegal war in Iraq, for starters....


Well as somone already said:

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Ok cheers, I would just like to point out Article 51 of the UN Charter.



Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.


As you can see under Article 51 the countless attacks upon our fighter jets patrolling the No-Fly zones would have alone given the US the right to retaliate against Iraq.

[edit on 4-2-2006 by WestPoint23]


You keep saying it was illegal, how was it illegal?

What exacly did we spicifically violate in international law?

[edit on 5-2-2006 by Tasketo]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join