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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Its not because theres a law in the US that it makes it so much legal in the rest of the world. I find it hard to follow your logic.


*sigh*, Let me explain it to you, the US did not order the rest of the world to invade Iraq because our laws permitted us to do so. We’re the only ones that have to abide by them, the rest of the world doesn't have to.




posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 07:21 AM
link   
WP,

The US has to abide by its own rules. It has failed to do that.

How so, you may ask.

Well by signing and ratifying the UN Charter and various other international treaties, the US agrees to by said rules.

The process of Congressional ratification places said treaties into domestic US law/ As the Constitution states “all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land”

This is not to make the UN a governing body above the US Government since Article 2 of the Charter states “The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members”

So to re-iterate my much initial post, the US led invasion of Iraq was illegal from both a domestic and an internation law standpoint.

Cheers

S



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 03:46 AM
link   
WP,

I am I take it your silence is your tacit admission that the points I have made are correct and undisputed?

Cheers

S



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Just wondering what is likely to happen to Iran if they decide to have nuclear capabilities, even thou they did sign the agreement.
If they are intending to become nuclear & leave the agreement they must give six months notice or what happens to them? Do they get to sit in the corner with the dunces hat on for six months to think about their attitude, I think not!!
If Iran is intending to become nuclear then I very much doubt that any posturing by the rest of the world is gonna make one scrap of difference to them, in my opinion.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 06:22 AM
link   
'International Law' is non-binding, it only works as guidelines of how to operate "properly," so I think saying 'International Law' is a bit misleading in my opinion, it should be 'International Guidelines'.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 06:45 AM
link   
ok just to get one thing straight (which ive read in this topic) the atomic bomb wasn't a 'US invation'.

it was invented by 2 german scientists in britain, but yes america was the 1st (and only) country to use the atom!!

it's the worlds most destructive and world ending weapon POSSIBLE, but in all its evil nuclear weapons have created peace thoughout the years.

a country like iran having this technology would making other nations paranoid, and make the world completly unstable.

i'm not racist or anything, but we've all seen the menatlity of muslims and the lengths they go to (9/11, 7/7, madrid bombings)!! - can you imagen a country like iran having the power of the atom??
scary stuff.



[edit on 15-2-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   
SwearBear,


Originally posted by SwearBear
'International Law' is non-binding, it only works as guidelines of how to operate "properly," so I think saying 'International Law' is a bit misleading in my opinion, it should be 'International Guidelines'.


That is correct for many countries however for the US it is not. As I showed above the US is legally bound to honour its treaty obligations by virtue of the US Constitution.

Cheers

S







 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join