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.

 

US won't show pictures of Iraq

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica
Uh...what? The only basis for enforcing international law IS the UN. So international law is whatever the UN pleases.


Wow, you are quite uneducated. The UN does not dictate international law. Even if the United States were ever tried in an International Court, we probably wouldn't even care simply because we are the US and we do what we want.

We have refused to answer to the International Court of Justice, and have vetoed Security Council Resolutions meant to force the United States to obey international law.




posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Which is the very problem being discussed in the world affairs...unilateralism verses international law.

*edit*
I'm going to bed. Good night gentlemen and ladies.




regards
seekerof

[Edited on 6-1-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica
You were wrong
news.bbc.co.uk...


Wrong about what? As far as I am aware, the al samoud has not been tested or declared operational, so I don't know how they are saying that. Even if it were, it only has a range of 150km, it could sometime be modified to exceed that range, but it hasn't. And the al samoud II...havent even heard of a second al samoud but the first one wasnt tested, and was only designed for 150km...none of these missiles have been tested by Iraq, and if they were they could not presently exceed 150km.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 10:48 PM
link   
OK, I put that badly.

The UN is the only organization that can be considered to be above the individual nations. If the UN did not exist, there would be no body that could tell the US that what it did is illegal or not. Law is meaningless without an Enforcer.

"Uh, we think you did something illegal."
"Tough #."

It's basically what is occuring now, but it would be 100% justified in that scenario.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek

Originally posted by Esoterica
You were wrong
news.bbc.co.uk...


Wrong about what? As far as I am aware, the al samoud has not been tested or declared operational, so I don't know how they are saying that. Even if it were, it only has a range of 150km, it could sometime be modified to exceed that range, but it hasn't. And the al samoud II...havent even heard of a second al samoud but the first one wasnt tested, and was only designed for 150km...none of these missiles have been tested by Iraq, and if they were they could not presently exceed 150km.


You said-

Iraq has never possessed such missiles, they have been developing two scud-b type missiles that have ranges of exactly 150km, but no such missiles have ever been tested or are operational.


The article has Hans Blix stating-

When chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix delivered his first report to the Security Council at the end of January, he drew attention to two Iraqi missile programmes, the al-Samoud Two and the al-Fatah.

Both of these, he said, had been tested to ranges in excess of the permitted 150 kilometres (93 miles).

Your problem is that you are unaware of the proof that is in fornt of your face.

[Edited on 6-1-2004 by Esoterica]

[Edited on 6-1-2004 by Esoterica]



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica
Your problem is that you are unaware of the proof that is in fornt of your face.
[Edited on 6-1-2004 by Esoterica]


This coming from the same person saying that "International Law" and the UN are one in the same...

First off, if you read through my previous posts entirely, I have provided more "proof" of this war being illegal than you have given of anything.

Second, I can find no other sources documenting any testing of Iraq ballistic missiles, I say produce these missiles.

Third, the war is illegal--read my posts. I am finished with this debate, as you are trying to argue outside your area of knowledge.

Why have you not tried to counter any of the massive amounts of information I have typed explaining why the war is illegal? Maybe because everything I posted is FACT, whereas all the arguments you have been using are mere speculation and cannot be proven. You can go lookup right now the information I have given and see it is proof of the US engaging in an aggressive war, and a war against peace. What "proof" did you give? Hans Blix claiming that weapons have been tested that no one else knows about...


Try to dispute anything I have given as fact, I dare you. Try looking up "international law" in the dictionary first, then at least you will know what I am referring to.


[Edited on 6-1-2004 by Shoktek]



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek


This coming from the same person saying that "International Law" and the UN are one in the same...

What I meant to say is that international law is meaningless without the UN.


First off, if you read through my previous posts entirely, I have provided more "proof" of this war being illegal than you have given of anything.

I gave proof that it was legal. There are UN resolutions making an invasion justifiable. I have produced documents directly related to Iraq. You've provided 70 year old treaties.


Second, I can find no other sources documenting any testing of Iraq ballistic missiles, I say produce these missiles.

Well, I don't have them on hand, sorry
And I cannot fathom how you did not hear of this, it was all over the news when it occured.
But since I've got Hans Blix saying they exist, it's now your responsibiltiy to show he is untrustworthy and should be doubted. If you want to say Blix is lying, go ahead, but that just takes less and less away from any reason why we should listen to the UN.


Third, the war is illegal--read my posts. I am finished with this debate, as you are trying to argue outside your area of knowledge.

I have, apparently you haven't read mine.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica
I have, apparently you haven't read mine.


Yet why is my "proof" easily to find out is true, and yours is full of holes? Get a better understanding of law of nations and some world history would serve you well true..look up nuremburg trials. Sorry if you haven't been properly educated.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek

Originally posted by Esoterica
I have, apparently you haven't read mine.


Yet why is my "proof" easily to find out is true, and yours is full of holes? Get a better understanding of law of nations and some world history would serve you well true..look up nuremburg trials. Sorry if you haven't been properly educated.

Full of holes? I've explained everything that you claim is a problem. In fact, you are not one to speak of education when you were unaware of the al-Samoud rockets even though they were big news, and Hans Blix himself declared them to be illegal.

Iraq broke the cease-fire treaty obligations.



posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 07:49 PM
link   
tHE ONLY PROBLEM WITH ALL OF THIS IS:

One day China is going to want to own its largest market both financially and literally.

And whose going to step up to defend us, the day the China wants to annex the U.S. ?

I doubt anyone will take pity on us.



posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkwraith
tHE ONLY PROBLEM WITH ALL OF THIS IS:

One day China is going to want to own its largest market both financially and literally.

And whose going to step up to defend us, the day the China wants to annex the U.S. ?

I doubt anyone will take pity on us.


China can't take over the US in the forseeable future. They lack a navy to get over here. And Japan doesn't want China any more powerful than it is, and we have a staging point in the Pacific by the name of Taiwan.

We have plenty of allies, just not the usual ones.



posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 08:07 PM
link   
one day, I said.

you think they aren't gonna need some more resources one day for 1 billion people and counting?



posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkwraith
one day, I said.

you think they aren't gonna need some more resources one day for 1 billion people and counting?


They can take over the rest of Asia or Eastern Europe. You don't invade a nation on the other side of the globe if you're hurting for resources. It's robbing Peter to pay Paul.



posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Not to say they wouldn't invade us. They just wouldn't do it for resources.



posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 08:15 PM
link   
IF THEY NEEDED TOLIET PAPER FOR A BILLION AND A HALF PEOPLE THEY'D INVADE CANADA, WHICH MEANS WE'D HAVE TO DEFEND THEM ACCORDING TO NATO



posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkwraith
IF THEY NEEDED TOLIET PAPER FOR A BILLION AND A HALF PEOPLE THEY'D INVADE CANADA, WHICH MEANS WE'D HAVE TO DEFEND THEM ACCORDING TO NATO


You'd assume, except NATO already delcared it wouldn't defend Turkey.

Time to pull those cyborg mooses for the Mounties off the assembly line



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 05:44 PM
link   
suggested reading on news censorship:

from the war, to monsanto and genetically engineered food, to ABC and nightline reports......

www.legitgov.org...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join