Does the UN hold jurisdiction the United States?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by JRK, Sep 7, 2011.

  1. JRK
    Offline

    JRK Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,488
    Thanks Received:
    312
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +312
    do they?
    there are some on this message board who think they do
    can some-one explain this to me?
     
  2. BoycottTheday
    Offline

    BoycottTheday CEO

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,301
    Thanks Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +95
    While Obama is in office, yes they do.
     
  3. OODA_Loop
    Offline

    OODA_Loop Account Terminated

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2011
    Messages:
    6,953
    Thanks Received:
    468
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +523
    they will in response to 2012 elections
     
  4. Moonglow
    Offline

    Moonglow Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    81,519
    Thanks Received:
    7,985
    Trophy Points:
    1,870
    Location:
    sw mizzouri
    Ratings:
    +29,319
    The US of A is still it's own country. We do work with and control the UN, but it does not control the US of A.
     
  5. JRK
    Offline

    JRK Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,488
    Thanks Received:
    312
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +312
    why is it there are some here that claim the invasion to Iraq was illegal because the UN did not tell us it was ok?
     
  6. Montrovant
    Offline

    Montrovant Fuzzy bears!

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    11,251
    Thanks Received:
    1,812
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Beyond the Veil
    Ratings:
    +3,340
    I imagine it would have to do with the power treaties hold, and the fact that as signatories of the UN charter and members of the security council, at least some of the UN mandates or resolutions can be considered to be treaty agreements entered into by the US.

    I don't know what the actual legalities involved are, this is just my attempt to explain why someone might say what is in the quote.
     
  7. del
    Offline

    del BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Messages:
    45,052
    Thanks Received:
    9,830
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +9,885
    beats me. it was legal. lots of really stupid things are.
     
  8. JRK
    Offline

    JRK Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,488
    Thanks Received:
    312
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +312
    I really feel we have missed one of the greatest accomplishments in this countries history. Saddam did not hold up to his part of the deal
    would we have evr known that?
    the UN claimed there was no WMDs left, for years
    I guess even with the US going with out the UNs approval, after the fact come to find out Saddam was not in compliance, no matter how old the munitions found were and with the small mountain of yellow cake
    62% of the Iraqi people voted in there last election
    Saddam is gone and Iraq is some what stable right now and with 6 in 10 voting it has to be sign it will be for a long time
     
  9. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    That was never at issue.

    It was alleged Iraq was involved in 9/11, or at the very least directly involved in terrorism. The invasion of Iraq was predicated on that allegation and sold to the American people as a necessary act of defense. No evidence was ever found supporting those allegations, however, and the Bush Administration knew all along there was no evidence. Since Congress authorized the war based on falsified information, the invasion was consequently illegal – given the fact America was in no way threatened by Iraq.

    That Iraq may have been out of compliance with regard to UN sanctions was never established, and the yellow cake ‘discovery’ dated back to before the First Gulf War and UN involvement. And had lack of compliance been documented, the wholesale invasion of Iraq and destruction of the regime wasn’t a justified response.

    That Saddam is gone and the country relatively ‘stable’ doesn’t mitigate the fabricated justification for the war – per the rule of law, the ends indeed never justify the means.

    The irony of this, of course, is that the NFZ established by GHWB after the First Gulf War was working perfectly: Saddam posed a threat to neither his people nor neighbors. Saddam acted as a keystone holding up an edifice keeping the radical Shi'ite factions in Lebanon and Iran apart until GWHB’s idiot son destroyed this well-crafted balance of power in the unstable ME.

    The invasion of Iraq, therefore, had nothing to do with 9/11, terrorism, or Saddam, it had to do with expanding American influence in the ME whose sole purpose was economic exploitation and the creation of American hegemony in a part of the world rich in oil.

    As to the OP, as noted it seems a reference to international law and treaties. However no serious or knowledgeable opponent of the invasion of Iraq would make the argument that the action was ‘illegal’ solely due to UN policy.

    The invasion of Iraq was illegal because the Bush Administration knowingly lied to Congress, aware of the fact there was no evidence of Saddam’s involvement in 9/11 or terror.
     
  10. asterism
    Offline

    asterism Congress != Progress

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2010
    Messages:
    8,592
    Thanks Received:
    906
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Central Florida
    Ratings:
    +1,073
    While reasonable people disagree on the remedy, the facts don't change. Saddam was a state sponsor of terror. He harbored Abu Nidal, sent reward money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and he offered safe harbor to Al Qaeda. Immediately after the US invaded Afghanistan and routed Zarqawi's training base, he set up shop in Iraq.

    Saddam was doing an end run around the UN sanctions with his Oil For Food scam.

    Saddam was in possession of binary chemical agents. These were not the "old and useless" munitions, these were powerful weapons with very long shelf-lives that were capable of causing massive casualties.

    As I said, reasonable people can disagree on the remedy. The justification for the invasion was there and it worked.
     

Share This Page