Iran In December?

[Annie]

However going down this path takes off Katianne's original topic.

Hgrokit, did I goof again?

 

[HGROKIT]

However going down this path takes off Katianne's original topic.

Hgrokit, did I goof again?

nawwww, we were discussing Iran in December and the news articles - then all this UN rhetoric and whether we werer right or not starting creeping in - just trying to keep it from devolving

 

[Annie]

nawwww, we were discussing Iran in December and the news articles - then all this UN rhetoric and whether we werer right or not starting creeping in - just trying to keep it from devolving

Yeah, I don't want to do UN today. Let's stay with speculating on the doings of Iran and Israel, maybe US too.

 

[freeandfun1]

Yeah, I don't want to do UN today. Let's stay with speculating on the doings of Iran and Israel, maybe US too.

nuke em! (Iran that is)

 

[MJDuncan1982]

I'll make this as quick as I can since nobody wants to discuss the U.N. here:

U.S. Constitution Article VI; Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States.., and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;...

The U.N. Charter is such a Treaty.​

U.N. Charter Article 51: Nothing in this present charter shall impair the inherent right right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations,...

The wording of the Charter is commonly understood to mean that self-defense is also permitted in response to anticipation of an imminent attack, i.e. tanks massing on a border.​

According to our own Constitution, we cannot use military action unless one of two conditions is met: invasion or threat of invasion.

This is why the Bush Administration was pushing the idea that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the U.S.

However, there is the matter of the resolutions.

U.N. Charter Article 42: ...it [Security Council] may take such action by air sea or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.

The U.N. Security Council can authorize military action.​

U.N. Resolution 1441: ...it [Iraq] will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.

The wording of this resolution is vague and does not justify military action. Serious consequences could mean further sanctions, expulsion from international organization, etc. It could also mean military action but a further resolution is needed by the U.N. for clarification.

We are beholden to the United Nations Charter because the Constitution mandates that we follow any treaties we enter into. With no invasion, the case for imminent threat not sufficiently made and no specific directive by the U.N. for military action, we are in violation of the U.N. Charter as well as the U.S. Constitution.

I apologize for the length; I wrote as much as was necessary.

 

[freeandfun1]

The wording of this resolution is vague and does not justify military action. Serious consequences could mean further sanctions, expulsion from international organization, etc. It could also mean military action but a further resolution is needed by the U.N. for clarification.

As Iraq never complied with the armistace that stopped the hostilities, in reality, the war never stopped. No further UN resolutions were needed.

ar·mi·stice ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärm-sts) n.
A temporary cessation of fighting by mutual consent; a truce.