Does the UN hold jurisdiction the United States?

JRK

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2011
Messages
7,488
Reaction score
313
Points
48
do they?
there are some on this message board who think they do
can some-one explain this to me?
 

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
148,014
Reaction score
16,458
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
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.
 
OP
J

JRK

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2011
Messages
7,488
Reaction score
313
Points
48
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?
 

Montrovant

Fuzzy bears!
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
21,663
Reaction score
4,729
Points
290
Location
A Picturesque Apocalypse
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?
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.
 
OP
J

JRK

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2011
Messages
7,488
Reaction score
313
Points
48
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?
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.
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
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
56,487
Reaction score
14,173
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
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.
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.
 

asterism

Congress != Progress
Joined
Jul 29, 2010
Messages
8,592
Reaction score
970
Points
190
Location
Central Florida
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.
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.
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.
 
OP
J

JRK

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2011
Messages
7,488
Reaction score
313
Points
48
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.
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.
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.
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.
Please in the future do your DD on these matters, where do I start?
what false info?

1) n a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.Popular Articles & Stories for October 11, 2002 - CNN/politics/iraq.us_1_biological-weapons-weapons-inspectors-iraq?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
2) WMDS:
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today."These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpilin
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
Now its not pretty, but that is as far as I would need to go, but lets add
3) The TRUE story of the WMDs in Iraq will not be know for some time, but more and more information is coming out pointing that "something" was there...

Here is some of that information:

Iraqi "yellow cake" transferred:

USATODAY.com - U.S. transferred uranium from Iraq without U.N. authorization

Quote: "The nearly 2 tons of low-enriched uranium and approximately 1,000 highly radioactive items transferred from Iraq to the United States last month had been placed under seal by the International Atomic Energy Agency at the sprawling Tuwaitha nuclear complex, 12 miles south of Baghdad, the officials said."

...material that could have been used to make dirty bombs...well, if that is not materials for a form of WMDs then I do not know what is kids!...lol...!

Now that was in 2004, here is more today, in 2008:

AFP: Iraqi uranium transferred to Canada

...and

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080707/pl_afp/usiraqcanadauraniumnuclear_080707154601

Quote, July 7, 2008: "At Iraq's request, the US military this year transferred hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Iraq to Canada in a secret, weeks-long operation, a Pentagon spokesman said Monday.

The 550 metric tons of uranium, which was sold to a Canadian company, was moved by truck convoy to Baghdad's "Green Zone," then flown by military aircraft to a third country where it was put on a ship for Canada, said Bryan Whitman, the spokesman.

The yellow cake was discovered by US troops after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Facility south of Baghdad, and was placed under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency."

Evidence of WMDs presence in Iraq. - a knol by Luis T. Puig

The problem here is you have been lied to all these years, its the very reason Obama was elected
My question was simple
If the UN kept us out of Iraq do we every find thatr Saddam has lied?
No-one debates that because every on thinks that a war heaed that has mustard gas in it that cannot fly is not a WMD and that in 1994 this war head was the same it was in 2004 and that
The finding of 550 metric tons of yellow cake was an event that does not matter
does not matter?

The left continues to tell us this was an illegal war because of the UN and yet the Un was the only ones wrong
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top