I'm forced to agree... I don't see what the UN has to do with this, especially given that the court decision is still pending.
It would keep on going. The United Nations is an international organization whose goals are cooperation, law, and pressing for human rights, among others. While it's understandable that you view America as so incredibly powerful and influential that all international organizations would fail if we didn't partipate, it's not correct. In addition, it's arguable that we'd more likely lose a lot of influence by doing such a thing.
Let's assume you are correct that black market oil brought in more revenues. Once again, the UN failed, as did our president at the time (Clinton) and the press.
....
Eventually a price is paid for incompetence and corruption. Someone has to deal with the harsh realities at some point... and that task landed on Bush 43's desk.
.
I like Boo... me thinks he is a Republican dressing up as a Democrat.
Boo don't know Didley
....
After 12-years, 16 UN resolutions, kicking out weapons inspecteurs de la UN... one last chance after 911 is all that need be set on the table for the Despot to understand. He didn't take the out, and perhaps because he thought he bought off the UN. He pokered and lost.
And no, the UN can't stop us, but Democrats who hand over foreign policy as Clinton had... stop us.
The yellow bellied, corrupt to the core pervert.
.
Read the link. It notes the problems with that interpretation of what happened.
J, just because someone grows weary of the same nonsense over and over again is not a nerve being touched. And I was never asked whether I supported a treaty, but if we sign one, if we sign an agreement, just like when you and I sign agreements, do you think we have no obligation to what we sign? And if I sign a anagreement with you, will you accept me saying your usurping my soverngeny when I don't want to do it?
Please, stay with the confines of the issue we're addressing. No diversions. No snipe hunts. No silliness.
I read the link. However, the US signed the treaty and is obligated to abide by it under international law. The US is also a party to the ICJ, which has jurisdiction in such cases...
Good grief. :doh Ok, we will do it your way. Joe, do you think that the US should sign the Land of the Sea Treaty? And why?
j-mac
I read the link. However, the US signed the treaty and is obligated to abide by it under international law. The US is also a party to the ICJ, which has jurisdiction in such cases...
Brewer smashed two targets with one stone.
Obama administration and bitch slapped Hillary so hard it makes a serious dent in any challenge for the presidency. She doesn't stand for upholding the law and defending our borders and thinks so little of our laws she cites them as against human rights.
.
I only wish that the Arizona law had included a portion of the law thatt would have put Officials from sanctuary Cities in jail for 2 years, if they don't act within 30 days to publicly announce they will begin to enforce the Federal and State laws. This would have driven the Muslim in Chief nuts.
This is pretty lame. Finishing Daddies War.Are you kidding, if anything Bush was finishing daddies war. That's why it required so much flawed intelligence, and all sorts of other things that will just detract...
Pro war, anti-war is left vs. right.This is not a left - right issue... this is a pro-war / anti-war issue.
Hans Blix stated Saddam was continuing playing games. He was not cooperating. He believed he had weaponized VX and Anthrax.No, Bush was reported to have had diplomatic talks where you can literally paraphrase as : If you don't prove a negative instantly we're going to bomb you... after how many years of sanctions the people were mostly defeated before they started shock and awe... and every few years they shift things around claim the war is over and move on.
Brewer smashed two targets with one stone.
Obama administration and bitch slapped Hillary so hard it makes a serious dent in any challenge for the presidency. She doesn't stand for upholding the law and defending our borders and thinks so little of our laws she cites them as against human rights.
.
I like Boo... me thinks he is a Republican dressing up as a Democrat.
Boo don't know Didley
Post 911 the world was introduced to "connect the dots". On 911 they claimed we didn't, now the Libs claim we shouldn't have.
Make up your ****ing minds.
Democrats are on record for years warning (during the Clinton years after the Inspectuers got tossed) and then voting to send troops post 911... in the Senate they begged for a second vote because Dems realized how feeble they looked on national defense issues... a 30-year record of hostility does that. Hell, even Hillary spelled it out for Code Pink... citing intel received as she was third mate at the WH... (I think Bill probably preferred the intern over Frauline Shriek).
Well at least you admit the UN is corrupt (you could have added... to the core).
So, we kow tow on human rights to a corrupt body for upholding the laws of the land and protecting our borders and citizens. That was Jan Brewer's point.
Thanks Boo.
Note to Boo. Bush 43 went in and got their support. Unanimous vote. He gave Saddam one last chance to come clean. As Hans Blix reported... this didn't happen.
After 12-years, 16 UN resolutions, kicking out weapons inspecteurs de la UN... one last chance after 911 is all that need be set on the table for the Despot to understand. He didn't take the out, and perhaps because he thought he bought off the UN. He pokered and lost.
And no, the UN can't stop us, but Democrats who hand over foreign policy as Clinton had... stop us.
The yellow bellied, corrupt to the core pervert.
.
Brewer smashed two targets with one stone.
Obama administration and bitch slapped Hillary so hard it makes a serious dent in any challenge for the presidency. She doesn't stand for upholding the law and defending our borders and thinks so little of our laws she cites them as against human rights.
.
Does the ICJ supersede the US court system in regards to US law?
j-mac
And did the US directly violate their ability to contact their consulate? Or did they never ask?
As I understand it any treaty that puts a law into effect within the US MUST be ratified by congress. The president can't do it alone.To be usurped, the US would have to have been forced into the agreement. If the US volutarily signed the treaty, the US has not been usurped. And once signing a treaty, that is the law the US should live by.
So, largely what Brewer said was, "Wait, you're gonna turn me in for crimes against humanity? But I'm an American, you're not supposed to write reports about what I do! Go complain about human rights in China or something!"
Bloody hypocrite.
Except in this case, the ICJ was just noting the obligation the U.S. has to allow consulate/embassy personnel to contact their citizens if charged or undergoing court procedures that is borne out of a treaty the U.S. is party to and it itself insists on when Americans are imprisoned in foreign countries. This is not the only time this has happened in the U.S. and it jeopardizes the ability of the U.S. to gain access to U.S. citizens in foreign countries. Texas did the same with Mexican nationals. This is a violation of U.S. treaty commitments.
But let's not forget the point. Corru[tion is not limited tothe UN. In fact,the UN is made up of nations, of which we are a part. And we contribute to some of that corruption. What seems to make most American's most angry, it seems to me, is that the UN hasn't always done exactly what we tell them to do. And as we all know, that makes the UN very, very evil.
As I understand it any treaty that puts a law into effect within the US MUST be ratified by congress. The president can't do it alone.
There have been cases in the past where a president has signed a treaty but congress does not ratify it. This pretty much nullifies the treaty.
I agree with this fully.
EVERY person arrested for deportation as a illegal alien should be allowed to be visited by officials from his nation's embassy.
That fact that officials from a foreign nation officially recognized the prisoner as their citizen is evidence that the prisoner is indeed in the nation illegally and that person can then be shipped out the next day.
This is pretty lame. Finishing Daddies War.
The intel may have been flawed, but the UN, Germany, France, Russia, The Brits, all agreed he had WMD.
Top Dems including Clinton/Gore warned about Saddam's threat and WMD... years before Bush set foot in office.
After 911, the world change. Bush went to the corrupt UN and got a unanimous vote in the Sec. Council.
Saddam didn't fulfill his obligation after 12-years and 17 resolutions.
Pro war, anti-war is left vs. right.
Check the record during the past 40-years.
Ya, Saddam still thought of himself as a protected CIA asset is all...Hans Blix stated Saddam was continuing playing games. He was not cooperating. He believed he had weaponized VX and Anthrax.
Mistakenly... Saddam thought Bush was as weak as Clinton, and perhaps believed he had bought off the corrupt UN.
.
Huh?!?!? You are saying that every foreign national is in the U.S. illegally?!?!? That is an interesting leap in logic...
As I understand it any treaty that puts a law into effect within the US MUST be ratified by congress. The president can't do it alone.
There have been cases in the past where a president has signed a treaty but congress does not ratify it. This pretty much nullifies the treaty.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?