30 Mar 06
Does it strike anyone as a little ironic that Iran, which is a signatory to the NNPT and (despite much western media on the issue) has yet to do anything outside the bounds of the NNPT is being demonised and essentially threatened with pre-emptive strikes, while India, which is not a signatory and has thumbed its nose at treaty signatories has now become the latest darling of the US government?
30 Mar 06
Originally posted by amannionIndia didn't break every International law by taking our Embassy. You can trust the Iranians if you want. I don't.
Does it strike anyone as a little ironic that Iran, which is a signatory to the NNPT and (despite much western media on the issue) has yet to do anything outside the bounds of the NNPT is being demonised and essentially threatened with pre-emptive strikes, while India, which is not a signatory and has thumbed its nose at treaty signatories has now become the latest darling of the US government?
30 Mar 06
Originally posted by slimjimThat's hilarious.
India didn't break every International law by taking our Embassy. You can trust the Iranians if you want. I don't.
You wan to talk about breaking international law?
Hmmm. Invasion of Iraq. Detainees at Guantanamo Bay. I'm sure I can think of some others given time ...
30 Mar 06
Originally posted by amannionActually its not odd. Iran's president does not know how to shut the F up. Had he learned that little skill, and a couple oothers, like how to get along with people, he might be able to get the nukes he want.
Does it strike anyone as a little ironic that Iran, which is a signatory to the NNPT and (despite much western media on the issue) has yet to do anything outside the bounds of the NNPT is being demonised and essentially threatened with pre-emptive strikes, while India, which is not a signatory and has thumbed its nose at treaty signatories has now become the latest darling of the US government?
30 Mar 06
2 edits
Originally posted by amannionYou are one who is hilarious. Invasion of Iraq because they didn't adhere to the UN resolutions, Detainees at Guantanamo aren't afforded privelages under the Geneva Convention. Better think some more.🙄
That's hilarious.
You wan to talk about breaking international law?
Hmmm. Invasion of Iraq. Detainees at Guantanamo Bay. I'm sure I can think of some others given time ...
30 Mar 06
Originally posted by slimjimThe invasion of Iraq would've been legal under your reasoning if the UN security council had agreed - they did not.
You are one who is hilarious. Invasion of Iraq because they didn't adhere to the UN resolutions, Detainees at Guantanamo aren't afforded privelages under the Geneva Convention. Better think some more.🙄
Detainees at Guantanamo Bay aren't afforded Geneva Convention rights under US law NOT international law - so the US is breaking international law in doing so.
30 Mar 06
Originally posted by amannionInternational Law? Don't make me laugh. Milosovic died of boredom waiting for his trial under International law.
The invasion of Iraq would've been legal under your reasoning if the UN security council had agreed - they did not.
Detainees at Guantanamo Bay aren't afforded Geneva Convention rights under US law NOT international law - so the US is breaking international law in doing so.
30 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by amannionThe Hague did lock Milosivic up and literally threw away the key without a trial. Actually the prisoners should have been tried by a tribunal and either found innocent and released or if found guilty they should have been shot by firing squad. I'm tired of hearing about the detainees not to mention feeding the SOB's. Heck they eat better at Gitmo than they ever did at home.
So, instead we should just look them all up and throw away the key?
Oh wait, you guys are doing that already at Gitmo.
30 Mar 06
Originally posted by amannionDo you know what International Law is ? Who makes these laws and with authority enforces it ? What are the consequences of breaking it?
The invasion of Iraq would've been legal under your reasoning if the UN security council had agreed - they did not.
Detainees at Guantanamo Bay aren't afforded Geneva Convention rights under US law NOT international law - so the US is breaking international law in doing so.
30 Mar 06
Originally posted by abejnoodLet me help you out here and put this in simple language that you can probably understand. A man says publicly that he wants to shoot his neighbour, then he goes to the police to apply for a firearm licence claiming that he wants to join the local rifle club. The police has no proof that he wants to use it to shoot his neighbour, but there is evidence to suggest that he might.
Yet you STILL offer no proof! Your ignorance astounds me!!!!