It was a rhetorical question; no they did not come up with a binding
resolution. That is how the UN enforces policy. Binding resolutions.
So, my point is, what is the point of having international laws that no
one is willing to enforce.
There is no ignoring plain facts. You just did not get it. Stop smoking
lettuce.
On 6/17/2015 7:20 PM, Juan wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 17:33:27 -0400
Tim Beelen <[email protected]> wrote:
So did they pass a resolution as such that I'm unaware of?
So little Timmy is ignoring plain facts.
Completely unsurprising.
Is there an international court that is willing to persecute?
And also because first and foremost the U.S. does not acknowledge The
Hague. But the EU does acknowledge US laws. Which is nice.
So, did they pass a resolution or not?
On 6/17/2015 4:49 PM, Razer wrote:
On 06/17/2015 01:28 PM, Tim Beelen wrote:
You're conflating a bunch of things.
You can't have a criminal organization without crime, which require
illegality, which requires laws which require a governing body. A
government usually does not declare itself illegal so, no, it's not
going to be a criminal enterprise.
Expecting criminals to adjudicate themselves as such is a little
beyond the pall so lets cut to the chase here, based on one
criminal action for the moment. The US subscribes to the UN charter
and what passes for international law, which to a huge extent the
US had a guiding hand in shaping.
The UN allowed the United States leeway to literally invade Iraq
based on evidence presented known to be lies at the time they were
told, by almost everyone in the US government in a position to
authorize policy, diplomatic OR war-related, on Iraq
The US government and all of it's executives committed a criminal
act under international law by invading Iraq under false pretenses
and therefore IS an international criminal enterprise that
continues to this day in that country by our continued, and eternal
(at least until the oil from there and Iran runs out) presence.
