International or UN " laws. Duhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
On Aug 21, 5:19 pm, Ixtelan <drbuck...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> States have an inherent right to self-defense, not to intervene.
> Threats or use of force by one state against another violate customary
> international law and the UN Charter.
>
> Unless you live in Oklahoma, where voters have determined that no
> state judge may rely on international law to render decisions in state
> courts. Okies are still having a tough time understanding Article VI,
> paragraph 2, of the Constitution.
>
> On Aug 19, 6:50 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The United States has not only a duty, but an inherent right to "intervene"
> > when its interests or citizens are threatened or somehow placed in
> > jeopardy. Collectively, our Nation has used great restraint, and its not as
> > if the United States is known for sticking its nose in other Nations'
> > business or affairs, unless our liberty interests are somehow affected.
>
> > The support of the Shah and his family was a prudent political move and kept
> > stability in that Nation for almost thirty years. A Nation that America had
> > an abundance of interests in, (as did Great Britain) as Iran supplied the
> > bulk of crude oil to the West in the 1950s, and we had a ton of money
> > invested in that oil, its exploration, the technology to retrieve it, and
> > the supply chain to get the product to market. Just as important,
> > geopolitically, Iran sits at the Straights of Hormuz, and it was critical
> > especially during the 1950s and 1960s that the Persian Gulf and the
> > Straights of Hormuz remain a viable shipping lane.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment