The calculation above showing the approximately range of the radar of Raad.
Iranian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter ShahryarHedayat
- Start date
Oh I supposed the US is respecting international law when it unilaterally withdraw from the UN sanctioned nuclear deal. Then place all those sanctions on Iran, AND any other countries that deals with Iran!
As I said in my earlier post. International or no international airspace. (and you still have no proof that it was shot down in international airspace). If you fly so close to other people's territory, that may then feel threaten, uncomfortable and nervous about your presence. You should have the decency to back off.
I hope you do that in your personal life. And not going upto someone's face inches away and claimed is ok, because you didn't actually touch them.
Obliviously, if is not alright for us to do that in our personal life, then it stands to reason that we shouldn't be doing that in international relations.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
the UN doesn’t make laws it depends on the nations involved agreeing to support its actions.
The Deal was enacted without ratification by the US Congress as such it’s about as binding as the Toilet paper in the UN building.
The Deal was enacted without ratification by the US Congress as such it’s about as binding as the Toilet paper in the UN building.
Sorry, mate, but other countries doesn't care about the internal monkeying of the USA.
The Head of state and government made an international agreement, and the country withdrawn from it later without the consent of the other government , or any breach of contract - you can found excuses as many as you wish, example the head of state wrote the agreement without consulting the old wises of the tribe , or had bad diarrhoea on that morning, but no one care about it.
All of that nothing else - just bad excuse for bulling.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
It was a non binding agreement and enacted only by the Head of State. A later Head of state tossed it. Mate.
Because it was not enacted as a treaty by the Senate it wasn’t binding and only enacted at the whim of the leadership.
Because it was not enacted as a treaty by the Senate it wasn’t binding and only enacted at the whim of the leadership.
In the Iranian's case, the black market only exists is due to the UNILATERAL sanctions by the US, and the US strong arm tactics overriding other sovereign countries rights in trading with Iran.
Eh? Please enlightened me. If the UN doesn't make laws, then all those war crimes committed from the Nazis and Japan down to Iraq. All those infamous pack of cards war criminals ♠♣♥♦ was just my imagination then.
The US, UK and the west making such an issues of having UN mandate to have a "LEGAL" war was a waste of time then, because all the time, the UN didn't have any authority at all to declare all the wars US, UK and the west have ever been involved in is "legal"!
Therefore the signature of the head of state on a piece of paper is not worth the toilet paper I just used and flushed down the drain!
Be that as it may. But what sort of message, the leader of the " free world" is sending to the rest of the world?
It used to be said that a country stand by what they SIGNED! But I guess the US does believe American is exceptional!
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Those tribunal were not held by the UN but by the governments of the Respective allied governments. The US,UK,USSR and France based off The Hague conventions that dated before the war. Laws are not retroactive and courts can’t judge the guilt of a party based on laws written after the fact can they?!
those are based not on UN edict by the Geneva Conventions that predate the Charter of the UN. The UN or other bodies enacted the tribunals. In the case of Iraq it was via not the UN but the Interim Iraqi Government. If you wish to call that a puppet of the US feel free.
The Deck of Cards was issued by the US DOD.
again based off either The Hague or the Geneva conventions which date back to the late 19th early 20th century and were signed and ratified before the 1945 charter of the UN.
Except it wasn’t Signed by the Head of state of any party. It was signed by the foreign ministers or in the case of the US by The Secretary of State. Historically Such figures have started to negotiate deals and had their head of state/Governments toss them. The JCPOA tried to make an end run around this and the Obama administration ran it as an executive order by the President of the United States. The US System however doesn’t recognize Executive order as Law, only as policy. Policy is subject to change by the successor. Since it wasn’t binding and not ratified, the Successor president could and did change policy.
You can try and twist it how you like but those who made the agreement were only able to maintain it had they maintained power in the US executive branch from 2016-2024. They lost.