On legal grounds any country whom is part of the United Nations MUST submit to a number of universal laws which apply to the subscribing nations. Violation of laws concerning human rights treaties come with severe penalties, economic sanctions, and often military intervention. Rights of the Sovereign do not supersede these human rights laws set forth by the UN. But being that not every nation including Iran is part of the UN, they are technically exempt. EVEN from Nuclear arms treaties.
But does that mean powerful nations like the US have no right to intervene? In terms of international law we cannot violate their Sovereign Right to govern themselves as they see fit. BUT, what if in the case of Nuclear weapons a country threatens repeatedly to use them on another part of the UN? Now we have just cause and legal right to intervene. In the case of harming and suppressing your own people and not being part of the UN it is an entirely different issue. Often legally we as the US must mind our own business.
But a final point. I will ask this rhetorically. What is a right? What is a law? All are social constructs. They do not exist in nature rather it is people in power who give them life.
Here is a exercise in thought. What if you were somehow magically endowed with the power of invincibility, flight like superman, and absolute destruction by means of laser vision. You could technically go running around blowing up cities with your "heat vision" or whatever other magical means and then crown yourself emperor of the planet earth. Sure a few people would try to stop you and then shout about themselves all having rights of basic humanity. But of course they'd all give up as soon as they realized you were a god who would kill them anyways. So where are their rights now?
Point being, the United States can intervene as it sees fit anytime we find atrocious violations of human rights ANYTIME. Sure Iran can whine about their Sovereign rights being violated but what could they do to stop us? They are but an insect in comparison to our total military strength and who on Earth would pick on us for defending human rights aside from those who already hate us?
Rights are like fiat currency. Backed by faith, and their value can fluctuate based on the faith behind it. The strong always have power over the weak, and no rights or laws can stop the lion from devouring the gazelle. So yes, I'd love nothing more than the civilized western world to bring justice to inhumanities around the world. But politics and other factors often get in the way of that happening.
But does that mean powerful nations like the US have no right to intervene? In terms of international law we cannot violate their Sovereign Right to govern themselves as they see fit. BUT, what if in the case of Nuclear weapons a country threatens repeatedly to use them on another part of the UN? Now we have just cause and legal right to intervene. In the case of harming and suppressing your own people and not being part of the UN it is an entirely different issue. Often legally we as the US must mind our own business.
But a final point. I will ask this rhetorically. What is a right? What is a law? All are social constructs. They do not exist in nature rather it is people in power who give them life.
Here is a exercise in thought. What if you were somehow magically endowed with the power of invincibility, flight like superman, and absolute destruction by means of laser vision. You could technically go running around blowing up cities with your "heat vision" or whatever other magical means and then crown yourself emperor of the planet earth. Sure a few people would try to stop you and then shout about themselves all having rights of basic humanity. But of course they'd all give up as soon as they realized you were a god who would kill them anyways. So where are their rights now?
Point being, the United States can intervene as it sees fit anytime we find atrocious violations of human rights ANYTIME. Sure Iran can whine about their Sovereign rights being violated but what could they do to stop us? They are but an insect in comparison to our total military strength and who on Earth would pick on us for defending human rights aside from those who already hate us?
Rights are like fiat currency. Backed by faith, and their value can fluctuate based on the faith behind it. The strong always have power over the weak, and no rights or laws can stop the lion from devouring the gazelle. So yes, I'd love nothing more than the civilized western world to bring justice to inhumanities around the world. But politics and other factors often get in the way of that happening.
Figyelem! Szexuális ragadozók az nCore-on! Kattints a képre!
The United Nations has no legal precedent or grounds, it is by all effects a "Kangaroo Court". The supposed "laws" set forth by the UN are laws introduced and passed by the same nations that are to abide by them. By example, that would be allowing a murder to create a law regarding to murder, then play his own judge, jury and render a sentence against him/her self. The UN has no Judicial Power, nor Enforcement Power.
You are clearly confused and mistaken. No member nation of the UN is required by international law or any other policy, national or international to protect a fellow UN member nation. Nor does the UN maintain a military force of it's own, all forces serving under the UN are voluntary and the volunteering nation may withdraw it's forces from participation at any time.
However, as a member of NATO, a member nation is required per pact to provide assistance to it's fellow NATO members. NATO and the UN are not the same, nor are they related.
This is a theoretical "straw man' argument. You neglect to include religious, moral, ethical or other influences of those who you've been given power over. Solely because someone is given the means to kill does not equate to the victim submitting. This is shown in the history of humanity, men have given their lives for causes, even against certain death.
Your argument is that the US can intervene in whatever it sees fit, out of a sense of power and control, regardless of the moral or ethical implications of it's own actions.
You also lack any tangible knowledge in term of Global Politics, Military Sciences, or Strategic/Tactical Operations.
Military Expenditure and Force Readiness DO NOT equate to Military Strength. Iraq and Afghanistan being the most clear and readily available examples. As of the FY 2013 the US Military as a whole will receive a funding cut of nearly $1,000,000,000,000. Force Personnel size with be decreased, Operational Systems will be decreased or retired, R&D will be all, but halted.
As it stands, Force Morale is at an all time low, soldiers having served 4+ tours in Iraq or Afghanistan. Suicide, Spousal Abuse, ect... are rampant because of a lack in readily available services and programs for PTSD and other combat related syndromes and injuries.
Nearly 2/3rds of the US Military Materiel and Combat Systems are mothballed, sitting in Ready Reserve. Functionally, even in a conventional wartime status, Replacement and Repair facilities in the US can only meet 35% of the required needs due to economic and political complications.
In terms of Operational Actions, Iran has a "Golden Arrow" in it's sheath. Even with a single nuclear weapon, Iran can strike Israel. Thus immediately invalidating the "M.A.D. Theory" we have so happily hung our hat on for the past 20 years. Even at that point in time, the US can not utilize WMD's because of Operational Doctrine which allows the use of WMD's only in the event of a strike on CONUS or a NATO Ally, Israel is not a member of NATO, nor is it US Territory. As of President G.H. Bush's term, the US Strategic Nuclear Forces are under orders to absorb a Primary Preemptive Strike on CONUS or US Military Bases OCONUS without Retaliatory Action of Nuclear Arms.
Even then, Iran is reported by multiple intelligence organizations to have placed "Sleeper Cells" in certain NATO Allied nations capable of providing military support against Iran.
In any scenario involving the US intervening in Iran, it also snubs both the Russian Federation and People's Republic of China, both of who have voiced their willingness to provide military support in the event of a US/Iran Conflict.
Western Imperialism at it's finest. As far as comparing humanity to animals, it sounds good until logic comes smash in. Human's are all the same species, what gives other humans the ability to hold power and control over the rest is a willingness to deviate from moral or ethical practices. As was proven with the founding of the US, the Vietnam War, and a multitude of other conflicts throughout history brute force has proven to be a weak contender against any cause, religious or otherwise.
You don't measure victory by a yardstick of death, you measure it by a yardstick of life. What good is 'liberating" and "democratizing" a nation if there is nothing left? Just because you gain geographic control of an area doesn't mean you've won. Ask the Soviet's about their time in the Mid-East, just because you have your own brand of freedom or morality doesn't mean others want any of it.
Figyelem! Szexuális ragadozók az nCore-on! Kattints a képre!