Maggie's Farm

International law is composed of treaties between nations, including the United Nations charter.

Under the United States Constitution, treaties, when ratified by the Senate (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2), are the "supreme Law of the Land" (Article VI, Clause 2). That includes the United Nations Charter, which was established to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind".

The American Republic was founded on the principle that no one person should have the unilateral power to make important decisions for the entire nation. The United Nations rejected that no one nation or one person should have the unilateral power to make decisions that would throw the world into turmoil.

OneGuy: So the treaty overrides the constitution?

Treaties don't override the Constitution. They are laws under the Constitution. They are the "supreme Law of the Land". (Most treaties also require enabling legislation.)

OneGuy: My only question is were our diplomats and congress just ignorant or did they intentionally act against the interest of the people???

The vote in the Senate, held even as the war raged on, was 89-2, so the United Nations treaty had almost universal support. Also keep in mind that no binding United Nations resolution can pass without the concurrence of the United States.

Two world wars were fought based on aggression and conquest. Hitler promised peace, then brutally broke that promise. The United Nations was established to help prevent the outbreak of another global conflagration. Whatever grievances people had over existing borders or forms of government were to be resolved through negotiation, not war. That's why most wars since then, e.g. Vietnam or Korea, have been cast as civil wars. That's why Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and Russia's invasion of Ukraine are considered war crimes.

The United Nations is a flawed institution. (What human institution is not?). But to paraphrase Churchill: “Jaw, jaw is better than war, war.”

James: Just call up the world police to enforce those treaties.

The United States has made promises. Does the word of the Americans mean anything? Or is it just jibber-jabber while they sharpen their swords?

Do you support the power of one man to unilaterally decide who should run any other country at any time without justification? If you were to, instead, argue for justification ("Iran might get the bomb"), then you are arguing within the context of international law.