Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Good article from Reuters on Iran and the nuclear "deal"


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Good article from Reuters on Iran and the nuclear "deal" Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Good article from Reuters on Iran and the nuclear &... - 3/13/2015 6:50:43 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Major world powers have begun talks about a United Nations Security Council resolution to lift U.N. sanctions on Iran if a nuclear agreement is struck with Tehran, a step that could make it harder for the U.S. Congress to undo a deal, Western officials said.

The talks between Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States — the five permanent members of the Security Council — plus Germany and Iran, are taking place ahead of difficult negotiations that resume next week over constricting Iran's nuclear ability.

Some eight U.N. resolutions - four of them imposing sanctions - ban Iran from uranium enrichment and other sensitive atomic work and bar it from buying and selling atomic technology and anything linked to ballistic missiles. There is also a U.N. arms embargo.

Iran sees their removal as crucial as U.N. measures are a legal basis for more stringent U.S. and European Union measures to be enforced. The U.S. and EU often cite violations of the U.N. ban on enrichment and other sensitive nuclear work as justification for imposing additional penalties on Iran.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told Congress on Wednesday that an Iran nuclear deal would not be legally binding, meaning future U.S. presidents could decide not to implement it. That point was emphasized in an open letter by 47 Republican senators sent on Monday to Iran's leaders asserting any deal could be discarded once President Barack Obama leaves office in January 2017.

But a Security Council resolution on a nuclear deal with Iran could be legally binding, say Western diplomatic officials. That could complicate and possibly undercut future attempts by Republicans in Washington to unravel an agreement.

Iran and the six powers are aiming to complete the framework of a nuclear deal by the end of March, and achieve a full agreement by June 30, to curb Iran's most sensitive nuclear activities for at least 10 years in exchange for a gradual end to all sanctions on the Islamic Republic.

</snip>

the rest of the article can be found here.....http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/12/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKBN0M82IS20150312



Im also including a snip from the article because it addresses the ramifications of the letter from republicans

<snip>

quote:

Officials said a U.N. resolution could help protect any nuclear deal against attempts by Republicans in U.S. Congress to sabotage it. Since violation of U.N. demands that Iran halt enrichment provide a legal basis for sanctioning Tehran, a new resolution could make new sanction moves difficult.

"There is an interesting question about whether, if the Security Council endorses the deal, that stops Congress undermining the deal," a Western diplomat said.

Other Western officials said Republicans might be deterred from undermining any deal if the Security Council unanimously endorses it and demonstrates that the world is united in favor of a diplomatic solution to the 12-year nuclear standoff.

Concerns that Republican-controlled Congress might try to derail a nuclear agreement have been fueled by the letter to Iran's leaders and a Republican invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress in a March 3 speech that railed against a nuclear deal with Iran.




I guess people will believe the UN should be dismantled, and use this as a leverage example, but ignore that the cause was the republicans own doing.



So your telling use the one major entity to keeping Iran from obtaining weapons of mass destruction is the Republican/Tea Party? Wasn't that the primary reason for invading Iraq under George W. Bush?

When people have a 180 degree reversal of reasoning, they get put into a mental hospital for a while. Why are we not locking these people up? For theirs and our safety?

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Good article from Reuters on Iran and the nuclear &... - 3/13/2015 6:51:55 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
When was war declared on North Korea and why wasn't Ike informed?


The last time the United States of America officially declared war on another nation it was for Germany, Italy, and Japan. The year, 1941....


(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Good article from Reuters on Iran and the nuclear &... - 3/13/2015 7:01:24 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
Actually, I don't think it would be legally binding. We are still at war with North Korea, yet some of those same countries still trade in arms and ammunition to them. There are other examples. Just my thoughts.

UN Security Council Resolutions are legally binding to all member states. Enforcing compliance, however, might not be an easy thing to do, so a UNSC Resolution might be more of a recommendation, even though, technically, it's legally binding.

But unenforceable and blatantly ignored by anyone who disagrees with them, otherwise there would no longer be an Israel.


UN Security Council Resolutions are like gun laws: both are followed only by those who want to be law-abiding, and ignored by those who don't.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Good article from Reuters on Iran and the nuclear &... - 3/13/2015 7:07:12 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
Lucy please show ONE damn example of the UN solving ANY world problem...right now the only agreement that would mean anything is between Iran and the only nation on earth with the power to enforce terms. That sure as hell wouldn't be the UN.


Does Iran have nuclear weapons right now?

Has Planet Earth been a nuclear wasteland for the last 53 years?

Has the Israel been kept at bay from annihilating the Palestinians for twenty years?

The U.N. has done quite a number of things over the years. Its effectively reduce the usage of anti-personnel mines; because once their placement is forgotten, they tend to kill civilians more than soldiers. Also created logistics to help nations suffering from every manner of disaster. And help craft international trade agreements that increase the flow of commerce and science.




(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Good article from Reuters on Iran and the nuclear &... - 3/13/2015 7:12:19 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
Actually, I don't think it would be legally binding. We are still at war with North Korea, yet some of those same countries still trade in arms and ammunition to them. There are other examples. Just my thoughts.

UN Security Council Resolutions are legally binding to all member states. Enforcing compliance, however, might not be an easy thing to do, so a UNSC Resolution might be more of a recommendation, even though, technically, it's legally binding.

But unenforceable and blatantly ignored by anyone who disagrees with them, otherwise there would no longer be an Israel.


UN Security Council Resolutions are like gun laws: both are followed only by those who want to be law-abiding, and ignored by those who don't.


The reason Israel still exists is because of the United States of America. Unsurprisingly one of the largest lobbying groups in America is the one for Israel. An they are safely in the pocket (and in bed) with the Republican Party. In fact, didn't the Republican/Tea Party's 'national leader' stop by Congress from Israel for a chat recently? :P


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Good article from Reuters on Iran and the nuclear &... - 3/14/2015 1:38:12 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
Actually, I don't think it would be legally binding. We are still at war with North Korea, yet some of those same countries still trade in arms and ammunition to them. There are other examples. Just my thoughts.

UN Security Council Resolutions are legally binding to all member states. Enforcing compliance, however, might not be an easy thing to do, so a UNSC Resolution might be more of a recommendation, even though, technically, it's legally binding.

But unenforceable and blatantly ignored by anyone who disagrees with them, otherwise there would no longer be an Israel.

UN Security Council Resolutions are like gun laws: both are followed only by those who want to be law-abiding, and ignored by those who don't.

The reason Israel still exists is because of the United States of America. Unsurprisingly one of the largest lobbying groups in America is the one for Israel. An they are safely in the pocket (and in bed) with the Republican Party. In fact, didn't the Republican/Tea Party's 'national leader' stop by Congress from Israel for a chat recently? :P


Nothing you've stated here rebuts anything I posted.

Ted Nugent was in Congress?

I see your :P, and raise you a

lol

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Good article from Reuters on Iran and the nuclear &... - 3/14/2015 2:45:11 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
I've read in a few places that UN Security Council resolutions constitute international law, that is to say that a resolution passed by the UNSC becomes an integral part of international law.

As I am not a lawyer I can't state this with any certainty but I do believe this to be the case.

_____________________________



(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Good article from Reuters on Iran and the nuclear &... - 3/14/2015 2:19:25 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
I've read in a few places that UN Security Council resolutions constitute international law, that is to say that a resolution passed by the UNSC becomes an integral part of international law.
As I am not a lawyer I can't state this with any certainty but I do believe this to be the case.


It's only "binding" for UN member states.

And, when a member state breaks a "binding" resolution? Meh.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Good article from Reuters on Iran and the nuclear &... - 3/15/2015 12:05:17 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
And not even UN member states, since we tell them we ignore anything we want all the time.

Yeah, so according to the article, 2001 to 2005 this was going on and W was having nothing to do with it.

Wasn't there a war on there sort of right in between?

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 29
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Good article from Reuters on Iran and the nuclear "deal" Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.113