Page 11 of 19 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 186

Thread: US, world powers agree to extend deadline for Iran to meet nuclear scale-back deal

  1. #101
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:06 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,399

    Re: US, world powers agree to extend deadline for Iran to meet nuclear scale-back dea

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    You guys never believe the IAEA, though they were right in Iraq and you were WRONG!!!

    IAEA says Iran eliminates enriched uranium
    The UN's nuclear agency said Iran had met the requirements of an interim deal on its nuclear program. A report released on Sunday showed that the oil-rich country had eliminated its stockpile of enriched uranium.

    IAEA says Iran eliminates enriched uranium | News | DW.DE | 21.07.2014

    Iran eliminates sensitive stockpile under interim nuclear deal: IAEA | Reuters
    At least there is some good news. Keep the pressure on and Iran will be a bona fide member of the international community in no time. They could have had that any time during the last two decades, of course, had they wanted it.

  2. #102
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:06 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,399

    Re: US, world powers agree to extend deadline for Iran to meet nuclear scale-back dea

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Why are you being dishonest with this, in multiple public statements, policy papers, interviews and at least one book Hans Blix has said the opposite of you. Stop with the disinformation.
    One problem with Blix was that he was not very consistent, while he was in responsibility.

  3. #103
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: US, world powers agree to extend deadline for Iran to meet nuclear scale-back dea

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    One problem with Blix was that he was not very consistent, while he was in responsibility.
    ...........
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  4. #104
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,897

    Re: US, world powers agree to extend deadline for Iran to meet nuclear scale-back dea

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    The resolution read differently. There was a discussion about whether or not "serious consequences" could mean invasion with France taking an other view. But the speech Bush had held a few days before the resolution was passed had made absolutely clear, how the US and most other leaders would interpret it. I for my part did not believe at the time that a further resolution was required. Maybe you want to argue that 1441 was insufficient legitimization for the invasion? I do not think that you can, though, you might say to believe otherwise.
    It didn't matter how one interpreted it. The blatant fact that you're missing is that only the UNSC had a right to interpret the resolution as it saw fit, and only the UNSC had the right to authorize use of force, which it did not do. The US did not have any legal authority to authorize use of force, only UNSC did.

    ""The second version of the argument that prior Security Council resolutions
    authorize force centers on the “material breach” argument. This argument
    apparently originated in the UK, but US officials have also mentioned it in
    recent months. Blair government officials argue that the ceasefire resolution
    and subsequent resolutions are like any other international agreement. In the
    case of material breach of a multilateral treaty, in some cases, all the
    parties may respond, including, where appropriate, by coercive
    countermeasures[9].

    This is indeed a curious argument. Its main concept "material breach" has made
    its way into Resolution 1441[10]. The problem is that "material breach" never
    was a viable basis for using force against Iraq. Security Council resolutions
    are not like treaties or other agreements reached through negotiations aimed at
    achieving consensus. Rather, Security Council resolutions are mandates upon
    parties and must be respected with or without their consent[11]. They are
    enforced, modified, or terminated by the Security Council, not by states in
    general. Neither the explicit terms of the UN Charter nor the practice of the
    Security Council supports any other interpretation. Under the UN Charter,
    states may only use force in individual or collective self-defense in the face
    of an armed attack or with the authorization of the Security Council when the
    Council finds a threat or breach of international peace[12]. Thus, without
    Security Council authorization, states do not have the right to use force to
    enforce the Council's resolutions, whether a breach is material or immaterial.
    The Security Council's history with respect to its resolutions on Iraq make
    clear that it has not relinquished to the US the right to enforce its
    resolutions unilaterally...

    ...But then it will be for the Security Council to decide the consequences.
    Under the international law governing enforcement, all coercive measures are
    limited by the principles of necessity and proportionality, including those
    mandated by the Security Council itself[14]. Consequences should be
    commensurate with the nature of the breach. To this extent the "materiality" of
    the breach is not as important as finding a remedy that fits the wrong. It will
    be for Security Council members to calibrate response to any failure to comply.
    Thus, if the inspectors report even minor obstruction by Iraq, the Security
    Council should not necessarily authorize major military force."
    http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php
    Last edited by Khayembii Communique; 07-21-14 at 01:45 PM.
    "I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."

  5. #105
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,897

    Re: US, world powers agree to extend deadline for Iran to meet nuclear scale-back dea

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    No, there is nothing abnormal about countries having secrets.
    The problem here is that a large number of countries voted to make sure Iran was not building an atomic weapon and the inspectors have found a number of indications of a weapons program. A number of the findings seem impossible to explain, if the Iranians are not conducting such a program and their government has not been able or willing to explain.
    All of the findings are explainable, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
    "I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."

  6. #106
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: US, world powers agree to extend deadline for Iran to meet nuclear scale-back dea

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    At least there is some good news. Keep the pressure on and Iran will be a bona fide member of the international community in no time. They could have had that any time during the last two decades, of course, had they wanted it.
    Iran is a bona fide member of the IC, whether you like them or not. And if support of militant Islamic/terrorist groups precludes a country from being a bona fide member of the global community, then...................................
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  7. #107
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:06 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,399

    Re: US, world powers agree to extend deadline for Iran to meet nuclear scale-back dea

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    It didn't matter how one interpreted it. The blatant fact that you're missing is that only the UNSC had a right to interpret the resolution as it saw fit, and only the UNSC had the right to authorize use of force, which it did not do. The US did not have any legal authority to authorize use of force, only UNSC did.

    ""The second version of the argument that prior Security Council resolutions
    authorize force centers on the “material breach” argument. This argument
    apparently originated in the UK, but US officials have also mentioned it in
    recent months. Blair government officials argue that the ceasefire resolution
    and subsequent resolutions are like any other international agreement. In the
    case of material breach of a multilateral treaty, in some cases, all the
    parties may respond, including, where appropriate, by coercive
    countermeasures[9].

    This is indeed a curious argument. Its main concept "material breach" has made
    its way into Resolution 1441[10]. The problem is that "material breach" never
    was a viable basis for using force against Iraq. Security Council resolutions
    are not like treaties or other agreements reached through negotiations aimed at
    achieving consensus. Rather, Security Council resolutions are mandates upon
    parties and must be respected with or without their consent[11]. They are
    enforced, modified, or terminated by the Security Council, not by states in
    general. Neither the explicit terms of the UN Charter nor the practice of the
    Security Council supports any other interpretation. Under the UN Charter,
    states may only use force in individual or collective self-defense in the face
    of an armed attack or with the authorization of the Security Council when the
    Council finds a threat or breach of international peace[12]. Thus, without
    Security Council authorization, states do not have the right to use force to
    enforce the Council's resolutions, whether a breach is material or immaterial.
    The Security Council's history with respect to its resolutions on Iraq make
    clear that it has not relinquished to the US the right to enforce its
    resolutions unilaterally...

    ...But then it will be for the Security Council to decide the consequences.
    Under the international law governing enforcement, all coercive measures are
    limited by the principles of necessity and proportionality, including those
    mandated by the Security Council itself[14]. Consequences should be
    commensurate with the nature of the breach. To this extent the "materiality" of
    the breach is not as important as finding a remedy that fits the wrong. It will
    be for Security Council members to calibrate response to any failure to comply.
    Thus, if the inspectors report even minor obstruction by Iraq, the Security
    Council should not necessarily authorize major military force."
    JURIST - O'Connell: UN Resolution 1441 - Compelling Saddam, Restraining Bush
    That is quite a nice link. There is nothing new in it though. It just assumes a further resolution would have been necessary. The opposite position was taken by the allied governments. Both sides argued their positions with pounds of legal copy. At the time I was quite interested and delved into it. I decided that I believed 1441 was sufficient basis for the invasion.

  8. #108
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:06 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,399

    Re: US, world powers agree to extend deadline for Iran to meet nuclear scale-back dea

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    All of the findings are explainable, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
    That was not my understanding. IAEA said in 2011 that there Iran was engaged in activities that indicated it was developing a nuclear bomb. Since then I have seen many indications that this has continued, but not that IAEA has revised its opinion.

  9. #109
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,897

    Re: US, world powers agree to extend deadline for Iran to meet nuclear scale-back dea

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    That is quite a nice link. There is nothing new in it though. It just assumes a further resolution would have been necessary. The opposite position was taken by the allied governments. Both sides argued their positions with pounds of legal copy. At the time I was quite interested and delved into it. I decided that I believed 1441 was sufficient basis for the invasion.
    Then of course you would be wrong.
    "I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."

  10. #110
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,897

    Re: US, world powers agree to extend deadline for Iran to meet nuclear scale-back dea

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    That was not my understanding. IAEA said in 2011 that there Iran was engaged in activities that indicated it was developing a nuclear bomb. Since then I have seen many indications that this has continued, but not that IAEA has revised its opinion.
    I've read the reports so if you're going to make an argument, then go ahead and make one. What specifically did the IAEA say? What were these "activities" that "indicated"?
    "I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."

Page 11 of 19 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •