Author Topic: Iran  (Read 1578 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 35629
  • Manna: 776
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: Iran
« Reply #105 on: Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 20:15:49 »
Right. It wasn’t but it had every earmark constitutionally of a treaty that should have been ratified by the Senate. Which of course it would ‘t have been, which is why it was a “non-binding” executive agreement, and a bad one, which is why Trump tore it up.

When you want to kick something even a dangerous something down the road a FEW years you don’t do a treaty. If someone with some sense wants to nullify it, it is easy.

If someone is intent on a good bipartisan plan for the long haul, you go for a treaty that requires 2/3 of the Senate to ratify. If not, it isn’t worth the paper it is written on or the paper currency we hauled over there.
« Last Edit: Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 21:13:17 by Jaime »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Iran
« Reply #105 on: Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 20:15:49 »

AVZ

  • Guest
Re: Iran
« Reply #106 on: Sat Jan 11, 2020 - 01:01:10 »
Right. It wasn’t but it had every earmark constitutionally of a treaty that should have been ratified by the Senate. Which of course it would ‘t have been, which is why it was a “non-binding” executive agreement, and a bad one, which is why Trump tore it up.

When you want to kick something even a dangerous something down the road a FEW years you don’t do a treaty. If someone with some sense wants to nullify it, it is easy.

If someone is intent on a good bipartisan plan for the long haul, you go for a treaty that requires 2/3 of the Senate to ratify. If not, it isn’t worth the paper it is written on or the paper currency we hauled over there.

An executive agreement is considered politically binding, but not legally binding.
And yes the rest of the world is well aware of the US signing agreements, and subsequently not ratifying them...or simply ignoring them.
In particular the native American population can testify to that.

Just to mention a few that you claim are not worth the paper its written on:

1919 - Treaty of Versailles
1949 - International Labor Convention (freedom of association and protection of the right to organize)
1954 - Geneva Agreement (end to the Korean War and First Indochina War)
1966 - ICESCR (human Economic, Social and Cultural rights)
1979 - CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
1989 - CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child

1996 - Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
1997 - Mine-Ban Treaty, or Ottawa Treaty
1998 - Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

Since you say these agreements are not worth the paper its written on, get this right:

There are 156 countries outside of the US where women enjoy a higher level of protection against discrimination than in the USA.
The USA is the ONLY country that has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

And whereas the US promulgates to be the peacekeeper of the world, with the interest to reduce human suffering at heart, it has not ratified the Nuclear Test Ban treaty, nor the min ban treaty.
All in all this is quite remarkable because it is exactly the US who demands that both North Korea and Iran cease nuclear testing.
If the US is not ratifying these agreements...why the audacity to demand someone else must?
« Last Edit: Sat Jan 11, 2020 - 01:04:03 by AVZ »

Offline NorrinRadd

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2127
  • Manna: 119
  • Gender: Male
  • Everybody is somebody's heretic
Re: Iran
« Reply #107 on: Sat Jan 11, 2020 - 02:04:38 »
Was the Iran deal a treaty?

No, which is why Bad Orange Man could just dump it.  An actual treaty requires Senate approval to enact, and can't be readily vacated by unilateral Executive action (though the actual wording of the treaty itself could probably make it easy in certain cases).

Offline NorrinRadd

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2127
  • Manna: 119
  • Gender: Male
  • Everybody is somebody's heretic
Re: Iran
« Reply #108 on: Sat Jan 11, 2020 - 02:16:42 »
An executive agreement is considered politically binding, but not legally binding.
And yes the rest of the world is well aware of the US signing agreements, and subsequently not ratifying them...or simply ignoring them.
In particular the native American population can testify to that.

Just to mention a few that you claim are not worth the paper its written on:

1919 - Treaty of Versailles
1949 - International Labor Convention (freedom of association and protection of the right to organize)
1954 - Geneva Agreement (end to the Korean War and First Indochina War)
1966 - ICESCR (human Economic, Social and Cultural rights)
1979 - CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
1989 - CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child

1996 - Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
1997 - Mine-Ban Treaty, or Ottawa Treaty
1998 - Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

Since you say these agreements are not worth the paper its written on, get this right:

There are 156 countries outside of the US where women enjoy a higher level of protection against discrimination than in the USA.
The USA is the ONLY country that has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I'm not even going to bother trying to find all those documents, let alone study them.  I'm just going to assume they're the usual lefty, globalist excrement and be glad we're not really bound by them.

Quote
And whereas the US promulgates to be the peacekeeper of the world, with the interest to reduce human suffering at heart, it has not ratified the Nuclear Test Ban treaty, nor the min ban treaty.
All in all this is quite remarkable because it is exactly the US who demands that both North Korea and Iran cease nuclear testing.
If the US is not ratifying these agreements...why the audacity to demand someone else must?

I could try to make arguments about the fact that those nations are notorious human-rights violators and exporters of terror, while the U.S. is not; but various lefty U.S.-haters here and abroad would not acknowledge the veracity of that.

So I'll make the argument that really matters:  It's the Golden Rule -- Whoever has the most gold makes the rules.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Iran
« Reply #108 on: Sat Jan 11, 2020 - 02:16:42 »
Pinterest: GraceCentered.com

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10469
  • Manna: 299
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Iran
« Reply #109 on: Sat Jan 11, 2020 - 06:00:58 »
Why do you think there is so much hatred against the USA in the ME?
Because you are the last colonial power that is still there meddling in politics, and if necessary by force.
The US is not a colonial power. If it was then Japan would be a part of the USA and parts of Europe would also be a part of the USA.  Japan sought to be a colonial power over much of the Far East.  Nazi Germany sought to become a colonial power over Europe. The USSR exercised colonialism over much of Easter Europe.  Iran, even today, seeks to become a colonial power over much of the Middle East and more.

For what it is worth, here is an interesting discussion of colonialism:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/colonialism/

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Iran
« Reply #109 on: Sat Jan 11, 2020 - 06:00:58 »



Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 35629
  • Manna: 776
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: Iran
« Reply #110 on: Sat Jan 11, 2020 - 07:29:29 »
AVZ, the Iran Agreement was not only not worth the paper it was written on as to compliance, it was a horrible agreement. Thankfully as Norrinradd said the horrible orange man could tear it

At the very best it was nothing more than kicking the nuclear can down the road for another President to address what Obama didn’t want to address.

By the way......... AGAIN, which country  are you from so WE can critique it and you defend IT? This forum is not just for the politics of the USA. And no need for us to put up with drive by assaults from someone who will not reveal their country. Your country may be great, let’s hear about it.
« Last Edit: Sat Jan 11, 2020 - 07:35:45 by Jaime »

Offline Rella

  • ..
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5955
  • Manna: 649
  • It was 6. Apparently now is up to 7.
Re: Iran
« Reply #111 on: Sat Jan 11, 2020 - 09:01:02 »


By the way......... AGAIN, which country  are you from so WE can critique it and you defend IT? This forum is not just for the politics of the USA. And no need for us to put up with drive by assaults from someone who will not reveal their country. Your country may be great, let’s hear about it.

Perhaps he is the reincarnation of  Philip Nolan... hence his seeming fascination in US politics and policies. rofl  There is quite a belief in his part of the world in that. ::eek::

But I think I know exactly why he is so silent on that subject.

He IS the whistleblower. ::noworries::  AN I am outing him.

Offline mommydi

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9134
  • Manna: 719
  • Gender: Female
Re: Iran
« Reply #112 on: Sat Jan 11, 2020 - 09:32:35 »
I'm not even going to bother trying to find all those documents, let alone study them.  I'm just going to assume they're the usual lefty, globalist excrement and be glad we're not really bound by them.



Well, you'd be right.
I know a little about this UN Convention on the Rights of the Child he's touting and so horrified we haven't adopted.
To make a long story short, it would override our Constitution.
It practically wipes out parental authority.
In the USA, a child cannot petition the court over issues that don't involve abuse or neglect. IOW, a child can't take his/her parents to court and legally force them to stop taking him to church twice a week. Under the convention, they can. Under the convention, your minor child can legally stop you from taking them to Bible study classes on Wednesday nights or having nightly at home devotionals.
Under the convention, your 12 year son William can be persuaded by leftist folks to become Wilma (even has his genitals surgically removed) and his parents must allow it - by law. Under the convention, children have the right to reproductive healthcare, surgery, whatever without parental consent. Under the convention, your 12 year old daughter can have as many abortions as she wants without your consent.

The UN Convention of the Rights of the Child is like you say - lefty excrement we're happy to be without.

 

     
anything