- Banned
- #41
In 2003.
Why do you suppose they did this?
who knows? certainly not you.
I suppose they stopped it because their biggest regional enemy had just been eliminated thanks to Bush.... that's as good a guess as anything you got.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
In 2003.
Why do you suppose they did this?
In 2003.
Why do you suppose they did this?
NIE REPORT: "Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure indicates Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs. This, in turn, suggests that some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways, might—if perceived by Iran’s leaders as credible—prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program. It is difficult to specify what such a combination might be."
NIE explains it, if you'd bother to click the link.
...primarily in response to international pressure...
And, what 'costs' wewe associated with contunuing that program?
NIE explains it, if you'd bother to click the link.
Fantasy until the day they unveil one. The IAEA says Iran is enriching unranium.
QUOTE]
So are we. are WE gonna bomb someone???
Using the bogus "fear" accusation is as weak as it sounds. Protecting one's self against attack is just using logic and common sense. So is not letting fanatics possess nuclear weapons.
QUOTE] You mean like the US, and especially Israel???
The US and Israel are "fanatics"?You mean like the US, and especially Israel???
This is a condition inherent to international law, because states will generally refuse to give up enough of their sovereignty to unquestioningly accept extra-national judgements as absolutely binding, such as we do with domestic law.
That was lame. Reduction is the initial step to elimination. The arms limitations and reduction treaties over the last 40 years are obvious steps along the Article VI path, and so the arguement that the US has violated/ignored article VI is unsupportable.
The point is that the provisions and mechanisms that we have in domestic law do not exit in international law. Glad you agree.
And remember:
ALL Law is meaningless unless it can be enforced.
Unless a country agrees accept the jurisdiction of the ICC, and then ICC judgements, the ICC has no jurisdiction. Soverignty, you know.
Never mind that the ICC relies on voluntary compliance.
Only if those countries are members of the UN, who, by being members, agree to be bound by UNSC directives -- that is, they give consent to the UNSC to direct them.
The UNSC has no power whatsoever over a non-member country.
The UN, and EU are both cases in which states have given up sovreignity.
The treaty doesn't say "the initial steps to elimination". 40 years is a long time to fulfill a treaty.
No...International law is rarely enforced through force, however it often still has a lot of power. It is most definitely not meaningless and there has been a lot of success with playing the shame game.
No...the ICC has jurisdiction over everyone. Thats why when it was formed the US was busy making bilateral agreements with states not to honor it. Sovreignity is becoming increasingly more limited. And it relies on voluntary compliance, yes, but considering most states around the world honor it and would arrest someone if the ICC demanded it, it does severely limit some individuals.
Technically true, but a fairly irrelevant fact. The only "countries" that are not part of the UN are the Vatican and Taiwan...and its unclear whether Taiwan is its own state.
You've given a very good analysis of why the US should withdraw from the UN. Thanks.
Besides being irresponsible, stupidly isolationist, and the biggest setback of HR in the last 40 years, it is wildly against US interests to do this. The US is in an organization in which the world holds in great respect, which can't do anything without the US's consent, and can add legitimacy to US actions, can force other states to do the 5 members interest, can facilitate treaties and open a dialogue, and which can help to further Human Rights around the globe (which is good for the US if you want the oil to keep flowing).
Its sad that I had to say that and that saying "It is the single best tool out there to advance the cause of human rights" just wouldn't have sufficed. Pathetic.
Somehow I think it's a good thing I rep'd you before reading this. Though I'm confused about what the point was here, which for one of your posts, I'll admit is unusual. While I rarely agree with your pov, I can usually understand what you are saying.
The point is that the US withdrawing with the UN is an awful idea, for the reasons elucidated in my above post. However I said why its a bad idea for the US, which is true. It is also true that it will severely curtail the progress of human rights around the globe. The HR argument should be enough for people to get behind the US staying in the UN, but sadly its not.
Why? What is in it for the US to be in UN? Bottom line, like a corporation, one must ask, why?
The US is in an organization in which the world holds in great respect, which can't do anything without the US's consent, and can add legitimacy to US actions, can force other states to do the 5 members interest, can facilitate treaties and open a dialogue, and which can help to further Human Rights around the globe
Which is merely a more complicated way of saying the UN allows the US to have greater legitimate influence around the world.
As I said...sad that you compare it to a corporation and that HR isn't even a consideration here. Its not a corporation, its more like the red cross with political power.
\
It seems to me that contrary to what you are claiming, the US ponies up more than its share, (Yes, more.), of costs. On the other hand, the august body of the UN is nearly always attempting to 'check' read 'block' all actions that may be beneficial to US.