Iran to sign deal

[kyzr]

Actually, capitalism "worked" well after 1929 when FDR legalized unions and taxed the bejesus out of rich people.

See.

And that worked just fine up until 1980, when Reagan cut taxes and busted the unions. We've been on a downhill trajectory ever since.

Unions can be counterproductive if their work rules and wage demands cause the company to move to an "open shop" state or more profitable country. We need a board who can tell unions "no" without punishing the company.

No, the CRA (passed in the 1970s) didn't cause the 2008 crash. It wasn't poor people buying modest homes, it was middle class people buying McMansions they couldn't afford, hoping to flip them in a couple of years, and the banks overstating the values of the mortgages to sell them as investments. That's why the whole thing crashed. Capitalism. Hurray, it lasted 20 more years than communism did!!!

The CRA was banks giving mortgages to people who were poor credit risks because the government backstopped the mortgages. Social engineering, not capitalism.
The 2008 financial crisis was triggered by the collapse of the housing bubble and widespread defaults on subprime mortgages, which caused severe losses for banks and financial institutions holding mortgage-backed securities and other risky assets. The $700b TARP bailout

But a jury still convicted him.

...because of an illegally appointed crooked judge. Soon to be overturned.

Buzz Kill: The Trump Conviction Presents a Target-Rich Environment for Appeal

Below is my column in the Hill on the most compelling grounds for an appeal in the Trump case after his conviction on 34 counts in Manhattan. There has been considerable criticism of the defense te…

jonathanturley.org

Except we don't know how he doubled his income, do we? I find it interesting that part of this 1.8 million dollar graft deal also included a provision that immunized him and his family from further IRS Audits.

So you don't know if was crime or capitalism?
Like the Biden Crime Family's preemptive pardons, just not as bad, more like stopping the democrat's "Lawfare".

America didn't have a beef with Iran, Israel did.
If Trump had come to the American people and made his case for war, as George W. Bush did with Iraq, then you might have an argument. But when you start bombing without congressional approval and stop bombing before the 90 Day War Powers Act kicks in (even though you haven't achieved any of your objectives), then that is not rooting against America, it's questioning the illegal actions of a criminal president.

The House just passed the War Powers Resolution, we'll see what the senate does.

House approves war powers resolution to halt military action against Iran in a rebuke of Trump

The House for the first time has approved a war powers resolution that would halt the U.S. military action against Iran.

apnews.com

Right, so you've believed a minister of a state sponsor of Terrorism before your own president.
Why are you rooting against America?
Bin Laden was never offered to the US, and at that point, we didn't even have cause to take him. This was before the Embassy Bombings, the USS Cole, and the WTC attacks.

The Saudis threw OBL out, some intelligence agencies should have known he was up to no good and taken him out.

Right. When they are killing Commies trying to teach girls how to read, they are "Freedom Fighters."
When they are killing Americans for supporting Israel and occupying Saudi Arabia, they are "Terrorists."

yep.

Glad you cleared that up for me. You see, without your keen insight, I'd have just assumed these were always the same radical Muslims hating outside influences. But you definitely cleared that up.

AFG is a complicated country, especially if you saw the movie "Lone Survivor", the story about Marcus Luttrell.

The Soviet Regime in Afghanistan was a sovereign country
Nicaragua is a sovereign country. (The Sandanistas are still in charge, despite Reagan's best effort, but we got to keep the crack epidemic the Contra brought us, so progress?)
Lebanon is a sovereign country, but the Zionist Entity keeps violating its territory.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

AFG was the sovereign country. Nicaragua like Venezuela may be sovereign, but if they become narco-states, the US protects its citizens. 400,000 Americand died from drug overdoses during Biden's term.
Lebanon is a puss case, Hezzbollah attacks Israel. from there. The IDF is protecting its citizens.
True, it all depends which side of the fence you're on.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Unions can be counterproductive if their work rules and wage demands cause the company to move to an "open shop" state or more profitable country.

Which is why we also need protections against that. Well, according those who don't think we exist to serve corporate profits.

 

[kyzr]

I appreciate your school boy fandom concerning Mr Graham but he is not an expert in military law.

You can type it, but you just can't prove it.

I recognise that anything that contradicts your RW zeal will be rejected by you but unfortunately that simply demonstrates your inability to objectively assess facts.

From your NYT link: "By all accounts, including his own, Senator Lindsey Graham was a good military lawyer..."

I stand corrected my link included comments from experts on the allegations of your administration regarding Iran's nuclear capability.
However here you are: Iran war: International law experts allege violations in Iran war
More than 100 experts on international law have signed an open letter expressing "profound concern" about what they see as serious violations of international law by the US, Israel and Iran in the Middle East war.
They say the US-Israeli decision to attack on Iran was a clear breach of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the use of force outside of self-defence or when authorised by the UN Security Council.
The experts point to "alarming rhetoric" being used by officials, including US President Donald Trump's threats to "obliterate" Iran's power plants.
In response, the White House said Trump was making the entire region safer and dismissed what it described as "so-called experts".
In the letter, the experts also took issue with Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth's statement that "no quarter" should be given for enemies.
Denial of quarter in conflict means refusing to spare the life of anybody, even those who surrender or are wounded.
In international law, say the signatories, it was "especially forbidden" to declare that no quarter will be given, a prohibition also set out in the Department of Defense's own law of war manual.
The signatories include:

• Jonathan Tracy, a former US Army judge advocate
• Harold Hongju Koh, a former legal adviser at the US state department
• Oona A Hathaway, a professor of international law at the Yale Law School and president-elect of the American Society of International Law

They say: "We are gravely concerned that the conduct and threats outlined here are causing serious harm to civilians... and that they risk degrading the rule of law and fundamental norms that protect every nation's civilians.
Also here Over 100 US-based legal experts declare Trump's strikes on Iran as possible war crimes

If Trump or Hegseth, or any member of the US military violates US Law, they will be prosecuted.

And how long do you envisage it would take Iran to rebuilt its centrifuges?

No clue. But if they do, we would blow them up again.

Your irrational prejudices really are beginning colour your comments.

You obviously don't know democrats.

And once Trump withdrew the USA from the JCPOA there was no reason for Iran to continue to abide by it.

True. No argument.

What utter nonsense. You seem unaware of the word diplomacy.

Chamberlain found out how valuable "diplomacy" can be.
The JCOPA was diplomacy, but diplomacy only had a 10-year life span.

From 27 February: U.S.-Iran deal is "within our reach," Omani mediator says
Negotiators from the U.S. and Iran have made "substantial progress" toward a deal to curb Iran's nuclear program, Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi told CBS News on Friday, as President Trump considers strikes on Iran.
Albusaidi — who has mediated several rounds of U.S.-Iran talks over the last month — told "Face the Nation" moderator Margaret Brennan that a "peace deal is within our reach."
He said Iran has agreed that it will "never, ever have … nuclear material that will create a bomb," which he called a "big achievement." The country's existing stockpiles of enriched uranium would be "blended to the lowest level possible" and "converted into fuel, and that fuel will be irreversible," according to Albusaidi.
And Iran is willing to grant inspectors from the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency "full access" to its nuclear sites to verify the terms of the deal, said Albusaidi.
"There would be zero accumulation, zero stockpiling, and full verification," he said. Albusaidi said that if there is a fair and endurable deal in place, he is "quite confident" that even American inspectors will have access at some point in the process.
Trump and Netanyahu destroyed all that by deciding a day later to bomb Iran.

Iran was just stringing negotiators along while they enriched uranium and developed ICBMs. Don't be so naive.

I am in Europe.

Which country?

Well Oman at present is not bowing to US pressure and insists it is negotiating with Tehran on a future management system for the Strait, one that would compliant with international law.

We'll see how that works out.

War crimes are war crimes. Trump threats cause dilemma for US officers: disobey orders or commit war crimes
Charli Carpenter, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, said there were many historical examples of service-members questioning orders, refusing to obey, passively disobeying or even intervening to stop war crimes.
She cited as an example US soldiers who refused to take part in the 1968 My Lai massacre in Vietnam, including a helicopter pilot who threatened to shoot the perpetrators.
In his court martial, the officer who ordered his men to gun down hundreds of Vietnamese villagers, 2nd Lt William Calley, argued that he was only obeying orders, but the court ruled that was no defence as such orders were “palpably illegal”.

Non-Sequitur. We were discussing how the ICC and IRC have no legal standing in the US.

Prior to the bombing of Iran by the USA and Israel there was threat from Iran to the global economy.

ok

That is an unknown. The current state of the world is hardly peaceful.

ok.

Not to the situation at present.

Why not?

A link from 2016 showed Iran was compliant

In 2016, Trump ended the JCPOA in 2018.
I'm fine saying Iran was in compliance, even if they weren't, the issue is that Iran can have nukes after 2025.

If you want the Strait to open perhaps your president should have heeded advice from his military and not engaged in a reckless bombing campaign that has achieved precisely none of his vaunted goals.

Its early yet. Wait until the US blockade has time to work.

I would preferred the JCPOA to run its course and then see Iran and the USA engage in further negotiations.

While Iran keeps enriching...and gets nuclear weapons...no thanks.

With no centrifuges? What do you imagine he was going to do? Rub his oil lamp for a djinn?

Get more centrifuges and build deeper tunnels.

(sarcasm) Perhaps they could try and and put a bomb in Mojtaba's beard. And economic sanctions on Iran already exist.

You sure Jr is still with us?

The Strait was closed by Iran because of what the USA did.

If you say so. The US doesn't get much thru Hormuz. It was Iran just being Iran lashing out against everyone.

I do not have the slightest idea. I assume you intended to type ICJ not IRC - unless of course you were referring to the International Rescue Committee.

I'm just going to use ICC, you can Euro-translate.

That was from 4th April. We are now two months from that date

You have a more recent link disputing that? Didn't think so.

The USA used to abide by international law.

Not when US Law supersedes.

 

[JoeB131]

Unions can be counterproductive if their work rules and wage demands cause the company to move to an "open shop" state or more profitable country. We need a board who can tell unions "no" without punishing the company.

The CRA was banks giving mortgages to people who were poor credit risks because the government backstopped the mortgages. Social engineering, not capitalism.

The CRA did nothing of the sort. In fact, banks making CRA loans were NOT the ones that needed the bailouts.

The 2008 financial crisis was triggered by the collapse of the housing bubble and widespread defaults on subprime mortgages, which caused severe losses for banks and financial institutions holding mortgage-backed securities and other risky assets. The $700b TARP bailout

Yes, we bailed out the rich- again.

But the trigger was all those mortgages being sold as investments, not the minor loans to poor people.

...because of an illegally appointed crooked judge.

Jury still found him guilty. Judge had nothing to do with it, the jury voted to convict.

So you don't know if was crime or capitalism?
Like the Biden Crime Family's preemptive pardons

Quacks like a duck, baby.

Not to worry, when the Democrats take Congress, they'll be asking about Trump's self-dealing in the White House.

The Saudis threw OBL out, some intelligence agencies should have known he was up to no good and taken him out.

The Saudis were bankrolling him under the table. Where do you think his family money came from?

AFG is a complicated country, especially if you saw the movie "Lone Survivor", the story about Marcus Luttrell.

AFG was the sovereign country. Nicaragua like Venezuela may be sovereign, but if they become narco-states, the US protects its citizens.

What the f88k, dude!!! it was the damned CONTRAS that were shipping drugs to the US, and Ronnie Ray-Gun was just fine with it.