The Iran Nuclear Deal Is ***The Law of the Land***

[toomuchtime_]

Not at all. Iran has clearly been violating the spirit of JCPOA by trying to develop long range missiles. Long range missiles are enormously expensive to make and are of little value unless you have nuclear warhead to put on them, so Iran's push to develop them is a clear indication it intends to produce nuclear weapons.

Yet, no one was willing to challenge the legality of Iran's actions with respect to the JCPOA.

President Trump has and Macron agreed with him.

Rhetoric does not constitute a legal challenge.

No legal challenge is necessary to have the UN reimpose its sanctions. All the US has to do is assert its complaint and go through the steps outlined in JCPOA. Once that process has been completed the UN sanctions are automatically reimposed regardless of what anyone else thinks.

Having left the deal, does the US still have the right to dispute anything or use the mechanisms of the JCPOA?

https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/245317.pdf

If Iran believed that any or all of the E3/EU+3 were not meeting their commitments under this JCPOA, Iran could refer the issue to the Joint Commission for resolution; similarly, if any of the E3/EU+3 believed that Iran was not meeting its commitments under this JCPOA, any of the E3/EU+3 could do the same. The Joint Commission would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration, any participant could refer the issue to Ministers of Foreign Affairs, if it believed the compliance issue had not been resolved. Ministers would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration – in parallel with (or in lieu of) review at the Ministerial level - either the complaining participant or the participant whose performance is in question could request that the issue be considered by an Advisory Board, which would consist of three members (one each appointed by the participants in the dispute and a third independent member). The Advisory Board should provide a non-binding opinion on the compliance issue within 15 days. If, after this 30-day process the issue is not resolved, the Joint Commission would consider the opinion of the Advisory Board for no more than 5 days in order to resolve the issue. If the issue still has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the complaining participant, and if the complaining participant deems the issue to constitute significant non-performance, then that participant could treat the unresolved issue as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part and/or notify the UN Security Council that it believes the issue constitutes significant non-performance.

I don't think the fact that the US announced it was not certifying Iran is in compliance and that it will start sanctions in about three months would effect its ability to go through this process.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Not at all. Iran has clearly been violating the spirit of JCPOA by trying to develop long range missiles. Long range missiles are enormously expensive to make and are of little value unless you have nuclear warhead to put on them, so Iran's push to develop them is a clear indication it intends to produce nuclear weapons.

Yet, no one was willing to challenge the legality of Iran's actions with respect to the JCPOA.

President Trump has and Macron agreed with him.

Rhetoric does not constitute a legal challenge.

No legal challenge is necessary to have the UN reimpose its sanctions. All the US has to do is assert its complaint and go through the steps outlined in JCPOA. Once that process has been completed the UN sanctions are automatically reimposed regardless of what anyone else thinks.

Having left the deal, does the US still have the right to dispute anything or use the mechanisms of the JCPOA?

https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/245317.pdf

If Iran believed that any or all of the E3/EU+3 were not meeting their commitments under this JCPOA, Iran could refer the issue to the Joint Commission for resolution; similarly, if any of the E3/EU+3 believed that Iran was not meeting its commitments under this JCPOA, any of the E3/EU+3 could do the same. The Joint Commission would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration, any participant could refer the issue to Ministers of Foreign Affairs, if it believed the compliance issue had not been resolved. Ministers would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration – in parallel with (or in lieu of) review at the Ministerial level - either the complaining participant or the participant whose performance is in question could request that the issue be considered by an Advisory Board, which would consist of three members (one each appointed by the participants in the dispute and a third independent member). The Advisory Board should provide a non-binding opinion on the compliance issue within 15 days. If, after this 30-day process the issue is not resolved, the Joint Commission would consider the opinion of the Advisory Board for no more than 5 days in order to resolve the issue. If the issue still has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the complaining participant, and if the complaining participant deems the issue to constitute significant non-performance, then that participant could treat the unresolved issue as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part and/or notify the UN Security Council that it believes the issue constitutes significant non-performance.

Are you a registered agent of the Iranian Regime, Comrade?

If not, you may be in violation of federal law.

 

[Contumacious]

The Iran Nuclear Deal Isn’t Just a Good Idea — It’s the Law

by THOMAS KNAPP

On May 8, President Donald Trump announced US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, colloquially known as “the Iran nuclear deal.”

While that decision has come under criticism for being both a really bad idea and a severe betrayal of trust, both of which are true, it’s worth noting that the US withdrawal is also a breach of treaty obligations, and that such obligations are, per the US Constitution and co-equal with it, “the Supreme Law of the Land.”

Under Article 25 of the UN Charter, “members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.”

On July 20, 2015, the members of that body, including the United States, unanimously endorsed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in UN Security Council Resolution 2231.

It seems unlikely that Samantha Power, US ambassador to the UN at the time, didn’t know what she was committing the US government to when she voted for the resolution rather than exercising the US’s veto power on the Security Council. After all, the resolution itself contains text “nderscoring that Member States are obligated under Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations to accept and carry out the Security Council’s decisions.”


.

Dear Putin's Butt Plug:

No, it is NOT the Law of The Land. We are a Sovereign Nation, and therefore can rescind, revoke, back out of any agreement created by a foreign body, group of nations, or an organization like The UN.

Only The United States Congress can Write Law introduced as a Bill, and vote upon it in The House & Senate, and to be eventually signed by The President.

We do not need the UN or Security Council's Permission or Authorization to take any actions. They have No Legal Authority over any Sovereign Nation.

I appreciate you taking the time off from fellating Netanyahu to address this forum:


You have failed or refused to show that

The United Nations Charter, delivered to the US Senate by President Harry Truman and duly ratified by that body on July 28, 1945 by a vote of 89-2.

has been invalidated by SCOTUS or rescinded by the Senate.

It appears that all that cum swallowing is affecting your judgment.


.

 

[healthmyths]

The JCPOA is not a treaty. Technically, it isn't even an executive agreement. However, all the parties concerned treat it as an executive agreement.

Therefore, not "the law of the land". Whoever wrote that article is an idiot.

an "executive agreement"?

oh for the love of god. if he wanted this to stick he should have gone through the formal process, not do it "the obama way".

“The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is
not a treaty
or an executive agreement,
and is not a signed document,”

wrote Julia Frifield, the State Department assistant secretary for legislative affairs, in the November 19 letter.

State Department: Iran Deal Not 'Legally Binding' and Iran Didn't Sign It | [site:name] | National Review

Remember at the time Obama's OWN state department admits... JCPOA was not a signed document!

 

[Tehon]

The JCPOA is not a treaty. Technically, it isn't even an executive agreement. However, all the parties concerned treat it as an executive agreement.

Therefore, not "the law of the land". Whoever wrote that article is an idiot.

an "executive agreement"?

oh for the love of god. if he wanted this to stick he should have gone through the formal process, not do it "the obama way".

“The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is
not a treaty
or an executive agreement,
and is not a signed document,”

wrote Julia Frifield, the State Department assistant secretary for legislative affairs, in the November 19 letter.

State Department: Iran Deal Not 'Legally Binding' and Iran Didn't Sign It | [site:name] | National Review

Remember at the time Obama's OWN state department admits... JCPOA was not a signed document!

Remember at the time the Obama administration tied us to the agreement by way of the UNSC. Pointing out this fact is the entire purpose of this thread. We do have legal commitments in regards to the deal. Trump tacitly acknowledged those commitments in his memorandum detailing his intention to withdrawal from the agreement.

Underscoring that Member States are obligated under Article 25 of the Charter
of the United Nations to accept and carry out the Security Council’s decisions,

1. Endorses the JCPOA, and urges its full implementation on the timetable
established in the JCPOA;

2. Calls upon all Members States, regional organizations and international
organizations to take such actions as may be appropriate to support the
implementation of the JCPOA, including by taking actions commensurate with the
implementation plan set out in the JCPOA and this resolution and by refraining from
actions that undermine implementation of commitments under the JCPOA;

United Nations Official Document

 

[eagle1462010]

The Iran DEAL IS DEAD..............

Unless they want to make real concessions.

The dang thing was NEVER REALLY PASSED...........could hardly even be called a Presidential agreement.

They rigged the deck by flipping the passage of laws on it's head. The GOP would have to VOTE IT DOWN............instead of the Dems having to pass it.

The most FUCKED UP WAY TO VOTE IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. The agreement is PASSED without a vote for it. LOL

Flush it down the toilet................

 

[flacaltenn]

The Iran Nuclear Deal Isn’t Just a Good Idea — It’s the Law

by THOMAS KNAPP

On May 8, President Donald Trump announced US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, colloquially known as “the Iran nuclear deal.”

While that decision has come under criticism for being both a really bad idea and a severe betrayal of trust, both of which are true, it’s worth noting that the US withdrawal is also a breach of treaty obligations, and that such obligations are, per the US Constitution and co-equal with it, “the Supreme Law of the Land.”

Under Article 25 of the UN Charter, “members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.”

On July 20, 2015, the members of that body, including the United States, unanimously endorsed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in UN Security Council Resolution 2231.

It seems unlikely that Samantha Power, US ambassador to the UN at the time, didn’t know what she was committing the US government to when she voted for the resolution rather than exercising the US’s veto power on the Security Council. After all, the resolution itself contains text “nderscoring that Member States are obligated under Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations to accept and carry out the Security Council’s decisions.”


.

You don't understand the diff between JOINING a treaty with a vote and having that vote RATIFIED by your law-making body in each country. Some UN documents include the language "subject to ratification" -- others are fairly meaningless agreements without power of law and without power to enforce.

What is the difference between signing, ratification and accession of UN treaties? - Ask DAG!

THIS POS was an agreement. Never was a "Treaty" subject to ratification. No ability to enforce. No stamp of sovereign approval from the member countries signing it. They DID it this way -- because it was all smoke and mirrors and Congress would have laughed them out of town if the DETAILS were subject "to discovery".

Now YOU of all people should understand this. Because you're always going off in BOLD PRINT about SOVEREIGNTY of this county. What happened here? You get stupid about how laws and treaties are ratified suddenly?

 

[Tehon]

The Iran Nuclear Deal Isn’t Just a Good Idea — It’s the Law

by THOMAS KNAPP

On May 8, President Donald Trump announced US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, colloquially known as “the Iran nuclear deal.”

While that decision has come under criticism for being both a really bad idea and a severe betrayal of trust, both of which are true, it’s worth noting that the US withdrawal is also a breach of treaty obligations, and that such obligations are, per the US Constitution and co-equal with it, “the Supreme Law of the Land.”

Under Article 25 of the UN Charter, “members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.”

On July 20, 2015, the members of that body, including the United States, unanimously endorsed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in UN Security Council Resolution 2231.

It seems unlikely that Samantha Power, US ambassador to the UN at the time, didn’t know what she was committing the US government to when she voted for the resolution rather than exercising the US’s veto power on the Security Council. After all, the resolution itself contains text “nderscoring that Member States are obligated under Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations to accept and carry out the Security Council’s decisions.”


.

You don't understand the diff between JOINING a treaty with a vote and having that vote RATIFIED by your law-making body in each country. Some UN documents include the language "subject to ratification" -- others are fairly meaningless agreements without power of law and without power to enforce.

What is the difference between signing, ratification and accession of UN treaties? - Ask DAG!

THIS POS was an agreement. Never was a "Treaty" subject to ratification. No ability to enforce. No stamp of sovereign approval from the member countries signing it. They DID it this way -- because it was all smoke and mirrors and Congress would have laughed them out of town if the DETAILS were subject "to discovery".

Now YOU of all people should understand this. Because you're always going off in BOLD PRINT about SOVEREIGNTY of this county. What happened here? You get stupid about how laws and treaties are ratified suddenly?

 

[Contumacious]

The Iran Nuclear Deal Isn’t Just a Good Idea — It’s the Law

by THOMAS KNAPP

On May 8, President Donald Trump announced US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, colloquially known as “the Iran nuclear deal.”

While that decision has come under criticism for being both a really bad idea and a severe betrayal of trust, both of which are true, it’s worth noting that the US withdrawal is also a breach of treaty obligations, and that such obligations are, per the US Constitution and co-equal with it, “the Supreme Law of the Land.”

Under Article 25 of the UN Charter, “members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.”

On July 20, 2015, the members of that body, including the United States, unanimously endorsed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in UN Security Council Resolution 2231.

It seems unlikely that Samantha Power, US ambassador to the UN at the time, didn’t know what she was committing the US government to when she voted for the resolution rather than exercising the US’s veto power on the Security Council. After all, the resolution itself contains text “nderscoring that Member States are obligated under Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations to accept and carry out the Security Council’s decisions.”


.

You don't understand the diff between JOINING a treaty with a vote and having that vote RATIFIED by your law-making body in each country. Some UN documents include the language "subject to ratification" -- others are fairly meaningless agreements without power of law and without power to enforce.

What is the difference between signing, ratification and accession of UN treaties? - Ask DAG!

THIS POS was an agreement. Never was a "Treaty" subject to ratification. No ability to enforce. No stamp of sovereign approval from the member countries signing it. They DID it this way -- because it was all smoke and mirrors and Congress would have laughed them out of town if the DETAILS were subject "to discovery".

Now YOU of all people should understand this. Because you're always going off in BOLD PRINT about SOVEREIGNTY of this county. What happened here? You get stupid about how laws and treaties are ratified suddenly?

As I said before Congress should have never agreed to automatically endorse the unanimous decisions of the UNSC and Truman should have vetoed the same. But Congress has never rescinded the legislation and SCOTUS has never invalidated the same.

The Constitution authorizes the President to agree to treaties but the Founding Fathers left it to the discretion of the President and Congress to determine which treaties were advantageous to our nation.


Obama agreed to the treaty , the UNSC approved it unanimously, so what am I missing?

But how can you defend our sovereignty while capitulating to Israel and Netanyahu?

Even if Iran had nuclear weapons it has never threatened our nation. And it does not have the capability to deliver such WMD's to the US.

But Russia and China can.. Russia is not going to allow US troops in Iran,. Even if we can ultimately beat those countries , they will be able to get 1 or 2 ICBM's out. Wherever they land , DC, NYC, LA, millions will die and the area will be uninhabitable for 25 or more years.

FDR told Truman that recognizing Israel was going to require a permanent military presence. FDR was a scumbag but was correct about that issue.

And so it goes.

 

[Snouter]

^Kurt V allusion! My guess is his books are now "hate speech" and not supported in the ZOG school system of America. As S - 5 indicates the bombing of Dresden was the only actual "holocaust" of WWII.


Osama Hussaine's legacy...now simply his MSM fake news opinion polls!

 

[GavanPeacefan]

hi.

my role has always been that of a diplomat who is willing to speak up strongly and convincingly not only against muslim terrorists and fundamentalists,
but also to my own NATO governments when i believe they are out of line.

i'll keep this brief : the US is severely out of line in my view. i've detailed this in emails sent to you over the past 2 weeks.

however,
the US government and especially the foreign ministry of the US, is now populated by hardliners.
Trump has a habit of ousting government officials who don't dance to his exact tune,
so the link between reasonable men and women in the US and the upper echelon of the US government has been broken thoroughly.

that means that standing up to hardliners on a forum like usmessageboard, has also become pointless.

i'm also not the one to dictate EU policies towards the US, nor NATO policies.
all i can do is hope the EU stands up to the US.

i fear that the US is on a course to bomb the Iranian nuclear programme, or even (and i consider this a likely secret desire in the current US and Israeli leaderships) to regime-change Iran by first driving Iran into a corner.

i've notified the Iranian foreign ministry (also emailed to you all) that they must reign in their own hawks, who now talk about re-starting nuclear enrichment and the like,
but i have little hope that there are enough wise cool-headed men in Iran who can get that arranged.

the best advise i have for EU governments is to stand up to the US in any way public and covert-economically, over this unreasonable and deceitful aggression against Iran.
doing so would be the best way to prevent ethnic tensions between Muslims and whites in EU countries from rising or festering.

the best advise i have for the hardliners in the US is to
- make sure that your sanctions do not cause famine or other heavy suffering among civilians in Iran.
- make sure that if you drop bombs on targets in Iran, you destroy only military assets and personnel, not civilians. in other words : use exactly the right kind of ammunition on each target, because the Iranians are bound to have placed their military assets right next to their civilians.

if you do not heed this advice of mine, you are fueling terror group recruitment efforts *and* ethnic tensions all over Europe, much more than you already are by embarking on this course.

this could all, every demand Trump and Macron have made on Iran, it could have all been solved diplomatically. i know that for a fact.
all deaths resulting from this political "show", go straight onto the karmatic and Heavenly records of Trump and all those who support Trump's current hardline stance. and i won't be the only soul saying that.

in my book, starting a war to distract from domestic scandals that might shorten your stay in power, or supporting it for a fat paycheck and/or some airtime and/or an ego-rush, should really put you in Hell in the afterlife. if God ever asks me, that is what my response will be.

that all said, if you're going to do a regime-change, do it right, and make sure you don't screw up the aftermath handling. aim for zero collateral damage. then maybe i won't vote to have you put in Hell.

so do your planning thoroughly, and install leaders who are not just in it for the money that can be shuttled in diplomatic pouches to Swiss bank-accounts, like the new Afghan leaders did. make sure the Iranians get leaders they can be proud of.

or better yet, call off this bullshit show entirely.
but that's something mr Trump is probably completely unable to do; to say to the world that he was wrong and has changed his mind. nor does he have any integrity let alone the integrity to be held to the laws of the land, for instance the ones that can get him impeached (Stormy daniels hushmoney was a campaign finance violation for instance).
i have zero respect for the guy. he reminds me of a Hitler around 1937. and i don't say that lightly.

you're lucky that i know there are also good people in the US (and elsewhere), people who try to stand up to Trump and his cronies, but fail because Trump's cronies don't hold discussions in anything resembling an honorable honest way.
i could probably silence Trump's supporters on usmessageboard.com, but i truly think that won't help to change US policy. only a hardline economic and public stance against this US adventure by the EU can do that. the EU would be wise not to support US actions against Iran in any way, and pursue the goals that Macron outlined in a diplomatic way instead.

so if you're going to bomb Iran, Americans, please don't kill too many Iranians, it makes my task of keeping muslim terror recruiters contained just about impossible.
and by the way, American leaderships and people, you are placing yourselves at risk of a Muslim offensive that could equal the Tet offensive in Vietnam that if i'm not mistaken ultimately cost you the war, together with the media coverage of how you fought that war, ofcourse.

except, and note my words : there is no retreat possible for you this time.
you are pissing off not a few easily defeated Iranian muslims, you are pissing off the entire muslim world (over 1 billion people).
and i'm making no guarantees other than my part-time efforts, to prevent the potentially very severe backlash that you are now inviting upon yourselves, Americans.

 

[skews13]

We're out of Barry's Iran agreement, thank you very much president Trump. Add another to the growing list of accomplishments by the amateur, inexperienced political neophyte.

We'll be back in it a lot sooner than you think.

And the stain of Trump will be white washed away within one year after 2020.

His Presidency will be rendered irrelevant after the Democrats take control of the House in January and control the check book and cut the orange ass clowns spending off.

And there is nothing the magamites will be able to do about it except whine and cry. Which you already do now. I can only imagine how bad it's going to be then.

 

[healthmyths]

hi.

my role has always been that of a diplomat who is willing to speak up strongly and convincingly not only against muslim terrorists and fundamentalists,
but also to my own NATO governments when i believe they are out of line.

i'll keep this brief : the US is severely out of line in my view. i've detailed this in emails sent to you over the past 2 weeks.

however,
the US government and especially the foreign ministry of the US, is now populated by hardliners.
Trump has a habit of ousting government officials who don't dance to his exact tune,
so the link between reasonable men and women in the US and the upper echelon of the US government has been broken thoroughly.

that means that standing up to hardliners on a forum like usmessageboard, has also become pointless.

i'm also not the one to dictate EU policies towards the US, nor NATO policies.
all i can do is hope the EU stands up to the US.

i fear that the US is on a course to bomb the Iranian nuclear programme, or even (and i consider this a likely secret desire in the current US and Israeli leaderships) to regime-change Iran by first driving Iran into a corner.

i've notified the Iranian foreign ministry (also emailed to you all) that they must reign in their own hawks, who now talk about re-starting nuclear enrichment and the like,
but i have little hope that there are enough wise cool-headed men in Iran who can get that arranged.

the best advise i have for EU governments is to stand up to the US in any way public and covert-economically, over this unreasonable and deceitful aggression against Iran.
doing so would be the best way to prevent ethnic tensions between Muslims and whites in EU countries from rising or festering.

the best advise i have for the hardliners in the US is to
- make sure that your sanctions do not cause famine or other heavy suffering among civilians in Iran.
- make sure that if you drop bombs on targets in Iran, you destroy only military assets and personnel, not civilians. in other words : use exactly the right kind of ammunition on each target, because the Iranians are bound to have placed their military assets right next to their civilians.

if you do not heed this advice of mine, you are fueling terror group recruitment efforts *and* ethnic tensions all over Europe, much more than you already are by embarking on this course.

this could all, every demand Trump and Macron have made on Iran, it could have all been solved diplomatically. i know that for a fact.
all deaths resulting from this political "show", go straight onto the karmatic and Heavenly records of Trump and all those who support Trump's current hardline stance. and i won't be the only soul saying that.

in my book, starting a war to distract from domestic scandals that might shorten your stay in power, or supporting it for a fat paycheck and/or some airtime and/or an ego-rush, should really put you in Hell in the afterlife. if God ever asks me, that is what my response will be.

that all said, if you're going to do a regime-change, do it right, and make sure you don't screw up the aftermath handling. aim for zero collateral damage. then maybe i won't vote to have you put in Hell.

so do your planning thoroughly, and install leaders who are not just in it for the money that can be shuttled in diplomatic pouches to Swiss bank-accounts, like the new Afghan leaders did. make sure the Iranians get leaders they can be proud of.

or better yet, call off this bullshit show entirely.
but that's something mr Trump is probably completely unable to do; to say to the world that he was wrong and has changed his mind. nor does he have any integrity let alone the integrity to be held to the laws of the land, for instance the ones that can get him impeached (Stormy daniels hushmoney was a campaign finance violation for instance).
i have zero respect for the guy. he reminds me of a Hitler around 1937. and i don't say that lightly.

you're lucky that i know there are also good people in the US (and elsewhere), people who try to stand up to Trump and his cronies, but fail because Trump's cronies don't hold discussions in anything resembling an honorable honest way.
i could probably silence Trump's supporters on usmessageboard.com, but i truly think that won't help to change US policy. only a hardline economic and public stance against this US adventure by the EU can do that. the EU would be wise not to support US actions against Iran in any way, and pursue the goals that Macron outlined in a diplomatic way instead.

so if you're going to bomb Iran, Americans, please don't kill too many Iranians, it makes my task of keeping muslim terror recruiters contained just about impossible.
and by the way, American leaderships and people, you are placing yourselves at risk of a Muslim offensive that could equal the Tet offensive in Vietnam that if i'm not mistaken ultimately cost you the war, together with the media coverage of how you fought that war, ofcourse.

except, and note my words : there is no retreat possible for you this time.
you are pissing off not a few easily defeated Iranian muslims, you are pissing off the entire muslim world (over 1 billion people).
and i'm making no guarantees other than my part-time efforts, to prevent the potentially very severe backlash that you are now inviting upon yourselves, Americans.

Sorry but for all your self-proclaimed expertise you lost me at "the best advise" and you repeated it!
A) Most educated knowledgeable know the difference between "advise" and "advice" which obviously you don't!
B) The Tet Offensive was a WIN by the USA and it the ignorant biased MSM lead by Walter Cronkite who erroneously said:
"The only rational way out then," Cronkite said to a national audience, "will be to negotiate not as victims but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy and did the best they could." [President] Johnson is said to have told an aide, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost middle America."
C) We "don't hold discussions in a honest way"? Wow! Then you go on to be on different than an Iranian mullah by saying:
D) Explain how you'd go about "silencing" Trump supporters as that would be no better than the Iranians shouting "death to America"! You want to silence people with your opinion and with no facts???

Not only have you lost the argument that you know something when you can't even distinguish between "advise" and "advice"... but you go on and show even more barbaric ignorance à la the Rouhani and their "supreme Leader"?? Khamenei to state you would "silence" dissent?

Truly a sad way of presenting salient arguments. But again what can one expect from someone who doesn't even know the difference in what I'm about to write.
Sir.. I'd advise you to pay attention clearly to this advice: Think more clearly and concisely before hitting the Post Reply Key!

 

[toomuchtime_]

hi.

my role has always been that of a diplomat who is willing to speak up strongly and convincingly not only against muslim terrorists and fundamentalists,
but also to my own NATO governments when i believe they are out of line.

i'll keep this brief : the US is severely out of line in my view. i've detailed this in emails sent to you over the past 2 weeks.

however,
the US government and especially the foreign ministry of the US, is now populated by hardliners.
Trump has a habit of ousting government officials who don't dance to his exact tune,
so the link between reasonable men and women in the US and the upper echelon of the US government has been broken thoroughly.

that means that standing up to hardliners on a forum like usmessageboard, has also become pointless.

i'm also not the one to dictate EU policies towards the US, nor NATO policies.
all i can do is hope the EU stands up to the US.

i fear that the US is on a course to bomb the Iranian nuclear programme, or even (and i consider this a likely secret desire in the current US and Israeli leaderships) to regime-change Iran by first driving Iran into a corner.

i've notified the Iranian foreign ministry (also emailed to you all) that they must reign in their own hawks, who now talk about re-starting nuclear enrichment and the like,
but i have little hope that there are enough wise cool-headed men in Iran who can get that arranged.

the best advise i have for EU governments is to stand up to the US in any way public and covert-economically, over this unreasonable and deceitful aggression against Iran.
doing so would be the best way to prevent ethnic tensions between Muslims and whites in EU countries from rising or festering.

the best advise i have for the hardliners in the US is to
- make sure that your sanctions do not cause famine or other heavy suffering among civilians in Iran.
- make sure that if you drop bombs on targets in Iran, you destroy only military assets and personnel, not civilians. in other words : use exactly the right kind of ammunition on each target, because the Iranians are bound to have placed their military assets right next to their civilians.

if you do not heed this advice of mine, you are fueling terror group recruitment efforts *and* ethnic tensions all over Europe, much more than you already are by embarking on this course.

this could all, every demand Trump and Macron have made on Iran, it could have all been solved diplomatically. i know that for a fact.
all deaths resulting from this political "show", go straight onto the karmatic and Heavenly records of Trump and all those who support Trump's current hardline stance. and i won't be the only soul saying that.

in my book, starting a war to distract from domestic scandals that might shorten your stay in power, or supporting it for a fat paycheck and/or some airtime and/or an ego-rush, should really put you in Hell in the afterlife. if God ever asks me, that is what my response will be.

that all said, if you're going to do a regime-change, do it right, and make sure you don't screw up the aftermath handling. aim for zero collateral damage. then maybe i won't vote to have you put in Hell.

so do your planning thoroughly, and install leaders who are not just in it for the money that can be shuttled in diplomatic pouches to Swiss bank-accounts, like the new Afghan leaders did. make sure the Iranians get leaders they can be proud of.

or better yet, call off this bullshit show entirely.
but that's something mr Trump is probably completely unable to do; to say to the world that he was wrong and has changed his mind. nor does he have any integrity let alone the integrity to be held to the laws of the land, for instance the ones that can get him impeached (Stormy daniels hushmoney was a campaign finance violation for instance).
i have zero respect for the guy. he reminds me of a Hitler around 1937. and i don't say that lightly.

you're lucky that i know there are also good people in the US (and elsewhere), people who try to stand up to Trump and his cronies, but fail because Trump's cronies don't hold discussions in anything resembling an honorable honest way.
i could probably silence Trump's supporters on usmessageboard.com, but i truly think that won't help to change US policy. only a hardline economic and public stance against this US adventure by the EU can do that. the EU would be wise not to support US actions against Iran in any way, and pursue the goals that Macron outlined in a diplomatic way instead.

so if you're going to bomb Iran, Americans, please don't kill too many Iranians, it makes my task of keeping muslim terror recruiters contained just about impossible.
and by the way, American leaderships and people, you are placing yourselves at risk of a Muslim offensive that could equal the Tet offensive in Vietnam that if i'm not mistaken ultimately cost you the war, together with the media coverage of how you fought that war, ofcourse.

except, and note my words : there is no retreat possible for you this time.
you are pissing off not a few easily defeated Iranian muslims, you are pissing off the entire muslim world (over 1 billion people).
and i'm making no guarantees other than my part-time efforts, to prevent the potentially very severe backlash that you are now inviting upon yourselves, Americans.

So you say you think the US is seriously out of line, but other than your fantasies about war, you don't tell why you think so.

 

[blastoff]

We're out of Barry's Iran agreement, thank you very much president Trump. Add another to the growing list of accomplishments by the amateur, inexperienced political neophyte.

We'll be back in it a lot sooner than you think.

And the stain of Trump will be white washed away within one year after 2020.

His Presidency will be rendered irrelevant after the Democrats take control of the House in January and control the check book and cut the orange ass clowns spending off.

And there is nothing the magamites will be able to do about it except whine and cry. Which you already do now. I can only imagine how bad it's going to be then.

Thanks. We'll just toss this atop the huge pile of unfulfilled wet dreams you lefty idiots have been busy building since the day Trump announced his candidacy almost THREE years ago!

Run along now. You've got circle jerk practice in 15 minutes.

 

[BlindBoo]

Yet, no one was willing to challenge the legality of Iran's actions with respect to the JCPOA.

President Trump has and Macron agreed with him.

Rhetoric does not constitute a legal challenge.

No legal challenge is necessary to have the UN reimpose its sanctions. All the US has to do is assert its complaint and go through the steps outlined in JCPOA. Once that process has been completed the UN sanctions are automatically reimposed regardless of what anyone else thinks.

Having left the deal, does the US still have the right to dispute anything or use the mechanisms of the JCPOA?

https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/245317.pdf

If Iran believed that any or all of the E3/EU+3 were not meeting their commitments under this JCPOA, Iran could refer the issue to the Joint Commission for resolution; similarly, if any of the E3/EU+3 believed that Iran was not meeting its commitments under this JCPOA, any of the E3/EU+3 could do the same. The Joint Commission would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration, any participant could refer the issue to Ministers of Foreign Affairs, if it believed the compliance issue had not been resolved. Ministers would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration – in parallel with (or in lieu of) review at the Ministerial level - either the complaining participant or the participant whose performance is in question could request that the issue be considered by an Advisory Board, which would consist of three members (one each appointed by the participants in the dispute and a third independent member). The Advisory Board should provide a non-binding opinion on the compliance issue within 15 days. If, after this 30-day process the issue is not resolved, the Joint Commission would consider the opinion of the Advisory Board for no more than 5 days in order to resolve the issue. If the issue still has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the complaining participant, and if the complaining participant deems the issue to constitute significant non-performance, then that participant could treat the unresolved issue as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part and/or notify the UN Security Council that it believes the issue constitutes significant non-performance.

Are you a registered agent of the Iranian Regime, Comrade?

If not, you may be in violation of federal law.

I love you man. You make me laugh.

I mean even if your Lord God Trumph had his most patience adviser explain the above regulation, in crayon, not only would Donnie Dumbfuck not get it but likely the adviser would seriously think about slitting his own throat rather that try to explain it to dumFurur one more time.....

 

[healthmyths]

President Trump has and Macron agreed with him.

Rhetoric does not constitute a legal challenge.

No legal challenge is necessary to have the UN reimpose its sanctions. All the US has to do is assert its complaint and go through the steps outlined in JCPOA. Once that process has been completed the UN sanctions are automatically reimposed regardless of what anyone else thinks.

Having left the deal, does the US still have the right to dispute anything or use the mechanisms of the JCPOA?

https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/245317.pdf

If Iran believed that any or all of the E3/EU+3 were not meeting their commitments under this JCPOA, Iran could refer the issue to the Joint Commission for resolution; similarly, if any of the E3/EU+3 believed that Iran was not meeting its commitments under this JCPOA, any of the E3/EU+3 could do the same. The Joint Commission would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration, any participant could refer the issue to Ministers of Foreign Affairs, if it believed the compliance issue had not been resolved. Ministers would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration – in parallel with (or in lieu of) review at the Ministerial level - either the complaining participant or the participant whose performance is in question could request that the issue be considered by an Advisory Board, which would consist of three members (one each appointed by the participants in the dispute and a third independent member). The Advisory Board should provide a non-binding opinion on the compliance issue within 15 days. If, after this 30-day process the issue is not resolved, the Joint Commission would consider the opinion of the Advisory Board for no more than 5 days in order to resolve the issue. If the issue still has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the complaining participant, and if the complaining participant deems the issue to constitute significant non-performance, then that participant could treat the unresolved issue as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part and/or notify the UN Security Council that it believes the issue constitutes significant non-performance.

Are you a registered agent of the Iranian Regime, Comrade?

If not, you may be in violation of federal law.

I love you man. You make me laugh.

I mean even if your Lord God Trumph had his most patience adviser explain the above regulation, in crayon, not only would Donnie Dumbfuck not get it but likely the adviser would seriously think about slitting his own throat rather that try to explain it to dumFurur one more time.....

Explain something why Kerry said this:
State Department: Iran Deal Is Not ‘Legally Binding’ and Iran Didn’t Sign It
President Obama didn’t require Iranian leaders to sign the nuclear deal that his team negotiated with the regime, and the deal is not “legally binding,” his administration acknowledged in a letter to Representative Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) obtained by National Review.
“The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document,” wrote Julia Frifield, the State Department assistant secretary for legislative affairs, in the November 19 letter.

#share#Iranian President Hassan Rouhani discouraged his nation’s parliament from voting on the nuclear deal in order to avoid placing legal burdens on the regime. “If the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is sent to [and passed by] parliament, it will create an obligation for the government. It will mean the president, who has not signed it so far, will have to sign it,” Rouhani said in August. “Why should we place an unnecessary legal restriction on the Iranian people?”
State Department: Iran Deal Not 'Legally Binding' and Iran Didn't Sign It | [site:name] | National Review

 

[healthmyths]

the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – is not binding under international law. The letter was in response to Pompeo’s inquiry about why the JCPOA transmitted to Congress lacked signatures. The State Department said, in part:
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document. The JCPOA reflects political commitments between Iran, the P5+1 (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, China) and the European Union. As you know, the United States has a long-standing practice of addressing sensitive problems in negotiations that culminate in political commitments.

The success of the JCPOA will depend not on whether it is legally binding or signed, but rather on the extensive verification measures we have put in place, as well as Iran’s understanding that we have the capacity to re-impose – and ramp up – our sanctions if Iran does not meet its commitments.
Thus, the next president will stand on solid legal ground should he or she choose to repudiate the deal. Under both international and domestic law, a future president (or this president, for that matter) is not bound to continue waiving sanctions. It is, of course, a separate question whether it is good policy for the United States to repudiate the deal.
State Department Affirms That Iran Deal Is Only a Political Commitment

 

[BlindBoo]

Rhetoric does not constitute a legal challenge.

No legal challenge is necessary to have the UN reimpose its sanctions. All the US has to do is assert its complaint and go through the steps outlined in JCPOA. Once that process has been completed the UN sanctions are automatically reimposed regardless of what anyone else thinks.

Having left the deal, does the US still have the right to dispute anything or use the mechanisms of the JCPOA?

https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/245317.pdf

If Iran believed that any or all of the E3/EU+3 were not meeting their commitments under this JCPOA, Iran could refer the issue to the Joint Commission for resolution; similarly, if any of the E3/EU+3 believed that Iran was not meeting its commitments under this JCPOA, any of the E3/EU+3 could do the same. The Joint Commission would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration, any participant could refer the issue to Ministers of Foreign Affairs, if it believed the compliance issue had not been resolved. Ministers would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration – in parallel with (or in lieu of) review at the Ministerial level - either the complaining participant or the participant whose performance is in question could request that the issue be considered by an Advisory Board, which would consist of three members (one each appointed by the participants in the dispute and a third independent member). The Advisory Board should provide a non-binding opinion on the compliance issue within 15 days. If, after this 30-day process the issue is not resolved, the Joint Commission would consider the opinion of the Advisory Board for no more than 5 days in order to resolve the issue. If the issue still has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the complaining participant, and if the complaining participant deems the issue to constitute significant non-performance, then that participant could treat the unresolved issue as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part and/or notify the UN Security Council that it believes the issue constitutes significant non-performance.

Are you a registered agent of the Iranian Regime, Comrade?

If not, you may be in violation of federal law.

I love you man. You make me laugh.

I mean even if your Lord God Trumph had his most patience adviser explain the above regulation, in crayon, not only would Donnie Dumbfuck not get it but likely the adviser would seriously think about slitting his own throat rather that try to explain it to dumFurur one more time.....

Explain something why Kerry said this:
State Department: Iran Deal Is Not ‘Legally Binding’ and Iran Didn’t Sign It
President Obama didn’t require Iranian leaders to sign the nuclear deal that his team negotiated with the regime, and the deal is not “legally binding,” his administration acknowledged in a letter to Representative Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) obtained by National Review.
“The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document,” wrote Julia Frifield, the State Department assistant secretary for legislative affairs, in the November 19 letter.

#share#Iranian President Hassan Rouhani discouraged his nation’s parliament from voting on the nuclear deal in order to avoid placing legal burdens on the regime. “If the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is sent to [and passed by] parliament, it will create an obligation for the government. It will mean the president, who has not signed it so far, will have to sign it,” Rouhani said in August. “Why should we place an unnecessary legal restriction on the Iranian people?”
State Department: Iran Deal Not 'Legally Binding' and Iran Didn't Sign It | [site:name] | National Review

Feel free to link to my post agreeing that it was legally binding in the first place. If that were the case the court papers would have been file as fast as the filing against Donnie Dumbasdirt's Muslim ban.

The agreement was made with the five permanent members of the SC. Well see how far the other counties are willing to go. It is another wedge between the allies. Putin smiles.

 

[healthmyths]

No legal challenge is necessary to have the UN reimpose its sanctions. All the US has to do is assert its complaint and go through the steps outlined in JCPOA. Once that process has been completed the UN sanctions are automatically reimposed regardless of what anyone else thinks.

Having left the deal, does the US still have the right to dispute anything or use the mechanisms of the JCPOA?

https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/245317.pdf

If Iran believed that any or all of the E3/EU+3 were not meeting their commitments under this JCPOA, Iran could refer the issue to the Joint Commission for resolution; similarly, if any of the E3/EU+3 believed that Iran was not meeting its commitments under this JCPOA, any of the E3/EU+3 could do the same. The Joint Commission would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration, any participant could refer the issue to Ministers of Foreign Affairs, if it believed the compliance issue had not been resolved. Ministers would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration – in parallel with (or in lieu of) review at the Ministerial level - either the complaining participant or the participant whose performance is in question could request that the issue be considered by an Advisory Board, which would consist of three members (one each appointed by the participants in the dispute and a third independent member). The Advisory Board should provide a non-binding opinion on the compliance issue within 15 days. If, after this 30-day process the issue is not resolved, the Joint Commission would consider the opinion of the Advisory Board for no more than 5 days in order to resolve the issue. If the issue still has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the complaining participant, and if the complaining participant deems the issue to constitute significant non-performance, then that participant could treat the unresolved issue as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part and/or notify the UN Security Council that it believes the issue constitutes significant non-performance.

Are you a registered agent of the Iranian Regime, Comrade?

If not, you may be in violation of federal law.

I love you man. You make me laugh.

I mean even if your Lord God Trumph had his most patience adviser explain the above regulation, in crayon, not only would Donnie Dumbfuck not get it but likely the adviser would seriously think about slitting his own throat rather that try to explain it to dumFurur one more time.....

Explain something why Kerry said this:
State Department: Iran Deal Is Not ‘Legally Binding’ and Iran Didn’t Sign It
President Obama didn’t require Iranian leaders to sign the nuclear deal that his team negotiated with the regime, and the deal is not “legally binding,” his administration acknowledged in a letter to Representative Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) obtained by National Review.
“The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document,” wrote Julia Frifield, the State Department assistant secretary for legislative affairs, in the November 19 letter.

#share#Iranian President Hassan Rouhani discouraged his nation’s parliament from voting on the nuclear deal in order to avoid placing legal burdens on the regime. “If the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is sent to [and passed by] parliament, it will create an obligation for the government. It will mean the president, who has not signed it so far, will have to sign it,” Rouhani said in August. “Why should we place an unnecessary legal restriction on the Iranian people?”
State Department: Iran Deal Not 'Legally Binding' and Iran Didn't Sign It | [site:name] | National Review

Feel free to link to my post agreeing that it was legally binding in the first place. If that were the case the court papers would have been file as fast as the filing against Donnie Dumbasdirt's Muslim ban.

The agreement was made with the five permanent members of the SC. Well see how far the other counties are willing to go. It is another wedge between the allies. Putin smiles.

You mean the BAN that Obama started????

Dummy get your facts straight!

The Obama-signed law contains provisions that restrict travel to the United States for people who lived in or visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria since March 2011. They must have a visa to enter the United States; they can’t use what is known as the Visa Waiver Program, which allows 90-day U.S. visits to other foreign visitors.

The law was soon expanded by Obama’s Department of Homeland Security to cover Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. They were identified in the agency’s announcement as "countries of concern," a phrase used in the law.
7 nations in Trump travel ban were named by Obama?

Where in the above is there ANY MENTION of MUSLIMS??????