Iranian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

A

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
TerraN_EmpirE said:
Except it wasn’t Signed by the Head of state of any party. It was signed by the foreign ministers or in the case of the US by The Secretary of State.
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard: " delegation of authority" ?

So, you want to say that the Secretary of State signed the international agreement without the full consent of the Head of State, and didn't represented the executive branch of the United States of America during the signature ?

Interesting, and getting better : )
 
Gatekeeper

Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member
TerraN_EmpirE said:
Those tribunal were not held by the UN but by the governments of the Respective allied governments. The US,UK,USSR and France based off The Hague conventions that dated before the war. Laws are not retroactive and courts can’t judge the guilt of a party based on laws written after the fact can they?!

those are based not on UN edict by the Geneva Conventions that predate the Charter of the UN. The UN or other bodies enacted the tribunals. In the case of Iraq it was via not the UN but the Interim Iraqi Government. If you wish to call that a puppet of the US feel free.
The Deck of Cards was issued by the US DOD.
again based off either The Hague or the Geneva conventions which date back to the late 19th early 20th century and were signed and ratified before the 1945 charter of the UN.

Except it wasn’t Signed by the Head of state of any party. It was signed by the foreign ministers or in the case of the US by The Secretary of State. Historically Such figures have started to negotiate deals and had their head of state/Governments toss them. The JCPOA tried to make an end run around this and the Obama administration ran it as an executive order by the President of the United States. The US System however doesn’t recognize Executive order as Law, only as policy. Policy is subject to change by the successor. Since it wasn’t binding and not ratified, the Successor president could and did change policy.
You can try and twist it how you like but those who made the agreement were only able to maintain it had they maintained power in the US executive branch from 2016-2024. They lost.
Click to expand...
Thanks. But you're playing with the letters of law. You know and I know, when UK went to war with US. The UK and the US is creating a picture to their own populace and the works at large that the wars were legal, and furthermore it was sanctioned by the UN.

If what you said is the Hague. Etc. Then what is the purpose of the UN?

anyway, I'm watching england ladies at the moment. ⚽ So will discuss later
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Gatekeeper said:
Thanks. But you're playing with the letters of law. You know and I know, when UK went to war with US. The UK and the US is creating a picture to their own populace and the works at large that the wars were legal, and furthermore it was sanctioned by the UN.
Click to expand...
The Letter of the law is the Law the Spirit of the law is those who wish to over reach. The UN doesn’t create International law, it barely upholds it. It is not a Super National Government.
The aim was to justify action and give a chance for negotiation.
If what you said is the Hague. Etc. Then what is the purpose of the UN?
Click to expand...
I ask myself that question three times a month.
To defuse conflict is the standard answer.
The UN is a successor to the League of Nations. The mission aim by President Roosevelt and before him President Wilson was to create a outside forum for back door negotiations and to try and prevent future conflicts. It was also supposed “to make the world safe for Democracy.”
Reward good behavior chastise bad.
But it’s now just to make the world safe for Bureaucracy. Quickly mission creep and Corruption took hold.
It’s sole check is that it is dependent on the members states abiding it’s edicts.
It’s Peacekeeping operations depend on both sides already wanting to not fight and being willing to abide the meddlesome toothless Blue helmets who are so dependent on orders from New York that they would be slaughtered before they could defend themselves.
It’s Aide Programs are corrupt as they come and often are used to farther empower dictators and warlords.
It’s technology programs have been used to smuggle.
Nations with terrible human rights reports have ended up in charge of committees dedicated to the same.
 
Brumby

Brumby

Major
Gatekeeper said:
Oh I supposed the US is respecting international law when it unilaterally withdraw from the UN sanctioned nuclear deal. Then place all those sanctions on Iran, AND any other countries that deals with Iran!

As I said in my earlier post. International or no international airspace. (and you still have no proof that it was shot down in international airspace). If you fly so close to other people's territory, that may then feel threaten, uncomfortable and nervous about your presence. You should have the decency to back off.
I hope you do that in your personal life. And not going upto someone's face inches away and claimed is ok, because you didn't actually touch them.
Obliviously, if is not alright for us to do that in our personal life, then it stands to reason that we shouldn't be doing that in international relations.
Click to expand...

In a rule based order such as in international relations, there is a treaty ratification process. International treaties are not formalised until they are ratified and this is simply a norm. In the case of the Iran nuclear deal, the US Senate did not ratify the treaty and therefore was only conditionally binding depending on successive administration. You may argue that it is an internal affair within the US. However international norms do subscribe to the legal principle of ratification and that each country has to go through its internal legal process to formalise a treaty to ensure it is legally binding.

Your personal space argument is simply a straw man.
 
G

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
TerraN_EmpirE said:
the UN doesn’t make laws it depends on the nations involved agreeing to support its actions.
The Deal was enacted without ratification by the US Congress as such it’s about as binding as the Toilet paper in the UN building.
Click to expand...

The US President also declares war without asking the US Congress. All the time. So why can't he negotiate peace?
Besides, you can blame the US Congress all you want, but it was Trump who broke the agreement. The US has abrogated treaties constantly over the past decade from the ABM Treaty (GWB) to the INF Treaty (Trump). They ask other nations to "respect" rules based international order with regards to the maritime laws of the sea in the South China Sea, or whatever, but the US itself has never ratified UNCLOS.

US "exceptionalism" in action.
 
Last edited:
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
@gelgoog
The President still has to notify congress.
The President is empowered to negotiate however to make a binding agreement he has to run it through congress.
The President ( Obama ) Chose not to begin the ratification process as he feared it would be rejected.
The US did withdrawal from the ABM as it deemed the threats form outside that treaty rendered it self defeating. The US did Withdrawl from the INF as it deemed that Russia had violated it and China was never bound by it.

The US objected to set provision Article XI of the UNCLOS and is not the only nation to do so.
The US is also not a signatory of the Moon Treaty and nore are any of the space faring nations, because of objections to language in the provisions that were written by states without space programs. That’s how it works.
 
G

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Excuses. Russia could also say (which they do) the US did not fullfill its end of the bargain and destroy its chemical weapons nor did it destroy the nuclear warheads as it was bound to by weapons reduction treaties. The US's excuse? No money to destroy the weapons.

The Russians made MOX fuel and burned their weapons plutonium. The US? It will downblend it with uranium and store it like that. Of course, this will not destroy the plutonium since plutonium and uranium can be easily separated. It is a sham. It is like saying you will dissolve salt into water. It does not destroy the salt.

So we are to believe that although Russia has the money to destroy the nuclear warheads agreed upon, the US, supposedly the richest nation on Earth cannot afford it?
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
gelgoog said:
The Russians made MOX fuel and burned their weapons plutonium
Click to expand...
No they didn’t They stock piled it. It’s still sitting waiting for them as well.
The US doesn’t have a MOX reactor. It needed a whole new reactor but that it neither here nor there.
 
G

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
TerraN_EmpirE said:
No they didn’t They stock piled it. It’s still sitting waiting for them as well.
The US doesn’t have a MOX reactor. It needed a whole new reactor but that it neither here nor there.
Click to expand...

Such BS. A regular civilian nuclear reactor can burn MOX fuel if it is certified to do it. It requires minor modifications if any.

The French burn MOX fuel in their civilian liquid water nuclear reactors. They are based on a design licensed by Westinghouse. A US company which also built similar reactors in the US back then. Most of the cost is in making the fuel bundles. A cost which is recouped many times over with the electricity generated from burning the MOX.

It is a BS excuse.
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
The Us has reactors that can burn the fuel but not make it. which is what I meant.
A facility was being built to blend it but it got delayed and delayed and hugely over budget. 7.6 billion spent and the DOE said it would need 46 billion-110 Billion more to complete it.
In 2016 the Russians said they wouldn’t blend their materials until the US did as of February last year that material about 34 tons on both sides is in storage.
The Russians insist it must be burned, knowing full well that the US didn’t use MOX.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top