NationStates Jolt Archive

Truth, the Islamic Republic of Iran is *not* a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Iran which ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970 *no longer exists* and the current Iran, which in its revolution denounced the old Iran in order to create a new one has no legitimate claim to Treaty.

In short, the Treaty was ratified by the government of the Shah. The Islamic Republic of Iran can not pick which parts of the Shah's government they over-turn and which ones they keep.

the truth shall set you free.

To tell you the truth, that doesn't matter to me at all.

Truth, the Islamic Republic of Iran is *not* a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Iran which ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970 *no longer exists* and the current Iran, which in its revolution denounced the old Iran in order to create a new one has no legitimate claim to Treaty.

In short, the Treaty was ratified by the government of the Shah. The Islamic Republic of Iran can not pick which parts of the Shah's government they over-turn and which ones they keep.

the truth shall set you free.
The treaty was ratified by Iran. It is not a 'part of its government' etc. The Islamic republic succeded to it, just as it suceeded to the other international treaties signed by Iran before 1979, among them the UN Charter (Iran is a UN member, isn't it?)

Truth, the Islamic Republic of Iran is *not* a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Iran which ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970 *no longer exists* and the current Iran, which in its revolution denounced the old Iran in order to create a new one has no legitimate claim to Treaty.

In short, the Treaty was ratified by the government of the Shah. The Islamic Republic of Iran can not pick which parts of the Shah's government they over-turn and which ones they keep.

the truth shall set you free.they need to legally prove that Iran is not Iran.

What matters is that they will be stopped.
Their rights - and ours - are open to endless ( and therefore pointless ) debates.
Meanwhile... the Big Five have the advantage of certain facts on the ground.

So, if I had owed Iran like a million dollars or something during the shah period, would Khomeini let me go saying that I owed money to that Iran and not this Iran?:confused:

This is kinda cool. I declare Aryavartha to be new Aryavartha. I have a new conscience taking over my old one. The new me does not recognise any money that was borrowed by the corrupt old me. Bugger off all you money-lenders.

Truth:

1. Iran ratified the NNPT in 1970, at this time, Iran was a different nation, under a different government.

2. The Revolution of the Clerics eliminated the Iranian Nation and replaced it with the Islamic Republic.

3. The Islamic Republic of Iran has no legitimate claim to enjoy the benefits of the treaties signed into with the Nation of Iran.

4. The Iran that signed the NNPT, no longer exists.

5. The Islamic Republic of Iran has never ratified, nor been invited to ratify the NNPT.

6. The Islamic Republic of Iran has no rights to enjoy the priviledges of the NNPT

So, if I had owed Iran like a million dollars or something during the shah period, would Khomeini let me go saying that I owed money to that Iran and not this Iran?:confused:

This is kinda cool. I declare Aryavartha to be new Aryavartha. I have a new conscience taking over my old one. The new me does not recognise any money that was borrowed by the corrupt old me. Bugger off all you money-lenders.
I think they call that declaring personal bankruptcy. I don't know the laws regarding it in India, but in the US it's gotten alot harder to do.

Truth:

1. Iran ratified the NNPT in 1970, at this time, Iran was a different nation, under a different government.

2. The Revolution of the Clerics eliminated the Iranian Nation and replaced it with the Islamic Republic.

3. The Islamic Republic of Iran has no legitimate claim to enjoy the benefits of the treaties signed into with the Nation of Iran.

4. The Iran that signed the NNPT, no longer exists.

5. The Islamic Republic of Iran has never ratified, nor been invited to ratify the NNPT.

6. The Islamic Republic of Iran has no rights to enjoy the priviledges of the NNPT
Truth:

None of that will save them from the consequences of trying to develop nuclear weapons.

In continuation, the Iran that was a participant in the NNPT, sadly, no longer exists. The Islamic Republic knows this, which is why for the past 20 years they developed their program in secret.

The U.S. nor any nation, signed an agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Its agreement was with Iran, under a different government.

The Transferrance of Authority from the Shah, to the Clerical Regime, for this International Agreement, is not recognized, nor did the Shah ever extend legitimacy to the Iranian oppressors following "the revolution" at which point, the nation of Iran was destroyed and replaced by The Islamic Republic of Iran.

So, if I had owed Iran like a million dollars or something during the shah period, would Khomeini let me go saying that I owed money to that Iran and not this Iran?:confused:

This is kinda cool. I declare Aryavartha to be new Aryavartha. I have a new conscience taking over my old one. The new me does not recognise any money that was borrowed by the corrupt old me. Bugger off all you money-lenders.

As Lenin said: the debts of the Czar died with the Czar.
What needs to be realised is that international law/order is entirely pragmatic:
what comes around goes around.

If you ignore int'l law and opinion for too long - AND lack the power to make your actions stick, your prestige suffers.
In practical terms that means that NO ONE - including the PRC - will feel the slightest need to pay attention to your interests.
That others pay attention to your arguments, is the true meaning of prestige.

Sidenote: If you are wondering just how the Netherlands will jump tomorrow on ISAF... ponder the true meaning and worth of Prestige.

Truth, the Islamic Republic of Iran is *not* a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Iran which ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970 *no longer exists* and the current Iran, which in its revolution denounced the old Iran in order to create a new one has no legitimate claim to Treaty.

In short, the Treaty was ratified by the government of the Shah. The Islamic Republic of Iran can not pick which parts of the Shah's government they over-turn and which ones they keep.

the truth shall set you free.The Islamic Republic of Iran is what we call a "Successor State" just like the Russian Federation is the successor state of the USSR, meaning Russia is bound by the agreements signed by the USSR just like the current Iran is required to follow the agreements signed by the Shah's Iran.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is what we call a "Successor State" just like the Russian Federation is the successor state of the USSR, meaning Russia is bound by the agreements signed by the USSR just like the current Iran is required to follow the agreements signed by the Shah's Iran.

Iran's violation of the NNPT began the day the Shah was overthrown. It was on that day that they began nuclear experimentation in violation of the NNPT. Over 20 years ago. There is no getting around this. Furthermore, the US does not recognize the current government of Iran as the legitimate representative of the Iranian nation and therefore does not recognize the transferrance of authority of the NNPT to this government from the last one.

Islamic Revolution of Iran of 1979 is against you Laerod. The U.S. , no nation, signed an agreement with the current Government of Iran. No transferrance of authority for negotiation of this document is bestowed upon the current regime of the Islamic Republic.

Iran's violation of the NNPT began the day the Shah was overthrown. It was on that day that they began nuclear experimentation in violation of the NNPT. Over 20 years ago. There is no getting around this. Furthermore, the US does not recognize the current government of Iran as the legitimate representative of the Iranian nation and therefore does not recognize the transferrance of authority of the NNPT to this government from the last one.

Islamic Revolution of Iran of 1979 is against you Laerod. The U.S. , no nation, signed an agreement with the current Government of Iran. No transferrance of authority for negotiation of this document is bestowed upon the current regime of the Islamic Republic.That's completely irrelevant. The US isn't the world's institution for recognizing countries.

Furthermore, and indisputable.

The USSR government recognized the succession of the Russian Federation.

The Iranian government never recognized the succession of the Islamic government.

That's completely irrelevant. The US isn't the world's institution for recognizing countries.

Yes, as far as I am concerned, it is.

Furthermore, and indisputable.

The USSR government recognized the succession of the Russian Federation.

The Iranian government never recognized the succession of the Islamic government.I'm pretty sure the Nazi Regime never accepted the FRG or GDR as successor states either...

The treaty was ratified by Iran. It is not a 'part of its government' etc. The Islamic republic succeded to it, just as it suceeded to the other international treaties signed by Iran before 1979, among them the UN Charter (Iran is a UN member, isn't it?)
Like the United States of America signed the Kyoto treaty, you mean?

Like the United States of America signed the Kyoto treaty, you mean?

The United States of America has never signed the Kyoto Treaty. It participated in the negotiations that created the Kyoto Treaty which was then sent back to the U.S. and will never be ratified.

My suggestion, never negotiate with those individuals at sed conference who claimed to be there representing the U.S. again. If they go to such a conference supporting a treaty they know the congress will never ratify, well, they shouldn't be there to begin with. It is wasteful government spending.

The United States of America has never signed the Kyoto Treaty. It participated in the negotiations that created the Kyoto Treaty which was then sent back to the U.S. and will never be ratified.Ratification and signing aren't the same thing. The Executive branch of the US government has signed the treaty, but Congress has not ratified it.

The real question here is why some of you individuals here are promoting the transferrance of rights of the NNPT from the previous nation of Iran to this imposter nation of Iran. In violation of various other treaties.

How much are the Mullah's paying you to promote their right to negotiate a treaty they didn't sign? We did not confer these rights upon the Mullocracy, they were conferred upon Iran, which no longer exists, because it fell victim to the brutal and illegitimate rulers of Iran.

You value money more than your commitment to your allies, go right on ahead. I know you Euros are anxious to have Iran value their oil in Euros, so back-stab away. You'll regret it later.

Ratification and signing aren't the same thing. The Executive branch of the US government has signed the treaty, but Congress has not ratified it.

wrong. The U.S. Government Executive Branch withdrew its signature.

The real question here is why some of you individuals here are promoting the transferrance of rights of the NNPT from the previous nation of Iran to this imposter nation of Iran. In violation of various other treaties.

How much are the Mullah's paying you to promote their right to negotiate a treaty they didn't sign? We did not confer these rights upon the Mullocracy, they were conferred upon Iran, which no longer exists, because it fell victim to the brutal and illegitimate rulers of Iran.

You value money more than your commitment to your allies, go right on ahead. I know you Euros are anxious to have Iran value their oil in Euros, so back-stab away. You'll regret it later.Just to clarify: You're actually arguing that the current Iran is allowed to have nuclear weapons because the treaty doesn't apply to it.

Article II of the NPT (http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm):
Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

wrong. The U.S. Government Executive Branch withdrew its signature.Show me.

Just to clarify: You're actually arguing that the current Iran is allowed to have nuclear weapons because the treaty doesn't apply to it.

Article II of the NPT (http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm):

I am saying that Iran does not have the right to enjoy the benefits of being a partner to the NNPT.

Show me.


"During his first presidential visit to Europe in June 2001, European leaders criticized Bush for his rejection of the Kyoto Protocol to reduce global warming. In 2002, Bush rejected the treaty as harmful to economic growth in the United States, stating: "My approach recognizes that economic growth is the solution, not the problem." [22] The administration also disputed the scientific basis of the treaty. [23] "

I personally do not find wikipedia to be a credible source of information because any moron can edit it, but since it seems so popular around here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

"The Bush administration plans to withdraw from the 1997 Kyoto treaty on greenhouse gas emissions, EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman told reporters on March 27. The treaty requires the United States to reduce greenhouse emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.
"We have no interest in implementing that treaty," said Whitman. She pointed out that no major industrial nation had ratified the agreement in the years since it was negotiated.

The treaty agreed to by the Clinton administration, but faced an uphill battle on Capitol Hill. Bush argued that it would harm the U.S. economy and unfairly exempts developing countries like China and India."
http://www.policyalmanac.org/environment/news/global_warming-2001-03-27.shtml

The withdrawal of the U.S. from Kyoto is pretty much a done deal, Kyoto is irrelevant (and a stupid treaty at that)

When a government is toppled the new one assumes the duties and obligations of the old one. Whether it's a recognised government that arises from a violent takeover is irrelevant. What's important is that they're the ones in charge and therefore have the obligation to abide by whatever treaties the previous government signed.

If they have a problem with any of those treaties, then they should speak up and renegotiate or say something about it. The government of Iran has had a number of years to discuss the NNPT and haven't done so. This means, by international law, that they accept it.

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

March 28, 2001

QUESTION: Did you ever straighten out all the muddled answers on Kyoto?

MR. FLEISCHER: Ask a question, and I'll try to give you an answer.

Q: The question is, where do we stand on Kyoto? Have we pulled out? What is -- is there movement now to pull out and so forth?

MR. FLEISCHER: The treaty, as you know, was signed, but it was not ratified by the Senate. In fact, the Senate voted 95-0 against ratification of it. Also on that measure, whether it's enforced or not -- as you know, under the Kyoto agreement, 55 nations need to submit it, enforce it to their various governments. Only one nation in the world has done so. There are 54 more to go. So the treaty cannot even possibly even be in effect. So there's nothing to withdraw from because there is no treaty in effect.

The President has been unequivocal. He does not support the Kyoto treaty. It exempts the developing nations around the world, and it is not in the United States' economic best interest. The President has directed his Cabinet Secretaries to begin a review so we can, as a nation, address a serious problem, which is global warming. That Cabinet-level review is underway, and the President looks forward to receiving the results.

Q: Does he think it never should have been signed?

MR. FLEISCHER: I've not asked him that question. It was signed prior to him becoming President, so it's a moot question.

Q: Has he read the treaty?

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not aware of anybody in government who reads every page of every treaty except for a very, very few people. But the President is well aware, of course, of what's in the treaty.

Q: Is it his intention to have the U.S. withdraw from Kyoto?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's what Helen just asked, and I said there's nothing to withdraw from. The treaty is not in effect. But he opposes the treaty. He's made that plain.

Q: But we have made a commitment. I mean, you said there's nothing to withdraw from. You make a certain commitment when you sign a treaty.

MR. FLEISCHER: No, the commitment on the treaty is dependent on ratification. As you know, the Senate voted 95-0 against ratifying it. It also is dependent on actions taken by the international community. When only one out of 55 nations required to put the treaty into effect has acted, it's a signal worldwide that others agree with the President's position on the treaty.

Q: Ari, in the closing days of the Clinton administration there was an effort to negotiate an understanding with European nations about some of the Kyoto protocols dealing with emissions, and those failed. It was a frustrating failure for the Clinton administration. Did this administration look upon that and say, well, if those negotiations, if Clinton failed, there's no way that we can make any progress; therefore, you're much more pessimistic about working anything out with Kyoto?

MR. FLEISCHER: I don't know about that time frame, Major. I know this has been the President's consistent position from the campaign forward. And the concern is that most of the world was exempt from the treaty and the treaty as it currently is written is not in the economic interests of the United States, as well.

Q: Why not?

MR. FLEISCHER: Because of the huge costs involved that are disproportionate to the benefits, particularly when most of the world is exempt.

Q: Well, would he favor making the rest of the world subject to the treaty or --

MR. FLEISCHER: You need to await the results of the Cabinet-level review that the President has directed. ....

Q: On Kyoto, Ari, was there any discussion, and what did the White House believe the wisdom was of approaching this by saying, we're going to throw this whole treaty out, we're going to start from scratch, as opposed to going in and discussing with our allies ways of changing the treaty to meet the President's concerns?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think you should withhold until you are filled in on what the Cabinet-level review will show. The Cabinet-level review is going to be broad, it's going to look at what the President views as a serious problem, which is global warming. So until they complete their review I think it's premature to judge what will be in it.

Q: Why didn't the White House wait until the Cabinet-level review was done before deciding what to do on the treaty?

MR. FLEISCHER: Because the President has always opposed the treaty. It's a question of what can we do based on sound science and a balanced approach as a nation to take action against global warming. That's why the President opposed the Kyoto treaty and that's why he has directed the Cabinet-level review to take place.

Q: That doesn't explain why you couldn't have gone in and said, look, there are parts of this treaty -- obviously, the developing world is not included, and also we think it's too hard on us for economic growth, so let's figure out ways to change it. And can you give us some specifics on the economic cost to the U.S.? What is it particularly that the President is concerned about in terms of the economic cost?

MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I have addressed the President's concerns about the treaty. And as for solutions for global warming, once again, you have to wait for the review of the Cabinet-level review. But the President does believe that working with our friends and allies and through international processes, we can develop technologies, market-based incentives, and other innovative approaches that can combat global climate change.

Q: I don't understand. Why not work for change this treaty? That's what people were originally trying to do? Why not put this on the table and work with those countries --

MR. FLEISCHER: Because the President opposes this treaty in its present form. And I think until you see the results of the Cabinet-level review, it's premature to speculate about exactly what steps the administration will make. But, obviously, any time a treaty has to be submitted by 55 of the signatory nations in order for it to go in effect and only one nation has submitted it, it's an indication that other nations agree with the United States.

Q: Well, let's be clear. I mean, is this treaty from the United States' viewpoint, dead, or -- because he opposes it doesn't mean that you have abandoned it, necessarily -- has this treaty been abandoned by the United States?

MR. FLEISCHER: Given the fact that it was voted 95-0 against in the Senate, it's a clear sign that there is little support, if any, to --

Q: What nation ratified it?

MR. FLEISCHER: Romania submitted it for it to be in effect -- Romania did.

end transcript

http://www.usemb.se/Environment/briefing.html

I am saying that Iran does not have the right to enjoy the benefits of being a partner to the NNPT.And you're using an arguement that gives them the right to nuclear weapons, incidently.

"During his first presidential visit to Europe in June 2001, European leaders criticized Bush for his rejection of the Kyoto Protocol to reduce global warming. In 2002, Bush rejected the treaty as harmful to economic growth in the United States, stating: "My approach recognizes that economic growth is the solution, not the problem." [22] The administration also disputed the scientific basis of the treaty. [23] "I see nothing stating that it will be revoked here, only that it won't be ratified.

I personally do not find wikipedia to be a credible source of information because any moron can edit it, but since it seems so popular around here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

"The Bush administration plans to withdraw from the 1997 Kyoto treaty on greenhouse gas emissions, EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman told reporters on March 27. The treaty requires the United States to reduce greenhouse emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.
"We have no interest in implementing that treaty," said Whitman. She pointed out that no major industrial nation had ratified the agreement in the years since it was negotiated.

The treaty agreed to by the Clinton administration, but faced an uphill battle on Capitol Hill. Bush argued that it would harm the U.S. economy and unfairly exempts developing countries like China and India."
http://www.policyalmanac.org/environment/news/global_warming-2001-03-27.shtml

The withdrawal of the U.S. from Kyoto is pretty much a done deal, Kyoto is irrelevant (and a stupid treaty at that)March 27th of what year?

When a government is toppled the new one assumes the duties and obligations of the old one. Whether it's a recognised government that arises from a violent takeover is irrelevant. What's important is that they're the ones in charge and therefore have the obligation to abide by whatever treaties the previous government signed.

I agree with everything you've said here. However, international treaties require multiple parties to tango. The U.S. does not recognize the current regime in Iran as the legitimate heir to negotiations for the special benefits and priveledges of being an NNPT signatory.

It is not Europeans job to convince the U.S. to recognize the government of Iran. It is Europe's job to bring Iran into compliance with the treaty negotiating with whomever they feel they should negotiate with. You negotiate with the Mullahs. We will negotiate directly with the Iranian people themselves until the current regime is toppled and Iran can once again enjoy the benefits of being a partner in the NNPT.

There is no transferrance of authority, and the US recognizes no one's position that the current regime in Iran are the legitimate representatives of the Iranian populace, nor that the current regime merits to participate in the benefits of the treaty.

The U.S. recognizes no transferrance of authority for the negotiation of Iran's rights under the NNPT.

Meh. Until War against North Korea is enacted then I'll be paying attention to the news.

Like the United States of America signed the Kyoto treaty, you mean?

Signed but not ratified. Since it wasn't ratified, we are not bound to it.

As for Iran, if they aren't a signatory to it, then why are they using it in there defense?

I agree with everything you've said here. However, international treaties require multiple parties to tango. The U.S. does not recognize the current regime in Iran as the legitimate heir to negotiations for the special benefits and priveledges of being an NNPT signatory.Those benefits come with duties, such as, for instance, not attempting to get your hands on nuclear weapons if you haven't got any.
It is not Europeans job to convince the U.S. to recognize the government of Iran. It is Europe's job to bring Iran into compliance with the treaty negotiating with whomever they feel they should negotiate with. You negotiate with the Mullahs. We will negotiate directly with the Iranian people themselves until the current regime is toppled and Iran can once again enjoy the benefits of being a partner in the NNPT.Good luck in finding the Iranian people's phone number.
There is no transferrance of authority, and the US recognizes no one's position that the current regime in Iran are the legitimate representatives of the Iranian populace, nor that the current regime merits to participate in the benefits of the treaty.

The U.S. recognizes no transferrance of authority for the negotiation of Iran's rights under the NNPT.You see, international relations don't require any single nation's permission or recognition. Your case is: My country says its not the legal representative, therefore they don't get the rights in the treaty (and I'm going to ignore the fact that not being recognized would free them from the obligation to keep their hands off nuclear weapons).

The real question here is why some of you individuals here are promoting the transferrance of rights of the NNPT from the previous nation of Iran to this imposter nation of Iran. In violation of various other treaties.

Did it occur to you that Iran has been using the NPT for their defense to pursue nuclear power? Now we know that isn't true.

How much are the Mullah's paying you to promote their right to negotiate a treaty they didn't sign?

Now I know your insane!

We did not confer these rights upon the Mullocracy, they were conferred upon Iran, which no longer exists, because it fell victim to the brutal and illegitimate rulers of Iran.

Whom have used the Non-Proliferation Treaty to promote their nuclear ambitions. If they are not a signatory to it, then why have they been using it to no end?

You value money more than your commitment to your allies, go right on ahead. I know you Euros are anxious to have Iran value their oil in Euros, so back-stab away. You'll regret it later.

I'm regretting ever posting in this rediculous thread.

wrong. The U.S. Government Executive Branch withdrew its signature.

I know we withdrew our name from the ICC but can I see proof that we withdrew our signator from Kyoto please?

The U.S. recognizes no transferrance of authority for the negotiation of Iran's rights under the NNPT.
And yet that's who they've got. Even if the US doesn't recognise the current Iranian regime as the legitimate government they're still in charge, and they're still the ones they have to negotiate with. And the fact that they're denouncing the Iranian regime and try to hold them to their international obligations means that the US recognises this fact.

If according to your thesis, the Iranian regime is not bound by NNPT, then there should be no problem with them developing nuclear weapons, as the NNPT is a treaty where countries commit not to develop nuclear weapons.

I really don't know what benefits from the NNPT you're talking about. It's not like you enter a raffle or get discounts or something.

they need to legally prove that Iran is not Iran.

I dunno. The way I see it there are only three ways for this to end.

1) Iran blinks and backs off from making a weapon. I honestly doubt thats going to happen.
2) The The US and EU go into Iran under UN authority and destroy Iran's facilities.
3) Iran is allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the world gets to have te fun of waiting for a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran, which is likely to come sooner rather than later.

I'm not so sure that either the US or the EU (the arab world, for that matter) is really interested in seeing an exchange, international law or not.

I know we withdrew our name from the ICC but can I see proof that we withdrew our signator from Kyoto please?

Its called 95-0 vote in the Senate.

Its called 95-0 vote in the Senate.Not quite. That is called a failed ratification. Ratification != Signature

Its called 95-0 vote in the Senate.

HAHAHA!! I guess you really don't know anything about politics do you?

It was a rejection vote. Heck, it was even passed before it was even signed. Why do you think that Clinton never submitted it for ratification? Because he knew it would not pass.

Not quite. That is called a failed ratification. Ratification != Signature

The President of the United States does not ratify or enter into treaties. The Congress does. A signature by the President is merely an endorsement, it doesn't confer "entering" into and the current President, the current Executive has not "endorsed" the treaty. This is a moot point, if you had read the Ari Fleisher interview, you'd know this already.

The Congress is the power, not the President.

HAHAHA!! I guess you really don't know anything about politics do you?

It was a rejection vote. Heck, it was even passed before it was even signed. Why do you think that Clinton never submitted it for ratification? Because he knew it would not pass.

The President of the United States does not sign into or enter into treaties. Its not part of his Constitutional duties. The President, Clinton, can "endorse" a treaty. He can not enter into them, he can say "deerrr, this is a good idea, i like it"

Fuck, so what? He may as well just be writing an op-ed to the New York Times, it means jack, and you obviously don't know jack.

The President of the United States does not ratify or enter into treaties. The Congress does. A signature by the President is merely an endorsement, it doesn't confer "entering" into and the current President, the current Executive has not "endorsed" the treaty. This is a moot point, if you had read the Ari Fleisher interview, you'd know this already.

The Congress is the power, not the President.

Way to miss what he said!

"Not quite. That is called a failed ratification. Ratification != Signature"

He means it was signed. However, the Senate never ratified it.

The President of the United States does not sign into or enter into treaties.

Incorrect. He does sign treaties. And then he re-signs them again when approved by 2/3rds of the US Senate.

Its not part of his Constitutional duties. The President, Clinton, can "endorse" a treaty. He can not enter into them, he can say "deerrr, this is a good idea, i like it"

Yep. He signed it alright and never sent it to the floor for ratification. I guess comprehension is not a strong suit is it?

Fuck, so what? He may as well just be writing an op-ed to the New York Times, it means jack, and you obviously don't know jack.

Oh this is rich. I'm dying of laughter.

Oh this is rich. I'm dying of laughter.I take it you no longer regret posting in this thread then :D

I take it you no longer regret posting in this thread then :D

Damn Straight. Now I'm enjoying myself. This guy is to easy to wack.

Incorrect. He does sign treaties. And then he re-signs them again when approved by 2/3rds of the US Senate.



Yep. He signed it alright and never sent it to the floor for ratification. I guess comprehension is not a strong suit is it?



Oh this is rich. I'm dying of laughter.

Bill Clinton personally endorsing a treaty, and Bill Clinton entering Americans (in this case, those in the Executive Branch) into a treaty are two totally different things. Bill Clinton can endorse a treaty. George Bush does not endorse a treaty. These are "personal" endorsements, they are not "official entries" into the treaty.

The President of the United States does not have the power to enter into a treaty. Bill Clinton endorsing a treaty means: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

THIS IS NOT SOME PETTY THIRD WORLD EUROPEAN NATION WHERE KINGS ENTER INTO TREATIES ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE.

THIS NATION ENTERS INTO TREATIES and COMMITS TO TREATIES ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

and the AUTHORITY OF THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES ALONE.

I would have you tried and shot for treason if I were a less compassionate man.

Bill Clinton personally endorsing a treaty, and Bill Clinton entering Americans (in this case, those in the Executive Branch) into a treaty are two totally different things. Bill Clinton can endorse a treaty. George Bush does not endorse a treaty. These are "personal" endorsements, they are not "official entries" into the treaty.

The President of the United States does not have the power to enter into a treaty. Bill Clinton endorsing a treaty means: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

THIS IS NOT SOME PETTY THIRD WORLD EUROPEAN NATION WHERE KINGS ENTER INTO TREATIES ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE.

THIS NATION ENTERS INTO TREATIES and COMMITS TO TREATIES ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

and the AUTHORITY OF THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES ALONE.

I would have you tried and shot for treason if I were a less compassionate man.

OMG!! I guess you cannot comprehend now can you?

Answer this question! Who can sign a treaty?

Oh and while your at it, name a 3rd world European Nation!

Bill Clinton personally endorsing a treaty, and Bill Clinton entering Americans (in this case, those in the Executive Branch) into a treaty are two totally different things. Bill Clinton can endorse a treaty. George Bush does not endorse a treaty. These are "personal" endorsements, they are not "official entries" into the treaty.

The President of the United States does not have the power to enter into a treaty. Bill Clinton endorsing a treaty means: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

THIS IS NOT SOME PETTY THIRD WORLD EUROPEAN NATION WHERE KINGS ENTER INTO TREATIES ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE.

THIS NATION ENTERS INTO TREATIES and COMMITS TO TREATIES ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

and the AUTHORITY OF THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES ALONE.

I would have you tried and shot for treason if I were a less compassionate man.No. International treaties are always required to be BOTH signed and ratified. Signed by the head of state or head of government (the President in the US) or legal representative thereof (such as a secretary of state in the case of the US) and then ratified by the parliament of said state (Congress in the case of the US). Both are required, with the signature being the first step and the ratification being the final one.
Signing a treaty is an official entry into a treaty without being bound to it yet.

No. International treaties are always required to be BOTH signed and ratified. Signed by the head of state or head of government or legal representative thereof (such as a secretary of state in the case of the US) and then ratified by the parliament of said state (in the case of the US). Both are required, with the signature being the first step and the ratification being the final one.
Signing a treaty is an official entry into a treaty without being bound to it yet.

Psst. Don't use big words around him. He can't comprehend them :D

Psst. Don't use big words around him. He can't comprehend them :DCareful. Things would be quite boring around here if you were tried and shot for treason... :p

Careful. Things would be quite boring around here if you were tried and shot for treason... :p

LMAO!

It is apparent, he never had an Intl Law class! This is getting funny. Hopefully he'll answer my question.

Come to think of it, he never did answer my questoin about Iran using the NPT to justify their nuclear ambitions.

I believe a similar rationale was used to pull out of the ABM treaty, the notion that the treaty was signed with the USSR, not with the russian federation.

I believe a similar rationale was used to pull out of the ABM treaty, the notion that the treaty was signed with the USSR, not with the russian federation.

Thing is though, we pulled out of it. Iran DID NOT pull out of the NPT! Since Iran did not pull out, it is still valid until they renounce it.

LMAO!

It is apparent, he never had an Intl Law class! This is getting funny. Hopefully he'll answer my question.

Come to think of it, he never did answer my questoin about Iran using the NPT to justify their nuclear ambitions.He never answered my question as to why he thinks it's clever to free Iran from the obligation to keep off nuclear weapons...
Pity he's offline...

He never answered my question as to why he thinks it's clever to free Iran from the obligation to keep off nuclear weapons...
Pity he's offline...

He'll be back. Think he'll reply in this thread after the way we raked him over the coals?

He'll be back. Think he'll reply in this thread after the way we raked him over the coals?I have no fortune cookie handy to find out...:D

I have no fortune cookie handy to find out...:D

What about a magic 8 ball?

I hope he returns. But alas, I'm literally going to be offline for 7 hours so if he does return, I'll respond to his ludicrousies when I get back.

God I hate Work.

Oh and while your at it, name a 3rd world European Nation!


Spain is certainly trying to see if it can become one... ;)

Spain is certainly trying to see if it can become one... ;)

LOL!!!

Good point :D

Surely if Iran aren't part of the NNPT then they can legally develop nuclear weapons?:confused:

Surely if Iran aren't part of the NNPT then they can legally develop nuclear weapons?:confused:
They are part of it. Otherwise, they wouldn't have been trying to comply with the IAEA and its inspectors.

They could back out of it now, but it's moot now. They've already restarted enrichment without observers.

Surely if Iran aren't part of the NNPT then they can legally develop nuclear weapons?:confused:

Since Iran has not pulled out of it, no they cannot legally make nuclear bombs.

.. UN Charter (Iran is a UN member, isn't it?)and so are Israel and N-Korea.. Are they not?

Since Iran has not pulled out of it, no they cannot legally make nuclear bombs.

True but they have the right to pull out if they want to.

wrong. The U.S. Government Executive Branch withdrew its signature.So I guess any country can...

2 separate Issues..

#1 Following the Iranian Revolution.. The New Republic of Iran has never ratified the Treaty signed by a US puppet (The Shah).

#2 And if even if they had ratified it.. They could Withdraw their signature ... Just like Bush did from Kyoto (Or whoever was prez at that time)

2 separate Issues..

#1 Following the Iranian Revolution.. The New Republic of Iran has never ratified the Treaty signed by a US puppet (The Shah).

#2 And if even if they had ratified it.. They could Withdraw their signature ... Just like Bush did from Kyoto (Or whoever was prez at that time)

*applauds*

2 separate Issues..

#1 Following the Iranian Revolution.. The New Republic of Iran has never ratified the Treaty signed by a US puppet (The Shah).

#2 And if even if they had ratified it.. They could Withdraw their signature ... Just like Bush did from Kyoto (Or whoever was prez at that time)

#1 But they never said they do not abide by NPT and they also continued enjoying the benefits of NPT.

#2 Then let them withdraw from NPT. Why are they not doing it? If indeed they did not have intentions for making a bomb then why did they procure centrifuges and bomb design from the Pakistani black market (both of which Iran themselves have admitted but have denied the intention of using them to build the bomb)?

and lastly why are you being more Iranian than Ahmedinejad?:p

#1 But they never said they do not abide by NPT and they also continued enjoying the benefits of NPT.

#2 Then let them withdraw from NPT. Why are they not doing it? If indeed they did not have intentions for making a bomb then why did they procure centrifuges and bomb design from the Pakistani black market (both of which Iran themselves have admitted but have denied the intention of using them to build the bomb)?

and lastly why are you being more Iranian than Ahmedinejad?:p
OceanDrive hates Jews, that's why. He likes the idea of "wiping" Israel off the map, and can't wait until the Iranians have the nukes to do it.

What a funny thread... and the OP knows almost nothing about international law and the US constitution. I find myself in complete agreement with Corneliu, a rare occasion indeed. ;)

BTW, the US recognized the transfer of power from the Shah to the clerics in 1979 -- I gather that there was an American embassy in Tehran in November of that year, wasn't it?

OceanDrive hates Jews, that's why. hmm I dont hate Jews... But I hate Pinguins.. Does it count? :D :D :p :D
He likes the idea of "wiping" Israel off the map, and can't wait until the Iranians have the nukes to do it.I dont think Iran wants to comit suicide.. Do you think Iran wants to comit suicide?

Hey Sierra.. Do you hate Pinguins? :fluffle:

... international law and the US constitution. this issue has everything to do with International Law.. But absolutely Nothing to do with the US constitution.

Why should Iran care about the US constitution?

this issue has everything to do with International Law.. But absolutely Nothing to do with the US constitution.

Why should Iran care about the US constitution?
It shouldn't. But the OP does care about it a lot... not to an extent of reading it, though.

It shouldn't. But the OP does care about it a lot... not to an extent of reading it, though.Ah... OK.

True but they have the right to pull out if they want to.

Agreed they do. However, they have not done so. Therefor, they are bound by the treaty.

Agreed they do. However, they have not done so. Therefor, they are bound by the treaty.
Not that they have actually done anything wrong so far. Even if this acquisition of a paper is true (and somehow I have become apprehensive of "proof" of WMD programs with our enemy of the day (tm)), I'm not sure whether it violates any part of the treaty, seeing as to how they haven't actually put any of it into practice, or even tried to do so.

2 separate Issues..

#1 Following the Iranian Revolution.. The New Republic of Iran has never ratified the Treaty signed by a US puppet (The Shah).

#2 And if even if they had ratified it.. They could Withdraw their signature ... Just like Bush did from Kyoto (Or whoever was prez at that time)

WRONG!!!

1) Iran is still a signature. Just because they changed the name of the nation does not mean they don't have to follow the treaty. Even a revolution doesn't mean you withdraw from the treaty.

Also, if they are not bound by the NPT then why are they using it to pursue nuclear power? They are trying to hide behind the treaty. If they don't have to follow it then why are they hiding behind it?

2) Once a nation has ratified a treaty, they have to go through the process of withdrawing from a treaty. There is a difference from removing their signature and withdrawing from a treaty.

What a funny thread... and the OP knows almost nothing about international law and the US constitution. I find myself in complete agreement with Corneliu, a rare occasion indeed. ;)

See? I told you I know what I was talking about :D

BTW, the US recognized the transfer of power from the Shah to the clerics in 1979 -- I gather that there was an American embassy in Tehran in November of that year, wasn't it?

Yes there was. It was after the embassy was held hostage did we close down the embassy.

Not that they have actually done anything wrong so far. Even if this acquisition of a paper is true (and somehow I have become apprehensive of "proof" of WMD programs with our enemy of the day (tm)), I'm not sure whether it violates any part of the treaty, seeing as to how they haven't actually put any of it into practice, or even tried to do so.

Well the IAEA, and the other perm. members of the UNSC believe they are violating the NPT and that is why it is being forwarded to the UNSC.

Even if this acquisition of a paper is true (and somehow I have become apprehensive of "proof" of WMD programs with our enemy of the day (tm)),

What do you mean "even if it is true" ?

The friggin Iranians themselves have friggin admitted to having acquired the friggin design from friggin AQKhan. :headbang:

Ruhollah Khomeini would be proud of you.

Ruhollah Khomeini would be proud of you.
You really think so? You just made my day!

You really think so? You just made my day!

Nah..man...you would be just another dirty kufr to him...sorry for shouting at you..:fluffle:

I got all ready to do some hardcore legal debating and then I read the thread and now my head hurts. And I find myself agreeing with Corneliu, which makes me sad. I think I am going to go now.

I got all ready to do some hardcore legal debating and then I read the thread and now my head hurts. And I find myself agreeing with Corneliu, which makes me sad. I think I am going to go now.

:D

I'm on a roll in this thread! I can't believe most of my opponets are backing me up :)

I guess Our Constitution has given up! :(