Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Trotsky, Mar 13, 2018.
Is the stuff in the blog all false?
Don’t worry Trumper’s. Sounds like you’ll get the war in the Middle East you said Hillary would only deliver.
What an idiot.
the U.S. is not going to war with Iran .. I thought the right were the fearmongerers ?
Says a lot about people who don't give a shit about reneging on a deal
Top5 most likeable guy ever
And if he's successful the US will never be expected to fulfill any international agreement. And I can't wait to hear from his supporters why that's a good thing.
Yeeeees, he went for the scapegoat move, Jimbo, sweeping that piece right off the table with the blame everything on Iran slam, which as you know, has been particularly successful lately, aaaaand back to you Jim.
that's the correct answer.
now you've asked me a question in return and i'll answer it.
the reason the sanctions were lifted is because Iran met the requirements from Russia, UK, France, Germany and China. the strength of the sanctions came from the multilateral aspect of it. the US, alone, could never have bought Iran to the bargaining table.
capiche mon ami?
They have gone over heavy water limits twice -- not by a large margin but enough to be documented and for them to be warned, twice.
Whatever you want to classify them as, they are horrible
I'm not a muslim sympathizer in any imaginable way, but it crack me up see try to sound in the right while saying "everywhere we go in the Middle East" whining at Iran doing his moves too
World map at hand looks like Iran being in the Middle East is more normal than 'merica
Because it's a blog, an opinion piece. Not an article.
Edit: I see @Quipling already highlighted that fact. Nevermind.
But what about what is said in the blog? Is it all false or is it accurate information?
"Eat the salad, Rex."
Thanks uneducated, buffoonish American electorate. You deserve everything you get from this presidency.
I meant before the deal but I for one liked he idea of letting Russia run their plants
Those rules were part of a 2010 UN NPR resolution.
The nuclear deal we signed w/ Iran in '15 voided that resolution and has no such stipulations.
So did Iran violate the agreement or not?
Most nonproliferation experts would say Iran certainly defied the spirit of the U.N. resolution, but technically didn't violate it — because it contains no prohibition against such testing, as one of its predecessors, passed in 2010, specifically did.
Here's what the two resolutions say on the subject, with highlighting added:
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929, from 2010, says the Security Council "decides that Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology, and that States shall take all necessary measures to prevent the transfer of technology or technical assistance to Iran related to such activities."
In Resolution 2231, passed in 2015, the Security Council endorsed the nuclear deal, known formally as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA. It terminated the provisions of the 2010 resolution and added language deep in one of the annexes saying: "Iran iscalled upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology, until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier."
As diplomatic terms of art, "shall not" — which appeared in the 2010 resolution — represents a clear and enforceable prohibition, whereas being "called upon" not to do something is more ambiguous.
Here's one way to look at it: When Iran tested ballistic missiles in the fall of 2015, while Resolution 1929 was still in effect, it was doubtless in violation of a Security Council stricture. But when it tested its missile on Sunday, under the new Resolution 2231, Iran was essentially ignoring the Security Council's advice — not violating a directive.
But bravo on citing the Huffpost ...
don't forget his Saudi Arabia turn.