fate

I just asked you for ONE international agreement they have kept. Just one

You couldn't be bothered to read the post before your post?

Now, what was your source for your claim?

rickyp wrote:fate

I just asked you for ONE international agreement they have kept. Just one

You couldn't be bothered to read the post before your post?

Now, what was your source for your claim?

I did read it. Your answer was they (arguably) kept one.

Here: read up. http://www.paxamerica.org/wp-content/up ... 3-2011.pdf

fate

I did read it

No you didn't.
Or you didn't read your own source.
Or both.
Here's the treaty that Iran ratified that I know they kept. (There are others)
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction. Opened for Signature at London, Moscow and Washington. 10 April 1972.

The Islamic Consultative Assembly (the Parliament) of the Islamic Republic of Iran approved the bill presented by the Government to join the [said Convention] on 27 July 1997, and the Guardian Council found the legislation compatible with the Constitution and the Islamic Tenets on 30 July 1997, in accordance with its required Constitutional process. The Islamic Consultative Assembly decided that:

The Government is hereby authorized, at an appropriate time, to accede to the [said Convention] - as annexed to this legislation and to deposit its relevant instrument

Now, how many of the treaties in your so called source were ratified by Iran post 1980? You don't expect the post revolutionary Iran to keep promises made by the Shah do you?

By the way, as I said, there are other conventions besides the one I noted. For instance
Convention on the Rights of the Child
Now Iran was in contravention of the treaty, despite ratifying it but actually changed their laws to comply.

Although Iran is a state party to the Convention, international human rights organisations[26][27] and foreign governments[28] routinely denounced executions of Iranian child offenders as a violation of the treaty. But on 10 February 2012, Iran's parliament changed the controversial law of executing juveniles

.

This by the way is a convention that the US is almost the only nation in the world NOT to ratify.

The United States government played an active role in the drafting of the Convention and signed it on 16 February 1995, but has not ratified it because[citation needed] it forbids both the death penalty and life imprisonment for children (Article 37),[1] even though a state can legitimately ratify subject to reservations or interpretations. It has been claimed that American opposition to the Convention stems primarily from political and religious conservatives.[49] For example, the Heritage Foundation sees it as threatening national control over domestic policy[50] and the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) argues that the CRC threatens homeschooling

Its interesting that Iran's potential non-adherence to international agreements and treaties is a major issue with many American conservatives when they often regard International treaties and obligations as infringements on American sovereignty. And refuse to either ratify or abide by them.

Be that as it may, the nuclear agreement with Iran has more verification procedures and enforcement teeth than any they have signed before. Specifically so it can be rigorously enforced.
And the option on offer from all on the right is renewed sanctions and negotiations. Immediately this puts Irans nuclear program out of the reach of any inspectors and relies upon the continued good graces of China and Russia and, the apparently weary of the US Europeans (based on the Germans recent comments) to renew and invigorate...
Essentially what conservatives want is to return to the Bush Doctrine on foreign policy that worked so well....

By the way, some web site that paxamericainstitute.org.

rickyp wrote:fate

I did read it

No you didn't.
Or you didn't read your own source.
Or both.
Here's the treaty that Iran ratified that I know they kept. (There are others)
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction. Opened for Signature at London, Moscow and Washington. 10 April 1972.

Meh, this is pointless. I specifically said post-79. That the site included pre-79 treaties in addition to the more modern ones, so what?

Be that as it may, the nuclear agreement with Iran has more verification procedures and enforcement teeth than any they have signed before. Specifically so it can be rigorously enforced.

It won't be. Iran will go nuclear--just like North Korea did after Bill Clinton guaranteed they wouldn't. Same story, different day.

fate

That the site included pre-79 treaties in addition to the more modern ones, so what?

Its purposely deceptive. And its hypocritical . (Your source) Your reliance on it, and apparent ignorance of its content, even so, is another thing.

For example they (and I suppose you by inference since you use the source as supporting evidence of Irans crimes). - complain that Iran has violated the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
I think that they have. But, that doesn't reflect upon their adehrence to treaty obligations that they have accepted and ratified. They have never ratified the Rome Statute.
They aren't alone in this.

Three signatory states—Israel, Sudan and the United States—have informed the UN Secretary General that they no longer intend to become states parties and, as such, have no legal obligations arising from their former representatives' signature of the Statute.[

That your source has decided that the ICC Statute is an example of Iran's lawless nature is hypocritical when the US has announced it won't abide the Statute either...
You should try and read and be more critical of a source.
Few of their claims are about treaty obligations that the Islamic State of Iran has ratified. Most are UN resolutions.
And the US and Israel are often non-signatory to the treaties that Iran has supposedly violated.
For instance nuclear non-proliferation and Israel....

What happened in 1979? Oh, I remember... It was an entirely new government when the last one was overthrown. Perhaps you were not old enough to remember. (Hint: I am)

So what you are saying, RickyP, is that Iran kept agreements before this new government, but not since. Very comforting... Have you found one that actually applies to the Islamic Republic of Iran? I know the Pahlavi regime did honor treaties. That is not in question to me.

Please provide the treaties kept under the Islamic Republic of Iran.

rickyp wrote:fate

That the site included pre-79 treaties in addition to the more modern ones, so what?

Its purposely deceptive. And its hypocritical . (Your source) Your reliance on it, and apparent ignorance of its content, even so, is another thing.

Oh bother.

The fact that it went from the 1940's until now is on the cover, so . . . give me a break. You're being ridicu . . . never mind, it's just rickyp.

For example they (and I suppose you by inference since you use the source as supporting evidence of Irans crimes). - complain that Iran has violated the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
I think that they have. But, that doesn't reflect upon their adehrence to treaty obligations that they have accepted and ratified. They have never ratified the Rome Statute.

Again, oh brother. I did not cite the source initially because I googled it afterward. I never intended it to perfectly reflect my statement. I think it does show Iran is a bad actor. Care to dispute that?

Want to make the case that Iran is no worse than the US?

Otherwise, why don't you have a nice up of shut up?

bbauska

So what you are saying, RickyP, is that Iran kept agreements before this new government, but not since.

No.
What I said was that the Iranians have ratified very few treaties since 1980.
They have also largely complied with those they ratified.

However, I've also said that some of the treaties had very poor verification mechanisms to check on compliance. But that the proposed treaty actually has very strong verification and inspection regime.
Which is why so many scientists and military have written public letters of support for the treaty.

fate

I did not cite the source initially because I googled it afterward

So you had no source for your original claim.
and the source you've googled in hopes of finding support for your claim , but apparently still not read in full, is a hodge podge that doesn't really support your claim .

Attaboy. Keep reading those conspiracy blogs.

rickyp wrote:fate

I did not cite the source initially because I googled it afterward

So you had no source for your original claim.
and the source you've googled in hopes of finding support for your claim , but apparently still not read in full, is a hodge podge that doesn't really support your claim .

Attaboy. Keep reading those conspiracy blogs.

Oh brother.

Actually, I'd heard it enough that I was confident of its veracity. Thanks to you, I still am.

And, you remain a source of amusement.

fate

Actually, I'd heard it enough that I was confident of its veracity

At least to the point where you thought it confirmed your bias.

Critical thinking is not your strong point.

rickyp wrote:fate

Actually, I'd heard it enough that I was confident of its veracity

At least to the point where you thought it confirmed your bias.

Critical thinking is not your strong point.

The truth is you wouldn't know critical thinking if it hit you between the eyes, so please, don't presume to explain it.

Here's the problem: conservatives don't just put on a strait jacket. We think. We listen. We analyze. So, when a liberal writes or says something intelligent, we read it.

A known liberal writes of President Obama's agreement:

The Framers of our constitution probably would have regarded the nuclear deal with Iran as a “treaty,” subject to a two thirds ratification by the Senate. At the very least they would have required Congress to approve the agreement by a majority vote. It is unlikely that it would have allowed the President alone to make so important and enduring an international agreement.

If President Obama doesn't treat the Iran agreement with more respect, all his arguments today are beside the point. The agreement won't have the force of law.

I said it should be a treaty. A liberal constitutional expert agrees with me.

How do we know it's a bad deal? Prof. Dershowitz explains:

We did so by beginning the negotiations with three important concessions. First, we took the military option off the table by publicly declaring that we were not militarily capable of permanently ending Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Second, we took the current tough sanction regimen off the table by acknowledging that if we did not accept a deal, many of our most important partners would begin to reduce or even eliminate sanctions. Third, and most important, we took off the table the option of rejecting the deal by publicly acknowledging that if we do so, we will be worse off than if we accept even a questionable deal. Yes, the president said he would not accept a “bad” deal, but by repeatedly watering down the definition of a bad deal, and by repeatedly stating that the alternative to a deal would be disastrous, he led the Iranians to conclude we needed the deal more than they did.

These three concessions left our negotiators with little leverage and provided their Iranian counterparts with every incentive to demand more compromises from us. The result is that we pinned ourselves into a corner. As Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute put it: “The deal itself became more important than what was in it.” President Obama seems to have confirmed that assessment when he said: “Put simply, no deal means a greater chance of more war in the Middle East.”

Can the Iranians be trusted?

Condoleezza Rice, former U.S. secretary of state, addressed recent efforts toward diplomacy between the U.S. and Iran, saying on "CBS This Morning," the Iranians can't be believed or trusted.

"They have done everything to make certain that you can't trust them," she said on "CBS This Morning." "They hid their nuclear program for decades. They have given the international Atomic Energy Agency the runaround. I negotiated myself with the P5+1, the international negotiating team for them. You absolutely cannot trust them."

LEON PANETTA: Well, you know, one thing I’ve learned both at the CIA and as Secretary of Defense is that the Iranians can't be trusted.

But Jeffrey, like most others with direct dealings with Iran, warned that getting Iran’s radical clerics to implement a deal will be even more difficult than reaching one in the first place.

Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan in 2002, had a similar reaction. He said he had high hopes when diplomats from Iran, including its current foreign minister, pledged to support the new Afghan government.

But he quickly learned that other elements of the Iranian regime were working, as he put it, “exactly in the opposite direction” with Afghan factions to undermine it.

“The Quds Force in Afghanistan would tell those guys: ‘It is an American plot, it isn’t going to work,’” Khalilzad recalled of the powerful special forces unit of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps that’s now believed to be a government unto itself.

The experience of Khalilzad — who also served as Bush’s ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq and the United Nations — closely matches stories told by other former U.S. diplomats and military commanders who speak of the “two Irans” — one represented by its capable diplomats, the other symbolized by the deadly Quds Force and directed by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Their experiences help explain why establishing the framework for an Iran nuclear deal was so difficult — and shed light on the burning question of whether Iran can ever be trusted to follow through on its commitments.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/i ... z3ine1HigF

Why is it that all of these people with actual experience in dealing with Iran, and more I can cite, do not trust Iran?

Because they have actual experience. They know what Iran is all about. They know the history of the mullahs. They know their religious motivations and the religious "exemption" from being honest with unbelievers. They know Iran's track record on international accords.

So, say whatever you want. Your words have all the effect of a single drop of water entering the ocean. Your opinion, in other words, is meaningless.

rickyp wrote:fate

Actually, I'd heard it enough that I was confident of its veracity

At least to the point where you thought it confirmed your bias.

Critical thinking is not your strong point.

The truth is you wouldn't know critical thinking if it hit you between the eyes, so please, don't presume to explain it.

Here's the problem: conservatives don't just put on a strait jacket. We think. We listen. We analyze. So, when a liberal writes or says something intelligent, we read it.

A known liberal writes of President Obama's agreement:

The Framers of our constitution probably would have regarded the nuclear deal with Iran as a “treaty,” subject to a two thirds ratification by the Senate. At the very least they would have required Congress to approve the agreement by a majority vote. It is unlikely that it would have allowed the President alone to make so important and enduring an international agreement.

If President Obama doesn't treat the Iran agreement with more respect, all his arguments today are beside the point. The agreement won't have the force of law.

I said it should be a treaty. A liberal constitutional expert agrees with me.

How do we know it's a bad deal? Prof. Dershowitz explains:

We did so by beginning the negotiations with three important concessions. First, we took the military option off the table by publicly declaring that we were not militarily capable of permanently ending Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Second, we took the current tough sanction regimen off the table by acknowledging that if we did not accept a deal, many of our most important partners would begin to reduce or even eliminate sanctions. Third, and most important, we took off the table the option of rejecting the deal by publicly acknowledging that if we do so, we will be worse off than if we accept even a questionable deal. Yes, the president said he would not accept a “bad” deal, but by repeatedly watering down the definition of a bad deal, and by repeatedly stating that the alternative to a deal would be disastrous, he led the Iranians to conclude we needed the deal more than they did.

These three concessions left our negotiators with little leverage and provided their Iranian counterparts with every incentive to demand more compromises from us. The result is that we pinned ourselves into a corner. As Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute put it: “The deal itself became more important than what was in it.” President Obama seems to have confirmed that assessment when he said: “Put simply, no deal means a greater chance of more war in the Middle East.”

Can the Iranians be trusted?

Condoleezza Rice, former U.S. secretary of state, addressed recent efforts toward diplomacy between the U.S. and Iran, saying on "CBS This Morning," the Iranians can't be believed or trusted.

"They have done everything to make certain that you can't trust them," she said on "CBS This Morning." "They hid their nuclear program for decades. They have given the international Atomic Energy Agency the runaround. I negotiated myself with the P5+1, the international negotiating team for them. You absolutely cannot trust them."

LEON PANETTA: Well, you know, one thing I’ve learned both at the CIA and as Secretary of Defense is that the Iranians can't be trusted.

But Jeffrey, like most others with direct dealings with Iran, warned that getting Iran’s radical clerics to implement a deal will be even more difficult than reaching one in the first place.

Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan in 2002, had a similar reaction. He said he had high hopes when diplomats from Iran, including its current foreign minister, pledged to support the new Afghan government.

But he quickly learned that other elements of the Iranian regime were working, as he put it, “exactly in the opposite direction” with Afghan factions to undermine it.

“The Quds Force in Afghanistan would tell those guys: ‘It is an American plot, it isn’t going to work,’” Khalilzad recalled of the powerful special forces unit of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps that’s now believed to be a government unto itself.

The experience of Khalilzad — who also served as Bush’s ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq and the United Nations — closely matches stories told by other former U.S. diplomats and military commanders who speak of the “two Irans” — one represented by its capable diplomats, the other symbolized by the deadly Quds Force and directed by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Their experiences help explain why establishing the framework for an Iran nuclear deal was so difficult — and shed light on the burning question of whether Iran can ever be trusted to follow through on its commitments.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/i ... z3ine1HigF

Why is it that all of these people with actual experience in dealing with Iran, and more I can cite, do not trust Iran?

Because they have actual experience. They know what Iran is all about. They know the history of the mullahs. They know their religious motivations and the religious "exemption" from being honest with unbelievers. They know Iran's track record on international accords.

So, say whatever you want. Your words have all the effect of a single drop of water entering the ocean. Your opinion, in other words, is meaningless.

I am not sure citing a "liberal" constitutional expert like Dershowitz is all that convincing. Dershowitz is Jewish and in this context his Jewish identity (and what he see are in the interests of Israel) trump his liberalism. Senator Schumer's opposition to the deal has to be deal has to seem in that context, as well. What they argue in opposition to the deal can be assessed on its own merits, but their status as liberals adds nothing in this context. It's not oh my gosh even liberals oppose this deal as they are Jewish and they are analyzing it not just from a liberal vantage point but also from a Jewish one in how the deal might affect Israel. By the way, Dershowitz's arguments are not very good. If we undercut ourselves as much as he said we did there is no way that Iran would have agreed to such an intrusive inspection system.

I don't get this notion of trust here. If we were talking about trust with regard to Iran's nuclear program that would be where we had a deal where Iran sincerely promised not to develop a bomb. Very, very sincerely with eye contact and a firm handshake. Of course we don't trust them! That's why we have inspectors ready to inspect any site, that's why it has to be certified that Iran has initially complied with the deal before sanctions are taken down, and that's why the US can unilaterally reimpose sanctions if Iran reneges on the deal. What does trust have to do with anything ? The point of the deal was to prevent from Iran from cheating, assuming they would try.

freeman3 wrote:I am not sure citing a "liberal" constitutional expert like Dershowitz is all that convincing. Dershowitz is Jewish and in this context his Jewish identity (and what he see are in the interests of Israel) trump his liberalism.

That has nothing to do with his opinion as to whether or not this should be a treaty. It clearly is. If Congress had a spine, they would force the issue up to, and including, impeachment. They don't have a spine.

Furthermore, impugning his opinion does not dispell the truthfulness of his assertions about why this was poorly negotiated. By removing all other options and painting themselves into a corner, Obama and Company threw themselves at the mercy of the Iranians. The Iranians, unsurprisingly, did not concede a thing and, instead, made unreasonable demands--and got them!

By the way, Dershowitz's arguments are not very good. If we undercut ourselves as much as he said we did there is no way that Iran would have agreed to such an intrusive inspection system.

It's not intrusive. We could argue this, but I'll make it easy. Let's assume the deal goes through. Within two years, we will have ample evidence that Iran is avoiding the "intrusive inspections." I'll wager $50 to Redscape with you.

That's why we have inspectors ready to inspect any site, that's why it has to be certified that Iran has initially complied with the deal before sanctions are taken down, and that's why the US can unilaterally reimpose sanctions if Iran reneges on the deal.

It's not "anytime, anywhere." That misstates the truth and I think you know that. It's only known sites. Given their history of unknown sites, do you really suppose we know it all now?

Furthermore, the US can reimpose sanctions. But, rickyp tells us those will have no impact. As he knows everything, I'm surprised you would dare argue with him.

What does trust have to do with anything ? The point of the deal was to prevent from Iran from cheating, assuming they would try.

They will cheat. They will win. See North Korea.