Iran's foreign minister explains international law to Senate Republicans

You know there are Americans in Iraq right now fighting alongside the Kurds. Hop to it, war boy.

 

Your foreign minister doesn't have a clue as to international law.

Article 46

Provisions of internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties

1) A State may not invoke the fact that its consent to be bound by a treaty has been expressed in violation of a provision of its internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties as invalidating its consent unless that violation was manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law of fundamental importance.

2) A violation is manifest if it would be objectively evident to any State conducting itself in the matter in accordance with normal practice and in good faith.

If it wasnt evident to Iran before, it now is. And our Constitution that requires congressional assent for such international agreements, is an "internal law of fundamental importance".

 

That's Iraqis under the general. And I cant imagine an Iranian general overseeing the operation of being any great benefit, unless you consider the leadership of the Iraqi forces to be incompetent. An Iranian mullah promising paradise for those who die in the fight might do so.

 

Your heroic Iranians were recently supplying rockets to iraqi insurgents killing US troops, and training those insurgents in how to construct EFP IED's. They are our enemy, as they have been since the 70s. They are mortal enemies of one of our greatest allies. They are not fighting ISIS because they are our friends. They are trying to turn Iraq into a Iranian puppet state. The only solution to deal with Iran is to bomb them into submission.

 

This is all song and dance, Iran has no intention of complying with a new agreement just like they didn't comply with prior agreements.

 

I would take all accusations made against Iran with plenty of salt, especially when they're coming from our corrupt officials.

 

Arrogant dicks like that lasted millennia, Rome empire

 

War mongers are respected men, ask most who they admire they will say Eisenhover, or Patton, Napoleon, and Washington. All men of war, no one respects peaceniks.

 

They didn't make accusations. They provided a statement on our law regarding international agreements. And government doesn't really need to make accusations when it is the UN and international community making the accusations regarding their nuclear program. And weve seen the videos of 10s of thousands of Iranians chanting in unison for "Death to America" and "Death to Israel"

 

Stop criticizing Obama.

 

They're continually threatened by both America and Israel, so I'm not surprised if there is popular sentiment there against both countries.

You can't take anything either side says at face value in a situation like this. Both are engaged in propaganda campaigns.

 

Is the agreement between the US and Iran intended to be legally binding? If so, it's a treaty that the US Constitution requires be ratified by the Senate. If the prospective agreement is not intended to be legally binding then Iran can ignore it with impunity and the document is worthless.

- - - Updated - - -

Iran has a Death to America Day. Seems like that's pretty threatening as well.

 

Well, it's clear to see then why the US and Israel are so opposed to the Iranian regime and would love to see it toppled. But this doesn't mean they're developing nukes to launch at us.

 

No, war mongers are those that advocate for war. Hitler was a war monger - does he have your admiration?

Warriors fight wars and deserve respect.

Interesting that you don't think Jesus is respected because he was the ultimate peacenik.

Ghandi, Delhi Lama, MLK, Siddartha, Schwietzer, Penn, Barton, aren't respected? Seems a rather skewed perspective to me.

 

Yeah 1600 years ago it collapsed under its own decadent arrogance.

Seems they continued to believe they were the very best right up until somebody proved they weren't.

How'd being arrogant dickheads work out for the 1000 year reich?

Your secret sauce for success sucks.

 

Iran can only protect the Islamic Revolution if it can credibly threaten the Great Satan and the Little Satan.

Btw, Iran is developing Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. Iran doesn't need ICBM's to threaten Israel. ICBMs would be required if Iran wants to reach targets in the Western Hemisphere.

Btw, it's not cost/effective to place conventional warheads on ICBMs. But it is cost/effective to place nuclear warheads on ICBMs.

Let's let everyone put two and two together, and draw their own reasonable conclusions.

Btw, in the realm of threat analysis the standard of proof is not "beyond a reasonable doubt." The threat is assumed to exist if the capability exists.

 

Meanwhile, the US has all that and has already used nukes against civilians in a war.

What has Iran done?

 

Well, if we were currently gathering in mass rallies of Americans to chant in unison, 'DEATH to Iran" you might of had a relevant point.

 

I think you're confusing fear with dislike or even hate.

It's very unwise to develop relationships around the world with other nation states that increasingly despise you.

 

"Peaceniks"? Really. The last time I heard that phrase was back in the 1960s when "flower power" was all the rage.

It's good to know that members here keep up with the times...

 

Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo. All men of war no one respects.

 

Tojo has quite a following in Japan. The gov even goes to pray in front of his tomb once a year.

 

But not in the US which was implied in my post.

 

You said no one, not no one in the US. This is the internet, think globaly

 

I was replying directly to an American.

But another case of pedantry I see.

It seems to be a favoured technique by some of the members here, who appear to want things spelled out in the minutest detail in order to understand otherwise fairly straight forward concepts. I don't really know why, but I suppose it might have something to do with the inability to make the same intuitive leaps that most people do on a daily basis.

And speaking of pedantry and spelling --- it's "globally" not 'globaly'. And "not no one..." is a double negative btw.