Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
US education including his PhD in International Law & Policy. I'd wager he's got a pretty good understanding of what the US Government is.
I'm not as enamored of PhD's as you. Often, the joke that PhD stands for Pile it high and Deep is more true than joke. Obviously, the pilers don't always agree on the meaning of what they pile. His understanding of U.S. government conveniently stops short of its total scope.
The "treaty" was ratified by the Senate long ago when we adopted the NPT. Any action against Iran today under the guise of UN Security Council Resolution isn't a new "treaty" and doesn't require Senate ratification.
I'm sure, for the sake of his argument, that he wants to say that a treaty must stand forever. Unfortunately, that is not true . . . not in ANY treaty, certainly not in U.S. government treaties or involvement in treaties. Treaties can, and have been, modified, or abolished. And the U.S. Congress, as well as the President with the approval of Congress, can remove us from a treaty or change our involvement in it.
A strong resolution makes it the responsibility of the P5+1 to enforce the resolution. Sure, they can try and skirt the law, they've tried before, but this would add significant insurances not present before.
|
So the six resolutions up to now haven't been strong? Were they not strong enough for the P5+1 to enforce? Or is it that they just need to be stronger . . . and stronger, etc. That enforcement thingy is most interesting to me. How would the P5+1 enforce. More sanctions?
Sanctions haven't worked up to now, and I thought that Obama said sanctions didn't work. And that unbroken circle of wanting sanctions removed if nuclear enrichment is stopped, but enrichment being necessary as a motive to remove sanctions has no logical end. To break the circle, one or the other has to unilaterally stop. Either the sanctions must unconditionally end, or the enrichment must unconditionally end. Making one dependent on the other logically results in the endless circle.
So then would enforcement be Military? Now THAT would be interesting. Especially since Russia and China are part of the P5. And the +1, Germany, really doesn't, since the Hitler thing, like the mantle of aggressor.