Would President Obama Defy the UN?

D

Dixie - In Memoriam

New member
STORY

Obama announced that, if elected, he wouldn't ask Iran to comply with UN resolutions as a precondition for direct talks with Ahmadinejad: "Preconditions, as it applies to a country like Iran, for example, was a term of art. Because this administration has been very clear that it will not have direct negotiations with Iran until Iran has met preconditions that are essentially what Iran views, and many other observers would view, as the subject of the negotiations; for example, their nuclear program."

"Talking without preconditions" would require America to ignore three unanimous Security Council resolutions. Before starting his unconditional talks, would Obama present a new resolution at the Security Council to cancel the three that Ahmadinejad doesn't like? Or would the new US president act in defiance of the United Nations - further weakening the Security Council's authority?

President Bush didn't set the preconditions that Obama promises to ignore. They were agreed upon after the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran was in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Acting in accordance with its charter, the IAEA referred the issue to the Security Council.

Dismissing the preconditions as irrelevant would mean snubbing America's European allies plus Russia and China, all of whom participated in drafting and approving the resolutions that Ahmadinejad doesn't like.

Such a move would make a mockery of multilateral diplomacy - indeed, would ignore such diplomacy in exactly the way that critics claim the Bush administration has.
 
Dixie said:
STORY

Obama announced that, if elected, he wouldn't ask Iran to comply with UN resolutions as a precondition for direct talks with Ahmadinejad: "Preconditions, as it applies to a country like Iran, for example, was a term of art. Because this administration has been very clear that it will not have direct negotiations with Iran until Iran has met preconditions that are essentially what Iran views, and many other observers would view, as the subject of the negotiations; for example, their nuclear program."

"Talking without preconditions" would require America to ignore three unanimous Security Council resolutions. Before starting his unconditional talks, would Obama present a new resolution at the Security Council to cancel the three that Ahmadinejad doesn't like? Or would the new US president act in defiance of the United Nations - further weakening the Security Council's authority?

President Bush didn't set the preconditions that Obama promises to ignore. They were agreed upon after the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran was in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Acting in accordance with its charter, the IAEA referred the issue to the Security Council.

Dismissing the preconditions as irrelevant would mean snubbing America's European allies plus Russia and China, all of whom participated in drafting and approving the resolutions that Ahmadinejad doesn't like.

Such a move would make a mockery of multilateral diplomacy - indeed, would ignore such diplomacy in exactly the way that critics claim the Bush administration has.
Click to expand...


Of all the dumbshit posts I've read of yours, this one takes the cake. Albiet it isn't your work, it's the work on some brain-dead moron from the NY Post who has neither a clue what the fuck he's talking about nor the good sense to research the matter before writing an asinine op-ed piece. You're the bigger dumbass for thoughtlessly eating up the bullshit.

Let's take a look at what the UN Security Council members said upon passage of sanctions against Iran:

United Kingdom: "Nevertheless, he said, his country remained committed to working towards a negotiated solution."

Russia: "If negotiations yielded a positive solution to the problem, no additional steps against Iran would be taken in the Council."

China: "He called upon all the other parties to adopt a highly responsible attitude towards world peace, security and stability and the international nuclear non-proliferation mechanism; remain confident and calm; practice restraint; explore new ways of thinking; and continue to creatively carry out diplomatic efforts for the settlement of Iran’s nuclear issue. He welcomed any ideas conductive to conducting talks, breaking the stalemate and reaching compromises. During the current sensitive period, it was essential for Iran and for all practices concerned not to take any steps that would harm diplomatic efforts and might lead to complications or even loss of control. He called upon all parties to resume, as soon as possible, dialogue and negotiations for the proper solution of Iran’s nuclear issue. China would continue its efforts to maintain world and regional peace and stability, safeguard and strengthen international non-proliferation mechanisms, and enhance political and diplomatic efforts for the solution of Iran’s nuclear issue."

Japan: "Japan, which traditionally had friendly relations with Iran and was a country committed to nuclear non-proliferation, had undertaken its own diplomatic initiative towards the peaceful resolution of the issue. Japan would contribute its own efforts through continuous dialogue and engagement with Iran."

France: "France, together with Germany, would underline the following elements: the text had made the suspension requested by the IAEA mandatory, but that did not mean end to negotiations, and he had reaffirmed the proposals made on 6 June to Iran; if Iran refused to comply, the Council would work under Article 41 of Chapter VI of the Charter; and if Iran did comply and resumed negotiations, the Council could abstain from such action. He appealed to Iran to comply with the substantive proposals submitted to it last month."

Argentina: "He very much hoped that a solution that was diplomatic and negotiated with Iran could be reached. He called on the parties involved to resume dialogue, in order to find a solution within the context of what had been set out by the IAEA Board and the Security Council."

Tanzania: "He hoped that the willingness for dialogue contained in that offer would be reciprocated. Engaging Iran should be continued by all the parties, including IAEA."

Qatar: "Ever since the question of Iran’s nuclear programme was brought before the Security Council, he had repeatedly underscored the importance of a political solution to the problem, and affording diplomacy enough time to guarantee the achievement of a peaceful solution. Such a solution could be attained, if all the parties concerned showed flexibility, wisdom and a sense of responsibility. He appreciated the bold efforts undertaken by the six States in seeking a peaceful solution by offering Iran an integrated package; that was a bold and praiseworthy step. Iran had also been called upon to seriously address the international community’s concerns about the nature of its nuclear programme and guarantee its exclusively peaceful uses."
Click to expand...


It seems crystal fucking clear that the Security Council members viewed the sanctions regime as nothing more than a tool to further the ongoing diplomatic process and not as a bar to continued negotiations.

Moron.
 
Dilloduck said:
stop being so damn picky--things are going to change--yes we can. Just say em over and over and don't sweat the small stuff. :)
Click to expand...


I think it's pretty huge when a potential presidential candidate says he plans to ignore the UN Security Council and do as he pleases. I think it is pretty huge when his sycophants spin snippets of statements from god knows who and god knows where, and claims that to be the Security Councils official position despite their official and unanimous votes to the contrary on three different occasions. Just come here and outright lie about it and call me a "moron" for posting the truth!
 
Chant this phrase repeatedly: "Change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in, change we can believe in."

Do you feel the rapture?
 
Dixie said:
I think it's pretty huge when a potential presidential candidate says he plans to ignore the UN Security Council and do as he pleases. I think it is pretty huge when his sycophants spin snippets of statements from god knows who and god knows where, and claims that to be the Security Councils official position despite their official and unanimous votes to the contrary on three different occasions. Just come here and outright lie about it and call me a "moron" for posting the truth!
Click to expand...



Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaa!


you and your friends are just halariASSus.

After the massive blunders and constant bluster of this administration and the lot of you defending the cowboy bluster Bolten wagger and spit style of deplomacy you are actually going to go there?


You are trying hard to dream up some reason to scare the American people into "you just dont know what this guy Obama might do" .

Lets do the list.

"Hes a secret Muslim" then its

"Hes a crazy black christian guy who hates whites" which distroyed your first one but the problem was he is half white was born and raised in a family that was mostly white and they loved him.

So now your going to try

"you just dont know what this guy Obama might do"

But you see that is the Bush legacy. Bush kept doing crazy ass shit and to this day people are still affraid the idiot will attack Iran before we can get his insane ass out of office.

So people deep down are not going to buy it honey.

Your party is the one labeled as the stupid guy who cant talk and makes big mistakes party.

People watch Obama and hear him speak and see that he actually understands the words coming out of his mouth.

They are not going to misremeber the desider and vote for his follower.

You will have to salute to the president of the United States Barrak Obama.

You will wring your hands and throw internet fits and very likely someone who thinks like you will try to Kill the president because the asshole didnt get his way.

The country will get real leadership for the first time in nearly a decade and things will get slowly better and you will wreck your brain trying to figure out how to give Bush the credit.


Oh and by the way ,me and many people on here will enjoy your rantings and laugh for awhile until we stop reading them altogether because you sound too much like jollie.
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
I think it's pretty huge when a potential presidential candidate says he plans to ignore the UN Security Council and do as he pleases. I think it is pretty huge when his sycophants spin snippets of statements from god knows who and god knows where, and claims that to be the Security Councils official position despite their official and unanimous votes to the contrary on three different occasions. Just come here and outright lie about it and call me a "moron" for posting the truth!
Click to expand...


Hilarious. Below are some more statements from the UN representatives of Security Council members on the issue of the importance of continuing negotiations notwithstanding the Security Council actions. But first, let's take a look at the resolution itself:

“Emphasizing the importance of political and diplomatic efforts to find a negotiated solution guaranteeing that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes, and noting that such a solution would benefit nuclear non-proliferation elsewhere, and welcoming the continuing commitment of China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, with the support of the European Union’s High Representative to seek a negotiated solution,
Click to expand...


And now, for the member states:

Russia: He was convinced that solutions could be found exclusively in the political and diplomatic spheres.

United Kingdom: Importantly, however, the door was not closed for Iran, he said. The United Kingdom, France and Germany, with the European Union High Representative, Javier Solana, had led negotiations with Iran and remained committed to seeking a diplomatically negotiated solution based on cooperation. A new relationship between Europe and Iran was “on the table”, but that must be with an Iran that eschewed nuclear ambition. Suspension would permit negotiations to resume and intensify, this time with Russian and United States engagement. For that reason, in the pursuit of a negotiated agreement, it was vital that all States implemented the resolution as fully as possibly, including by adopting the necessary legislation to pave the way for robust and necessary implementation. Without that, no one could expect the Council to meet its objective.

He said that, if Iran did not change course, the Council had committed itself in today’s text to further measures. Iran, therefore, faced a choice. The vote today had indicated the gravity of that choice. He hoped Iran would heed the Council’s decision and return to negotiations to resolve the nuclear dossier. That, in turn, would open the way for the European Union and Iran to open a new and wider relationship to their mutual benefit and to the benefit of international peace and security.

Japan: The text had not spelled the end of negotiations with Iran. Rather, it had kept the door open for talks and had explicitly mentioned the reversibility of the measures taken today. Japan enjoyed the right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy to the fullest, and his country had traditionally enjoyed good relations with Iran. In adopting the resolution today, he appealed to Iran to seek the resolution of the nuclear issue at the earliest possible time, through full diplomatic talks

China: Sanctions were not the end, but a means to urge Iran to return to negotiations . . . The solution required all-around diplomatic efforts and diplomatic efforts outside the Council, in particular, should be strengthened. The resolution welcomed the commitment of China, France, Germany, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States to a negotiated solution to the issue and encouraged Iran to engage with the six countries’ proposals for a long-term comprehensive agreement, which would allow for the development of relations and cooperation with Iran based on mutual respect and establishment of international confidence in the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme. All that would be conducive to reactivating the new round of diplomatic efforts.
Click to expand...


I'd also add that I think it's pretty fucking hilarious that a Bush sycophant that supported the Iraq War without qualification is getting the vapors over a presidential candidate "ignoring the UN and doing as he pleases" to pursue diplomacy. I suppose if Obama supported attacking Iran notwithstanding the Security Council's clear direction that the resolution does not authorize the use of force Dixie would be similarly upset. Right?

Asshole.
 
blackascoal said:
Abso-fucking-lutely incredible ignorance.
Click to expand...

Yes, but they can't help it, their minds have been destroyed by the kool-aid.

The shit-pile keeps posting snippets of diplomats talking about how they hope negotiations will take place, but that wasn't the issue. Everyone on the Security Council hopes negotiations can take place, Bush hopes negotiations can take place, and I even hope that negotiations can take place... with PRECONDITIONS SET BY THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL! The issue is not whether negotiations should take place, it is the preconditions, which were voted on unanimously by the UNSC, and which Obama has promised to ignore.

Oh, you are so right! Abso-fucking-lutely incredible ignorance!
 
I'd also add that I think it's pretty fucking hilarious that a Bush sycophant that supported the Iraq War without qualification is getting the vapors over a presidential candidate "ignoring the UN and doing as he pleases" to pursue diplomacy. I suppose if Obama supported attacking Iran notwithstanding the Security Council's clear direction that the resolution does not authorize the use of force Dixie would be similarly upset. Right?
Click to expand...

See, that's the thing. When Bush did it, you were livid! Beside yourself that he would dare to uphold resolution 1440, after the UN balked. Here, Obama is saying he will completely ignore the Security Council, defy three UN resolutions, and snub our European allies, and you kool-aid soaked morons don't bat an eye. Instead, the only response you have is to point fingers at Bush and claim he did the same thing. Problem is, what Bush did was ENFORCE a UN resolution, Obama plans to IGNORE three of them.
 
Dixie said:
See, that's the thing. When Bush did it, you were livid! Beside yourself that he would dare to uphold resolution 1440, after the UN balked. Here, Obama is saying he will completely ignore the Security Council, defy three UN resolutions, and snub our European allies, and you kool-aid soaked morons don't bat an eye. Instead, the only response you have is to point fingers at Bush and claim he did the same thing. Problem is, what Bush did was ENFORCE a UN resolution, Obama plans to IGNORE three of them.
Click to expand...


Hilarious. Get a grip.
 
uscitizen said:
yep we will, and if McSame is elected president I will probably never vote for president again. Just give up on the USA.
Click to expand...
You are getting all that emo all over the board. Let it go. Holding it just gets your hand icky and makes you spread it wherever you type.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top