So it seems like it wasn't you doing the helping. Who turned the tide in WW2? Wasn't America, despite what you'd love to believe. Who has fucked up country after country throughout the Cold War? Ahhhhhh, that'd be the one.
Hey dingus, read the link. The 1967 Protocol was just the 1951 Convention but removing the geographical and time limits (it applies to the whole world, not just Post-WWII Europe). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees
It also changed several other things and simply required members to come up with a system for processing refugees but left the details to each member state as no detailed agreement could be reached. I spoke with Chup about this at length once.
Ok, I'll admit to be out of my depth here but I've skimmed through the convention and the protocol, checked the UNCHR notes for application and the Kaldor page. I can't find anything to this effect, rather the 67 protocol extends the geographical and temporal remit of the 51 convention in order to accommodate large migrant populations whilst maintaining the same conditions: What am I missing here?
While Googling check out Sale v Haitian Centers where SCOTUS used the French version of the 1951 Convention in order to interpret the meaning of the word ‘return’ in US Law (since the language had come from the Convention). IIRC the French word ‘refouler’ has connotations that return doesn’t. So somehow as long as refugees don’t actually enter the US Clinton wasn’t ‘returning’ them to their home country when the Navy and Coast Guard intercepted Haitian refugees on the open seas and either took them to Guantanamo Bay (technically not the US) or turning* them back to Haiti. *But NOT REturning! LOL!
Iran tried to seize a British tanker a few hours ago but the attack was beaten back (no details on how). This is something Iran's supreme "leader" (read: terrorist) threatened to do yesterday and it comes after Iran placed mines and damaged several oil tankers from third party countries.
To be honest I'm not surprised. We've declared support for the US and thus our opposition to Iran by proxy. Now we are seen as valid targets throughout further escalations.
Iran is hurting bad. Its economy is in the toilet and its government is desperate as it cannot cover its costs without massive inflation from printing money. They do not want to give in but they are going to have no choice economically. They will either give in or their economy is going to collapse. They are acting out militarily because they see they have no choice other than completely backing down. I say good.
When it becomes clear the regime is powerless and cannot even deliver food to its people then the regime knows its days are numbered. This is a good thing and it is right to see enemy nations collapse and be strangled like in WW1. Iran is ruled by an evil theocratic regime which is exports terrorism so anything which harms them is a good thing. I give an outside chance that either the US or Israel nukes their nuclear facilities (even their underground ones) before too long and so humiliates the regime exposing its powerlessness as it lets its people starve. Again, this is a good thing. Let the whole world see what happens to countries which oppose the international order.
The details would be that the frigate HMS Montrose popped out from its escort position behind the tanker and trained its 30mm deck guns on them and gave a verbal warning to withdraw, which they did.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/iran-h...uffering-from-malnutrition-in-southeast-iran/ Remember that is before 80%+ of Iran's export earning (and oil exports makes up 75% of the regime's income) stopped. Yes, the regime is seeing its economy collapse and it built its legitimacy upon providing welfare for the people even if it is authoritarian. What will peoplendo when there is no food? Where is the regime's supposed mandate from god?
Iran built underground bomb proof locations to protect its nuclear enrichment program; only nukes can destroy them. I say any use which stops Iran getting nuclear weapons is a good use. The regime is evil and any and all efforts are justified; they must never have nuclear weapons. Period. That is the imperative. Nothing else matters.
If it brings down an evil theocratic regime which is the world's largest exporter of terrorism then it is justified. There must be consequences for bad actors.
Hoes do you define "bad actor" and which of the entities involved in middle-eastern geopolitics is not a bad actor?
You literally just advocated the use of nuclear weapons and of mass starvation in pursuit of your political aims.
Um, apart from the fact it is the US which is the bad actor opposing the international order by not keeping to its' treaty obligations (where Iran have endeavoured to not only keep to that treaty but negotiate), economic sanctions rarely if ever topple regimes. If anything they tend to consolidate them and create a defiant bunker mentality. Sanctions didn't defeat Saddam, they aren't defeating KJU, all they do is cause mass human suffering and by targeting civilians for political ends are very much an act of terrorism on a scale which dwarf even 9/11.
I will assume you are simply stupid as the US never had such a treaty with Iran. In fact, as it was widely known and easily seen no treaty was valid unless adopted by Congress. Congress specifically did not adopt the lame give away to Iran. It never, ever, ever had anything remotely like the force of law. Fact. There simply was no treaty.
My bad, there was a deal, not a treaty, one signed in good faith by all parties including Iran. The US was the only party not to abide by that deal. No one said anything about rule of law, but the US did in fact sign up to that deal. Whatever internal technicalities make that problematic don't matter on the world stage, it's not the problem of all those other countries who expected the US to keep their end. It's the US which is the bad actor there and economic sanctions are absolutely terrorism.
Simples. "Bad actor" = anyone who doesn't act according to US wishes. Any rival, any opponent, anyone who makes deals which don't favour them, anyone who questions their stance, capabilities or competence. See Sir Kim Darroch.
Would you prefer U.S. tanks rolling through Tehran? And the requirement in the U.S. of Senate confirmation of treaties is kind of a big deal and every country the U.S. deals with should be aware of it.
And if it had been Iran which had reneged on the deal after the fact because someone in the regime hadn't signed off on it? Would that not just be them being a "rogue state" Countries should reasonably be able to expect the US to keep to the commitments it has made. We all have domestic policies and technicalities in our systems, that doesn't excuse reneging on deals made in good faith. Standards muct be applied consistently or not at all, else there can be no good faith negotiations. Again you are expecting others to accept that the US is in some way exempt from the behaviours you expect of others for internal reasons which are frankly of no interest to the rest of us.
