That’s rich, Israel provoked them first by being full of Jews
What happens if the non-self-executing treaty has implementing language passed by Congress?
So, you have nothing to support the claim that the rocket attack was unprovoked.
Of course not, as it is a lie.
I’m suggesting that Iranian troops massing in Syria aiding and abetting Hezbollah for years, is provocation enough. I could give a flying rat’s ass who started it this time and what we’re arbitrarily choosing as the “start date” for this exchange of pleasantries. Just as long as Israel has the final say.
How would you tell if a say is final?
I’ve seen that too - “It’s Obama’s fault that Trump pulled out of the deal because it wasn’t a treaty!”
:rolleyes:
Anything passed separate from the treaty itself cannot be unilaterally abrogated, because it is a statute separate from the treaty. So if Obama had both chambers of Congress pass a statute restricting sanctions, etc., then it would bind Trump. Even then, Trump could withdraw from the treaty. And since the point is basically to undo anything Obama did, he likely would have done so.
So in that case “withdraw from the treaty” without repealing the statute passed by Congress is just a symbolic gesture, without any direct effect on trade?
No, I don’t think so.
Congress cannot do by statute everything that a treaty can do. Treaties have international law consequences that statutes do not have, and also typically involve commitments about executive power that can only be ratified by the Senate but Congress cannot impose by statute. That’s true of many of the commitments contained in the Iran Deal. The language of some separate statute is never co-extensive with treaty obligations in legal effect and cannot be.
It’s also just a totally different argument to say Obama should have gotten a statute passed. The framers gave the treaty power to the Senate because they knew the House would be filled with a bunch of rubes who are elected every other year. Few Houses meet that expectation better than the Republicans elected in the Tea Party wave.
They were resisting arrest.
Surely, no one is that obtuse.
I hope you regretted posting that as soon as you clicked Submit.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
And don’t call me Shirley. 
I do hope they kept the receipts. I’m sure Vlad will provide full refund.
Typically Israeli braggadocio. :rolleyes: Israel is not going to win a war of escalating intimidation and violence with Iran, because Iran is a much, much larger country. You will not scare them off. You cannot blitz them. You can’t win.
So you look to the English and the Yanks to back you up. I figure Britain has been shooting itself in her feet for decades and is a ridiculous cripple now. And if she goes to war with Iran, and she may not, she won’t even be able to bring Canada and Australia along. So really it’s big brother Washington that you want to back up your nonsense. The USA is big enough to stomp on Tehran, but if the USA is understood (justly in this case) to be the bad guy in that fight, we lose a lot of soft power. I’m sick of Israelis playing “let’s you and him fight.”
I reckon Israel could inflict enough infrastructure damage to make continuing a war more trouble than it’s worth…is anyone expecting an actual land invasion?
There’s no chance in hell Britain would get involved beyond selling weapons, we’ve got enough to deal with atm and no huge national love for Israel
This is what I get for re-editing my posts. Oh well.
foolsguinea:
Israel has won a war or two against larger countries.