Wintersun wrote:Israel will let in nuclear inspectors or the U.S. will pay them back for the Liberty incident tenfold
When Israelis spy on the US, the US does not tolerate that either. Jonathan Pollard will never be let out of prison.
Advertisement

by Tmutarakhan » Tue Dec 11, 2012 1:53 pm
Wintersun wrote:Israel will let in nuclear inspectors or the U.S. will pay them back for the Liberty incident tenfold

by The Zeonic States » Tue Dec 11, 2012 1:57 pm

by Wintersun » Tue Dec 11, 2012 1:59 pm
The Zeonic States wrote:Tmutarakhan wrote:When Israelis spy on the US, the US does not tolerate that either. Jonathan Pollard will never be let out of prison.
That's sort of the agreed upon International price for High Treason or Espionage depending upon how you look at a National sending classified information to foreigners you know.
.-. Prick deserves to rot in prision

by Tmutarakhan » Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:01 pm
The Zeonic States wrote:Tmutarakhan wrote:When Israelis spy on the US, the US does not tolerate that either. Jonathan Pollard will never be let out of prison.
That's sort of the agreed upon International price for High Treason or Espionage depending upon how you look at a National sending classified information to foreigners you know.
.-. Prick deserves to rot in prision

by The Zeonic States » Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:03 pm
Tmutarakhan wrote:The Zeonic States wrote:
That's sort of the agreed upon International price for High Treason or Espionage depending upon how you look at a National sending classified information to foreigners you know.
.-. Prick deserves to rot in prision
We have managed to agree on something. In any case, the point was that the US can't expect its agents to be treated well when they get caught spying, either. It's just the way of the world.

by Tmutarakhan » Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:05 pm
The Zeonic States wrote:Tmutarakhan wrote:We have managed to agree on something. In any case, the point was that the US can't expect its agents to be treated well when they get caught spying, either. It's just the way of the world.
The Liberty incident was an unprovoked assault on United States Warship in International waters; I wouldn't compare that to a Espionage conviction personally. More like a declaration of war.

by The Zeonic States » Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:14 pm
Tmutarakhan wrote:The Zeonic States wrote:
The Liberty incident was an unprovoked assault on United States Warship in International waters; I wouldn't compare that to a Espionage conviction personally. More like a declaration of war.
We sent a spy ship into the middle of a war zone, unannounced; the Israelis at first thought it was an Egyptian ship with a false flag, since we were slow to admit that we had any ships in the area; it is highly likely that it was, indeed, transmitting intelligence to the Egyptian side (remember that we were not friendly to Israel back then).

by Divair » Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:33 pm
Wintersun wrote:Israel will let in nuclear inspectors or the U.S. will pay them back for the Liberty incident tenfold

by Wind in the Willows » Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:41 pm

by Divair » Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:41 pm
Wintersun wrote:It's not pay back at all.
Wintersun wrote:If it was payback we'd wipe them off the map. That would make us even.
Wintersun wrote:Remember, we saved their entire race.

by Potlimitomaha » Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:53 pm
Wintersun wrote:It's not pay back at all. If it was payback we'd wipe them off the map. That would make us even. Remember, we saved their entire race.

by Of the Free Socialist Territories » Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:57 pm

by Potlimitomaha » Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:40 pm

by IshCong » Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:08 pm

by Capitolinium » Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:17 pm
UN tells Israel to let in nuclear inspectors

by Valkalan » Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:19 pm

by The Zeonic States » Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:31 pm
Capitolinium wrote:UN tells Israel to let in nuclear inspectors
And Israel tells the UN to pound sand. More at 11.


by Capitolinium » Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:35 pm


by The Zeonic States » Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:38 pm
And That's two members of the Security council which is not a majority assuming britain even does it which they probably would (Basically lackies of whatever the Americans do) Aka it still would have a major chance of passing if it actually got to the point of a Vote.
by Capitolinium » Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:43 pm
The Zeonic States wrote:
And That's two members of the Security council which is not a majority assuming britain even does it which they probably would (Basically lackies of whatever the Americans do) Aka it still would have a major chance of passing if it actually got to the point of a Vote.
Oh that would be a interesting day to say the least
The veto is exercised when any permanent member—the so-called "P5"—casts a "negative" vote on a "substantive" draft resolution. Abstention or absence from the vote by a permanent member does not prevent a draft resolution from being adopted.
Although the "power of veto" is not explicitly mentioned in the UN Charter, the fact that "substantive" decisions by the UNSC require "the concurring votes of the permanent members", means that any of those permanent members can prevent the adoption, by the Council, of any draft resolutions on "substantive" matters. For this reason, the "power of veto" is also referred to as the principle of "great Power unanimity".[6]

by The Zeonic States » Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:45 pm
Capitolinium wrote:The Zeonic States wrote:
And That's two members of the Security council which is not a majority assuming britain even does it which they probably would (Basically lackies of whatever the Americans do) Aka it still would have a major chance of passing if it actually got to the point of a Vote.
Oh that would be a interesting day to say the least
Security Council vetoesThe veto is exercised when any permanent member—the so-called "P5"—casts a "negative" vote on a "substantive" draft resolution. Abstention or absence from the vote by a permanent member does not prevent a draft resolution from being adopted.Although the "power of veto" is not explicitly mentioned in the UN Charter, the fact that "substantive" decisions by the UNSC require "the concurring votes of the permanent members", means that any of those permanent members can prevent the adoption, by the Council, of any draft resolutions on "substantive" matters. For this reason, the "power of veto" is also referred to as the principle of "great Power unanimity".[6]

by Capitolinium » Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:47 pm
The Zeonic States wrote:
What Happens when Russia and China support it though? Just curious? What if the French hopped on there with them as well? We are talking what if's what happened if the SC ruled in favor of the move; I guess that little veto wouldn't do much then i guess.

by The Zeonic States » Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:53 pm
Capitolinium wrote:The Zeonic States wrote:
What Happens when Russia and China support it though? Just curious? What if the French hopped on there with them as well? We are talking what if's what happened if the SC ruled in favor of the move; I guess that little veto wouldn't do much then i guess.
It takes only one veto by any of the Big 5. It explains it in the link which I helpfully provided above for your educational awareness, if you would just click and read.
As I was saying: US veto/thread.
Alright? And i am saying if the three other SC countries voted in favor of it i have no doubt that the issue of "Veto Reform" Would no doubt be brought up again. I have a feeling that if the three other countries wanted them to play ball they would if only to keep that precious power which allows them to dominate the supposedly Democractic UN.Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aggicificicerous, Eurocom, Google [Bot], Kubra
Advertisement