Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)
Mon Mar 16, 2015, 08:42 PM Mar 2015

John Bolton: In 2017, when Obama is gone, we should attack Iran and claim self defense. Screw the UN

The neocons are itching for war with Iran.

This is a new op-ed from John Bolton.

He argues that the UN can do nothing to stop America from attacking Iran in the future....so don't worry about any Obama/Iran/UN nuclear agreement.

-------

A U.N. Vote Is Irrelevant to the Iran Deal
The Security Council can’t stop the U.S. from using force to protect itself from anyone’s nuclear weapons.
By JOHN BOLTON
March 16, 2015 7:14 p.m. ET



Press reports that President Obama will enlist the U.N. Security Council to bless his imminent nuclear agreement with Iran have unleashed considerable controversy. Many worry council action would bind the U.S. to the deal, circumventing congressional scrutiny. Moreover, Iran may see U.N. action as protecting it from a subsequent change in U.S. policy.

There is no need for worry. The Security Council can do nothing to limit America’s freedom to break from this agreement or take whatever action it deems necessary to protect itself.

<...>

...no Security Council action can prevent the U.S. from using force to protect itself from Iranian nuclear weapons. Article 51 of the U.N. Charter affirms “the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense,” which means that decisions relating to self-defense rest with each member state.

<...>

Suppose the new U.S. president in 2017 decided to use military force to break Iran’s control over the nuclear-fuel cycle at one or more points. The U.S. could veto any draft resolutions designed to forestall an attack or halt one in progress, or impose sanctions afterward.


http://www.wsj.com/articles/john-bolton-a-u-n-vote-is-irrelevant-to-the-iran-deal-1426547690

15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

arcane1

(38,613 posts)
2. "Protect itself from Iranian nuclear weapons." What cowards he takes us for.
Mon Mar 16, 2015, 08:46 PM
Mar 2015

Sadly, too many in the Home of the "Brave" will eat this crap up, and vote accordingly

Renew Deal

(81,861 posts)
3. These are the people many DUers want to see come to power
Mon Mar 16, 2015, 08:47 PM
Mar 2015

Because there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans (according to them). They are the same people that said the same thing about Bush and Gore. They were proven disastrously wrong.

iandhr

(6,852 posts)
11. You mean all the people with CDS>
Tue Mar 17, 2015, 12:14 AM
Mar 2015

Who say how they can never support Clinton had how she is a Republican and how that's always the toped reced thread?

Gman

(24,780 posts)
5. This from the former US ambassador to the UN
Mon Mar 16, 2015, 08:51 PM
Mar 2015

Of course he was recess appointed and couldn't get confirmed by a Republican Senate. (I mean, for Republican that's as bad as it gets. Even Republicans think he's nuts.). His opinion isn't shit. This is just a reminder of why we MUST elect a Democrat next year

global1

(25,251 posts)
10. What's Beginning To Bother Me Is How The Repugs Seem So Confident That They Will Win The Presidency.
Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:12 PM
Mar 2015

in 2016. First the Bibi speech in Congress without going through the Executive Branch. Then the letter to Iran signed by 47 Repug senators. And now Bolton saying this.

Why are they so confident that they will be in power in 2016? What do they know or what are they going to do to take the Presidency?

I'm beginning to get worried about their overconfidence here. Should I be worried?

pampango

(24,692 posts)
15. "Screw the UN" (and other international organization and agreements) - classic neo-con, RW thinking.
Tue Mar 17, 2015, 09:35 AM
Mar 2015
The Security Council can do nothing to limit America’s freedom to break from this agreement ...

Classic RW unilateralism, based on our 'exceptionalism', at work. "It doesn't matter what the rest of the world wants. The US does what it wants to do. Other countries negotiate disagreements with each other. We just act."
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»John Bolton: In 2017, whe...