Republican Senators send a letter to Iran. Wow. Damn!

[Jarhead]

It was a wise move. The Iranians may not know that action taken without congressional approval only has the force of an executive order which can be revoked by another executive order.

There's nothing wrong with educating Iran about our laws. It's better than thinking they have an agreement when they could wake up to a new pen, a new phone and a brand new eraser.

The Iranians know more about our laws than you, tipsy.

If you think this presidunce doesn't need congressional approval of this treaty you know less than everyone.

Thank you for showing us that you know nothing.

2 thirds of the senate is required to ratify a treaty...otherwise it is a personal agreement between two heads of state.

The President gives the final authority as a treaty is not deemed as ratified until the president signs it (for the second time, unless he appoints a diplomat to sign it at the beginning)...but if 2/3 of the senate do not vote in favor of the treaty, it is shelved until a congress comes in willing to vote in favor of it.

 

[Katzndogz]

If the treaty is a good one it will be approved. If the treaty is a bad one obama won't let congress see it.

Iran saying that it either gets what they want or they will declare war isn't negotiation its extortion.

It's too complicated for democrats who just want to be told what to do and what will be done to them.

 

[Jarhead]

Fortunately Congress can't force a war...

If they hijack the chances of a good treaty, the only alternative will be war.

you have an error in your premise....well...more than one.

You are assuming the treaty is a good one...a treaty is a good one ONLY if both sides adhere to it. Exactly what gives you reason to believe Iran will adhere to it? Their past? Their open desire to destroy a sovereign nation? The fact that they fund terrorism? The fact that they moved quickly to meet the first deadline?

Secondly.....stricter sanctions...whats wrong with that?

I know..."sanctions don't work"...I get it.....but...."Iran adhering to a treaty will? Really?

They might not adhere to it. At the point they deny frequent inspections, we will be in exactly the same position we are in now without a treaty. Bombing them out of business would be appropriate.

First of all...these "talks" have been going on for a year. They ignored the first deadline. So they are one year closer to nuclear capability. By the time they no longer adhere to inspections...they will be that must closer to the objective...and if the objective was accomplished, military action will be hampered if not completely eliminated by the fear of them using that capability on an innocent country around them.

I don't think they have inspections now. That's what the treaty is for.

yes...and by the time we have a treaty signed...and inspections are thwarted, they will likely have accomplished what they want......to me, it seems the talks have taken way too long....about a year so far and still nothing.....seems like a stall tactic to me.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Concrete proof of what I've said for a long time now - they want to destroy the US. Repubs work to weaken the strength and position of the US on the world stage.

Once and for all, this proves their hatred has nothing at all to do with the Obama presidency. Its the entire country they want to bring down.

There hatred of America has everything to do with race not country. Didn't someone send you the correct talking points? And who said you can go off script

 

[Jarhead]

If the treaty is a good one it will be approved. If the treaty is a bad one obama won't let congress see it.

Iran saying that it either gets what they want or they will declare war isn't negotiation its extortion.

It's too complicated for democrats who just want to be told what to do and what will be done to them.

if he does not allow congress to see it, then the senate can not vote on it....and if they don't vote on it, it is meaningless and unconstitutional if he, the president, demands that the government and the people of the United States adhere to it.

 

[BULLDOG]

If they hijack the chances of a good treaty, the only alternative will be war.

you have an error in your premise....well...more than one.

You are assuming the treaty is a good one...a treaty is a good one ONLY if both sides adhere to it. Exactly what gives you reason to believe Iran will adhere to it? Their past? Their open desire to destroy a sovereign nation? The fact that they fund terrorism? The fact that they moved quickly to meet the first deadline?

Secondly.....stricter sanctions...whats wrong with that?

I know..."sanctions don't work"...I get it.....but...."Iran adhering to a treaty will? Really?

They might not adhere to it. At the point they deny frequent inspections, we will be in exactly the same position we are in now without a treaty. Bombing them out of business would be appropriate.

First of all...these "talks" have been going on for a year. They ignored the first deadline. So they are one year closer to nuclear capability. By the time they no longer adhere to inspections...they will be that must closer to the objective...and if the objective was accomplished, military action will be hampered if not completely eliminated by the fear of them using that capability on an innocent country around them.

I don't think they have inspections now. That's what the treaty is for.

yes...and by the time we have a treaty signed...and inspections are thwarted, they will likely have accomplished what they want......to me, it seems the talks have taken way too long....about a year so far and still nothing.....seems like a stall tactic to me.

Not surprising. If it is in opposition to your president, you're all for it.

 

[Jarhead]

Fortunately Congress can't force a war...

If they hijack the chances of a good treaty, the only alternative will be war.

you have an error in your premise....well...more than one.

You are assuming the treaty is a good one...a treaty is a good one ONLY if both sides adhere to it. Exactly what gives you reason to believe Iran will adhere to it? Their past? Their open desire to destroy a sovereign nation? The fact that they fund terrorism? The fact that they moved quickly to meet the first deadline?

Secondly.....stricter sanctions...whats wrong with that?

I know..."sanctions don't work"...I get it.....but...."Iran adhering to a treaty will? Really?

They might not adhere to it. At the point they deny frequent inspections, we will be in exactly the same position we are in now without a treaty. Bombing them out of business would be appropriate.

First of all...these "talks" have been going on for a year. They ignored the first deadline. So they are one year closer to nuclear capability. By the time they no longer adhere to inspections...they will be that must closer to the objective...and if the objective was accomplished, military action will be hampered if not completely eliminated by the fear of them using that capability on an innocent country around them.

I don't think they have inspections now. That's what the treaty is for.

it takes over a year to agree to inspections?

That in itself does not give you reason to believe Iran is intentionally delaying a treaty?

 

[Katzndogz]

If the treaty is a good one it will be approved. If the treaty is a bad one obama won't let congress see it.

Iran saying that it either gets what they want or they will declare war isn't negotiation its extortion.

It's too complicated for democrats who just want to be told what to do and what will be done to them.

if he does not allow congress to see it, then the senate can not vote on it....and if they don't vote on it, it is meaningless and unconstitutional if he, the president, demands that the government and the people of the United States adhere to it.

And the next president can revoke it with a stroke of his pen. All sanctions are immediately reimposed plus whatever the new president wants.

 

[Jarhead]

you have an error in your premise....well...more than one.

You are assuming the treaty is a good one...a treaty is a good one ONLY if both sides adhere to it. Exactly what gives you reason to believe Iran will adhere to it? Their past? Their open desire to destroy a sovereign nation? The fact that they fund terrorism? The fact that they moved quickly to meet the first deadline?

Secondly.....stricter sanctions...whats wrong with that?

I know..."sanctions don't work"...I get it.....but...."Iran adhering to a treaty will? Really?

They might not adhere to it. At the point they deny frequent inspections, we will be in exactly the same position we are in now without a treaty. Bombing them out of business would be appropriate.

First of all...these "talks" have been going on for a year. They ignored the first deadline. So they are one year closer to nuclear capability. By the time they no longer adhere to inspections...they will be that must closer to the objective...and if the objective was accomplished, military action will be hampered if not completely eliminated by the fear of them using that capability on an innocent country around them.

I don't think they have inspections now. That's what the treaty is for.

yes...and by the time we have a treaty signed...and inspections are thwarted, they will likely have accomplished what they want......to me, it seems the talks have taken way too long....about a year so far and still nothing.....seems like a stall tactic to me.

Not surprising. If it is in opposition to your president, you're all for it.

That was an unsubstantiated claim and to be frank, a sign of immaturity.
Thought we had a good discussion going on....but once I made a point you could not refute (even with hyperbole), you opted to attack my character.
Sorry bud....no interest.

 

[Jarhead]

If the treaty is a good one it will be approved. If the treaty is a bad one obama won't let congress see it.

Iran saying that it either gets what they want or they will declare war isn't negotiation its extortion.

It's too complicated for democrats who just want to be told what to do and what will be done to them.

if he does not allow congress to see it, then the senate can not vote on it....and if they don't vote on it, it is meaningless and unconstitutional if he, the president, demands that the government and the people of the United States adhere to it.

And the next president can revoke it with a stroke of his pen. All sanctions are immediately reimposed plus whatever the new president wants.

Actually, a pen is not required. He can simply ask congress for it back and toss it in the shredder.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Wow that's damn near treasonous. Interfering in the most important negotiation our country is facing in a way that benefits the enemy. But that's the GOP for you, politics before America.

No that is not the GOP for you, that is the treasonous Neocon contingent putting their love for Israel before the United States again.

Hmmmmm. I wasn't sure if any of our nutters would find this letter objectionable. Nice to see.

Anyone else?

 

[Jarhead]

Actually, n retrospect, I don't really understand the reason for the letter. House members have no say in a treaty (other than to voice their opinions), and what right do they have to speak on behalf of the next administration and the next senate? Heck, they don't even know who will be running.
Edited...I just realized it was senators that wrote the letter...and yes, they will be around for the next president....so they had valid reason....just don't know if it was a smart thing to do.

 

[Misty]

Republicans want nothing short of war with Iran.

Wrong. No war. Sanctions up the wazoo. But no war.

 

[Misty]

Wow that's damn near treasonous. Interfering in the most important negotiation our country is facing in a way that benefits the enemy. But that's the GOP for you, politics before America.

No that is not the GOP for you, that is the treasonous Neocon contingent putting their love for Israel before the United States again.

Hmmmmm. I wasn't sure if any of our nutters would find this letter objectionable. Nice to see.

Anyone else?

I've seen first hand, so many outright lies by the media that I am not sure I believe anything they say.

 

[hangover]

Obvious that the cons are like the playground bully, trying to start a nuclear war with threats. And they can't be shamed for being assholes, they're just too fucking stupid.

 

[Jarhead]

Obvious that the cons are like the playground bully, trying to start a nuclear war with threats. And they can't be shamed for being assholes, they're just too fucking stupid.

Starting a nuclear war?

What are you....three?

 

[Jarhead]

Republicans want nothing short of war with Iran.

Wrong. No war. Sanctions up the wazoo. But no war.

that's all anyone on the right is saying. Seems the left are the only ones claiming the right wants war.

 

[bodecea]

Wow. This is one hell of a new benchmark these assholes are setting. To deliberately be working to undermine ongoing negotiations is about as vile and treacherous as it gets.

You have to go damn near back to the Jay Treaty to see this kind of shit.

No. O's amateurish dealings with iran is about as vile and treacherous as it gets.

And yet...it is the JOB of the President to negotiate treaties and the JOB of the Senate to approve or disapprove such treaties once negotiated.

 

[Jarhead]

Wow. This is one hell of a new benchmark these assholes are setting. To deliberately be working to undermine ongoing negotiations is about as vile and treacherous as it gets.

You have to go damn near back to the Jay Treaty to see this kind of shit.

No. O's amateurish dealings with iran is about as vile and treacherous as it gets.

And yet...it is the JOB of the President to negotiate treaties and the JOB of the Senate to approve or disapprove such treaties once negotiated.

Well...it is the JOB of the president to ensure the treaties are negotiated by those best equipped to do so. He, himself is not obligated to sign the treaty......only the final senatorial ratification.

 

[hangover]

Obvious that the cons are like the playground bully, trying to start a nuclear war with threats. And they can't be shamed for being assholes, they're just too fucking stupid.

Starting a nuclear war?

What are you....three?

Thanks for proving my point.