What it really means if Republicans scuttle the Iran deal:

R

rdean

Guest
Republicans play politics. They are a desperate party. Willing to use this dangerous situation to score what they imagine are political points.

The Iran deal is with the US and six other nations. The current sanctions only work because the rest of the world participates. If Republicans mess up this deal after 5 other countries agreed to it, you can bet that will be the end of the sanctions. Which means Iran has plenty of oil to sell. Money will pour into Iran and they will do whatever they want. Including building nuclear weapons.

Republicans say they want a better deal. Republicans imagine they can get a better deal than the six countries Iran negotiated with. There is no better deal. It will only get worse. Republicans don't know how to negotiate and those people will not be intimidated by the US even though Republicans imagine they only need to be tough like Ronald Reagan and the Iranians will cower and do what we say. Such stupid ignorance when Iranians are willing to commit suicide. The Kamikaze's were the most dangerous during WWII for good reason.

The moratorium is for 15 years. No treaties are forever. 15 years is a long time. A lot can happen in that time. Look at the Middle East before Bush and the GOP. It was relatively stable. Now they have turned it into a violent quagmire pretty much without any more Christians. What happened to Iraq's Christians under Bush? And Bush did it in a few years, not 15.

So because this deal is scuttled, we are expected to go bomb them if they build a nuclear weapon? A country three times the size of Iraq with lots more oil? Are Republicans willing to send their kids off on another fiasco? What if people stop joining the military because of GOP foolish policies? Then what? And how will the rest of the world react. Will they put sanctions on us?

And as Obama pointed out, the hard right in Iran scream "Death to America" while the hard right here scream, "Bomb bomb bomb.......bomb bomb Iran". That means their hard right and our hard right are working together.
 
Sorry Retardean, but the constitution subjects treaties to the "Advice and consent of the Senate". It's called "checks and balances".

The US Constitution- you should read it.

:thup:

PS- You're a fag.


Why would the Senate vote the treaty down knowing that if they do we'd be weakened?

The Senate has approved hundreds of treaties and rejected quite a few as well. The Founders made the process difficult for a reason. They didn't want Presidents gallivanting around making bad deals. :thup:
 
What it really means that I clicked the link to this post - I just wasted about 2 minutes of my life that I'll never get back.
 
Republicans aren't the only ones with reservations:

Brad Sherman (D – Calif.), the second ranking democratic member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, questioned whether the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was capable of preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and expressed his skepticism of the nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), suggesting that it will need to be renegotiated
 
Well the US is not capable of preventing Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon if Iran wants to, so there's bugger all Sherman's reservations can do about it.
 
David Burge
@iowahawkblog

David Burge retweeted Jake Tapper

Remember when dissent was the highest form of patriotism? Good times
 
Republicans aren't the only ones with reservations:

Brad Sherman (D – Calif.), the second ranking democratic member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, questioned whether the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was capable of preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and expressed his skepticism of the nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), suggesting that it will need to be renegotiated
Democrats are a coalition Party. They have conservatives. There are no liberals in the Republican Party.
 
Thats just a lib talking point .....am i right........
No, it's one possibility from refusing the treaty. Other possibilities are the US being isolated by the other treaty signatories, or Iran increasing its efforts to produce purer grades of fuel.
 
This "treaty" isn't designed to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons.
It merely postpones it
So what if that is the case?

You can't get any better deal.
What would you expect a better deal to be. Beside, this deal isn't between the US and Iran. But between the Iran and 6 other countries.
 
Thats just a lib talking point .....am i right........
No, it's one possibility of refusing the treaty. Other possibilities are the US being isolated by the other treaty signatories, or Iran increasing its efforts to produce purer grades of fuel.
Oh its a possiblity.......not a desire.........war is always a possibility when dealing with thugs nations.......
 
Anyway, the US and other nuclear powers should stop violating the NPT if they want to impose more stringent controls on Iran.
 

Forum List

Back
Top