When is a Treaty Not a Treaty? In the Obama Administration...

[Jackson]

When is a treaty not a treaty? Obama wants the deal between Iran and the US to be an "understanding?" One that does not have to be agreed to by the Senate? Just the UN?

The basic definition of a treaty:
an agreement or arrangement made by negotiation:


The legal definition:

A treaty is an agreement in written form between nation-states that is intended to establish a relationship governed by International Law.

Kerry said,
"We've been clear from the beginning. We're not negotiating a 'legally binding plan.' We're negotiating a plan that will have in it a capacity for enforcement," he said at a Senate hearing.

What is a plan that will have a capacity for enforcement but a legally binding plan? This administration plays loosely with semantics and has been getting away with it far too long. This is a treaty that needs to be voted on by the Senate and they need to see that uranium will not be enriched. Something that Obama says is impossible. So Obama is going to give them the keys to nuclear oblivion.

Iran deal A treaty or not - CNN.com

 

[Edgetho]

Actually, the Lying Cocksucker in Chief does have the power to sign Executive Agreements and call them whatever he wants.

But the next President has the power to completely disregard that agreement.

What the Lying Cocksucker in Chief is talking about now is not even having a SIGNED, WRITTEN agreement.

That way, the Lying Cocksucker can tell us what he wants us to believe is in it and the Assahollahs can tell their sheep what they want them to believe is in it.

He also wants to have it blessed by the UN.

For years.... No, decades. I've been one who has stood by the UN as a body that does more good than it does harm.

No longer. The UN is a joke. It just simply has to go.

We can do business through "Blocs" of Nations that have the same basic beliefs.

We can form a bloc with Northern Europe and those who wish to act like civilized people.

Asia can form their own bloc. South America can form theirs. Africa can form one of their own.... If they can locate enough people not dying of AIDS or trying to murder their neighbor and eat him. Muslim goat fuckers can form their own and once in a while, we can meet up to discuss common goals or mutual problems.

The UN is a pile of shit

 

[The Rabbi]

The question is why the Iranians would agree to something they know will be good for maybe 24 months and no more. The answer is obvious: THey have no intention of abiding by their commitments. The agreement only hampers the US from imposing sanctions. It will not limit Iran's ability to develip a nuke one bit.
Obama gets to say he got an agreement with Iran, Iran gets to develop a nuke free from sanctions, and the American people end up paying the bill for Obama's stupidity and foolishness. And for electing that clown they probably deserve it.

 

[bodecea]

When is a treaty not a treaty? When it is a treaty made with native Americans.

 

[The Rabbi]

When is a treaty not a treaty? When it is a treaty made with native Americans.

No wonder I have you on ignore. Content free posts.

 

[Edgetho]

When is a treaty not a treaty? When it is a treaty made with native Americans.

Not honoring a 'treaty' with pre-stone age savages is hardly the world's worst crime ever.

It's also not one of our Country's prouder eras

 

[Disir]

When is a treaty not a treaty? Obama wants the deal between Iran and the US to be an "understanding?" One that does not have to be agreed to by the Senate? Just the UN?

The basic definition of a treaty:
an agreement or arrangement made by negotiation:


The legal definition:

A treaty is an agreement in written form between nation-states that is intended to establish a relationship governed by International Law.

Kerry said,
"We've been clear from the beginning. We're not negotiating a 'legally binding plan.' We're negotiating a plan that will have in it a capacity for enforcement," he said at a Senate hearing.

What is a plan that will have a capacity for enforcement but a legally binding plan? This administration plays loosely with semantics and has been getting away with it far too long. This is a treaty that needs to be voted on by the Senate and they need to see that uranium will not be enriched. Something that Obama says is impossible. So Obama is going to give them the keys to nuclear oblivion.

Iran deal A treaty or not - CNN.com

Ok.

Machiavellian hat on.

The US would be equally bound. Iran has the third largest oil reserves. The US will not keep a treaty at this time. If you think that Iran will sign a treaty from a lose-lose position then you are mistaken. That is precisely what will happen as indicated by the letter. You gonna tell 'em and make 'em sign from a weak position. Iran and China have will continue to do business with Iran.

The reality is that the Senate will have a bunch of blowhards that have no intention of a treaty. Half way through something will (or nothing will) occur and they will pop off at the mouth and indicate that a treaty would keep them from a well deserved I'll show them bastards invasion. They will do everything in their power to create a situation that they know that Iran will not accept. But, it will look good for the press. They will look like some hardliners for the crowd.

Machiavellian hat off.

 

[SwimExpert]

When is a treaty not a treaty? Obama wants the deal between Iran and the US to be an "understanding?" One that does not have to be agreed to by the Senate? Just the UN?

The basic definition of a treaty:
an agreement or arrangement made by negotiation:


The legal definition:

A treaty is an agreement in written form between nation-states that is intended to establish a relationship governed by International Law.

Kerry said,
"We've been clear from the beginning. We're not negotiating a 'legally binding plan.' We're negotiating a plan that will have in it a capacity for enforcement," he said at a Senate hearing.

What is a plan that will have a capacity for enforcement but a legally binding plan? This administration plays loosely with semantics and has been getting away with it far too long. This is a treaty that needs to be voted on by the Senate and they need to see that uranium will not be enriched. Something that Obama says is impossible. So Obama is going to give them the keys to nuclear oblivion.

Iran deal A treaty or not - CNN.com

Clearly, you ODS loons have never heard of a gentlemen's agreement. Not surprising, since none of you are respectable folk. The only thing you seem to understand is bludgeoning.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Actually, the Lying Cocksucker in Chief does have the power to sign Executive Agreements and call them whatever he wants.

Only to carry out something already passed by Congress and previously signed into law.

Did Congress pass a law that said it was OK to let Iran build a Bomb?

 

[Disir]

Actually, the Lying Cocksucker in Chief does have the power to sign Executive Agreements and call them whatever he wants.

Only to carry out something already passed by Congress and previously signed into law.

Did Congress pass a law that said it was OK to let Iran build a Bomb?

Is Iran a sovereign nation?

 

[Little-Acorn]

The question is why the Iranians would agree to something they know will be good for maybe 24 months and no more.

Because it gets them 24 months closer to having The Bomb.

That's their only objective, in case you didn't know.

 

[Antares]

When is a treaty not a treaty? Obama wants the deal between Iran and the US to be an "understanding?" One that does not have to be agreed to by the Senate? Just the UN?

The basic definition of a treaty:
an agreement or arrangement made by negotiation:


The legal definition:

A treaty is an agreement in written form between nation-states that is intended to establish a relationship governed by International Law.

Kerry said,
"We've been clear from the beginning. We're not negotiating a 'legally binding plan.' We're negotiating a plan that will have in it a capacity for enforcement," he said at a Senate hearing.

What is a plan that will have a capacity for enforcement but a legally binding plan? This administration plays loosely with semantics and has been getting away with it far too long. This is a treaty that needs to be voted on by the Senate and they need to see that uranium will not be enriched. Something that Obama says is impossible. So Obama is going to give them the keys to nuclear oblivion.

Iran deal A treaty or not - CNN.com

Clearly, you ODS loons have never heard of a gentlemen's agreement. Not surprising, since none of you are respectable folk. The only thing you seem to understand is bludgeoning.

Barak Obama is a stuck up, spoiled selfish piece of shit.

He is now also a traitor.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Clearly, you ODS loons have never heard of a gentlemen's agreement.

The "gentlemen" being a lying, lawbreaking President pushing programs that have failed every time they've been tried? And a government that has promoted more terrorist attacks and murders that any in modern history?

Those "gentlemen"?

You're calling the wrong people "loons". Look in a mirror.

 

[Disir]

And the timing couldn't be more perfect for the thread.

 

[Jackson]

1. The Obama administration is giving in to Iranian demands about the scope of its nuclear program as negotiators work to finalize a framework agreement in the coming days, according to sources familiar with the administration’s position in the negotiations.

2. U.S. negotiators are said to have given up ground on demands that Iran be forced to disclose the full range of its nuclear activities at the outset of a nuclear deal, a concession experts say would gut the verification the Obama administration has vowed would stand as the crux of a deal with Iran.

Until recently, the Obama administration had maintained that it would guarantee oversight on Tehran’s program well into the future, and that it would take the necessary steps to ensure that oversight would be effective. The issue has now emerged as a key sticking point in the talks.

With the White House pressing to finalize a deal, U.S. diplomats have moved further away from their demands that Iran be subjected to oversight over its nuclear infrastructure.


4. By placing disclosure of Iran’s past military efforts on the back burner, the administration could harm the ability of outside inspectors to take full inventory of Iran’s nuclear know-how, according to sources familiar with the situation.

5. It also could jeopardize efforts to keep Iran at least one year away from building a bomb, sources said.

6. On the diplomatic front, greater concessions are fueling fears among U.S. allies that Iran will emerge from the negations as a stronger regional power.

U.S. Caves to Key Iranian Demands as Nuke Deal Comes Together Washington Free Beacon