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

[ChrisL]

At least they are showing that they CARE more about the country than party politics. What do WE get out of a nuclear Iran??? What is the benefit/risk ratio?

They CARE about the leading israel lobby backlash & defense contractor , campaign $$$ oh naive one. ChrisL

Good. If anyone would know the most about Iran, it would be Israel because of their excellent intelligence. Why would we NOT listen to them? They are our ally like it or not.

 

[ChrisL]

So . . . dumbarses, I'm not a republican or a "neo con". Now what? Going to keep trying to use partisan attacks because I think President Obama is a moron, which he is. Face facts, he is a want to be celebrity who has no CLUE.

 

[bendog]

See. Siete, you're correct...there's really no winning an argument with these dolts.....

Notice, however, that they offer NOTHING as an alternative to what Obama may be proposing.....

Their only "contributions" boil down to this:

1. MORE sanctions (these are the "moderates" among the hawks.....As if sanctions have ever worked.)

2. If more sanctions are imposed and folks in China and Russia violate those sanctions, then these dingbats clamor for a cold war with those other 2 super-powers. Yep, no problems there, right?

3. The real "brainy" hawks then state...NUKE the bastards.....and we all know where that little scenario would lead us.

Again, bottom line is that these hawks are here just to express their hatred of Obama...pissing in the wind and thinking that such piss is manna from heaven.

nitwit thinks that straightforward opposition to what Obumbler proposes is not sufficient.

Obumbler -- like many of the liberals here -- contend that there is some kind of inevitability to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capacity.

Opposition to that kind of defeatism is its own reward.

Dingbat...what you call [empty] opposition is a refusal of REALITY (which is yet another definition of your ilk's delusion.)

Soooooo, exactly what IS your way of avoiding that "inevitability"?

Will North Korea all of a sudden not want to help Iran.
Will Russia....just out of Putin's good will.....all of a sudden want to stop helping Iran (and Syria.)?
Will China stop buying Iran's oil lest they use that money for furthering their nuclear ambitions?

We could impose SANCTIONS on them. We give them ALL aid money. I know we gave NK aid money up until 2008. I'm not sure if we are still giving them money.

The sanctions are imposed internationally. If we walk away, so do the sanctions.

List of United Nations resolutions concerning Iran - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[ChrisL]

See. Siete, you're correct...there's really no winning an argument with these dolts.....

Notice, however, that they offer NOTHING as an alternative to what Obama may be proposing.....

Their only "contributions" boil down to this:

1. MORE sanctions (these are the "moderates" among the hawks.....As if sanctions have ever worked.)

2. If more sanctions are imposed and folks in China and Russia violate those sanctions, then these dingbats clamor for a cold war with those other 2 super-powers. Yep, no problems there, right?

3. The real "brainy" hawks then state...NUKE the bastards.....and we all know where that little scenario would lead us.

Again, bottom line is that these hawks are here just to express their hatred of Obama...pissing in the wind and thinking that such piss is manna from heaven.

nitwit thinks that straightforward opposition to what Obumbler proposes is not sufficient.

Obumbler -- like many of the liberals here -- contend that there is some kind of inevitability to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capacity.

Opposition to that kind of defeatism is its own reward.

Dingbat...what you call [empty] opposition is a refusal of REALITY (which is yet another definition of your ilk's delusion.)

Soooooo, exactly what IS your way of avoiding that "inevitability"?

Will North Korea all of a sudden not want to help Iran.
Will Russia....just out of Putin's good will.....all of a sudden want to stop helping Iran (and Syria.)?
Will China stop buying Iran's oil lest they use that money for furthering their nuclear ambitions?

We could impose SANCTIONS on them. We give them ALL aid money. I know we gave NK aid money up until 2008. I'm not sure if we are still giving them money.

The sanctions are imposed internationally. If we walk away, so do the sanctions.

List of United Nations resolutions concerning Iran - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Obviously, you didn't read my prior link about how Obama is violating the sanctions. He has to go through a UN Security Council resolution or he doesn't have a leg to stand on. He has to go back, make a new deal and water down the current sanctions that were set in motion by GWB.

 

[ChrisL]

See. Siete, you're correct...there's really no winning an argument with these dolts.....

Notice, however, that they offer NOTHING as an alternative to what Obama may be proposing.....

Their only "contributions" boil down to this:

1. MORE sanctions (these are the "moderates" among the hawks.....As if sanctions have ever worked.)

2. If more sanctions are imposed and folks in China and Russia violate those sanctions, then these dingbats clamor for a cold war with those other 2 super-powers. Yep, no problems there, right?

3. The real "brainy" hawks then state...NUKE the bastards.....and we all know where that little scenario would lead us.

Again, bottom line is that these hawks are here just to express their hatred of Obama...pissing in the wind and thinking that such piss is manna from heaven.

nitwit thinks that straightforward opposition to what Obumbler proposes is not sufficient.

Obumbler -- like many of the liberals here -- contend that there is some kind of inevitability to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capacity.

Opposition to that kind of defeatism is its own reward.

Dingbat...what you call [empty] opposition is a refusal of REALITY (which is yet another definition of your ilk's delusion.)

Soooooo, exactly what IS your way of avoiding that "inevitability"?

Will North Korea all of a sudden not want to help Iran.
Will Russia....just out of Putin's good will.....all of a sudden want to stop helping Iran (and Syria.)?
Will China stop buying Iran's oil lest they use that money for furthering their nuclear ambitions?

We could impose SANCTIONS on them. We give them ALL aid money. I know we gave NK aid money up until 2008. I'm not sure if we are still giving them money.

The sanctions are imposed internationally. If we walk away, so do the sanctions.

List of United Nations resolutions concerning Iran - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Do ever read any links provided?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

IIar 10986130

Obumbler -- like many of the liberals here -- contend that there is some kind of inevitability to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capacity.

Obama contends that an agreement allows 1 year breakout time to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear capacity. That includes bombing their facilities long before nuclear capacity is achieved,

Your statement is a lie. It is not inevitable.

Agree. It's the conservative way, the truth will set them free from power and elected office.

fool doesn't even understand what "breakout" time refers to.

so agree with him at your peril.

 

[bendog]

I don't read your links, Chris, because you are an ideologue who bases his beliefs on emotions and your assumptions of other cultures. Yes, the sanctions have to go through the UN. However, the point is that if other countries see the US as the party that said NYET, they are not going to be willing to continue hurting their own economic well being by continuing the sanctions, either legally or illegally. And the notion of using "unilateral sanctions" to influence Russia or China is ludicrous, if that was what you suggested.

Why don't we wait to see what's actually proposed before trashing it.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

* * * *

Dingbat...what you call [empty] opposition is a refusal of REALITY (which is yet another definition of your ilk's delusion.)

Soooooo, exactly what IS your way of avoiding that "inevitability"?

Shitbird:

What I call opposition is the opposite of caving in. I realize that concept is too difficult for a sap lib. But still, you asked.

We have a thing called "sanctions." We could -- stay with us here for a moment, you goober -- increase those sanctions and deny the Iranians access to the materiel needed to make nuclear fuel and bombs. We could spy on them from the air and otherwise. We could, theoretically, even dispatch a couple of j-dams if they came to dangerously close to completeion. (Psst. It's happened before.)

Will North Korea all of a sudden not want to help Iran.
Will Russia....just out of Putin's good will.....all of a sudden want to stop helping Iran (and Syria.)?
Will China stop buying Iran's oil lest they use that money for furthering their nuclear ambitions?

See above. The "desire" of NK to assist Iran is not the determinative factor. Putin and Russia are subject to all kinds of meaningful diplomacy. Too bad nobody ever advised your Obumblermessiah. And even china has been known to get motivated by what it considers its own self interest. Are you truly so narrow of vision that you think they would risk war just as they are emerging as a preeminent superpower?

I know. I know. All of this is tough stuff fraught with many complications. So YOUR first and only option is to toss up your hands in the air and just give in, give up, quit and roll over. I may have gotten the order wrong.

 

[ChrisL]

READ this.

Opinio Juris Blog Archive Iran Responds to US Senators Letter Shows Why Congress Should Be Involved in the First Place - Opinio Juris

Zarif is no doubt right as a matter of international law (assuming there will be a binding agreement as opposed to a mere political commitment). But think about it. Why should a president be allowed to commit the US to binding obligations under international law that neither Congress nor a future President can withdraw from without violating international law? Shouldn’t such a president be required to first get approval from Congress before committing the United States to this path? Isn’t that why there is a Treaty Clause in the first place? At the very least, doesn’t it make constitutional sense for Congress to have a right to weigh in?

So while lefty blogs and lefty senators are having a field day accusing the Republican senators of violating the law or exaggerating Jack Goldsmith’s pretty minor quibble with the letter’s use of the term ratification, they are ignoring the real constitutional question here. The President seems ready to commit the United States to a pretty serious and important international obligation without seeking prior or subsequent approval from Congress. And foreign countries are ready to denounce the United States if, say Congress, decides to pull out or refuses to carry out those obligations. Even if the President’s actions are good policy, it seems like a political and constitutional train wreck that could easily be avoided if the Administration simply agreed to send the Iran deal to Congress.

Way back in 2008, leading scholars like Oona Hathaway and Bruce Ackerman repeatedly denounced President Bush for considering executing a security agreement with Iraq without Congress. Where are the academic defenders of Congress’s foreign policy prerogatives now?

 

[ChrisL]

I don't read your links, Chris, because you are an ideologue who bases his beliefs on emotions and your assumptions of other cultures. Yes, the sanctions have to go through the UN. However, the point is that if other countries see the US as the party that said NYET, they are not going to be willing to continue hurting their own economic well being by continuing the sanctions, either legally or illegally. And the notion of using "unilateral sanctions" to influence Russia or China is ludicrous, if that was what you suggested.

Why don't we wait to see what's actually proposed before trashing it.

1. You don't read links, but I'm the ideologue. Lol. Funny as hell.
2. I am a she, not a he.
3. Read the links and educate yourself please. You sound dumb.
4. Sanctions are not nearly as ludicrous as what your president is about to do.

 

[ChrisL]

I don't read your links, Chris, because you are an ideologue who bases his beliefs on emotions and your assumptions of other cultures. Yes, the sanctions have to go through the UN. However, the point is that if other countries see the US as the party that said NYET, they are not going to be willing to continue hurting their own economic well being by continuing the sanctions, either legally or illegally. And the notion of using "unilateral sanctions" to influence Russia or China is ludicrous, if that was what you suggested.

Why don't we wait to see what's actually proposed before trashing it.

Ah, to your last statement. I posted you a link that outlined what the plan actually is, but YOU don't read links because you would rather remain uneducated.

 

[Billo_Really]

Good. If anyone would know the most about Iran, it would be Israel because of their excellent intelligence. Why would we NOT listen to them? They are our ally like it or not.

And that intelligence agency has said Iran has not weaponized their nuclear program.

Benjamin Netanyahu claim on Iran nuclear bomb was contradicted by Israel intelligence agency Mossad: report

 

[Antares]

See. Siete, you're correct...there's really no winning an argument with these dolts.....

Notice, however, that they offer NOTHING as an alternative to what Obama may be proposing.....

Their only "contributions" boil down to this:

1. MORE sanctions (these are the "moderates" among the hawks.....As if sanctions have ever worked.)

2. If more sanctions are imposed and folks in China and Russia violate those sanctions, then these dingbats clamor for a cold war with those other 2 super-powers. Yep, no problems there, right?

3. The real "brainy" hawks then state...NUKE the bastards.....and we all know where that little scenario would lead us.

Again, bottom line is that these hawks are here just to express their hatred of Obama...pissing in the wind and thinking that such piss is manna from heaven.

Don't quit your day job kid, a Diplomat you aren't

\It takes real intelligence to think you can "negotiate" with a group (who by your own admission) can lie about whatever they want.

Look, I'm sorry that is not smart in ANYBODY'S world....any agreement reached with a Government like that isn't worth the paper it is printed on.

 

[ChrisL]

Good. If anyone would know the most about Iran, it would be Israel because of their excellent intelligence. Why would we NOT listen to them? They are our ally like it or not.

And that intelligence agency has said Iran has not weaponized their nuclear program.

Benjamin Netanyahu claim on Iran nuclear bomb was contradicted by Israel intelligence agency Mossad: report

The point is not how far off they are from making a bomb. The point is that if we lift sanctions, then they are allowed to collect and enrich uranium. What do you NOT understand about that? Right now, there are sanctions that prevent them from doing such things.

 

[nat4900]

For those on this thread who can think on their own......

If you really discern what right wing idiots are stating, you too will see that the ONLY thing that they're suggesting is to do NOTHING.....

"Oppose this agreement," they'll shout, and propose NOTHING....

The other "bright" right wingers will also shout, MORE sanctions, as if that has helped, and since we don't trade with Iran (except, maybe, for pistacchios), these other nitwits want for China and Russia to impose these additional sanctions (which they won't do.)....OR, they want for these sanctions to come from our allies (France, Germany, UK) who by now have concluded that with tea-baggers in congress, they best work out their own deal with Iran beacuse our country has become so partisan that, as Pogo wisely stated, "the enemy is us."

 

[Antares]

For those on this thread who can think on their own......

If you really discern what right wing idiots are stating, you too will see that the ONLY thing that they're suggesting is to do NOTHING.....

"Oppose this agreement," they'll shout, and propose NOTHING....

The other "bright" right wingers will also shout, MORE sanctions, as if that has helped, and since we don't trade with Iran (except, maybe, for pistacchios), these other nitwits want for China and Russia to impose these additional sanctions (which they won't do.)....OR, they want for these sanctions to come from our allies (France, Germany, UK) who by now have concluded that with tea-baggers in congress, they best work out their own deal with Iran beacuse our country has become so partisan that, as Pogo wisely stated, "the enemy is us."

(smile) Negotiating is doing nothing, they will not (again as you've admitted) live up to it....

We haven't even gotten into their belief system yet here, mostly because you don't want to know what it is.

 

[Antares]

Lest any of you Lefty children forget, Iran fought Iraq for 8 years...they are not a formidable force.

A few well placed Daisy Cutters and their program is in ruins.

 

[ChrisL]

For those on this thread who can think on their own......

If you really discern what right wing idiots are stating, you too will see that the ONLY thing that they're suggesting is to do NOTHING.....

"Oppose this agreement," they'll shout, and propose NOTHING....

The other "bright" right wingers will also shout, MORE sanctions, as if that has helped, and since we don't trade with Iran (except, maybe, for pistacchios), these other nitwits want for China and Russia to impose these additional sanctions (which they won't do.)....OR, they want for these sanctions to come from our allies (France, Germany, UK) who by now have concluded that with tea-baggers in congress, they best work out their own deal with Iran beacuse our country has become so partisan that, as Pogo wisely stated, "the enemy is us."

It has helped, idiot. They haven't built a bomb yet, have they? Sanctions WORK. What your president is suggesting is to give them more leeway to create a nuclear weapon. Good Lord, you people are effing stupid.

 

[ChrisL]

For those on this thread who can think on their own......

If you really discern what right wing idiots are stating, you too will see that the ONLY thing that they're suggesting is to do NOTHING.....

"Oppose this agreement," they'll shout, and propose NOTHING....

The other "bright" right wingers will also shout, MORE sanctions, as if that has helped, and since we don't trade with Iran (except, maybe, for pistacchios), these other nitwits want for China and Russia to impose these additional sanctions (which they won't do.)....OR, they want for these sanctions to come from our allies (France, Germany, UK) who by now have concluded that with tea-baggers in congress, they best work out their own deal with Iran beacuse our country has become so partisan that, as Pogo wisely stated, "the enemy is us."

"The Enemy is us." Yes, you and your liberal friends are truly the enemies of our country and the rest of the civilized world.

 

[Billo_Really]

The point is not how far off they are from making a bomb. The point is that if we lift sanctions, then they are allowed to collect and enrich uranium. What do you NOT understand about that? Right now, there are sanctions that prevent them from doing such things.

The point is, there shouldn't be any sanctions at all. Iran hasn't done anything wrong. And they have every right in the world to enrich uranium for peaceful energy purposes.

This is nothing more than a witch hunt.