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

[CrusaderFrank]

The Senate ratifies treaties with other nations.

Obama is not above the law no matter how many Obama knee-padders support him

 

[orogenicman]

Oppose gay rights, or oppose a gay agenda stuffed down our throats and pushed on 5-8 year old children?

There is a difference you know.

No difference, supporting/promoting gay is gay too.

18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments

Current through Pub. L. 113-296, except 113-287, 113-291, 113-295. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
Notes...

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

Fortunately for us, the Iranian Prime Minister saw through these assholes:

"in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.

Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.​

With regards to Israel and to the Jews, Iran over the 30 years I have been paying attention, has stated numerous times they want to wipe.off Israel off the map

I personally don't know of this is just propaganda because I know Iran has a big Jewish population and they are free in Iran to go to their house of worship.

But then again I grew up with the Iran hostage crisis, know that Iranian back thugs just took over Yemen.

Iran has had decades to destroy Israel. It is noteworthy that in all that time they have not fired a single shot at the "evil Jewish state". I vote that it is propaganda for internal consumption, and the Israelis are silly to pay any heed to it.

Do you recall the old Charles Atlas ads in comic books? The big guy picks on the little guy and the little guy says "one day I will get back at him"...and then the little guy does the Charles Atlas isometrics and becomes bigger than the big guy and beats the crap out of him.

Now, that being said...Iran is saying "death to Israel" but they have not yet fired a shot because they know there is little they can do to beat Israels airforce. But once they have nuclear weapons? They will be the bigger guy.

Just a thought.

Except that Israel has had nukes for decades (and the means to deliver them). Next.

Have proof? And no blog links

Why is the U.S. okay with Israel having nuclear weapons but not Iran - The Washington Post

 

[Jarhead]

If it is a treaty, the President must submit it to the Senate for consideration, advice, and ratification.

And if it is not a treaty, and just a gentlemen's agreement, then it is a waste of time.

What is President Obamas plan with these negotiations? Does anyone know as fact whether or not he will seek senatorial ratification?

 

[orogenicman]

Jarhead, the President has no duty to include the Congress in the deliberations or where they stand at any given time. That is not how the Constitution reads. The Senators interfered illegally in the President's constitutional duties.

From what I understand, the President wants to sign this unilaterally and without the approval (ratification) of congress. Again, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then he is not following the proper procedure for treaty ratification.

As for the negotiations themselves, I agree. He does not need to consult congress. However, if he plans on getting senatorial ratification, would it not make sense to keep congress in the loop to ensure what he is working towards is something they would ratify?

Since they stated from the beginning that they disagreed with any negotiations with Iran, what would be the point in the president keeping them in the loop? So they can tell him again and again what he already knows?

On the flip side, since congress made it clear that they will not agree to any treaty with a terrorist nation, why does he insist on negotiating with them anyway? So they can tell him again what he already knows when he submits the treaty to the senate for approval and it is denied?

Because the only alternative would be to see Israel to start a wider, much more dangerous and deadly war. And I know of no country that wants that to happen.

As for the Senate. I doubt, once it is finished, assuming it ever gets finished, that the Senate will reject it. And if they do, the Democrats will use that like a sledge hammer on the GOP in 2016.

 

[orogenicman]

If it is a treaty, the President must submit it to the Senate for consideration, advice, and ratification.

And if it is not a treaty, and just a gentlemen's agreement, then it is a waste of time.

What is President Obamas plan with these negotiations? Does anyone know as fact whether or not he will seek senatorial ratification?

If it is a treaty, he has to submit it to the Senate. On the other hand, if it is negotiations to get Iran back on track with the NNPT, he doesn't need the Senate's approval because the treaty was signed in the 1970s, and he's simply enforcing it.

 

[asterism]

18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments

Current through Pub. L. 113-296, except 113-287, 113-291, 113-295. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
Notes...

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

.

The Bibi speech was borderline, but this letter is WAY the **** over the line.

So now, what is ANY country supposed to think of ANY thing that ANY President does at ANY time?

.

Fortunately for us, the Iranian Prime Minister saw through these assholes:

"in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.

Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.​

With regards to Israel and to the Jews, Iran over the 30 years I have been paying attention, has stated numerous times they want to wipe.off Israel off the map

I personally don't know of this is just propaganda because I know Iran has a big Jewish population and they are free in Iran to go to their house of worship.

But then again I grew up with the Iran hostage crisis, know that Iranian back thugs just took over Yemen.

Iran has had decades to destroy Israel. It is noteworthy that in all that time they have not fired a single shot at the "evil Jewish state". I vote that it is propaganda for internal consumption, and the Israelis are silly to pay any heed to it.

Do you recall the old Charles Atlas ads in comic books? The big guy picks on the little guy and the little guy says "one day I will get back at him"...and then the little guy does the Charles Atlas isometrics and becomes bigger than the big guy and beats the crap out of him.

Now, that being said...Iran is saying "death to Israel" but they have not yet fired a shot because they know there is little they can do to beat Israels airforce. But once they have nuclear weapons? They will be the bigger guy.

Just a thought.

Even with a nuclear bomb or a number of Nuclear bombs they would be destroyed...US and Russia had a MAD standoff even though each had thousands of Nukes...

Part of the reason that worked is because of the sizes of the US and the then USSR. A few missiles would not destroy the defensive capabilities of either nation. However, a few nuclear missiles from Iran would eradicate Israel.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments

Current through Pub. L. 113-296, except 113-287, 113-291, 113-295. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
Notes...

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

Fortunately for us, the Iranian Prime Minister saw through these assholes:

"in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.

Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.​

With regards to Israel and to the Jews, Iran over the 30 years I have been paying attention, has stated numerous times they want to wipe.off Israel off the map

I personally don't know of this is just propaganda because I know Iran has a big Jewish population and they are free in Iran to go to their house of worship.

But then again I grew up with the Iran hostage crisis, know that Iranian back thugs just took over Yemen.

Iran has had decades to destroy Israel. It is noteworthy that in all that time they have not fired a single shot at the "evil Jewish state". I vote that it is propaganda for internal consumption, and the Israelis are silly to pay any heed to it.

Do you recall the old Charles Atlas ads in comic books? The big guy picks on the little guy and the little guy says "one day I will get back at him"...and then the little guy does the Charles Atlas isometrics and becomes bigger than the big guy and beats the crap out of him.

Now, that being said...Iran is saying "death to Israel" but they have not yet fired a shot because they know there is little they can do to beat Israels airforce. But once they have nuclear weapons? They will be the bigger guy.

Just a thought.

Even with a nuclear bomb or a number of Nuclear bombs they would be destroyed...US and Russia had a MAD standoff even though each had thousands of Nukes...

Part of the reason that worked is because of the sizes of the US and the then USSR. A few missiles would not destroy the defensive capabilities of either nation. However, a few nuclear missiles from Iran would eradicate Israel.

Israel has Submarines with Nuclear missiles there is no way Iran could attack Israel and continue to exist...its that simple ...

 

[orogenicman]

18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments

Current through Pub. L. 113-296, except 113-287, 113-291, 113-295. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
Notes...

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

Fortunately for us, the Iranian Prime Minister saw through these assholes:

"in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.

Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.​

With regards to Israel and to the Jews, Iran over the 30 years I have been paying attention, has stated numerous times they want to wipe.off Israel off the map

I personally don't know of this is just propaganda because I know Iran has a big Jewish population and they are free in Iran to go to their house of worship.

But then again I grew up with the Iran hostage crisis, know that Iranian back thugs just took over Yemen.

Iran has had decades to destroy Israel. It is noteworthy that in all that time they have not fired a single shot at the "evil Jewish state". I vote that it is propaganda for internal consumption, and the Israelis are silly to pay any heed to it.

Do you recall the old Charles Atlas ads in comic books? The big guy picks on the little guy and the little guy says "one day I will get back at him"...and then the little guy does the Charles Atlas isometrics and becomes bigger than the big guy and beats the crap out of him.

Now, that being said...Iran is saying "death to Israel" but they have not yet fired a shot because they know there is little they can do to beat Israels airforce. But once they have nuclear weapons? They will be the bigger guy.

Just a thought.

Even with a nuclear bomb or a number of Nuclear bombs they would be destroyed...US and Russia had a MAD standoff even though each had thousands of Nukes...

Part of the reason that worked is because of the sizes of the US and the then USSR. A few missiles would not destroy the defensive capabilities of either nation. However, a few nuclear missiles from Iran would eradicate Israel.

And visa versa. Israel has nukes (and it's own homegrown extremists as well), and unlike Iran's program, there is no spotlight on that one.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Part of the reason that worked is because of the sizes of the US and the then USSR. A few missiles would not destroy the defensive capabilities of either nation. However, a few nuclear missiles from Iran would eradicate Israel.

a few missiles would not have been launched hundred and hundred of Nuclear bombs would have been delivered to targets ...It was Called MAD

Mutually Assured Destruction

 

[Jarhead]

Jarhead, the President has no duty to include the Congress in the deliberations or where they stand at any given time. That is not how the Constitution reads. The Senators interfered illegally in the President's constitutional duties.

From what I understand, the President wants to sign this unilaterally and without the approval (ratification) of congress. Again, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then he is not following the proper procedure for treaty ratification.

As for the negotiations themselves, I agree. He does not need to consult congress. However, if he plans on getting senatorial ratification, would it not make sense to keep congress in the loop to ensure what he is working towards is something they would ratify?

Since they stated from the beginning that they disagreed with any negotiations with Iran, what would be the point in the president keeping them in the loop? So they can tell him again and again what he already knows?

On the flip side, since congress made it clear that they will not agree to any treaty with a terrorist nation, why does he insist on negotiating with them anyway? So they can tell him again what he already knows when he submits the treaty to the senate for approval and it is denied?

Because the only alternative would be to see Israel to start a wider, much more dangerous and deadly war. And I know of no country that wants that to happen.

As for the Senate. I doubt, once it is finished, assuming it ever gets finished, that the Senate will reject it. And if they do, the Democrats will use that like a sledge hammer on the GOP in 2016.

So the senate will be compelled to approve it, even if they disagree with it, for the democratic party will spin their motivations and intentions during the 2016 campaign....very much like I see on this board..."The GOP wants war".....

So, in essence, the GOP sent that letter in an attempt to get ahead of the spin and rhetoric that will hit them during the 2016 campaign.

So...what we have is the following....

1) The President of the United States is acting as he is for political expediency of his party
2) The US Senate is acting as they are for the political expediency of their party

And all the while, they are doing this on the international stage.

And people wonder why our standing in the world has dropped dramatically?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

And visa versa. Israel also nukes, and unlike Iran's program, there is no spotlight on that one.

Spotlight ? anyone and I mean anyone in the mainstream media who brings up Israel nukes will lose their job and their entire career....

 

[Wildman]

It is seditious at best and treasonous at worst,

something the libertraitors are best at !!

 

[orogenicman]

Jarhead, the President has no duty to include the Congress in the deliberations or where they stand at any given time. That is not how the Constitution reads. The Senators interfered illegally in the President's constitutional duties.

From what I understand, the President wants to sign this unilaterally and without the approval (ratification) of congress. Again, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then he is not following the proper procedure for treaty ratification.

As for the negotiations themselves, I agree. He does not need to consult congress. However, if he plans on getting senatorial ratification, would it not make sense to keep congress in the loop to ensure what he is working towards is something they would ratify?

Since they stated from the beginning that they disagreed with any negotiations with Iran, what would be the point in the president keeping them in the loop? So they can tell him again and again what he already knows?

On the flip side, since congress made it clear that they will not agree to any treaty with a terrorist nation, why does he insist on negotiating with them anyway? So they can tell him again what he already knows when he submits the treaty to the senate for approval and it is denied?

Because the only alternative would be to see Israel to start a wider, much more dangerous and deadly war. And I know of no country that wants that to happen.

As for the Senate. I doubt, once it is finished, assuming it ever gets finished, that the Senate will reject it. And if they do, the Democrats will use that like a sledge hammer on the GOP in 2016.

So the senate will be compelled to approve it, even if they disagree with it, for the democratic party will spin their motivations and intentions during the 2016 campaign....very much like I see on this board..."The GOP wants war".....

So, in essence, the GOP sent that letter in an attempt to get ahead of the spin and rhetoric that will hit them during the 2016 campaign.

So...what we have is the following....

1) The President of the United States is acting as he is for political expediency of his party
2) The US Senate is acting as they are for the political expediency of their party

And all the while, they are doing this on the international stage.

And people wonder why our standing in the world has dropped dramatically?

I disagree. The President is genuinely trying to stave off a wider, more dangerous and deadly war. Full stop. What happens if the Senate Republicans stop his efforts is fair game.

 

[orogenicman]

And visa versa. Israel also nukes, and unlike Iran's program, there is no spotlight on that one.

Spotlight ? anyone and I mean anyone in the mainstream media who brings up Israel nukes will lose their job and their entire career....

Well, that isn't exactly true, since the msm has, in fact, written on the matter many times. The spotlight I was referring to was international inspectors.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Jarhead, the President has no duty to include the Congress in the deliberations or where they stand at any given time. That is not how the Constitution reads. The Senators interfered illegally in the President's constitutional duties.

From what I understand, the President wants to sign this unilaterally and without the approval (ratification) of congress. Again, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then he is not following the proper procedure for treaty ratification.

As for the negotiations themselves, I agree. He does not need to consult congress. However, if he plans on getting senatorial ratification, would it not make sense to keep congress in the loop to ensure what he is working towards is something they would ratify?

Since they stated from the beginning that they disagreed with any negotiations with Iran, what would be the point in the president keeping them in the loop? So they can tell him again and again what he already knows?

On the flip side, since congress made it clear that they will not agree to any treaty with a terrorist nation, why does he insist on negotiating with them anyway? So they can tell him again what he already knows when he submits the treaty to the senate for approval and it is denied?

Because, I think, he is telling the Senate 'you are not the boss of me', 'I am the Executive of all the people while you are elected by only one state,' and 'I can.'

I
wonder if they President's real target is the ODS far right, and he is hoping for an explosion that will stain the whole GOP.

I get your problem, you can not comprehend there is three branches of government, the president is not the executive of all people, he/she never was

 

[asterism]

Part of the reason that worked is because of the sizes of the US and the then USSR. A few missiles would not destroy the defensive capabilities of either nation. However, a few nuclear missiles from Iran would eradicate Israel.

a few missiles would not have been launched hundred and hundred of Nuclear bombs would have been delivered to targets ...It was Called MAD

Mutually Assured Destruction

The key being "Mutually Assured." Neither side was able to unilaterally destroy the other side. Thanks not the case in Iran vs. Israel. Iran launches a few nukes, Israel responds, Israel is demolished, Iran takes a few significant hits and moves on.

The Cold War detente perspective doesn't fit here.

 

[BlackSand]

I disagree. The President is genuinely trying to stave off a wider, more dangerous and deadly war. Full stop. What happens if the Senate Republicans stop his efforts is fair game.

Then you should read the article in the Daily News where they indicate the GOP members were Traitors even though the President's efforts have been irresponsible, ineffective, worthless or incompetent.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jarhead, the President has no duty to include the Congress in the deliberations or where they stand at any given time. That is not how the Constitution reads. The Senators interfered illegally in the President's constitutional duties.

From what I understand, the President wants to sign this unilaterally and without the approval (ratification) of congress. Again, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then he is not following the proper procedure for treaty ratification.

As for the negotiations themselves, I agree. He does not need to consult congress. However, if he plans on getting senatorial ratification, would it not make sense to keep congress in the loop to ensure what he is working towards is something they would ratify?

Since they stated from the beginning that they disagreed with any negotiations with Iran, what would be the point in the president keeping them in the loop? So they can tell him again and again what he already knows?

On the flip side, since congress made it clear that they will not agree to any treaty with a terrorist nation, why does he insist on negotiating with them anyway? So they can tell him again what he already knows when he submits the treaty to the senate for approval and it is denied?

Because, I think, he is telling the Senate 'you are not the boss of me', 'I am the Executive of all the people while you are elected by only one state,' and 'I can.'

I wonder if they President's real target is the ODS far right, and he is hoping for an explosion that will stain the whole GOP.

I get your problem, you can not comprehend there is three branches of government, the president is not the executive of all people, he/she never was

And you prove the point. You don't get it. Yes, the president is the tribune, the executive, of all the people. That's your problem, your ODS.

 

[orogenicman]

Part of the reason that worked is because of the sizes of the US and the then USSR. A few missiles would not destroy the defensive capabilities of either nation. However, a few nuclear missiles from Iran would eradicate Israel.

a few missiles would not have been launched hundred and hundred of Nuclear bombs would have been delivered to targets ...It was Called MAD

Mutually Assured Destruction

The key being "Mutually Assured." Neither side was able to unilaterally destroy the other side. Thanks not the case in Iran vs. Israel. Iran launches a few nukes, Israel responds, Israel is demolished, Iran takes a few significant hits and moves on.

The Cold War detente perspective doesn't fit here.

First of all, Iran doesn't have any nukes, and is not expected to have the capability to build them for many years to come. Their efforts are currently frozen and under international monitoring. Secondly, Israel's nuclear capability is believed to be very robust, possibly as much as France's. Thirdly, if Iran was seen as actually building one, they'd never get the chance to finish it. And even if they did, they still have to figure out how to deliver it. And since Israel's air superiority in the Middle East is second to no one's, the chances of it ever getting off the ground are virtually nil. And even if they got one off the ground, Israel's nukes would come into play and turn Iran into so much radioactive slag. You vastly underestimate Israel's capabilities, and overestimate Iran's abilities.

 

[Care4all]

Jarhead, the President has no duty to include the Congress in the deliberations or where they stand at any given time. That is not how the Constitution reads. The Senators interfered illegally in the President's constitutional duties.

From what I understand, the President wants to sign this unilaterally and without the approval (ratification) of congress. Again, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then he is not following the proper procedure for treaty ratification.

As for the negotiations themselves, I agree. He does not need to consult congress. However, if he plans on getting senatorial ratification, would it not make sense to keep congress in the loop to ensure what he is working towards is something they would ratify?

Is this the norm on these type of agreements? Has most of the other agreements been done by the executive office alone, in the past?