Will Obama’s nuke deal need a two thirds approval vote by the Senate? Maybe not

[theDoctorisIn]

You're not understanding me. I have no idea if Iran will stick to the deal or not.

They won't. They've already demonstrated that, Doc.

How have they "demonstrated" that?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/w...-evades-queries-on-possible-nuclear-work.html
Iran Says No Snap Inspections Of Nuclear Sites
Iran refuses to open key base to IAEA - Al Jazeera English
Iran six powers resume nuclear talks as June 30 deadline looms IRNA Reuters

How does blustering during the negotiations "demonstrate" that they won't "stick to the deal"?

"Blustering?"

Those were pretty pointed statements Doc. Define it how you want to, but so far, their actions and their words are one and the same.

I'll ask you this again:

If you think Iran is always lying and evil, why do you so strongly believe what they say when it suits your position?

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's always amazing to me when I see you guys alternate between insisting that anything Iran says is a lie and then believing them wholeheartedly when it suits your position

When they say they'll agree to something, they won't. When they don't agree with something, they don't. I'm more apt to believe a contrarian saying "no" to something, rather than a bunch of long winded politicians saying "oh we're making progress!"

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It's always amazing to me when I see you guys alternate between insisting that anything Iran says is a lie and then believing them wholeheartedly when it suits your position.

It amazes me that you think a country that sent our troops home in body bags will honor any deal................
If you want to make a deal with the devil...........that is your problem.

We have "deals" with nearly every country we've ever fought a war with. They all sent our troops home in body bags, too.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It's always amazing to me when I see you guys alternate between insisting that anything Iran says is a lie and then believing them wholeheartedly when it suits your position

When they say they'll agree to something, they won't. When they don't agree with something, they don't. I'm more apt to believe a contrarian saying "no" to something, rather than a bunch of long winded politicians saying "oh we're making progress!"

That's just a fancy way of saying "I will believe what I want to believe, whatever they say".

 

[TemplarKormac]

If you think Iran is always lying and evil, why do you so strongly believe what they say when it suits your position?

Uh, isn't this a deflection? I'd much rather discuss their compliance with the deal if you don't mind.

 

[The Rabbi]

This has been gone over countless times already. It's settled.

Obama already has the authority to sign this treaty under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which was ratified by the Senate 40 years ago. It's a non-issue.

Wrong,
It is a Treaty under the meaning of the term in the Constitution, thus subject to ratification.

Says you. Historical precedent and the SCOTUS disagree.

In any case, Bob Corker hammered out a deal that also requires Congressional approval. If Obama ***** over the GOP in Congress he wont get anything done the rest of his term. Congress will declare the treaty null and void and act accordingly.

The Corker deal allows Congress to vote on it - but they'll need 67% to overturn Obama's almost certain veto, should they not approve it.

BUt it doesnt matter. The irananians have no intention of adhering to anything that restricts their activities. That much is clear. They will blow up this treaty as they've blown up previous ones. And they know Obama is in office only for another 18 months and after that is anyone's guess.

What else does your crystal ball tell you, oh great swami?

If Obama vetoes the decision there will be hell to pay. It was an agreement worked out, and that didnt include a veto threat.
As for the Iranians, it takes no great prophetic power to know that if I drop a glass it's going to fall. Maybe idiots like you can't foresee that but most can. Similarly it takes only paying attention to notice the Iranians have made agreements on this very deal only to have Khamanei say a week later that this or that term is unacceptable and scuttle the whole thing. So they will play to form and do it again.
It takes abject stupidity, like yours, to believe that Obama's agreement will be beneficial to the US.

 

[Moonglow]

It's always amazing to me when I see you guys alternate between insisting that anything Iran says is a lie and then believing them wholeheartedly when it suits your position.

It amazes me that you think a country that sent our troops home in body bags will honor any deal................
If you want to make a deal with the devil...........that is your problem.

We have "deals" with nearly every country we've ever fought a war with. They all sent our troops home in body bags, too.

Damn that Canada!!

 

[eagle1462010]

They won't. They've already demonstrated that, Doc.

How have they "demonstrated" that?

They won't. They've already demonstrated that, Doc.

How have they "demonstrated" that?

Chanting Death to America......
Supporting Terrorism.........
Their IED's sending our men home in body bags..........
Calling us the Great Satan..........

You don't make deals with people like that...........It's useless.

Perhaps they can blow up another Mock Aircraft Carrier that doesn't shoot back as well............
What's in the deal that would stop them from supporting Terrorism..............the last I read that wasn't going to happen under any circumstances..............

"Chanting death to America" is, in your mind, evidence that they won't follow the terms of a deal?

I'm interested in hearing you explain that logic.

I will not post the video again............they openly chanted Death to America while this deal was being negotiated...........

If you want to cut a deal as they chant DEATH TO AMERICA..............Then that is your problem and not mine.........

You are a fool.

I don't give a shit what they chant.

Aside from your clear emotional anger towards Iran, what does that have to do with anything?

I see posters suggesting that we nuke the whole middle east fairly frequently on this board.

How is that any different?

I know my enemies.............you don't................
It's that simple.....................Perhaps you've never served in the region when they were putting mines in the water in front of you either................

And I didn't say Nuke the middle east................Now did I..................

Again..................HOW DO YOU MAKE A DEAL WITH A COUNTRY THAT SENT OUR MEN HOME IN BODY BAGS........

 

[The Rabbi]

Wrong,
It is a Treaty under the meaning of the term in the Constitution, thus subject to ratification.

Says you. Historical precedent and the SCOTUS disagree.

In any case, Bob Corker hammered out a deal that also requires Congressional approval. If Obama ***** over the GOP in Congress he wont get anything done the rest of his term. Congress will declare the treaty null and void and act accordingly.

The Corker deal allows Congress to vote on it - but they'll need 67% to overturn Obama's almost certain veto, should they not approve it.

BUt it doesnt matter. The irananians have no intention of adhering to anything that restricts their activities. That much is clear. They will blow up this treaty as they've blown up previous ones. And they know Obama is in office only for another 18 months and after that is anyone's guess.

What else does your crystal ball tell you, oh great swami?

aka You don't even know the deal and your getting tingling sensations up your leg................enjoy it..................He's a fool and it will never work.............and if you think it will work............then you are a fool as well................They will never honor it..............whatever the hell it is...................

I haven't expressed any support or opposition to the deal - because I don't know what it is yet.

You, on the other hand...

So be it............

Do you really think Iran will Honor it, whatever the hell it is..........................hmm.

I don't pretend to be able to predict the future, I leave that to fake psychics such as yourself.

If Iran violates the deal, it gives us a legal framework to go after them for it, along with the other P5+1.

Only in a theoretical sense. Reimposing sanctions will be difficult, if not impossible.
Recall Obama hailed the agreement between Russia and Syria removing all chemical weapons as a triumph. T hat didnt turn out so good.

 

[Moonglow]

This has been gone over countless times already. It's settled.

Obama already has the authority to sign this treaty under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which was ratified by the Senate 40 years ago. It's a non-issue.

Wrong,
It is a Treaty under the meaning of the term in the Constitution, thus subject to ratification.

Says you. Historical precedent and the SCOTUS disagree.

In any case, Bob Corker hammered out a deal that also requires Congressional approval. If Obama ***** over the GOP in Congress he wont get anything done the rest of his term. Congress will declare the treaty null and void and act accordingly.

The Corker deal allows Congress to vote on it - but they'll need 67% to overturn Obama's almost certain veto, should they not approve it.

BUt it doesnt matter. The irananians have no intention of adhering to anything that restricts their activities. That much is clear. They will blow up this treaty as they've blown up previous ones. And they know Obama is in office only for another 18 months and after that is anyone's guess.

What else does your crystal ball tell you, oh great swami?

If Obama vetoes the decision there will be hell to pay. It was an agreement worked out, and that didnt include a veto threat.
As for the Iranians, it takes no great prophetic power to know that if I drop a glass it's going to fall. Maybe idiots like you can't foresee that but most can. Similarly it takes only paying attention to notice the Iranians have made agreements on this very deal only to have Khamanei say a week later that this or that term is unacceptable and scuttle the whole thing. So they will play to form and do it again.
It takes abject stupidity, like yours, to believe that Obama's agreement will be beneficial to the US.

It's not just Oblama's deal, the Senate has to approve of the treaty first...

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If you think Iran is always lying and evil, why do you so strongly believe what they say when it suits your position?

Uh, isn't this a deflection? I'd much rather discuss their compliance with the deal if you don't mind.

We are discussing the fact that you think they won't comply with the deal (in other words, lie) - and to support that, you use their internal propaganda (which you seem to believe is the honest truth).

Doesn't that ring any alarms in your head?

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's always amazing to me when I see you guys alternate between insisting that anything Iran says is a lie and then believing them wholeheartedly when it suits your position

When they say they'll agree to something, they won't. When they don't agree with something, they don't. I'm more apt to believe a contrarian saying "no" to something, rather than a bunch of long winded politicians saying "oh we're making progress!"

That's just a fancy way of saying "I will believe what I want to believe, whatever they say".

No it's not. Besides I'm seeing you do the same thing. Am I to glean the suggestion from you that Iran isn't evil?

 

[TemplarKormac]

and to support that, you use their internal propaganda (which you seem to believe is the honest truth).

Uh, when you don't want to do something, you don't. Or is everyone over there in Vienna lying too?

 

[eagle1462010]

It's always amazing to me when I see you guys alternate between insisting that anything Iran says is a lie and then believing them wholeheartedly when it suits your position.

It amazes me that you think a country that sent our troops home in body bags will honor any deal................
If you want to make a deal with the devil...........that is your problem.

We have "deals" with nearly every country we've ever fought a war with. They all sent our troops home in body bags, too.

And usually it's after we sent more of them to their graves before any deal is struck.............

They have been recently and still are in the market of sending our people home in bags in afghanistan..............
You don't make deals with that Mr. Chamberlan

 

[theDoctorisIn]

This has been gone over countless times already. It's settled.

Obama already has the authority to sign this treaty under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which was ratified by the Senate 40 years ago. It's a non-issue.

Wrong,
It is a Treaty under the meaning of the term in the Constitution, thus subject to ratification.

Says you. Historical precedent and the SCOTUS disagree.

In any case, Bob Corker hammered out a deal that also requires Congressional approval. If Obama ***** over the GOP in Congress he wont get anything done the rest of his term. Congress will declare the treaty null and void and act accordingly.

The Corker deal allows Congress to vote on it - but they'll need 67% to overturn Obama's almost certain veto, should they not approve it.

BUt it doesnt matter. The irananians have no intention of adhering to anything that restricts their activities. That much is clear. They will blow up this treaty as they've blown up previous ones. And they know Obama is in office only for another 18 months and after that is anyone's guess.

What else does your crystal ball tell you, oh great swami?

If Obama vetoes the decision there will be hell to pay. It was an agreement worked out, and that didnt include a veto threat.
As for the Iranians, it takes no great prophetic power to know that if I drop a glass it's going to fall. Maybe idiots like you can't foresee that but most can. Similarly it takes only paying attention to notice the Iranians have made agreements on this very deal only to have Khamanei say a week later that this or that term is unacceptable and scuttle the whole thing. So they will play to form and do it again.
It takes abject stupidity, like yours, to believe that Obama's agreement will be beneficial to the US.

Of course the "agreement" they worked out included the veto threat. That's the whole thing - the "agreement" they worked out is almost impossible for Obama to lose.

This happened months ago, and everyone knew exactly what it meant then.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And then there's this little gem.

President Rouhani Iran won t sign final nuclear deal unless all sanctions lifted RT News

 

[theDoctorisIn]

and to support that, you use their internal propaganda (which you seem to believe is the honest truth).

Uh, when you don't want to do something, you don't. Or is everyone over there in Vienna lying too?

I don't know what this post means.

What does Iran "want" to do, in your opinion?

 

[The Rabbi]

This has been gone over countless times already. It's settled.

Obama already has the authority to sign this treaty under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which was ratified by the Senate 40 years ago. It's a non-issue.

Wrong,
It is a Treaty under the meaning of the term in the Constitution, thus subject to ratification.

Says you. Historical precedent and the SCOTUS disagree.

In any case, Bob Corker hammered out a deal that also requires Congressional approval. If Obama ***** over the GOP in Congress he wont get anything done the rest of his term. Congress will declare the treaty null and void and act accordingly.

The Corker deal allows Congress to vote on it - but they'll need 67% to overturn Obama's almost certain veto, should they not approve it.

BUt it doesnt matter. The irananians have no intention of adhering to anything that restricts their activities. That much is clear. They will blow up this treaty as they've blown up previous ones. And they know Obama is in office only for another 18 months and after that is anyone's guess.

What else does your crystal ball tell you, oh great swami?

If Obama vetoes the decision there will be hell to pay. It was an agreement worked out, and that didnt include a veto threat.
As for the Iranians, it takes no great prophetic power to know that if I drop a glass it's going to fall. Maybe idiots like you can't foresee that but most can. Similarly it takes only paying attention to notice the Iranians have made agreements on this very deal only to have Khamanei say a week later that this or that term is unacceptable and scuttle the whole thing. So they will play to form and do it again.
It takes abject stupidity, like yours, to believe that Obama's agreement will be beneficial to the US.

It's not just Oblama's deal, the Senate has to approve of the treaty first...

Not according to The Doctor. Talk to him about it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What does Iran "want" to do, in your opinion?

Acquire a nuclear weapon. Kill Israel. Gain influence in the Middle East.

 

[eagle1462010]

I'll never agree to cutting deals with a country currently helping our enemy kill our military............

EVER...............PERIOD..............and if you don't like it...............I don't care............the POTUS is an IDIOT............our Foreign policy is BS..........and there is no changing that opinion...........

History will show whatever deal they cut will fail...............Just like North Korea..............Unless you believe in Pixies and Santa Claus.