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

[TemplarKormac]

The sanctions against Iran have "worked" to make them hate us even more, destroy Iranian families and cement support for the radical anti-American rhetoric coming from the Supreme Council.

And why should we consider their feelings towards us? Iran cares nothing for its own citizens. The death of Neda Agha Soltan during the 2009 Presidential Election protests shows how much Iran truly cared. Why are you so afraid offending them?

 

[TemplarKormac]

What makes you believe that Iran is not "truly interested"?

The fact that these negotiations have been going on for well over a decade should be an indication.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's interesting that you bring up Vietnam, since they used to "send us troops home in body bags" and are now at least nominally a US ally.

Yeah, so? Them being an ally now doesn't cover for the fact they only went through the motions during the Paris Peace Accords. Both them and the Saigon Government showed no interest in obeying the Accords.

I went to Vietnam a few years ago, had a lovely time. No one tried to kill me.

And what bearing does your vacation in Vietnam have on the point?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The sanctions against Iran have "worked" to make them hate us even more, destroy Iranian families and cement support for the radical anti-American rhetoric coming from the Supreme Council.

And why should we consider their feelings towards us? Iran cares nothing for its own citizens. The death of Neda Agha Soltan during the 2009 Presidential Election protests shows how much Iran truly cared. Why are you so afraid offending them?

Come on, man. What have I said that makes you believe that I'm "afraid of offending" Iran? Try to actually argue with what I'm saying, rather than running everything I say through the bullshit generator.

Do you really think it's in the best interests of the US for us to provide the Supreme Council with support for their anti-American rhetoric?

Is it in our best interests to encourage the Iranian people to follow leaders who chant "Death to America"?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

What makes you believe that Iran is not "truly interested"?

The fact that these negotiations have been going on for well over a decade should be an indication.

So, if they conclude the negotiations and come up with a deal, you believe that they're lying because the negotiations have taken too long?

I don't follow.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It's interesting that you bring up Vietnam, since they used to "send us troops home in body bags" and are now at least nominally a US ally.

Yeah, so? Them being an ally now doesn't cover for the fact they only went through the motions during the Paris Peace Accords. Both them and the Saigon Government showed no interest in obeying the Accords.

I went to Vietnam a few years ago, had a lovely time. No one tried to kill me.

And what bearing does your vacation in Vietnam have on the point?

My vacation in Vietnam is as relevant to this point as you listing negotiations from the past that have failed is.

I was simply giving an example of a country that we used to shoot at, but now we don't.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Do you really think it's in the best interests of the US for us to provide the Supreme Council with support for their anti-American rhetoric?

Do you think it is in the best interests of the United States if we let Iran have a nuke? But here you are upset over the message.

What have I said that makes you believe that I'm "afraid of offending" Iran?

Surely you're reading your own posts before or after you post them. You have stated in no uncertain terms that (and I'm paraphrasing here) "we shouldn't give them any reason to hate us."

 

[Moonglow]

VIENNA (Reuters) - A draft nuclear deal between Iran and six major powers calls for U.N. inspectors to have access to all suspect Iranian sites, including military, based on consultations between the powers and Tehran, a diplomatic source said on Tuesday.

The source also said that if the deal is accepted, a U.N. Security Council resolution on it would ideally be adopted this month and the steps to be taken by both sides – including Iranian limitations on its nuclear program and relief from sanctions on Iran – would be implemented in the first half of 2016.

The details of the draft deal, which is still being negotiated, are broadly in line with an interim agreement clinched on April 2 in Lausanne, Switzerland.

But as negotiations reached a critical stage, new details emerged, and it was significant that the latest draft included inspections for military sites, access to experts and a proposed timeline for putting a possible deal in place.
Exclusive Draft deal calls for UN access to all Iran sites - source - Yahoo News

 

[TemplarKormac]

I was simply giving an example of a country that we used to shoot at, but now we don't.

I'm failing to see the connection.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Do you really think it's in the best interests of the US for us to provide the Supreme Council with support for their anti-American rhetoric?

Do you think it is in the best interests of the United States if we let Iran have a nuke? But here you are upset over the message.

I will ask again. How is laying down a formal deal to prevent Iran from developing nukes "letting Iran have a nuke"?

How do you plan on stopping them without a deal?

What have I said that makes you believe that I'm "afraid of offending" Iran?

Surely you're reading your own posts before or after you post them. You have stated in no uncertain terms that (and I'm paraphrasing here) "we shouldn't give them any reason to hate us."

That's not "paraphrasing" that's just making shit up. I haven't said anything close to that.

You really need to stop trying to "interpret" what I say into what you want to hear. It's really annoying.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I was simply giving an example of a country that we used to shoot at, but now we don't.

I'm failing to see the connection.

Since failed treaties from history are relevant to you, shouldn't times that led to peace be relevant too?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You really need to stop trying to "interpret" what I say into what you want to hear. It's really annoying

It's not what I'm hearing, it's what I'm reading. Surely my reading comprehension skills haven't disappeared in the past 30 minutes, Doc. I'm sorry if it's annoying you, but it isn't intentional. This is where I got it from:

The sanctions against Iran have "worked" to make them hate us even more

So, how was I to interpret that?

 

[WelfareQueen]

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.

Nope. It is not a treaty as all treaties require approval from the Senate. The Obama Administration does not cite the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons nor does it apply in this case. This is solely an Executive Agreement between Obama and Iran, and it can be recalled by any President at any time.

Secretary of State John Kerry stressed Wednesday that the administration never intended to negotiate a treaty.

"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.

From the WSJ

Treaties vs. Executive Agreements When Does Congress Get a Vote - Washington Wire - WSJ


"There are two basic types of international agreements that the White House could pursue in its nuclear talks with Iran.

Treaties, which require approval by the U.S. Senate, used to be more common, but now are a relatively rare occurrence. Presidents of both parties have instead opted to enter into so-called executive agreements, which for the most part don’t require congressional authorization."

 

[TemplarKormac]

Since failed treaties from history are relevant to you, shouldn't times that led to peace be relevant too?

Because peace isn't always the primary goal of one or both of the parties.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You really need to stop trying to "interpret" what I say into what you want to hear. It's really annoying

It's not what I'm hearing, it's what I'm reading. Surely my reading comprehension skills haven't disappeared in the past 30 minutes, Doc. I'm sorry if it's annoying you, but it isn't intentional. This is where I got it from:

The sanctions against Iran have "worked" to make them hate us even more

So, how was I to interpret that?

Literally.

Are you under the impression that the sentence "The sanctions against Iran have worked to make them hate us even more" has the same meaning as "We shouldn't give them any reason to hate us."?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Since failed treaties from history are relevant to you, shouldn't times that led to peace be relevant too?

Because peace isn't always the primary goal of one or both of the parties.

Yes. Neither is "letting the negotiations drag out to buy time" always the "primary goal" during negotiations.

If my example is irrelevant, your entire argument is.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table. Without sanctions.... nothing. And they have hated us since the 1970's and they're shits. Who cares if they hate us?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table. Without sanctions.... nothing. And they have hated us since the 1970's and they're shits. Who cares if they hate us?

Let me get this straight:

You don't want us to negotiate with Iran, yet you use the fact that they are now negotiating as evidence of success for the sanctions?

Doesn't that mean that to you, the sanctions failed?

 

[WelfareQueen]

Sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table. Without sanctions.... nothing. And they have hated us since the 1970's and they're shits. Who cares if they hate us?

Let me get this straight:

You don't want us to negotiate with Iran, yet you use the fact that they are now negotiating as evidence of success for the sanctions?

Doesn't that mean that to you, the sanctions failed?

Who said I didn't want to negotiate? Doc....assuming is never good.

Trust but verify I believe Ronald Reagan once said. I agree.

A nuclear deal should include snap inspections anywhere we want at any time. Period. Iran must halt all uranium enrichment....immediately.

No lifting of any sanctions until Iran has verifiably shown full compliance and good faith for a period of one year. Assuming good behavior, gradually lift sanctions.

Now if that is the deal Obama negotiated, I will fully support it. If not...it is a shit deal imho.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table. Without sanctions.... nothing. And they have hated us since the 1970's and they're shits. Who cares if they hate us?

Let me get this straight:

You don't want us to negotiate with Iran, yet you use the fact that they are now negotiating as evidence of success for the sanctions?

Doesn't that mean that to you, the sanctions failed?

Who said I didn't want to negotiate? Doc....assuming is never good.

Trust but verify I believe Ronald Reagan once said. I agree.

A nuclear deal should include snap inspections anywhere we want at any time. Period. Iran must halt all uranium enrichment....immediately.

No lifting of any sanctions until Iran has verifiably shown full compliance and good faith for a period of one year. Assuming good behavior, gradually lift sanctions.

Now if that is the deal Obama negotiated, I will fully support it. If not...it is a shit deal imho.

Obama didn't do the negotiating. But we'll see what the deal is.

You're saying that the deal is a "shit deal" unless it follows your arbitrary guidelines?