Sign in to follow this  
SailBlueH2O

Iran

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, TMSAIL said:

Maybe presidents should follow the constitution and actual have treaties ratified by the senate.  Not so easy to tear those up.  

And that would make a difference how, in our present predicament?

it’s a difference without a distinction.  Or is it a distinction without a difference? 

No matter....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Amati said:

And that would make a difference how, in our present predicament?

The difference is that there would have been an actual treaty.  Here there is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jzk said:

The difference is that there would have been an actual treaty.  Here there is not.

And you’re actually asserting that Trump couldn’t tear it up anyway, given the supine nature of the Senate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Amati said:

And you’re actually asserting that Trump couldn’t tear it up anyway, given the supine nature of the Senate?

It is not a question that needs to be addressed because there is no treaty.

Let's say I sign a million dollar deal with Microsoft.  If it is with the CEO, then perhaps I have a deal.  If it is with a janitor, then I probably have nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jzk said:

It is not a question that needs to be addressed because there is no treaty.

Let's say I sign a million dollar deal with Microsoft.  If it is with the CEO, then perhaps I have a deal.  If it is with a janitor, then I probably have nothing.

The NPT is absolutely a treaty, and the deal we cut with Iran was in compliance with that treaty. The treaty has the teeth to shut down or reopen banking channels, trade channels, bills of shipment.

President Trump is the guy whom we authorized to negotiate for us, the negotiation has to go through him and his office and ONLY him and his office. The reality is that on the day he took office, he absolutely inherited an actionable treaty. What he wants to do with it at this point will hopefully reflect the best interests of the USA. But to say there "is no treaty" is nonsense because the USA has been one of the key global driving forces of the NPT since its inception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, jzk said:

It is not a question that needs to be addressed because there is no treaty.

Let's say I sign a million dollar deal with Microsoft.  If it is with the CEO, then perhaps I have a deal.  If it is with a janitor, then I probably have nothing.

And who, in this sparkling jewel of sophist metaphor. is the janitor? The Senate?

You aren’t one of those CEO’s who thinks he’s a lawyer, are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mikewof said:

The NPT is absolutely a treaty, and the deal we cut with Iran was in compliance with that treaty. The treaty has the teeth to shut down r reopen banking channels, trade channels, bills of shipment.

President Trump is the guy whom we authorized to negotiate for us, the negotiation has to go through him and his office and ONLY him and his office. The reality is that on the day he took office, he absolutely inherited an actionable treaty. What he wants to do with it at this point will hopefully reflect the best interests of the USA. But to say there "is no treaty" is nonsense.

Did two thirds of the Senators present concur?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Amati said:

And who, in this sparkling jewel of sophist metaphor. is the janitor? The Senate?

Yeah, not too many bright people here.  The janitor is the president making "treaties" without the senate.  Those are called "nothing" just like if you made a deal with Microsoft's janitor.  And not only that, it is one of their former janitors.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jzk said:

Yeah, not too many bright people here.  The janitor is the president making "treaties" without the senate.  Those are called "nothing" just like if you made a deal with Microsoft's janitor.  And not only that, it is one of their former janitors.

So you’re saying that you might make a deal with the CEO of Microsoft, but not the head of the executive branch (like the chief executive officer) of the US government?  I suppose next you’ll be saying that the board of directors of Microsoft is like the Senate?  Is your company public?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

How you justify the US government breaking it's word to yourself is not really relevant. Just like when someone decides to renege on a promise, their personal justifications don't change the fact they broke their word.

Like it or not, agree with it or not, the USA signed onto a treaty with other nations. It made an agreement with other nations which it is breaking. Whether or not a government changes it's foreign policy, if it cannot be held to it's word, it is proving itself incapable of long-term arrangements. Other nations can change governments and change foreign policy without breaking their word - the US has proven itself an unreliable partner in any relationship it tries to forge going forward (and tainting those it has now).

That the USA cannot be trusted is to it's detriment.

Just a nit, but, it wasn't actually a treaty, but an agreement to a plan of action.   (  Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action  ) I agree that it's semantic, but, it makes me wonder whether or not Pres Obama implemented it this way to make it easier to afford wiggle room should post-agreement behaviors warrant. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Amati said:

So you’re saying that you might make a deal with the CEO of Microsoft, but not the head of the executive branch (like the chief executive officer) of the US government?  I suppose next you’ll be saying that the board of directors of Microsoft is like the Senate?  Is your company public?

If I am a foreign country, then I know full well what the constitutional requirements are for a binding treaty.  If the US does not fulfill those requirements, then there is no treaty.  It really is very simple.  All that there is then is foreign policy which is only good for as long as the country feels like doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Amati said:

And you’re actually asserting that Trump couldn’t tear it up anyway, given the supine nature of the Senate?

that's a good question

the constitution covers the approval of a treaty (2/3 senate approval) but doesn't touch upon the requirement of approval for breaking a treaty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

It's a good point, like it or not, jiblets

It's a good point to right wingers, which was my point. To everyone else it looks stupid and partisan, like the rest of the cartoons from that idiot cartoonist.

Trump has showcased the truth of Republicans - they have no plan, no clue, other than being against stuff. They want to through a tantrum and the world to obey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Just a nit, but, it wasn't actually a treaty, but an agreement to a plan of action.   (  Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action  ) I agree that it's semantic, but, it makes me wonder whether or not Pres Obama implemented it this way to make it easier to afford wiggle room should post-agreement behaviors warrant. 

 

Obama probably had 6 or 7 mechanisms going at once.  The main one was that McConnel, the Chinese agent :lol:, had made it policy that the Senate would not pass anything that Obama brought to them.  

So he made an end run, which had some limitations.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, hermetic said:

that's a good question

the constitution covers the approval of a treaty (2/3 senate approval) but doesn't touch upon the requirement of approval for breaking a treaty

Never underestimate Trump’s ability to find the soft underbelly in any situation....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Amati said:

Obama probably had 6 or 7 mechanisms going at once.  The main one was that McConnel, the Chinese agent :lol:, had made it policy that the Senate would not pass anything that Obama brought to them.  

So he made an end run, which had some limitations.......

If that was common knowledge, then even more reason for everyone involved to realize that this is not a binding agreement.  Not to mention that John Kerry said exactly that, at the time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/03/11/even-john-kerry-says-the-iran-deal-is-not-legally-binding/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.cac5b0ef51b2

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

It's a good point to right wingers, which was my point. To everyone else it looks stupid and partisan, like the rest of the cartoons from that idiot cartoonist.

Trump has showcased the truth of Republicans - they have no plan, no clue, other than being against stuff. They want to through a tantrum and the world to obey.

It's a good point to anyone interested in objectivity.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just realized that my semantic nit w/r/t the nature of the agreement to ease sanctions on Iran may sound apologist - and I want to clearly state that I don't intend for it to be. I agree with those who think that the worth of a promise offered by the US government has been greatly reduced.  That goes back several administrations, and Trump's current behavior is making it worse.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jzk said:

If that was common knowledge, then even more reason for everyone involved to realize that this is not a binding agreement.  Not to mention that John Kerry said exactly that, at the time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/03/11/even-john-kerry-says-the-iran-deal-is-not-legally-binding/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.cac5b0ef51b2

 

Have you ever stiffed anyone on a contract?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone who mentions by bailing on the Iran deal President Trump fulfilled a promise -

 

promises.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

No more monopoly on objectivity than the left's monopoly on "truth". 

Keep ignoring you elected a serial liar and allowed him to take over the party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Amati said:

Have you ever stiffed anyone on a contract?

Have you ever signed a letter of intent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Keep ignoring you elected a serial liar and allowed him to take over the party.

Keep moving away from the discussion.... Back to the point of the cartoon - Obama DID sit down with a terrorist while treating his congressional opposition as though THEY were a threat to the country.   He had a vision, and an admirable objective for dong so, but, he did.  Given the nature of the Iranian Theocracy?  I was of the opinion then and am of the opinion now, that he didn't really gain much.  Trump's caveat declaration to leave the agreement won't increase our influence, it will cement the exclusion of our concerns from future consideration.  It's a mistake - and a bigger one than I think Pres Obama made entering into the JCPOA in the 1st place. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jzk said:

Have you ever signed a letter of intent?

There you go...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 while treating his congressional opposition as though THEY were a threat to the country

How the hell are you supposed to treat people who's only goal is making sure you get nothing done? Zero, zip, zilch, nada. Didn't matter what he said, they were against it. Anyways, I've no interest in rehashing this bullshit over again, you ain't going to change.

I agree the primary outcome from Trump's policys is diminished influence for the US globally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

How the hell are you supposed to treat people who's only goal is making sure you get nothing done?

That's a good question. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Keep moving away from the discussion.... Back to the point of the cartoon - Obama DID sit down with a terrorist while treating his congressional opposition as though THEY were a threat to the country.   He had a vision, and an admirable objective for dong so, but, he did.  Given the nature of the Iranian Theocracy?  I was of the opinion then and am of the opinion now, that he didn't really gain much.  Trump's caveat declaration to leave the agreement won't increase our influence, it will cement the exclusion of our concerns from future consideration.  It's a mistake - and a bigger one than I think Pres Obama made entering into the JCPOA in the 1st place. 

 

I’d disagree that Obama didn’t gain much-  the Republican Guard’s biggest enemy was a vibrant economy - young folks in Iran want to be part of Europe, not a dour Theocracy run by a bunch of desiccated old men.  The worse things get in Iran, the longer the conservatives cling to power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

How the hell are you supposed to treat people who's only goal is making sure you get nothing done? Zero, zip, zilch, nada. Didn't matter what he said, they were against it. Anyways, I've no interest in rehashing this bullshit over again, you ain't going to change.

I agree the primary outcome from Trump's policys is diminished influence for the US globally.

As opposed citizens, not relegating them to a consideration less than that offered to the leader of a terrorist nation.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YAY! High oil prices are here. That didn't take long. It will be even more interesting to see how they affect the midterms.

Oil soars as Trump dumps Iran nuclear deal, dollar dips

Source: Reuters



MAY 8, 2018 / 9:24 PM / UPDATED 23 MINUTES AGO 

Kit Rees 

LONDON (Reuters) - Crude oil prices hit 3-1/2-year highs on Wednesday after President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of an international nuclear deal with Iran, while the dollar touched a new high for the year and world stocks held steady. 

Trump’s move sparked fears of increased tension in the Middle East and uncertainty over global oil supplies. [O/R] 

Demand for safe-haven assets remained muted as the immediate market impact was seen as specific to oil supply, but investors remained mindful of the knock-on effects on inflation. 

Gold prices XAU= retreated and bond yields rose. The U.S. 10-year Treasury US10YT=RR once again breached the psychologically significant 3-percent level and hit a two-week high of 3.0140 percent, supported by expectations of higher interest rates. 





Read more: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-markets/oil-soars-dollar-roars-as-trump-dumps-iran-nuclear-deal-idUSKBN1IA064 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Amati said:

I’d disagree that Obama didn’t gain much-  the Republican Guard’s biggest enemy was a vibrant economy - young folks in Iran want to be part of Europe, not a dour Theocracy run by a bunch of desiccated old men.  The worse things get in Iran, the longer the conservatives cling to power.

I think that's a valid point - and I appreciate you bringing it up.  I was thinking more along the lines of concrete, permanent reductions in Iran's ability to behave as a nuclear agressor, but, diminishing the influence of the Republican Guard and the theocracy as a whole is another long-game means to achieve that end. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

As opposed citizens, not relegating them to a consideration less than that offered to the leader of a terrorist nation.  

And every time he tried to play ball, they'd fuck him over. Comeon, you are smarter than this. You know what the play for Republicans was, and it was successful. Don't blame it on Obama. To do so reinforces the power of the party before anything else approach to politics that you decry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I think that's a valid point - and I appreciate you bringing it up.  I was thinking more along the lines of concrete, permanent reductions in Iran's ability to behave as a nuclear agressor, but, diminishing the influence of the Republican Guard and the theocracy as a whole is another long-game means to achieve that end. 

And Trump just became their bestest frenemy.  But that seems to be his gig, if you look around at places Trump loves that support terror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

And every time he tried to play ball, they'd fuck him over. Comeon, you are smarter than this. You know what the play for Republicans was, and it was successful. Don't blame it on Obama. To do so reinforces the power of the party before anything else approach to politics that you decry.

Denying that Pres Obama did in fact do what I said does that as well.  The point in bringing it up is that going forward, we need to make any agreements that will extend beyond an administration's tenure have some means to prevent a casual decree like Trump's from undoing the agreeement, and be a bit more careful in how we enter future agreements.  I don't expect any of this to happen w/the current leadership - my comment is more a hope for a future adjustment than an expectation of change now. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Denying that Pres Obama did in fact do what I said does that as well.  The point in bringing it up is that going forward, we need to make any agreements that will extend beyond an administration's tenure have some means to prevent a casual decree like Trump's from undoing the agreeement, and be a bit more careful in how we enter future agreements.  I don't expect any of this to happen w/the current leadership - my comment is more a hope for a future adjustment than an expectation of change now. 

There is a way to do this.  It is called a "treaty."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jzk said:

There is a way to do this.  It is called a "treaty."

;-) 
That said - the Executive needs to be able to implement Executive authority, and there are situations for which the time/constraints of the treaty process aren't the most appropriate approach. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

How you justify the US government breaking it's word to yourself is not really relevant. Just like when someone decides to renege on a promise, their personal justifications don't change the fact they broke their word.

Like it or not, agree with it or not, the USA signed onto a treaty with other nations. It made an agreement with other nations which it is breaking. Whether or not a government changes it's foreign policy, if it cannot be held to it's word, it is proving itself incapable of long-term arrangements. Other nations can change governments and change foreign policy without breaking their word - the US has proven itself an unreliable partner in any relationship it tries to forge going forward (and tainting those it has now).

That the USA cannot be trusted is to it's detriment.

I just think that the Congress matters more than you do. Senate ratification matters. When that happens, the USA has signed onto something. When it hasn't happened, we haven't.

A cop who can't be trusted is likely to be stripped of authority. To those of us who want to see that happen, Trump is an ironic blessing. They don't trust us (meaning our President alone) to be world cop? Oh no! Don't toss me into that briar patch!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

;-) 
That said - the Executive needs to be able to implement Executive authority, and there are situations for which the time/constraints of the treaty process aren't the most appropriate approach. 

 

We have that.  It is called foreign policy.  But it is only good until we feel like changing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

;-) 
That said - the Executive needs to be able to implement Executive authority, and there are situations for which the time/constraints of the treaty process aren't the most appropriate approach. 

 

yes, he needs a Senate that will advise & consent. Not a Senate that's supine for their own party and an implacable foe for the opposing party.

I see no way to negotiate an agreement with Iran other than people sitting down and talking to the nutjobs in charge. Trump is willing to sit down with the terrorist known as Kim Jong Un, and that's far more than Obama was ever willing to do. If either opposition party chooses to render themselves irrelevant by moronic partisanship, so be it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

yes, he needs a Senate that will advise & consent. Not a Senate that's supine for their own party and an implacable foe for the opposing party.

 I see no way to negotiate an agreement with Iran other than people sitting down and talking to the nutjobs in charge. Trump is willing to sit down with the terrorist known as Kim Jong Un, and that's far more than Obama was ever willing to do. If either opposition party chooses to render themselves irrelevant by moronic partisanship, so be it.

Let's hope folks actually do this when the majorities swing.  For this administration?  I'm just hoping that enough of the people we elected are sensible enough to do what's necessary behind the scenes to avoid Cpt T from finding out and derailing it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

Did two thirds of the Senators present concur?

The Logan Act cuts two ways, my friend. Presidents (like Obama and Trump) can and do negotiate our national treaties with the force of law.

The USA was already a signatory to the NPT long, long before President Obama took office.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of the Senate, they burned an American flag and chanted death to America in the Iranian Senate yesterday. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mikewof said:

The Logan Act cuts two ways, my friend. Presidents (like Obama and Trump) can and do negotiate our national treaties with the force of law.

The USA was already a signatory to the NPT long, long before President Obama took office.

What does the Logan act and the NPT have to do with whether or not the Iran deal was a treaty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mikewof said:

The Logan Act cuts two ways, my friend. Presidents (like Obama and Trump) can and do negotiate our national treaties with the force of law.

The USA was already a signatory to the NPT long, long before President Obama took office.

How is this action violating the NPT?  For the record The NPT was ratified by the  US senate as per the constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, chum said:

Speaking of the Senate they burned an American flag and chanted death to America in the Iranian Senate yesterday. 

And the sky is blue. The Republican Guard is ascendant.  Did anyone not chant ‘death to America’?  Did they dare not?  It will be years until things get bad enough to sweep the religious leaders and their goons from power, even if you think this will play out like the Falkland War and the Argentinian Generals.  Iranians on our side of things are going to be hurt.

Is Iranian oil about to be handed to Russia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, TMSAIL said:

How is this action violating the NPT?  For the record The NPT was ratified by the  US senate as per the constitution.

Where did I write that it violated the NPT? Yes, the NPT was ratified.

Tell that to JZK, he's apparently under the impression that the NPT doesn't actually exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jzk said:

What does the Logan act and the NPT have to do with whether or not the Iran deal was a treaty?

Can anyone recommend a good "facepalm" GIF for this post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mikewof said:

 But to say there "is no treaty" is nonsense

Nonsense is what JerKZ does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Nonsense is what JerKZ does.

Look, sloop is drooling on himself again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do none of you hear the drums of war? The jump in ratings and the increase in the chance for Trumps   re-election war will bring? The money to be made in war and the oil wealth of Iran?

Millions of lives lost but only a few hundred or thousand will be counted, as in Iraq, only American lives matter.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Amati said:
1 hour ago, chum said:

Speaking of the Senate they burned an American flag and chanted death to America in the Iranian Senate yesterday. 

And the sky is blue. The Republican Guard is ascendant.  Did anyone not chant ‘death to America’?  Did they dare not?  It will be years until things get bad enough to sweep the religious leaders and their goons from power, even if you think this will play out like the Falkland War and the Argentinian Generals.  Iranians on our side of things are going to be hurt.

Is Iranian oil about to be handed to Russia?

Well, why not? We don't need it, thanks to unlimited fracking & offshore drilling & the pipeline, Ammurrikuh is now energy-independent!

Nuke their ass, let the Russians drill thru the glass

-DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like any other policy decision, just ask yourself “who profits from this?” The answer will tell you who is behind it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Just a nit, but, it wasn't actually a treaty, but an agreement to a plan of action.   (  Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action  ) I agree that it's semantic, but, it makes me wonder whether or not Pres Obama implemented it this way to make it easier to afford wiggle room should post-agreement behaviors warrant. 

Correction humbly accepted. Doesn't affect my point though - whether someone signs a treaty, plan of action, written contract, or a simple verbal handshake - their word should mean something. The US is showing that concept doesn't apply to them. They will go back on their word when it suits them. They cannot be trusted to see any real-world agreement through to it's conclusion because they reserve the right to renege on a change of president.

No matter how one justifies that domestically, internationally speaking that is to the USA's detriment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I just think that the Congress matters more than you do. Senate ratification matters. When that happens, the USA has signed onto something. When it hasn't happened, we haven't.

All of that is internal, domestic justification for breaking your word in an international agreement. Nigh on everyone that breaks their word has internal justifications for why they are going back on their promise. Fact remains, you've proven unreliable and untrustworthy for agreements internationally if they happen to go over the "POTUS election timespan". Believe it or not, that's going to affect the USA in more than just your personal "world cop" issue.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Correction humbly accepted. Doesn't affect my point though - whether someone signs a treaty, plan of action, written contract, or a simple verbal handshake - their word should mean something. The US is showing that concept doesn't apply to them. They will go back on their word when it suits them. They cannot be trusted to see any real-world agreement through to it's conclusion because they reserve the right to renege on a change of president.

No matter how one justifies that domestically, internationally speaking that is to the USA's detriment. 

Obama didn't have the power to give the "word" of the Country without participation of the Senate.  Combined with the fact that Kerry was publicly stating that this was not a binding agreement, anyone that took this "deal" to be the "word" of the United States is a moron.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

Obama didn't have the power to give the "word" of the Country without participation of the Senate.  Combined with the fact that Kerry was publicly stating that this was not a binding agreement, anyone that took this "deal" to be the "word" of the United States is a moron.

Whilst Obama blocked  Congress in the workup, Congress absolutely had hearings/input before the deal was certified.  This is what led to the 90 day review clause amongst others. Go and watch Nikki Haley's Meet the press interview, she admits exactly this unlike her first statements.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, shaggybaxter said:

Whilst Obama blocked  Congress in the workup, Congress absolutely had hearings/input before the deal was certified.  This is what led to the 90 day review clause amongst others. Go and watch Nikki Haley's Meet the press interview, she admits exactly this unlike her first statements.

 

 

And this has what to do with the fact that the Senate did not approve this as a treaty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, VhmSays said:

Do none of you hear the drums of war? The jump in ratings and the increase in the chance for Trumps   re-election war will bring? The money to be made in war and the oil wealth of Iran?

Millions of lives lost but only a few hundred or thousand will be counted, as in Iraq, only American lives matter.

 

 

http://www.timesofisrael.com/sirens-sound-in-golan-heights-residents-urged-to-enter-shelters/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like tit for tat for the Israeli strike on the misslles pointed at them the other night. Things are warming up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chum said:

Sounds like tit for tat for the Israeli strike on the misslles pointed at them the other night. Things are warming up. 

Indeed. Looks like it's game on -

After alleged Iranian barrage, Israel launches massive counterattack in Syria

IDF warns Syrian military not to interfere as it pummels Iranian targets in largest direct exchange between Jerusalem, Tehran

http://www.timesofisrael.com/after-iranian-barrage-israel-launches-massive-counterattack-in-syria/

Excerpt -

In response, Israel launched an extensive retaliatory campaign, striking suspected Iranian bases throughout Syria for hours following the initial Iranian bombardment, an Israeli military spokesperson said, warning Syrian dictator Bashar Assad not to get involved.

“The Israel Defense Forces is taking action at this moment against Iranian targets in Syria. Any Syrian involvement against this move will be met with the utmost seriousness,” wrote Avichay Adraee, the Israeli military’s Arabic-language spokesperson, on Twitter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jzk said:
7 hours ago, shaggybaxter said:

Whilst Obama blocked  Congress in the workup, Congress absolutely had hearings/input before the deal was certified.  This is what led to the 90 day review clause amongst others. Go and watch Nikki Haley's Meet the press interview, she admits exactly this unlike her first statements.

 

 

And this has what to do with the fact that the Senate did not approve this as a treaty?

Not much, as far as I'm concerned.

It reminds me of Obama consulting a few hawks before attacking Libya. That was spun here as him consulting Congress. Except, of course, he didn't want to hear from the anti-war Congresscritters I would have wanted him to consult. And except, of course, that my requests to see how my critters voted on that war went unanswered. Unitary Executive action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THE SUPREME LEADER OF IRAN (AYATOLLAH ALI KHAMENEI) HAS RESPONDED TO DONALD TRUMP’S WITHDRAWING UNITED STATES FROM THE 2015 IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL BY CALLING IT “SILLY AND SUPERFICIAL.

http://viewerscornernews.com/the-supreme-leader-of-iran-ayatollah-ali-khamenei-has-responded-to-donald-trumps-withdrawing-united-states-from-the-2015-iran-nuclear-deal-by-calling-it-silly-and-superficial/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump's Reckless Violation of the Iran Deal Jeopardizes U.S. National Security

Quote

By blocking Iran’s pathways to nuclear weapons, the 2015 agreement with Iran had helped resolve a long-standing crisis that was destabilizing the Middle East. But on Tuesday, President Donald Trump put this critical accord at risk with his reckless and irresponsible decision to violate the multilateral nuclear deal. By walking away from the agreement, Trump is jeopardizing U.S. national security interests and risks precipitating a nuclear crisis that the international community can ill afford.

http://time.com/5271040/trump-reckless-violation-iran-deal-national-security/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&xid=time_socialflow_twitter&utm_campaign=time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That whole stroke of a pen, law of the land thing turns out not to be such a good idea.
 

Quote

 

Say what you will about Donald Trump pulling the United States out of the Iran deal. Personally, I wish the United States had stayed in. But this sort of zig-zag is exactly what happens when you end up governing with your pen and your phone, as Barack Obama did.

Faced with a recalcitrant, obstructionist Republican Congress that he helped bring to power two years into his presidency, Obama increasingly gave up on getting congressional approval for anything: military actions, immigration policy, trade policy, net neutrality, environmental regulations. Instead, as Damon Root wrote a few years back, Obama did exactly what he once had criticized his predecessor for and went full Andrew Jackson:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Correction humbly accepted. Doesn't affect my point though - whether someone signs a treaty, plan of action, written contract, or a simple verbal handshake - their word should mean something. The US is showing that concept doesn't apply to them. They will go back on their word when it suits them. They cannot be trusted to see any real-world agreement through to it's conclusion because they reserve the right to renege on a change of president.

No matter how one justifies that domestically, internationally speaking that is to the USA's detriment. 

No argument at all - we need to get back to the point at which we didn't lightly offer our word as a nation, and when we did, we'd honor it no matter the cost. THAT is how we established moral authority, and diluting that standard is how we've lost it. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

No argument at all - we need to get back to the point at which we didn't lightly offer our word as a nation, and when we did, we'd honor it no matter the cost. THAT is how we established moral authority, and diluting that standard is how we've lost it. 

Our nation wasn't wiling to give its "word," so it didn't.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jzk said:
18 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

No argument at all - we need to get back to the point at which we didn't lightly offer our word as a nation, and when we did, we'd honor it no matter the cost. THAT is how we established moral authority, and diluting that standard is how we've lost it. 

Our nation wasn't wiling to give its "word," so it didn't.  

It's not that "our nation" wasn't willing, it's that the Republican Party was so determined that Obama must fail.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steam Flyer said:

It's not that "our nation" wasn't willing, it's that the Republican Party was so determined that Obama must fail.

-DSK

By definition, if the Senate is not willing to ratify your treaty, then our nation isn't willing to give its word.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real problem is that Iran is not a whole lot closer to the US.

If it was next to Palm Beach Trump would think more about the Fallout of his decision...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, jzk said:

By definition, if the Senate is not willing to ratify your treaty, then our nation isn't willing to give its word.  

You intimate the Senate acted for the good of the nation. I’d argue that history proves they acted in the interest of themselves and their party to the detriment of the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, shaggybaxter said:

You intimate the Senate acted for the good of the nation. I’d argue that history proves they acted in the interest of themselves and their party to the detriment of the country.

"You can't always get what you want." - Sir Michael Philip Jagger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, jzk said:

"You can't always get what you want." - Sir Michael Philip Jagger

In other words, "Ha ha.  We won.  Suck it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

In other words, "Ha ha.  We won.  Suck it."

Or maybe just because you want to give Iran a pathway to nuclear weapons does not mean it is in the national interest of the United States.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

It's not that "our nation" wasn't willing, it's that the Republican Party was so determined that Obama must fail.

-DSK

Yeah, it really got under their skin that a black guy won. Thus from the get-go they decided to obstruct everything...even Obamacare, which was a republican plan concocted by the Heritage Foundation and used in Mass. as Romneycare. Obama very Reaganesque...if he had white skin and an (R) after his name conservatives would have swooned over him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, RKoch said:

Yeah, it really got under their skin that a black guy won. Thus from the get-go they decided to obstruct everything...even Obamacare, which was a republican plan concocted by the Heritage Foundation and used in Mass. as Romneycare. Obama very Reaganesque...if he had white skin and an (R) after his name conservatives would have swooned over him.

Yeah, they were so racist that they acted against their own interests just to oppose him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Sean said:

Indeed. Looks like it's game on -

After alleged Iranian barrage, Israel launches massive counterattack in Syria

IDF warns Syrian military not to interfere as it pummels Iranian targets in largest direct exchange between Jerusalem, Tehran

http://www.timesofisrael.com/after-iranian-barrage-israel-launches-massive-counterattack-in-syria/

Excerpt -

In response, Israel launched an extensive retaliatory campaign, striking suspected Iranian bases throughout Syria for hours following the initial Iranian bombardment, an Israeli military spokesperson said, warning Syrian dictator Bashar Assad not to get involved.

“The Israel Defense Forces is taking action at this moment against Iranian targets in Syria. Any Syrian involvement against this move will be met with the utmost seriousness,” wrote Avichay Adraee, the Israeli military’s Arabic-language spokesperson, on Twitter.

Putin agreed to give Israel free rein over Syria to defend itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jzk said:

Yeah, they were so racist that they acted against their own interests just to oppose him.

Bingo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

No argument at all - we need to get back to the point at which we didn't lightly offer our word as a nation, and when we did, we'd honor it no matter the cost. THAT is how we established moral authority, and diluting that standard is how we've lost it. 

You're absolutely right but I think Trump has destroyed it for good.

Trust is not something that can be regained once lost. Certainly not easily. The damage Trump and his gang have caused to the international reputation of the USA will take generations to repair - if ever.

As to moral authority - :lol::lol::lol:

Sorry but that is definitely gone for good. The USA is now the terrible warning for the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

You're absolutely right but I think Trump has destroyed it for good.

Trust is not something that can be regained once lost. Certainly not easily. The damage Trump and his gang have caused to the international reputation of the USA will take generations to repair - if ever.

As to moral authority - :lol::lol::lol:

Sorry but that is definitely gone for good. The USA is now the terrible warning for the world.

He has damaged it so much that President Moon Jae-in recommends that he get a Nobel prize.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jzk said:

He has damaged it so much that President Moon Jae-in recommends that he get a Nobel prize.  

Exactly.  He isn’t a left leaning socialist or a religious nut job, of course a good portion of the world doesn’t like him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites