Page 10 of 23 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 230

Thread: Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won't Last[W:159]

  1. #91
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,172

    Re: Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won't Last

    Quote Originally Posted by Michele Jacques View Post
    Of course, the Republicans just want to kiss Mr. Netanyahu's ring, and the benevolent government in Tehran seeks nuclear armament for peaceful purposes. What's more peaceful than a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv?

    The Iranian government has stated, numerous times, that the destruction of the Jewish State is one of their objectives. I understand that some may consider themselves non-interventionist, but allowing a state which advocates the total annihilation of another state access to weapons of mass destruction is a, quite frankly, stupid move. Why should we trust the Iranian government, or our government to solve this borderline crisis behind closed doors?
    We forget that Israel has nuclear weapons. They haven't tested, but it's pretty common knowledge that they do. None of their neighbors do, so it's understandable why they'd want one. The deterrent doesn't work if only one side has the capability.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  2. #92
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,820

    Re: Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won't Last

    Quote Originally Posted by face, your View Post
    Ya because it requires a huge military to smuggle a nuclear weapon into a port.
    So you think that setting off one nuclear blast in a port would cause the US to surrender immediately?
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  3. #93
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Last Seen
    05-05-15 @ 07:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    632

    Re: Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won't Last

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    "pro-human rights"? Revolting against a dictator does not always mean the resulting government is much better.

    The Shah appointed Mossadeq as Prime Minister in 1951. He was thrown out by the MI-6/CIA instigated coup because he had nationalised the oil industry, seizing the assets of foreign oil companies.
    He was only ousted after he dissolved parliament through an Unconstitutional and fraudulent national referendum in which he garnered a 99.9% yes vote and granted himself indefinite "emergency powers" the Shah was still the legitimate head of state under the Iranian Constitution, it was not a coup it was a counter-coup.

    The White Revolution didn't take away power from the theocrats but it did bring in some reforms that the most conservative objected to on religious grounds.
    No it took the educational institutions out of the hands of the Mullahs and gave women the vote.

    Primary among those being improved rights for women. The Ayatollah Khomeini was expelled from Iran in 1964 after leading street riots which were bloodily suppressed by the Shah's forces. As oil revenues increased, social inequality increased and tensions developed. Being a typical dictator, the Shah put his secret police out on the streets and those who spoke out began to disappear. The end came as the Shah's health deteriorated and the support of the military waned.
    Actually the end came when at Carter's behest the Shah began to release political dissidents namely communists and radical Islamists.

  4. #94
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Last Seen
    05-05-15 @ 07:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    632

    Re: Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won't Last

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    So you think that setting off one nuclear blast in a port would cause the US to surrender immediately?
    You need to follow the thread the original post was in regards to turning Israel into a sheet of glass which can not be stopped by the US military or an armed civilian population, his entire response was a non-sequitur.

  5. #95
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Last Seen
    05-05-15 @ 07:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    632

    Re: Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won't Last

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    It looks like you don't understand - there is no treaty YET, negotiations are still ongoing. Then there is the ever so small matter that the diplomacy is not controlled by the US, it is a mutual admiration society of six nations.
    Obama has made it clear that he will not be seeking ratification from the Senate:

    WASHINGTON — No one knows if the Obama administration will manage in the next five weeks to strike what many in the White House consider the most important foreign policy deal of his presidency: an accord with Iran that would forestall its ability to make a nuclear weapon. But the White House has made one significant decision: If agreement is reached, President Obama will do everything in his power to avoid letting Congress vote on it.

    The Treasury Department, in a detailed study it declined to make public, has concluded Mr. Obama has the authority to suspend the vast majority of those sanctions without seeking a vote by Congress, officials say.

    “We wouldn’t seek congressional legislation in any comprehensive agreement for years,” one senior official said.

    Ms. Meehan says there “is a role for Congress in our Iran policy,” but members of Congress want a role larger than consultation and advice. An agreement between Iran and the countries it is negotiating with — the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China — would not be a formal treaty, and thus would not require a two-thirds vote of the Senate.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/20/us...ess-.html?_r=0

    They're laughably saying that this clear nuclear arms treaty is not really a treaty and thus Congress gets no vote.

  6. #96
    Sage

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Texas, Vegas, Colombia
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 06:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,295

    Re: Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won't Last

    Quote Originally Posted by face, your View Post
    Obama has made it clear that he will not be seeking ratification from the Senate:

    WASHINGTON — No one knows if the Obama administration will manage in the next five weeks to strike what many in the White House consider the most important foreign policy deal of his presidency: an accord with Iran that would forestall its ability to make a nuclear weapon. But the White House has made one significant decision: If agreement is reached, President Obama will do everything in his power to avoid letting Congress vote on it.

    The Treasury Department, in a detailed study it declined to make public, has concluded Mr. Obama has the authority to suspend the vast majority of those sanctions without seeking a vote by Congress, officials say.

    “We wouldn’t seek congressional legislation in any comprehensive agreement for years,” one senior official said.

    Ms. Meehan says there “is a role for Congress in our Iran policy,” but members of Congress want a role larger than consultation and advice. An agreement between Iran and the countries it is negotiating with — the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China — would not be a formal treaty, and thus would not require a two-thirds vote of the Senate.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/20/us...ess-.html?_r=0

    They're laughably saying that this clear nuclear arms treaty is not really a treaty and thus Congress gets no vote.
    ... and this is exactly why Congress is launching shots across Obamas bow.

    I expect more shots.. and I expect the King to respond in kind.

  7. #97
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,820

    Re: Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won't Last

    Quote Originally Posted by face, your View Post
    Obama has made it clear that he will not be seeking ratification from the Senate:

    WASHINGTON — No one knows if the Obama administration will manage in the next five weeks to strike what many in the White House consider the most important foreign policy deal of his presidency: an accord with Iran that would forestall its ability to make a nuclear weapon. But the White House has made one significant decision: If agreement is reached, President Obama will do everything in his power to avoid letting Congress vote on it.

    The Treasury Department, in a detailed study it declined to make public, has concluded Mr. Obama has the authority to suspend the vast majority of those sanctions without seeking a vote by Congress, officials say.

    “We wouldn’t seek congressional legislation in any comprehensive agreement for years,” one senior official said.

    Ms. Meehan says there “is a role for Congress in our Iran policy,” but members of Congress want a role larger than consultation and advice. An agreement between Iran and the countries it is negotiating with — the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China — would not be a formal treaty, and thus would not require a two-thirds vote of the Senate.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/20/us...ess-.html?_r=0

    They're laughably saying that this clear nuclear arms treaty is not really a treaty and thus Congress gets no vote.
    Do you think the Senate has control over the negotiations, or only if a treaty is signed? Please note the ever so small fact that there are five other nations involved. Do you think that if the US refuses to go along with the other countries, whatever is decided, that this would have any effect on Iran? Remember, it is the sanctions presently enforced by the six nations which have brought Iran to the table.

    If the other nations decide that Iran is complying with an agreement of some nature, what good would sanctions by the US have on the international business community? Multi-national corporations have no patriotism, they will do what increases their profits. We already see this with fake business HQs in tax havens. Sanctions on these corporations won't play too well with the libertarian free-market types, now will it?
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  8. #98
    Sage

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Texas, Vegas, Colombia
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 06:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,295

    Re: Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won't Last

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    Do you think the Senate has control over the negotiations, or only if a treaty is signed? Please note the ever so small fact that there are five other nations involved. Do you think that if the US refuses to go along with the other countries, whatever is decided, that this would have any effect on Iran? Remember, it is the sanctions presently enforced by the six nations which have brought Iran to the table.

    If the other nations decide that Iran is complying with an agreement of some nature, what good would sanctions by the US have on the international business community? Multi-national corporations have no patriotism, they will do what increases their profits. We already see this with fake business HQs in tax havens. Sanctions on these corporations won't play too well with the libertarian free-market types, now will it?
    I think it's worthy to note that the sanctions in question were passed by Congress.
    El Presidente does not have the power to levy sanctions of his own volition... though he will try to lift these sanctions all on his own, he might find himself in hot water if he does, depending on the wording of the pertinent law

  9. #99
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,149

    Re: Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won't Last

    Quote Originally Posted by face, your View Post
    That's the whole point, advise was not sought, consent was not given, and the treaty was not put before the Senate for a 2/3's ratification, the Imperial President has bi-passed the Senate entirely on one of the most important issues of this millennium, now do you understand?
    wait, the USA did not sign the NPT
    a treaty ratified by the senate?
    Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
    Disarmament Documentation: US Senate ratifies the Additional Protocol, March 31
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  10. #100
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,820

    Re: Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won't Last

    Quote Originally Posted by Thrilla View Post
    I think it's worthy to note that the sanctions in question were passed by Congress.
    El Presidente does not have the power to levy sanctions of his own volition... though he will try to lift these sanctions all on his own, he might find himself in hot water if he does, depending on the wording of the pertinent law
    Hmmm, you seem to have avoided my questions in regards to the other nations.
    "If the other nations decide that Iran is complying with an agreement of some nature, what good would sanctions by the US have on the international business community? Multi-national corporations have no patriotism, they will do what increases their profits. We already see this with fake business HQs in tax havens. Sanctions on these corporations won't play too well with the libertarian free-market types, now will it?"
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

Page 10 of 23 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •