• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Idiot Trump Gives Iran Free Reign to Develop Nuclear Weapons Program

Checkerboard Strangler said:
Nope sorry but the banking sanctions were the worst ones and they took effect immediately, and they hurt.
I understand that certain trade sanctions aren't immediate.
I don't think a shortage of Mercedes or Fiat parts is going to convince the mullahs not to build a nuke.
This is absurd, you can enjoy your hysteria.
Click to expand...

No matter what you say, it took years of ever increasing sanctions to bring Iran to the table. That's just a fact.
 
bluesmoke said:
“The deal was made between Obama, the head of our Executive, and the other signatory nations. It was never "our" deal and it was never "our" word. It was Obama's. I think it was unfortunate that such an agreement was contemplated on such grounds.”

Obama represents the US. When the President makes a foreign policy “deal” with other countries, it becomes “our” deal. The President speaks for “our” country on foreign policy matters and thus is giving “our” word when making an agreement. We have a representative form of government. The Iran deal was a deal with other countries and the US, not with Obama. It wasn’t Britain, German, France, China, Russia, Iran and Obama.

“There's a reason why treaties require confirmation by our Senate. An essential element of it is to prevent presidents from attempting to enter binding agreements”

The JCPA was neither a treaty nor a binding agreement.

“without the advice and consent of the people. The "people" in this instance is Congress who are our representatives in government.”

The President was elected by the people through the electoral college and thus represents the people just as does Congress. In fact, the President is the only one that represents all the people because members of Congress represent people limited to states or congressional districts.

“Had the agreement Obama entered not been so seriously flawed, it would've been presented to the Senate and ratified.”

No. Had the agreement not been met by a self-declared obstructive Congress, it would have been submitted as a treaty. That it was seriously flawed is your opinion and debatable. Congress would not have passed it for no other reason than they wanted to thwart everything Obama.

“Attempting to hang Obama's agreement around the necks of the American people and suggest that we have backed out of a promise is disingenuous in the extreme. We never consented to the agreement in the first place.”

What is disingenuous is you creating a falsehood that I’m trying to “hang” this around the necks of the American people. As President, many actions are taken, especially in the area of foreign policy, that is done as representing the American people without seeking direct consent of the American people. We’re not a direct democracy, like Switzerland. The President speaks for America. Nothing was hung around the necks of the American people. That’s a fact. There’s nothing disingenuous about it. Obama didn’t have to go to Congress to make this deal. Trump spoke for the American people when he backed-out of the deal. That made it “we” the people no longer are part of the deal by Trumps action, though unilateral.
Click to expand...

If you want to disregard the prescribed method for entering treaties, as Obama did, you can. No rationalization of Obama's actions justifies his departure from securing the approval of the people's representative body in this regard. Obama was fully aware that a non-binding deal could be rescinded, and his knowledge that the deal contained flaws that prevented ratification was clear, or he would've presented it to the Senate. The reservations about his deal were clearly expressed at the time, and they first and foremost included the lack of inspections at military installations - the very places where nuclear development were occurring in Iran. If you're concerned about an obstructive congress, check with obstructionist Senator Schumer.
 
humbolt said:
If you want to disregard the prescribed method for entering treaties, as Obama did, you can. No rationalization of Obama's actions justifies his departure from securing the approval of the people's representative body in this regard. Obama was fully aware that a non-binding deal could be rescinded, and his knowledge that the deal contained flaws that prevented ratification was clear, or he would've presented it to the Senate. The reservations about his deal were clearly expressed at the time, and they first and foremost included the lack of inspections at military installations - the very places where nuclear development were occurring in Iran. If you're concerned about an obstructive congress, check with obstructionist Senator Schumer.
Click to expand...

Another whataboutism. Shumer has been Minority Leader for a nanosecond in real political terms. The GOP openly vowed to obstruct Obama at every turn and did obstruct him at every turn. Pointing at Shumer is laughable within the context of a discussion of an obstructionist congress.

Said obstruction really had impact in a way that ultimately hurt the military budget which Trump now gets on his high horse about. We would have finally ended sequestration and Obama and John Boehner would have had a budget deal completed when the gang of 6 or 8 half dems half republicans stepped in late. Obama would have drawn his dems back in line without a problem but the republicans scared the living Jesus out of Boehner for being willing to work with Obama and in fact never forgot even though we did not get a budget ultimately forcing Boehner to give up his role in the House. So sequestration could have ended THEN. But NOOOOOOOO.......the GOP just loves to cut off its nose to spit its face and then expect everybody to forget that is exactly what it did.
 
Last edited:
jnug said:
Another whataboutism. Shumer has been Minority Leader for a nanosecond in real political terms. The GOP openly vowed to obstruct Obama at every turn and did obstruct him at every turn. Pointing at Shumer is laughable within the context of a discussion of an obstructionist congress.
Click to expand...

When Obama's own members of the Senate wouldn't support his deal, that should've given him pause.
 
humbolt said:
If you want to disregard the prescribed method for entering treaties, as Obama did, you can. No rationalization of Obama's actions justifies his departure from securing the approval of the people's representative body in this regard. Obama was fully aware that a non-binding deal could be rescinded, and his knowledge that the deal contained flaws that prevented ratification was clear, or he would've presented it to the Senate. The reservations about his deal were clearly expressed at the time, and they first and foremost included the lack of inspections at military installations - the very places where nuclear development were occurring in Iran. If you're concerned about an obstructive congress, check with obstructionist Senator Schumer.
Click to expand...



“If you want to disregard the prescribed method for entering treaties, as Obama did, you can. No rationalization of Obama's actions justifies his departure from securing the approval of the people's representative body in this regard. Obama was fully aware that a non-binding deal could be rescinded, and his knowledge that the deal contained flaws that prevented ratification was clear, or he would've presented it to the Senate. The reservations about his deal were clearly expressed at the time, and they first and foremost included the lack of inspections at military installations - the very places where nuclear development were occurring in Iran. If you're concerned about an obstructive congress, check with obstructionist Senator Schumer.”

Obama was completely in his rights under the Presidential power of Sole Executive Agreement to do as he did and as Clinton did before him in NK. There you nothing you can say that can change that constitutional right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_agreement

And, yes, executive agreements are made to avoid 2/3 Senate approval for treaties or simple majority of both the Senate and the House as a Congressional-Executive Agreement for political purposes. The following is an excerpt from the article in the link further below:

“Not all international agreements negotiated by the United States are submitted to the Senate for its consent. Sometimes the Executive Branch negotiates an agreement that is intended to be binding only if sent to the Senate, but the President for political reasons decides not to seek its consent.”

https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/2/issue/5/international-agreements-and-us-law

And to correct you further, if I haven’t done enough already, it is only the Congressional-Executive Agreement that technically has received the support of the people (through the House of Representatives). The following is an excerpt from the article in the link further below:

“The Treaty Clause has a number of striking features. It gives the Senate, in James Madison's terms, a "partial agency" in the President's foreign-relations power. The clause requires a supermajority (two-thirds) of the Senate for approval of a treaty, but it gives the House of Representatives, representing the "people," no role in the process.”

https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/90/treaty-clause

The nuclear armament development you complain about has not been happening since this agreement was made, as confirmed by the IAEA and acknowledged by Secretary Mattis. Now that Trump has pulled out of the deal, unless Europe can see to it that they can hold-up the economic end of the deal now that the US won’t, Trump is giving Iran the go ahead to restart development of their nuclear armament program.

If anything, Schumer learned obstructionism from McConnell, who announced his intentions and in which case the Republicans gained the majority of Congress to back up their obstructionist ways. Schumer can’t. So, why bother getting so up-in-arms about what Schumer simply does not have the power to do.

Your ignorance-based argument is all you have to support your obstinant argument in the face of constitutional fact. If you want to stew in the juices of your own ignorance, be your own guest.
 
bluesmoke said:
“If you want to disregard the prescribed method for entering treaties, as Obama did, you can. No rationalization of Obama's actions justifies his departure from securing the approval of the people's representative body in this regard. Obama was fully aware that a non-binding deal could be rescinded, and his knowledge that the deal contained flaws that prevented ratification was clear, or he would've presented it to the Senate. The reservations about his deal were clearly expressed at the time, and they first and foremost included the lack of inspections at military installations - the very places where nuclear development were occurring in Iran. If you're concerned about an obstructive congress, check with obstructionist Senator Schumer.”

Obama was completely in his rights under the Presidential power of Sole Executive Agreement to do as he did and as Clinton did before him in NK. There you nothing you can say that can change that constitutional right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_agreement

And, yes, executive agreements are made to avoid 2/3 Senate approval for treaties or simple majority of both the Senate and the House as a Congressional-Executive Agreement for political purposes. The following is an excerpt from the article in the link further below:

“Not all international agreements negotiated by the United States are submitted to the Senate for its consent. Sometimes the Executive Branch negotiates an agreement that is intended to be binding only if sent to the Senate, but the President for political reasons decides not to seek its consent.”

https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/2/issue/5/international-agreements-and-us-law

And to correct you further, if I haven’t done enough already, it is only the Congressional-Executive Agreement that technically has received the support of the people (through the House of Representatives). The following is an excerpt from the article in the link further below:

“The Treaty Clause has a number of striking features. It gives the Senate, in James Madison's terms, a "partial agency" in the President's foreign-relations power. The clause requires a supermajority (two-thirds) of the Senate for approval of a treaty, but it gives the House of Representatives, representing the "people," no role in the process.”

https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/90/treaty-clause

The nuclear armament development you complain about has not been happening since this agreement was made, as confirmed by the IAEA and acknowledged by Secretary Mattis. Now that Trump has pulled out of the deal, unless Europe can see to it that they can hold-up the economic end of the deal now that the US won’t, Trump is giving Iran the go ahead to restart development of their nuclear armament program.

If anything, Schumer learned obstructionism from McConnell, who announced his intentions and in which case the Republicans gained the majority of Congress to back up their obstructionist ways. Schumer can’t. So, why bother getting so up-in-arms about what Schumer simply does not have the power to do.

Your ignorance-based argument is all you have to support your obstinant argument in the face of constitutional fact. If you want to stew in the juices of your own ignorance, be your own guest.
Click to expand...

You have no way of knowing whether nuclear development in Iran has continued or not. And just to set you straight, the only signatory to the deal was Obama. Iran didn't sign it or submit it to it's legislature, and none, none of the P+5 signed it either. It's entirely non-binding, and not worth the cost of the paper it's printed on. You let me know when an IAEA inspection team enters and inspects Iran's underground nuclear facilities.
 
Moderate Right said:
No matter what you say, it took years of ever increasing sanctions to bring Iran to the table. That's just a fact.
Click to expand...

No, it's not just a fact because if the deal had been put together a few years earlier, Iranians would have been ready to do the deal.
It was the banking sanctions that stung the most. Their entire economy was walled off from the Western world for the most part.
 
They already had free reign. All Trump did was remove the veneer that we were actually impeding them. It's very simple. Iran wants nukes and they want to destroy Israel. They've said so themselves many times. So, we'd actually be doing them a favor if we made a deal with real teeth in it because if it comes down to Israel making them give it up, they won't like the outcome.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
No, it's not just a fact because if the deal had been put together a few years earlier, Iranians would have been ready to do the deal.
It was the banking sanctions that stung the most. Their entire economy was walled off from the Western world for the most part.
Click to expand...

And what makes you think that come 2025 we wouldn't go through the very same agonizingly slow step by step sanction process? Why do you assume we would just start right up with banking? And, you refuse to even respond to the fact that we can't ever count on either Russia or China?
 
humbolt said:
You have no way of knowing whether nuclear development in Iran has continued or not. And just to set you straight, the only signatory to the deal was Obama. Iran didn't sign it or submit it to it's legislature, and none, none of the P+5 signed it either. It's entirely non-binding, and not worth the cost of the paper it's printed on. You let me know when an IAEA inspection team enters and inspects Iran's underground nuclear facilities.
Click to expand...


There is always the possibility that a given country has successfully hidden nuclear facilities and all we can do is inspect as best we can. I'm pretty sure everybody and their brother knows that. So what? People cheat when playing games, but that doesn’t stop the game from being played. What about NK? If we get signed agreements and unfettered access for inspections, they could still be hiding something somewhere that we can’t find. Why even bother trying, right? Why even bother with Treaties? Is that what you’re saying? What are you saying?
 
bluesmoke said:
There is always the possibility that a given country has successfully hidden nuclear facilities and all we can do is inspect as best we can. I'm pretty sure everybody and their brother knows that. So what? People cheat when playing games, but that doesn’t stop the game from being played. What about NK? If we get signed agreements and unfettered access for inspections, they could still be hiding something somewhere that we can’t find. Why even bother trying, right? Why even bother with Treaties? Is that what you’re saying? What are you saying?
Click to expand...

I'm saying it was a bad agreement, and the administration knew it was a bad agreement. You should read up on Parchin and some of the other facilities in Iran, and there's a lot of satellite imagery to support some serious conclusions. Iran has spent the better part of this decade burying their facilities deep in the ground to prevent damage from attack. There are other equally bad elements to the agreement, but most are aware of them. That is the reason Obama never submitted the agreement to the Senate for ratification.
 
At least he didn’t secretly fly billions of dollars worth of cash over to the Iranians eh? Because that would be a really moronic move right?
 
humbolt said:
I'm saying it was a bad agreement, and the administration knew it was a bad agreement. You should read up on Parchin and some of the other facilities in Iran, and there's a lot of satellite imagery to support some serious conclusions. Iran has spent the better part of this decade burying their facilities deep in the ground to prevent damage from attack. There are other equally bad elements to the agreement, but most are aware of them. That is the reason Obama never submitted the agreement to the Senate for ratification.
Click to expand...



You have absolutely no proof the Obama administration thought the Iran deal was a “bad agreement.” They said then that it was not perfect. You make accusations that are plainly false.

You can say Obama avoided going to the Senate because the Republicans, who were in the majority, thought the Iran deal to be a bad agreement. That is without a doubt and a matter of record.

The following are excerpts, sentence headings are mine, from the article in the link immediately below:

“Mattis: "I will say it is written almost with an assumption that Iran would try to cheat," he said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. "So the verification, what is in there, is actually pretty robust as far as our intrusive ability to get in" with representatives of the International Atomic Energy Agency to check on compliance.”

“Mattis: "Whether that is sufficient I think is a valid question,"”

“Mattis said Iran's history of hiding a nuclear weapons program makes it "suspect,"”

“Mattis reiterated his view that the deal is "imperfect" and said "there are obviously aspects of the agreement that can be improved upon."”

Mattis says Iran nuclear deal includes 'robust' verification

What Mattis said is what I told you in my last post. This past post of yours is much a repeat of what you’ve posted before. It’s your claim, so if you want to make Parchin some kind of greater supporting evidence of what you say beyond what is already know, you do your own work and present it as you wish in another post. I need not do your work by your directing me so in order to prove your claim for which your the burden of proving.

BTW, Israel is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons, with an estimated arsenal of up to 400 warheads; which would make it the world's third-biggest arsenal. Israel denies this and has not signed the NPT. At least Iran has signed the NPT. It’s not exactly news. Policy elites and every president from LBJ to Obama have known that Israel has the bomb. But American authorities have cooperated in the secrecy and prohibited federal employees from sharing the truth with the people. Though an article from 2015 stated that the Pentagon released a document that “essentially” confirms Israel had nuclear weapons, the article got no traction because they were interpreting the report to mean such. Hence the vague term “essentially.” Israel is just as culpable as Iran but doesn’t have any agreement allowing inspections to confirm. That and Iran signing the NPT actually show Iran to be more forthright than Israel.
 
bluesmoke said:
You have absolutely no proof the Obama administration thought the Iran deal was a “bad agreement.” They said then that it was not perfect. You make accusations that are plainly false.

You can say Obama avoided going to the Senate because the Republicans, who were in the majority, thought the Iran deal to be a bad agreement. That is without a doubt and a matter of record.

The following are excerpts, sentence headings are mine, from the article in the link immediately below:

“Mattis: "I will say it is written almost with an assumption that Iran would try to cheat," he said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. "So the verification, what is in there, is actually pretty robust as far as our intrusive ability to get in" with representatives of the International Atomic Energy Agency to check on compliance.”

“Mattis: "Whether that is sufficient I think is a valid question,"”

“Mattis said Iran's history of hiding a nuclear weapons program makes it "suspect,"”

“Mattis reiterated his view that the deal is "imperfect" and said "there are obviously aspects of the agreement that can be improved upon."”

Mattis says Iran nuclear deal includes 'robust' verification

What Mattis said is what I told you in my last post. This past post of yours is much a repeat of what you’ve posted before. It’s your claim, so if you want to make Parchin some kind of greater supporting evidence of what you say beyond what is already know, you do your own work and present it as you wish in another post. I need not do your work by your directing me so in order to prove your claim for which your the burden of proving.

BTW, Israel is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons, with an estimated arsenal of up to 400 warheads; which would make it the world's third-biggest arsenal. Israel denies this and has not signed the NPT. At least Iran has signed the NPT. It’s not exactly news. Policy elites and every president from LBJ to Obama have known that Israel has the bomb. But American authorities have cooperated in the secrecy and prohibited federal employees from sharing the truth with the people. Though an article from 2015 stated that the Pentagon released a document that “essentially” confirms Israel had nuclear weapons, the article got no traction because they were interpreting the report to mean such. Hence the vague term “essentially.” Israel is just as culpable as Iran but doesn’t have any agreement allowing inspections to confirm. That and Iran signing the NPT actually show Iran to be more forthright than Israel.
Click to expand...

The deal was poor for many reasons and that's a true statement. Israel's possession of nuclear weapons is not relevant in a discussion about a nuclear Iran.
 
In fact you can't even say Obama did not seek support from the Congress because he thought the Congress would make a rational choice one way or the other. The GOP lead Congress had committed to Obstruction at every turn during the Obama administration and had proved itself so at every turn while it had majorities in either or both houses. Senate approval would have required a 2/3 supermajority to turn a deal into a treaty. The Deal was signed on July 14, 2015 into the final Congress of the Obama presidency when the GOP had control of both Houses of Congress. Ergo, the chances of gaining approval in the Senate was 0.

Thats one of the things that happens when a party commits publicly to be total obstructionists and then proves itself so. You no longer believe that Senators or Congressmen are making rational choices but are instead simply sticking to their party commitments. I think if there is one thing we have learned over even a longer time horizon than 2008 to 2016, its that sticking to party commitments as members of either House is simply not a rational way to do the People's business. They are not sent to Congress to pull down their pants and expose an R or a D branded on their butts.
 
Moderate Right said:
Do you not know what the sunset clause is? Obama and Kerry made a deal that if Iran stopped nuclear activity for 10 years then they were free to start it right back up in 2025 and, they get to keep on exporting terrorism now as well as work on their ballistic missile program now. Obama sold us out for 10 years of peace, after which the world would be screwed.
Click to expand...
Dumb comment. Something would have been renegotiated. The key to the deal was that the new moderate wave would enjoy the economic benefits of no sanctions and choose not to go back.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
grainbelt said:
Dumb comment. Something would have been renegotiated. The key to the deal was that the new moderate wave would enjoy the economic benefits of no sanctions and choose not to go back.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The country is in economic chaos now. Nothing would have been renogiated. Iran signed the deal because they were willing to trade the release of economic sanctions for being able to freely make nuclear weapons come 2025. The thought process for them was that the economy would be back and they would go back to their nuclear weapons program in 2025, having lived up to their end of the deal. They knew how difficult it was to institute the sanctions in the first place so in 2025 they would already be going into a their nuclear weapons program starting off with a strong economy already in place and by the time the world could reimpose sanctions, they would already have nuclear bombs along with the ballistic missiles to carry them. Iran is not interested in negotiating past 2025, otherwise they would be open to re-nogiating with Trump and the world now, before 2025 even comes around. They're not interested in that. They liked the deal they had in place.
 
humbolt said:
The deal was poor for many reasons and that's a true statement. Israel's possession of nuclear weapons is not relevant in a discussion about a nuclear Iran.
Click to expand...



“The deal was poor for many reasons and that's a true statement.”

You haven’t even provided evidence to support your claim that the deal was “poor.” Without evidence of fact to back up what you say, your claim is dismissed for lack of such and your claim is thus refuted.

“Israel's possession of nuclear weapons is not relevant in a discussion about a nuclear Iran.”

Why not? You raised the point that Iran lied as being a reason to not trust Iran and, in effect, reinstate sanctions. Israel lied about the same thing and thus, just as Iran, cannot be trusted.
 
bluesmoke said:
“The deal was poor for many reasons and that's a true statement.”

You haven’t even provided evidence to support your claim that the deal was “poor.” Without evidence of fact to back up what you say, your claim is dismissed for lack of such and your claim is thus refuted.
Click to expand...

That Iran's military installations are off limits for inspection is sufficient.

“Israel's possession of nuclear weapons is not relevant in a discussion about a nuclear Iran.”

Why not? You raised the point that Iran lied as being a reason to not trust Iran and, in effect, reinstate sanctions. Israel lied about the same thing and thus, just as Iran, cannot be trusted.
Click to expand...

Israel doesn't sponsor terrorism. Iran does, and the notion of a regime that embraces terrorism who may also possess nuclear weapons is disturbing to those of us who value human life.
 
humbolt said:
That Iran's military installations are off limits for inspection is sufficient.



Israel doesn't sponsor terrorism. Iran does, and the notion of a regime that embraces terrorism who may also possess nuclear weapons is disturbing to those of us who value human life.
Click to expand...



The deal was the best that could be had. We can’t have everything our way, however right we are. Now, there is no deal and Trump has green-lighted Iran to ramp-up nuclear arms development. Is that what you want? What is your solution? Do you really think Russia and China will come back on board to sanction Iran? The deal was our best shot at slowing Iran’s gain development of nuclear armament. It’s easy to find fault in most any plan, but you can’t come up with anything better that Iran would agree with. Maybe you also can come up with a plan for Pakistan. They already are a nuclear power and harbor terrorists. Do you have a plan for them, too?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom