Framework for a Nuclear Deal with Iran: apparently agreement

Tide1986 · Jul 14, 2015

92tide said:
you may want to try google.

I did, which netted my question -- I am not averse to a little research and reading like some others may be. Nevertheless, if it is not a treaty, it will persist only at the pleasure of the president since it will be an agreement with the president (specifically BO and no future president being bound by its terms) and not the United States.

Tidewater · Jul 14, 2015

92tide said:
you may want to try google.

John Bassett Moore said:
“There can hardly be room for doubt that the framers of the constitution, when they vested in Congress the power to declare war, never imagined that they were leaving it to the executive to use the military and naval forces of the United States all over the world for the purpose of actually coercing other nations, occupying their territory, and killing their soldiers and citizens, all according to his own notions of the fitness of things, as long as he refrained from calling his action war or persisted in calling it peace.”

Likewise, just because the President avoids calling this treaty a treaty, does not mean it is not a treaty. The idea that opponents must have to sustain a veto-proof majority to kill this is, well, not exactly in line with the intentions of the Founders.

CajunCrimson · Jul 14, 2015

I feel so safe now.....

We have unfettered access with 3 weeks notice....
We have access to all areas with some minor restrictions....
We allow them to further develop the nuclear energy program....
We give them billions of dollars back....
They still hate us....

This is awesome!

Jon · Jul 14, 2015

Tide1986 said:
I did, which netted my question -- I am not averse to a little research and reading like some others may be. Nevertheless, if it is not a treaty, it will persist only at the pleasure of the president since it will be an agreement with the president (specifically BO and no future president being bound by its terms) and not the United States.

nevermind

Al A Bama · Jul 14, 2015

The new Neville Chamberlain, John Kerry, has just accomplished "Peace in our time" just like NC did in the late 1930's.

Will we have a ticker tape parade in NYC?

Tidewater · Jul 14, 2015

The really crappy thing is that, in three years, when the Iranians set off a bomb in Tel Aviv, the slack-jawed bugger-eating morons in the media will blame whomever is then in the White House, saying, "Nobody got nuked while Obama was in office. How did the current person let this happen?"
And they will say that with a straight face.

Al A Bama · Jul 14, 2015

Tidewater said:
The really crappy thing is that, in three years, when the Iranians set off a bomb in Tel Aviv, the slack-jawed bugger-eating morons in the media will blame whomever is then in the White House, saying, "Nobody got nuked while Obama was in office. How did the current person let this happen?"
And they will say that with a straight face.

Netanyahu calls Iran nuclear agreement a 'bad mistake of historic proportions'

Published July 14, 2015FoxNews.com

Facebook822 Twitter713 livefyre1773 Email Print

July 14, 2015: Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a press conference with Dutch Foreign Minister Bert Koenders at the Prime Minister's office in Jerusalem. (Ahikam Seri/Pool Photo via AP)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday that a nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers, led by the United States, was "a bad mistake of historic proportions."
Netanyahu gave his thoughts on the agreement prior to the start of a meeting with Dutch Foreign Minister Bert Koenders in Jerusalem and vowed to continue efforts to block Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
"Iran is going to receive a sure path to nuclear weapons. Many of the restrictions that were supposed to prevent it from getting there will be lifted," Netanyahu said. "Iran will get a jackpot, a cash bonanza of hundreds of billions of dollars, which will enable it to continue to pursue its aggression and terror in the region and in the world."
"One cannot prevent an agreement when the negotiators are willing to make more and more concessions to those who, even during the talks, keep chanting: 'Death to America,"' Netanyahu added. "We knew very well that the desire to sign an agreement was stronger than anything, and therefore we did not commit to preventing an agreement. We did commit to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and this commitment still stands."
Culture and sports minister Miri Regev, a former military spokeswoman, said the deal gave Tehran a "license to kill." Regev also described the pact as "bad for the free world (and) bad for humanity." She called for further lobbying against the deal and said that the U.S. Congress could still block it.
Meanwhile, Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely tweeted her displeasure with the deal, calling it "a capitulation of historic proportions by the West to the Iran-led axis of evil." She added Israel "will employ all diplomatic means to prevent confirmation of the agreement."

Netanyahu's coalition partners angrily criticized Wednesday's agreement. Education Minister Naftali Bennett, who heads the hawkish Jewish Home party, said July 14 will be remembered a "dark day for the free world." Cabinet Minister Miri Regev said the agreement gave Iran a "license to kill."
The cascade of criticism crossed party lines, reflecting the widespread opposition to the deal in Israel.
"This is a regime based in deceit, and now they are going to do what they did for the last 20 years, which is trying to get themselves nuclear weapons behind the back of the world," Yair Lapid, the head of the opposition Yesh Atid Party, told The Associated Press. "Now they are going to do it with the help of the international community."
In the past, Israel has threatened to carry out a military strike against Iran's nuclear installations. But that option appeared to fade as the U.S.-led group of powers engaged in diplomacy with Iran.
Israel's first course of action looks to be an intense lobbying effort in the U.S. Congress to oppose the deal. Netanyahu spoke against the emerging deal before a joint session of Congress in March. Yet despite strong support among Republicans in Congress, there is little that can be done now.
The Senate can weigh in on the agreement but can't kill it, because Obama doesn't need congressional approval for a multinational deal that is not designated a treaty.
Lawmakers have 60 days to review the agreement, during which Obama can't ease penalties on Iran. Only if lawmakers were to build a veto-proof majority behind new legislation enacting new sanctions or preventing Obama from suspending existing ones, the administration would be prevented from living up to the accord.

TommyMac · Jul 14, 2015

Just another step in the Capitulator-In-Chief's master plan against America and Israel.

Wonder how long until Israel suffers the nuclear holocaust? Don't think so? It's just a matter of time til Iran will be North Korea on steroids.

Tidewater · Jul 14, 2015

Al A Bama said:
Israel's first course of action looks to be an intense lobbying effort in the U.S. Congress to oppose the deal. Netanyahu spoke against the emerging deal before a joint session of Congress in March. Yet despite strong support among Republicans in Congress, there is little that can be done now.
The Senate can weigh in on the agreement but can't kill it, because Obama doesn't need congressional approval for a multinational deal that is not designated a treaty.
Lawmakers have 60 days to review the agreement, during which Obama can't ease penalties on Iran. Only if lawmakers were to build a veto-proof majority behind new legislation enacting new sanctions or preventing Obama from suspending existing ones, the administration would be prevented from living up to the accord.
[/FONT]

That is the bit that stuns me.
This guy's utter contempt for the Constitution is scary, exceeded only by the apathy of the American people over that contempt.

seebell · Jul 14, 2015

Tidewater said:
That is the bit that stuns me.
This guy's utter contempt for the Constitution is scary, exceeded only by the apathy of the American people over that contempt.

I thought you would know better than that. Common long before President Obama.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/...ive-agreements-when-does-congress-get-a-vote/

2009 study published by the University of Michigan found that 52.9% of international agreements were executive agreements from 1839 until 1889, but from 1939 until 1989 the ratio had risen to 94.3%.

NationalTitles18 · Jul 14, 2015

I would say the administration is within its authority to institute an agreement, but the next President is not obligated to follow it. Still, in most cases such an agreement will continue to be followed much like a treaty. I'm sure there are cases when that's not true.

Either way, I don't trust Iran to follow the agreement and this is a country that exports terrorism and chants "Death to America" openly. We have given them an avenue to increase their wealth and influence. We will see cheaper gasoline this winter, but at what future price?

Tidewater · Jul 14, 2015

seebell said:
I thought you would know better than that. Common long before President Obama.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/...ive-agreements-when-does-congress-get-a-vote/

2009 study published by the University of Michigan found that 52.9% of international agreements were executive agreements from 1839 until 1889, but from 1939 until 1989 the ratio had risen to 94.3%.

And still as wrong as two dogs humping on the White House lawn.
The key point here is that, I would wager that the majority of those "international agreements" was a good bit less controversial than this one. I'd bet the UM study included things like, "let's put the US embassy at this address in our capital, not that one."

This deal is bad. Very bad, and the White House should have been leading the way to fight against it, not leading the charge (and ignoring its many flaws) to get a deal at any cost.
When Tel Aviv (or New York) disappears under a mushroom cloud, the blame will be on one man.

seebell · Jul 14, 2015

Tidewater;2634624 [B said:
And still as wrong as two dogs humping on the White House lawn.[/B]
The key point here is that, I would wager that the majority of those "international agreements" was a good bit less controversial than this one. I'd bet the UM study included things like, "let's put the US embassy at this address in our capital, not that one."

This deal is bad. Very bad, and the White House should have been leading the way to fight against it, not leading the charge (and ignoring its many flaws) to get a deal at any cost.
When Tel Aviv (or New York) disappears under a mushroom cloud, the blame will be on one man.

I agree. But I'm no longer going to read your posts unless you apologize for dissin' my man Barack!

How bout a dog and that guy from Florida?

This is not just agreement between the US and Iran. The Five Permanent Members of the UN Security Council plus Germany have or will have do agree with this deal. Can't we blame them too?

I wonder what if anything Netanyahu would have agreed with? The invasion of Iran?

day-day · Jul 14, 2015

I've always felt that the one area that the president has the most individual control over is international relations including the use of the military. While the focus during elections can be all over the map including many areas that the president has little influence, I place a higher priority on a presidential candidate's international platform and expected strength in international relations. I was not a big Obama fan during the elections...

seebell · Jul 14, 2015

Most of the Republican candidates are far too hawkish for me.

jthomas666 · Jul 14, 2015

Tidewater said:
This deal is bad. Very bad, and the White House should have been leading the way to fight against it, not leading the charge (and ignoring its many flaws) to get a deal at any cost.

What are your specific issues with the deal OTHER than it's making a deal with a govt that sponsor's terrorism?

What alternative actions would you recommend we take to impede Iran's development of nuclear weapons?

Tide1986 · Jul 14, 2015

jthomas666 said:
What are your specific issues with the deal OTHER than it's making a deal with a govt that sponsor's terrorism?

What alternative actions would you recommend we take to impede Iran's development of nuclear weapons?

I will give you a few of my thoughts even though you didn't ask:

(1) Iran was not required to release all current U.S. hostages.
(2) Iran was not required to renounce terrorism.
(3) Iran was given the option of allowing inspections. Iran is not required to submit to inspections.
(4) Iran is allowed to export and import weapons.

These are a few thoughts about a country that has cheated repeatedly over the years and has made it clear its desire to destroy the U.S. and its allies.

Edit: And the cessation of sanctions is time-based instead of being condition-based.

jthomas666 · Jul 15, 2015

Tide1986 said:
I will give you a few of my thoughts even though you didn't ask:

(1) Iran was not required to release all current U.S. hostages.
(2) Iran was not required to renounce terrorism.
(3) Iran was given the option of allowing inspections. Iran is not required to submit to inspections.
(4) Iran is allowed to export and import weapons.

These are a few thoughts about a country that has cheated repeatedly over the years and has made it clear its desire to destroy the U.S. and its allies.

Edit: And the cessation of sanctions is time-based instead of being condition-based.

Some legitimate issues there, thanks. My analysis of the deal was slightly hamstrung by loss of power last night, but I'm still sorting out the details. I've seen conflicting reports as to exactly what the provisions are, which isn't helping.

Tidewater · Jul 15, 2015

jthomas666 said:
What are your specific issues with the deal OTHER than it's making a deal with a govt that sponsor's terrorism?

What alternative actions would you recommend we take to impede Iran's development of nuclear weapons?

Like seemingly everything in this country this has become a question of "my team vs. the other team." Personally, I do not give a crap about either party, but many seem willing to accept anything evil, incompetent or corrupt, as long as it comes from "my team."

That said, I would echo what 1986 said:
Release all hostages. Period. Before we sit down to the table. Unconditionally. Scum nations hold hostages.
Admit that seizing the US Embassy in Tehran was a criminal thing to do that only a savage uncivilized nation would allow, much less conduct. They should have to admit before the world that they are swine for having done this.
I would not have allowed the Iranian to submit to pop inspections. I would not have allowed them to have unsupervised ownership of nuclear materials. Period. Ever. I can understand that the Iranians would have liked to avoid American IAEA inspectors, so as a bone, I would allow them to restrict Americans from the inspection teams. But Iranians should never have any nuclear materials until they publicly renounce terrorism and back that up with action. They are, after all, swine.
I would not have allowed the swine to have a DUG facility. “They don’t need to have an underground, fortified facility like Fordow in order to have a peaceful nuclear program,”

I realize The One is extremely reluctant to throw America's weight around (for whatever reason), but people around the world look to the US for guidance and leadership. What we say will not determine outcomes, but it will influence the directions other peoples take. If we had said "This deal is unacceptable, other parties would have walked or not pushed for the agreement. Instead, once again, The One voted "present." My soapdish has more leadership.

Al A Bama · Jul 15, 2015

Tidewater said:
Like seemingly everything in this country this has become a question of "my team vs. the other team." Personally, I do not give a crap about either party, but many seem willing to accept anything evil, incompetent or corrupt, as long as it comes from "my team."

That said, I would echo what 1986 said:
Release all hostages. Period. Before we sit down to the table. Unconditionally. Scum nations hold hostages.
Admit that seizing the US Embassy in Tehran was a criminal thing to do that only a savage uncivilized nation would allow, much less conduct. They should have to admit before the world that they are swine for having done this.
I would not have allowed the Iranian to submit to pop inspections. I would not have allowed them to have unsupervised ownership of nuclear materials. Period. Ever. I can understand that the Iranians would have liked to avoid American IAEA inspectors, so as a bone, I would allow them to restrict Americans from the inspection teams. But Iranians should never have any nuclear materials until they publicly renounce terrorism and back that up with action. They are, after all, swine.
I would not have allowed the swine to have a DUG facility. “They don’t need to have an underground, fortified facility like Fordow in order to have a peaceful nuclear program,”

I realize The One is extremely reluctant to throw America's weight around (for whatever reason), but people around the world look to the US for guidance and leadership. What we say will not determine outcomes, but it will influence the directions other peoples take. If we had said "This deal is unacceptable, other parties would have walked or not pushed for the agreement. Instead, once again, The One voted "present." My soapdish has more leadership.

The people who lack a knowledge of history will surely repeat it. Some think it's "Peace in Our Time" when in reality, it's the next step toward WW III or Armageddon, maybe (here's hoping). Maybe we should be on that satellite that's close to Pluto. I think we would be in a place that's much more safe.

When some people should have been learning about the history of the world, they were instead high as a kite on weed.

Will the President sell this like he did the Affordable Care Act, i.e. with lies and deception? Well, I guess he doesn't need to even sell it since he is Emperor and Congress, in reality, doesn't exist. A treaty is only a treaty, if it's a treaty! Did you understand that? Is that like the definition of "is"? The Emperor defines what a treaty "is"! Do you understand that?

So sad! The late Great USA. What will this world be without her. Just read the book of Revelations to find out.

Framework for a Nuclear Deal with Iran: apparently agreement

Suspended

Hall of Fame

Moderator (FB,BB) and Vinyl Enthusiast

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Netanyahu calls Iran nuclear agreement a 'bad mistake of historic proportions'

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Suspended

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!