Iran nuclear deal: European nations 'siding with ayatollahs' - Pompeo

[colfax_m]

A president can unilaterally withdraw from any treaty. There is now pretty well established precedent.

Is that like the argument that any state admitted to the union can unilaterally withdraw from the USA?

So you admit the Iran deal wasn't a treaty.

Who cares?

I'm guessing the moron who has been trying to convince us for the past 2 pages it IS a treaty, Dummy.

It was your nit pick. But it doesn’t really make any real difference.

 

[meaner gene]

I'm guessing the moron who has been trying to convince us for the past 2 pages it IS a treaty, Dummy.

It is a treaty under international law and Geneva article 18.

I NEVER claimed it was a treaty as defined by the US Constitution. This is like when somebody calls somebody a traitor, that it still applies even though the person committed no treason under the Constitution.

 

[meaner gene]

It was your nit pick. But it doesn’t really make any real difference.

A rose by any other name.

HE objects to use of the term treaty, as it is under international law, vs actually arguing any facts.

 

[Nostra]

\
So you admit the Iran deal wasn't a treaty.

It's a treaty under international law, and Geneva article 18

It isn't a Treaty according to the US Constitution, so we aren't bound by it. We are not signatories of a treaty with Iran no matter how you feebly try to spin it.

That's why Trump was so easily able to shitcan it, because it was just an EO by Barry Hussein. Nothing more.

 

[Nostra]

I'm guessing the moron who has been trying to convince us for the past 2 pages it IS a treaty, Dummy.

It is a treaty under international law and Geneva article 18.

I NEVER claimed it was a treaty as defined by the US Constitution. This is like when somebody calls somebody a traitor, that it still applies even though the person committed no treason under the Constitution.

Other countries can call it whatever they want, we aren't part of any treaty with Barry's Mullah buddies.

 

[Kilroy2]

Trump breaking the Iran deal was 100% about blowing up one of President Obama's accomplishments.

How did America benefit from giving the illegitimate Mullahs of Iran pallets full of cash money?

It is not like the US gave them cash, it was more of unfreezing Iranian money that was in western banks. It belong to them but they just could not get their money while it was frozen do to the sanctions

Almost $1.973 billion of Iran's assets are frozen in the US alone. Yeah the banks love that. 50 million in real estate in the US belong to Iran.

The money was theirs and you cannot hold it forever. Especially when your making money on their assets.

 

[Nostra]

A president can unilaterally withdraw from any treaty. There is now pretty well established precedent.

Is that like the argument that any state admitted to the union can unilaterally withdraw from the USA?

So you admit the Iran deal wasn't a treaty.

Who cares?

I'm guessing the moron who has been trying to convince us for the past 2 pages it IS a treaty, Dummy.

It was your nit pick. But it doesn’t really make any real difference.

The difference between a Treaty signed on behalf of the USA, and an Executive Order, isn't a "nit pick", moron.

 

[Nostra]

A treaty has to be signed by those entering into it, right?

That's a yes or no.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Trump breaking the Iran deal was 100% about blowing up one of President Obama's accomplishments.

How did America benefit from giving the illegitimate Mullahs of Iran pallets full of cash money?

It is not like the US gave them cash, it was more of unfreezing Iranian money that was in western banks. It belong to them but they just could not get their money while it was frozen do to the sanctions

Almost $1.973 billion of Iran's assets are frozen in the US alone. Yeah the banks love that. 50 million in real estate in the US belong to Iran.

The money was theirs and you cannot hold it forever. Especially when your making money on their assets.

The agreement was between the previous Iranian government which the present government overthrew and the US has not had diplomatic relations with the present government so there is not basis for claiming we owed the ayatollahs anything. Moreover, we knew much of that money would go to support Iran's wars across the ME and Iran's support for terrorism around the world. That alone should have overridden any other concerns since it made the US effectively a state sponsor of terrorism.

 

[colfax_m]

A president can unilaterally withdraw from any treaty. There is now pretty well established precedent.

Is that like the argument that any state admitted to the union can unilaterally withdraw from the USA?

So you admit the Iran deal wasn't a treaty.

Who cares?

I'm guessing the moron who has been trying to convince us for the past 2 pages it IS a treaty, Dummy.

It was your nit pick. But it doesn’t really make any real difference.

The difference between a Treaty signed on behalf of the USA, and an Executive Order, isn't a "nit pick", moron.

So what is effective difference?

 

[meaner gene]

It's a treaty under international law, and Geneva article 18

It isn't a Treaty according to the US Constitution, so we aren't bound by it. We are not signatories of a treaty with Iran no matter how you feebly try to spin it.

That's why Trump was so easily able to shitcan it, because it was just an EO by Barry Hussein. Nothing more.

The international treaty is what obligated us to have a tribunal decide disputes between Iran and the US. So while it was in effect, the settlement was made.

The fact that it can be withdrawn from by the president (but Iran and the EU are still upholding the treaty) doesn't change the legitimacy of the settlement.

 

[meaner gene]

Other countries can call it whatever they want, we aren't part of any treaty with Barry's Mullah buddies.

Other countries under international law call it a treaty.

 

[Nostra]

Other countries can call it whatever they want, we aren't part of any treaty with Barry's Mullah buddies.

Other countries under international law call it a treaty.

Who signed it?

 

[meaner gene]

The difference between a Treaty signed on behalf of the USA, and an Executive Order, isn't a "nit pick", moron.

You're arguing the difference between a treaty enacted by EO, and a treaty enacted by senate ratification, can't both be called a treaty.

 

[Polishprince]

Other countries can call it whatever they want, we aren't part of any treaty with Barry's Mullah buddies.

Other countries under international law call it a treaty.

Under the Constitution, treaties must be ratified by the US Senate. The Iran Deal was not even sent to McConnell for consideration.

 

[Nostra]

A president can unilaterally withdraw from any treaty. There is now pretty well established precedent.

Is that like the argument that any state admitted to the union can unilaterally withdraw from the USA?

So you admit the Iran deal wasn't a treaty.

Who cares?

I'm guessing the moron who has been trying to convince us for the past 2 pages it IS a treaty, Dummy.

It was your nit pick. But it doesn’t really make any real difference.

The difference between a Treaty signed on behalf of the USA, and an Executive Order, isn't a "nit pick", moron.

So what is effective difference?

You really are stupid.

For starters, a President can do an EO on his own.........hence the name. Before something becomes a treaty it MUST go to the Senate and be voted on, and get a 2/3rds majority or it dies.

Barry's EO never went to the Senate.

 

[meaner gene]

A treaty has to be signed by those entering into it, right?

That's a yes or no.

Good point, it was signed by the US, Iran, and 6 members of the EU.

So it was singed 8 times.

 

[Nostra]

The difference between a Treaty signed on behalf of the USA, and an Executive Order, isn't a "nit pick", moron.

You're arguing the difference between a treaty enacted by EO, and a treaty enacted by senate ratification, can't both be called a treaty.

Nope. An EO is an EO. A treaty is a treaty. Two completely different things entirely.

 

[Nostra]

A treaty has to be signed by those entering into it, right?

That's a yes or no.

Good point, it was signed by the US, Iran, and 6 members of the EU.

So it was singed 8 times.

Once again you demonstrate your ignorance. Brace yourself for another beating..................



A Trip Down Memory Lane: In 2015 the Obama Administration Said the Iran Deal Wasn’t Even a ‘Signed Document’

How easy we forget. On November 19, 2015, the State Department sent a letter to then-Representative Mike Pompeo that severely undercuts the notion that the Iran deal represents any form of binding American commitment. It turns out that the Obama administration not only acknowledged that the deal wasn’t a treaty (obvious enough), but it also admitted that it wasn’t “an executive agreement” or even a “signed document.” Here are the key paragraphs:

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document. The JCPOA reflects political commitments between Iran, the P5+1 (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, China), and the European Union. As you know, the United States has a long-standing practice of addressing sensitive problems in negotiations that culminate in political commitments.

The success of the JCPOA will depend not on whether it is legally binding or signed, but rather on the extensive verification measures we have put in place, as well as Iran’s understanding that we have the capacity to re-impose — and ramp up — our sanctions if Iran does not meet its commitments.

You can read the entire letter here.

The Iran deal was no sacred American commitment. This was the action of one administration, working with allies and other nations who were fully aware of American domestic skepticism and fully aware of the nature of the “political commitment” they were making.


As our Joel Gehrke reported in 2015, “President Obama didn’t require Iranian leaders to sign the nuclear deal.” In short, there was nothing truly binding about this deal. From its inception it existed only so long it was politically or strategically expedient for the relevant parties. The only thing truly concrete that came out of the JCPOA was the substantial financial benefit to the world’s most dangerous jihadist state.

4
Finally, let’s not forget that one of the justifications for the deal was the entirely faith-based belief that it could represent a turning point in American-Iranian relations, one that would ultimately lead to Iran “fully rejoin[ing] the community of nations.” That didn’t happen. Instead, Iran doubled down on jihad and doubled-down on its efforts to directly threaten Israel from bases in Syria. A foundational premise of the agreement went up in the choking smoke Middle Eastern war.

The Iran deal wasn’t binding then, and it’s not binding now. It wasn’t a true “agreement” then, and it isn’t now. America can’t break its word when it never made a promise.

A Trip Down Memory Lane: In 2015 the Obama Administration Said the Iran Deal Wasn’t Even a ‘Signed Document’ | National Review

The Iran deal wasn’t binding then, and it’s not binding now.

www.nationalreview.com

 

[meaner gene]

Under the Constitution, treaties must be ratified by the US Senate. The Iran Deal was not even sent to McConnell for consideration.

Under the constitution treason can only be by armed aggression against the government, or giving aid and comfort to a country we have declared war on.

Does that mean every time somebody called Obama a traitor, they couldn't actually use that term.