Republican Senators send a letter to Iran. Wow. Damn!

[BlackSand]

Here's the thing. Only one country has ever used atomic weapons on human beings.

The United States of America.

We dropped them on a defeated country already seeking terms of surrender.

we later tested them on our own soil and made thousand of our own citizens sick.

We don't really have room to be telling the Iranians much of anything at this point.

This isn't Iran ... But it is Hiroshima.



.

 

[JoeB131]

There in lies your problem. You obviously have no idea what the process in an agreement of this kind is. obama can negotiate and sign what ever the hell kind of agreement he wants, but until it is ratified by the Senate, it's just a piece of paper.

Well, no, not really. Most of the Sanctions against Iran were never voted on by Congress, and are presidential directives.

This is what got Ronnie Raygun off the hook when he sold them missiles.

Also, more to the point, the strength of this deal is that SIX nations are agreeing to it, not just one. Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany are agreeing to loosen sanctions in exchange for Iranian concessions on their nuclear program.

but if those other five nations think we are not negotiating in good faith, they'll probably just cut their own deals with Iran and ignore us.

 

[JoeB131]

This isn't Iran ... But it is Hiroshima.

What does that have to do with my point?

 

[BlackSand]

This isn't Iran ... But it is Hiroshima.

What does that have to do with my point?

What was your point in the first place?

.

 

[JoeB131]

This isn't Iran ... But it is Hiroshima.

What does that have to do with my point?

What was your point in the first place?

.

Do you have English Comprehension Problems.

Okay- let's try again.

Only ONE country has ever used nuclear weapons on people. Just one. That nation used nuclear weapons with out any military necessity. It was not being attacked at the time, the nation they used them against had already been crushed militarily and were seeking a diplomatic settlement.

Said country has no real business telling OTHER countries that they can't have nuclear weapons.

 

[Ernie S.]

Time is the only cure for tribal hatred in the Middle East.

They've had 1383 years for Christ sake. How much time do they need? It's time for the adults to tell them how it's going to be.

BTW, I said adults. You should probably fix yourself a pop tart and take a nap.

 

[Ernie S.]

There in lies your problem. You obviously have no idea what the process in an agreement of this kind is. obama can negotiate and sign what ever the hell kind of agreement he wants, but until it is ratified by the Senate, it's just a piece of paper.

Well, no, not really. Most of the Sanctions against Iran were never voted on by Congress, and are presidential directives.

This is what got Ronnie Raygun off the hook when he sold them missiles.

Also, more to the point, the strength of this deal is that SIX nations are agreeing to it, not just one. Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany are agreeing to loosen sanctions in exchange for Iranian concessions on their nuclear program.

but if those other five nations think we are not negotiating in good faith, they'll probably just cut their own deals with Iran and ignore us.

A negotiated agreement with a foreign power is essentially a treaty. Look it up.

 

[BlackSand]

This isn't Iran ... But it is Hiroshima.

What does that have to do with my point?

What was your point in the first place?

.

Do you have English Comprehension Problems.

Okay- let's try again.

Only ONE country has ever used nuclear weapons on people. Just one. That nation used nuclear weapons with out any military necessity. It was not being attacked at the time, the nation they used them against had already been crushed militarily and were seeking a diplomatic settlement.

Said country has no real business telling OTHER countries that they can't have nuclear weapons.

What the fuck makes you think you need to explain it to me dipshit?
I am the one who posted the picture of Hiroshima ... Which would certainly indicate I know what you are talking about.

We didn't make Iran sign the nonproliferation treaty.
And the only thing the fact we have already used nuclear weapons means ... Is that it would be a stupid idea to think we won't do it again if necessary.

Not to mention conditions are better in Hiroshima than they are in Iran.

.

 

[rhodescholar]

Or that "horrible liberal" who is our elected president.

He is awful, the worst I've ever experienced and I go back many decades.

I don't "trust them". But I DO trust our president - who is OUR elected leader - to negotiate the best possible deal for OUR interests. Unlike the "horrible conservatives" who's main agenda has been, from Obama's election, to prevent any sort of accomplishment.

As opposed to the liberals, who cheered on the granting of the nobel prize before the asshole was even in office a year?

I do not trust him in the least, and am becoming increasingly concerned he is a manchurian candidate, especially given that he has angered nearly every major ally the US has on earth - a fact not one single liberal has addressed in this thread or forum.

The "horrible conservatives" don't want to allow diplomacy and negotiations a chance

Uh, you might have been asleep like rip van winkle for the last TEN YEARS of negotiations with iran, but we haven't been.

The want yet another Mid East war. Haven't we learned anything from the mess we made of Iraq, which I might add removed the main counter-balance to Iran's regional ambitions?

Uhm, for the 5th time in this thread, I was against the iraq war for that reason: as bad as saddam was, he was contained, and I and every other informed mid easterner who actually knew the region understood iran was the far more dangerous and troublesome actor.

Taking the side of ISIS? No evidence to support that.

Again, iran created the environment where an ISIS will always exist by oppressing and attacking/terrorizing sunnis in the countries they have taken control of, such as iraq, syria, lebanon, bahrain and yemen. Had iran not conquered these countries to expand the shia crescent, these conflicts such as in syria would not have occurred, or not been any where near as deadly.

He is one individual and, even as elected president - he doesn't have much power. It's rather vague interview on beliefs - not actions.

Please inform your fellow libs who fawn over Rouhani, and explain that to them.

 

[Ernie S.]

This isn't Iran ... But it is Hiroshima.

What does that have to do with my point?

What was your point in the first place?

.

Do you have English Comprehension Problems.

Okay- let's try again.

Only ONE country has ever used nuclear weapons on people. Just one. That nation used nuclear weapons with out any military necessity. It was not being attacked at the time, the nation they used them against had already been crushed militarily and were seeking a diplomatic settlement.

Said country has no real business telling OTHER countries that they can't have nuclear weapons.

They were seeking a diplomatic solution on their terms. Defeated enemies do not dictate terms.
Besides, Japan had proven themselves to be dishonest and unlikely to abide by negotiated terms. They were talking with FDR about staying out of their war in SE Asia when they bombed Pearl Harbor.
Japan wanted concessions the US was unwilling to concede. The US demanded unconditional surrender and removal of the Emperor from power. Japan refused in a communique dated 7/29/45.
The choice, at that point was a land invasion of the Japanese main land or 2 bombs. We dropped one on 8/6 and waited a couple days for an answer. We dropped another on 8/9 and the next day, Japan agreed to our term.
Too bad really, but look how relations with Japan are today compared with, say Viet Nam where we didn't fight to win.

 

[rhodescholar]

Sanctions worked to bring them to the table. If you continue, at this point, to ratchet them up you risk driving them away any agreement or potential oversight - and building a bomb in secret.

You are clearly uninformed; the iranians did not admit to the the vast majority of their nuclear weapons program, it was exposed by anti-regime elements operating in iran. No agreement with that regime is worth the paper it is printed on.

 

[rhodescholar]

What have they done to us?

When the mods start trolling threads, its usually time to close down the forum...

 

[rhodescholar]

So you were ok with congress inviting him for his speech which they thought would win the election for him? But this is a problem for you?

Your intelligence is really, really low, that it needs to be spelled out for you: obama is complaining that netanyahu is speaking before congress, while obama himself is interfering with a major foreign election himself. Got it now, dimwit?

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Coyote]

Sorry you can't see the difference between current senators and a former president. I think Carter was wrong, but it's nothing compared to current senators sending a letter to a foreign country trying to ruin negotiations. There are multiple countries in these negotiations and these senators just made us look like clowns. Sanctions are dependent on these other countries. There is no defending their actions.

All the letter did was state to iran that the current president cannot sideline congress, and they will have a say in the contours of any agreement. The only people whining about this is the far left media and the clapping lemmings too dumb to form their own opinions. Otherwise, they'd have spoken up when obama had Cameron calling members of congress, or when it became public knowledge that obama is funding and his staff working on the campaign of one of Netanyahu's opponents.

But according to the dim left, breaking the laws are acceptable as long as its for "their" side.

Did the Democrats do that to Nixon when he was dealing with the Soviets? China?

They would have and SHOULD have, had Nixon been as incompetent as the current President.

Neither is/was incompetent.

 

[Ernie S.]

Sorry you can't see the difference between current senators and a former president. I think Carter was wrong, but it's nothing compared to current senators sending a letter to a foreign country trying to ruin negotiations. There are multiple countries in these negotiations and these senators just made us look like clowns. Sanctions are dependent on these other countries. There is no defending their actions.

All the letter did was state to iran that the current president cannot sideline congress, and they will have a say in the contours of any agreement. The only people whining about this is the far left media and the clapping lemmings too dumb to form their own opinions. Otherwise, they'd have spoken up when obama had Cameron calling members of congress, or when it became public knowledge that obama is funding and his staff working on the campaign of one of Netanyahu's opponents.

But according to the dim left, breaking the laws are acceptable as long as its for "their" side.

Did the Democrats do that to Nixon when he was dealing with the Soviets? China?

They would have and SHOULD have, had Nixon been as incompetent as the current President.

Neither is/was incompetent.

obama is barely sentient.

 

[Coyote]

What have they done to us?

When the mods start trolling threads, its usually time to close down the forum...

So you can't answer the question.

 

[nat4900]

A negotiated agreement with a foreign power is essentially a treaty. Look it up.

Well, not quite........The State Dept. has always had a Foreign Affairs Manual that states:
......... the President can enter an executive agreement without the "consent and advice" of two thirds of the senate if a previous treaty or legislation gives him the power to do so......

 

[Carla_Danger]

It is Iran who wants WW III. Don't you understand that yet?

I don't think they do. They want to be a regional power and they want to be "respected", and nuclear technology and weaponry is one way to attain "respect" and power. India and Pakistan have nukes and are formable enemies yet neither has anilated the other. Israel has nukes that are much more powerful then anything Iran could produce in the forseable future with the technology they are currently working on (I think Doc pointed that out but everyone ignores it). If Iran were to do anything to Israel - it would have a 5 mile radius and Iran would be obliterated in return. There's a difference between rhetoric and action and despite propaganda and rhetoric to the contrary, Iran is surprisingly stable and doesn't strike me as insane in the way NK is for example. The current set of negotiations are very reminiscent to the old Salt Talks that that started with executive agreements to freeze weaponry and led eventually to a long term treaty.

That's because India and Pakistan are not controlled by insane mullahs who believe in a 12th Imam. Do you understand that? These mullahs want to bring about an apocalyptic scenario and to destroy Israel. That is their goal.

We think of them as "insane mullahs" but their not. They're canny and political, there is no evidence to support that they want an apocolypse.

Exactly.

We saw a similar ridiculous perception of the Soviets during the Cold War.

It's a troubling Orwellian aspect of most conservatives, their need for some sort of 'malevolent enemy,' be it 'communism' a generation ago or Iran today.

Well, I'm not conservative. So what now?

LOL, I know, you're a Neo-Clown.

 

[Coyote]

Or that "horrible liberal" who is our elected president.

He is awful, the worst I've ever experienced and I go back many decades.

That's a matter of personal opinion. I personally place Dubya in that category.

I don't "trust them". But I DO trust our president - who is OUR elected leader - to negotiate the best possible deal for OUR interests. Unlike the "horrible conservatives" who's main agenda has been, from Obama's election, to prevent any sort of accomplishment.

As opposed to the liberals, who cheered on the granting of the nobel prize before the asshole was even in office a year?

I don't know if they cheered or not, but I didn't. It certainly wasn't Obama's fault that the Nobel Prize committee did that. He didn't ask for it.

I do not trust him in the least, and am becoming increasingly concerned he is a manchurian candidate, especially given that he has angered nearly every major ally the US has on earth - a fact not one single liberal has addressed in this thread or forum.

I disagree but we are each entitled to our opinions.

The "horrible conservatives" don't want to allow diplomacy and negotiations a chance

Uh, you might have been asleep like rip van winkle for the last TEN YEARS of negotiations with iran, but we haven't been.

I may have been asleep but I wasn't delusional.

The want yet another Mid East war. Haven't we learned anything from the mess we made of Iraq, which I might add removed the main counter-balance to Iran's regional ambitions?

Uhm, for the 5th time in this thread, I was against the iraq war for that reason: as bad as saddam was, he was contained, and I and every other informed mid easterner who actually knew the region understood iran was the far more dangerous and troublesome actor.

Umh. Where did I say you were for the Iraq war? That comment was not about *you*.

Taking the side of ISIS? No evidence to support that.

Again, iran created the environment where an ISIS will always exist by oppressing and attacking/terrorizing sunnis in the countries they have taken control of, such as iraq, syria, lebanon, bahrain and yemen. Had iran not conquered these countries to expand the shia crescent, these conflicts such as in syria would not have occurred, or not been any where near as deadly.

I call bullshit on that. What created the environment that allowed for ISIS was multi-factored and while it may have included Iran's history, that is only a small part. One of the causes was the invasion of Iraq which set the stage for further "Arab springs" and civil wars in Syria and Libya. Iraq's marvelous election produced little more than tribal payback which disenfranchised the Sunni's and gave groups like IS an opening.

He is one individual and, even as elected president - he doesn't have much power. It's rather vague interview on beliefs - not actions.

Please inform your fellow libs who fawn over Rouhani, and explain that to them.[/QUOTE]

Who's fawning over Rouhani? He's a better than Ahmademongob and he's willing to negotiate and tone down the rhetoric. As to the rest we'll see.