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

[ChrisL]

Just to make things clear, I despise Islam and I despise Iran, and I despise all of you who are supporting this deal. You all suck balls.

 

[occupied]

Just to make things clear, I despise Islam and I despise Iran, and I despise all of you who are supporting this deal. You all suck balls.

I'm not the one wanting to feed another trillion dollars and thousands of American lives to the woodchipper in order to enrich the MIC.

 

[ChrisL]

Just to make things clear, I despise Islam and I despise Iran, and I despise all of you who are supporting this deal. You all suck balls.

I'm not the one wanting to feed another trillion dollars and thousands of American lives to the woodchipper in order to enrich the MIC.

Neither do I. Why you keep insisting that I want a war, I don't know. Probably because you are a nutty liberal who has no other argument. This is what liberals do. They are dishonest wimps.

A great analogy for the liberal is the kid in school who had to pass out candies and cookies and give up his/her lunch money just to make friends, and this carries over into adulthood. Lol. It makes SO much sense.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ChrL 10996635

Because your questions are idiotic,

What is idiotic about the questionIntake you were enforcing the idea that Obama favors nuclear rights for Iran, but no gun rights for Americans.

Since you posted such a sickening dishonest cartoon we need to know how you have concluded that it represents something based on facts.

NF 10970173

Is the e P5+1 deal if enacted going to become a part of international law?

So why not tell us your opinion regarding the above question? Perhaps you think the P5's are not able to make international law.

 

[ChrisL]

ChrL 10996635

Because your questions are idiotic,

What is idiotic about the questionIntake you were enforcing the idea that Obama favors nuclear rights for Iran, but no gun rights for Americans.

Since you posted such a sickening dishonest cartoon we need to know how you have concluded that it represents something based on facts.

NF 10970173

Is the e P5+1 deal if enacted going to become a part of international law?

So why not tell us your opinion regarding the above question? Perhaps you think the P5's are not able to make international law.

Hey, the truth hurts, huh? You liberals can't handle the truth, that's why you believe in political correctness. Lol.

Democrats prepared to buck White House on Iran nuclear deal - Burgess Everett - POLITICO

Even as the White House ramps up pressure on Congress to stay out of its negotiations with Iran on a nuclear agreement, Republicans are on the brink of veto-proof majorities for legislation that could undercut any deal.

And that support has held up even after the uproar last week over the GOP’s letter to Iranian leaders warning against an agreement.

Story Continued Below


Though several Democratic senators told POLITICO they were offended by the missive authored by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), none of them said it would cause them to drop their support for bills to impose new sanctions on Iran or give Congress review power over a nuclear deal.

That presents another complication for the administration ahead of a rough deadline of March 24 to reach a nuclear agreement with the country.



Read more: Democrats prepared to buck White House on Iran nuclear deal - Burgess Everett - POLITICO

 

[Ernie S.]

ChrL 10991928

According to my links, anything Obama does unilaterally is not beholden to the next administration.

Unilaterally in what sense? P5+1 is a multilateral negotiation going on since 2006. The next Administration can't undue (in a practical and moral sense) much if a deal is made and Iran complies and does not ever attempt to breakout from peaceful nuclear power to trying to build a bomb. They will be stopped if a violation occurs and that includes any member state having the right to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.

Nothing changes in that regard except outsiders will have better intelligence if military strikes should be needed.

So "beholden" is a farcical concept in this whole scenario specifically if Iran complies for the next 15 years with their agreement with the west and China and Russia.

Nothing in the US Constitution compells the Senate of the United States to comply with P5+1 agreements. obama, negotiating any treaty requires Senate ratification before said treaty is binding.

 

[Ernie S.]

ChrL 10996635

Because your questions are idiotic,

What is idiotic about the questionIntake you were enforcing the idea that Obama favors nuclear rights for Iran, but no gun rights for Americans.

Since you posted such a sickening dishonest cartoon we need to know how you have concluded that it represents something based on facts.

NF 10970173

Is the e P5+1 deal if enacted going to become a part of international law?

So why not tell us your opinion regarding the above question? Perhaps you think the P5's are not able to make international law.

They can make no law that the US must follow without 66 Senators.

 

[Ernie S.]

ChrL 10996635

Because your questions are idiotic,

What is idiotic about the questionIntake you were enforcing the idea that Obama favors nuclear rights for Iran, but no gun rights for Americans.

Since you posted such a sickening dishonest cartoon we need to know how you have concluded that it represents something based on facts.

NF 10970173

Is the e P5+1 deal if enacted going to become a part of international law?

So why not tell us your opinion regarding the above question? Perhaps you think the P5's are not able to make international law.

There is no such thing as international law. There are treaties..... but this is not a treaty until the Senate says it is.

 

[JoeB131]

The support and aid worldwide terrorism and attack other countries by proxy using terrorists.

Okay. so do the Pakistanis. So do the Russians. So do the North Koreans.

They stone and kill women. They hang homosexuals.

Not really that many, and usually for things those people KNEW were crimes before they did them. again, Iran only executed 700 or so people in 2014. While that's bad and all, most of them did things you should be hung for.

They are run by religious extremists.

Yeah, as opposed to an American President who invaded Iraq because God told him to.

They lie, cheat and deceive.

and again, I'm waiting for an example.

Their beliefs are that they want to bring the world into the dark ages. That's just a few things.

So other than a lot of emoting, did you actually have an example of Iran breaking a treaty or otherwise not living up to agreements they've made?

 

[JoeB131]

Just to make things clear, I despise Islam and I despise Iran, and I despise all of you who are supporting this deal. You all suck balls.

I don't necessarily support this deal. But frankly, you emoting because you don't like their belief in Invisible Sky Fairies is not a sound rational against this agreement.

 

[JoeB131]

Nothing in the US Constitution compells the Senate of the United States to comply with P5+1 agreements. obama, negotiating any treaty requires Senate ratification before said treaty is binding.

actually, most of the sanctions we have against Iran are executive orders Obama can repeal. More to the point, if we don't get an agreement, the Russians and Chinese will just cut their own deals with Iran.

There is no such thing as international law. There are treaties..... but this is not a treaty until the Senate says it is.

Actually, there is. Most of them being treaties we've ALREADY AGREED TO.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

There is no such thing as international law. There are treaties..... but this is not a treaty until the Senate says it is

In yourvmind a treaty or executive agreement is not considered a part of international law. Is that correct?

This is not going to be a treaty:

.
Politically-Binding? Legally-Binding? Or Both?

One misconception about the nature of the P5+1 agreement with Iran is whether and how it binds the two sides to follow through with their commitments and who must endorse it.

From the U.S. perspective, the deal will be an executive agreement. The president has the authority to negotiate an executive agreement with a foreign government without congressional involvement. Studies indicate that since the 1930s, 94 percent of all agreements with foreign countries have been executive agreements.

Unlike a treaty, which requires the advice and consent of two thirds of the U.S. Senate and is legally binding, the executive agreement between the P5+1 and Iran will not require congressional advice and consent, though Congress will have to, at the appropriate stage, take legislative action to lift certain nuclear-related sanctions on Iran in order to fulfill the terms of the agreement.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry reiterated in testimony before a March 11 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that the Iran nuclear deal would be a "nonbinding" executive agreement among the parties, which include the five permanent members of the Security Council.

But as Richard Nephew, former deputy coordinator of sanctions policy at the State Department told The Washington Post, "At the end of the day, it's still politically binding," he said. "Commitments are made. What's the real consequence to Iran? If it were a treaty or legally binding and they violate it, that has significance. But the bigger impact is sanctions will be reimposed. If we don't fulfill our part, Iran's nuclear program will expand. That's still a consequence, just more practical than legal."

If concluded, the UN Security Council will also endorse the agreement. Multiple sources, including U.S. and Iranian government officials, have indicated that they will seek endorsement of the deal by a Security Council resolution.

However, Bernadette Meehan, spokesperson for the National Security Council, said in an email statement to reporters on March 12 that "any new resolution would not take U.S. commitments under the deal--particularly with respect to sanctions relief--and make them legally binding. We have been and will continue to be extremely careful to avoid any such provisions in future [UN Security Council resolutions]."

The 2013 deal reached by the United States and Russia to remove and destroy chemical weapons from Syria followed a similar pattern--an executive agreement followed by a UN Security Council resolution endorsing and mandating the implementation of the arrangement.

A congressionally-mandated requirement for delaying the implementation of the agreement pending a congressional review and an "up-or-down" vote, as called for by the Corker-Menendez legislation (S. 615), or a requirement that Iran meet further commitments before sanctions are relieved (which is also an element of that bill), would put the United States at odds with its obligations under the P5+1 and Iran deal.

For more on discussion, see Tyler Cullis's oped in The New York Times, "Ford and Helsinki, Obama and Iran" and Jack Goldsmith's blog, "How a U.N. Security Council Resolution Transforms a Non-Binding Agreement with Iran into a Binding Obligation Under International Law."

P5 1 and Iran Nuclear Talks Alert March 13 Arms Control Association

 

[ChrisL]

Hmm. Does anyone wonder WHY Obama decided to make this deal anyways during his last term? Last lame duck attempt to make a name for himself?

Nothing in the US Constitution compells the Senate of the United States to comply with P5+1 agreements. obama, negotiating any treaty requires Senate ratification before said treaty is binding.

actually, most of the sanctions we have against Iran are executive orders Obama can repeal. More to the point, if we don't get an agreement, the Russians and Chinese will just cut their own deals with Iran.

There is no such thing as international law. There are treaties..... but this is not a treaty until the Senate says it is.

Actually, there is. Most of them being treaties we've ALREADY AGREED TO.

No they are not. Those sanctions were set up with the UN and GWB. Obama is going to have a difficult time.

 

[ChrisL]

There is no such thing as international law. There are treaties..... but this is not a treaty until the Senate says it is

In yourvmind a treaty or executive agreement is not considered a part of international law. Is that correct?

This is not going to be a treaty:

.
Politically-Binding? Legally-Binding? Or Both?

One misconception about the nature of the P5+1 agreement with Iran is whether and how it binds the two sides to follow through with their commitments and who must endorse it.

From the U.S. perspective, the deal will be an executive agreement. The president has the authority to negotiate an executive agreement with a foreign government without congressional involvement. Studies indicate that since the 1930s, 94 percent of all agreements with foreign countries have been executive agreements.

Unlike a treaty, which requires the advice and consent of two thirds of the U.S. Senate and is legally binding, the executive agreement between the P5+1 and Iran will not require congressional advice and consent, though Congress will have to, at the appropriate stage, take legislative action to lift certain nuclear-related sanctions on Iran in order to fulfill the terms of the agreement.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry reiterated in testimony before a March 11 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that the Iran nuclear deal would be a "nonbinding" executive agreement among the parties, which include the five permanent members of the Security Council.

But as Richard Nephew, former deputy coordinator of sanctions policy at the State Department told The Washington Post, "At the end of the day, it's still politically binding," he said. "Commitments are made. What's the real consequence to Iran? If it were a treaty or legally binding and they violate it, that has significance. But the bigger impact is sanctions will be reimposed. If we don't fulfill our part, Iran's nuclear program will expand. That's still a consequence, just more practical than legal."

If concluded, the UN Security Council will also endorse the agreement. Multiple sources, including U.S. and Iranian government officials, have indicated that they will seek endorsement of the deal by a Security Council resolution.

However, Bernadette Meehan, spokesperson for the National Security Council, said in an email statement to reporters on March 12 that "any new resolution would not take U.S. commitments under the deal--particularly with respect to sanctions relief--and make them legally binding. We have been and will continue to be extremely careful to avoid any such provisions in future [UN Security Council resolutions]."

The 2013 deal reached by the United States and Russia to remove and destroy chemical weapons from Syria followed a similar pattern--an executive agreement followed by a UN Security Council resolution endorsing and mandating the implementation of the arrangement.

A congressionally-mandated requirement for delaying the implementation of the agreement pending a congressional review and an "up-or-down" vote, as called for by the Corker-Menendez legislation (S. 615), or a requirement that Iran meet further commitments before sanctions are relieved (which is also an element of that bill), would put the United States at odds with its obligations under the P5+1 and Iran deal.

For more on discussion, see Tyler Cullis's oped in The New York Times, "Ford and Helsinki, Obama and Iran" and Jack Goldsmith's blog, "How a U.N. Security Council Resolution Transforms a Non-Binding Agreement with Iran into a Binding Obligation Under International Law."

P5 1 and Iran Nuclear Talks Alert March 13 Arms Control Association

You link disagrees with your statement. It says right in your link that they will have to go through congress and the UN in order to make the agreement binding . . . IOW, if they fail to do this, the next administration does not have to abide by it because it would be an executive agreement and NOT a treaty. Obama cannot make a treaty with anyone without going through congress.

 

[Ernie S.]

Nothing in the US Constitution compells the Senate of the United States to comply with P5+1 agreements. obama, negotiating any treaty requires Senate ratification before said treaty is binding.

actually, most of the sanctions we have against Iran are executive orders Obama can repeal. More to the point, if we don't get an agreement, the Russians and Chinese will just cut their own deals with Iran.

There is no such thing as international law. There are treaties..... but this is not a treaty until the Senate says it is.

Actually, there is. Most of them being treaties we've ALREADY AGREED TO.

Not laws, treaties. There is no body that enforces laws for the planet, thus no international law.
The sanctions on Iran are US law, passed by Congress and signed by POTUS.

 

[Ernie S.]

There is no such thing as international law. There are treaties..... but this is not a treaty until the Senate says it is

In yourvmind a treaty or executive agreement is not considered a part of international law. Is that correct?

This is not going to be a treaty:

.
Politically-Binding? Legally-Binding? Or Both?

One misconception about the nature of the P5+1 agreement with Iran is whether and how it binds the two sides to follow through with their commitments and who must endorse it.

From the U.S. perspective, the deal will be an executive agreement. The president has the authority to negotiate an executive agreement with a foreign government without congressional involvement. Studies indicate that since the 1930s, 94 percent of all agreements with foreign countries have been executive agreements.

Unlike a treaty, which requires the advice and consent of two thirds of the U.S. Senate and is legally binding, the executive agreement between the P5+1 and Iran will not require congressional advice and consent, though Congress will have to, at the appropriate stage, take legislative action to lift certain nuclear-related sanctions on Iran in order to fulfill the terms of the agreement.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry reiterated in testimony before a March 11 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that the Iran nuclear deal would be a "nonbinding" executive agreement among the parties, which include the five permanent members of the Security Council.

But as Richard Nephew, former deputy coordinator of sanctions policy at the State Department told The Washington Post, "At the end of the day, it's still politically binding," he said. "Commitments are made. What's the real consequence to Iran? If it were a treaty or legally binding and they violate it, that has significance. But the bigger impact is sanctions will be reimposed. If we don't fulfill our part, Iran's nuclear program will expand. That's still a consequence, just more practical than legal."

If concluded, the UN Security Council will also endorse the agreement. Multiple sources, including U.S. and Iranian government officials, have indicated that they will seek endorsement of the deal by a Security Council resolution.

However, Bernadette Meehan, spokesperson for the National Security Council, said in an email statement to reporters on March 12 that "any new resolution would not take U.S. commitments under the deal--particularly with respect to sanctions relief--and make them legally binding. We have been and will continue to be extremely careful to avoid any such provisions in future [UN Security Council resolutions]."

The 2013 deal reached by the United States and Russia to remove and destroy chemical weapons from Syria followed a similar pattern--an executive agreement followed by a UN Security Council resolution endorsing and mandating the implementation of the arrangement.

A congressionally-mandated requirement for delaying the implementation of the agreement pending a congressional review and an "up-or-down" vote, as called for by the Corker-Menendez legislation (S. 615), or a requirement that Iran meet further commitments before sanctions are relieved (which is also an element of that bill), would put the United States at odds with its obligations under the P5+1 and Iran deal.

For more on discussion, see Tyler Cullis's oped in The New York Times, "Ford and Helsinki, Obama and Iran" and Jack Goldsmith's blog, "How a U.N. Security Council Resolution Transforms a Non-Binding Agreement with Iran into a Binding Obligation Under International Law."

P5 1 and Iran Nuclear Talks Alert March 13 Arms Control Association

Show me how P5+1 can enforce this "executive agreement".

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Show me how P5+1 can enforce this "executive agreement".

Bombs.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Not laws, treaties. There is no body that enforces laws for the planet, thus no international law.

Sanctions and trade restrictions are enforcement of international law.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

"61 percent of participants broke in favor of making a deal allowing limited enrichment"


More Proof that ChrisL is wrong that a majority of Americans do not support the P5+1 negotiations and potential deal with Iran.

. The survey — fielded by GfK among a nationally representative panel of 710 Americans, with a 4 point margin of error — showed that large majorities of respondents found arguments convincing both for and against making a deal, including the kind of arguments made by Netanyahu. But in the end, 61 percent of participants broke in favor of making a deal allowing limited enrichment, provided that there are intrusive inspections, rather than ramping up sanctions in an effort to get Iran to give up all enrichment.

What Americans really think about an Iran deal Brookings Institution

 

[Antares]

Look sissy boy the war is going to happen because Islam wants it to happen.

What "Islam" wants it to happen? Egypt is 80 million - they don't want it to happen? Why is Iran fighting Daesh terrorist scum in Iraq and Syria?

Do you think Saudis want it to happen. You are very deranged when it comes to Islam - what Bush called the religion of peace.

Nope I understand fully what RADICAL Islam wants, you have your head in the sand.