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

[Vigilante]

The TRUTH be known......

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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.

You are truly an uneducated and obviously illiterate partisan hack.

From my link:

. 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.

And this:

. 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.

A future president cannot undue a UNSC Resolution that had passed.

The point I've made is that if Iran complies for the next ten to fifteen years there will be no political will to subvert the deal unilaterally by a US President. If Iran does not comply bomb them. So what's your bitching sll about?

 

[Antares]

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.

You are truly an uneducated and obviously illiterate partisan hack.

From my link:

. 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.

And this:

. 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.

A future president cannot undue a UNSC Resolution that had passed.

The point I've made is that if Iran complies for the next ten to fifteen years there will be no political will to subvert the deal unilaterally by a US President. If Iran does not comply bomb them. So what's your bitching sll about?

(sigh) Once more an Executive Agreement is NOT legally binding.

 

[JoeB131]

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

Un, no, they won't. If the P-5 Agreement is made, the P-5 nations are also the ones with Veto power. So they can get rid of those sanctions.

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?

I'm sure that it is. Does that make it a bad thing? Nixon's overtures to China were done under the gun of watergate, but they were STILL a good thing.

The best thing we can do is get Iran back in the community of nations. Give it a stake in the world order.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Actually, most of the sanctions aren't passed with law, they were invoked by past presidents and can be lifted by this one.

 

[Ernie S.]

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

Bombs.

Who's bombs? Ours? fuck the UN.

 

[Antares]

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.

You are truly an uneducated and obviously illiterate partisan hack.

From my link:

. 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.

And this:

. 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.

A future president cannot undue a UNSC Resolution that had passed.

The point I've made is that if Iran complies for the next ten to fifteen years there will be no political will to subvert the deal unilaterally by a US President. If Iran does not comply bomb them. So what's your bitching sll about?

Projection , you are the partisan hack.

WE are not under ANY obligation to the UN or any World Court....let your king try and make it so and your side will be destroyed for generations.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Anta 11002694

(sigh) Once more an Executive Agreement is NOT legally binding.

It doesn't have to be legally binding - it is effective in that it is better than the status quo specifically if Iran complies. It extends the breakout time and provides better intelligence.

 

[Jroc]

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.

Actually, most of the sanctions aren't passed with law, they were invoked by past presidents and can be lifted by this one.

Actually the atheist, Christian, Jew hater Joey seems to have quit a fondness for the fundamentalist, muslim, nutjobs, of Iran...Wierd

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Anta 11003474

WE are not under ANY obligation to the UN or any World Court

Why do you suffer from such delusions? I am not of the opinion that the US is under any obligation to the UN or world court when US national security is at stake. Why do you make such rediculous arguments with yourself?

 

[Antares]

Anta 11003474

WE are not under ANY obligation to the UN or any World Court

Why do you suffer from such delusions? I am not of the opinion that the US is under any obligation to the UN or world court when US national security is at stake. Why do you make such rediculous arguments with yourself?

Good.

I am glad you agree that Obama is spinning his wheels.

It is completely non-binding and thus means nothing.

It is pure fucking window dressing so that he can play the King.

Fuck him.

 

[Vigilante]

American Lawmakers Write Another Letter on Iran!

Arutz Sheva ^
Bipartisan letter, signed by 360 lawmakers, will remind Obama that sanctions relief on Iran requires new legislation from Congress. A bipartisan letter on Iran signed by 360 members of Congress will be sent to President Barack Obama, one of its House signers said on Thursday, according to The Hill. The letter, similar to the one 47 Senate Republicans recently sent to Tehran's leaders, reminds the administration that permanent sanctions relief on Iran as part of a deal to rollback its nuclear program would require new legislation from Congress. It comes as international negotiators approach a March 24 deadline to reach...

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ErnS 11003474

Who's bombs? Ours? fuck the UN

Of course ours (US) and any one of law abiding member states of the UN that is threatened by an Iranian attempt to breakout and start trying to make a nuclear weapon after signing an agreement not to do so in exchange for the gradual lifting of sanctions. Did you forget it is all nations that make up the UN.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

11003697

It is completely non-binding and thus means nothing.

You are cowering from the primary point. It means everything if Iran complies because it resolves a major problem without bombs and without the potential risk for an expanded war. Plus it improves our intelligence if the need to strike Iran becomes necessary.

 

[Ernie S.]

my you are a dumb shit, aren't you?

ErnS 11003474

Who's bombs? Ours? fuck the UN

Of course ours (US) and any one of law abiding member states of the UN that is threatened by an Iranian attempt to breakout and start trying to make a nuclear weapon after signing an agreement not to do so in exchange for the gradual lifting of sanctions. Did you forget it is all nations that make up the UN.

 

[Billo_Really]

Who the hell said we are in constant fear..............Some people are able to realize the threats in this world.........some are to stupid to see the forest for the trees....................

A Nuclear Iran is not in our Nations interest, nor the region, and nor the world..............

They cannot be trusted..............especially with Nukes....................and the so called agreements will not do a dang thing to stop their program if signed..................

I believe in dealing with real threats, not made up ones. And until someone can provide evidence Iran has weaponized their nuclear program, then this is just another made up threat. Like Iraq had WMD's. So it is a ridiculous waste of time and energy talking as if they did. Prove they are, then we'll talk about what to do.

 

[Billo_Really]

Yup, because you are a woman hating Islamic, dishrag wearing homosexual.

Just another example of you making up your own reality.

 

[Billo_Really]

Oooo, hurt me!

What are you, 4 years old?

 

[Billo_Really]

Exactly. Thank you for bringing some common sense into this "discussion."

Acting like something is true, without first proving it's true, is not common sense.

 

[Billo_Really]

^^^

I just love how all the liberal media thinks this is a GOOD idea. The world has gone insane, I swear.

You think its okay to shoot people fishing, so I wouldn't be calling others crazy.