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

[Brain357]

I realize the right doesn't like it, but he was elected president. I am not divided on that at all. Neither should any moron righties. Do you guys want some dictator? Throw out elections? You are traitorous.

Nobody said that, brainless. If you only had a brain.

Well the 47 senators showed it.

No they did not. They are expressing their disapproval of the Obama administration wanting to make deals with a known terrorist state run by a bunch of complete religious fanatical nutcases, and I completely agree with them.

He was elected President. Nobody elected these senators to butt into foreign affairs. They are acting like children and making the whole country look bad. Who would blame the rest of the world if we are left out of these discussions in the future?

Well, since we are the daddy of the world, I highly doubt that would ever happen. They all rely and depend on the United States.

It can and will happen if we remain so obviously divided. All these senators did was make us look weak to the whole world.

 

[Brain357]

Well the 47 senators showed it.

No they did not. They are expressing their disapproval of the Obama administration wanting to make deals with a known terrorist state run by a bunch of complete religious fanatical nutcases, and I completely agree with them.

He was elected President. Nobody elected these senators to butt into foreign affairs. They are acting like children and making the whole country look bad. Who would blame the rest of the world if we are left out of these discussions in the future?

And BTW, senators are also elected officials BRAIN. And yes, they can speak out against the president in regards to what their constituents want. The president is NOT a dictator.

Yes elected in a state, not nationally. The whole country elected Obama. Speak out yes, send a letter to a foreign country no. They are an embarrassment.

No, sorry, Obama is the embarrassment for ever even considering to deal with Iran regarding nuclear power. The answer should be a firm NO.

Yes because there is some other option. You are a joke.

 

[ChrisL]

Let's get back to some measure of sanity (maybe)

IF an agreement is reached stating that Iran will halt her nuclear ambitions for TEN years.......then, if the agreement is breached (and have NO doubt that we WOULD know....we have enough informants on the ground) wouldn't we then be MORE justified in increasing sanctions or even bombing than we are now??????

Without ANY agreement, Iran gains the upper hand in doing whatever it wants and can simply state to her citizens that it has tried and the west did not want to compromise.....

I know that the above does not "appease" the war hawks....but too freakin' bad.

No, we should never agree to a nuclear Iran. That is stupid beyond belief. Of course Iran would breach any agreements. You people cannot be this dumb, can you?

Umm, you can't stop them from becoming nuclear.

If we were smart, we would. Mark my words, they are going to be SO MUCH trouble for everyone in the world in the future. Just wait and see.

There's no way we can. They reportedly have sites all around their country, many, if not most, underground.

I agree with that, but they should be not given a green light. They should be sanctioned, and we should insist that China and Russia take part in sanctions. THAT is why sanctions don't work with them. We need to start getting tough. No more aid money from the US if you support a nuclear Iran.

 

[Brain357]

I realize the right doesn't like it, but he was elected president. I am not divided on that at all. Neither should any moron righties. Do you guys want some dictator? Throw out elections? You are traitorous.

Nobody said that, brainless. If you only had a brain.

Well the 47 senators showed it.

No they did not. They are expressing their disapproval of the Obama administration wanting to make deals with a known terrorist state run by a bunch of complete religious fanatical nutcases, and I completely agree with them.

He was elected President. Nobody elected these senators to butt into foreign affairs. They are acting like children and making the whole country look bad. Who would blame the rest of the world if we are left out of these discussions in the future?

And BTW, senators are also elected officials BRAIN. And yes, they can speak out against the president in regards to what their constituents want. The president is NOT a dictator.

Yes to our country. They don't send notes to foreign leaders telling the world we are weak and divided.

 

[ChrisL]

It's simple really. Iran does not care about it's people, that much is obvious. So the only question you need to ask yourself is "what's in it for them?"

 

[ChrisL]

Nobody said that, brainless. If you only had a brain.

Well the 47 senators showed it.

No they did not. They are expressing their disapproval of the Obama administration wanting to make deals with a known terrorist state run by a bunch of complete religious fanatical nutcases, and I completely agree with them.

He was elected President. Nobody elected these senators to butt into foreign affairs. They are acting like children and making the whole country look bad. Who would blame the rest of the world if we are left out of these discussions in the future?

And BTW, senators are also elected officials BRAIN. And yes, they can speak out against the president in regards to what their constituents want. The president is NOT a dictator.

Yes to our country. They don't send notes to foreign leaders telling the world we are weak and divided.

Are you for real? Of course they do!!! Lol. The Iranians are constantly making threats and opening their big mouths!

 

[Brain357]

Iran is run by a bunch of shady nutjobs. You cannot trust them at all. They say one thing and do the complete opposite.

Who do you people think is funding ISIS? Lol.

Are you a moron? You realize they are fighting ISIS right?

 

[Faun]

Let's get back to some measure of sanity (maybe)

IF an agreement is reached stating that Iran will halt her nuclear ambitions for TEN years.......then, if the agreement is breached (and have NO doubt that we WOULD know....we have enough informants on the ground) wouldn't we then be MORE justified in increasing sanctions or even bombing than we are now??????

Without ANY agreement, Iran gains the upper hand in doing whatever it wants and can simply state to her citizens that it has tried and the west did not want to compromise.....

I know that the above does not "appease" the war hawks....but too freakin' bad.

No, we should never agree to a nuclear Iran. That is stupid beyond belief. Of course Iran would breach any agreements. You people cannot be this dumb, can you?

Umm, you can't stop them from becoming nuclear.

What we need is an agreement so they realize they don't need and shouldn't want one. No agreement and they feel they need one.

Constitutionally, their role is to advise and consent the president of treaties the president seeks to forge with other nations. They have no authority to interfere with treaties by communicating with foreign nations.

 

[Brain357]

Well the 47 senators showed it.

No they did not. They are expressing their disapproval of the Obama administration wanting to make deals with a known terrorist state run by a bunch of complete religious fanatical nutcases, and I completely agree with them.

He was elected President. Nobody elected these senators to butt into foreign affairs. They are acting like children and making the whole country look bad. Who would blame the rest of the world if we are left out of these discussions in the future?

And BTW, senators are also elected officials BRAIN. And yes, they can speak out against the president in regards to what their constituents want. The president is NOT a dictator.

Yes to our country. They don't send notes to foreign leaders telling the world we are weak and divided.

Are you for real? Of course they do!!! Lol. The Iranians are constantly making threats and opening their big mouths!

No senators shouldn't be sending notes to foreign countries.

 

[ChrisL]

Let's get back to some measure of sanity (maybe)

IF an agreement is reached stating that Iran will halt her nuclear ambitions for TEN years.......then, if the agreement is breached (and have NO doubt that we WOULD know....we have enough informants on the ground) wouldn't we then be MORE justified in increasing sanctions or even bombing than we are now??????

Without ANY agreement, Iran gains the upper hand in doing whatever it wants and can simply state to her citizens that it has tried and the west did not want to compromise.....

I know that the above does not "appease" the war hawks....but too freakin' bad.

No, we should never agree to a nuclear Iran. That is stupid beyond belief. Of course Iran would breach any agreements. You people cannot be this dumb, can you?

Umm, you can't stop them from becoming nuclear.

What we need is an agreement so they realize they don't need and shouldn't want one. No agreement and they feel they need one.

Constitutionally, their role is to advise and consent the president of treaties the president seeks to forge with other nations. They have no authority to interfere with treaties by communicating with foreign nations.

Well, I don't have a problem with it, since I think the president is making a horrible mistake. Someone needs to step up!

 

[ChrisL]

No they did not. They are expressing their disapproval of the Obama administration wanting to make deals with a known terrorist state run by a bunch of complete religious fanatical nutcases, and I completely agree with them.

He was elected President. Nobody elected these senators to butt into foreign affairs. They are acting like children and making the whole country look bad. Who would blame the rest of the world if we are left out of these discussions in the future?

And BTW, senators are also elected officials BRAIN. And yes, they can speak out against the president in regards to what their constituents want. The president is NOT a dictator.

Yes to our country. They don't send notes to foreign leaders telling the world we are weak and divided.

Are you for real? Of course they do!!! Lol. The Iranians are constantly making threats and opening their big mouths!

No senators shouldn't be sending notes to foreign countries.

Oh, I see. I misunderstood your statement. Anyhow, I don't have a problem with it. Like I said, Obama is not a dictator and yes, we the people have a right to intervene and have our voices heard on the matter.

 

[Brain357]

Let's get back to some measure of sanity (maybe)

IF an agreement is reached stating that Iran will halt her nuclear ambitions for TEN years.......then, if the agreement is breached (and have NO doubt that we WOULD know....we have enough informants on the ground) wouldn't we then be MORE justified in increasing sanctions or even bombing than we are now??????

Without ANY agreement, Iran gains the upper hand in doing whatever it wants and can simply state to her citizens that it has tried and the west did not want to compromise.....

I know that the above does not "appease" the war hawks....but too freakin' bad.

No, we should never agree to a nuclear Iran. That is stupid beyond belief. Of course Iran would breach any agreements. You people cannot be this dumb, can you?

Umm, you can't stop them from becoming nuclear.

If we were smart, we would. Mark my words, they are going to be SO MUCH trouble for everyone in the world in the future. Just wait and see.

There's no way we can. They reportedly have sites all around their country, many, if not most, underground.

I agree with that, but they should be not given a green light. They should be sanctioned, and we should insist that China and Russia take part in sanctions. THAT is why sanctions don't work with them. We need to start getting tough. No more aid money from the US if you support a nuclear Iran.

You realize there are lots of countries involved in negotiations who want an agreement right?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Politico Caucus poll published today: 34% of Republican insiders think that "Teheran Tom" and the gang of 47 really, really fucked up. The poll is not really of Democrats. We are talking about Republicans, here. ..

I'm mobile right now and pasting links is difficult with tapatalk. I'll include the link later.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Brain357]

Let's get back to some measure of sanity (maybe)

IF an agreement is reached stating that Iran will halt her nuclear ambitions for TEN years.......then, if the agreement is breached (and have NO doubt that we WOULD know....we have enough informants on the ground) wouldn't we then be MORE justified in increasing sanctions or even bombing than we are now??????

Without ANY agreement, Iran gains the upper hand in doing whatever it wants and can simply state to her citizens that it has tried and the west did not want to compromise.....

I know that the above does not "appease" the war hawks....but too freakin' bad.

No, we should never agree to a nuclear Iran. That is stupid beyond belief. Of course Iran would breach any agreements. You people cannot be this dumb, can you?

Umm, you can't stop them from becoming nuclear.

What we need is an agreement so they realize they don't need and shouldn't want one. No agreement and they feel they need one.

Constitutionally, their role is to advise and consent the president of treaties the president seeks to forge with other nations. They have no authority to interfere with treaties by communicating with foreign nations.

Well, I don't have a problem with it, since I think the president is making a horrible mistake. Someone needs to step up!

Somebody needs to step up and make us look like weak morons to the rest of the world? No I don't think we needed that.

 

[Lakhota]

Here’s a list of the GOP senators who signed the Iran letter

The letter, spearheaded by Sen. Tom Cotton, was signed by 47 Republican senators. Seven GOP senators did not sign. Here's who signed:

Signatories:
Richard Shelby (Ala.)
Jeff Sessions (Ala.)
Dan Sullivan (Alaska)
John McCain (Ariz.)
John Boozman (Ark.)
Tom Cotton (Ark.)
Cory Gardner (Colo.)
Marco Rubio (Fla.)
Johnny Isakson (Ga.)
David Perdue (Ga.)
Mike Crapo (Idaho)
Jim Risch (Idaho)
Mark Kirk (Ill.)
Chuck Grassley (Iowa)
Joni Ernst (Iowa)
Pat Roberts (Kansas)
Jerry Moran (Kansas)
Mitch McConnell (Ky.)
Rand Paul (Ky.)
David Vitter (La.)
Bill Cassidy (La.)
Roger Wicker (Miss.)
Roy Blunt (Mo.)
Steve Daines (Mont.)
Deb Fischer (Neb.)
Ben Sasse (Neb.)
Dean Heller (Nev.)
Kelly Ayotte (N.H.)
Richard Burr (N.C.)
Thom Tillis (N.C.)
John Hoeven (N.D.)
Rob Portman (Ohio)
Jim Inhofe (Okla.)
James Lankford (Okla.)
Pat Toomey (Pa.)
Lindsey Graham (S.C.)
Tim Scott (S.C.)
John Thune (S.D.)
Mike Rounds (S.D.)
John Cornyn (Texas)
Ted Cruz (Texas)
Orin Hatch (Utah)
Mike Lee (Utah)
Shelley Moore Capito (W.V.)
Ron Johnson (Wis.)
Mike Enzi (Wyo.)
John Barrasso (Wyo.)

Did not sign:
Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
Jeff Flake (Ariz.)
Daniel Coats (Ind.)
Susan Collins (Maine)
Thad Cochran (Miss.)
Lamar Alexander (Tenn.)
Bob Corker (Tenn.)

Here's a list of the GOP senators who signed the Iran letter - The Washington Post

Is your Senator on the list?

 

[Faun]

Let's get back to some measure of sanity (maybe)

IF an agreement is reached stating that Iran will halt her nuclear ambitions for TEN years.......then, if the agreement is breached (and have NO doubt that we WOULD know....we have enough informants on the ground) wouldn't we then be MORE justified in increasing sanctions or even bombing than we are now??????

Without ANY agreement, Iran gains the upper hand in doing whatever it wants and can simply state to her citizens that it has tried and the west did not want to compromise.....

I know that the above does not "appease" the war hawks....but too freakin' bad.

No, we should never agree to a nuclear Iran. That is stupid beyond belief. Of course Iran would breach any agreements. You people cannot be this dumb, can you?

Umm, you can't stop them from becoming nuclear.

What we need is an agreement so they realize they don't need and shouldn't want one. No agreement and they feel they need one.

Constitutionally, their role is to advise and consent the president of treaties the president seeks to forge with other nations. They have no authority to interfere with treaties by communicating with foreign nations.

Well, I don't have a problem with it, since I think the president is making a horrible mistake. Someone needs to step up!

Then you should seek to have the Constitution amended. Because as it reads now, the Constitution does not allow the Senators to negotiate treaties with other countries. That's the president's role.

 

[nat4900]

Let's get back to some measure of sanity (maybe)

IF an agreement is reached stating that Iran will halt her nuclear ambitions for TEN years.......then, if the agreement is breached (and have NO doubt that we WOULD know....we have enough informants on the ground) wouldn't we then be MORE justified in increasing sanctions or even bombing than we are now??????

Without ANY agreement, Iran gains the upper hand in doing whatever it wants and can simply state to her citizens that it has tried and the west did not want to compromise.....

I know that the above does not "appease" the war hawks....but too freakin' bad.

No, we should never agree to a nuclear Iran. That is stupid beyond belief. Of course Iran would breach any agreements. You people cannot be this dumb, can you?

Umm, you can't stop them from becoming nuclear.

If we were smart, we would. Mark my words, they are going to be SO MUCH trouble for everyone in the world in the future. Just wait and see.

I agree with that, but they should be not given a green light. They should be sanctioned, and we should insist that China and Russia take part in sanctions. THAT is why sanctions don't work with them. We need to start getting tough. No more aid money from the US if you support a nuclear Iran.

What a jingoistic nut job you must be....."learning" your history from Fox and Breibart.....

The Persian culture is way more sophisticated than the knee-jerk reaction from war mongers like you sitting in your cozy home asking for others to go kill a bunch of strangers across the globe.

China and Russia are not relying on our money....and in the case of China, they are "funding" our ill-advised wars.....we can't bully these countries into instilling more sanctions on Iran...PERIOD.

 

[nat4900]

Let us go back and redefine the true meaning of a "compromise."

In a compromise (an agreement, NOT a treaty) no one really wins, and no one really loses....THAT is the nature of a compromise.

Now, given this recent letter from those 47 dingbats, let's say you were a moderate, western educated Iranian, would you tend to side with the west, or with the Ayathollahs?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[ChrisL]

No, we should never agree to a nuclear Iran. That is stupid beyond belief. Of course Iran would breach any agreements. You people cannot be this dumb, can you?

Umm, you can't stop them from becoming nuclear.

What we need is an agreement so they realize they don't need and shouldn't want one. No agreement and they feel they need one.

Constitutionally, their role is to advise and consent the president of treaties the president seeks to forge with other nations. They have no authority to interfere with treaties by communicating with foreign nations.

Well, I don't have a problem with it, since I think the president is making a horrible mistake. Someone needs to step up!

Somebody needs to step up and make us look like weak morons to the rest of the world? No I don't think we needed that.

By not abiding by Iran's wishes, we look weak? Figures a weak little scaredy cat like yourself would think so.