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

[ChrisL]

Your conservative wars have solved nothing to date. Why do you believe starting a war with Iran would be any different?

There were idiots claiming the same crap before we were bombed at pearl harbor; had the US intervened in WW2 earlier, many lives would have been saved.

So you would have us start another world war? And that would solve what, exactly, other than our existence on this planet, that is. By the way, you didn't answer my question.

Good GOD man, everything that Iran does, stands for and believes in would tell an intelligent person that they want war. They want their post apocalyptic imam to come and make them all powerful. That is what they LIVE for, and it doesn't take a genius to figure this stuff out. Just some reading and looking at history and current events. It all adds up.

 

[orogenicman]

Abiding by Iran's wishes? And what are those wishes?

What the hell do you think we've been talking about all this time? Duh. Try and follow along.

I am asking you what YOU think those wishes are.

Now I am asking you, do you trust Iran with nuclear capabilities? Are they just a harmless misunderstood country in your opinion? What do you think will happen if they ever obtained nuclear weapons?

I don't trust anyone with nukes. I do trust this president when he says that if we don't get the agreement we want, we walk away from the negotiations. And make no mistake, negotiating a satisfactory resolution is preferable to the alternative. I think the families of our military personnel would agree. I know mine does. Your conservative wars have solved nothing to date. Why do you believe starting a war with Iran would be any different?

NOBODY wants war with Iran....especially a NUKE war....hence the interference with BO's negotiations...

Given that the president has made clear that if we don't get what we want from these negotiations (I.e., an Iran that is not seeking nukes), we walk away from the negotiations, what interference do you suppose is required?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Your conservative wars have solved nothing to date. Why do you believe starting a war with Iran would be any different?

There were idiots claiming the same crap before we were bombed at pearl harbor; had the US intervened in WW2 earlier, many lives would have been saved.

So you would have us start another world war? And that would solve what, exactly, other than our existence on this planet, that is. By the way, you didn't answer my question.

militant Islam has already started another world war...

 

[Brain357]

And you are unaware that Shia and sunni don't really get along right?

Iran has been known to back all kinds of terrorists if it benefits them. Look, these are just the facts. Sorry if you don't want to admit them to yourself and prefer to live with your head buried in the sand believing that Obama will take care of you. Lol.

Then support your facts with links.

I already have. I've posted many, many links here in this thread. Such as . . .

How Iran Is Making It Impossible for the US to Beat ISIS - The Daily Beast

Now the Twelfth Imam Can Come FrontPage Magazine

Ex-Ambassador Eric Javits Bad Iran Nuclear Deal Is Disaster

And more . . .

Now the facts have been laid out in front of you, the beliefs of the Iranian mullahs in a post apocalyptic imam, their support for terrorism of all and any kind if it is of benefit to them, how they are incredibly dishonest and shady and will spread propaganda and lies to make themselves believable to the gullible liberals of the western world.

Your links seems to support Iran is fighting Isis.

Oh really, where is that? Post it.

You post where any of them say Iran is helping Isis. They are your links. Let's see a quote. The first one is quite clear Iran is helping those fighting Isis.

 

[boedicca]

Cool.... !!!!

Indeed. Congress is an equal branch of government and not subservient to any President.

That is true. Having said that, there are clear separations of powers. One of those is that the president is responsible for determining foreign policy.

Not quite accurate, bub:


U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2



Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 2 - Civilian Power Over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments....

U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


2/3 of the Senate has not concurred.

 

[ChrisL]

Iran's proliferation of nuclear weapons, would set off an arms race in the Middle East. Great idea. Thanks Obama for helping.

 

[Brain357]

Your conservative wars have solved nothing to date. Why do you believe starting a war with Iran would be any different?

There were idiots claiming the same crap before we were bombed at pearl harbor; had the US intervened in WW2 earlier, many lives would have been saved.

So you would have us start another world war? And that would solve what, exactly, other than our existence on this planet, that is. By the way, you didn't answer my question.

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

The only one they are fighting is Isis.

 

[ChrisL]

Iran has been known to back all kinds of terrorists if it benefits them. Look, these are just the facts. Sorry if you don't want to admit them to yourself and prefer to live with your head buried in the sand believing that Obama will take care of you. Lol.

Then support your facts with links.

I already have. I've posted many, many links here in this thread. Such as . . .

How Iran Is Making It Impossible for the US to Beat ISIS - The Daily Beast

Now the Twelfth Imam Can Come FrontPage Magazine

Ex-Ambassador Eric Javits Bad Iran Nuclear Deal Is Disaster

And more . . .

Now the facts have been laid out in front of you, the beliefs of the Iranian mullahs in a post apocalyptic imam, their support for terrorism of all and any kind if it is of benefit to them, how they are incredibly dishonest and shady and will spread propaganda and lies to make themselves believable to the gullible liberals of the western world.

Your links seems to support Iran is fighting Isis.

Oh really, where is that? Post it.

You post where any of them say Iran is helping Isis. They are your links. Let's see a quote. The first one is quite clear Iran is helping those fighting Isis.

I posted an entire article about it. It isn't my fault if you cannot read or understand what you are reading. How old are you anyway? I think you are just a foolish child.

 

[orogenicman]

Your conservative wars have solved nothing to date. Why do you believe starting a war with Iran would be any different?

There were idiots claiming the same crap before we were bombed at pearl harbor; had the US intervened in WW2 earlier, many lives would have been saved.

So you would have us start another world war? And that would solve what, exactly, other than our existence on this planet, that is. By the way, you didn't answer my question.

Good GOD man, everything that Iran does, stands for and believes in would tell an intelligent person that they want war. They want their post apocalyptic imam to come and make them all powerful. That is what they LIVE for, and it doesn't take a genius to figure this stuff out. Just some reading and looking at history and current events. It all adds up.

Okay let's look at their history. Everything I've seen Iran doing seems designed to defend themselves from being attacked. I don't see them amassing troops, preparing for some sort of invasion somewhere. Do you? The fact is that Iran has never started a war in the past 100 years. They were attacked by Saddam Hussein in 1979, and responded by defending themselves in an all out war with that country. Can you blame them for wanting to defend themselves? So what war do you suppose they want?

 

[Brain357]

Then support your facts with links.

I already have. I've posted many, many links here in this thread. Such as . . .

How Iran Is Making It Impossible for the US to Beat ISIS - The Daily Beast

Now the Twelfth Imam Can Come FrontPage Magazine

Ex-Ambassador Eric Javits Bad Iran Nuclear Deal Is Disaster

And more . . .

Now the facts have been laid out in front of you, the beliefs of the Iranian mullahs in a post apocalyptic imam, their support for terrorism of all and any kind if it is of benefit to them, how they are incredibly dishonest and shady and will spread propaganda and lies to make themselves believable to the gullible liberals of the western world.

Your links seems to support Iran is fighting Isis.

Oh really, where is that? Post it.

You post where any of them say Iran is helping Isis. They are your links. Let's see a quote. The first one is quite clear Iran is helping those fighting Isis.

I posted an entire article about it. It isn't my fault if you cannot read or understand what you are reading. How old are you anyway? I think you are just a foolish child.

But that's not what the article says and you know it. Pathetic how you have to lie.

Iran s Qasem Soleimani Is Guiding Iraqi Forces in Fight Against ISIS - NBC News

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ChrL 10958476

All of my posts have been backed with facts and links, not pictures from google images.

Not this one:

ChrL 10956880

That does not mean they cannot express their disagreement on the matter and to let Iran know that most American citizens do not agree with Mr. Obama.

I challenged your undocumented fact here:

NF 10957416

"a clear majority of 61% recommended making a deal with Iran that would include a limited enrichment capacity for Iran. This included 61% of Republicans, 66% of Democrats and 54% of independents." University of Maryland Poll taken February 2015.

So as you claim that all of your posts have been backed with facts, that is indeed not a fact. So are two misstated facts right there.

 

[orogenicman]

Your conservative wars have solved nothing to date. Why do you believe starting a war with Iran would be any different?

There were idiots claiming the same crap before we were bombed at pearl harbor; had the US intervened in WW2 earlier, many lives would have been saved.

So you would have us start another world war? And that would solve what, exactly, other than our existence on this planet, that is. By the way, you didn't answer my question.

militant Islam has already started another world war...

Really? Give me some statistics on their fighting capabilities, troop strength, lands captured.

 

[boedicca]

Your conservative wars have solved nothing to date. Why do you believe starting a war with Iran would be any different?

There were idiots claiming the same crap before we were bombed at pearl harbor; had the US intervened in WW2 earlier, many lives would have been saved.

So you would have us start another world war? And that would solve what, exactly, other than our existence on this planet, that is. By the way, you didn't answer my question.

Good GOD man, everything that Iran does, stands for and believes in would tell an intelligent person that they want war. They want their post apocalyptic imam to come and make them all powerful. That is what they LIVE for, and it doesn't take a genius to figure this stuff out. Just some reading and looking at history and current events. It all adds up.

Okay let's look at their history. Everything I've seen Iran doing seems designed to defend themselves from being attacked. I don't see them amassing troops, preparing for some sort of invasion somewhere. Do you? The fact is that Iran has never started a war in the past 100 years. They were attacked by Saddam Hussein in 1979, and responded by defending themselves in an all out war with that country. Can you blame them for wanting to defend themselves? So what war do you suppose they want?

Yes, let's look at history:


We’ll resist the temptation to attach labels to those making these claims or offer judgments on their love of country. Instead, some perspective:

• • In 1979, Senator Robert Byrd traveled to the Soviet Union during the SALT II talks to “personally explain the requirements of our Constitution” to Soviet premier Leonid Brezhnev. Byrd later wrote: “In Leningrad, I explained that I had come to the Soviet Union neither to praise nor condemn the treaty but to create a better understanding of the treaty in the Senate and to explain to the Soviets the Senate’s constitutional role in treatymaking.”
  • In the early 1980s, Senator Ted Kennedy secretly approached leaders of the Soviet Union with a proposal: I’ll help you with Ronald Reagan’s defense buildup if you help me defeat him in the 1984 presidential election. Former senator John Tunney conveyed the offer on Kennedy’s behalf.
  • In April 1985, as the Reagan administration sought to limit Soviet influence in Central America, Senator John Kerry traveled to Nicaragua, met with Communist strongman Daniel Ortega, and accused the Reagan administration of supporting “terrorism” against the government there. Said Kerry, “Senator Harkin and I are going to Nicaragua as Vietnam-era veterans who are alarmed that the Reagan administration is repeating the mistakes we made in Vietnam.” Kerry’s trip followed a letter from a group of House Democrats led by majority leader Jim Wright to Ortega. The “Dear Comandante” letter declared: “We regret the fact that better relations do not exist between the United States and your country. We have been, and remain, opposed to U.S. support for military action directed against the people or government of Nicaragua. We want to commend you and your government for taking steps to open up the political process in your country.”
  • In 1990, former President Jimmy Carter secretly wrote to the leaders of the U.N. Security Council nations urging them to oppose a resolution offered by his own country. The existence of the letter was revealed when one of its recipients shared a copy with the White House. President George H. W. Bush was “furious” at the “deliberate attempt to undermine” his foreign policy, according to his national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft.
  • 
    
  • In 2002, in the heat of the congressional debate over the authorization of the Iraq war, the second-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, David Bonior, traveled to Baghdad with two fellow Democrats to oppose the imminent invasion. Democratic congressman Jim McDermott appeared on ABC’s This Week from Baghdad to denounce President George W. Bush and propagandize for Saddam Hussein. Shakir al-Khafaji, a well-known fixer for the Iraqi regime and a longtime supporter of Bonior, arranged the visit. The Democrats vigorously denied that they had accepted Iraqi regime funding for the trip. Documents uncovered in postwar Iraq demonstrated that their claim was untrue.
    
    
    
  • In 2007, newly elected House speaker Nancy Pelosi traveled to Syria to meet with dictator Bashar al-Assad. At the time of the trip, the Bush administration was seeking to isolate Assad, whose regime was supporting insurgents in Iraq who were targeting U.S. troops. Pelosi disregarded the administration’s request to cancel her trip. Instead, she appeared in Damascus and reassured the world that Assad was eager to be a constructive player in the region and wanted peace with Israel.
    

A Contrived Controversy The Weekly Standard

 

[orogenicman]

Cool.... !!!!

Indeed. Congress is an equal branch of government and not subservient to any President.

That is true. Having said that, there are clear separations of powers. One of those is that the president is responsible for determining foreign policy.

Not quite accurate, bub:


U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2



Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 2 - Civilian Power Over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments....

U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


2/3 of the Senate has not concurred.

Obama is not negotiating a treaty with Iran. He, and the rest of the UN Security Council are negotiating to get Iran to comply with a treaty that is already in effect, the NNPT, which was signed by 191 countries, including the U.S. and Iran. Next.

 

[boedicca]

Cool.... !!!!

Indeed. Congress is an equal branch of government and not subservient to any President.

That is true. Having said that, there are clear separations of powers. One of those is that the president is responsible for determining foreign policy.

Not quite accurate, bub:


U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2



Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 2 - Civilian Power Over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments....

U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


2/3 of the Senate has not concurred.

Obama is not negotiating a treaty with Iran. He, and the rest of the UN Security Council are negotiating to get Iran to comply with a treaty that is already in effect, the NNPT, which was signed by 191 countries, including the U.S. and Iran. Next.

That's just moonbat spin. The Obama Administration is negotiating directly, but claim it's a non-binding" plan:

Secretary of State John Kerry stressed Wednesday that the administration never intended to negotiate a treaty.

"We've been clear from the beginning. We're not negotiating a 'legally binding plan.' We're negotiating a plan that will have in it a capacity for enforcement," he said at a Senate hearing....

Iran deal A treaty or not a treaty that is the question - CNN.com

 

[ChrisL]

Iran has been known to back all kinds of terrorists if it benefits them. Look, these are just the facts. Sorry if you don't want to admit them to yourself and prefer to live with your head buried in the sand believing that Obama will take care of you. Lol.

Then support your facts with links.

I already have. I've posted many, many links here in this thread. Such as . . .

How Iran Is Making It Impossible for the US to Beat ISIS - The Daily Beast

Now the Twelfth Imam Can Come FrontPage Magazine

Ex-Ambassador Eric Javits Bad Iran Nuclear Deal Is Disaster

And more . . .

Now the facts have been laid out in front of you, the beliefs of the Iranian mullahs in a post apocalyptic imam, their support for terrorism of all and any kind if it is of benefit to them, how they are incredibly dishonest and shady and will spread propaganda and lies to make themselves believable to the gullible liberals of the western world.

Your links seems to support Iran is fighting Isis.

Oh really, where is that? Post it.

You post where any of them say Iran is helping Isis. They are your links. Let's see a quote. The first one is quite clear Iran is helping those fighting Isis.

ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony

Vol. 14, No. 21 June 20, 2014

• Immediately after ISIS emerged in Syria, sources in the Syrian opposition said, “We are familiar with the commanders of ISIS. Once they belonged to Assad’s intelligence, and now they are operating on his behalf under the name of ISIS.”

• Why would Shiite Iran support a Sunni jihadist organization like ISIS? Iran wants to be certain that a strong Iraqi state does not emerge again along its western border.

• The notion that Shiite Iran would help Sunni jihadists was not farfetched, even if it seemed to defy the conventional wisdom in Western capitals.

• It is unreasonable to expect Iran to fight ISIS. If Iran does so, it would be turning against a movement that has been a useful surrogate for Tehran’s interests.

The battle currently being waged over the city of Deir ez-Zor in eastern Syria reveals a great deal about the political orientation of the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham (or ISIS), that recently captured Mosul and large stretches of Iraqi territory hundreds of kilometers away to the south. The siege of Deir ez-Zor has been maintained by the army of Bashar al-Assad in the south and by ISIS to the north and east. Among the forces that have been trapped in the middle are the Free Syrian Army (FSA), raising the question of whether ISIS was colluding with the Syrian government and its Iranian allies to defeat the more mainstream elements of the Syrian opposition.1

It must be recalled that since the outbreak of the uprising in Syria, and the widespread deployment of Iranian security services there, Iran’s intelligence networks are fully aware of the Syrian military’s activities. Today, given the extraordinary dependence of the Syrian state on Iran, it is difficult to imagine that Tehran is not fully updated on the security policies the Assad regime pursues.

- See more at: ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony

 

[Lakhota]

 

[orogenicman]

Cool.... !!!!

Indeed. Congress is an equal branch of government and not subservient to any President.

That is true. Having said that, there are clear separations of powers. One of those is that the president is responsible for determining foreign policy.

Not quite accurate, bub:


U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2



Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 2 - Civilian Power Over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments....

U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


2/3 of the Senate has not concurred.

Obama is not negotiating a treaty with Iran. He, and the rest of the UN Security Council are negotiating to get Iran to comply with a treaty that is already in effect, the NNPT, which was signed by 191 countries, including the U.S. and Iran. Next.

That's the Obama spin, but it only fools moonbats such as you.

It is a fact. He doesn't need to negotiate a treaty with Iran. The issue of them potentially building nuclear weapons falls under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, of which they are a signatory, as is the U.S. Perhaps you should read it instead of making a fool out of yourself with your sophomoric name calling.

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons NPT Treaties Regimes NTI

 

[ChrisL]

Continued . . .

The ISIS-Iran-Syria Axis
The ISIS connection with the Syrian leadership, and hence with Iran, raises serious questions. It was recently noted that President Assad released ISIS operatives from his prisons and for the most part left it alone, sparing it from attacks by the Syrian army.2 A New York Times reporter recently wrote on her Twitter account that according to a Syrian government advisor, ISIS was not a priority for Assad’s regime.3 Two leading American analysts just wrote in the Washington Post, “The non-jihadist Syrian opposition insists that ISIS is a creation of Iran.”4

The more time passes, the more this notion of a link between ISIS, Syrian and even Iranian intelligence has become fixed in the minds of leading Arab analysts as well. For example, Abdul Rahman al-Rashid, a Saudi commentator for Asharq Al-Awsat and also director of the influential TV channel Al Arabiya, wrote: “ISIS is a creation of Iranian and Syrian intelligence…. Most [of its members] are in the dark [and do not know] they are being manipulated, and some of the al-Qaeda leaders are still living in Iran.5

Abdel Bari Atwan, editor of the online daily Al-Rai Al-Youm, also saw ISIS’ advance as an Iranian success,6 and for similar reasons, claiming it would enable Iran and the United States to coordinate their moves in Iraq and possibly in Syria as well.

The US Department of the Treasury released a statement designating the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) as a supporter of international terrorist organizations. The US document, published on February 16, 2012,7 specifically stated that the Sunni “al-Qaeda in Iraq” was provided with money and weapons by the Iranian ministry. Within 14 months al-Qaeda in Iraq would be renamed ISIS (see below). Thus, the notion that Shiite Iran would help Sunni jihadists was not farfetched, even if it seemed to defy the conventional wisdom in Western capitals.8

Background
ISIS was established on April 8, 2013, when its subsidiary organization, Jabhat al Nusra, merged with the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), which itself was a successor to al-Qaeda in Iraq.9

The organization’s leader is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who regards himself as the heir to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and as no less fierce.10 Immediately after al-Baghdadi’s release from an American prison in 2006, not long before Zarqawi was assassinated, they met, and in the wake of the killing al-Baghdadi was crowned the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq and dubbed it “the al-Qaeda Organization of Mesopotamia.”

After the revolt against President Bashar Assad erupted in Syria, the organization emerged in Syria under the new name of ISIS. There it quickly clashed with its former al-Qaeda branch, already active in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra or the al-Nusra Front headed by Abu Muhammad al-Jawlani. The head of al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, subsequently decided to eject ISIS from the al-Qaeda network, even though ideologically they remained virtually identical groups.

ISIS in Iraq
What enabled ISIS’ rapid success in Iraq was the alliance it forged with powerful forces there that previously were reluctant to cooperate with a Salafi organization. These include the Bedouin tribes in the Sunni areas, the Sahwa tribes that previously had cooperated with the Americans, remnants of Saddam Hussein’s old army headed by his deputy Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, and the armed Sufi order, the Naqshbandis, who also are led by al-Douri.

The clash between ISIS and al-Nusra sparked accusations that the former was nothing but a means for the Syrian Mukhabarat (Military Intelligence Directorate), along with the Iranians, to plant agents of the Assad regime and of Iran within the Syrian opposition, thereby spreading confusion in its ranks and diverting it from the fight against Assad into internecine struggle. Immediately after ISIS emerged in the Syrian theater, sources in the Syrian opposition told this author: “We are familiar with the commanders of ISIS. Once they belonged to Assad’s intelligence, and now they are operating on his behalf under the name of ISIS.”11

The daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi reported that “Emir Raqqah” (the emir of ar-Raqqah, a city in north central Syria), also known as Abu Lukman, had been imprisoned in Syria but was released by the Syrian regime immediately after the outbreak of the Syrian revolt12 The release of jihadi prisoners became a pattern. In the days of President George W. Bush, Syria would send al-Qaeda operatives to Iraq to attack US forces. Subsequently relations cooled and Syria incarcerated these fighters. But after the revolt began, Syrian intelligence again took an interest in them, and freed them – in full coordination with Iran – so that they could infiltrate the ranks of the Salafis now fighting in Syria. Once free, they broke into Iraqi prisons to liberate their comrades, thereby creating the basis for expanding ISIS.13

Seemingly, the Sunni successes against the Shiites in Iraq would evoke words of encouragement and support from Saudi elements who view Iraq’s Shiite prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, as one of their country’s chief enemies. That is not, however, what happened. It was indeed strange to find the Saudi commentator Abdul Rahman al-Rashid asserting that it was in fact Iran that was benefiting from the exploits of ISIS!14 He explained that Iran and the United States are now allies, and Iran, should it so desire, now has an opportunity to invade Iraq. Rashid, however, did not see Iran as intending to do so.

The doubts that ISIS is a genuine al-Qaeda type movement were, in fact, raised immediately by “real” Salafi movements. For example, Nabil Naim, an al-Qaeda member who had left the movement and was acquainted with ISIS founder Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, said15 it was the latter who had assisted the Assad regime, in the days of President Bush, in transferring al-Qaeda fighters from Lebanon to Iraq. The daily al-Hayat published a similar report claiming that a USB flash drive, captured by the Iraqi army during the battle for Mosul from one of the ISIS leaders, “Abu Hajr,” had revealed the identity of many ISIS members who were indeed among those Syria had sent to fight the US Army in Iraq.16

A look at the websites of ISIS reveals that the rank and file are not at all aware of being Iranian tools. On the contrary, their anti-Shiite sentiment burns fiercely. Their acts of cruelty against the Iraqi regime’s Shiite army point in the same direction. Indeed, al-Maliki directly accused Saudi Arabia of standing behind ISIS17 though the United States hastened to condemn him for his words.18 Saudi Arabia itself has expressed concern over the situation in Iraq.19

- See more at: ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony

 

[boedicca]

Indeed. Congress is an equal branch of government and not subservient to any President.

That is true. Having said that, there are clear separations of powers. One of those is that the president is responsible for determining foreign policy.

Not quite accurate, bub:


U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2



Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 2 - Civilian Power Over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments....

U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


2/3 of the Senate has not concurred.

Obama is not negotiating a treaty with Iran. He, and the rest of the UN Security Council are negotiating to get Iran to comply with a treaty that is already in effect, the NNPT, which was signed by 191 countries, including the U.S. and Iran. Next.

That's the Obama spin, but it only fools moonbats such as you.

It is a fact. He doesn't need to negotiate a treaty with Iran. The issue of them potentially building nuclear weapons falls under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, of which they are a signatory, as is the U.S. Perhaps you should read it instead of making a fool out of yourself with your sophomoric name calling.

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons NPT Treaties Regimes NTI

You are spewing nonsense. The Obama Admin is negotiating directly with Iran.