Will Obama’s nuke deal need a two thirds approval vote by the Senate? Maybe not

[TemplarKormac]

I don't know what this post means.

This idea that you suggest I'm using "their internal propaganda." So, I suppose those folks in Vienna are doing the same thing, right?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

And then there's this little gem.

President Rouhani Iran won t sign final nuclear deal unless all sanctions lifted RT News

More blustering.

Seriously, you guys need to look at the big picture, and stop thinking in terms of your cartoon-villain version of Iran.

 

[eagle1462010]

And then there's this little gem.

President Rouhani Iran won t sign final nuclear deal unless all sanctions lifted RT News

More blustering.

Seriously, you guys need to look at the big picture, and stop thinking in terms of your cartoon-villain version of Iran.

It's not a cartoon to see our men dying by their actions............
Their IED tech killed a lot of our people...........period..........
They will not honor their agreement.

 

[Moonglow]

This has been gone over countless times already. It's settled.

Obama already has the authority to sign this treaty under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which was ratified by the Senate 40 years ago. It's a non-issue.

Wrong,
It is a Treaty under the meaning of the term in the Constitution, thus subject to ratification.

Says you. Historical precedent and the SCOTUS disagree.

In any case, Bob Corker hammered out a deal that also requires Congressional approval. If Obama fucks over the GOP in Congress he wont get anything done the rest of his term. Congress will declare the treaty null and void and act accordingly.

The Corker deal allows Congress to vote on it - but they'll need 67% to overturn Obama's almost certain veto, should they not approve it.

BUt it doesnt matter. The irananians have no intention of adhering to anything that restricts their activities. That much is clear. They will blow up this treaty as they've blown up previous ones. And they know Obama is in office only for another 18 months and after that is anyone's guess.

What else does your crystal ball tell you, oh great swami?

If Obama vetoes the decision there will be hell to pay. It was an agreement worked out, and that didnt include a veto threat.
As for the Iranians, it takes no great prophetic power to know that if I drop a glass it's going to fall. Maybe idiots like you can't foresee that but most can. Similarly it takes only paying attention to notice the Iranians have made agreements on this very deal only to have Khamanei say a week later that this or that term is unacceptable and scuttle the whole thing. So they will play to form and do it again.
It takes abject stupidity, like yours, to believe that Obama's agreement will be beneficial to the US.

It's not just Oblama's deal, the Senate has to approve of the treaty first...

Not according to The Doctor. Talk to him about it.

Well the Senate can and will review the measure......They have already announced it......so I can't see what the whole running about frothing at the mouth is about?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I don't know what this post means.

This idea that you suggest I'm using "their internal propaganda." So, I suppose those folks in Vienna are doing the same thing, right?

Again, I'm not understanding you.

The "folks in Vienna" are the ones doing the negotiating. They're talking about it face to face in private, not in internal propaganda speeches.

 

[Moonglow]

And then there's this little gem.

President Rouhani Iran won t sign final nuclear deal unless all sanctions lifted RT News

More blustering.

Seriously, you guys need to look at the big picture, and stop thinking in terms of your cartoon-villain version of Iran.

It's not a cartoon to see our men dying by their actions............
Their IED tech killed a lot of our people...........period..........
They will not honor their agreement.

Then there will be consequences, but I doubt you are going to get your armchair generalship shooting war..

 

[theDoctorisIn]

And then there's this little gem.

President Rouhani Iran won t sign final nuclear deal unless all sanctions lifted RT News

More blustering.

Seriously, you guys need to look at the big picture, and stop thinking in terms of your cartoon-villain version of Iran.

It's not a cartoon to see our men dying by their actions............
Their IED tech killed a lot of our people...........period..........
They will not honor their agreement.

Successful agreements have been made with belligerents before, and will be again.

In many cases, they have resulted in the end of the belligerency.

 

[Moonglow]

Have they never heard of SALT or detente?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

What does Iran "want" to do, in your opinion?

Acquire a nuclear weapon. Kill Israel. Gain influence in the Middle East.

What makes you think they "want" to do any of those things? Well, the first two. The third one is pretty much a given.

Other than because they said so - you might take fanatical religious dictators at their word, but I need more than that.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Seriously, you guys need to look at the big picture, and stop thinking in terms of your cartoon-villain version of Iran.

"The big picture" or your version of reality.

Time to take a trip to the Land of Godwin:

When Hitler expressed his desire to exterminate Jews, was he "blustering" then? History says not. He went through with it.

So.

When Iran expresses their desire to wipe out Israel, they will. The Six Day War and the 1st and 2nd Intifada says they will. Iran holds the same goals as most radical Islamist states. Kill Israel.

When Iran expresses its desire to acquire a nuclear weapon, all of this "blustering" falls in line with that.

 

[The Rabbi]

This has been gone over countless times already. It's settled.

Obama already has the authority to sign this treaty under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which was ratified by the Senate 40 years ago. It's a non-issue.

Wrong,
It is a Treaty under the meaning of the term in the Constitution, thus subject to ratification.

Says you. Historical precedent and the SCOTUS disagree.

In any case, Bob Corker hammered out a deal that also requires Congressional approval. If Obama fucks over the GOP in Congress he wont get anything done the rest of his term. Congress will declare the treaty null and void and act accordingly.

The Corker deal allows Congress to vote on it - but they'll need 67% to overturn Obama's almost certain veto, should they not approve it.

BUt it doesnt matter. The irananians have no intention of adhering to anything that restricts their activities. That much is clear. They will blow up this treaty as they've blown up previous ones. And they know Obama is in office only for another 18 months and after that is anyone's guess.

What else does your crystal ball tell you, oh great swami?

If Obama vetoes the decision there will be hell to pay. It was an agreement worked out, and that didnt include a veto threat.
As for the Iranians, it takes no great prophetic power to know that if I drop a glass it's going to fall. Maybe idiots like you can't foresee that but most can. Similarly it takes only paying attention to notice the Iranians have made agreements on this very deal only to have Khamanei say a week later that this or that term is unacceptable and scuttle the whole thing. So they will play to form and do it again.
It takes abject stupidity, like yours, to believe that Obama's agreement will be beneficial to the US.

Of course the "agreement" they worked out included the veto threat. That's the whole thing - the "agreement" they worked out is almost impossible for Obama to lose.

This happened months ago, and everyone knew exactly what it meant then.

No, not really. The GOP would never have agreed understandign that Obama would do what he wanted anyway.

And then there's this little gem.

President Rouhani Iran won t sign final nuclear deal unless all sanctions lifted RT News

More blustering.

Seriously, you guys need to look at the big picture, and stop thinking in terms of your cartoon-villain version of Iran.

It's not a cartoon to see our men dying by their actions............
Their IED tech killed a lot of our people...........period..........
They will not honor their agreement.

Successful agreements have been made with belligerents before, and will be again.

In many cases, they have resulted in the end of the belligerency.

Yes! There was the Munich Agreement between Chamberlain and Hitler. There was the Pact between the Soviet Union and Hitler. There was the Paris Peace accords for the Vietnam War. There was the agreement(s) between Ukraine and Russia on Russia's non incursion into Ukraine and non takeover of Crimea.
Thanks for pointing this out.

 

[The Rabbi]

What does Iran "want" to do, in your opinion?

Acquire a nuclear weapon. Kill Israel. Gain influence in the Middle East.

What makes you think they "want" to do any of those things? Well, the first two. The third one is pretty much a given.

Other than because they said so - you might take fanatical religious dictators at their word, but I need more than that.

Not only have they announced that, they have acted towards that end by sending their proxies to Lebanon and Yemen. And it would be in their interests to do so.
You understand countries have vested interests in things and generally try to attain them, right? Or is that just somethng you need a crystal ball for?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Seriously, you guys need to look at the big picture, and stop thinking in terms of your cartoon-villain version of Iran.

"The big picture" or your version of reality.

Time to take a trip to the Land of Godwin:

When Hitler expressed his desire to exterminate Jews, was he "blustering" then? History says not. He wen't through with it.

So.

When Iran expresses their desire to wipe out Israel, they will. The Six Day War and the 1st and 2nd Intifada says they will. Iran holds the same goals as most radical Islamist states. Kill Israel.

When Iran expresses its desire to acquire a nuclear weapon, all of this "blustering" falls in line with that.

Seriously, when your argument starts with "Hitler said he wanted to kill the Jews, and he did - therefore....", it's time to pack it in and go home. Come on, man. Don't allow your arguments to become a parody.


Hitler liked dogs - and so does Obama!

OH NOES!

 

[TemplarKormac]

Other than because they said so - you might take fanatical religious dictators at their word, but I need more than that.

Well, that bed of roses is all yours Doc. Just don't mind the thorns. If Iran truly and honestly wanted a deal, the talks would have ended in 2002. Yet still, here we are.

 

[The Rabbi]

Seriously, you guys need to look at the big picture, and stop thinking in terms of your cartoon-villain version of Iran.

"The big picture" or your version of reality.

Time to take a trip to the Land of Godwin:

When Hitler expressed his desire to exterminate Jews, was he "blustering" then? History says not. He wen't through with it.

So.

When Iran expresses their desire to wipe out Israel, they will. The Six Day War and the 1st and 2nd Intifada says they will. Iran holds the same goals as most radical Islamist states. Kill Israel.

When Iran expresses its desire to acquire a nuclear weapon, all of this "blustering" falls in line with that.

Seriously, when your argument starts with "Hitler said he wanted to kill the Jews, and he did - therefore....", it's time to pack it in and go home. Come on, man. Don't allow your arguments to become a parody.


Hitler liked dogs - and so does Obama!

OH NOES!

So the fact that Hitler annoucned what he was going to do and actually did it, even though no one believed he would is...what? Humor? Irrelevant? Untrue? Hearsay?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Hitler liked dogs - and so does Obama!

OH NOES!

Seriously?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

What does Iran "want" to do, in your opinion?

Acquire a nuclear weapon. Kill Israel. Gain influence in the Middle East.

What makes you think they "want" to do any of those things? Well, the first two. The third one is pretty much a given.

Other than because they said so - you might take fanatical religious dictators at their word, but I need more than that.

Not only have they announced that, they have acted towards that end by sending their proxies to Lebanon and Yemen. And it would be in their interests to do so.
You understand countries have vested interests in things and generally try to attain them, right? Or is that just somethng you need a crystal ball for?

The leaders of Iran have a much more "vested" interest in not being wiped off the face of the earth.

Iran has been more of rational actor than we have over the last 30 years.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Hitler liked dogs - and so does Obama!

OH NOES!

Seriously?

Yeah, seriously.

You Godwin'd your own argument.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Seriously, when your argument starts with "Hitler said he wanted to kill the Jews, and he did - therefore....", it's time to pack it in and go home.

Sure, or you can look at the deeper implication. Instead of dismissing it simply because I mention Hitler. If you're intellectually honest, you'll address my point.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Seriously, you guys need to look at the big picture, and stop thinking in terms of your cartoon-villain version of Iran.

"The big picture" or your version of reality.

Time to take a trip to the Land of Godwin:

When Hitler expressed his desire to exterminate Jews, was he "blustering" then? History says not. He wen't through with it.

So.

When Iran expresses their desire to wipe out Israel, they will. The Six Day War and the 1st and 2nd Intifada says they will. Iran holds the same goals as most radical Islamist states. Kill Israel.

When Iran expresses its desire to acquire a nuclear weapon, all of this "blustering" falls in line with that.

Seriously, when your argument starts with "Hitler said he wanted to kill the Jews, and he did - therefore....", it's time to pack it in and go home. Come on, man. Don't allow your arguments to become a parody.


Hitler liked dogs - and so does Obama!

OH NOES!

So the fact that Hitler annoucned what he was going to do and actually did it, even though no one believed he would is...what? Humor? Irrelevant? Untrue? Hearsay?

It is entirely irrelevant and in general a pretty weak and pathetic appeal to emotion.