Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    22 Jul '15 03:00
    Should the nuke deal with Iran be considered a treaty?

    And if a treaty, should not Congress have a say in the signing of the said treaty?
  2. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13029
    22 Jul '15 03:311 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    Should the nuke deal with Iran be considered a treaty?

    And if a treaty, should not Congress have a say in the signing of the said treaty?
    I don't know what the hell it is. However, I do believe the Obama administration are all idiots to even think they can make a fair deal with Iran that they will keep for any length of time.

    We already know they are determined to get nukes to wipe Israel off the map. How many times do they have to tell everyone before the liberal Democrats believe it and abandon this fantasy game of let's make a deal?
  3. Standard memberbill718
    Enigma
    Seattle
    Joined
    03 Sep '06
    Moves
    3298
    22 Jul '15 03:58
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I don't know what the hell it is. However, I do believe the Obama administration are all idiots to even think they can make a fair deal with Iran that they will keep for any length of time.

    We already know they are determined to get nukes to wipe Israel off the map. How many times do they have to tell everyone before the liberal Democrats believe it and abandon this fantasy game of let's make a deal?
    ...and your solution is what? Spread some more lies about "weapons of mass destruction" to justify another needless invasion? Start another war? Try to play global cop? America just went into debt up to the eyebrows trying to do that, and all we're left with is 2 middle eastern country's in worse shape than when we went in, and lots and lots of dead and wounded American soldiers. Like it or not, America must work with the world community to combat terrorism, we don't have the resources to play world policeman. Accepting help from other countries is not a sign of weakness. Give this treaty a chance.
  4. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13029
    22 Jul '15 06:212 edits
    Originally posted by bill718
    ...and your solution is what? Spread some more lies about "weapons of mass destruction" to justify another needless invasion? Start another war? Try to play global cop? America just went into debt up to the eyebrows trying to do that, and all we're left with is 2 middle eastern country's in worse shape than when we went in, and lots and lots of dead and woun ...[text shortened]... ceman. Accepting help from other countries is not a sign of weakness. Give this treaty a chance.
    Well, first it would not be lies that Iran is working to get weapons of mass destruction. Do you think the ballistic missiles they now have are going to be used for a harmless fireworks celebration once they get nukes? I don't think so.

    Second, it was Obama that ordered the pulled out of Iraq without getting oil rights for the Iraqi oil fields and making that area less stable. It is the the cowardly bleeding heart liberal Democrats fault for demanding the closing of the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and the resulting release of terrorist leaders and fighters there and in Iragi prisons that now make up part of the ISIS. This idea that it is all G.W. Bush's fault is getting old.

    Although the wars did result in many dead and wounded American soldiers, not even the majority of the Democrats were willing to just let the attack on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center go unanswered. And no one was for allowing the terrorists to get hold of weapons of Mass destruction to possibly do more damage to the homeland.

    In hindsight, most people can see where better decision could have been made by both Bush and Obama. But no one had that advantage at the time.

    Israel has a lot to lose from this deal. And when they get those nukes everyone in the west has a lot to lose. But I suppose we could just take a chance and wait for WWIII to break out. In a Nuclear war it is the one that makes the first strike that is going to have the strong advantage.
  5. Standard memberbill718
    Enigma
    Seattle
    Joined
    03 Sep '06
    Moves
    3298
    22 Jul '15 10:026 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Well, first it would not be lies that Iran is working to get weapons of mass destruction. Do you think the ballistic missiles they now have are going to be used for a harmless fireworks celebration once they get nukes? I don't think so.

    Second, it was Obama that ordered the pulled out of Iraq without getting oil rights for the Iraqi oil fields and mak ...[text shortened]... uclear war it is the one that makes the first strike that is going to have the strong advantage.
    You just don't get it, do you? Russia, China, India, Pakistan and many others have weapons of mass destruction, and you seem to turn a blind eye to the fact that America has international agreements of different kinds with all of them.

    Second is the fact that you've lost sight of the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. "W" was so hellbent on getting Saddam Hussein so he could look tough, and get daddy's approval he lied about weapons of mass destruction to justify that needless invasion. As far as oil rights goes, Iraq owes America no oil rights. The only oil rights there were in the region was some very shady oil deals the Bush and Bin Laden family's had going back decades prior to the invasion. (A dirty little secret the right wing would rather keep hidden)

    Israel has a lot lose from this deal?? Why are America's middle east policy decisions all about Israel?? America has coddled, nurtured, and pampered Israel like a spoiled child since the end of WW 2. Israel bulldozes homes on Palestinian land, or kills innocent Palestinian women and children in bombing raids, and America turns a blind eye to it. It is this ongoing double standard that has fostered so much hatred of Israel in the region, and led to so many terror groups in the first place. Case in point: Benjamin Netanyahu was invited to speak to Congress awhile ago to state Israel's case. Was a Palestinian leader invited to speak? A Jordanian Leader? A Saudi leader? An Iranian leader? Nope...It's all about Israel, isn't it? Your slanted views on the middle east is just one of the reasons America is not trusted to be fair in it's middle east policy's.

    The fact is, you and most of the right wing are against any agreements or treaty's with anyone in the middle east (except for the highly favored Israel of course). There will be no peace in the middle east until that attitude changes. This treaty with Iran involves several other countries, all with a sincere stake in making it work. Iran has had to give ground on several points to get this treaty, their conservative leaders think they've given too much away, but they are willing to try to make it work, and if America is not willing to do the same, then we should all get ready for WW 3, because it's coming....and sooner than you think!
  6. Standard memberbill718
    Enigma
    Seattle
    Joined
    03 Sep '06
    Moves
    3298
    22 Jul '15 11:232 edits
  7. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    22 Jul '15 12:13
    Originally posted by bill718
    ...and your solution is what? Spread some more lies about "weapons of mass destruction" to justify another needless invasion? Start another war? Try to play global cop? America just went into debt up to the eyebrows trying to do that, and all we're left with is 2 middle eastern country's in worse shape than when we went in, and lots and lots of dead and woun ...[text shortened]... ceman. Accepting help from other countries is not a sign of weakness. Give this treaty a chance.
    I'm not judging the merits of the agreement, I'm just trying to assess if the agreement is a treaty.

    Supposing the agreement is a treaty and by law a treaty must first be approved by Congress, would you still favor the treaty after the President passed it himself unlawfully?

    Let's go further, what if it is the best treaty ever made, should he go ahead and "get things done" even though it was done unlawfully?
  8. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    22 Jul '15 13:22
    Originally posted by bill718
    ...and your solution is what? Spread some more lies about "weapons of mass destruction" to justify another needless invasion? Start another war? Try to play global cop? America just went into debt up to the eyebrows trying to do that, and all we're left with is 2 middle eastern country's in worse shape than when we went in, and lots and lots of dead and woun ...[text shortened]... ceman. Accepting help from other countries is not a sign of weakness. Give this treaty a chance.
    There's a solution a little less dramatic than that, Bill: It's maintaining or even stepping up the sanctions unless and until Iran stops it's nuclear program entirely, or at least until you get better terms than this agreement (which allows Iran to continue to enrich uranium and sunsets a lot of the inspection provisions).

    It's possible that Iran was going to get a nuke anyway, sanctions or no sanctions, but this agreement does not do much to negate that possibility. Heck, even the Grand Wizard Dragon (or whatever they call that autocratic ignoramus) spiked the football and flipped Kerry the bird less than a week after the great "agreement."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/11754379/Iran-nuclear-deal-Kerry-disturbed-by-Ayatollahs-vow-to-defy-US-in-Middle-East.html

    I still think that in the long run, only cyber attacks have any realistic chance of stopping or seriously delaying the Iranian nuke program. Hopefully the Mossad is on it.
  9. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    22 Jul '15 13:26
    Originally posted by whodey
    Should the nuke deal with Iran be considered a treaty?

    And if a treaty, should not Congress have a say in the signing of the said treaty?
    It's not a treaty, but Congress does have some say in the matter, based on legislation passed and signed into law back in April that anticipated this agreement.

    YouTube
  10. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    22 Jul '15 14:05
    Originally posted by sh76
    It's not a treaty, but Congress does have some say in the matter, based on legislation passed and signed into law back in April that anticipated this agreement.

    [youtube]5knp4sjJEmA[/youtube]
    Does it really matter? The agreement gives Iran everything it wants, and we get nothing. There is no method of enforcing the agreement, and of course, even if there were the methods would be as ineffective as they were in the case of Iraq. The whole thing is a political publicity stunt.

    Don't worry, be happy.
  11. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    22 Jul '15 18:172 edits
    Originally posted by sh76
    It's not a treaty, but Congress does have some say in the matter, based on legislation passed and signed into law back in April that anticipated this agreement.

    [youtube]5knp4sjJEmA[/youtube]
    Thanks for that.

    So Executive agreements, like Executive Orders, are not really Constitutional. Go figure.

    The only power Progs obtain is by defecating on the Constitution.

    As for the Corker Menendez legislation, this seems to be the legislation that was passed that locked the deal and prevented Congress from really having any more say over the matter. They essentially tied their own hands.

    What a cluster.
  12. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    22 Jul '15 18:211 edit
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Does it really matter? The agreement gives Iran everything it wants, and we get nothing. There is no method of enforcing the agreement, and of course, even if there were the methods would be as ineffective as they were in the case of Iraq. The whole thing is a political publicity stunt.

    Don't worry, be happy.
    When dealing with a sovereign country, you either need to let them be or you are at war with them in some capacity, whether it is in the form of direct aggression or in the form of political manipulation.

    In the end, political manipulation, whether in the form of economic restrictions or messing with their computer systems, etc., will only work so long. In the end, it is either take them out or let them be.

    So what say you, should the US take them out?
  13. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    22 Jul '15 19:35
    Originally posted by whodey
    Thanks for that.

    So Executive agreements, like Executive Orders, are not really Constitutional. Go figure.

    The only power Progs obtain is by defecating on the Constitution.

    As for the Corker Menendez legislation, this seems to be the legislation that was passed that locked the deal and prevented Congress from really having any more say over the matter. They essentially tied their own hands.

    What a cluster.
    That's certainly one way of looking at it. Though as a practical matter, without Corker-Menendez, Obama could have just done it as an executive agreement and ignored Congress all together. So, they tied their own hands, but they were really already tied anyway.
  14. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13029
    22 Jul '15 19:462 edits
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Does it really matter? The agreement gives Iran everything it wants, and we get nothing. There is no method of enforcing the agreement, and of course, even if there were the methods would be as ineffective as they were in the case of Iraq. The whole thing is a political publicity stunt.

    Don't worry, be happy.
    You're right. Bush made damn sure Iraq did NOT have WMD.

    This deal is only a placebo for the cowardly left-wing liberal Democrats and does nothing to ensure Iran does not get Nukes or that they don't already have a nuclear bomb.

    This deal only allows that grand Iranian Wizard to beat his chest to the rest of the world, while he increases their arsenal of weapons to use in the quest to conquer the world for Islam.
  15. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    22 Jul '15 20:55
    Originally posted by whodey
    When dealing with a sovereign country, you either need to let them be or you are at war with them in some capacity, whether it is in the form of direct aggression or in the form of political manipulation.

    In the end, political manipulation, whether in the form of economic restrictions or messing with their computer systems, etc., will only work so long. I ...[text shortened]... end, it is either take them out or let them be.

    So what say you, should the US take them out?
    Let them be. We can hardly justify war based on what some politician in another country says to arouse his voters.

    That would be like arresting teenagers who buy a car because they might drive it while drunk
Back to Top