Iran Lied . . . No One Is Surprised

[matmacwc]

Or maybe the senate ignored him because it was a terrible idea and he knew it wouldn’t pass.    Either way, Pres T said he would do it, nobody should be surprised.

[Azimuth]

4 hours ago, brickhistory said:

It was a bad deal to start with.  

Not to mention the second most egregious example by the previous Administration to do an end run around the founding contract of our system of government - the US Constitution.

Any formal agreement (treaty) between the US and any other country that binds us to any action or behavior isn't valid until it is presented to and ratified by the Senate.  This J-POS as well as the even worse Paris Climate Accord were done via Obama's infamous "phone and pen."  And just as easily undone (except for DACA for some reason espoused by one lower court judge) by the next Administration.

If it were such a good deal for the US, then why didn't Obama present it to the Senate?  Because he knew he couldn't get it through, so he simply ignored them.  And they let him.  They voluntarily abrogated one of their basic responsibilities.  Which disgusts me even more than the J-POS did.

Huh?

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/us/politics/iran-nuclear-deal-senate.html

[MooseAg03]

Huh?
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/us/politics/iran-nuclear-deal-senate.html

“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; ...”

The vote you are referring to was to block legislation to keep our previous president from agreeing to a treaty outside the limits of the Constitution. Definitely not the same as seeking approval from the Senate. Only the in the tank media would spin that as a Democrat victory when he was agreeing to the deal in an illegal manner in the first place. A treaty requires 2/3 of the Senate, period. Now maybe we’ll do it the right way.

[waveshaper]

15 hours ago, brickhistory said:

It was a bad deal to start with.  

Not to mention the second most egregious example by the previous Administration to do an end run around the founding contract of our system of government - the US Constitution.

Any formal agreement (treaty) between the US and any other country that binds us to any action or behavior isn't valid until it is presented to and ratified by the Senate.  This J-POS as well as the even worse Paris Climate Accord were done via Obama's infamous "phone and pen."  And just as easily undone (except for DACA for some reason espoused by one lower court judge) by the next Administration.

If it were such a good deal for the US, then why didn't Obama present it to the Senate?  Because he knew he couldn't get it through, so he simply ignored them.  And they let him.  They voluntarily abrogated one of their basic responsibilities.  Which disgusts me even more than the J-POS did.

President Nixon pulled the same treaty/agreement stunt as President Obama. I'm sure a few folks remember how this Nixon Treaty Gem worked out "The Paris Peace Accords, officially titled the Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam, was a peace treaty signed on January 27, 1973 to establish peace in Vietnam and end the Vietnam War".

The Constitution - Executive agreements;

https://www.americanforeignrelations.com/A-D/The-Constitution-Executive-agreements.html

 

[MooseAg03]

Maybe if the Senate had been included at the time we signed the Paris Peace Accords, we wouldn’t have left behind hundreds of POWs.

https://mobile.wnd.com/2015/07/mccain-and-the-pow-cover-up/

[Disco_Nav963]

21 hours ago, MooseAg03 said:

Maybe if the Senate had been included at the time we signed the Paris Peace Accords, we wouldn’t have left behind hundreds of POWs.

https://mobile.wnd.com/2015/07/mccain-and-the-pow-cover-up/

 

[FourFans]

That link belongs over in the Emirates thread somehow.

[MooseAg03]

 

I know it’s a long article, but if you read it you’d understand my comment.

Nixon was set on getting out of Vietnam, because of this he signed the peace accords before seeing a final list of Americans being held by North Vietnam. The number accounted for was hundreds below what multiple intelligence agencies believed to be alive and in captivity. North Vietnam held back a significant number of prisoners to bargain for reparations, even trying to negotiate as late as 1981 for payment. Maybe if the Senate was included in framing the treaty, we wouldn’t have been so quick to abandon people over there.

It may seem like conspiracy theory to some of you, but when one of your family members was MIA for 4 decades and could possibly be one of the ones left behind it takes on greater significance.

[admdelta]

On 5/8/2018 at 1:42 PM, brickhistory said:

It was a bad deal to start with.  

Not to mention the second most egregious example by the previous Administration to do an end run around the founding contract of our system of government - the US Constitution.

Any formal agreement (treaty) between the US and any other country that binds us to any action or behavior isn't valid until it is presented to and ratified by the Senate.  This J-POS as well as the even worse Paris Climate Accord were done via Obama's infamous "phone and pen."  And just as easily undone (except for DACA for some reason espoused by one lower court judge) by the next Administration.

If it were such a good deal for the US, then why didn't Obama present it to the Senate?  Because he knew he couldn't get it through, so he simply ignored them.  And they let him.  They voluntarily abrogated one of their basic responsibilities.  Which disgusts me even more than the J-POS did.

It isn't a formal treaty though. It was an agreement by the administration to drop sanctions that were created by the executive in the first place. The president has full authority to withdraw sanctions that he himself has implemented. Congressional approval isn't required to do this. Obama didn't present it to the senate because he didn't need to, and frankly also because they wouldn't have approved it anyway, for the sole reason that senate and congressional republicans were 100% hellbent on preventing Obama from doing literally anything, not to mention republican warhawks don't want peace with Iran anyway even if it is in reach.

But really I haven't seen anyone present a reason why the deal was bad other than attacking it from a constitutionality standpoint. Our problem with Iran was that they had the capability to build nukes. Now they don't. Someone please explain why that's bad for us.

[matmacwc]

Because MSNBC doesn't tell you it is bad.  I like this former CIA operators explanation.

 

[admdelta]

He doesn't address things like the breakout period going from a few months to over 10 years. He also says that people are framing this as a dichotomy between either having the deal or going to war, but I don't really see it that way at all. We can still just allow them to develop nuclear weapons, which they probably wouldn't use aggressively, but would maintain as a deterrent and as a boost to their regional power which nobody wants either. Unless the other signatories manage to make something work, we are still stuck with one of those options and they both suck. If they do manage to make something work the resultant deal would probably be even worse since Iran is going to have a major advantage in those negotiations because without the US involved it's very easy for them to walk away from terms they don't like.

Edited May 17, 2018 by admdelta

[MooseAg03]

He doesn't address things like the breakout period going from a few months to over 10 years. He also says that people are framing this as a dichotomy between either having the deal or going to war, but I don't really see it that way at all. We can still just allow them to develop nuclear weapons, which they probably wouldn't use aggressively, but would maintain as a deterrent and as a boost to their regional power which nobody wants either. Unless the other signatories manage to make something work, we are still stuck with one of those options and they both suck. If they do manage to make something work the resultant deal would probably be even worse since Iran is going to have a major advantage in those negotiations because without the US involved it's very easy for them to walk away from terms they don't like.

You honestly think they stopped development when they agreed to the deal? All they did was sign it to buy themselves more time to complete their work and we gave them billions to aid in that endeavor. How stupid can we be?

They are the worlds largest state sponsor of terror, I wouldn’t want to see what they would do with live nukes. They’d probably give/sell them to some psycho third party who would be crazy enough to cause a mushroom cloud in a major US city.