Even Iran knows Republicans are idiots..

[crockett]

"In our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history."



This is in response by Iran, to a bunch of Republican senators whom decided to go around Obama and try to derail the Nuclear Deal.

Apparently Republicans are not no-longer "part" of this country or govt, because they claim if any deal is made they will not abide by it or acknowledge it's existence. The big Black man in charge must have them really ticked off over this one..

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/wo...=top-news&_r=0

[directfiesta]

isn't that treason ?

[crockett]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

isn't that treason ?

Well you know that selling guns to Iran as Reagan did, via the Iran-Contra affair while they were under a arms embargo should of been treason. However he got away with it, thanks to Fox News Corespondent Ollie North, falling on his sword to save the great Republican traitor.. I mean savor..

Writing letters, I guess we just have to see if they walk their talk or just spew useless propaganda.. One thing is certain is they just gave Iran an easy out to not sign any deals. Meaning the Republicans just empowered Iran to continue work on nuclear arms if they wish to do so..

This leads to the questions, are Republicans in Congress planted Iranian Muslims? I mean first they sell them guns under the table, now they seem to want them to build nukes. Why do these Republicans want Iran to build nukes? I mean is calling Obama a Muslim a ploy to distract everyone from Mohammad Al Boner real's identity? He is pretty dark skinned after all...

[Robbie]

This has to be the dumbest fucking thing that I've ever seen politicians do.

And yeah, I think it borders on treason.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Robbie

This has to be the dumbest fucking thing that I've ever seen politicians do.

And yeah, I think it borders on treason.

They are calling it an "open letter" to try and skate by any legal responsibilities.. However it does show they have zero respect for the president's office "regardless of whom the president is at the moment" and just took partisan bickering to foreign negations, setting a pretty bad precedent if it goes un-punished.

Pretty much a dumb fucking move, but I'm not surprised anymore by anything Congress does anymore much less which party is responsible.

[mikesouth]

these days politicians and treason go together perfectly...Think Patriot Act.....there was a time in this country that would have been considered treason

we have taken great strides in civil rights but we have gone way backwards in civil liberties...it disgusts me

[Robbie]

The President should be free to negotiate with other countries WITHOUT opposing political parties getting involved.

President Nixon changed the world when he had secret negotiations with China that led to very public negotiations and agreements and his widely televised trip to China.

Did Democrats hate him? Hell yes. But they had the good sense to not send an "open letter" to the Chinese for God's sake.

Nixon's visits to both China and The Soviet Union both changed the world for the better and began the end of the "cold war".

Congress has no business sticking it's nose into Executive Branch duties. And being pissed at the President for sort of bypassing them on Legislative Branch business is no excuse for this stupidity.

2 wrongs don't make a "right". And screwing up these kind of negotiations could mean the loss of many lives if things go bad.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Executive agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Treaty Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whatever it is, an 'agreement' or a 'treaty', it can be withdrawn at any time.

The whole threat is politics as usual.

[dyna mo]

I'll read the letter shortly but democrats have done this plenty of times in the past.

[dyna mo]

Not seeing the problem here. Dems have interfered much more.

[Dvae]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

I'll read the letter shortly but democrats have done this plenty of times in the past.

People have short memories. Following are 2 examples I'm sure there are more.

From the NY Times

Jim Wright, the Democratic House speaker during Ronald Reagan?s presidency, was accused of interfering when he met with opposing leaders in Nicaragua?s contra war. Three House Democrats went to Iraq in 2002 before President George W. Bush?s invasion to try to head off war. And Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, went to Syria in 2007 to meet with President Bashar al-Assad against the wishes of the Bush administration, which was trying to isolate him.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by Dvae

People have short memories. Following are 2 examples I'm sure there are more.

From the NY Times

Jim Wright, the Democratic House speaker during Ronald Reagan?s presidency, was accused of interfering when he met with opposing leaders in Nicaragua?s contra war. Three House Democrats went to Iraq in 2002 before President George W. Bush?s invasion to try to head off war. And Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, went to Syria in 2007 to meet with President Bashar al-Assad against the wishes of the Bush administration, which was trying to isolate him.

Did they leave a written record of treason like these fools?

[bronco67]

My question is, what is their alternative to blowing up the deal like this? They'd rather we don't try to have access to their program? The deal says (if it goes through) that we'll have access to their nuclear program.

Let's say they act shady and restrict some access to us. Isn't that better than sitting over here zero access, wondering what the hell the Iranians are up to? republicans being xenophobic, unreasonable, small-minded assholes, as usual.

They obviously want to go to war with Iran, since we have a president who would rather see if the other side can be reasonable. By the way, does that Iranian response look like the writings of insane Jihadists? Not saying we should trust them totally, but we should at least keep giving them chances until they're finally forthcoming, especially when the alternative is balls out war.

[PR_Glen]

Originally Posted by Dvae

People have short memories. Following are 2 examples I'm sure there are more.

From the NY Times

Jim Wright, the Democratic House speaker during Ronald Reagan?s presidency, was accused of interfering when he met with opposing leaders in Nicaragua?s contra war. Three House Democrats went to Iraq in 2002 before President George W. Bush?s invasion to try to head off war. And Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, went to Syria in 2007 to meet with President Bashar al-Assad against the wishes of the Bush administration, which was trying to isolate him.

Exactly, they all think they are doing the right thing in the process, it has nothing to do with partisanism. The problem is moves like this divides a nation and does lasting damage, more than what would have in the initial problem in most cases.

trying to turn this into a debate over democrats vs republicans is ridiculous though.

[dyna mo]

I'm not seeing any treason here either. BO locked out congress on a nuclear arms agreement by going around them with an executive order. these congressmen went around BO to point out that any agreement not ratified by congress is pretty fucking stupid and can be terminated at any time for any reason.

an executive order is not a treaty and is just more of BO being a junior level politician.


thanks Obama.

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

I'm not seeing any treason here either. BO locked out congress on a nuclear arms agreement by going around them with an executive order. these congressmen went around BO to point out that any agreement not ratified by congress is pretty fucking stupid and can be terminated at any time for any reason.

an executive order is not a treaty and is just more of BO being a junior level politician.


thanks Obama.

You can always be counted on to have a shitty opinion that sides with jerkoffs.

[EonBlue]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

.

[Tom_PM]

Unprecedented? Nixon. Vietnam.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by bronco67

You can always be counted on to have a shitty opinion that sides with jerkoffs.

and you can be counted on to think i give a fuck what you think about my opinion.


fyi, i'm trying to recall one single fucking view of your's i give a shit about or even know but simply cannot come up with anything.

[dyna mo]

still lolzing @ teh dumbfuck gfyers who think i'm supposed to change my views or not share them because a gfy dumbfuck disagrees with them or they are not the popular, get with the group mindset, while thinking i'm here to make friends and be chummy.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. the dumbfuckery here.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

still lolzing @ teh dumbfuck gfyers who think i'm supposed to change my views or not share them because a gfy dumbfuck disagrees with them or they are not the popular, get with the group mindset, while thinking i'm here to make friends and be chummy.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. the dumbfuckery here.

Oh please, can you wait for a significant insult before revving up the chain saw.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Oh please, can you wait for a significant insult before revving up the chain saw.

that's the chainsaw? i haven't even finished my first cup of coffee. i just have to lolz at gfyers who think they are informing me that i'm not mr. kumbaya of gfy as if I am not aware of my own fucking posts/views/opinions/posting style.

i hope someone shoots me in the face with my own fucking shotgun before i am at the point where i need to come to gfy to make friends.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by EonBlue

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381





.

So you are in agreement that this open letter gives Iran an easy out of any nuclear agreement because now they see a divided US/govt whom not all of which seems willing to honor any agreement.

By doing this they have aided and abetted Iran, if Iran chooses to walk away from an agreement. Iran can now point to this letter showing that the US govt will not fully honor an agreement..

[celandina]

Right now they ( the Iranians) are wiping the floor with the ISIS in Tikrit ( and soon in Mosul) and guess what? Without s single American special force member or a single American bomb! While the idiotic politicians are talking about not helping Iran....
Or sending asinine letters.
Fucking idiots !!! What happened to the old dictum: " enemy of my enemy is my friend".... If the fuckers were in power in the 40ties... We would have lost the 2nd World War...

I M so disgusted I can puke and it is not just the Republicans its the whole rotten country ....same as Rome in the 5th century....

Time to consider a new religion.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by crockett

So you are in agreement that this open letter gives Iran an easy out of any nuclear agreement because now they see a divided US/govt whom not all of which seems willing to honor any agreement.

By doing this they have aided and abetted Iran, if Iran chooses to walk away from an agreement. Iran can now point to this letter showing that the US govt will not fully honor an agreement..

it's the law, first and foremost. the fact our government is divided was clearly already illustrated by BO's not including congress to, you know, actually ratify (make legal) the agreement. that's why this BO executive order is stupid, neither side is obligated. but the laws state a treaty must be ratified by congress.

[2MuchMark]

This has to be the most idiotic thing the republicans have ever done. Your president is working with Germany, UK, France, China, and Russia to create peaceful means to prevent Iran making nuclear weapons, and the clown republicans are trying to sabotage this. What the fuck...

Anyway, glad to see that their stupid letter backfireds and that they were called-out on their stupidity. Everyone who signed that letter should be charged with treason.

[dyna mo]

not near as idiotic as a PUSA thinking an executive order nuclear arms deal with iran is legally binding and long lasting.

[directfiesta]

It is NOT treason , as those republicans are consistent, being patriotic to their masters :

[dyna mo]

can anyone of you anti-republicans give one reason why a nuclear arms treaty with Iran should not go through the proper channels and protocols and be legally binding via the treaty ratification process?

[crockett]

Originally Posted by celandina

Right now they ( the Iranians) are wiping the floor with the ISIS in Tikrit ( and soon in Mosul) and guess what? Without s single American special force member or a single American bomb! While the idiotic politicians are talking about not helping Iran....
Or sending asinine letters.
Fucking idiots !!! What happened to the old dictum: " enemy of my enemy is my friend".... If the fuckers were in power in the 40ties... We would have lost the 2nd World War...

I M so disgusted I can puke and it is not just the Republicans its the whole rotten country ....same as Rome in the 5th century....

Time to consider a new religion.

It's rather Ironic isn't it? The CIA's actions in Iran helped create the Islamic revolution in Iran & sounding areas.. They then supplied guns to Iran under Reagan's admin.. Meanwhile still under Reagan's admin they supplied weapons & training to the Taliban whom splinted off and attacked the US on our own soil and elsewhere.

If this weren't enough, George Bush Sr, then went on to attack Iraq the sworn enemy of Iran and one of the few non Islamic run states in the middle east. Not the best place to live but at least Saddam kept the extremist at bay..

Fast forward to Bush Jr and he stirs up the hornets nest once again in Afghanistan then walks away to go Invade Iraq once again. Pretty much by just waving a dick around and telling everyone it's raining and wonders why they all get pissed off when no one believes him..

Now we have Iran working hand and hand with Iraq & Republicans wanting us to arm Syrian rebels.. If this weren't enough we are best buddies with Saudi Arabia whom is just as bad or worse than any of the other regimes. Not to mention many of the 9/11 high jackers were from Saudi and Bush jr allowed Saudi royal family members to skirt out of the US with out being questioned after 9/11. Members whom were later shown to have helped support the attack.


Seriously I'm torn between.. are Republican Neo Cons still trying to start WW3 or are they implanted Muslim extremists trying to take over the world while we all think they are good ole god fearing Christians...

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by celandina

Right now they ( the Iranians) are wiping the floor with the ISIS in Tikrit ( and soon in Mosul) and guess what? Without s single American special force member or a single American bomb! While the idiotic politicians are talking about not helping Iran....
Or sending asinine letters.
Fucking idiots !!! What happened to the old dictum: " enemy of my enemy is my friend".... If the fuckers were in power in the 40ties... We would have lost the 2nd World War...

I M so disgusted I can puke and it is not just the Republicans its the whole rotten country ....same as Rome in the 5th century....

Time to consider a new religion.

umm, you are talking about IraQ.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

umm, you are talking about IraQ.

Yes... Thanks to us fucking up Iraq, Iran now has much better ties with Iraq and now has influence on the govt there as well as working hand & hand with them to defeat ISIS the guys which George Bush paid to go away and Jihad in Syria so it looked like we were winning..

Fast forward to Obama getting elected and he stops paying off terrorist not to attack and suddenly we have jihad everywhere.. Thanks Obama... guess he should of kept paying them am I right?

[SuckOnThis]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

it's the law, first and foremost. the fact our government is divided was clearly already illustrated by BO's not including congress to, you know, actually ratify (make legal) the agreement. that's why this BO executive order is stupid, neither side is obligated. but the laws state a treaty must be ratified by congress.

Wrong. Congress doesn't ratify treaties, the President does. Stop listening to right wing rhetoric.

The Basics of Treaty Ratification in the U.S. Senate | Center for Arms Control & Non-Proliferation

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by crockett

Yes... Thanks to us fucking up Iraq, Iran now has much better ties with Iraq and now has influence on the govt there as well as working hand & hand with them to defeat ISIS the guys which George Bush paid to go away and Jihad in Syria so it looked like we were winning..

Fast forward to Obama getting elected and he stops paying off terrorist not to attack and suddenly we have jihad everywhere.. Thanks Obama... guess he should of kept paying them am I right?

to say that the Iranians on the sidelines in IraQ are wiping the floor with ISIS while the Americans on the sidelines in IRaq are inconsequential is misleading.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

Wrong. Congress doesn't ratify treaties, the President does. Stop listening to right wing rhetoric.

The Basics of Treaty Ratification in the U.S. Senate | Center for Arms Control & Non-Proliferation

don't go away, i'm about to proof you wrong.

i am digging up the CONSTITUTIONAL requirements for a treaty.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

to say that the Iranians on the sidelines in IraQ are wiping the floor with ISIS while the Americans on the sidelines in IRaq are inconsequential is misleading.

I think you need to read a bit..

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/wo...ight-isis.html

Iran has been training and supplying the militias fighting in Iraq against ISIS. Not to mention many of the fighters are Iranian.. You know like Russian soldiers vacationing in Ukraine?

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

Wrong. Congress doesn't ratify treaties, the President does. Stop listening to right wing rhetoric.

The Basics of Treaty Ratification in the U.S. Senate | Center for Arms Control & Non-Proliferation

article 2, section 2, clause 2 of the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION:

The President may enter the United States into treaties, but they are not effective until ratified by a two-thirds vote in the Senate.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by crockett

I think you need to read a bit..

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/wo...ight-isis.html

Iran has been training and supplying the militias fighting in Iraq against ISIS. Not to mention many of the fighters are Iranian.. You know like Russian soldiers vacationing in Ukraine?

while you think i need to read a bit, i know you need to read a lot because you seem to not be aware of the US military trainers and advisors in Iraq, such as the ones geographically close to ISIS.

not to mention it's been made very obvious that the Iranians advisors and trainers in Iraq are not fighting.

[Joshua G]

Originally Posted by celandina

Right now they ( the Iranians) are wiping the floor with the ISIS in Tikrit ( and soon in Mosul) and guess what? Without s single American special force member or a single American bomb! While the idiotic politicians are talking about not helping Iran....
Or sending asinine letters.

yes well i suspect the US & Iran are cooperating to ensure the USA does not drop bombs on any iranians that are fighting alongside iraqis on the ground. Boy would that be a PR nightmare

[crockett]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

while you think i need to read a bit, i know you need to read a lot because you seem to not be aware of the US military trainers and advisors in Iraq, such as the ones geographically close to ISIS.

not to mention it's been made very obvious that the Iranians advisors and trainers in Iraq are not fighting.

So you think that because the US still has advisers on the ground, that Iran doesn't have soldiers in the militias?

edit.. here yea go...

Iran sends troops into Iraq to aid fight against Isis militants | World news | The Guardian

even wikipedia knows Iran has troops in Iraq..

Iranian intervention in Iraq (2014?present) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These are "official" troops not just soldiers on vacation fighting in the Militias which Iran also funds..

[SuckOnThis]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

article 2, section 2, clause 2 of the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION:

The President may enter the United States into treaties, but they are not effective until ratified by a two-thirds vote in the Senate.

Thats what I said. You said Congress makes treaties, you were wrong.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

Thats what I said. You said Congress makes treaties, you were wrong.

no.

this is my post you quoted

Originally Posted by dyna mo

...congress to, you know, actually ratify (make legal) the agreement. that's why this BO executive order is stupid, neither side is obligated. but the laws state a treaty must be ratified by congress.

i clearly state congress ratifies treaties.

in retort, you posted

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

Wrong. Congress doesn't ratify treaties, the President does. ]

[dyna mo]

still waiting for an anti-republican to provide one reason why a non-binding, non-legal, cancel at anytime nuclear arms executive order with Iran is better than a legally binding via the Constitution Nuclear Arms Treaty...................

[crockett]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

still waiting for an anti-republican to provide one reason why a non-binding, non-legal, cancel at anytime nuclear arms executive order with Iran is better than a legally binding via the Constitution Nuclear Arms Treaty...................

So you are saying that no matter what the deal was that Republicans would not agree to it?


No one said anything about an executive action. They were going to attempt to make a deal like any deal has been done before.

It's nice however that you do understand that Republicans in Congress are not willing to work in conjunction with the executive office no matter what the deal may or may not be. I guess you finally understand how one way they have made everything and that they don't work for the good of America, but rather for their political party..

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

umm, you are talking about IraQ.

no, about IRAN ( with an N ).

Get educated , dumbfuck ... lol....

here's a litte help :

As US and Iraqi officials admit, with varying degrees of misgiving, Iran is more or less directing the show. The Shia militias, under the umbrella of the Hashd al-Shaabi ?popular mobilisation units?, answer ultimately to Tehran, not Baghdad. Iran has provided them with weapons and training. And Iran?s most famous general, Qassem Suleimani, commander of the elite al-Quds force of Iran?s Revolutionary Guards, reportedly took personal charge of operations last week.

As Iran takes charge in Tikrit, the west can only hope for the best | Observer editorial | Comment is free | The Guardian

...now, back to our regular programming

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

still waiting for an anti-republican to provide one reason why a non-binding, non-legal, cancel at anytime nuclear arms executive order with Iran is better than a legally binding via the Constitution Nuclear Arms Treaty...................

Isn't the process supposed to be that FIRST they negotiate (they are still in the middle of that), then both sides sign it (hasn't happened yet because they haven't finished negotiating), and THEN Congress ratifies it?

I think that is the problem with what these Senators did. They interfered with the negotiation and writing of the treaty.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

no, about IRAN ( with an N ).

Get educated , dumbfuck ... lol....

here's a litte help :



...now, back to our regular programming

you're so fucking stupid you can't even keep up with this thread. or else you are so far over your fucking head trying to argue with me you simply have to discount several of my posts to try and get your gotcha in.



oh and here's General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the USA joint chiefs of staff stating on the fucking record that Iranians are not fighting in Iraq. And the gains in Tikrit are also on account of USA dropping bombs. so again, Iranians wiping the floor with ISIS in Iraq is misleading.

dumbfuck.

US claims its air strikes enabled Iraqi push poised to retake Tikrit from Isis | World news | The Guardian

[Barry-xlovecam]

1. My enemy's enemy is not my friend.

If you need proof try Osama bin-laden.

Both Iran and ISIS chant the same tune -- "Death to America!" Right now, they are in a struggle for regional dominance. When their struggle is over the victor will chant death to America again.

Why the USA negotiates with doorknobs and demagogues like those leaders in North Korea and Iran is beyond me.

North Korea: https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/6partytalks 2002 and still talking ...

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Isn't the process supposed to be that FIRST they negotiate (they are still in the middle of that), then both sides sign it (hasn't happened yet because they haven't finished negotiating), and THEN Congress ratifies it?

I think that is the problem with what these Senators did. They interfered with the negotiation and writing of the treaty.

from what i had read about it, it's my understanding BO has no intention whatsoever to take the executive order to the senate. he wouldn't have to use an executive order if he planned on this being an actual treaty.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Isn't the process supposed to be that FIRST they negotiate (they are still in the middle of that), then both sides sign it (hasn't happened yet because they haven't finished negotiating), and THEN Congress ratifies it?

I think that is the problem with what these Senators did. They interfered with the negotiation and writing of the treaty.

here's some of the thinking from back in October.



Obama Sees an Iran Deal That Could Avoid Congress
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/20/us...ess-.html?_r=0


"But the White House has made one significant decision: If agreement is reached, President Obama will do everything in his power to avoid letting Congress vote on it."