Uneasy Feeling
-
A bad or lax treaty does indeed equal standing down.
The results are basically the same. I think that letter was meant to underscore the idea.
WSS
Yes...b\c the best way to encourage another country to agree to a treaty is by telling them even if there is an agreement we may remove it in 2 years, no treaty is perfect each side needs to compromise..... to me it does what the Republicans wanted. They get a few PR points while making it very difficult to come to terms with a treaty with a country that has been a virtual enemy for us for years, underminning anything we try to do in the region.
Yes...b\c the best way to encourage another country to agree to a treaty is by telling them even if there is an agreement we may remove it in 2 years, no treaty is perfect each side needs to compromise..... to me it does what the Republicans wanted. They get a few PR points while making it very difficult to come to terms with a treaty with a country that has been a virtual enemy for us for years, underminning anything we try to do in the region.
I understand everyones concerns, I just don't particularly agree. I think the president and the Secretary of State are so eager to get anything signed they will give up too much and the consequences are too serious. that's all.
WSS
-
It undermines any possibility of forming a treaty with Iran, who could be a big help in fighting ISIS in the region and getting more permanent stabilized Middle East region. They have major influence over Hezbollah, if we can come to an agreement on their nuclear program then we can start working on their support for Hezbollah and other similar groups.
It undermines any possibility of forming a treaty with Iran, who could be a big help in fighting ISIS in the region and getting more permanent stabilized Middle East region. They have major influence over Hezbollah, if we can come to an agreement on their nuclear program then we can start working on their support for Hezbollah and other similar groups.
Thats idiotic. They are already 'fighting' ISIS with Iraqi troops in fighting for Takrit. They want to be the predominant 'ally' of Iraq which is run by Shiite muslims. Iran is an enemy. Has been, and will continue to be.
-
It undermines any possibility of forming a treaty with Iran, who could be a big help in fighting ISIS in the region and getting more permanent stabilized Middle East region. They have major influence over Hezbollah, if we can come to an agreement on their nuclear program then we can start working on their support for Hezbollah and other similar groups.
Thats idiotic. They are already 'fighting' ISIS with Iraqi troops in fighting for Takrit. They want to be the predominant 'ally' of Iraq which is run by Shiite muslims. Iran is an enemy. Has been, and will continue to be.
Thats idiotic. They are already 'fighting' ISIS with Iraqi troops in fighting for Takrit. They want to be the predominant 'ally' of Iraq which is run by Shiite muslims. Iran is an enemy. Has been, and will continue to be.
We are both fighting the Daesh(need to remember to use that term more) but we are not coordinating our attacks and working together against a common enemy. The ideal fight would be to use Iraqi, Iranian, and Kurdish land forces supported by US and other Middle Eastern countries air force(Jordan, Saudis) to fight them. But instead we have Iranian half supporting Iraq since they don't want to be seen helping the US, and the US only willing to use air force, since Obama does not want to send troops back to Iraq.
Why do they have to continue to be an enemy? Why not try to find common ground against a common enemy and come to an agreement on something that is keeping us apart(nuke deal), and then try to come to an agreement on other things(ending support for hezballoh, and other stuff)?
-
Also to be noted I should not be calling it a treaty its an executive agreement.
-
A treaty does not equal standing down. What is the plan from the R side of the aisle to deal with Iran? Keep throwing useless sanctions at them? Puff out the chest and threaten war?
A bad or lax treaty does indeed equal standing down.
The results are basically the same. I think that letter was meant to underscore the idea.
WSS
A bad or lax treaty does indeed equal standing down.
The results are basically the same. I think that letter was meant to underscore the idea.
WSS
Also it would have to be really bad agreement for the next president(repub or dem) to cancel an agreement that is being negotiated between the US, China, Russia, the UK, Germany, and France(p5+1) with Iran.
-
A bad or lax treaty does indeed equal standing down.
The results are basically the same. I think that letter was meant to underscore the idea.
WSS
Also it would have to be really bad agreement for the next president(repub or dem) to cancel an agreement that is being negotiated between the US, China, Russia, the UK, Germany, and France(p5+1) with Iran.
Also it would have to be really bad agreement for the next president(repub or dem) to cancel an agreement that is being negotiated between the US, China, Russia, the UK, Germany, and France(p5+1) with Iran.
And how important or not is a nuclear Iran to them?
WSS
-
China is indifferent to Iran, they probably want an open market to trade their goods but usually don't involve themselves with middle eastern policy, Russia supports Iran but wouldn't want to see a Nuke built that might fall into the hands of chechenian(sp?) or other muslim extremist, Uk and France support Israel and don't want to see a nuclear Iran, Germany not sure they have decent trade but have stated against nuclear Iran.
Edit-found this statement about china's opinion
"According to official statements, China’s position on Iran is as follows: First, “Iran is entitled to peaceful use of nuclear energy, and should honor its international obligations.” Second, “Final settlement of the Iran nuclear issue should depend on dialogue, negotiation and other means of cooperation.” Third, “China does not favor unilateral sanctions against Iran.” In a nutshell, China believes the following: Iran may carry out limited uranium enrichment activities, the Iranian nuclear issue should not lead to war, and the unilateral sanctions by Western countries on Iranian oil and other products have affected China’s interests. In other words, avoiding war and ensuring energy security are China’s fundamental interests when it comes to Iran." http://thediplomat.com/2013/11/the-iranian-nuclear-question-chinas-perspective/
-
It undermines any possibility of forming a treaty with Iran, who could be a big help in fighting ISIS in the region and getting more permanent stabilized Middle East region. They have major influence over Hezbollah, if we can come to an agreement on their nuclear program then we can start working on their support for Hezbollah and other similar groups.
Meh. Egypt > Iran as an ally every day of the week. ThanksIt undermines any possibility of forming a treaty with Iran, who could be a big help in fighting ISIS in the region and getting more permanent stabilized Middle East region. They have major influence over Hezbollah, if we can come to an agreement on their nuclear program then we can start working on their support for Hezbollah and other similar groups.
-
-
to the "useful idiots"..... (op)
useful idiots - people who elected Obama with their vote in 2008 BUT suddenly had a change of heart
or at least an intellectual awakening to admit that mistake.
if the shoe fits - wear it
-
Tom Cotton is wrong, there is over 200 years of similar type of agreements between leaders of countries around the world and the USA. In the first 50 years of our country we had 60 Treaties, and 27 agreements, but since the 1940's executive agreements have compromised of over 90% of all international agreements, where the number of treaties from 1939-1989 was at 759 and agreements entered 13,016 published(some agreements are not published).
-
-
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/john-kerry-admits-iran-deal-not-legally-binding
Not legally binding = it's not even cheating when Iran ignores it. So, an incompetent administration sells out the entire world for a meaningless piece of paper. Gosh, where have we heard that before? #NevilleChamberlain
-
So, kerry is just now admitting that? Fess up, SadBrownsfan -
it is not legally binding. Iran had to understand that, because apparently,
the fools tried to get Iran to think it was.
What would be the stupid point?
Once again, go find a copy of "Biological Weapons and America's Secret War GERMS",
by Judith Miller, Stephen Engelberg, and William Broad. It had been a New York Times #1 best seller.
Not fiction. About a treaty with the soviets banning offensive bioweapon research and creation.
Except, like all corrupt dictatorships do, they simply and happily go for the treaty, because they can
slow down the other party, while they go ballistic underground, and accerate their cheating on the treaty for
advantage.
Yes, like Neville Chamberlain working with the nazis for "peace" and his Munich Agreement.
At least Neville never bowed and curtsied to hitler, like Obamao would have done........
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login