Uneasy Feeling
-
I don't remember any D's coming out and saying their #1 goal was to make dubbya a 1 term President.
To come out publicly and state it as THE #1 GOAL, is stupid.
The number 1 goal of a congressmen should be to help the people, not to undermine the President
I don't remember any D's coming out and saying their #1 goal was to make dubbya a 1 term President.
To come out publicly and state it as THE #1 GOAL, is stupid.
The number 1 goal of a congressmen should be to help the people, not to undermine the President
But that is their goal and was their goal. If you don't believe it you're a fool.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
And Nancy Pelosi did say the goal was to stop George W Bush.
WSS
-
I don't remember any D's coming out and saying their #1 goal was to make dubbya a 1 term President.
To come out publicly and state it as THE #1 GOAL, is stupid.
The number 1 goal of a congressmen should be to help the people, not to undermine the President
But that is their goal and was their goal. If you don't believe it you're a fool.
WSS
But that is their goal and was their goal. If you don't believe it you're a fool.
WSS
I never said it wasn't their goal. I said it was stupid to say it
Pelosi is just as stupid for saying it.
-
Goddamn I hate politics. Nothing gets done and fan boys of either team get to blindly cheer for their favorite team.
-
Wait.... So *now* we're concerned with a single branch of the federal government acting unilaterally?
Say what you will about Congress but they are the most representative branch of the three. (Statistically speaking)
-
to "shun" the notion of the House (inviting Netanayhu) and now the Senates version and its own end around with this letter-
must be 1) ignorant of whats been happening for the last 6 years ,
or 2) compicit with what the MSM has been spoon feeding you regarding the "majesty" of the king on the throne... sheesh
-
Wait.... So *now* we're concerned with a single branch of the federal government acting unilaterally?
Say what you will about Congress but they are the most representative branch of the three. (Statistically speaking)
Wait.... So *now* we're concerned with a single branch of the federal government acting unilaterally?
Say what you will about Congress but they are the most representative branch of the three. (Statistically speaking)
This is an example of what I believe is a negative trend within our national government.
There are such examples on both sides of the political divide.
My point is that rouge actions like this (circumventing) the process need to be reeled in.
Personally, I have grave reservations about Obama's motivations, love for America, and his ability to negotiate from a position of strength against ANY opposing world power. In fact, I am sure his is looked upon as a 'wet noodle' by the likes of Russia, N. Korea, Iran, ISIS, etc.
I am talking PROCESS, not PEOPLE or INDIVIDUALS.
-
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.
So we stand down allow them to develop a nuclear weapon and hope they will be of assistance with the handling Isis? that's The plan?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.
WSS
-
I don't know if it is true or not but there has been many sources who reported this that the Obama administration threatened to shoot down any Israeli jets over Iraq air space if they attacked Iran's nuclear facilities. Pretty sad if true.
-
So we stand down allow them to develop a nuclear weapon and hope they will be of assistance with the handling Isis? that's The plan?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.
WSS
So we stand down allow them to develop a nuclear weapon and hope they will be of assistance with the handling Isis? that's The plan?
WSS
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?
-
So we stand down allow them to develop a nuclear weapon and hope they will be of assistance with the handling Isis? that's The plan?
WSS
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 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 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
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.
-
So we stand down allow them to develop a nuclear weapon and hope they will be of assistance with the handling Isis? that's The plan?
WSS
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 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?
Obama is more into Bending Over than Standing Down.
He will bend over for, virtually, any Islamic State.
Obama is spineless and in naive (or diabolical?) enough to believe we all just need to hold hands and sing, "One World".
One world that doesn't include Israel.
-
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.
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