Iran nuclear program. It is a lie

#326
#326
Vol0725 said:
Please! WTF are you talking about? It was a ridiculous deal and payoff cash 💰 drop. It was an Obama promise, it was Obama’s word...not an American promise. There was wide spread opposition at the time. It was a terrible idea in the first place.

Again, Obama did it , without congressional support or legislative action...so don’t throw out silly rhetoric about America not honoring its commitments and not being trustworthy.
Click to expand...

Isn't that how foreign diplomacy works? That's the president's job. Does he need congress to make this agreement? Pretty sure he doesn't. We are not honoring our commitment. You can argue it's a good thing, but you can't say that we didn't commit ourselves.
 
#328
#328
n_huffhines said:
Isn't that how foreign diplomacy works? That's the president's job. Does he need congress to make this agreement? Pretty sure he doesn't. We are not honoring our commitment. You can argue it's a good thing, but you can't say that we didn't commit ourselves.
Click to expand...

For a treaty he absolutely needs congress approval, without that it’s just Obama’s word not the word of the US.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#329
#329
n_huffhines said:
Isn't that how foreign diplomacy works? That's the president's job. Does he need congress to make this agreement? Pretty sure he doesn't. We are not honoring our commitment. You can argue it's a good thing, but you can't say that we didn't commit ourselves.
Click to expand...

Relax, Trump will renegotiate a better deal.

Ergo...

[twitter]994192995737096192[/twitter]
 
#330
#330
From the National Review:

In the spring of 2015, as President Obama and Iranian president Hassan Rouhani were putting the finishing touches on a wholly inadequate and disappointing nuclear deal, Congress had no way to stop it. President Obama planned to use the waiver authorities already provided to him in U.S. law to relieve sanctions in exchange for minimal curbs by Iran on its nuclear activities.

Thus, the president had no legal obligation to submit the deal to the Senate as a treaty or to both Houses as a congressional-executive agreement. Indeed, Obama made clear he didn’t plan to submit the deal to Congress, and told the Iranians as much. Only INARA, which passed with veto-proof majorities, forced him to come to Congress.
Click to expand...

Iran Nuclear Deal -- Congress’s Review of Obama’s Deal Was Important: INARA | National Review
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#332
#332
hog88 said:
For a treaty he absolutely needs congress approval, without that it’s just Obama’s word not the word of the US.
Click to expand...

Nope

The fact is that since a previous Congress already gave the president waiver authority to get rid of sanctions, Congress had only one option to try to make it a treaty: get a veto-proof majority of Senators to vote for such a move — an impossibility when 46 senators belonged to the president’s party.
Click to expand...

Iran Nuclear Deal -- Congress’s Review of Obama’s Deal Was Important: INARA | National Review
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#333
#333
ClearwaterVol said:
No, I am implying that there is no further information given by him. This does not necessarily mean there has been a change nor does it mean there has not been a change. Assumptions either way are just that, but the 8 month old statements are the best information anyone on this board has right now.
Click to expand...

So basically, you don't know what's changed? It very well could be the entire situation has changed and we don't know.

But furthermore, you're implying that this decision was made in haste and without counsel from his advisors.
 
#336
#336
Grand Vol said:
So basically, you don't know what's changed? It very well could be the entire situation has changed and we don't know.

But furthermore, you're implying that this decision was made in haste and without counsel from his advisors.
Click to expand...

I implied nothing of the sort.

It could just as easily be that the entire situation remains the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#342
#342
Weezer said:
I'm also wondering how this hurts him in the eyes of North Korea? First, the Iran deal wasn't one Trump made, so he's not breaking his own deal. Second, Trump has said all along he was gonna axe it and he did, so he kept his word. How does this inspire mistrust again?
Click to expand...

No, he's not breaking his own deal. You are 100% correct with regards to that.

However, what country is going to want to come to the table with us on anything if the agreement can easily be nullified once the next president or Congressional flip comes in?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#343
#343
n_huffhines said:
So whenever the next guy backs out of a deal he calls bad, I'm sure you'll be pointing the finger at Trump, right?
Click to expand...

Sure if Trump makes a crappy deal like this one. I’d hope the new POTUS would scrap it and do better, maybe even a formal treaty.
 
#344
#344
Rasputin_Vol said:
No, he's not breaking his own deal. You are 100% correct with regards to that.

However, what country is going to want to come to the table with us on anything if the agreement can easily be nullified once the next president or Congressional flip comes in?
Click to expand...
Ones that aren’t **** holes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#345
#345
NorthDallas40 said:
You’re damn straight I’m serious. And we were not going to let Russia rape Japan for whatever reason. If we invaded the home land of Japan casualties would have been enormous and using the bomb ended the war. Your conspiracy theories can pound sand on this one Ras
Click to expand...

Conspiracy theory? That is pretty much a matter of fact at this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#347
#347
NorthDallas40 said:
You’re damn straight I’m serious. And we were not going to let Russia rape Japan for whatever reason. If we invaded the home land of Japan casualties would have been enormous and using the bomb ended the war. Your conspiracy theories can pound sand on this one Ras
Click to expand...

This is a lie that has been successfully spread to justify America's actions. I don't have time to link it but there are multiple examples of how Truman and the media continued to exaggerate the potential American military losses to justify the dropping of the bombs. First it was 25,000 casualties would have been lost, but now it's a million.
 
#348
#348
volfanjustin said:
anyone but America right huff?
Click to expand...

Death to America! We totally deserve it for not honoring an agreement the former President bypassed congress to agree to. If anything they should be pissed at Obama. His agreement and now that he’s gone it can be easily thrown in the trash. If he wanted a lasting agreement he should have made it a treaty and gotten congressional approval.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top