Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-10-2015, 06:35 AM
 
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,297 posts, read 54,176,344 times
Reputation: 40623

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BMORE View Post
If Iran does aquire a nuclear weapon, what could we do about it? Iran isn't Iraq, Iran will be an extremely difficult mission..
And Iraq wasn't, isn't, and won't continue to be?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-10-2015, 06:46 AM
 
19,573 posts, read 8,479,823 times
Reputation: 10096
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjski View Post
It's a pointless letter...but a pointless letter that should have 48 idiots in federal custody for violating the Logan Act.

"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."
Is that what MSNBC is running with? LOL.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2015, 06:57 AM
 
4,412 posts, read 3,948,097 times
Reputation: 2325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713 View Post
Is that what MSNBC is running with? LOL.
I have no idea what MSNBC is "running with," but the Logan Act is explicit about who can and cannot negotiate with leaders of foreign nations. Not that Nixon, Reagan, and now almost every Republican in the US Senate ever paid attention to it.*

Edit, because there are still seven Republican Senators left that still put country before party.

Last edited by Mr. Mon; 03-10-2015 at 08:04 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2015, 07:15 AM
 
19,573 posts, read 8,479,823 times
Reputation: 10096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Mon View Post
I have no idea what MSNBC is "running with," but the Logan Act is explicit about who can and cannot negotiate with leaders of foreign nations. Not that Nixon, Reagan, and now every Republican in the US Senate ever paid attention to it.
The Senate is responsible for approving treaties with foreign powers. And while Obama has taken it upon himself to proclaim this long term, highly important, multi-national agreement "not a treaty," it is obvious that it is; and that any representations to foreign powers that he has the authority to negotiate this on his own, without the advice and consent of the Senate, is something that it makes sense that the parties to this potential agreement understand.

As far as the "Logan Act" B.S., let Obama pursue that, if there is anything more to this than the unchained wailings of the usual suspects at MSNBC, Mother Jones and other extremist far left media outlets. LOL. Until then, Obama can slurp my fatty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2015, 07:16 AM
 
Location: Florida
33,507 posts, read 18,059,857 times
Reputation: 15498
Obama has a lot of baggage concerning America. He believes this country has many past sins and it is deep rooted in his beliefs.

Obama doesn't care if the United States is attacked. Obama thinks more as a world leader than the president of the United States.

Obama believes we should be taken down a few pegs. Even if it jeopardizes the people of the United States. Why should he care.. He has a bunker... A few nuclear bombs going off in large cities ... oh well..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2015, 07:34 AM
 
19,573 posts, read 8,479,823 times
Reputation: 10096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
If the GOP keeps up the good work they won't have to worry about 2017 either. These negotiations are incredibly sensitive and important, these congressmen not only insulted the president they also did the same to our allies like Germany and Great Britain. So they don't want any negotiations with Iran to take place, so what's there plan other than to help the Iranian right wing.
Obama is in the process of paving the way for Iran to build nuclear weapons. We know he is chummy with the enemies of our country, as we can see here, and we also know he is not a supporter of our ally Israel.

Obama's foreign policy has been a series of blunders and a disgrace to our country, so it is not like anyone with a brain has any reason to "Just trust him". Now he is poised to make the biggest blunder he can conceivably make, which is to put nuclear weapons into the hands of Iran and their terrorist network. The same Iran that has publicly, on numerous occasions, from the highest positions of power, made clear their desire and intention to wipe Israel right off of the map.

Anyone want World War III? What additional blunder can Obama and his crew commit that would surpass this? This appears to be shaping up to be a truly horrible agreement, clearly designed to get an agreement just so that he can say that he got one, national and international security be damned. Obama has made it clear that this is what he wants this agreement to be his legacy coming out of his second term. What a narcissistic lunatic this person is.

If Obama wants a deal here, then it needs to be a good one, which means a much better deal than this is shaping up to be.

As inconceivable as this may be to Obama and his supporters, this is not all about Barack Obama and what he wants.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2015, 10:14 AM
 
56,990 posts, read 35,095,587 times
Reputation: 18824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crossfire600 View Post
Ali Khamenei, when did you start posting on City Data? I know Odumda is going to give you nukes and yes, your going to wipe your neighboring countries off the map but there is no need to post about all that here. You already got what you wanted. A Muslim Terrorist sympathizer in the Whitehouse that is in the process of destroying the U.S.
Whatever. (shrug)

It's telling that you didn't wanna address what i posted though. Truth hurts, huh?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2015, 12:01 PM
 
Location: Maryland about 20 miles NW of DC
6,105 posts, read 5,974,562 times
Reputation: 2479
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
No kidding! And since when did Iran judge who it funded for terrorist activity against any number of other countries based upon being threatened itself?

My goodness; the fundamental mistake being made here is thinking a radical theocratic regime apply the same rationale to decision making that any other country does.

If they thought they could advance the cause of Islam they'd willingly sacrifice themselves on a smoking pyre in anticipation of their 72 virgins. How many examples of this suicidal thinking do supposedly intelligent people need witness to realize Iran has no interest at all in peace with the west or tolerance for Israelis or Jews wherever they are situated.


The question that needs asking is why in hell would Saudi Arabia with the fourth largest military budget in the world simply sit idly by watching while Iran builds a nuke that would render their whole insane lifestyle obsolete in one second?

Gotta ask why America needs to be the hallway monitor in the middle east when those retards have WAAAAAAY more to lose if mid-eastern nutbars of any stripe get a-hold of a nuke.


Today's Washington Post (3/12/15) had an article about the test a new and improved long range missile (Shabad 3) meant to carry nuclear weapons by Pakistan. They obviously want it to make sure they can put nuclear weapons (which they have) on every single square foot of India. However, look at a map to understand that this missile can go West just as well as East and for the first time an Islamic state has a nuclear missile to reach places like Iran (Most Pakistanis are Sunni not Shia and don't like the Iranians ) and Israel with a few hundred miles to spare. Now just how stable and responsible is Pakistan who provided a comfortable refuge to one Osama Bin Laden, sponsored a really good terrorist attack on Mumbai India not so long ago, who supports an insurgency in Kashmir, supports the Tailban and probably sends money to our friends in ISIS or ISIL or whatever they are calling themselves today. I really wonder why our Neocons and Republicans aren't up in arms about this which isn't a hypothetical threat but one in steel, fissile materials, advanced electronics etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2015, 12:03 PM
 
847 posts, read 764,575 times
Reputation: 426
another thread with completely misdealing title. "Obama letting Iran have nukes"
makes anybody thing that that the U.S is giving the green light to Iranto build a nuclear weapons.

if it was so easy the negotiations would not have been going on for 18 months now.

The reality is unlike what the original poster has put in.
These are fact that the U.S intelligence has certified and it is public knowledge.

Iran is actually not building a nuclear weapon.Under the NPT (an international treaty) Iran is not allowed to build nuclear weapons.This deal for the next X (could be 10 year or 15 or 20) years Iran's capacity to enrich uranium (which can be used to produced electricity to power a ship, to produce medicine ... ) will be very limited.After that X Years Iran is not allowed to build weapons but rather they will not be monitored as closely and they can presumably expand their infrastructure if so they choose..Let's remember even 10 years is a long time. 10 years ago the U.S was fighting a bloody war in Iraq and Afghanistan. in 1953 Soviet Union and China were Allies. where in 1963 China and Soviet union were Mortal enemies.

in 1981 Saddam was winning a war against Iran thanks to some help form the west and Soviet Union.Ten years later in 1991 the U.S coalition was destroying Saddam's Army.
in politics if you can not solve a problem fully today. you delay it and in time many of these issues get resolved.

Last edited by ericsami; 03-10-2015 at 12:09 PM.. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2015, 12:09 PM
 
3,570 posts, read 2,509,006 times
Reputation: 2290
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrClose View Post
Obama is going to do what he wants to do under the guise of an executive agreement with Iran.

The problem here is .. From the 'little' that we have heard on this executive agreement is that it will be a ten year agreement!

Executive Agreements end at the end of a presidential term, this one will extend 10 years. So it is not an EA but a treaty.

Under the US Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 (in part): “He (The President) shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties…

Now go away!
It's sad that American schools have so failed to teach American government.

Executive agreements are between heads of state as heads of state--they are not between heads of state as individuals. As such, they do not end when one person's term ends. Article II, section 3, "he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers."

The (main) difference between a treaty and an Executive Agreement is that a treaty has at least the same status at law as a Congressional statute--meaning it is binding on every state and every judge. Article VI.

Further, the long practice of treaty negotiation in US history is this: the President negotiates a treaty. The treaty is brought before the Senate for "advice and consent" (read: debate and vote) and the President formally ratifies the treaty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian71 View Post
The letter-writers have been smacked down by Iran's foreign minister.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs Islamic Republic of IRAN - News > Dr. Zarifs Response to the Letter of US Senators

"[i]n 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 indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.

" ... I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law. ... Congress may not modify the terms of the agreement at any time as they claim, and if Congress adopts any measure to impede its implementation, it will have committed a material breach of US obligations."
It is sad that a freshman Senator has any senior Senators validating his belief that he belongs on the world's stage. It is tragic when that Senator so clearly does not understand international affairs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyndarn View Post
Am I wrong?? Are these talks/negotiations going on with more Countires than just USA? Last I read..Negotiations involve P5+1 which means besides USA..5 other Countries are negotiating ?? Here's the list~~ China, Russia, USA ,(EU3)> France, Germany and United Kingdom.

Anyway..These senators sending this veiled doomsday future denials for agreements by GOP means, They Do Not to give a Darn what their supposed Allies want, need or are willing to accept...IF those other 5 Countries feel "Internal Mutiny" in US ..Just how are those Allies suppose to "Trust" United States of America" by Such blatant airing of their Political "Dirty Laundry"?..

I am confounded really...How can their Political stunt be helpful?? considering it's the World view/best interests has been completely disregarded by those 47 GOP'ers!
Even worse, several of those GOP Senators are expected to run for President. Talk about looking un-Presidential, showing inexperience in foreign policy, and actively working against the national interest.

If there is a deal, the US cannot back out without angering the other members of the P5+1, including several key allies.

It is wrong for these Senators to interfere with US foreign policy. They are not involved in negotiations, and attempting to undermine sensitive, national security negotiations is a new low for craven politicians in Washington.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Iran cares a great deal about sanctions, why do you think they are negotiating. The decrease in oil prices are adding to their exiting problems.

Yes we already have inspectors inside the country now, same for the future, that is public information too bad the congressmen that signed that letter didn't bother to do a little research on the issues involving nuclear capability.

Great Britain, France, Germany are also part of the negotiations are they also being unreasonable? and if the US bows out maybe they go their own way in support of an agreement.

Funny how the Ayatollah's seem to be more reasonable than the GOP.

Any deal will be scrutinized but this action by the GOP is an attempt to undermine a deal by the US that is still in negotiation. Right wing factions in both countries would like to maintain the status quo, that gets us nowhere and may lead to war.

Think about Iraq and out invasion in 2003 before being so quick to choose the alternative to peaceful negotiations.
Iran cares about sanctions and it cares about legitimacy. More importantly, the US is not a key member of the sanctions regime--all of the other negotiators, China, Russia, France, Germany, and the UK, are more important trading partners for Iran than the United States.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
If the GOP keeps up the good work they won't have to worry about 2017 either. These negotiations are incredibly sensitive and important, these congressmen not only insulted the president they also did the same to our allies like Germany and Great Britain. So they don't want any negotiations with Iran to take place, so what's there plan other than to help the Iranian right wing.
It's downright embarrassing. Let's not forget that presumed Presidential candidates Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz signed the letter. In my view, this action alone renders them unqualified for the office.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
International law does not dictate the powers of the US President, the US Constitution does. The simple fact is he does have the authority to enter into a long term agreement on his own. /end story.
International law attaches to the United States as an actor on the international stage. Breaking it causes rifts with our allies. It enhances the standing of our rivals.

Presidents can, and do, enter into long-term Executive Agreements. Here is a truncated list:

Status of Forces Agreements
Reciprocal trade agreements
Boundary agreements
Armistice Agreements
Agreements over Sinai
Vietnam peace agreement
Yalta & Potsdam
Strategic Partnership Agreements
Resolution of Iran hostage crisis
SALT I

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713 View Post
The Senate is responsible for approving treaties with foreign powers. And while Obama has taken it upon himself to proclaim this long term, highly important, multi-national agreement "not a treaty," it is obvious that it is; and that any representations to foreign powers that he has the authority to negotiate this on his own, without the advice and consent of the Senate, is something that it makes sense that the parties to this potential agreement understand.
The agreement need not be a treaty. The parties to this (potential) agreement understand better than Tom Cotton how this process works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713 View Post
Anyone want World War III? What additional blunder can Obama and his crew commit that would surpass this? This appears to be shaping up to be a truly horrible agreement, clearly designed to get an agreement just so that he can say that he got one, national and international security be damned. Obama has made it clear that this is what he wants this agreement to be his legacy coming out of his second term. What a narcissistic lunatic this person is.

If Obama wants a deal here, then it needs to be a good one, which means a much better deal than this is shaping up to be.

As inconceivable as this may be to Obama and his supporters, this is not all about Barack Obama and what he wants.
If international security were at risk, why would the UK, France, Germany, China, and Russia agree to a deal? What, precisely, makes you think this potential deal is not a good one? Is it the unprecedented level of inspections, the temporary freeze on certain nuclear work, the shipment of some nuclear material to Russia, the centrifuge limits? Or, more likely, is it your malaise at the thought of Obama?

Speaking of WWIII, do you think an easier way to get there is through peace, or through war?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top