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.
The "company" never signed the agreement, that requires 2/3 vote in the Senate. What they singed was agreement with the Obama administration subject to the approval or disapproval of any subsequent administrations. They were made fully aware of this repeatedly.
Hmm. If "company" never signed the agreement, I don't see why the other side should comply with any obligations at all. Actually, this paints them in a better light than US, since they were following the deal to the "t" (even if it was not "signed") until US broke it (or, speaking legalese, "completely refused to sign").
Hmm. If "company" never signed the agreement, I don't see why the other side should comply with any obligations at all. Actually, this paints them in a better light than US, since they were following the deal to the "t" (even if it was not "signed") until US broke it (or, speaking legalese, "completely refused to sign").
The agreement was never ratified...so no they don't have to comply, neither do we. What's the problem then?
Hmm. If "company" never signed the agreement, I don't see why the other side should comply with any obligations at all.
Because it was best thing they could hope to get, it bought them time. At it's best had the US continued to be a part of this agreement it only kicked the can down the road, at it's worse Iran has continued to build their nuclear weapons program.
Quote:
since they were following the deal to the "t"
They were not following this to a T, there was numerous breaches including test missile firings. On top of that it wasn't difficult for them to comply with a lot of things . For example only declared facilities already known to the west could be inspected. If there was any suspicion about other facilities Iran would of first been informed of the suspicions and then a lengthy process that could take months to get access if at all.
The agreement was never ratified...so no they don't have to comply, neither do we. What's the problem then?
Actually, no problem. I don't understand why that deal was needed at all. Iran does what they want, US does what it wants, so all is good.
In fact, I don't understand all that fuss about Iran. Like any other country, they have a right to build a nuke if they want. US, like any other country has a right to not trade with Iran, or blackmail/harass other countries to not trade with them - that's normal process in politics. So, what's this much ado about nothing?
Actually, no problem. I don't understand why that deal was needed at all. Iran does what they want, US does what it wants, so all is good.
In fact, I don't understand all that fuss about Iran. Like any other country, they have a right to build a nuke if they want. US, like any other country has a right to not trade with Iran, or blackmail/harass other countries to not trade with them - that's normal process in politics. So, what's this much ado about nothing?
Americans have grown to love bullying other nations. Especially if they refuse to do what we demand of them.
It’s a habit we should’ve chucked after the Cold War, but old habits die hard.
Because it was best thing they could hope to get, it bought them time. At it's best had the US continued to be a part of this agreement it only kicked the can down the road, at it's worse Iran has continued to build their nuclear weapons program.
They were not following this to a T, there was numerous breaches including test missile firings. On top of that it wasn't difficult for them to comply with a lot of things . For example only declared facilities already known to the west could be inspected. If there was any suspicion about other facilities Iran would of first been informed of the suspicions and then a lengthy process that could take months to get access if at all.
Hmm, let me see. There were multiple parties to the deal, and UK, France, Germany, EU, Russia, China - not exactly the closest buddies, to say the least, - all agree that Iran follows the deal. Only USA said that there was a "breach". Given the above, I'd say that it's USA that is wrong.
Americans have grown to love bullying other nations. Especially if they refuse to do what we demand of them.
It’s a habit we should’ve chucked after the Cold War, but old habits die hard.
And you wonder why the Iranians would want to have nukes ---- if big ol Uncle Sam is saber-rattling and making threatening gestures and actions towards 'em, eh?
And you wonder why the Iranians would want to have nukes ---- if big ol Uncle Sam is saber-rattling and making threatening gestures and actions towards 'em, eh?
And you wonder why the Iranians would want to have nukes ---- if big ol Uncle Sam is saber-rattling and making threatening gestures and actions towards 'em, eh?
So who would you trust more with nukes, the U.S. or Iran who sponsors terrorism worldwide and has done so for several decades?
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.
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.
