Letter to Iran

[Azalin]

Unilaterally?

 

Yes.

 

what sanctions have we lifted?

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/01/20/iran-united-states-iaea-economic-sanctions-suspend-uranium-enrichment/4658813/

[Dante]

 

 

The kind of idiot who is quickly running out of time to put something positive in his presidential legacy.

I guess it all depends how you define positive. From my perspective he and all he does is a negative but in his mind, it's pretty positive vibes.

 

Take over the medical industry? Check

Open the border to change the demographic so they can vote for the leftists and get on welfare to further stress the debt? Check

Get the ball rolling on gun control. Check

Destabilize the mideast to allow ISIS and the radicals to run rampant to eventually get us into another ground war? Check

Government takeover of the internet? Check

 

Instigate and divide whenever the opportunity arises like at Ferguson for the purpose of causing civil unrest? Check

 

I'm sure I'm missing something but for Barry it's 6 years of productivity.

 

Edited March 14, 2015 by Dante

[Dante]

1

Edited March 14, 2015 by Dante

[B-Man]

Kerry reassures Iran’s Supreme Leader

 

The letter drafted by Senator Tom Cotton sets forth basic constitutional principles applicable to the executive agreement into which President Obama will enter with Iran. The letter continues to reverberate.

 

Speaking in Egypt on his way to work more on the deal, Secretary of State Kerry purported to take issue with the letter. Jay Solomon reports in today’s Wall Street Journal

 

Secretary of State John Kerry, a day ahead of new nuclear negotiations with Iran, stressed to Tehran’s leadership that President Barack Obama has the power to implement any agreement reached with the country, despite intense opposition from Republican lawmakers in Congress.

 

Iran’s most powerful political figure, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, expressed reservations this week about the White House’s ability to execute a deal after 47 Republican senators wrote in an open letter to Tehran that Congress ultimately will decide the fate of any deal.

 

Mr. Kerry said on Saturday in Egypt that these American lawmakers were “wrong.”

 

 

{snip}

 

Note that Kerry used the same formulation as when he testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week that the letter was “wrong.” Actually, Kerry admitted before the Senate committee that the letter is correct, except that, as he told reporters today, “Congress has no ability to change an executive agreement.” That statement is technically true, but misleading. Since Congress is not the executive, it cannot literally “change an executive agreement.” What it can do is enact legislation that is inconsistent with the agreement, which has the same effect. For instance, Congress can impose new sanctions on Iran, even though President Obama may promise not to. And, of course, any future president (or Obama himself) can walk away from an executive agreement at will.

 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/03/kerry-reassures-irans-supreme-leader.php

 

 

 

 

 

[3rdnlng]

http://conservative-daily.com/2015/03/13/obama-bringing-iran-deal-to-un-instead-of-congress/

 

This time, Obama has gone too far.

It is public knowledge that Barack Obama believes in international law more than he believes in the Constitution. We knew this when Eric Holder argued before the Supreme Court that international law should trump the Constitution… We knew this when Obama had John Kerry sign the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty despite overwhelming Congressional opposition…

But believe it or not, this takes the cake.

There are reports circulating that instead of having Congress approve the forthcoming nuclear treaty with Iran (as the Constitution demands), the President will instead put it to a vote in the United Nations.

This is UNACCEPTABLE and UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

The Constitution requires that all international treaties receive a two-thirds vote in the United States Senate before becoming law in this country. The President knows that the treaty, as he envisions it, has no chance of passing in the GOP-controlled Senate.

This week, Secretary of State John Kerry admitted that the deal they are working on with Iran will not be 'legally binding.' There won't be any 'teeth' in place to stop Iran from creating a nuclear weapon. This isn't about stopping Iran from getting the bomb. If it was, the agreement would be designed to achieve that.

Instead, this is nothing but an attempt by the Obama administration to illegally roll back Congressionally-approved sanctions.

But for the administration to even consider putting the agreement to a vote in the United Nations instead of the United States Congress is treasonous.

That's right, I said it! The Constitution requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate for a reason. One man should NOT be allowed to create law. Whether it is by executive order or by sidestepping Congress through the United Nations, President Obama doesn't have the authority to create law on his own.

Forget about the open letter penned by Tom Cotton and 46 other U.S. Senators. There has been a lot of talk about charging these brave Republican Senators with treason. The reality is that the Constitution explicitly protects Congressional speech and all they did was remind Obama and Iran that the Constitution requires treaties be ratified by the Senate in order to be legally binding.

[truth on hold]

Kerry reassures Irans Supreme Leader

 

The letter drafted by Senator Tom Cotton sets forth basic constitutional principles applicable to the executive agreement into which President Obama will enter with Iran. The letter continues to reverberate.

 

Speaking in Egypt on his way to work more on the deal, Secretary of State Kerry purported to take issue with the letter. Jay Solomon reports in todays Wall Street Journal

 

 

{snip}

 

Note that Kerry used the same formulation as when he testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week that the letter was wrong. Actually, Kerry admitted before the Senate committee that the letter is correct, except that, as he told reporters today, Congress has no ability to change an executive agreement. That statement is technically true, but misleading. Since Congress is not the executive, it cannot literally change an executive agreement. What it can do is enact legislation that is inconsistent with the agreement, which has the same effect. For instance, Congress can impose new sanctions on Iran, even though President Obama may promise not to. And, of course, any future president (or Obama himself) can walk away from an executive agreement at will.

 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/03/kerry-reassures-irans-supreme-leader.php

 

 

 

 

 

why would we want to do the dirty work for those buttwipes the saudi royal family? They're a repressive absolute monarchy and their desire is to dominate the region with their extremist wahabi interpretation of islam. Iran has a far more representative government with greater individual freedoms.

 

Edited March 15, 2015 by JTSP

[Azalin]

why would we want to do the dirty work for those buttwipes the saudi royal family? They're a repressive absolute monarchy and their desire is to dominate the region with their extremist wahabi interpretation of islam. Iran has a far more representative government with greater individual freedoms.

 

 

 

The Saudis may or may not be more repressive with their citizenry than the Iranians, I don't know. What I do know is that as a matter of policy, the Saudis don't refer to us as 'the great satan', nor do they express a desire to incinerate Israel. If we are to adopt the left's usual mantra of 'we don't need to be the world's policemen', then why would we give a crap about how the Saudis run their own country, so long as they don't act aggressively toward other nations? Shouldn't we be more concerned with a nation that has been openly hostile toward us?

[....lybob]

 

The Saudis may or may not be more repressive with their citizenry than the Iranians, I don't know. What I do know is that as a matter of policy, the Saudis don't refer to us as 'the great satan', nor do they express a desire to incinerate Israel. If we are to adopt the left's usual mantra of 'we don't need to be the world's policemen', then why would we give a crap about how the Saudis run their own country, so long as they don't act aggressively toward other nations? Shouldn't we be more concerned with a nation that has been openly hostile toward us?

15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers came were Saudi, Saudi Arabia is the largest funder of Sunni terrorist groups, Saudi Arabia spreads Wahhabi ideology around the Sunni world- those are sucky friends.

[truth on hold]

 

The Saudis may or may not be more repressive with their citizenry than the Iranians, I don't know. What I do know is that as a matter of policy, the Saudis don't refer to us as 'the great satan', nor do they express a desire to incinerate Israel. If we are to adopt the left's usual mantra of 'we don't need to be the world's policemen', then why would we give a crap about how the Saudis run their own country, so long as they don't act aggressively toward other nations? Shouldn't we be more concerned with a nation that has been openly hostile toward us?

Us and UK have a well documented history of hostility towards Iran; removing a democratically elected leader and replacing him with a brutal dictator like the shah, and propping up Saddam to invade them are 2 examples. Given that do you think you'd hear some anti-us rhetoric? You can't look at these things in isolation. And more recent and ongoing you have our alleged allies stumping to have us do their dirty work and attack Iran, for motives neither just nor in US interests.

[FireChan]

Us and UK have a well documented history of hostility towards Iran; removing a democratically elected leader and replacing him with a brutal dictator like the shah, and propping up Saddam to invade them are 2 examples. Given that do you think you'd hear some anti-us rhetoric? You can't look at these things in isolation. And more recent and ongoing you have our alleged allies stumping to have us do their dirty work and attack Iran, for motives neither just nor in US interests.

So, how do we get Iran's forgiveness for the bad things we did? Attack Israel? Give them nuclear capabilities, after they promise it's all cool? A signed ODB Jr. jersey? What's your plan, Joe?

[DC Tom]

So, how do we get Iran's forgiveness for the bad things we did? Attack Israel? Give them nuclear capabilities, after they promise it's all cool? A signed ODB Jr. jersey? What's your plan, Joe?

For starters, we should apologize to them for the Iran hostage crisis.

Then we should apologize for overthrowing the Shah's constitutionally elected government and replacing it with the Shah.

Then apologize for invading them in World War 2.

Then maybe the 1909 partition.

Then...I don't know. I don't reasonably think we can be held responsible for Timur Lenk or Genghis Khan, but let's send our regrets that they happened, and promise that we'll never, ever do anything like that.

After that...well, the Abbasids and Fatimids were liberal neoplatonists, I suppose we should apologize for oppressing Islam by following and building on that heritage.

 

Screw it. Iran, we're sorry you lost at Plataea and Salamis, and failed to conquer Greece. Totally our bad. The whole western world should have been more understanding and sensitive to your needs. We understand now that it simply reflects cultural differences, and we shouldn't judge you for them. We're sorry, and we'll never, ever interfere again when you try to annihilate a much smaller neighbor.

[Azalin]

15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers came were Saudi, Saudi Arabia is the largest funder of Sunni terrorist groups, Saudi Arabia spreads Wahhabi ideology around the Sunni world- those are sucky friends.

 

 

Us and UK have a well documented history of hostility towards Iran; removing a democratically elected leader and replacing him with a brutal dictator like the shah, and propping up Saddam to invade them are 2 examples. Given that do you think you'd hear some anti-us rhetoric? You can't look at these things in isolation. And more recent and ongoing you have our alleged allies stumping to have us do their dirty work and attack Iran, for motives neither just nor in US interests.

 

I don't care if they are 'sucky friends' or how many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi citizens. We are on friendly terms with the Saudi Kingdom, just as the US are friends of Israel, despite that we have a few anti-semites lurking around here.

 

With regard to Iran, whatever has been done in the past, for good or for ill, should not have any influence whatsoever on whether or not we allow them to attain nuclear weapons capability now. I don't see how that's even debatable.

[truth on hold]

 

 

 

I don't care if they are 'sucky friends' or how many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi citizens. We are on friendly terms with the Saudi Kingdom, just as the US are friends of Israel, despite that we have a few anti-semites lurking around here.

 

With regard to Iran, whatever has been done in the past, for good or for ill, should not have any influence whatsoever on whether or not we allow them to attain nuclear weapons capability now. I don't see how that's even debatable.

how is someone your ally when they're trying to bait you into fighting their wars? Thats like saying the instigator on the playground making up stories to get the bully to beat up people they dont like is the bully's "friend". theyre not.

 

agree whats done is done, but the point is you have to understand where some of the anti-US rhetoric is coming from ... certainly the US is not immune from harping on the past.

 

no one -- certainly not here -- is advocating giving them nuclear weapons. big difference between a tightly monitored civilian program, and silos and submarines filled with nukes. I have no doubt that Iran would be taken out in an instant if they ever made serious moves in that direction. And an agreement allows us to keep a close eye on things. no agreement means they are free to develop whatever they want in isolation. I also think the Israelis and Saudis must know this ... the real agenda then is to keep the sanctions regime in place indefinitely to starve their economy, thereby reducing their influence in the region. Israeli motive (the extremist side represented by an a$$wipe like netanyahu anyway) is to keep the settlement expansion engine going, and saudis to continue their quest for wahabi'ism to dominate the muslim world. What strikes me as not debatable is subordinating American lives and money to those agendas

Edited March 16, 2015 by JTSP

[Azalin]

how is someone your ally when they're trying to bait you into fighting their wars? Thats like saying the instigator on the playground making up stories to get the bully to beat up people they dont like is the bully's "friend". theyre not.

 

agree whats done is done, but the point is you have to understand where some of the anti-US rhetoric is coming from ... certainly the US is not immune from harping on the past.

 

no one -- certainly not here -- is advocating giving them nuclear weapons. big difference between a tightly monitored civilian program, and silos and submarines filled with nukes. I have no doubt that Iran would be taken out in an instant if they ever made serious moves in that direction. And an agreement allows us to keep a close eye on things. no agreement means they are free to develop whatever they want in isolation. I also think the Israelis and Saudis must know this ... the real agenda then is to keep the sanctions regime in place indefinitely to starve their economy, thereby reducing their influence in the region. Israeli motive (the extremist side represented by an a$$wipe like netanyahu anyway) is to keep the settlement expansion engine going, and saudis to continue their quest for wahabi'ism to dominate the muslim world. What strikes me as not debatable is subordinating American lives and money to those agendas

 

But the discussion is about a nuclear Iran. Preventing that from coming to pass is what's important now. Afterward, we can discuss the mistakes we made that got us where we are in the region.

[....lybob]

For starters, we should apologize to them for the Iran hostage crisis.

Then we should apologize for overthrowing the Shah's constitutionally elected government and replacing it with the Shah.

Then apologize for invading them in World War 2.

Then maybe the 1909 partition.

Then...I don't know. I don't reasonably think we can be held responsible for Timur Lenk or Genghis Khan, but let's send our regrets that they happened, and promise that we'll never, ever do anything like that.

After that...well, the Abbasids and Fatimids were liberal neoplatonists, I suppose we should apologize for oppressing Islam by following and building on that heritage.

 

Screw it. Iran, we're sorry you lost at Plataea and Salamis, and failed to conquer Greece. Totally our bad. The whole western world should have been more understanding and sensitive to your needs. We understand now that it simply reflects cultural differences, and we shouldn't judge you for them. We're sorry, and we'll never, ever interfere again when you try to annihilate a much smaller neighbor.

Well we could apologize for organizing the overthrow of Mossadegh, Training the SAVAK , complicity in Iraq chemical attacks against Iran http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/ , The USS Vincennes downing Iranian flight 655 http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/07/the_vincennes_downing_of_iran_air_flight_655_the_united_states_tried_to.html , violating Iranian air space and using cyber attacks like STUXNET,

[truth on hold]

 

But the discussion is about a nuclear Iran. Preventing that from coming to pass is what's important now. Afterward, we can discuss the mistakes we made that got us where we are in the region.

I am responding to your points. In any case I dont see how its possible to view Iran in isolation: how is it inconsequential for US to support illegal Israeli settlements when it costs us billions a year and blowback with crashing planes into our buildings with that as a listed motive? how is it inconsequential for US to support saudi expansion when they are aligned with extremist Sunni elements like Al Qaeda and ISIS? However if one could isolate Iran, Ive already said its better for us to be in a position to monitor their activities, than to have them developed in isolation, especially under a continued sanctions regime that makes them more desperate.

Edited March 16, 2015 by JTSP

[FireChan]

I am responding to your points. In any case I dont see how its possible to view Iran in isolation: how is it inconsequential for US to support illegal Israeli settlements when it costs us billions a year and blowback with crashing planes into our buildings with that as a listed motive? how is it inconsequential for US to support saudi expansion when they are aligned with extremist Sunni elements like Al Qaeda and ISIS? However if one could isolate Iran, Ive already said its better for us to be in a position to monitor their activities, than to have them developed in isolation, especially under a continued sanctions regime that makes them more desperate.

They wouldn't need to be sanctioned if they just played nice. Why is all the onus on the US?

 

We've discussed the tactical advantages of allies in the ME before. Clearly, you do not grasp the idea of a "buffer zone."

[Azalin]

 

agree whats done is done, but the point is you have to understand where some of the anti-US rhetoric is coming from ... certainly the US is not immune from harping on the past.

 

no one -- certainly not here -- is advocating giving them nuclear weapons. big difference between a tightly monitored civilian program, and silos and submarines filled with nukes. I have no doubt that Iran would be taken out in an instant if they ever made serious moves in that direction. And an agreement allows us to keep a close eye on things. no agreement means they are free to develop whatever they want in isolation. I also think the Israelis and Saudis must know this ... the real agenda then is to keep the sanctions regime in place indefinitely to starve their economy, thereby reducing their influence in the region. Israeli motive (the extremist side represented by an a$$wipe like netanyahu anyway) is to keep the settlement expansion engine going, and saudis to continue their quest for wahabi'ism to dominate the muslim world. What strikes me as not debatable is subordinating American lives and money to those agendas

 

 

I am responding to your points. In any case I dont see how its possible to view Iran in isolation: how is it inconsequential for US to support illegal Israeli settlements when it costs us billions a year and blowback with crashing planes into our buildings with that as a listed motive? how is it inconsequential for US to support saudi expansion when they are aligned with extremist Sunni elements like Al Qaeda and ISIS? However if one could isolate Iran, Ive already said its better for us to be in a position to monitor their activities, than to have them developed in isolation, especially under a continued sanctions regime that makes them more desperate.

 

I agree with some of what you're saying, especially regarding the Saudis, and to an extent with the Israeli settlements. All I am doing is separating those issues from the issue of a nuclear armed Iran. That doesn't mean that we have to view them in isolation, it only means that we are addressing one problem at a time, with urgency setting the priority.

[B-Man]

More traitors ? ?

 

 

Democrats prepared to buck White House on Iran nuclear deal

Even as the White House ramps up pressure on Congress to stay out of its negotiations with Iran on a nuclear agreement, Republicans are on the brink of veto-proof majorities for legislation that could undercut any deal.

 

And that support has held up even after the uproar last week over the GOP’s letter to Iranian leaders warning against an agreement.

 

Though several Democratic senators told POLITICO they were offended by the missive authored by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), none of them said it would cause them to drop their support for bills to impose new sanctions on Iran or give Congress review power over a nuclear deal.

 

That presents another complication for the administration ahead of a rough deadline of March 24 to reach a nuclear agreement with the country.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/democrats-prepared-to-buck-white-house-on-iran-nuclear-deal-116088.html#ixzz3UYyyymdg

[DC Tom]

Well we could apologize for organizing the overthrow of Mossadegh, Training the SAVAK , complicity in Iraq chemical attacks against Iran http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/ , The USS Vincennes downing Iranian flight 655 http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/07/the_vincennes_downing_of_iran_air_flight_655_the_united_states_tried_to.html , violating Iranian air space and using cyber attacks like STUXNET,

 

We apologized for the Vincennes. And paid reparations.

 

 

Well we could apologize for organizing the overthrow of Mossadegh,

 

You don't happen to remember who the leader of Iran was before Mossadegh? Or after? Or even during?

 

 

using cyber attacks like STUXNET,

 

"Dear Iran, we're sorry we hacked your illegal nuclear program." Yeah, right.