Historic Iran nuclear deal reached

[ggold]

There have always been hidden dangers in over-selling during the demonization process. The Executive branch of the American government has information we as individual citizens will never see. In fact, the congress will not see much of it. Obama's handlers and henchmen know what they can sell and go with it. There are a bunch of very smart people who are dealing with real information, not the crap we get from the Mainstream Media.

I am sure the individuals involved in the negotiations were very much aware and were faced with what the American public would buy. The blow-back is simply part of the business.

There is no measurement by which to suggest that this "bunch" of people are "very smart." Perhaps you could provide some examples of where the President's team's brilliance has resulted in a better world? Can you point to any successes internationally? Can you point to any successes nationally? The Obama team are, however, keenly aware that Americans will eat a crap sandwich if given one bite at a time. Since Obama's sound thumping in 2014 he and his team have abused the notion that they care what the American people will buy- they are hoisting it upon America, and the world. Blow-back? If you realized what he was aiming for intermittent "blow-back" along the way would appear trivial.

I would take a cross section of pro and con opposite posters from Thai Visa and stack them up with the Kerry Team any day. For Obama, the negotiations are not an end in themselves but one more crown in inflicting his good upon the region. There is a reason Obama is seen as Iblis.

Edit: What is "the demonization process" and what are the "hidden dangers?"

Many of us have taken a loyalty oath to obey the orders of the President and are obligated. Treason is the other option.

We have supported the idea of the big bad Iranians for decades. They have been 2 years away from a nuclear bomb for 3 or 4 decades. That process of convincing the public is the demonization process which becomes the day job of pretty much every public official. In my lifetime it started with the soviets and communism and now is with the Islamic extreme countries/groups, but the Shias in particular.

I have never been an Obama fan. I don't really like his ways and ideas but I am obligated to his decisions. I guess I could forfeit my US citizenship and my commission but I can't imagine being pissed enough to do that.

I have the ideological luxury of not liking Israel and I clearly think Netanyahu is a nut job far worse than Obama and I have no obligation what-so-ever to Israel and its leadership. That may be a luxury you don't have and for that, you have my sympathies.

Allowing the Mainstream Media to demonize a country or a people to the extent we have done with Iran, sets the stage for blowback like we are seeing with this agreement. Agreeing to 3.67% enrichment is a good deal when it takes 90% for a nuclear weapon. Insisting on zero is not a negotiation, it is bullying.

You have my sympathies! to think that blindly following you're commander in chief is an obligation Just because he is Chief! So knowing that you are ordered to do something that is wrong, you would do it.

[NeverSure]

Deal with it.

We are dealing with it, thank you very much.

[Chicog]

Been a bad week for the teabaggers what with this and crawling back under their rocks in Indiana.

Edited April 4, 2015 by Chicog

[mania]

I have often said I care for neither right nor left in US Politics as I think neither really serve their employers...The US Citizenry

But when looking logically at all the arguments leading up to this agreement ....

( I know, I know what am I thinking logic has no place in US politics)

But here is the thing that baffles me about the right this time..It appears to me & my fellow US citizens

regardless of political leanings that the right has done nothing in this whole deal that could be considered positive,

helpful, meaningful, peace building etc. in service of those they (supposedly?) serve... the US citizens.

Instead they have acted out like children having a tantrum. But the truth is as Kerry Stated,,,

"Simply demanding that Iran capitulate makes a nice sound bite, but it is not a policy, it is not a realistic plan," Kerry said.

So given that fact the right would have been better serving their employers the US citizenry & themselves regarding any future political hopes to behave as adults & put something other than total capitulation by Iran on the table. Instead they campaigned for little more than war in one form or another on a sovereign nation who has attacked none of those who would like to storm in & bomb them just because they can.

Now the icing on the cake & the one part I really cannot understand is this latest threat via their ill conceived letter to Iran & even now their cheerleaders here on this forum spout. The one that vaguely states...Oh you just wait till we are president we will undo any good done today??? What???

#1- Given your recent tantrums what in the world makes you think you will ever have another real shot at the Oval Office chair?

#2- You are threatening even now to undo an agreement formed/forming with Iran not due to them breaking any promises as their is as yet no track record but just because you will????

Ahhhh

This is why they say if you enjoy sausage or politics never watch either being made Pretty disgusting

[NickJ]

Dont Worry!!!! They will only be able to produce what?......5 maybe ten bombs?

In other words about what one Trident carries.....its just this.....The Arms Race part Deuce has just begun...........

yet these are not Soviets on the other end.....these are hard line a holes..........

Bomb them to night Bibbi.

[Publicus]

There have always been hidden dangers in over-selling during the demonization process. The Executive branch of the American government has information we as individual citizens will never see. In fact, the congress will not see much of it. Obama's handlers and henchmen know what they can sell and go with it. There are a bunch of very smart people who are dealing with real information, not the crap we get from the Mainstream Media.

I am sure the individuals involved in the negotiations were very much aware and were faced with what the American public would buy. The blow-back is simply part of the business.

There is no measurement by which to suggest that this "bunch" of people are "very smart." Perhaps you could provide some examples of where the President's team's brilliance has resulted in a better world? Can you point to any successes internationally? Can you point to any successes nationally? The Obama team are, however, keenly aware that Americans will eat a crap sandwich if given one bite at a time. Since Obama's sound thumping in 2014 he and his team have abused the notion that they care what the American people will buy- they are hoisting it upon America, and the world. Blow-back? If you realized what he was aiming for intermittent "blow-back" along the way would appear trivial.

I would take a cross section of pro and con opposite posters from Thai Visa and stack them up with the Kerry Team any day. For Obama, the negotiations are not an end in themselves but one more crown in inflicting his good upon the region. There is a reason Obama is seen as Iblis.

Edit: What is "the demonization process" and what are the "hidden dangers?"

Many of us have taken a loyalty oath to obey the orders of the President and are obligated. Treason is the other option.

We have supported the idea of the big bad Iranians for decades. They have been 2 years away from a nuclear bomb for 3 or 4 decades. That process of convincing the public is the demonization process which becomes the day job of pretty much every public official. In my lifetime it started with the soviets and communism and now is with the Islamic extreme countries/groups, but the Shias in particular.

I have never been an Obama fan. I don't really like his ways and ideas but I am obligated to his decisions. I guess I could forfeit my US citizenship and my commission but I can't imagine being pissed enough to do that.

I have the ideological luxury of not liking Israel and I clearly think Netanyahu is a nut job far worse than Obama and I have no obligation what-so-ever to Israel and its leadership. That may be a luxury you don't have and for that, you have my sympathies.

Allowing the Mainstream Media to demonize a country or a people to the extent we have done with Iran, sets the stage for blowback like we are seeing with this agreement. Agreeing to 3.67% enrichment is a good deal when it takes 90% for a nuclear weapon. Insisting on zero is not a negotiation, it is bullying.

Hiding behind your "commission" is kind o' lame. Your personal duties are completely irrelevant here, and not particularly impressive, if that's the effect you were going for. If you don't feel you can voice a sincere opinion that is your own, then don't voice one! Your oath of office, BTW, is to the Constitution of the U.S. Yes, you've sworn to obey the orders of those appointed over you, but it's not a Hitlerian "loyalty oath" to Obama personally. If you receive an order that conflicts with the Constitution, you're actually obligated to support and defend the Constitution, even against domestic enemies. whoever that might be... Yes, you have to carry out his policies if so ordered - as long as they remain Constitutional - but you don't have to agree with them. Again, if you feel your oath hobbles your freedom of expression (and I know the military has acted on occasion in what some see as suppression of free speech), then what business do you have posting here about this at all?

"Treason is the other option". Option to what exactly? "Loyalty oath". It's an oath of office. And you took it voluntarily. Forfeiting citizenship & commission? Who the heck is asking you to do either? Bit of a drama queen, aren't we?

Hiding behind your "commission" is kind o' lame.

The poster did not say he was "hiding behind his commission" or anything of the sort. The fact is the poster in the armed services of the United States, for which I thank him, is hiding behind nothing. The poster is up front and out front. The poster has courage and character, distictive qualities his morally vacuous critics reveal in their own posts they themselves lack completely and entirely.

The poster indicated he is a commissioned officer in the United States military and that as such he is Constitutionally required to obey legal orders of superior officers right up to the commander in chief. It is repugnant that some right wing extremists in several posts to the thread will say anything to try to win a post to the board. It is more than repugnant and it comes from the gutter. it is vile.

The same applies to this garbage from the above post in particular by yet another right wing extremist who, with his fellow guttersnipes, will say anything to anyone in order to try to win a post and to have the last and final word:

"Treason is the other option". Option to what exactly? "Loyalty oath". It's an oath of office. And you took it voluntarily. Forfeiting citizenship & commission? Who the heck is asking you to do either? Bit of a drama queen, aren't we?

Again, as a military veteran myself who also did voluntary service as a commissioned officer, I thank the gentleman who made the original post for his service and his unmistakable loyalty to the Constitution and his sacred oath of military service and voluntary sacrifice. Nor am I alone as a military veteran who shares this precious experience.

One who takes the military oath of allegiance puts his life and limb on the line for his country. There is nothing drama or queen about it. Only low life scum would say so.

Edited April 4, 2015 by Publicus

[Publicus]

Will Senate Democrats really help kill an Obama nuclear deal with Iran?

March 30

"The negotiations over the future of Iran’s nuclear program are coming down to the wire, with last-minute snags developing around the question of whether Iran will agree to allow its atomic fuel to be shipped out of the country. Other unresolved issues include the pace at which sanctions would be lifted, how many centrifuges Iran could continue operating, what research and development would be allowed on more advanced centrifuges, and what monitoring would look like.

But even if the framework of a deal is reached in the short term — the immediate goal of the talks — there is a real possibility, the White House believes, that Congress could kill a final deal even before it is agreed upon, with the willing participation of Senate Democrats.

Emphasis mine more - Washington Post/Reuters

I realise this may be difficult for you Americans to understand, but this is an INTERNATIONAL agreement reached by some of the worlds biggest powers. Your congress can huff and puff until the cows come home but it can't 'kill anything. The rest of the world is sick and tired of the US constantly bombing other countries, destabilizing them, facilitating the takeover by ISIS in Iraq, Libya, and Syria next if they have their way. The vast majority of the civilized world will welcome this agreement with open arms, they want peace not conflict. But for the right wing in America, and indeed some on here, peace is not wanted, only the constant urging for more war. War means money, peace doesn't bring home the bacon. Of course Netanyahu's Israel will be spitting feathers over this agreement, and as we speak he will certainly be looking for ways to scuttle it, but thankfully Netanyahu is no longer welcome in polite society, never should have been but better late than never. Blessed are the peacemakers! And for the tiny minority who only want more and more wars, try not to choke on those sour grapes.

This is just totally incorrect. If you have been following the news you'll know that this is only Obama and not the US Congress or the US people. Obama has the authority to make a deal that is binding only on himself!! It would not be binding on the next president who will take office in less than 2 years. This deal if made would be an executive decision unless ratified by Congress. If it's a treaty it would also have to be ratified by 2/3 of the states' legislatures. That's a big reach.

There is nothing international about this other than the place of negotiation. It would not be binding on the United States of America other than one person - Obama. Obama is on his own here acting on behalf of only the (current) president.

End of.

Not the End of so I remain grateful some posters here were not my US Government teacher in high school and that the right wing posters here didn't write the textbooks either, to wit:

If it's a treaty it would also have to be ratified by 2/3 of the states' legislatures. That's a big reach.

That's not only a "big reach" it is wholly and completely wrong and out in right field only where the grass is very high.

The states have no role whatsover in treaty making....none...zero...zilch....ooogats.

The President...shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...

Constitution of the United States, Art. II, Sec. 2

http://www.childrightscampaign.org/why-ratify/how-does-the-united-states-ratify-treaties

I think the confusion here is that the tea party copy of the US Constitution is quite different from the actual document. Kindly show us anyway which constitution says the states are involved in approving a treaty, the tea party one of the US one.

Coz it ain't the US one.

End of.

[Publicus]

Some here fail to realise there is more than just the US in the P5 +1 gang.

Bibi is out on his own along with the loony tunes right wingers on all sides. Good, they have done nothing but spread death,destruction and misery.

Most hope the deal is formalised and are looking/working for progress and peace, something Israel will have to deal with and suck up

Funny when something/anything moves towards a peaceful agreement the lunatic war supporters come out and cry foul.

You know there is more to this than that. As barry was giving his spin speech in the Rose Garden he dropped a bombshell. He said the negotiators were the 5 permanent members US Britian France Russia & Red China. PLUS Germany then barry add's AND THE EU. huh? Who knew? This is breaking news. But then barry goes off the reservation. Saying he is the only person or president to place sanctions on Iran. Then he says he got all the conditions our country has insisted upon for decades., FALSE. mister president. You moved the goal posts as you habitually do. Bibi is spot on. Capitulation.

He said the negotiators were the 5 permanent members US Britian France Russia & Red China. PLUS Germany then barry add's AND THE EU. huh? Who knew?

Almost everyone in the political center-right and center-left knew. It's the people out on the margins of society, government, politics who haven't any clue.

China is owned and operated by the Chimese Communist Party, the CCP. Red China sounds entirely accurate. I know it resonates with moi.

The Framework Agreement was announced by the EU chief of foreign affairs, Federica Modherini and the Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.

SecState John Kerry held his own press conference alone to speak for the United States, at least primarily. FM Zarif was anyway busy standing in another room with Ms Modherini making the official joint announcement, several doors down from Sec Kerry.

You see, the whole of the EU supported this since the EU-3 began these negotations in 2002. The EU-3 of Germany, France, UK, were joined in 2006 by China, Russia, the United States, to become the P5+1 that we see below, with Ms Modherine standing with FM Zarif front and center.

Iran and world powers strike initial nuclear deal

A nuclear framework agreement was reached after eight days of negotiations between six world powers and Iran in the Swiss town of Lausanne. (Photo: CBS News)

L-R, Foreign Minister of the People's Republic of China Hailong Wu, FM Laurent Fabius of France, FM Frank-Walter Steinmeier of Germany, European Union Foreign Policy Chief Federica Mogherini, FM Javad Zarif of Iran, Deputy FM for USA Relations Grigory Karasin of Russia, FM Philip Hammond of the United Kingdom and Secretary of State of the United States John Kerry.

EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said a "decisive step" has been achieved [Reuters],

[Sealbash]

Remember, you read it hear on TV first:

The context of any fallacious agreement is taking place against the backdrop of unprecedented shia aggression and expansion. Many of us have been noting for weeks that we are on the verge of a considerable shia sunni war. IMO, this permission by the US to Iran is an unmitigated disaster. All this arrangement will do is further escalate all sides in a now inevitable conflict.

The great oddity is the US has seemingly switched sides. However, when viewed in the train of US foreign policy context, this should be no surprise at all. The US administration has facilitated, conducted, and made permissive war throughout the region, if not the world.

So, the sunni religious leader of the holiest muslim site on earth declared war on shia. Egyptian and Iranian naval vessels exchanged fire. The ridiculous paper drill in futility meets the real world in near comic fashion. Obama has pursued his bipolar middle east dream at the cost of untold lives, suffering, and war- its a "dream in the air (pipe dream)" but nightmare on the ground.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/04/02/Muslim-Cleric-Calls-All-Out-War

Regarding Obama: fewer humans have so insidiously enabled war under a banner of peace

Last sentence bold emphasis by me.

You seem to imply that enabling war openly (a la Dubbya Bush) is better?

What! you think there isn't a war coming, if not between the west and Iran certainly Shia v Sunni. You think the gulf states are going to sit back and let Iran have its own way?

Why would the western world not condone this?

[englishoak]

Some here fail to realise there is more than just the US in the P5 +1 gang.

Bibi is out on his own along with the loony tunes right wingers on all sides. Good, they have done nothing but spread death,destruction and misery.

Most hope the deal is formalised and are looking/working for progress and peace, something Israel will have to deal with and suck up

Funny when something/anything moves towards a peaceful agreement the lunatic war supporters come out and cry foul.

Well, technically the US isn't involved. Its president is and he has no authority to speak for anyone but himself. Any deal he might make isn't binding on the next president. It isn't binding on Congress or the American people.

Everyone except a few posters on here knows that and the majority of Congress and the American people don't like this deal.

Debate the merits all you like but don't forget what it really is and who's behind it. It's a belligerent ego trip by Obama.

Indication is the American people are very much split in opinion, the rest of the P5 s population are very much in favour of a peaceful deal.

The mood my dear chap is towards peace and negotiations over bombs and wars ... the public is nearly as sick of war now as it was after ww2.

IF the deal goes through the threat here and in the press is a new president would just overturn any agreement because they can right ? F everyone else they are claiming it will be torn up .... its a clear bullying threat nothing more, it wont happen and i'll tell you why.

Its not just about the US but also the P5 and they will be expecting the US when it signs an agreement to stand by it, regardless of the name on the whitehouse after the fact.

The right is acting like a spoiled child, it is telling everyone they will go ahead and effectively commit what is international treachery, that wont go down well.

IF that were to happen the word and reputation of the US would become totally worthless around the globe, in one action the US trust, its standing, its word, its bond, its credibility and respect as an ally, all would be seriously and permanently damaged.

And the right know it... so they have to resort to panic and open threats. They are making a noise now hoping people will believe the BS and be scared that will happen, its scaremongering.... just shows them for what they are ..........treasonous talking, untrustworthy, unstable, war loving cowards.

The reality is the right wing hard liners on all sides are scared stiff about one thing more than anything else. PEACE

An outbreak of global peaceful negotiations resolving problems rather than war, they only understand war makes them a LOT of money and peace does not... they cant make as much money out of peace you see, it also makes the whole right political wing redundant.... THAT is the real reason behind the whining.

Peace, non violence and negotiation is the mortal enemy of the war loving, pro violence right wing haters... or if you prefer good vs evil

And before anyone says anything about Israel its held hostage by its own megalomaniac.. no he dosnt want peace, what he wants is instability and fear to remain in the region, peace is a major threat to Israels looney right because it encourages stability, competition and growth in the region, with that comes education, wealth and influence and so on, all of it is a threat to Israel in Bibis mind and to him of course Israel hates the idea of that .. same as the looney hardliners in the US and Iran, they dont want peace either...for them they know war pays and peace does not, they know war breeds fear and enables easier population control... peace means less fear and less control..... these looneys are NOT the future, they are parasites on humanity offering nothing but death and misery and they are scared stiff now the world is slowly but surely waking up to it..

Bottom line ? the world is watching this one, if the US president makes a deal the next had better honour it or everyone will see first hand a peaceful nuclear International agreement means absolutely nothing to the USA . Its future presidents credibility and standing would go right down the toilet and into the gutter.

The right Ignores the peoples mood at their peril.

Edited April 4, 2015 by englishoak

[sdanielmcev]

Some here fail to realise there is more than just the US in the P5 +1 gang.

Bibi is out on his own along with the loony tunes right wingers on all sides. Good, they have done nothing but spread death,destruction and misery.

Most hope the deal is formalised and are looking/working for progress and peace, something Israel will have to deal with and suck up

Funny when something/anything moves towards a peaceful agreement the lunatic war supporters come out and cry foul.

Well, technically the US isn't involved. Its president is and he has no authority to speak for anyone but himself. Any deal he might make isn't binding on the next president. It isn't binding on Congress or the American people.

Everyone except a few posters on here knows that and the majority of Congress and the American people don't like this deal.

Debate the merits all you like but don't forget what it really is and who's behind it. It's a belligerent ego trip by Obama.

Indication is the American people are very much split in opinion, the rest of the P5 s population are very much in favour of a peaceful deal.

The mood my dear chap is towards peace and negotiations over bombs and wars ... the public is nearly as sick of war now as it was after ww2.

IF the deal goes through the threat here and in the press is a new president would just overturn any agreement because they can right ? F everyone else they are claiming it will be torn up .... its a clear bullying threat nothing more, it wont happen and i'll tell you why.

Its not just about the US but also the P5 and they will be expecting the US when it signs an agreement to stand by it, regardless of the name on the whitehouse after the fact.

The right is acting like a spoiled child, it is telling everyone they will go ahead and effectively commit what is international treachery, that wont go down well.

IF that were to happen the word and reputation of the US would become totally worthless around the globe, in one action the US trust, its standing, its word, its bond, its credibility and respect as an ally, all would be seriously and permanently damaged.

And the right know it... so they have to resort to panic and open threats. They are making a noise now hoping people will believe the BS and be scared that will happen, its scaremongering.... just shows them for what they are ..........treasonous talking, untrustworthy, unstable, war loving cowards.

The reality is the right wing hard liners on all sides are scared stiff about one thing more than anything else. PEACE

An outbreak of global peaceful negotiations resolving problems rather than war, they only understand war makes them a LOT of money and peace does not... they cant make as much money out of peace you see, it also makes the whole right political wing redundant.... THAT is the real reason behind the whining.

Peace, non violence and negotiation is the mortal enemy of the war loving, pro violence right wing haters... or if you prefer good vs evil

And before anyone says anything about Israel its held hostage by its own megalomaniac.. no he dosnt want peace, what he wants is instability and fear to remain in the region, peace is a major threat to Israels looney right because it encourages stability, competition and growth in the region, with that comes education, wealth and influence and so on, all of it is a threat to Israel in Bibis mind and to him of course Israel hates the idea of that .. same as the looney hardliners in the US and Iran, they dont want peace either...for them they know war pays and peace does not, they know war breeds fear and enables easier population control... peace means less fear and less control..... these looneys are NOT the future, they are parasites on humanity offering nothing but death and misery and they are scared stiff now the world is slowly but surely waking up to it..

Bottom line ? the world is watching this one, if the US president makes a deal the next had better honour it or everyone will see first hand a peaceful nuclear International agreement means absolutely nothing to the USA . Its future presidents credibility and standing would go right down the toilet and into the gutter.

The right Ignores the peoples mood at their peril.

Don't know your nationality, but this has little to do with right and left. This is Congress vs. the Executive branches. As, the Senate voted 100-0 to make the agreement nonbinding. The US has a system in place for negotiating treaties, and the Senate has full authority on that account.

A bit off topic, but you say good vs. evil. Anyone that says murdering unborn children is okay is evil. I've met many hawks, but none want war. However, I seen many leftist that thrive on violence. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, come to mind.

[Publicus]

A final agreement if reached around June 30th, as expected, will stand for the term of the Agreement.

The Republicans and their right wing masters and controllers are pissing up a rope on this one, just as they are on so very many issues affecting both the United States and the world, whether domestically or globally. Their letter to Iran was ignored and even corrected by the Iranians. The new Republican alliance with the lunar orbiter Benjamin Netanyahu is under intense scrutiny by Americans, with the outcome problematical for Israel's Rush Linbaugh.

The vast majority of Americans support the negotiations by the P5+1 and support the Framework Agreement, just as they support a Final Agreement. All they seek is for the agreement to be effective. Between now and the election in November next year, it will become obvious the Agreement is a sound one and that it is an effective one.

Here is the WaPo poll on the Framework Agreement, the negotiations....

National Security

Poll: Clear majority supports nuclear deal with Iran By a nearly 2 to 1 margin, Americans support the notion of striking a deal with Iran that restricts the nation’s nuclear program in exchange for loosening sanctions, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds.

Overall, the poll finds 59 percent support an agreement in which the United States and its negotiating partners lift major economic sanctions in exchange for restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program. Thirty-one percent oppose a deal.

The survey, which provided respondents with detailed briefings approved by congressional staff from both parties, found 61 percent preferring to make a deal with Iran that allows limited uranium enrichment over ramping up sanctions to push for a complete end to Iran’s nuclear program.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/poll-2-to-1-support-for-nuclear-deal-with-iran/2015/03/30/9a5a5ac8-d720-11e4-ba28-f2a685dc7f89_story.html

Fact is Americans are as tired of war as is anyone else, any where. It had become clear to the vast majority of Americans that there isn't any such thing as a just war. It just does not exist any more. There is no actual cause for war in the 21st century.

This is a central point of American life, attitudes, values, belief systems, that the far right just cannot get, recognize, understand, which is why the Republican party driven by the far right as it is, is moribund going into the 2016 election. The result of the election next year will assure Prez Obama's Executive Agreement on the P5+1 Iran Agreement will stand and that it will continue.

This point is but one of many points that puts Republicans and their far right bosses out of the mainstream and marginalized.

[Credo]

Why are they calling this a treaty? It's an agreement. It's not a treaty.

[Thorgal]

Why are they calling this a treaty? It's an agreement. It's not a treaty.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.

[NeverSure]

Poll: Clear majority supports nuclear deal with IranBy a nearly 2 to 1 margin, Americans support the notion of striking a deal with Iran that restricts the nation’s nuclear program in exchange for loosening sanctions, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds.

Overall, the poll finds 59 percent support an agreement in which the United States and its negotiating partners lift major economic sanctions in exchange for restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program. Thirty-one percent oppose a deal.

The survey, which provided respondents with detailed briefings approved by congressional staff from both parties, found 61 percent preferring to make a deal with Iran that allows limited uranium enrichment over ramping up sanctions to push for a complete end to Iran’s nuclear program.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/poll-2-to-1-support-for-nuclear-deal-with-iran/2015/03/30/9a5a5ac8-d720-11e4-ba28-f2a685dc7f89_story.html

You are being entirely disingenuous by blatantly misrepresenting that poll. Let's look at the rest of it including the questions.

Americans would support the deal if they could be confident that Iran would uphold it's promises but they aren't confident at all!!

"Q: Thinking now about the situation with Iran - would you support or oppose an agreement in which the United States and other countries would lift major economic sanctions against Iran, in exchange for Iran restricting its nuclear program in a way that makes it harder for it to produce nuclear weapons?"

A. 59/31 support.

"Q: How confident are you that such an agreement would prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons - very confident, somewhat confident, not so confident or not confident at all?"

[NeverSure]

Why are they calling this a treaty? It's an agreement. It's not a treaty.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty

That's generic for all countries. The USA has embedded Constitutional requirements before a treaty is ratified.

1. The president proposes a treaty.

2. It must then go to the US Senate which must approve it by a 2/3 majority or 67 of 100 senators.

3. Only after the Senate approves it by the 2/3 majority may the president put it into effect on behalf of the country.

There's no way to get 2/3 of the Senate to approve this and it is therefore only an agreement between the president and Iran. That is not binding on anyone else including the next president who can dismiss it as not his.

At all times Congress which makes the laws, can make a law to stop this in its tracks or even to amend it.

Obama isn't a dictator.

[Publicus]

Poll: Clear majority supports nuclear deal with IranBy a nearly 2 to 1 margin, Americans support the notion of striking a deal with Iran that restricts the nation’s nuclear program in exchange for loosening sanctions, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds.

Overall, the poll finds 59 percent support an agreement in which the United States and its negotiating partners lift major economic sanctions in exchange for restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program. Thirty-one percent oppose a deal.

The survey, which provided respondents with detailed briefings approved by congressional staff from both parties, found 61 percent preferring to make a deal with Iran that allows limited uranium enrichment over ramping up sanctions to push for a complete end to Iran’s nuclear program.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/poll-2-to-1-support-for-nuclear-deal-with-iran/2015/03/30/9a5a5ac8-d720-11e4-ba28-f2a685dc7f89_story.html

You are being entirely disingenuous by blatantly misrepresenting that poll. Let's look at the rest of it including the questions.

Americans would support the deal if they could be confident that Iran would uphold it's promises but they aren't confident at all!!

"Q: Thinking now about the situation with Iran - would you support or oppose an agreement in which the United States and other countries would lift major economic sanctions against Iran, in exchange for Iran restricting its nuclear program in a way that makes it harder for it to produce nuclear weapons?"

A. 59/31 support.

"Q: How confident are you that such an agreement would prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons - very confident, somewhat confident, not so confident or not confident at all?"

Upy.jpg

I read the poll before I quoted it and linked to it in my post. There are certain posters who I know from long experience read every line of my links, every word, syllable, comma, in what I like to call their posting proctology.

I stated in my post the American people support the negotiations, by a strong majority. The poll further revealed the great majority don't want to try to take Iran's nuclear program down to zero, the way the right wing zero Netanyahu does.

I stated the concern of a number of Americans is for an effective agreement, and that by the election in November next year the evidence of the Agreement's effectiveness will be definable.

I stated these things. So there's nothing disingenuous about my post, especially because it included the link for everyone to read.

[Publicus]

Why are they calling this a treaty? It's an agreement. It's not a treaty.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty

That's generic for all countries. The USA has embedded Constitutional requirements before a treaty is ratified.

1. The president proposes a treaty.

2. It must then go to the US Senate which must approve it by a 2/3 majority or 67 of 100 senators.

3. Only after the Senate approves it by the 2/3 majority may the president put it into effect on behalf of the country.

There's no way to get 2/3 of the Senate to approve this and it is therefore only an agreement between the president and Iran. That is not binding on anyone else including the next president who can dismiss it as not his.

At all times Congress which makes the laws, can make a law to stop this in its tracks or even to amend it.

Obama isn't a dictator.

It has to be said the far extremist lunar right terrestrials need to go back to civics and US Government classes, this time at a respectable high school that is academically reputable, to include the faculty. Some of youse guyz musta had 37 as a passing score in high school. Either that or got ten resits on each exam to get a 50 score.

This is an Executive Agreement, not a treaty.

Forget the 2/3 of the Senate requirement, which is for a treaty only.

This is an Executive Agreement which the congress maximus can find out about by reading it in the Federal Register. The Congress Maximus has no authority over an Executive Agreement implemented by the president under his Constitutional authority, and in accord with SCOTUS case law precedent since 1789.

It is not a treaty so forget about the 2/3 requirement. Forget about it.

The circus congress maximus can and will hold hearings. The congress maximus can withhold removal or modification of sanctions.

The congress maximus cannot negate the president's Executive Agreement in affairs of state. This is true, fact, because the president is the chief of state, the CEO of the Government of the United States, and is its Chief Diplomat. The president has a certain and specified constitutional authority in foreign relations with foreign governments that are independent of the congress.

This dictator crap is btw yet more of the usual and normal right wingnut extremist fringe crackpot nonsense. Where and what did you people ever learn???! (In the middle of nowhere and nothing, frankly speaking.)

[NeverSure]

Poll: Clear majority supports nuclear deal with IranBy a nearly 2 to 1 margin, Americans support the notion of striking a deal with Iran that restricts the nation’s nuclear program in exchange for loosening sanctions, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds.

Overall, the poll finds 59 percent support an agreement in which the United States and its negotiating partners lift major economic sanctions in exchange for restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program. Thirty-one percent oppose a deal.

The survey, which provided respondents with detailed briefings approved by congressional staff from both parties, found 61 percent preferring to make a deal with Iran that allows limited uranium enrichment over ramping up sanctions to push for a complete end to Iran’s nuclear program.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/poll-2-to-1-support-for-nuclear-deal-with-iran/2015/03/30/9a5a5ac8-d720-11e4-ba28-f2a685dc7f89_story.html

You are being entirely disingenuous by blatantly misrepresenting that poll. Let's look at the rest of it including the questions.

Americans would support the deal if they could be confident that Iran would uphold it's promises but they aren't confident at all!!

"Q: Thinking now about the situation with Iran - would you support or oppose an agreement in which the United States and other countries would lift major economic sanctions against Iran, in exchange for Iran restricting its nuclear program in a way that makes it harder for it to produce nuclear weapons?"

A. 59/31 support.

"Q: How confident are you that such an agreement would prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons - very confident, somewhat confident, not so confident or not confident at all?"

Upy.jpg

I read the poll before I quoted it and linked to it in my post. There are certain posters who I know from long experience read every line of my links, every word, syllable, comma, in what I like to call their posting proctology.

I stated in my post the American people support the negotiations, by a strong majority. The poll further revealed the great majority don't want to try to take Iran's nuclear program down to zero, the way the right wing zero Netanyahu does.

I stated the concern of a number of Americans is for an effective agreement, and that by the election in November next year the evidence of the Agreement's effectiveness will be definable.

I stated these things. So there's nothing disingenuous about my post, especially because it included the link for everyone to read.

I see. Cutting through the fog, you just said it's OK to misrepresent it because your ego believes "certain" posters read "every line, every word, syllable, comma" of the links in your post.

In other words, if they want the actual truth they have to read the fine print and scrutinize your posts carefully. Otherwise, they'll be terminally mislead.

You should buy some raw wool as your spinning would make you rich.

[NeverSure]

Recent polls:

LINK

[Publicus]

Poll: Clear majority supports nuclear deal with IranBy a nearly 2 to 1 margin, Americans support the notion of striking a deal with Iran that restricts the nation’s nuclear program in exchange for loosening sanctions, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds.

Overall, the poll finds 59 percent support an agreement in which the United States and its negotiating partners lift major economic sanctions in exchange for restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program. Thirty-one percent oppose a deal.

The survey, which provided respondents with detailed briefings approved by congressional staff from both parties, found 61 percent preferring to make a deal with Iran that allows limited uranium enrichment over ramping up sanctions to push for a complete end to Iran’s nuclear program.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/poll-2-to-1-support-for-nuclear-deal-with-iran/2015/03/30/9a5a5ac8-d720-11e4-ba28-f2a685dc7f89_story.html

You are being entirely disingenuous by blatantly misrepresenting that poll. Let's look at the rest of it including the questions.

Americans would support the deal if they could be confident that Iran would uphold it's promises but they aren't confident at all!!

"Q: Thinking now about the situation with Iran - would you support or oppose an agreement in which the United States and other countries would lift major economic sanctions against Iran, in exchange for Iran restricting its nuclear program in a way that makes it harder for it to produce nuclear weapons?"

A. 59/31 support.

"Q: How confident are you that such an agreement would prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons - very confident, somewhat confident, not so confident or not confident at all?"

Upy.jpg

I read the poll before I quoted it and linked to it in my post. There are certain posters who I know from long experience read every line of my links, every word, syllable, comma, in what I like to call their posting proctology.

I stated in my post the American people support the negotiations, by a strong majority. The poll further revealed the great majority don't want to try to take Iran's nuclear program down to zero, the way the right wing zero Netanyahu does.

I stated the concern of a number of Americans is for an effective agreement, and that by the election in November next year the evidence of the Agreement's effectiveness will be definable.

I stated these things. So there's nothing disingenuous about my post, especially because it included the link for everyone to read.

I see. Cutting through the fog, you just said it's OK to misrepresent it because your ego believes "certain" posters read "every line, every word, syllable, comma" of the links in your post.

In other words, if they want the actual truth they have to read the fine print and scrutinize your posts carefully. Otherwise, they'll be terminally mislead.

You should buy some raw wool as your spinning would make you rich.

I said in my original post in this matter the American people want an effective Executive Agreement.

Go back and re-read the post....it's up over your head on the page.

Try this also....

http://www.readingrockets.org/article/using-think-alouds-improve-reading-comprehension

Edited April 4, 2015 by Publicus

[Publicus]

Recent polls:

LINK

Uny.jpg

Did I mention that.....

Poll: Clear majority supports nuclear deal with Iran

By a nearly 2 to 1 margin, Americans support the notion of striking a deal with Iran that restricts the nation’s nuclear program in exchange for loosening sanctions, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds.

Overall, the poll finds 59 percent support an agreement in which the United States and its negotiating partners lift major economic sanctions in exchange for restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program. Thirty-one percent oppose a deal.

The survey, which provided respondents with detailed briefings approved by congressional staff from both parties, found 61 percent preferring to make a deal with Iran that allows limited uranium enrichment over ramping up sanctions to push for a complete end to Iran’s nuclear program.

http://www.washingto...7f89_story.html

The attempts of the right sector of US politics and in Iran and in Israel to try to disassociate the president and the people on this issue fail, and they fail miserably.

The reality on the ground is that the American people approve of the deal that is yet to be finalized as expected. Further, they want an efficacious 'deal', aka, Agreement.

So the American people also want congress to have input in the deal. This is normal, because people were taught in school the congress and the president need to work things out between them in almost all matters of foreign policy.

Beyond this is the distinction between an Executive Agreement by the president under his Constitutional authority, confirmed by SCOTUS in case law precedents since 1789, and the treaty provisions of the Constitution, which do not apply in this particular instance.

Congress should hold hearings and the congress maximus will hold hearings. This congress maximus will, however, hoist itself on its own petard, as is its helplessly compulsive norm. Still, the president does need to deal with the congress maximus in respect of this agreement because the congress has the final authority over sanctions.

That the congress maximus and the president minimus don't communicate well with the other, don't get along, don't trust the one another, are politically a house divided, will make for an interesting rest of the year, to say the least.

Bottom line: the American people want the deal and they want assurances about it. That's the easy part. However, now come the forces of the red and the blue. Last time this kind of thing happened, 1861-65, the blue got bloodied but it won.

[NeverSure]

I see. Cutting through the fog, you just said it's OK to misrepresent it because your ego believes "certain" posters read "every line, every word, syllable, comma" of the links in your post.

In other words, if they want the actual truth they have to read the fine print and scrutinize your posts carefully. Otherwise, they'll be terminally mislead.

You should buy some raw wool as your spinning would make you rich.

I said in my original post in this matter the American people want an effective Executive Agreement.

Go back and re-read the post....it's up over your head on the page.

Try this also....

http://www.readingrockets.org/article/using-think-alouds-improve-reading-comprehension

LOL. Now it's my reading comprehension is it? I thought I was doing really well in outing your spin.

Next topic...

Cheers, and no hard feelings.

[CMNightRider]

"Obama is playing a bizarre game that could endanger regional peace and threaten the national security of the US and its allies. He insisted that Kerry secure “something, anything” before April 14 to forestall the US Congress’ planned moves on Iran." Obama is caught lying to the world again.

http://nypost.com/2015/04/04/translated-version-of-iran-deal-doesnt-say-what-obama-claims-it-does/

[Steely Dan]

"Obama is playing a bizarre game that could endanger regional peace and threaten the national security of the US and its allies. He insisted that Kerry secure “something, anything” before April 14 to forestall the US Congress’ planned moves on Iran." Obama is caught lying to the world again.

http://nypost.com/2015/04/04/translated-version-of-iran-deal-doesnt-say-what-obama-claims-it-does/

In other words they can not even agree on an outline. In this entire thread there is no discussion of details regarding export of nuclear materials. Nothing on the number of centrifuges. Nothing relating to the current state of Iranian nuclear developments seeing as the IAEA have not had their questions answered. There is nothing regarding snap inspections by the IAEA to check compliance. The Iranians state that sanction relief will be complete and irreversible when they sign, no agreement has been mentioned as to what happens in the event of non compliance.

The only things spinning faster than the Iranian centrifuges are Kerry and Obama trying to sell a myth, which they know to be such but which fits their private seditious plans.

[Credo]

"Obama is playing a bizarre game that could endanger regional peace and threaten the national security of the US and its allies. He insisted that Kerry secure “something, anything” before April 14 to forestall the US Congress’ planned moves on Iran." Obama is caught lying to the world again.

http://nypost.com/2015/04/04/translated-version-of-iran-deal-doesnt-say-what-obama-claims-it-does/

In other words they can not even agree on an outline. In this entire thread there is no discussion of details regarding export of nuclear materials. Nothing on the number of centrifuges. Nothing relating to the current state of Iranian nuclear developments seeing as the IAEA have not had their questions answered. There is nothing regarding snap inspections by the IAEA to check compliance. The Iranians state that sanction relief will be complete and irreversible when they sign, no agreement has been mentioned as to what happens in the event of non compliance.

The only things spinning faster than the Iranian centrifuges are Kerry and Obama trying to sell a myth, which they know to be such but which fits their private seditious plans.

Please tell us what the leaders of your country think about this and what bill of goods they are trying to sell.

[chuckd]

Another little item our more bombastic posters seem to be missing are the US sanctions.

The US first placed sanctions on Iran in 1979 following the Embassy takeover. Those original sanctions are still in place while others have been added over the years.

Those sanctions were passed into law by both Houses of Congress and signed by whichever President was in office at the time.

They are the law of the US.

How does Obama propose getting around this simple fact? Will he add those laws to the ones he has ignored during his reign or will he approach Congress in an attempt to get them to ease the sanctions more to his liking?

My guess is he will issue an Executive Order trying to change existing law (think immigration), bypassing Congress completely.

It will then be up to the Courts to make the final decision.

[chuckd]

Obama and Kerry bring to my mind that they would be the ideal customers for an Iranian carpet dealer.

Iranian carpet dealers are notorious for being difficult salesmen. They will drive hard bargains, often giving up nothing to gain what they finally want to achieve.

If they sense you are really hot to buy a particular carpet, you are dead in the water. You will end up losing all your ready cash and they will have a mortgage on your first born. You will then go home with your new purchase only to find out, in the light of day, it wasn't really as attractive as you thought and, in the end, doesn't really suit your needs.

The only way to deal with them is to offer them half of what they ask when the negotiations begin. Then as they come down, and they invariably will, you go up until you reach the price you want to pay. If they refuse to get to your price, you must be prepared to get in your car and go home without the carpet. I have been stopped many times as I was getting in my car and invited back in to talk some more. I usually ended up with the carpet at my price, but it took a few losses in the beginning to learn my lesson.

My ex-wife now owns some 25 Iranian carpets, ranging from a 9 X 12 Nain silk and wool to some Qom silk wall hangers.

My point in all this?

Obama and Kerry are amateurs dealing with the sharpest carpet sellers in the market. They are in over their heads and will end up with a meaningless, and perhaps temporary, agreement.

Valerie didn't school these two enough but, then, perhaps this is what she wanted all the time.

[Steely Dan]

Obama and Kerry bring to my mind that they would be the ideal customers for an Iranian carpet dealer.

Iranian carpet dealers are notorious for being difficult salesmen. They will drive hard bargains, often giving up nothing to gain what they finally want to achieve.

If they sense you are really hot to buy a particular carpet, you are dead in the water. You will end up losing all your ready cash and they will have a mortgage on your first born. You will then go home with your new purchase only to find out, in the light of day, it wasn't really as attractive as you thought and, in the end, doesn't really suit your needs.

The only way to deal with them is to offer them half of what they ask when the negotiations begin. Then as they come down, and they invariably will, you go up until you reach the price you want to pay. If they refuse to get to your price, you must be prepared to get in your car and go home without the carpet. I have been stopped many times as I was getting in my car and invited back in to talk some more. I usually ended up with the carpet at my price, but it took a few losses in the beginning to learn my lesson.

My ex-wife now owns some 25 Iranian carpets, ranging from a 9 X 12 Nain silk and wool to some Qom silk wall hangers.

My point in all this?

Obama and Kerry are amateurs dealing with the sharpest carpet sellers in the market. They are in over their heads and will end up with a meaningless, and perhaps temporary, agreement.

Valerie didn't school these two enough but, then, perhaps this is what she wanted all the time.

It appears they also sold Kerry a rug to go up top.