Jump to content

Letter to Iran


Recommended Posts

As always, follow the money trail ....

 

First, I'm not sure how the two of these items connect beyond the fact that the writer thinks it does.

 

Second, I sure wish you had this kind of enthusiasm when Barry boarded a plane for a Vegas money-grabbing party less than 24 hours after he left four Americans for dead in Benghazi.

 

Ahhh, the poster who claims he is not a liberal posts another liberal post deriding the right. Are hissy fits a natural liberal right?

 

He never claimed he wasn't a liberal. He claimed he didn't vote for Obama. What you inferred is on you. For all we know he didn't vote for Obama because he voted for Bernie Sanders. Or was a write in Hillary. Or he was sick that day and couldn't get to the polls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 356
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I voted for Gary Johnson.

 

Wait - We are going to "give" them nukes? Pretty sure what is being talked about is them not getting nukes....but carry on...

 

What was "liberal" in my post?

 

This letter is so stupid on so many counts:

 

1. A treaty is not what is being negotiated - it is an international arrangement signed by 6 countries - so no Mr Cotton - it does not go to the Senate. Congress has a say on the sanctions - but they are but one component - a small one.

2. So what - it is easier and more pragmatic to talk to the Ayatollah?

 

You do realize that Mr Cotton - whelp maybe this is why you like him - simply wants to arm Israel to the hilt and have them attack Iran and or have the US invade/ do whatever to "bring down" the regime in Iron - then what - didn't we do that 60 years ago?

 

Again - I ask - what has Iran done that warrants an invasion - tell me its more than an ex leader's comments about Israel....i know that those words must be actionable - I mean a leader must always say what he is actually going to do right and why would Iran be wary of us....in the words of our Armed Services Committee leader...."bomb bomb bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"...

 

Why did the GOP get so stupid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted for Gary Johnson.

 

Wait - We are going to "give" them nukes? Pretty sure what is being talked about is them not getting nukes....but carry on...

 

What was "liberal" in my post?

 

This letter is so stupid on so many counts:

 

1. A treaty is not what is being negotiated - it is an international arrangement signed by 6 countries - so no Mr Cotton - it does not go to the Senate. Congress has a say on the sanctions - but they are but one component - a small one.

2. So what - it is easier and more pragmatic to talk to the Ayatollah?

 

You do realize that Mr Cotton - whelp maybe this is why you like him - simply wants to arm Israel to the hilt and have them attack Iran and or have the US invade/ do whatever to "bring down" the regime in Iron - then what - didn't we do that 60 years ago?

 

Again - I ask - what has Iran done that warrants an invasion - tell me its more than an ex leader's comments about Israel....i know that those words must be actionable - I mean a leader must always say what he is actually going to do right and why would Iran be wary of us....in the words of our Armed Services Committee leader...."bomb bomb bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"...

 

Why did the GOP get so stupid?

 

You unbelievably assert as fact that the right wants to arm Israel so it can bomb Iran, then incredibly extend that to a defense of Iran, asking "What did they do to deserve this?"

 

You may want to think twice before asserting someone else has gotten "so stupid."

 

Frankly, I'm kind of surprised there are so many people on this board who hate Jews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the letter is great, it explains to our allies and our adversaries how no agreement our president enters into with them is worth beans unless 67 Senators sign off on it and even then the next president can negate it with a stroke of a pen or the next congress can change the agreement willy nilly - should be very helpful in all future negotiations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

First, I'm not sure how the two of these items connect beyond the fact that the writer thinks it does.

 

Second, I sure wish you had this kind of enthusiasm when Barry boarded a plane for a Vegas money-grabbing party less than 24 hours after he left four Americans for dead in Benghazi.

 

 

He never claimed he wasn't a liberal. He claimed he didn't vote for Obama. What you inferred is on you. For all we know he didn't vote for Obama because he voted for Bernie Sanders. Or was a write in Hillary. Or he was sick that day and couldn't get to the polls.

I beg to differ. Baskin has not only claimed that he didn't vote for Obama but that he wasn't a liberal. He's one of those pure of heart guys who aren't liberal but only criticize conservatives (ie. republicans)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You unbelievably assert as fact that the right wants to arm Israel so it can bomb Iran, then incredibly extend that to a defense of Iran, asking "What did they do to deserve this?"

 

You may want to think twice before asserting someone else has gotten "so stupid."

 

Frankly, I'm kind of surprised there are so many people on this board who hate Jews.

 

Do a little homework bro...Arming Israel to attack Iran and overthrowing the regime there is exactly what Cotton has professed what should be done.

 

How - how - do you link anything I have said with hating Jews? I am non religious and frankly can't understand pretty much anything concerning religion...

 

Again - we would want to invade/overthrow Iran because of a hot air threat - or is there another reason?

 

I criticize the GOP because I used to be consistently Republican - and now I - for the life of me do not understand or agree with much of what they do.

 

I am what you might call a swing voter - you know - someone the GOP needs to win a Presidential election....

Edited by baskin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Kerry in ‘utter disbelief’ over GOP letter to Iran

 

Secretary of State John Kerry says he’s in “utter disbelief” over the letter to Iranian leaders led by Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and signed by 46 other Republican senators, warning any Iranian nuclear deal reached with the U.S. could be revoked by the next president or modified by Congress.

 

 

“This letter ignores more than two centuries of precedent in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy,” Kerry said

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/john-kerry-marco-rubio-iran-115977.html#ixzz3U61jfGMD

 

 

 

HarkinKerryDanielOrtega.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 


[...] But on the “decorum” question — whether there has been some sort of terrible or possibly criminal breach of protocol due to GOP interference with Obama’s foreign policy — the irony and hypocrisy here are infinite. Most similar controversies from the past involved prominent Democrats engaging in discussions with foreign leaders which Republicans pilloried as a dangerous and possibly criminal threat to the GOP president’s power to carry out foreign policy. Indeed, it was a staple of the Bush-era debates for Republicans to accuse Democrats of undue and unconstitutional “interference” in President Bush’s constitutional power to carry out foreign policy.

 

To see how thoroughly Democrats have adopted the GOP’s Bush-era authoritarian rhetoric about not “undermining the commander-in-chief,” and to see how craven is GOP behavior now on Iran, just look at what was being said in 2007 when then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi traveled to Syria and met with President Bashar Assad. The Bush administration was furious about that meeting because its strategy at the time was to isolate Assad as punishment for his alleged aid to Iraqi insurgents fighting against U.S. occupying forces, and the right-wing media and even mainstream media precincts attacked Pelosi in ways quite redolent of today’s attacks on the Senate Republicans over Iran.

 

[...]

 

A prior visit by Pelosi a few months earlier to Iraq led Associated Press to say that the trip “is a clear sign the newly empowered Democratic Congress is not going to abide by the notion that foreign policy is the sole province of the White House.” The headline of that article was “Pelosi visit to Baghdad signals Bush he’s not making foreign policy all alone,” and it recounted the numerous incidents in the past where members of Congress and others were accused of “interfering” in the president’s ability to conduct foreign policy in language similar to what Democrats are using now against Republicans:

ome [bush] administration allies have accused four senators — Democrats John Kerry of Massachusetts, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania — of engaging in such freelance diplomacy by going to Syria in December to sound out President Bashar Assad on his intentions on Iraq and Lebanon.

 

[...]

 

For their part, Democrats, needless to say, thought it was perfectly legitimate for members of Congress to act in opposition to Bush’s foreign policy. In Salon, Joe Conason mocked “the screaming critics of the speaker [who] charge her with undermining presidential power [and] freelancing Mideast diplomacy,” insisting that “those furious complaints were all false and, more important, beside the point.” He said that Republicans “can only smear those who, like Speaker Pelosi, are attempting to promote a bipartisan alternative” and concluded: “Let us hope she possesses the courage to continue that crucial mission.”

 

[...]

 

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/10/gop-2007-attacks-pelosi-interfering-bushs-syria-policy-v-todays-similar-dem-attacks-iran/

 

Ah, hypocrisy, thy name is partisan politics.

Edited by DC Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems pretty obvious to me that if/when Iran does develop nuclear weapons that most - if not all - of the other middle eastern nations will want to arm themselves as well. The Saudis in particular come to mind. Does anyone think that a middle eastern nuclear arms race would be a good thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A QUESTION FOR DEMOCRATS

Does The Obama Administration Think It Can Bind The United States To An International Agreement Without Congressional Approval?

 

Plus: “What does the president think he is negotiating if he intends to keep Congress in the dark and present a fait accompli?

 

The State Department spokeswoman was unintelligible on the point in the daily briefing.” Obama’s big problem is that nobody trusts him

 

 

 

 

And note: A couple of weeks ago, it was beyond the pale of decency to ask if Obama loves America, but today it’s fine to call 47 Republican senators traitors. :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems pretty obvious to me that if/when Iran does develop nuclear weapons that most - if not all - of the other middle eastern nations will want to arm themselves as well. The Saudis in particular come to mind. Does anyone think that a middle eastern nuclear arms race would be a good thing?

 

My brother-in-law used to go over to the Emirates regularly for business; literally the first question he'd be asked in meetings was "When is the US going to do something about Iran?"

 

People don't understand how much the Middle Eastern Arab states are freaking out over the idea of a nuclear Iran. There's already an arms race over it (the Saudis didn't buy Strike Eagles for ***** and grins.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Do a little homework bro...Arming Israel to attack Iran and overthrowing the regime there is exactly what Cotton has professed what should be done.

 

I've read the letter. I missed the part where Cotton told Iran we plan to arm Israel so they can blow up Iran. Maybe it was done in invisible ink? Not sure.

 

Meanwhile, the letter is completely accurate. An Obama deal granted as an executive agreement is only truly binding while Obama is president, so the idea that we can make concessions to Iran based on the fact that Iran won't do anything for 10 years is, without question, making the US look like a fool. If our own POTUS doesn't understand this very basic fact, then he has no business negotiating this deal.

 

But at such a time that Cotton unilaterally provides arms to Israel so they can blow up Iran, I'll concede your point.

Edited by LABillzFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My brother-in-law used to go over to the Emirates regularly for business; literally the first question he'd be asked in meetings was "When is the US going to do something about Iran?"

 

People don't understand how much the Middle Eastern Arab states are freaking out over the idea of a nuclear Iran. There's already an arms race over it (the Saudis didn't buy Strike Eagles for ***** and grins.)

 

From what I've heard (which is only from conventional news sources), the Saudis are every bit as riled up over our current handling of Iran's nuclear ambitions as are the Israelis. I remember one pundit using the term 'apoplectic'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I've heard (which is only from conventional news sources), the Saudis are every bit as riled up over our current handling of Iran's nuclear ambitions as are the Israelis. I remember one pundit using the term 'apoplectic'.

 

Both Obama's incompetence, and the Senate's current shenanigans.

 

I mean, the Senate Republicans aren't wrong...any deal Obama strikes should have to be ratified by the Senate. But it's Obama's responsibility to strike a deal the Senate will pass, not Iran's.

 

Effectively, the government isn't negotiating with Iran, the Democrats and Republicans are independent of each other. Ironically, it's a tacit admission by each that they trust Iran to negotiate in good faith more than they trust each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...