President Obama made a good deal

Lot of words. Lot of wrong. Let's get started.

1. the Executive branch is the sole branch responsible for negotiating foreign policy. I'll copy and paste this next portion for your reading pleasure. In it, you will find that the president does INDEED have the power to negotiate and ratify a treaty, all on his own.

"In the United States, the term "treaty" is used in a more restricted legal sense than in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from congressional-executive agreements and sole-executive agreements.[1] All three classes are considered treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal United States law. Distinctions among the three concern their method of ratification: by two-thirds of the Senate, by normal legislative process, or by the President alone, respectively."

So, as you can read, you were quite incorrect. The republicans also, were incorrect. Now, let's continue. At no point did the Iranians think Obama was a king. Those are words you have concocted. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Here is a phrase for you, "advise and consent". Look it up and get back to me. I also notice that you used quotation marks, did you cut and paste or steal someone else's ideas? Or maybe you just added them to make them look more impressive. Citation?

Here is a phrase for you, "advise and consent". Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

It has something to do with "checks and balances"! Kinda like the POTUS is the CIC of the military, but Congress has to "declare war"!

The framers designed the branches of the government to be interdependent upon each other except in certain very specific circumstances. Each branch has some form of control on the other parts. This is to prevent radical power moments and maintain a certain moderate form of government.

The framers designed the branches of the government to be interdependent upon each other except in certain very specific circumstances. Each branch has some form of control on the other parts. This is to prevent radical power moments and maintain a certain moderate form of government. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

That's a long way of saying I was right

Here is a phrase for you, "advise and consent". Look it up and get back to me. I also notice that you used quotation marks, did you cut and paste or steal someone else's ideas? Or maybe you just added them to make them look more impressive. Citation? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Quotations would indicate that I'm using someone else's words, dumbass. Google it. Also Google sole executive agreement while you're at it.

Go fuck yourself, you lying piece of shit. Not only are you a totally two-faced fraud who spams this board under multiple handles and is too much of a PUSSY to come clean after he has been caught red-handed, you are also a fucking APOLOGIST FOR IRANIAN TERRORISM. There are buckets of irrefutable hard-as-nails evidence of Iranian senior government involvement in every incident I cited. You need to be locked up in a room with all of the victims' relatives from the IRANIAN bombings in Beirut (299 deaths), Buenos Aires (85 murdered), Khobar (19 US servicemen killed) et al. so we can let them tear your fucking worthless torso apart one limb at a time!

. Originally Posted by lustylad

You first, dipshit. I referenced the Saudi Ambassador incident specifically.

"a number of prominent Iran experts have questioned the Iranian government's link to the plot. Suzanne Maloney, senior fellow at The Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, said much of what was known of the plot did “not fit the usual patterns of Iran's involvement with terrorist activities."

The Brookings Institute is one of the most highly respected think tanks in the world. But I'm sure you know better than people who get paid to sit around and ponder shit all day.

And there's more

"U.S. officials said that it was "more than likely" that Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the head of the Quds Force, Major General Qassem Suleimani, knew of the plot, but acknowledged this was based on analysis rather than hard evidence"

No hard evidence. But I thought you said there was buckets of evidence? Apparently not.

But wait, we aren't done yet.

"The officials acknowledged that the plot was far "outside the pattern" of the Quds Force past activity."

"If an Iranian agent was responsible for planning the assassination attempt, it parallels events in 1998, when the murder of prominent Iranian nationalists and writers was organised by three rogue Iranian secret service operatives, part of the Quds Forces"

Rogue elements... hmmm

And here's what Obama said.

“Even if at the highest levels there was not detailed operational knowledge, there has to be accountability with respect to anybody in the Iranian government engaging in this kind of activity."

Here's what you don't get and because of the fog of anger that blocks your vision, you'll likely never get. If someone is responsible for acts such as these, they should be dealt with swiftly. On that, we agree. But unlike you, I don't base such decisions on emotion. I want to know the truth. Whatever the truth might be. If the truth was that they actually had nothing to do with it, you don't want to hear that because it goes against what you've already decided in your mind. I don't have time for people like that. That's not how justice works.

I agree that every country has the right to protect themselves, but are you arguing that there should be more Nukes in the world instead of less. Personally I would prefer no one had them to include the USA. I also have a problem with any country who is openly hostile and who has threatened the destruction of any other country getting them. My comment was a response to how the president did on this subject. I explained how I thought he did and the reason I thought he did it. I am not advocating for or against it. All you cocksuckers are an example of whats wrong with this country. So polarized and sunk down in the my side rights, your sides wrong, name calling bullshit nothing gets done, there is middle ground and I pray/hope/dream someday this country will learn how to find it again Originally Posted by dirty dog

If more countries had nukes there would be less wars- who in their right mind would want to go to war with a nation that can a drop a single bomb and wipe out your whole city?

Ask a home burglar would he rather take his chances breaking into a home in the south where most home owners own guns or in New York City where it is illegal to own a gun??? The same logic applies with nukes.

If more countries had nukes there would be less wars- who in their right mind would want to go to war with a nation that can a drop a single bomb and wipe out your whole city?

Ask a home burglar would he rather take his chances breaking into a home in the south where most home owners own guns or in New York City where it is illegal to own a gun??? The same logic applies with nukes. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Well we have been in 5 wars and we have nukes, Russia has been in several, a nuke is only a deterrent if the person who has it is willing to use it. Which highlights the problem with Iran who has already said they would use it getting one.

Well we have been in 5 wars and we have nukes, Russia has been in several, a nuke is only a deterrent if the person who has it is willing to use it. Which highlights the problem with Iran who has already said they would use it getting one. Originally Posted by dirty dog

Wouldn't you have thought with the enmity they hold for us, Russia would have used one by now? They also threatened us but it never happened.

Wouldn't you have thought with the enmity they hold for us, Russia would have used one by now? They also threatened us but it never happened. Originally Posted by WombRaider

This is true, hell Korea threatens us daily, but with regards to Russia they are not driven by religious zealots, they are more rational and gain to lose much should they decide to do so. But, if you think more nukes is the answer your entitled to that opinion .

You haven't presented any evidence... you'll understand if I don't take you at your word. Originally Posted by WombRaider

I know you will ignore any evidence that doesn't fit your preconceived notions, but for OTHERS reading this, who are open to actual facts, here you go:
http://www.historyandtheheadlines.ab...38&productid=8
"Boland Amendment (1982 and 1984)
Introduced by Edward Boland, chair of the U.S. House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, the Boland Amendment is actually two pieces of legislation that amend other U.S. laws. The first, passed by the U.S. Congress on December 21, 1982, banned funds from the budget being used by the federal government to aid the contras fighting a civil war against the leftist Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Congress was concerned about U.S. entanglements in the many conflicts raging in Central America during this period, particularly the involvement of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and thus passed the amendment to limit the CIA's input. Known as Boland I, it remained in effect until October 3, 1984, when it was replaced by an even stronger version of the law, known as Boland II. This second amendment prohibited the federal government from supplying any type of aid to the contras, either financial or otherwise. It remained in effect until December 5, 1985"

So.. was CONGRESS interfering with Presidential perogatives in running Foreign Policy there or not? And tell us how much BETTER it is for Democrats to do that, vs Republicans writing an OPEN LETTER, not passing a law, just writing a letter.. was more interference with the President than the Boland Amendment?

I don't know why I even ask those questions.. you won't answer or if you do, you'll deflect with name calling and the usual tripe that these threads devolve into. But at least you've been answered and shown the hypocrisy of the liberal Dems with their complaints about interfering in foreign affairs policy set by a "sitting President".

Wouldn't you have thought with the enmity they hold for us, Russia would have used one by now? They also threatened us but it never happened. Originally Posted by WombRaider

The key difference in the current countries with Nukes vs Iran, is the Nuclear countries leaders DON'T WANT TO DIE, or rule over a smoking, radioactive wasteland. Iran on the other hand, is led by Religious zealots that believe it is GOOD to die if you can harm your enemy with your death.. thus the waves of suicide bombers.

Do you seriously think they worry about any retaliation if they have a way to set off a nuke in Jerusalem or a US city?

Russia and North Korean leaders want to live. Iranian leaders.. not so much.

This is true, hell Korea threatens us daily, but with regards to Russia they are not driven by religious zealots, they are more rational and gain to lose much should they decide to do so. But, if you think more nukes is the answer your entitled to that opinion . Originally Posted by dirty dog

I don't necessarily think that more nukes are the answer. As for North Korea, they don't have the balls. They use them as a tool to get what they want from the world. When they want some foreign aid they start firing off missiles into the sea and rattling their saber. I think Iran realizes what it would lose if it did use one. It would cease to exist. I think it wants to be a player in the region.

The key difference in the current countries with Nukes vs Iran, is the Nuclear countries leaders DON'T WANT TO DIE, or rule over a smoking, radioactive wasteland. Iran on the other hand, is led by Religious zealots that believe it is GOOD to die if you can harm your enemy with your death.. thus the waves of suicide bombers.

Do you seriously think they worry about any retaliation if they have a way to set off a nuke in Jerusalem or a US city?

Russia and North Korean leaders want to live. Iranian leaders.. not so much. Originally Posted by RedLeg505

I don't think they're as ready to die as you might think. They have missiles. If they were ready to die, they could easily start a holy war right now, even without nuclear weapons. I think Iran is like that guy that plays crazy so you will stay away from him.

PS thanks for the reasoned response. When treated with respect, I reply in kind.

I think Iran realizes what it would lose if it did use one. It would cease to exist. I think it wants to be a player in the region. Originally Posted by WombRaider

You think we'd retaliate against Iran if a nuke detonated somewhere? Seriously? Let's try this thought experiment.

Iran builds a nuke or two. They announce to the world that while being transported, unknown heavily armed bandits stuck the convoy and took one of the weapons and got away. Then.. the stolen nuke is smuggled aboard a tramp freighter in some other country so that they bypass any satellite surveillance of Iranian ports, and that unknown rust bucket tramp freighters sails into a US harbor.. say New York Harbor. Do you think the terrorists supported and paid by Iran couldn't find a willing "suicide bomber" that would be thrilled to have the "honor" of pushing the button to detonate the nuke in the harbor. What do you suppose the death count would be? How many millions? And since there's no ballistic missile track.. who would we retaliate against? Iran for "losing' the nuke? What action, if any would a US president..
especially Obama take against Iran if such a thing happened?

Do you seriously think such a thing could not POSSIBLY happen once Iran has nukes?