Nuclear deal with Iran

[D_Anconia]

@Ravenman

I didn’t click on the link.

Then why are you posting to this thread?

[Johnny_Ace]

@HurricaneDitka

I’m truly mystified how you got anything related to “collusion” out of that.

Not the collusion, the excuse. Well, it really wasn’t legally a treaty, so its’s OK.

Tell that to our allies.

[Ravenman]

@D_Anconia

Then why are you posting to this thread?

Because it doesn’t take much work to make your posts look silly.

[k9bfriender]

@HurricaneDitka

You didn’t quote anyone, so it’s a bit of guesswork as to who this post might be directed at. When you say things like “So it’s absolutely false to say …”, it might be helpful to clarify who / where that was actually said.

Personally, I don’t believe anyone claimed that Obama did ignore Congress. The closest anyone got (that I can find) was this post by me:

As I said before, finagling things so that it requires a super-majority to cancel a non-binding political commitment by the president is not as lasting an arrangement as actually building a coalition capable of getting a super-majority in Congress to approve a political commitment by the president that could then take the form of a treaty or legislation. “It was just colossally stupid” for the Iranians or Obama or the Europeans to expect that the non-binding political commitment they made with Obama would last much past the end of his administration. That’s one of the limitations of “pen and phone” diplomacy.

Does this mean that if trump manages to make some sort of deal with NK, if it is not ratified by the senate, then it would be “colossally stupid” for the North Koreans to expect the commitment to last past the end of his administration?

Should they not be negotiating with trump, but with mitch mcconnell?

[D_Anconia]

@Ravenman

Because it doesn’t take much work to make your posts look silly.

You’re completely wrong. Why would a President negotiate with a country that threatens to destroy two Israeli cities, and shouts “Death to America” on a regular basis, including in their own parliament???

[iiandyiiii]

@D_Anconia

You’re completely wrong. Why would a President negotiate with a country that threatens to destroy two Israeli cities, and shouts “Death to America” on a regular basis, including in their own parliament???

To try to reduce the chance they get nuclear weapons. If you want them to have a better chance at nukes, do what Trump is doing. If you want to push our European allies to be more sympathetic with Iran, do what Trump is doing. If you want to help the hardliners in Iran who said the US couldn’t be trusted, do what Trump is doing. If you want to make the US look weak and stupid, do what Trump is doing.

[QuickSilver]

@D_Anconia

You’re completely wrong. Why would a President negotiate with a country that threatens to destroy two Israeli cities, and shouts “Death to America” on a regular basis, including in their own parliament???

Are you against Trump meeting with the leader of a country (with actual nuclear weapons) that has a long history of threatening to destroy the Unites States, for the same reason as above?

[Ravenman]

@D_Anconia

You’re completely wrong. Why would a President negotiate with a country that threatens to destroy two Israeli cities, and shouts “Death to America” on a regular basis, including in their own parliament???

Why would North Korea negotiate with a nut who threatens to nuke their whole country???

(Gasp)

???

(Pfew)

[D_Anconia]

That’s at least one thing President Bush got right. You don’t negotiate with terrorists. Israel has the same policy.

[iiandyiiii]

@D_Anconia

That’s at least one thing President Bush got right. You don’t negotiate with terrorists. Israel has the same policy.

The US has always negotiated with terrorists, no matter what presidents say. Nearly every administration, if not every last one, in the last few decades, has done so.

But by all means, you and Trump make Iran more likely to get nukes, and make America weaker, if sticking to principles is so important to you.

[Ravenman]

@D_Anconia

That’s at least one thing President Bush got right. You don’t negotiate with terrorists. Israel has the same policy.

So on a scale of 1-10, when it comes to the NRA’s appointment of Oliver North, who illegally sold weapons to the Iranians, I can put you down as what… an 11?

[D_Anconia]

@Ravenman

So on a scale of 1-10, when it comes to the NRA’s appointment of Oliver North, who illegally sold weapons to the Iranians, I can put you down as what… an 11?

The NRA is a private organization. How is it any of your business whom they appoint?

[Ravenman]

@D_Anconia

The NRA is a private organization. How is it any of your business whom they appoint?

Well, you’re so opposed to talking to Iranians, so I figured you’d have a big problem with someone who conspired with Israel to sell arms to Iranians, not all that long after the Iranian-sponsored attack on the Beirut barracks.

But I guess it’s okay when a Republican does it. Right?

Also, are you implicitly asserting that Kim Jong Un has his hands clean from terrorism?

[D_Anconia]

Why on earth should we talk to people who routinely shout “Death to America”?

[iiandyiiii]

@D_Anconia

Why on earth should we talk to people who routinely shout “Death to America”?

Again, to try and lessen the likelihood that they get nuclear weapons. Is that not obvious? If you want to help make it easier for them to get nukes, and weaken America, then Trump is doing the right thing.

[Ravenman]

@D_Anconia

Why on earth should we talk to people who routinely shout “Death to America”?

What, you think that catchphrase was invented after Reagan sold weapons to them?

And what do you think they say in North Korea?

Talking only to friends is stupid policy. It’s your enemies you need to talk to. And talking doesn’t mean surrendering.

[k9bfriender]

@iiandyiiii

The US has always negotiated with terrorists, no matter what presidents say. Nearly every administration, if not every last one, in the last few decades, has done so.

But by all means, you and Trump make Iran more likely to get nukes, and make America weaker, if sticking to principles is so important to you.

To be fair, the path that trump is on and his supporters are bragging about is not a path where Iran gets nukes, well not nukes of it’s own, anyway.

The path that trump is putting us on is a path where we go to war with Iran to prevent them from getting nukes.

The reason that war is preferable to diplomacy escapes me, maybe those supporting trump’s actions in this thread can enlighten.

[elucidator]

Did you fail to notice Reagan’s spectacular victory in Grenada, when we humbled the mighty Cuban Bulldozer Commando juggernaut? Did you not see John Wayne’s enlightening documentary The Green Berets, who could forget? (Well. maybe George Takei would like to forget…)

[D_Anconia]

@iiandyiiii

Again, to try and lessen the likelihood that they get nuclear weapons. Is that not obvious? If you want to help make it easier for them to get nukes, and weaken America, then Trump is doing the right thing.

Have you ever seen or heard of Americans shouting “Death to Iran”, “Death to China”, or “Death to Russia”? :dubious:

[iiandyiiii]

@D_Anconia

Have you ever seen or heard of Americans shouting “Death to Iran”, “Death to China”, or “Death to Russia”? :dubious:

Huh? What does this have to do with anything? If you don’t want to reduce the chances of Iran getting a nuclear weapon, that’s your affair. But you asked a question, and I answered – we engaged in diplomacy to try and reduce the chances of Iran acquiring nukes, and it was working, and Trump made a decision to increase Iran’s chances of getting nukes, anger our European allies, weaken America, with nothing gained in return.