Republician letter to Iran empowers Iranian hardliners

[Tinark]

The letter is essentially providing advice to the Iranians, urging them to reject any deal offered by Obama's administration by declaring the deal unenforceable, thereby implying the US can't be trusted. That it is in their interests to reject the deal.

This is the view of the hardliners in Iran, that the US is untrustworthy and no deal should be made with a country that will break its agreements. The hardliners in Iran just gained much more legitimacy as a result of this letter. If the goal of the letter was to empower Iranian hardliners, mission accomplished. This is why what the Republicans did is borderline treasonous; these Iranian hardliners are our enemies, not our allies.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

The letter is essentially providing advice to the Iranians, urging them to reject any deal offered by Obama's administration by declaring the deal unenforceable, thereby implying the US B. Hussein Obama can't be trusted. That it is in their interests to reject the deal.

There, that's better.

 

[Buzzword]

The letter is essentially providing advice to the Iranians, urging them to reject any deal offered by Obama's administration by declaring the deal unenforceable, thereby implying the US can't be trusted. That it is in their interests to reject the deal.

This is the view of the hardliners in Iran, that the US is untrustworthy and no deal should be made with a country that will break its agreements. The hardliners in Iran just gained much more legitimacy as a result of this letter. If the goal of the letter was to empower Iranian hardliners, mission accomplished. This is why what the Republicans did is borderline treasonous; these Iranian hardliners are our enemies, not our allies.

Yep.
Especially given that Iran has a massive backlog of manipulation by Western powers, and foreigners in general over the last thousand years.

This most recently includes the deposition of the original royal family and the installation of Reza Shah and his oppressive line, which only an internal revolution could dispose of.
A revolution which of course was hijacked by the Muslim fundamentalist regime which has ruled ever since, and which maintains that the West (and anything and everything associated with it) is still just waiting to sweep in and take over again.

An idea which is only fortified by the Republicans who at this point are acting as if the President isn't even president anymore.

 

[kmoney]

I heard that some Republicans are now backtracking and apologizing for signing the letter. lain:

 

[kmoney]

"Ayatollah Khamenei Slams Republican Letter On Iran, Says U.S. Known For 'Backstabbing'"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/12/iran-republican-letter_n_6853878.html

DUBAI, March 12 (Reuters) - Iran's Supreme Leader hit out on Thursday at a letter by U.S. Republican senators threatening to undo any nuclear deal between Washington and Tehran, saying he was worried because the United States was known for "backstabbing," Mehr news agency reported.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei added at a meeting with President Hassan Rouhani and senior clerics that whenever negotiators made progress, the Americans became "harsher, tougher and coarser," Mehr reported.

The letter signed by 47 Republican senators warned Iran that any nuclear deal made with U.S. President Barack Obama could last only as long as he remained in office, in an unusual intervention into U.S. foreign policy-making.

Mehr quoted Khamenei as saying: "Of course I am worried, because the other side is known for opacity, deceit and backstabbing."

"Every time we reach a stage where the end of the negotiations is in sight, the tone of the other side, specifically the Americans, becomes harsher, coarser and tougher. This is the nature of their tricks and deceptions."

The negotiations, which resume in Lausanne, Switzerland, next week, are at a critical juncture as the sides try to meet an end of March target for an interim deal, with a final deal in June.

Khamenei added that U.S. accusations of Iranian involvement in terrorism were risible. Khamenei also criticized a speech to Congress by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu this month that warned the United States it was negotiating a bad deal with Iran that could spark a "nuclear nightmare."

"Iran’s leader: Fall of U.S. ‘political ethics’ highlighted by GOP letter"

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...d-by-gop-letter/ar-AA9GLAi?ocid=ansWashpost11

Iran’s supreme leader expressed concern Thursday that nuclear talks with the United States could face new hurdles, saying a letter of warning from Republican senators signaled a “collapse of political ethics” in Washington.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei suggested that internal divisions in Washington make Iranian negotiators question the U.S. ability to follow through with the current talks over ways to monitor and limit Tehran’s nuclear program.

“Isn’t this the ultimate degree of the collapse of political ethics and the U.S. system’s internal disintegration?” Khamenei was quoted by the official IRNA news agency in his first public statements since the GOP letter saying any possible accord could be undone unless it had congressional approval.

Way to go guys. :doh:


Not that anyone needed this letter to have doubts and mistrust about American politics.

 

[republicanchick]

The letter is essentially providing advice to the Iranians, urging them to reject any deal offered by Obama's administration by declaring the deal unenforceable, thereby implying the US can't be trusted. That it is in their interests to reject the deal.

This is the view of the hardliners in Iran, that the US is untrustworthy and no deal should be made with a country that will break its agreements. The hardliners in Iran just gained much more legitimacy as a result of this letter. If the goal of the letter was to empower Iranian hardliners, mission accomplished. This is why what the Republicans did is borderline treasonous; .

you Ds (libs) do not want to go there




_

 

[republicanchick]

I heard that some Republicans are now backtracking and apologizing for signing the letter. lain:

I totally fail to understand why they (the 47) did anything wrong

all they did was state facts...

everything the Rs do gets slammed while the Ds lie and connive and are corrupt and ... cheat on their spouses... use prostitutes

and ... no biggie...

they get a pass

(why? because we all know they are incapable of moral rectitude anyway?)


__

 

[kmoney]

I totally fail to understand why they (the 47) did anything wrong

all they did was state facts...

I don't know what all they said but it probably is true that Obama can make a deal now that future Congresses and Presidents could change. But it is undermining their President on the world stage and doesn't make the US look very good. But if their goal was to disrupt a deal being made they might be successful.

 

[oatmeal]

The letter is essentially providing advice to the Iranians, urging them to reject any deal offered by Obama's administration by declaring the deal unenforceable, thereby implying the US can't be trusted. That it is in their interests to reject the deal.

This is the view of the hardliners in Iran, that the US is untrustworthy and no deal should be made with a country that will break its agreements. The hardliners in Iran just gained much more legitimacy as a result of this letter. If the goal of the letter was to empower Iranian hardliners, mission accomplished. This is why what the Republicans did is borderline treasonous; these Iranian hardliners are our enemies, not our allies.

Wow, you are ignorant.

Obama does not have the Constitutional power.

No matter what Obama promises, without Senatorial advice and consent, it is null and void

 

[republicanchick]

I don't know what all they said but it probably is true that Obama can make a deal now that future Congresses and Presidents could change. But it is undermining their President on the world stage and doesn't make the US look very good. But if their goal was to disrupt a deal being made they might be successful.

it's probably a crappy deal... I know that sunset clause is..

why should anything change in 10 yrs?

what? we want them to have the bomb not now... that would be HORRIBLE

but in 10 years... what? go ahead and blow us to kingdom come... that will be just fine in 10 yrs... just not NOW for crying out loud...



:idunno:

 

[republicanchick]

Wow, you are ignorant.

Obama does not have the Constitutional power.

No matter what Obama promises, without Congressional approval, Obama's promises are empty.

the pres has the power to deal with foreign countries w/o congress...

maybe that should be changed, bu t that is the way it is right now

however, an actual TREATY does have to get Congressional approval... I'm 99.9% sure of that

 

[Tinark]

I don't know what all they said but it probably is true that Obama can make a deal now that future Congresses and Presidents could change. But it is undermining their President on the world stage and doesn't make the US look very good. But if their goal was to disrupt a deal being made they might be successful.

It wouldn't just be undermining the president, but it would undermine thousands of past agreements made in a similar manner and violate the norms of international diplomacy which have been established over the past two centuries. It would seriously damage our credibility for future agreements as well.

 

[Tinark]

Wow, you are ignorant.

Obama does not have the Constitutional power.

No matter what Obama promises, without Senatorial advice and consent, it is null and void

False, you are woefully ignorant of history and the thousands of past international agreements that the US has entered into in a similar manner without the need for senate approval, and never with the threat of breaking the agreement once the current president leaves office.

 

[kmoney]

it's probably a crappy deal... I know that sunset clause is..

why should anything change in 10 yrs?

what? we want them to have the bomb not now... that would be HORRIBLE

but in 10 years... what? go ahead and blow us to kingdom come... that will be just fine in 10 yrs... just not NOW for crying out loud...



:idunno:

What?

 

[One Ugly Christian]

Some of the below IS treason. Making deals with Russia to encourage them to keep thousands of nukes so you have a chance to beat Reagan like Ted Kennedy did in 84 is one. The article doesn't even touch on other things like how some, like Kerry, illegally met with the North Vietnamese in 1968 which led to the deaths of thousands of more Americans.

7 TIMES DEMOCRATS ADVISED AMERICA’S ENEMIES TO OPPOSE THE PRESIDENT
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/10/7-times-democrats-advised-americas-enemies-to-oppose-the-president/

If you liberals knew one thing about history you'd be scary.

 

[Tinark]

Some of the below IS treason. Making deals with Russia to encourage them to keep thousands of nukes so you have a chance to beat Reagan like Ted Kennedy did in 84 is one. The article doesn't even touch on other things like how some, like Kerry, illegally met with the North Vietnamese in 1968 which led to the deaths of thousands of more Americans.

7 TIMES DEMOCRATS ADVISED AMERICA’S ENEMIES TO OPPOSE THE PRESIDENT
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/10/7-times-democrats-advised-americas-enemies-to-oppose-the-president/

If you liberals knew one thing about history you'd be scary.

Do you understand the difference between providing a recommendation to a foreign government (freedom of speech, no?) and saying that we'll break any agreement formed?

 

[rocketman]

Wow, you are ignorant.

Obama does not have the Constitutional power.

No matter what Obama promises, without Senatorial advice and consent, it is null and void

He is not totally wrong, nor is anything erroneous in the letter that was given to the Iranians by the senate. This president can make a deal with the Iranians through executive fiat which is perfectly legal as long as he is in office, however any long term deal or treaty has to go through the senate with a 2/3rds majority vote. So, really this agreement is not a treaty at all, non binding, and totally bogus really. I suppose that the next president through fiat could continue this handshake agreement but, the only one that should be embarrassed here (and they are not) is the libtards in the senate that want to strike a deal with these terrorists to begin with.


The Constitution says thus:

"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.... ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 2

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/90/treaty-clause

 

[Tinark]

He is not totally wrong, nor is anything erroneous in the letter that was given to the Iranians by the senate. This president can make a deal with the Iranians through executive fiat which is perfectly legal as long as he is in office, however any long term deal or treaty has to go through the senate with a 2/3rds majority vote. So, really this agreement is not a treaty at all, non binding, and totally bogus really. I suppose that the next president through fiat could continue this handshake agreement but, the only one that should be embarrassed here (and they are not) is the libtards in the senate that want to strike a deal with these terrorists to begin with.


The Constitution says thus:

"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.... ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 2

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/90/treaty-clause

It is normal precedent to honor our international agreements provided the other side honors their side of the deal. It is unprecedented to openly declare that we might just break the agreement negotiated once a new president is in place. Openly declaring that we are not a trustworthy party to make agreements with.

And we are engaging in an international agreement with the cooperation of other countries as opposed to the conservotards who won't rest until every country in the middle east has been bombed and invaded by the US, bankrupting us in the process and leading to massive deaths and casualties a-la Iraq, and seriously freaking out Russia and China in the process, making WW III that much more likely. Brilliant plan conservotards, whose solution to every problem in the world is war and death.

 

[rocketman]

It is normal precedent to honor our international agreements provided the other side honors their side of the deal. It is unprecedented to openly declare that we might just break the agreement negotiated once a new president is in place. Openly declaring that we are not a trustworthy party to make agreements with.

It is also standard operating procedure and just good decorum to include the senate in any foreign policy deal, treaty, national agreement, whatever you want to call it. Obama just got what he has been dishing up to the Republicans for six years...a whole lot of egg on the face. Maybe, just maybe if Obama would include this senate in his policy decisions they can find some common ground but, as per usual emperor Obama went to spread his empirical wings and got shot down. I wonder if he will take this as a learning experience? :think: Nah...

And we are engaging in an international agreement with the cooperation of other countries as opposed to the conservotards who won't rest until every country in the middle east has been bombed and invaded by the US, bankrupting us in the process and leading to massive deaths and casualties a-la Iraq, and seriously freaking out Russia and China in the process, making WW III that much more likely. Brilliant plan conservotards, whose solution to every problem in the world is war and death.

Great rant but, we are not engaging in anything, Obama is as per usual trying to go it alone on something far too serious to not have some national dialogue on. Iran is the head of the snake, cannot be trusted, and has been the enemy of this country for decades since that rube Carter ousted the Shah. I do find it ironic how quickly libtards forget it was one of their own (Carter) that ousted the first petty dictator in the middle east not Bush ousting Saddam, and Iran has been nothing but, a terror state ever since. You want to deal with terrorists? Do you really think that they want any sort of peaceful deal with us? Do you believe that they are a people that will stand by their word? I think you are just as naive as Obama if you believe any of these things.

 

[One Ugly Christian]

Do you understand the difference between providing a recommendation to a foreign government (freedom of speech, no?) and saying that we'll break any agreement formed?

I figured you'd come up with something totally off the wall and so stupid it didn't deserve an answer.