Jump to content

The GOP Traitorous Letter to Iran


Pong Messiah
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think they shouldnt have sent the letter to Iran,rather they should have gone on national primetime tv and told the American people to get out a Constitution and read articles 1 and 2 and see where any treaty proposed by the president must be approved by Congress,unless Obama is calling these talks an "executive agreememt" which is not the same as an approved treaty.

 

If the Republicans want these talks to fail then try convincing we the people and not the idiots over in Iran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was different. 2002, 2007... it was a much different era.

 

George W. Bush was president.

I know - we are sooooo much smarter NOW - --- well too bad - it was a bad move to even open up talks with Iran - I mean do you REALLY think - deep down inside that Iran is going to give anything up --- they are working on their nukes now and no matter how many Chamberlain like agreements we can get them to agree to - the WILL break those agreements and continue that work. Looks like it is a little too late on that 'not doing anything stupid' policy !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

I don't know what people are getting worked up over this "agreement" Obama wants to make with Iran. Do I agree with Obama? NO! I think he is an idiot for even thinking he can negotiate with Iran, with regards to nuclear energy. But all this "agreement" will do is formalize the policies he is already enacting (or not) with Iran, anyway. This agreement, in reality, changes nothing. It's just words on a paper with no legal binding. It's just going to be a footnote in Obama's memoirs when he writes them after leaving office, and rewrites his legacy as being the Peacebringer. It's all about the dog and pony show for his legacy. So what. When the next president is in office, he or she will in no way be bound by this agreement so Obama's negotiations only affect his presidency, because, actually, the republicans are right on this single point: treaties must be ratified, and it is treaties that bind the US, not informal agreements like what Obama is doing. And like I said, Iran is going to do what they want, regardless what agreement Obama and Iran come to. So unless someone is proposing military action, it's really a moot point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what people are getting worked up over this "agreement" Obama wants to make with Iran. Do I agree with Obama? NO! I think he is an idiot for even thinking he can negotiate with Iran, with regards to nuclear energy. But all this "agreement" will do is formalize the policies he is already enacting (or not) with Iran, anyway. This agreement, in reality, changes nothing. It's just words on a paper with no legal binding. It's just going to be a footnote in Obama's memoirs when he writes them after leaving office, and rewrites his legacy as being the Peacebringer. It's all about the dog and pony show for his legacy. So what. When the next president is in office, he or she will in no way be bound by this agreement so Obama's negotiations only affect his presidency, because, actually, the republicans are right on this single point: treaties must be ratified, and it is treaties that bind the US, not informal agreements like what Obama is doing. And like I said, Iran is going to do what they want, regardless what agreement Obama and Iran come to. So unless someone is proposing military action, it's really a moot point.

This.

 

However, I believe it does a little bit more than provide "the dog and pony show" and want to add to this. The 2016 presidential election is critical for the dems, so I think it's an attempt to put a last-minute feather in the cap of the entire party for the sake of optics. I think the republican congress reacted to this without seeing it's true purpose, and they blew the whistle on it...and they fell into the little gambit. The dems were hoping the reps might overreact and they did. Now the dems have their little story labeling the reps "traitors" undermining the president, getting egg on their face, and giving voters something to remember.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was Iran....I mean...I would totally want nuclear weapons. We meddled with their nation up until their revolution, we meddled with the Iran-Iraq war, and we've occupied the country on their east and west borders. You know....we're just not going to be friends with them. You can't do all that and then say "Love conquers all."

 

It's definitely not in our best interests to let them have nuclear weapons. One perk is that instead of two disjointed quagmires we could link them up in the middle for one big quagmire ranging from Iraq to Afghanistan. That seems to be our options: let them have nukes or start another middle eastern quagmire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.