It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama will be the only person sticking to Iran deal

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Insanity. If you want to see Obama's biggest failure, here it is.

nypost.com...



“The structures of sanctions built over decades is crumbling,” boasts Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. Meanwhile, the nuclear project is and shall remain “fully intact,” says the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Agency, Ali Akbar Salehi.

“We have started working on a process of nuclear fusion that will be cutting-edge technology for the next 50 years,” he adds.

“Obama won’t do anything that might jeopardize the deal,” says Ziba Kalam, a Rouhani adviser. “This is his biggest, if not the only, foreign policy success.”

If there have been changes in Tehran’s behavior they have been for the worst. Iran has teamed up with Russia to keep Bashar al-Assad in power in Syria, mocking Obama’s “Assad must go” rhetoric. More importantly, Iran has built its direct military presence in Syria to 7,000 men. (One of Iran’s most senior generals was killed in Aleppo on Wednesday.)






Sometime this week, President Obama is scheduled to sign an executive order to meet the Oct. 15 “adoption day” he has set for the nuclear deal he says he has made with Iran. According to the president’s timetable the next step would be “the start day of implementation,” fixed for Dec. 15.

But as things now stand, Obama may end up being the only person in the world to sign his much-wanted deal, in effect making a treaty with himself.

The Iranians have signed nothing and have no plans for doing so. The so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has not even been discussed at the Islamic Republic’s Council of Ministers. Nor has the Tehran government bothered to even provide an official Persian translation of the 159-page text.

The Islamic Majlis, the ersatz parliament, is examining an unofficial text and is due to express its views at an unspecified date in a document “running into more than 1,000 pages,” according to Mohsen Zakani, who heads the “examining committee.”

“The changes we seek would require substantial rewriting of the text,” he adds enigmatically.

Nor have Britain, China, Germany, France and Russia, who were involved in the so-called P5+1 talks that produced the JCPOA, deemed it necessary to provide the Obama “deal” with any legal basis of their own. Obama’s partners have simply decided that the deal he is promoting is really about lifting sanctions against Iran and nothing else.





posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Sometime this week, President Obama is scheduled to sign an executive order to meet the Oct. 15 “adoption day” he has set for the nuclear deal he says he has made with Iran. According to the president’s timetable the next step would be “the start day of implementation,” fixed for Dec. 15.


Which is a TOTAL violation of the US constitution.




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....


Treaty Clause

If Obama had congressional approval there would be NO NEED for the 'executive order'.

edit on 11-10-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   
If I'm not mistaken, the proposed EO would only lift some sanctions, which he does have the power to do. He cannot enter in to a treaty without congressional approval, but he can lift sanctions.

From what I've read on this it's an act of good faith until a treaty can be approved.
edit on 11-10-2015 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

If I remember correctly Osama Obama has stated he doesn't have to go by the US constitution.
Or maybe he said it was invalid I don't recall which. Doesn't matter ,He believes he is above the US constitution.



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   
There are legal issues with the agreement since it point blank violates a law passed by Congress and signed by Obama which he reiterated would not be negated by this agreement.

Basically, it gives foreign business interests owned by American companies the power to do business in Iran without any repercussions, but the previous law in question cannot be overturned/is NOT overturned in this agreement because it's not addressed in any way and makes such actions illegal for these same entities.
edit on 11-10-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 04:49 PM
link   
How many terrorist groups will the Iranians be able to finance with all that released money? How much will go to Russia for brand new tanks and aircraft? missiles? ammunition? spare parts? Electronics?



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: pikestaff

Ya pretty easy to beg the question. But when you ask it like that the answer could be the exact opposite of what you are getting at. We don't know what they are going to do with the money but it was a better then trying to act like the sanctions worked and we saw an actual dilomatic route taken for once.



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80
Hypothetical : Your neighbor keeps coming into your yard pulling up shrubs , flowers , whatever. You put up a fence to attempt to keep him or her out.This person then just climbs the fence to do the evil deed. DO you take down the fence completely thus giving them free access again ? Or build on whats there ?


edit on 11-10-2015 by Gothmog because: well , spell



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Lets talk in actual context not hypothetical.

If all the discussion is going to consist of is begging the question and hypothetical then it doesn't really accomplish much.



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 08:42 PM
link   
The president wants to lift sanctions and get absolutely nothing out of the deal, same thing with Cuba.
I can see plenty of nuclear waste ending up in the hands of dirty bomb making terrorist groups.
Nothing good will come from this deal



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
The president wants to lift sanctions and get absolutely nothing out of the deal, same thing with Cuba.
I can see plenty of nuclear waste ending up in the hands of dirty bomb making terrorist groups.
Nothing good will come from this deal


What do we get out of the sanctions if they were in place? Iran doesn't get a nuke? There is no evidence to suggest they were trying to build one in the first place.

THe best thing to do is to lift sanctions, sing an agreement and be diplomatic, not confrontational.
edit on 11-10-2015 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Gothmog

Lets talk in actual context not hypothetical.

If all the discussion is going to consist of is begging the question and hypothetical then it doesn't really accomplish much.

Oh, yeah . Sorry , I forgot. Thanks for pointing that out. Not everyone understands logic.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Bluntone22
The president wants to lift sanctions and get absolutely nothing out of the deal, same thing with Cuba.
I can see plenty of nuclear waste ending up in the hands of dirty bomb making terrorist groups.
Nothing good will come from this deal


What do we get out of the sanctions if they were in place? Iran doesn't get a nuke? There is no evidence to suggest they were trying to build one in the first place.

THe best thing to do is to lift sanctions, sing an agreement and be diplomatic, not confrontational.


Us should stop operation Olympic games and Iran should stop retaliating where we turn around and blame China or Korea for it if we don't want to be confrontational...just a thought.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 08:20 AM
link   
I think Obama is just a coward. If he were a real man he would be sending nukes to all of our enemies.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 08:21 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Diplomatic?? Where is the body count in that?!



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96



Which is a TOTAL violation of the US constitution.

No it does not violate the Constitution. Here are two reasons why it doesn't violate it.


First, the terms of the agreement, which describe its obligations as “voluntary”, indicate that it is a nonbinding “political commitment”. Even the UN Security Council Resolution which supposedly enshrined the JCPOA into international law leaves some wiggle room for the U.S. allowing it to refuse to lift sanctions on Iran without violating the SC Resolution.



Second, the JCPOA does not have to be submitted as a treaty because it doesn’t require the U.S. to change its domestic laws or even to change any domestic policy that is not already within the President’s constitutional or delegated statutory powers. Crucially, the President has delegated authority under the various sanctions statutes to waive or lift those sanctions without getting further congressional approval. That is by far the most important U.S. obligation under the JCPOA. The idea of giving the president these powers to lift sanctions implies that he will seek out certain changes in behavior by the sanctioned governments and then use those promised changes (by say Iran, or in the recent past Burma) as a basis to lift the sanctions.

Why the Iran Deal is Constitutional, But Could Still End Up in U.S. Court
Besides if this agreement did violate the Constitution then we have thousands of similar agreements that also violate the Constitution.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Sremmos80
Hypothetical : Your neighbor keeps coming into your yard pulling up shrubs , flowers , whatever. You put up a fence to attempt to keep him or her out.This person then just climbs the fence to do the evil deed. DO you take down the fence completely thus giving them free access again ? Or build on whats there ?


Rather useless question. Iran wasn't doing anything to it's neighbor so why was a fence needed in the first place?



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Sremmos80
Hypothetical : Your neighbor keeps coming into your yard pulling up shrubs , flowers , whatever. You put up a fence to attempt to keep him or her out.This person then just climbs the fence to do the evil deed. DO you take down the fence completely thus giving them free access again ? Or build on whats there ?


Rather useless question. Iran wasn't doing anything to it's neighbor so why was a fence needed in the first place?

Try neighbors . It would be plural for what Iran was doing to its neighbors.....
Try funding and supplying terrorists all over the Middle East. Thanks for playing the game.But do hang around , you do bring much amusement for me during my time on ATS.
edit on 12-10-2015 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker



Insanity. If you want to see Obama's biggest failure, here it is.

So a deal that gets Iran to scale back on it's nuclear program allows inspections and not develop weapons. Yeah that's a real big failure.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Sremmos80
Hypothetical : Your neighbor keeps coming into your yard pulling up shrubs , flowers , whatever. You put up a fence to attempt to keep him or her out.This person then just climbs the fence to do the evil deed. DO you take down the fence completely thus giving them free access again ? Or build on whats there ?


Rather useless question. Iran wasn't doing anything to it's neighbor so why was a fence needed in the first place?

Try neighbors . It would be plural for what Iran was doing to its neighbors.....
Try funding and supplying terrorists all over the Middle East. Thanks for playing the game.

The supposed "terrorists" they are funding are defending themselves from a hostile nation. Not to mention that hostile nation provides aid to Al-Qaeda and ISIS. Thanks for playing.




top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join