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.

 

State Department: Iran NEVER SIGNED nuclear deal not 'legally binding' - tells Congress butt out

page: 3
39
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2018 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Carcharadon




Why do you want Iran to nuke Israel? See, I can ask stupid questions too.
I am sure they don't have Nukes because if they did then you would have to ask why a country or any country for that matter would be willing to go to war with them . I mean like isn't the main purpose of having them is to be a deterrent .I sometimes get a feeling that both Iran and Israel are actually on the same side and are playing the whole world .


That is what reasonable countries do, unless used as a last ditch effort to prevent millions of casualties throughout the world (to get ahead of WWII apologists before they start). Iran, however, is led by a theocracy whose religious doctrine is hate and death for everyone in the world who does not follow the Quran as they interpret it. When or if Iran has/gets nukes, all bets are off for the human species that currently populates our planet.

To be clear, these comments are not meant to disparage the freedom loving people of Iran, but their hateful religious leaders.




posted on May, 10 2018 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


I'm saying that saying that the JCPOA wasn't "signed", and is therefore "illegal", is as lame as saying that the Stormy Daniels NDA wasn't signed by David Dennison.

This idea that the JCPOA is somehow illegal comes right out of someone's arse! Trump lies to the American people, on average, 9 times a day, and then his surrogates parrot and elaborate on his, and other's lies.

I find it "coincidental" that after months and years of Trump complaining about the Iran deal and how it's not being a good deal for the US, only this week, days before his announcement to violate the agreement, does this theory of some lack of signatures, give him pause and motivation to break the US policy/agreement.

Funny also, how Russia, China, Germany, France and the UK, et al, were also hoodwinked by the signature snafu too! How could they have missed that! Shaking my head.....



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Review the constitutional requirements for creating a treaty, then get back to me.

Its lack of signature isn't what makes it illegal. The fact that it wasn't voted on and approved by the legislature makes it unlawful. Had it been signed prior to this vote, it likely would then be illegal.

As it stands, there was no agreement. We were just told there was, and the documentation for the agreement was drafted. But no one took the legal steps to actually make it anything more than just that. Because the constitution was not adhered to.

If you feel better choking that pill down with a glass of "but Trump lies", then fine. But the facts are the facts.



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

It's not illegal, it's a nothing. If it's not signed it's not a real agreement.



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Sookiechacha

It's not illegal, it's a nothing. If it's not signed it's not a real agreement.


So, Stormy Daniels IS free to talk about her affair with Trump!



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan




Its lack of signature isn't what makes it illegal.


That's what the OP is alleging. The thread's title State Department: Iran NEVER SIGNED nuclear deal not 'legally binding'

Breaking news? Huge revelation?



As it stands, there was no agreement.


Iran disagrees, So does France, Germany and the UK. Russia is pleased as #, because they're going to make a killing off Trump's violation! China too, I would imagine, as Iran seeks out alternative currency.


edit on 10-5-2018 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Review the constitutional requirements for creating a treaty, then get back to me.
It was never claimed to be a treaty.



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Review the constitutional requirements for creating a treaty, then get back to me.
It was never claimed to be a treaty.


If it isn't a treaty, what is the lawful support behind it?



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan




Its lack of signature isn't what makes it illegal.


That's what the OP is alleging. The thread's title State Department: Iran NEVER SIGNED nuclear deal not 'legally binding'

Breaking news? Huge revelation?



As it stands, there was no agreement.


Iran disagrees, So does France and the UK. Russia is pleased as #, because they're going to make a killing off Trump's violation! China too, I would imagine, as Iran seeks out alternative currency.



"Not legally binding" is not a synonym for "illegal".

The Iranian government disagrees. The rest of the region, including the Iranian people...not so much.



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

About the same as with the Paris Accord.

It's an agreement. As has been pointed out. An agreement which all parties had been adhering to. We used to agree to withhold sanctions as long as Iran stayed within the bounds of the agreement. They were. We didn't.

An agreement called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. See? Not called a treaty. By anyone who understands what it is.

edit on 5/10/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/10/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SlowNail

I wonder why, if this was such a deep dark secret, it did not feature prominently in Trump's "reasoning" for bailing. Did not his Secretary of State fully inform him?


Likely not...Tillerson it turns out was more of a Democrat than a Republican, with Democrat and deep state policy ideas...That's why Trump dumped him...



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Iscool

You know there's a new Secretary, right? He happens to be the guy to whom it was "revealed" that the agreement has no signatures.

edit on 5/10/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Without it being ratified, what expectation would anyone have that policy changes in the executive branch wouldn't negate that agreement?

Especially when the guy voted into office ran on a platform of "We have entered into terrible agreements with other nations and Im going to renegotiate them all"?



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan




Without it being ratified, what expectation would anyone have that policy changes in the executive branch wouldn't negate that agreement?
The reputation that the word of the United States (and the other parties) is good?

So much for that.

edit on 5/10/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan




Without it being ratified, what expectation would anyone have that policy changes in the executive branch wouldn't negate that agreement?
The reputation that the word of the United States (and the other parties) is good?

So much for that.


Is that the only thing that matters?

What if the deal pushed out doesn't represent the values of the voters? What if the agreement has large holes in it? What if its wholly unenforceable?

Reputation does matter. But so do several other things. Sitting in a burning home but having a good reputation is little solace.



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

What if the deal pushed out doesn't represent the values of the voters? What if the agreement has large holes in it? What if its wholly unenforceable?


1) Which voters?

2) Some agreements do. As do some treaties. And yet, they work.


3) This one is entirely enforceable. They don't live up to their part of the agreement, sanctions come back. But you see what's happened, the other parties have not reimposed sanctions. Only the US. Now what?



Sitting in a burning home but having a good reputation is little solace.
If Iran had violated its part in the agreement, all of the parties would have taken action. That's the point of a multilateral agreement.

edit on 5/10/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

What if the deal pushed out doesn't represent the values of the voters? What if the agreement has large holes in it? What if its wholly unenforceable?


1) Which voters?


The ones who elected the current POTUS. Thats how it works: we elect a president to represent us, and when he wins he pursues his platform, which is what gained enough voter approval to win.



2) Some agreements do. As do some treaties. And yet, they work.


"Work" is a relative term, and in no way should be applied as a blanket. We could go on and on for days regarding policies and agreements that were flat out disastrous for the US. That aside, the current president was pretty clear that this is what he intended to do while running for office, and its what got him elected.



3) This one is entirely enforceable. They don't live up to their part of the agreement, sanctions come back. But you see what's happened, the other parties have not reimposed sanctions. Only the US. Now what?


Those parties are welcome to pursue their own negotiations. I'd say that another big part of what got Trump elected was the desire of his voters to quite handwringing over Europe, and begin looking out for our own best interests.


Sitting in a burning home but having a good reputation is little solace.
If Iran had violated its part in the agreement, all of the parties would have taken action. That's the point of the agreement.



Or if the agreement had not expired. Simply put: the prior administration rushed this through at the last minute of their time in office. Had they spent more time on it, perhaps they could have gotten more buy in and support from Congress. Instead, they (again) ruled by executive action....and that action expired.



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


The ones who elected the current POTUS.
And forget about those who didn't vote for him (quite a few). Got it.



Simply put: the prior administration rushed this through at the last minute of their time in office.
It was not "rushed through."

August 6, 2013: Three days after his inauguration, Iran's President Hasan Rouhani calls for the resumption of serious negotiations with the P5+1 on Iran's nuclear program.
www.armscontrol.org...


Or if the agreement had not expired.
When do you think the agreement would expire?

 


Had they spent more time on it, perhaps they could have gotten more buy in and support from Congress.


Iran Nuclear Deal Review Act was passed in May of 2015.
www.congress.gov...


July 19, 2015: The Obama administration sends the comprehensive deal and supporting documents to Congress, beginning the 60 day review period mandated by the Iran Nuclear Deal Review Act.


September 2, 2015: The 34th Senator announces support for the nuclear deal with Iran, meaning that Congress will not have the support to override a presidential veto on a resolution disapproving of the deal.

September 8, 2015: Four additional Senators announce that they will support the nuclear deal with Iran, bringing the total number to 42. This important milestone will prevent the Senate from reaching the 60 vote threshold required for ending debate and moving to vote on a resolution of disapproval.

September 9, 2015: The IAEA announces that is submitted follow-up questions to Iran based on the information provided by Iran on Aug. 15. The IAEA is ahead of its Sept. 15 deadline to submit the questions.

September 10, 2015: A vote to end debate and move to vote on a resolution of disapproval fails to reach the required 60 votes on the Senate floor. The measure fails 58-42. Four democrats joined the 54 Republicans in favor of moving to vote on the resolution of disaproval. Similar votes fail on Sept. 15 and Sept. 17.

September 11, 2015: A vote on a resolution of approval fails in the House of Representatives, 269-162, with 25 Democrats voting joining the Republicans in voting against the measure.

September 17, 2015: The congressional review period ends without passage of a resolution of approval or a resolution of disapproval.

www.armscontrol.org...



Procedures for an Executive Agreement were followed. Congress could have killed it, but didn't.

edit on 5/10/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Carcharadon

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
Why do Trump supporters want war with Iran?


Why do you want Iran to nuke Israel?

See, I can ask stupid questions too.


Well fact of the matter is it is much more likely for Israel to nuke Iran because only Israel has nukes.



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Pyle

Thats an opinion not sharef by all



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join