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

originally posted by: Phage
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.

What? What kind of absurdity is this?

Is it causing that much cognitove dissonance that a candidate does what he campaigns on?

Im glad you got it. At your age id assume youd have gotten ot years ago.

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.

When was it set to expire?

Righting Obama’s wrongs is going to take some time.

Good thing Trump will see a 2nd term!

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Im glad you got it. At your age id assume youd have gotten ot years ago.

No need for insults.

When was it set to expire?

You don't know? I'm shocked. I thought someone with such strong opinions would be better informed.

Which part? For some of it there is no expiration.

a reply to: Phage

Not insulting man. Ive no idea your age. Otherthan youre obviously an adult.

I think it has reached the expiration date.

Trump never signed the deal with Stormy yet everyone here says it was valid because money changed hands.

Iran never signed and also received money. Why one is bad and not the other?

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
Trump never signed the deal with Stormy yet everyone here says it was valid because money changed hands.

Iran never signed and also received money. Why one is bad and not the other?

It was signed by Trumps legal representative so nice try.

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
Trump never signed the deal with Stormy yet everyone here says it was valid because money changed hands.

Iran never signed and also received money. Why one is bad and not the other?

Trump's representative signed it, so now just show me who signed the Iran deal and who do they represent. Good luck.

originally posted by: Pyle

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.

Awesome and who would be more likely once both do?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Pyle

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.

Awesome and who would be more likely once both do?

Neither, just as the rest of the countries with nukes haven't used them on their rivals and enemies since Japan.

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Pyle

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.

Awesome and who would be more likely once both do?

Neither, just as the rest of the countries with nukes haven't used them on their rivals and enemies since Japan.

Then Japan should not have struck the US. Secondly Germany and Japan both had nuclear weapons programs. Are you suggesting that if either one of them obtained nukes first they would not have used them?

The same holds for Iran. Israel is not denouncing Iran on a daily basis threatening to wipe them off the map. Iran cant make the same claim with regards to Israel.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Wasn't North Korea threatening to nuke the US?
Now we make nice with Kim to make an agreement, but bail on an existing agreement with Iran?

Kim has nukes. Iran doesn't. Is that the difference?

a reply to: Phage

Made nice? We came close to attacking N. Korea and Un backed down at the last minute.

If you are going to make comparisons get your facts right.

As for Iran the agreement was bull #. It prevented inspections of military facilities. It prevented snap inspections (minimum of 24 hours notice required). Iran did their own inspections with no outside confirmation.

Kim's nukes arent deliverable.

a reply to: Xcathdra

We came close to attacking N. Korea and Un backed down at the last minute.

No. Kim got what he wanted. Nukes. That brought the US to the table as his equal, in his eyes. He got a meeting with the Leader of the Free World, as an equal. That's a big deal. (Of course, a conventional war would have been problematic for the US as well.)

It prevented inspections of military facilities. It prevented snap inspections (minimum of 24 hours notice required).

Sort of. But it takes more than that to produce nuclear weapons. Does bailing on the agreement change that?

Kim's nukes arent deliverable.

Source?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Kim's nukes arent deliverable.

Put one on a tramp steamer and park it in a harbor of your choice. That is what strategists are afraid of.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Xcathdra

Kim's nukes arent deliverable.

Put one on a tramp steamer and park it in a harbor of your choice. That is what strategists are afraid of.

You are another slow one, put in on a boat and park in a harbor?

What are you saying?

Do you have a link to these strategists?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Is it causing that much cognitove dissonance that a candidate does what he campaigns on?

Doing what he campaigned on is a good thing unless the thing he campaigned on is a bad thing , walking away from a deal that was being adhered to is a bad thing and really makes no sense.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Is it causing that much cognitove dissonance that a candidate does what he campaigns on?

Doing what he campaigned on is a good thing unless the thing he campaigned on is a bad thing , walking away from a deal that was being adhered to is a bad thing and really makes no sense.

But no one signed the "deal", and it wasn't presented to the Senate, so how is it a deal?

a reply to: BrennanHuff

But no one signed the "deal", and it wasn't presented to the Senate, so how is it a deal?

Regardless the deal was being adhered to so it was a deal.
What point walking away ?

a reply to: BrennanHuff

Nuclear warheads can fit in a shipping container and be delivered to busy ports. Worst case scenario is one (or more) could pass through port authorities and travel by rail or truck to a busy population centre.

Security is tight as hell regarding nuclear materials so it wouldn't be an easy thing to accomplish. On the other hand, tons of drugs and weapons manage to move through Europe and the Americas without detection so it remains a risk.

The plans themselves have been around since the early 1950s. Back then they also considered the risk of light aircraft being used to drop nukes on Western European targets. Even though the non-proliferation treaty looks incredibly lop-sided and in favour of a very elite group, it's main aim is to reduce the possibilities of any of us being hit by nukes from rogue States/actors.