Trump Pulls US Out Of Iran Deal

by that logic, America is a horrible ally

 

Well, I don't know if I agree totally with that description of the metaphor for the movie but you make some good point nonetheless!

 

Seems to me it's even more valid with nations than people. You very well probably do expect people who are friends to do stuff gratis, for friendship. but it's totally unreasonable with nations, where there could be factions that have been hostile to each other for millenia in nations that are overall the best of friends right now.

 

Possibly.....but we must consider own own country first....international relationships are not always perfect or logical!

 

The ISIS, what's that?

 

Can it?. Seems I recall somewhere that Congress has to ratify treaties, Doesn't that work both ways?

 

That is the goal of the USA GOP.
War. It's all they want to do.
They are at war with more than 1/2 America and most of the world.

 

oh you think they are gone huh?

LOL!!!!

 

Because not everyone is a uneducated tRUMPer.

 

Any deal in the ME is about controlling oil prices.
Some seek lower prices, some seek higher prices.

 

Another ridiculous and ignorant comment....laughable if it weren't so pathetic!

 

Treaties, yes, but this is technically not a treaty (domestically speaking). Behold:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...eof-in-the-iran-deal-explained/?noredirect=on

Pretty soon, Congress could have an up-or-down vote on President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran.

But don't let your lawmaker fool you: It's not written in stone that Congress has the right to approve or disapprove of major international negotiations. It's not even a law.

The dirty little secret of U.S. international negotiations is this: Exactly how our government approves of most of this stuff is decided on a case-by-case basis.

Depending on what the president calls a deal with another country -- is it a treaty? an executive agreement? -- and the political movement du jour, a deal like the one with Iran could need a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate to be approved or could slide by without any vote at all.

What's happening right now is somewhere in the middle.

Confused? We were too. So we called up professor Charles Stevenson, an American foreign policy expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, for clarification.

Here's what you need to know to really understand what's going on with Congress and Iran -- and all other future negotiations.

It's all in the name
Let's go back to ninth-grade civics class for a minute.

A treaty is basically a formal agreement between two countries -- it could be to limit nuclear weapons, it could establish the United Nations, it could agree to international space law. The list goes on.

The Constitution says the Senate must approve any treaty the president wants to sign by a two-thirds majority vote. (As was alerted to us, it's a common misconception the Senate ratifies treaties: According to official Senate rules, it approves or disapproves of ratification of a treaty. But we digress.)

The point is, getting 67 senators to agree on complex international negotiations is difficult. So in the 1930s, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt figured out a workaround: He simply wouldn't call his international negotiations treaties. There, problem solved. His "executive agreements" could now unilaterally be approved by him and only him.

"When is a treaty not a treaty?" Stevenson said. "When it's not called a treaty." Otherwise: "There's no other difference."

Naturally, other presidents picked up on this politically convenient avenue. According to some statistics, executive agreements are now signed in the United States more than treaties -- by a ratio of 10-to-1. (Also: In the eyes of international law, there's no difference between the two.)

"That's the way the presidents have been since at least FDR," Stevenson said. "If they think they can get away with it, they'll do an executive agreement."

In the 1960s, Congress caught on to this sly move and passed a law requiring presidents to notify the legislative branch of all executive actions signed. But that didn't really stop presidents from making treaties and calling them by another name. It just meant they had to give Congress notice.

...

 

I think Trump made a mistake. He split the coalition that is needed to pressure Iran. Now, Iran can sell its oil to China and live with U.S. sanctions.

 

But we should expect other countries to give us something for nothing?

 

I think that is what will happen.

Iran will continue to sell its oil to the rest of the planet Earth, and simply tell the USA to **** off.

 

I'm afraid so.

 

If it is such a blessing now for Iran, they could have easily and unilaterally rejected the accord earlier and sold oil where they wanted.....but it's not all that simple!

 

Someday, we're going to realize the President has TOOO much power.

 

Well, after the daily "death to America" rallies and pronouncements by the regime, I don't think telling the US to fvck off is very crippling!

 

I suppose you don't realize the bias in your perspective these words express. The 'deal' with Iran is flawed, there are plenty of intelligent people who realize this and many have been working hard to correct Obama's errors (Macron of France among them). In my view the fundamental mistake is in the presumption of "good faith", something that is naturally elicited in all bargaining by westerners, but apparently not evident in dealings by the Iranian regime. It could be a 'cultural' thing.

 

Yep, real pathetic. Iraq unprovoked.
And 15 yrs later, we still there. That is pathetic.

You know the tRUMPers hate everyone not a tRUMPER. You prove that one.
And there isn't an ally, that wants to deal with America.
We threaten trade war on the world. Did you miss that one pathetic part?

 

good, so the Iran deal wil stay alive and we will prevent Iran from making nukes.

thanks to the Iran deal that Trump says Iran is complying with

 

Of course not....and there's no cause to get silly now!

 

Which are the bounds of the "caliphate" today, and where is Abu Bakr?