Community >> View Post
·
Post By
Sumidor

Member Since: Sat Feb 25, 2017
In Reply To
bd2999 
Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Subj: Re: Good points...
Posted: Sun May 13, 2018 at 02:49:12 pm CDT (Viewed 709 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Good points...
Posted: Fri May 11, 2018 at 09:25:27 am CDT (Viewed 750 times)



    Quote:
    Were the reasons for it clearly explained, was there a reason for it? Obama stated the reasons in quotes at the time about the reasons they were going for it.



    Quote:
    It also was to get Russia onboard to help with Iran. So counter initiatives were in place.



    Quote:
    At present, what Trump is doing is pulling out, planning to punish allies for working with Iran and try to make Iran come back to the bargining table. And hoping they just give in and give whatever the US wants. Ignoring that we broke our word on this, not them.


But the US did not break it's word. To think it did is to completely misunderstand the difference between an executive agreement and a treaty. An executive agreement is only in place as long as the current executive wishes it to be so. There is no expectation otherwise. Iran knew full well what Obama was saying was not binding, and could absolutely be reversed at any time for any reason. There is no promise here to be broken.


    Quote:
    So, it is quite different. It is also different in that what happened with Poland was unilateral. Not even all of Europe thought it was a good idea at the time. It may mnot be in good form for appearances or anything but it is different than pulling out of an international agreement that you brokered that the other side did not do anything to violate.


What 3rd parties think of an agreement formed between two sovereign nations is irrelevant.

Although I have been accused of ignoring context throughout this discussion, I think you are ignoring (or are ignorant of) the differences between an executive agreement and a treaty. One of those should have the expectation of being in existence only as long as the current executive is in office. The other is legally binding.

Let me ask you a question. Not a rhetorical question, and actual question is which one expects and an answer to. Do you think it is a good idea for the President to have authority to enter into legally binding treaties with other nations? Is that the power you would prefer to have in the hands of one individual rather than have it reside within congress?




Posted with Google Chrome 66.0.3359.139 on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software