Community >> View Post
·
Post By
Sumidor

Member Since: Sat Feb 25, 2017
In Reply To
zvelf

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Subj: Re: US out of the Iran nuclear deal
Posted: Sun May 13, 2018 at 06:46:23 pm CDT (Viewed 509 times)
Reply Subj: Re: US out of the Iran nuclear deal
Posted: Fri May 11, 2018 at 08:32:32 am CDT (Viewed 827 times)



    Quote:

      Quote:
      So my first point is...you feel strongly that Trump exiting an executive agreement made between the previous president and a foreign nation makes it clear that US agreements are worthless. If that's so, then why would a perception of trust exist to begin with after Obama exited the executive agreements Bush made with foreign nations? I'm not attacking Obama, I'm attacking your argument. There is no trust to shatter if the same trust-shattering actions have been on display by previous administrations.



    Quote:
    Because the Obama administration very clearly explained its rationale and what would replace this missile defense system:



    Quote:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/opinion/20gates.html



    Quote:
    Trump makes up a bunch of lies about the Iran deal and doesn't say how a deal that has passed 10 inspections and would prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons for at least 10 years is worse than breaking the deal such that Iran could potentially get a nuclear weapon in 1 year. This is at the very same time, it's trying to negotiate a nuclear weapons deal with North Korea. The Europe deal is very different in scope, kind, and context.


Similar to what I have said in other posts in this thread, it is important to consider that someone who disagrees with you has valid reasons for their belief. I do understand your concerns. You think the deal was working to prevent Iran from further developing nuclear weapons. You think without the deal, Iran is free to get a nuclear bomb quicker. It's a valid concern. But the other side to the argument is more than simply "Trump makes up a bunch of lies". There are concerns, equally valid to yours, that Iran will continue to develop nuclear weapons in sites kept off-limits by confidential side agreements. There are concerns that Iran's restored economy is funneling billions into state sponsored terrorism, and that the deal should have addressed that. There are concerns that the deal which was in place was simply a 10 year waiting game which we can't afford.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      My second point is...to answer your question: if Trump passes an agreement with NK through the senate and ratifies it as a legally binding treaty, then NK can trust that the treaty will not be easily broken by a subsequent administration. I'm not saying that will happen. I'm offering a suggestion to your question. Executive agreements should not be trusted, treaties should be. There is a very big difference, and it's important that the difference is taken into account when discussing these issues.



    Quote:
    It's your opinion that executive agreements should not be trusted. They can be trusted insofar as presidents abide by them. The more the U.S. breaks them, the less they can be trusted. The more the U.S. abides by them, the more they can be trusted.


That's what treaties are for. An executive agreement is not a treaty. An executive agreement should not be kept in place if the current executive thinks it is harmful to US interests. The US has treaties to do what you're looking for. The US president is not given the power to enter into binding agreements for a reason.

Here's a question, which I think gets to the heart of the matter. Not a rhetorical question, it's one that I am asking you to answer. Do you think the US President should have the authority to enter into legally binding treaties with foreign nations? Is that power something you trust in the hands of one person, or is it something which is better kept in congress where a more rigorous debate is forced?

Do you want Donald Trump to be able to enter into any agreement he wants with other nations, and they are legally binding for all future administrations to follow? I don't. The constitution wasn't written with the most perfect person in mind always holding the office of the president. It was written knowing that the office would be held by flawed men (and Trump is a very flawed man).


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