Community >> View Post
·
Post By
MysteryMan

Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 3,554
In Reply To
zvelf

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Subj: Re: US out of the Iran nuclear deal
Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 at 08:56:08 am EDT (Viewed 522 times)
Reply Subj: Re: US out of the Iran nuclear deal
Posted: Mon May 14, 2018 at 02:28:31 pm EDT (Viewed 510 times)



    Quote:

      Quote:
      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:
    It was really a 15 year waiting game, and we can afford it because that is precisely the time needed for Iran to change its ways as its Iranian Revolution hardliners die off as they are all in their late 70s and 80s now.



    Quote:

      Quote:

        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.



    Quote:
    It's all besides the point. Obama would have made it a treaty if he could have, but it was never going to pass a Republican Congress.


Sorry if this seems like I am picking on you or choosing sides. But you didn't answer the question. For me the answer is....

NO...president shouldn't have this power.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
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