It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: BrennanHuff
originally posted by: bastion
originally posted by: BrennanHuff
originally posted by: bastion
originally posted by: BrennanHuff
originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: BrennanHuff
What does the US senate have to do with the Iranians and G5+1 signing BARJAM?
We usually go through a process here to ratify agreements. This new to you?
The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2). ... The Senate does not ratify treaties—the Senate approves or rejects a resolution of ratification.
The two-thirds approval in the senate applies to Treaties, agreements dont come under this umbrella, though in the interests of the democracy a president should seek it and Obama was wrong not to do so.
So Obama can act as dictator, and can push usa into "agreements" where there are no actual agreements legally?
I am confused what are you trying to say?
That's what he did. He knew he couldn't push through a full blown binding treaty with Iran so watered it down to the point it was relabelled as an agreement to subvert the usual democratic process. It was a terrible deal that had no binding agreements but over the years Iran abided by it, thanks to the Pres being liberal. It needs to be replaced with a proper Treaty before someone like Ahmadinejad gets elected.
I totally agree with you. Sorry for being an ass...whoooops
originally posted by: bastion
originally posted by: BrennanHuff
originally posted by: bastion
originally posted by: BrennanHuff
originally posted by: bastion
originally posted by: BrennanHuff
originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: BrennanHuff
What does the US senate have to do with the Iranians and G5+1 signing BARJAM?
We usually go through a process here to ratify agreements. This new to you?
The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2). ... The Senate does not ratify treaties—the Senate approves or rejects a resolution of ratification.
The two-thirds approval in the senate applies to Treaties, agreements dont come under this umbrella, though in the interests of the democracy a president should seek it and Obama was wrong not to do so.
So Obama can act as dictator, and can push usa into "agreements" where there are no actual agreements legally?
I am confused what are you trying to say?
That's what he did. He knew he couldn't push through a full blown binding treaty with Iran so watered it down to the point it was relabelled as an agreement to subvert the usual democratic process. It was a terrible deal that had no binding agreements but over the years Iran abided by it, thanks to the Pres being liberal. It needs to be replaced with a proper Treaty before someone like Ahmadinejad gets elected.
I totally agree with you. Sorry for being an ass...whoooops
No problem, I agree with you, if it was a real meaningful deal it'd be a treaty and would have gone past the senate. you don't come across as an ass. It's a really confusing smoke and mirrors game played behind words, and admittedly I wrongly used the word treay myself repeatedly earlier which certainly didnt help matters.
originally posted by: Kkintekk
Believe it or not, Iran won’t use nukes against israHELL “because Muslims lives there”, they never even think or/talk about it as a solution, all this crap is “made by Mossad and zionasist in israHELL” to milking the west more. “Apparently they know that the perfect IDIOTS live there”.
My apologies if I am offending some, but again this “Iranian nuke stuff” is boring and goes back to 90’s ranged from 3 months to couple of years to be nuclear capable, they’ve been always using the word ”NUCLEAR” . What is nuclear..?? Having nuclearreactors means they are busy on making bombs..?
Is there any real PROOF that they have nuclear bomb “israHELL has 400 of them”.. ..
“NUKULAR” by some!
originally posted by: BotheLumberJack
This seriously compels me to question, wth are they supporting Iran? Who gave them ammo? Oh maybe it was the last administration under Obama. Yeah?
originally posted by: Kkintekk
Believe it or not, Iran won’t use nukes against israHELL
...
zionasist in israHELL
Having nuclearreactors means they are busy on making bombs..?
Is there any real PROOF that they have nuclear bomb “israHELL has 400 of them”.. ..
originally posted by: flice
originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Willtell
Iranian is not a RACE.
Agree.... neither are Israelis.
"Humans" are a race. Anyone trying to singlr themselves out over the rest or as being especially chosen are sick in the head.
originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: BotheLumberJack
What makes you want to be against Iran?
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: BotheLumberJack
They are welcome to support it. They can give Iran money.