• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ed Israel/US Attacks Iran /Yet Another Country/Iran

A new grift

Reporter: Who is paying for the cost of this war? Will the Arab countries step up?

Leavitt: I think it is something the president would be quite interested in calling them to do. Certainly, it's an idea I know he has and something you will hear more from him on.

Link
 
So leave NATO and lose all the bases forever.

Department of State
@StateDept
🚨 SECRETARY RUBIO: If NATO is just about us defending Europe if they’re attacked, but them denying us basing rights when we need them, then that’s not a very good arrangement.

That’s a hard one to stay engaged in and say this is good for the United States.

Link
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Because it was immensely less costly than the alternative of attacking them
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't that apply to the US as well?
Jack by the hedge said:
and because they stuck to the deal until Trump ripped it up.
Click to expand...
They struck a deal with Obama, not the US. The deal was never ratified by the Senate as a treaty, which is the only way to actually create a legal obligation to the deal. It was never even submitted to the Senate for consideration. Why would you expect Trump to be bound to an agreement that he didn't make and that the Senate never ratified? He wasn't bound by it in any way, shape, or form.
 
Andy_Ross said:
So leave NATO and lose all the bases forever.

Department of State
@StateDept
🚨 SECRETARY RUBIO: If NATO is just about us defending Europe if they’re attacked, but them denying us basing rights when we need them, then that’s not a very good arrangement.

That’s a hard one to stay engaged in and say this is good for the United States.

Link
Click to expand...
NATO is about defending all of NATO and if you claim you don't know that you're lying. The only member who ever called on NATO is you and you know that too.
 
Ziggurat said:
Why wouldn't that apply to the US as well?

They struck a deal with Obama, not the US. The deal was never ratified by the Senate as a treaty, which is the only way to actually create a legal obligation to the deal. It was never even submitted to the Senate for consideration. Why would you expect Trump to be bound to an agreement that he didn't make and that the Senate never ratified? He wasn't bound by it in any way, shape, or form.
Click to expand...
Which brings me back to the question of why anyone would negotiate with America. You don't get to negotiate with the Senate. You get to negotiate with their emissary, reach an agreement, or so you think, and then the Senate never ratifies it. Pointless.

And Trump feels free to kill people he thinks aren't negotiating in good faith. Theres a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ irony for you.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Which brings me back to the question of why anyone would negotiate with America. You don't get to negotiate with the Senate. You get to negotiate with their emissary, reach an agreement, or so you think, and then the Senate never ratifies it. Pointless.
Click to expand...
Except the Senate does sometimes ratify it. If they never ratified it, we wouldn't have any treaties. But we do.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Which brings me back to the question of why anyone would negotiate with America. You don't get to negotiate with the Senate. You get to negotiate with their emissary, reach an agreement, or so you think,
Click to expand...
No, you don't think that. You know, because you're a competent statesman and diplomat, that Senate ratification is a necessary part of finalizing the deal. You got along without that, either because you lacked the political or diplomatic capital to force the president to take it to the Senate and push through the ratification, or for other more cynical reasons of your own. Or, perhaps, in some edge cases, because you really are that stupid, and really are that ignorant about how another country's government works, in the ways that matter most to you.

Jack by the hedge said:
and then the Senate never ratifies it. Pointless.
Click to expand...
The Senate ratifies a lot of things. They just don't automatically ratify everything. It's not pointless to negotiate an agreement with the nation's Negotiator in Chief. On the contrary, that negotiation is a necessary first step, just as ratification is a necessary last step.

Not only that, but every sovereign state has the right to end an agreement that no longer serves their purposes. Not ratifying the agreement makes it easier to do that, is all. Which may be why a lot of nations seem content enough to proceed on the basis of the presidential handshake agreement, rather than pressing for ratification. That way they can benefit as long as the socioeconomic winds are in their favor, and cynically complain of betrayal or breach of contract or whatever when the winds change an a new administration is no longer interested in honoring the predecessor's ephemeral handshake. A handshake that was known by all parties to be ephemeral all along.
 
dirtywick said:
for credibility
Click to expand...
An un-ratified treaty has no credibility beyond the term of the president who agreed to it. That's the whole point of having the Senate ratify it. Or not, as the case may be. By all accounts Obama made a number of agreements he didn't even want to remain credible, after he left office.
 
Last edited:
dirtywick said:
for credibility
Click to expand...
Whose credibility is that protecting? Not his. He never agreed to it. Obama's credibility? Doesn't matter to Trump. The US as a whole? Again, never ratified by the Senate.

Why would you expect one president to be able to bind another president to a policy that president didn't choose, without involving Congress? That's not how it works. That's never been how it works.
 
Ziggurat said:
Whose credibility is that protecting? Not his. He never agreed to it. Obama's credibility? Doesn't matter to Trump. The US as a whole? Again, never ratified by the Senate.

Why would you expect one president to be able to bind another president to a policy that president didn't choose, without involving Congress? That's not how it works. That's never been how it works.
Click to expand...

because when you don’t you lose a lot of credibility, as we found out.
 
theprestige said:
An un-ratified treaty has no credibility beyond the term of the president who agreed to it. That's the whole point of having the Senate ratify it. Or not, as the case may be. By all accounts Obama made a number of agreements he didn't even want to remain credible, after he left office.
Click to expand...

well, too bad for trump i guess. because now he’s having a lot of trouble getting anyone to trust him
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom