Ayatollah Khamenei Derides Republicans’ Letter on Iran Nuclear Talks

[Mxylplyx]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/13/w...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

“All countries, according to the international norms, remain faithful to their commitments even after their governments change, but the American senators are officially announcing that at the end of the term of their current government, their commitments will be considered null and void,” Mr. Khamenei wrote. He said the letter was a “sign of declining political ethics.”

Congratulations Republicans. You now have a dictator in Iran making a criticism of America that is impossible to disagree with. We've all become accustomed to these ass hats making fools of themselves on fox news or town hall meetings, but now these simpletons have shown their ass on the world stage and America's standing in the world is suffering for it. Why would ANY country trust America to keep it's word in tough negotiations anymore? I guess if you can get a momentary bump in your straw poll ratings then fuck America, right?

 

[cabri]

Countries do not always remain faithful/honest after regime changes.

Treaties/agreements/understands get renounced whenever it is felt that they are no longer the benefit that was intended when stated.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Countries do not always remain faithful/honest after regime changes.

Treaties/agreements/understands get renounced whenever it is felt that they are no longer the benefit that was intended when stated.

You make the US sound like a dictatorship using terms like "regime change". The US has a history of honoring international commitments through leadership transitions, as any mature, developed country should. Priorities might change, but once a deal is struck it is to be honored, period.

 

[Jhhnn]

Republicans? Political ethics?

That died 50 years ago when they embraced Strom Thurmond & their southern strategy. The people they thought they could lead simply took over. The Dixicrats are now Dixipubs.

 

[doubledeluxe]

The republican party has really become a joke that nobody other than half if america takes seriously. The other 6.5 billion people just think they're stupid.

 

[chucky2]

Declining political ethics? Is this guy insane? Does he really think anyone that doesn't drink Politician jizz thinks any of those guys have ethics? Haha crazy Iranian!

 

[alzan]

Declining political ethics? Is this guy insane? Does he really think anyone that doesn't drink Politician jizz thinks any of those guys have ethics? Haha crazy Iranian!

When politicians of any stripe hear the word "ethics" they reach for their dictionary; and when they hear the sound of campaign contributions to their warchest(s), they throw their dictionary out the window.

 

[Jhhnn]

Declining political ethics? Is this guy insane? Does he really think anyone that doesn't drink Politician jizz thinks any of those guys have ethics? Haha crazy Iranian!

When politicians of any stripe hear the word "ethics" they reach for their dictionary; and when they hear the sound of campaign contributions to their warchest(s), they throw their dictionary out the window.

So you guys agree that Repubs have revealed a lack of ethics?

Or are you just going for the usual false equivalency?

 

[chucky2]

I think there are so few Politican, and their supporting cast, in DC that have what the common US Citizen would say are true ethics you could count them on one hand. Let me guess: You agree for Repubs, but zomg! "false equivalency!" for Dems, amirite?

 

[chucky2]

When politicians of any stripe hear the word "ethics" they reach for their dictionary; and when they hear the sound of campaign contributions to their warchest(s), they throw their dictionary out the window.

:thumbsup:

 

[alzan]

So you guys agree that Repubs have revealed a lack of ethics?

Or are you just going for the usual false equivalency?

I agree that the repubs who put their names to that letter revealed a lack of ethics but I also think that various politicians of all stripes have revealed a lack of ethics at various times over this countries history.

 

[theeedude]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/iran-letter-germany-frank-walter-steinmeier-116017.html

According to sources close to the negotiations, the letter may have given Iran more leverage in the nuclear talks.
“The game that was played in the past is that we are credible and the Iranians are not credible,” said one. “The letter is creating the advantage for the Iranians. It is hurting our position in the negotiations.”

Why senior Republicans would sign a letter written by a freshman tea party idiot, to undermine the US, it's incomprehensible.

 

[Mxylplyx]

I agree that the repubs who put their names to that letter revealed a lack of ethics but I also think that various politicians of all stripes have revealed a lack of ethics at various times over this countries history.

There is a fine line between ethics and decorum. This is more a matter of decorum. I'll agree that many of these politicians are sleaze bags, which is probably just par for the course for individuals that have the egos and aspirations for high office, something that is pretty constant throughout world history. Maybe you are skirting some campaign finance reform at home, or banging a hot staffer behind your cancer ridden wife's back, however, when it comes to representing the United States abroad, you FOLLOW THE FUCKING RULES. Behaving like a proper statesman is a critical skill in politics that Republicans seem to not give a shit about. You cease to become a Republican or Democrat when you represent the US in official matters. Republicans are acting like bulls in a china shop in their quest to attack Obama, setting precedents that damage America's standing in the world for years to come.

 

[DCal430]

You make the US sound like a dictatorship using terms like "regime change". The US has a history of honoring international commitments through leadership transitions, as any mature, developed country should. Priorities might change, but once a deal is struck it is to be honored, period.

You are wrong. Those agreements are entered into with the President and Senate. The president alone has no authority to enter into any binding agreement. Iran should know this.

 

[DCal430]

There is a fine line between ethics and decorum. This is more a matter of decorum. I'll agree that many of these politicians are sleaze bags, which is probably just par for the course for individuals that have the egos and aspirations for high office, something that is pretty constant throughout world history. Maybe you are skirting some campaign finance reform at home, or banging a hot staffer behind your cancer ridden wife's back, however, when it comes to representing the United States abroad, you FOLLOW THE FUCKING RULES. Behaving like a proper statesman is a critical skill in politics that Republicans seem to not give a shit about. You cease to become a Republican or Democrat when you represent the US in official matters. Republicans are acting like bulls in a china shop in their quest to attack Obama, setting precedents that damage America's standing in the world for years to come.

WTF you need yo get a clue, every country knows the president of the U.S has no authority to enter into any binding agreement. That authority is vested with the Senate not the president. The constitution is clear the president can't enter into binding treaties.

 

[Mxylplyx]

WTF you need yo get a clue, every country knows the president of the U.S has no authority to enter into any binding agreement. That authority is vested with the Senate not the president. The constitution is clear the president can't enter into binding treaties.

You need to read up on executive agreements, which are politically binding as opposed to legally binding. If every handshake agreement this country made had to be ratified as a treaty, we'd be good for shit on the world stage. The president is not solely negotiating with his own personal good faith on the table, he is negotiating with the good faith and trust of the United States government. Are you too obtuse to understand that every president carries forward the trust and credibility of the presidents that came before him? If a Republican is elected as our next president (not likely), and unilaterally scuttles an agreement forged by 6 party negotiations involving 6 major world powers, the US will lose ALL credibility in the world, and will likely be shut out of multilateral negotiations in the future on any number of issues.

 

[werepossum]

When politicians of any stripe hear the word "ethics" they reach for their dictionary; and when they hear the sound of campaign contributions to their warchest(s), they throw their dictionary out the window.

This, exactly.

Normally I'd point out the undesirability of being in lockstep with Khamenei, but we all know this is 90% politics, 10% position, and 0% ethics.

You are wrong. Those agreements are entered into with the President and Senate. The president alone has no authority to enter into any binding agreement. Iran should know this.

The President has a great deal of power in foreign policy. Bush ended the SALT treaty without Congress. Basically, he can do pretty much as he wants as long as Congress doesn't pass legislation otherwise. What Obama does won't have the same weight as does a treaty unless Congress approves it, but other than superseding American law his actions will otherwise carry the effective weight of law unless and until overturned.

I'm not at all happy with this - for instance, it means Reagan could simply have ignored Congress and supported the Contras - but this seems to be the legal consensus.

 

[werepossum]

You need to read up on executive agreements, which are politically binding as opposed to legally binding. If every handshake agreement this country made had to be ratified as a treaty, we'd be good for shit on the world stage. The president is not solely negotiating with his own personal good faith on the table, he is negotiating with the good faith and trust of the United States government. Are you too obtuse to understand that every president carries forward the trust and credibility of the presidents that came before him? If a Republican is elected as our next president (not likely), and unilaterally scuttles an agreement forged by 6 party negotiations involving 6 major world powers, the US will lose ALL credibility in the world, and will likely be shut out of multilateral negotiations in the future on any number of issues.

lol If a proggie's will is thwarted, the world will fall apart. Sounds like, well, pretty much everything the far left wants to do.

 

[Mxylplyx]

lol If a proggie's will is thwarted, the world will fall apart. Sounds like, well, pretty much everything the far left wants to do.

Apparently you missed the fact that these are 6 party negotiations. Do you seriously think that France, Germany, the UK, China, and Russia wont take notice if an agreement like this was unilaterally voided by the next US president? Or perhaps you are suggesting we just shouldn't give a shit about our credibility in the world?

Which is it?

 

[Jhhnn]

I think there are so few Politican, and their supporting cast, in DC that have what the common US Citizen would say are true ethics you could count them on one hand. Let me guess: You agree for Repubs, but zomg! "false equivalency!" for Dems, amirite?

I merely point out that "They're just as Bad!" is not a valid defense, other than in Glenbeckistan.

 

[fskimospy]

WTF you need yo get a clue, every country knows the president of the U.S has no authority to enter into any binding agreement. That authority is vested with the Senate not the president. The constitution is clear the president can't enter into binding treaties.

That's not very accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause#One_of_three_types_of_international_accord

I'm quite certain the rest of the world considers those other types of agreements binding.

 

[werepossum]

Apparently you missed the fact that these are 6 party negotiations. Do you seriously think that France, Germany, the UK, China, and Russia wont take notice if an agreement like this was unilaterally voided by the next US president? Or perhaps you are suggesting we just shouldn't give a shit about our credibility in the world?

Which is it?

Pretty sure that France, Germany, the UK, China, and Russia all know that any agreement is subject to change with the government. Otherwise Obama couldn't be changing it now, now could he?

Nothing wrong with being stupid, but try to minimize it, eh?

 

[fskimospy]

Pretty sure that France, Germany, the UK, China, and Russia all know that any agreement is subject to change with the government. Otherwise Obama couldn't be changing it now, now could he?

Nothing wrong with being stupid, but try to minimize it, eh?

Obama's not changing any agreement, he's making a new one. (it would also be a binding agreement under international law) Additionally, the US would have no power to void this agreement as it is a 7 party agreement. We could void our participation, but the rest would remain in effect.

Pretty sure that France, Germany, etc know that the US doesn't just back out of agreements like this, which is precisely why they and Iran are bothering with it at all. It would be a pretty serious step. He correctly pointed out that it would definitely severely hamper our ability to negotiate agreements going forward.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Obama's not changing any agreement, he's making a new one. (it would also be a binding agreement under international law) Additionally, the US would have no power to void this agreement as it is a 7 party agreement. We could void our participation, but the rest would remain in effect.

Pretty sure that France, Germany, etc know that the US doesn't just back out of agreements like this, which is precisely why they and Iran are bothering with it at all. It would be a pretty serious step. He correctly pointed out that it would definitely severely hamper our ability to negotiate agreements going forward.

You know, I truly want to believe that Republicans, with their penchant for brinkmanship, will always ultimately back down when they are truly about to cross that red line, but I'm not so sure anymore. How many instances have we been through where they create an ill-advised showdown absent any particular strategy or endgame, and are then forced to retreat in humiliation? Doing that on domestic issues is one thing, but them gaining the power to do it on the international stage is downright scary. They are like rebellious teenagers who wantonly disregard the advice of party elders when the elders do in fact know best.

 

[fskimospy]

You know, I truly want to believe that Republicans, with their penchant for brinkmanship, will always ultimately back down when they are truly about to cross that red line, but I'm not so sure anymore. How many instances have we been through where they create an ill-advised showdown absent any particular strategy or endgame, and are then forced to retreat in humiliation? Doing that on domestic issues is one thing, but them gaining the power to do it on the international stage is downright scary. They are like rebellious teenagers who wantonly disregard the advice of party elders when the elders do in fact know best.

I'm not worried about it. The current congress has no power to void this agreement. (seems extremely unlikely they can get a veto proof majority after this letter foolishly politicized the issue) The next president won't be in office for about two more years, at which point this deal will likely have been in place for awhile and if it's working I doubt they will do anything.

Despite the foolish nature of what they wrote, maybe the Republicans actually did Obama and the rest of us a favor with all this ridiculousness around the letter and Netanyahu's visit. It's done a lot to diminish the bipartisan, uncritical support for Israel that existed in Congress before, and that's a good thing. Obama finally slapping Netanyahu aside is also a plus. Thirdly, it appears that all this has damaged Netanyahu back in Israel as well, perhaps enough that he loses re-election. If we can get some more sensible leadership in Israel that could help a lot.