House rejects Iran nuclear deal

[Madali]

House rejects Iran nuclear deal - CNNPolitics.com

I don't know why Iranians are so excited about a deal that can so easily unravel in a few years. It's so simple for the west to reapply any sanctions, and it will be so hard for us to restart our sovereignty. I like how Khamenei said in a few days back that some people are portraying USA as the Angel of Savior (fereshteye nejat, I don't know how to translate that).

 

[Pakistanisage]

House rejects Iran nuclear deal - CNNPolitics.com

I don't know why Iranians are so excited about a deal that can so easily unravel in a few years. It's so simple for the west to reapply any sanctions, and it will be so hard for us to restart our sovereignty. I like how Khamenei said in a few days back that some people are portraying USA as the Angel of Savior (fereshteye nejat, I don't know how to translate that).

We understand the term Faristeye Nejat....... نجات
فرشته

Almost 30% of our language ( Urdu ) has Persian words.

 

[gau8av]

interesting discussion here:

 

[[Bregs]]

This is not a good sign, this deal is a good beginning

 

[Madali]

We understand the term Faristeye Nejat.......

Almost 30% of our language ( Urdu ) has Persian words.

Back when I was working with my father in his shop in Dubai (loooong ago), I learned a lot of Urdu. I've lost most of the knowledge by now, but it was easy to learn, because it was so close to farsi.

 

[Aramagedon]

Fck redneck yanks who themselves have 8000 nuclear bombs.

Kyrgyzstan President: US with 200 yrs of history wants to impose its policies to 7000 yrs old Iran !

 

[21 Dec 2012]

This is not a good sign, this deal is a good beginning

A good beginning to a nuclear Iran ergo a nuclear terrorist sponsor nation ergo a nuclear armed terrorist willing to use it on Israel.

 

[Aramagedon]

A good beginning to a nuclear Iran ergo a nuclear terrorist sponsor nation ergo a nuclear armed terrorist willing to use it on Israel.

What a load of fck!

 

[SOHEIL]

A good beginning to a nuclear Iran ergo a nuclear terrorist sponsor nation ergo a nuclear armed terrorist willing to use it on Israel.

 

[[Bregs]]

Fck redneck yanks who themselves have 8000 nuclear bombs.

Kyrgyzstan President: US with 200 yrs of history wants to impose its policies to 7000 yrs old Iran !

lol this comment of Kyrgyzstan president perfectly suits the US policeman ship

 

[Donatello]

@Syed.Ali.Haider @gambit

What is the importance of House rejecting such a bill? Can the senate pass it or President can use his executive powers to force it into law?

 

[SipahSalar]

Iran has nothing to worry about. USA is not the only negotiator, it was P5+1 for a reason. That said, i think it's a win-win situation for Iran even if the nuclear deal fails.

 

[Madali]

@Syed.Ali.Haider @gambit

What is the importance of House rejecting such a bill? Can the senate pass it or President can use his executive powers to force it into law?

In terms of laws, it so far has no significant.

But what many don't understand that it has a political significant, that is, it is political beneficial for a lot of politicians to be "tough on Iran", meaning all it takes is next election for republicans to fall over themselves to see who can claim to be tougher on Iran, and for democrats not to lose vote, they will also have to claim they will also be tough on Iran.

This is what hasn't been really been changing for USA. Obama never said, "hey, we are doing a deal with Iran because we think we are going to be friends" but that, this deal is made to restrict Iran. So, the narrative has remained that this is a deal with the enemy, the only difference is the different approach between the parties. We still remain their enemy in their eyes and the voting public's eyes.

Unfortunately, the same can't be said with some of our politicians. While we remain their enemy, some politicians think of them as their new sugar daddy.

 

[Hack-Hook]

In terms of laws, it so far has no significant.

But what many don't understand that it has a political significant, that is, it is political beneficial for a lot of politicians to be "tough on Iran", meaning all it takes is next election for republicans to fall over themselves to see who can claim to be tougher on Iran, and for democrats not to lose vote, they will also have to claim they will also be tough on Iran.

This is what hasn't been really been changing for USA. Obama never said, "hey, we are doing a deal with Iran because we think we are going to be friends" but that, this deal is made to restrict Iran. So, the narrative has remained that this is a deal with the enemy, the only difference is the different approach between the parties. We still remain their enemy in their eyes and the voting public's eyes.

Unfortunately, the same can't be said with some of our politicians. While we remain their enemy, some politicians think of them as their new sugar daddy.

Well 90% of politic is People relation . if Next US president nulify the agreement then he will become the Ahmadinejad .

 

[Madali]

Well 90% of politic is People relation . if Next US president nulify the agreement then he will become the Ahmadinejad .

What agreement did Ahmedinejad nullify?

Anyway, your insult aside, they wouldn't have to "nullify" the agreement. They can just bring up some cock and bull story, claim that Iran is not living up to their obligations, and then put pressure on us. Some can say, "but they can't do that!". I don't exactly see why not. They have been doing this exact thing when it comes to our enrichment program. As per us being signatory to the NPT treaty, what part of them claims that sanctions are allowed? NPT clearly says we have right to enrichment, so why is this even in dispute? As per NPT, signatories are suppose to disarm, but the west hasn't, so why aren't THEY in court?

This is Article IV,
"Article IV: 1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty."

" All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world."

But none of that is respected. So, somehow a "treaty" (which the west claims is not a treaty anyway) is signed, with us giving up many rights, to get some of the rights that is part of NPT, and this is supposed to be binding?