Republicans shit on diplomacy with Iran and arguably break t

[General Zod]

The Senators are perfectly legitimate in airing their disagreement with a potential nuclear power/armament treaty with Iran on TV, on the Senate floor, or anywhere else they'd like. What they may not do is send letters to the Foreign Minister of another government to try to influence or sabotage foreign policy. That's literally exactly what they did.

Not really been a relevant law in today's political climate and you know it. Be realistic. Forgetting the idea of an administration that would charge them, there's also the idea of, you know, getting it through all the stages of the trial.

It hasn't been relevant until now because the vast majority of senators actually followed this law and weren't complete fuckwits.

I think while many people would see some relevance to saying the citizens can't interfere with negotiations, telling Senators they can't write an open letter regarding negotiations is, shall we say, a stretch. Given Senators have some role at some point in the final step in the process.

Citation needed.

[Elheru Aran]

The 'some role' is a rubber stamp; they either agree to a treaty or they don't. By this act they are saying whether the treaty will be accepted as law by the United States or not. But the President is still the one who makes the final ratification of the treaty, or not.

[Patroklos]

Unfortunately the State Department disagrees with you. It always has disagreed with you, and your current attitude is quite new and unprecedented relative to US history:

http://fpc.state.gov/6172.htm

Summary



The United States Constitution divides the foreign policy powers between the President and Congress so that both share in the making of foreign policy. The executive and legislative branches each play important roles that are different but that often overlap. Both branches have continuing opportunities to initiate and change foreign policy, and the interaction between them continues indefinitely throughout the life of a policy.

This report identifies and illustrates 12 basic ways to make U.S. foreign policy. The President or the executive branch can make foreign policy through:

1) -- responses to foreign events
2) -- proposals for legislation
3) -- negotiation of international agreements
4) -- policy statements
5) -- policy implementation
6) -- independent action.



In nearly all of these circumstances, Congress can either support the President's approach or seek to change it. In the case of independent Presidential action, it may be very difficult to change policy in the short term; in the case of a legislative proposal by the executive branch or treaties and international agreements submitted to the Senate or Congress for approval, Congress has a decisive voice. In most cases Congress supports the President, but it often makes significant modifications in his initiatives in the process of approving them.

Congress can make foreign policy through:

1) -- resolutions and policy statements
2) -- legislative directives
3) -- legislative pressure
4) -- legislative restrictions/funding denials
5) -- informal advice
6) -- congressional oversight.



In these circumstances, the executive branch can either support or seek to change congressional policies as it interprets and carries out legislative directives and restrictions, and decides when and whether to adopt proposals and advice.

The practices illustrated in this report indicate that making U.S. foreign policy is a complex process, and the support of both branches is required for a strong and effective U.S. foreign policy.

This letter falls squarely in #1 of their powers. Its nothing more than a statement of their position.

[General Zod]

None of those seem to support influencing a foreign power's decision making process. As best as I can tell it means they can try and get the President to change his mind, but there's nothing about going over his head.

[Patroklos]

Anything they say can influence a foreign power's decision making, regardless of the form as long as its public. So no. Also this letter did not negotiate anything, it obligates the US government in no form whatsoever, so there is no going over anyone's head. This is a common and recognized power of Congress as the State Department itself says above. You don't have to like it, but it remains a thing.

[Elheru Aran]

The letter was not binding nor negotiating, granted-- but that's irrelevant. The content is what's important-- the Senate Republicans essentially attempting to subvert the President's negotiations by implying strongly that they have the ultimate authority, rather than the President, to approve or deny this agreement that Iran is trying to reach with the Western powers.

[Tribble]

Well, this (satirical) article just about sums things up:

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz ... -and-obama

Iran Offers to Mediate Talks Between Republicans and Obama

TEHRAN (The Borowitz Report)—Stating that “their continuing hostilities are a threat to world peace,” Iran has offered to mediate talks between congressional Republicans and President Obama.

Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, made the offer one day after Iran received what he called a “worrisome letter” from Republican leaders, which suggested to him that “the relationship between Republicans and Obama has deteriorated dangerously.”

“Tensions between these two historic enemies have been high in recent years, but we believe they are now at a boiling point,” Khamenei said. “As a result, Iran feels it must offer itself as a peacemaker.”

He said that his nation was the “logical choice” to jumpstart negotiations between Obama and the Republicans because “it has become clear that both sides currently talk more to Iran than to each other.”

He invited Obama and the Republicans to meet in Tehran to hash out their differences and called on world powers to force the two bitter foes to the bargaining table, adding, “It is time to stop the madness.”

Hours after Iran made its offer, President Obama said that he was willing to meet with his congressional adversaries under the auspices of Tehran, but questioned whether “any deal reached with Republicans is worth the paper it’s written on.”

For their part, the Republicans said they would only agree to talks if there were no preconditions, such as recognizing President Obama’s existence.

What's sad is that sending Iran in to mediate would actually make more sense than what is going on at the moment.

[FTeik]

Unfortunately the State Department disagrees with you. It always has disagreed with you, and your current attitude is quite new and unprecedented relative to US history:

http://fpc.state.gov/6172.htm

Summary



The United States Constitution divides the foreign policy powers between the President and Congress so that both share in the making of foreign policy. The executive and legislative branches each play important roles that are different but that often overlap. Both branches have continuing opportunities to initiate and change foreign policy, and the interaction between them continues indefinitely throughout the life of a policy.

This report identifies and illustrates 12 basic ways to make U.S. foreign policy. The President or the executive branch can make foreign policy through:

1) -- responses to foreign events
2) -- proposals for legislation
3) -- negotiation of international agreements
4) -- policy statements
5) -- policy implementation
6) -- independent action.



In nearly all of these circumstances, Congress can either support the President's approach or seek to change it. In the case of independent Presidential action, it may be very difficult to change policy in the short term; in the case of a legislative proposal by the executive branch or treaties and international agreements submitted to the Senate or Congress for approval, Congress has a decisive voice. In most cases Congress supports the President, but it often makes significant modifications in his initiatives in the process of approving them.

Congress can make foreign policy through:

1) -- resolutions and policy statements
2) -- legislative directives
3) -- legislative pressure
4) -- legislative restrictions/funding denials
5) -- informal advice
6) -- congressional oversight.



In these circumstances, the executive branch can either support or seek to change congressional policies as it interprets and carries out legislative directives and restrictions, and decides when and whether to adopt proposals and advice.

The practices illustrated in this report indicate that making U.S. foreign policy is a complex process, and the support of both branches is required for a strong and effective U.S. foreign policy.

This letter falls squarely in #1 of their powers. Its nothing more than a statement of their position.

Does it? Because this doesn't look like a statement by congress, but like a statement by members of congress speaking for themselves and not the institution they represent. At least it looks to me like that as a non-american.

[Flagg]

Unfortunately the State Department disagrees with you. It always has disagreed with you, and your current attitude is quite new and unprecedented relative to US history:

http://fpc.state.gov/6172.htm

Summary



The United States Constitution divides the foreign policy powers between the President and Congress so that both share in the making of foreign policy. The executive and legislative branches each play important roles that are different but that often overlap. Both branches have continuing opportunities to initiate and change foreign policy, and the interaction between them continues indefinitely throughout the life of a policy.

This report identifies and illustrates 12 basic ways to make U.S. foreign policy. The President or the executive branch can make foreign policy through:

1) -- responses to foreign events
2) -- proposals for legislation
3) -- negotiation of international agreements
4) -- policy statements
5) -- policy implementation
6) -- independent action.



In nearly all of these circumstances, Congress can either support the President's approach or seek to change it. In the case of independent Presidential action, it may be very difficult to change policy in the short term; in the case of a legislative proposal by the executive branch or treaties and international agreements submitted to the Senate or Congress for approval, Congress has a decisive voice. In most cases Congress supports the President, but it often makes significant modifications in his initiatives in the process of approving them.

Congress can make foreign policy through:

1) -- resolutions and policy statements
2) -- legislative directives
3) -- legislative pressure
4) -- legislative restrictions/funding denials
5) -- informal advice
6) -- congressional oversight.



In these circumstances, the executive branch can either support or seek to change congressional policies as it interprets and carries out legislative directives and restrictions, and decides when and whether to adopt proposals and advice.

The practices illustrated in this report indicate that making U.S. foreign policy is a complex process, and the support of both branches is required for a strong and effective U.S. foreign policy.

This letter falls squarely in #1 of their powers. Its nothing more than a statement of their position.

Does it? Because this doesn't look like a statement by congress, but like a statement by members of congress speaking for themselves and not the institution they represent. At least it looks to me like that as a non-american.

It was 47 members of the Republican Senate majority who, by writing the letter on official Unites States Senate letterhead and SENDING IT TO IRAN attempted to subvert the only branch of Government which is Constitutionally permitted to set and conduct foreign policy which in my opinion is sedition, but which is clearly a violation of the Logan act and 200+ years of SCOTUS decisions and precedent.
Congress can surely cut the funds to the Presidents foreign policy decisions, and have done so on a few occasions, most notably by keeping notorious torture site and illegal detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. However, they most assuredly cannot treat with a foreign government, which is exactly what these fuckwits attempted to do. None of which is on that ignorant dipshit Patroklos' little list of Congress' place in advising, providing funding, or ratification of treaties. This is akin to the President selecting a nominee for Secretary of Defense and the Senate confirming someone else who they like better. It's the exact opposite of Constitutional.

[Rogue 9]

Unfortunately the State Department disagrees with you. It always has disagreed with you, and your current attitude is quite new and unprecedented relative to US history:

http://fpc.state.gov/6172.htm

Summary



The United States Constitution divides the foreign policy powers between the President and Congress so that both share in the making of foreign policy. The executive and legislative branches each play important roles that are different but that often overlap. Both branches have continuing opportunities to initiate and change foreign policy, and the interaction between them continues indefinitely throughout the life of a policy.

This report identifies and illustrates 12 basic ways to make U.S. foreign policy. The President or the executive branch can make foreign policy through:

1) -- responses to foreign events
2) -- proposals for legislation
3) -- negotiation of international agreements
4) -- policy statements
5) -- policy implementation
6) -- independent action.



In nearly all of these circumstances, Congress can either support the President's approach or seek to change it. In the case of independent Presidential action, it may be very difficult to change policy in the short term; in the case of a legislative proposal by the executive branch or treaties and international agreements submitted to the Senate or Congress for approval, Congress has a decisive voice. In most cases Congress supports the President, but it often makes significant modifications in his initiatives in the process of approving them.

Congress can make foreign policy through:

1) -- resolutions and policy statements
2) -- legislative directives
3) -- legislative pressure
4) -- legislative restrictions/funding denials
5) -- informal advice
6) -- congressional oversight.



In these circumstances, the executive branch can either support or seek to change congressional policies as it interprets and carries out legislative directives and restrictions, and decides when and whether to adopt proposals and advice.

The practices illustrated in this report indicate that making U.S. foreign policy is a complex process, and the support of both branches is required for a strong and effective U.S. foreign policy.

This letter falls squarely in #1 of their powers. Its nothing more than a statement of their position.

Does it? Because this doesn't look like a statement by congress, but like a statement by members of congress speaking for themselves and not the institution they represent. At least it looks to me like that as a non-american.

That's exactly what it is. There was no vote or resolution of Congress approving this language or issuing a letter at all, so this is by definition not an act of Congress.

So, to the U.S. citizens in this thread, let's see if we can at least get the President to address the issue, if not issue indictments, shall we?

[Zaune]

Am I the only one really, really hoping the Iranians get the Bomb at some point in the very near future?

[Flagg]

Am I the only one really, really hoping the Iranians get the Bomb at some point in the very near future?

Nope. But you'll be called a crazy person who wants eeeeeevil theocrats to give nukes to TERRORISTS or use them against ISRAEL and AMERICA! Because obviously Iranians are subhuman crazies who have no value for the lives of their loved ones and their own, let alone for human life in general!
Usually said by an American without a hint of irony considering the USA is the only country to ever actually use them on people.

[Nephtys]

Am I the only one really, really hoping the Iranians get the Bomb at some point in the very near future?

Nope. But you'll be called a crazy person who wants eeeeeevil theocrats to give nukes to TERRORISTS or use them against ISRAEL and AMERICA! Because obviously Iranians are subhuman crazies who have no value for the lives of their loved ones and their own, let alone for human life in general!
Usually said by an American without a hint of irony considering the USA is the only country to ever actually use them on people.

Because surely what the world needs are more antagonistic states with nuclear weapons? Of course you're crazy. Immoral too. We can't do much since the cat's out of the bag, but advocating for more nuclear proliferation is a scaled up mirror of absurd right wing claims that society is better if every man, woman and child is packing heat.

As far as 'using nuclear bombs on people', let's not forget the exact circumstances shall we? That said nuclear bombs were used against a militaristic racial supremacist regime that conquered and tortured millions of people shamelessly, doing so much wonderful business such as bayoneting toddlers in public and testing poisonous gas on prisoners?

[Flagg]

Am I the only one really, really hoping the Iranians get the Bomb at some point in the very near future?

Nope. But you'll be called a crazy person who wants eeeeeevil theocrats to give nukes to TERRORISTS or use them against ISRAEL and AMERICA! Because obviously Iranians are subhuman crazies who have no value for the lives of their loved ones and their own, let alone for human life in general!
Usually said by an American without a hint of irony considering the USA is the only country to ever actually use them on people.

Because surely what the world needs are more antagonistic states with nuclear weapons? Of course you're crazy. Immoral too. We can't do much since the cat's out of the bag, but advocating for more nuclear proliferation is a scaled up mirror of absurd right wing claims that society is better if every man, woman and child is packing heat.

Yes, and government budgets are like household budgets, too! Why don't you think the entire Arab world hasn't driven Israel into the sea? They are capable from a conventional standpoint, Saudi Arabia has the 4th largest army in the world just by itself. It's not because Israel is invincible with the greatest generals in the world, rah rah rah, it's because they have an estimated 200 nuclear weapons. Do you think the US would have invaded Iraq if they had even 20 nuclear weapons?

I don't know if you've been paying attention, but the Republican party essentially wants to go to war with Iran. Whether it's an "air war" where we bomb specific targets with "precision weapons" killing hundreds if not thousands or tens out thousands of civilians until Iran does whatever it is that the American Empire demands of her, likely breaking the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty since Iran insists its nuclear program is a peaceful one for nuclear power (and no one can actually prove that isn't the case), and such research and production is explicitly protected by the aforementioned non-proliferation treaty of which both we and Iran are signatories (but the "Jewish Homeland" possessing a nuclear arsenal is not).

So basically what I'm getting at is that once you can retaliate with nukes, the chances of people fucking with you drop significantly. I want Iran to have Nuclear Weapons because it will save lives in the short and long-term by preventing a fucking war. And the only arguments people can come up with in opposition is to either dehumanize Iranians as psychopathic fanatics who care nothing for the lives of their closest loved ones or their own, let alone the sanctity of human life in general or pointing out that they are an authoritarian theocracy who have numerous human rights violations on their record as if China, Pakistan, North Korea, Russia, The United States, and many others who possess nuclear weapons are paragons of virtue in all of those regards. I mean aside from the fact that Iran is a theocracy (which seems of very little import to me where this issue is concerned) the only real difference is that they are Middle Eastern enemies of Israel (the primary aggressor in the region, at least until ISIS came along due to the Israeli supported US invasion of Iraq) who have very good reasons not to like us either. Oh, and your incredibly simplistic gun control analogy that was more cute in an ignorant way than in any way relevant.

As far as 'using nuclear bombs on people', let's not forget the exact circumstances shall we? That said nuclear bombs were used against a militaristic racial supremacist regime that conquered and tortured millions of people shamelessly, doing so much wonderful business such as bayoneting toddlers in public and testing poisonous gas on prisoners?

Yeah, I bet all those brainwashed kids, babies, old men and women, and little girls just going to school took part in those atrocities. Hell, I bet they were the fucking masterminds! I'm not going to get into an argument about the morality of the USA's use of nuclear weapons on Japan (personally, I believe there were other options in how to use at least one of the devices, but ultimately their use probably saved more Japanese lives than it took) but the fact remains that America is the only country to actually use nuclear weapons. And no matter the context, it's ironic and a tad bit hypocritical for them to tell anyone that they can't have nuclear weapons.

[Nephtys]

Flagg. You didn't remotely answer the question. I don't really care what you are psychically divining out of the minds of the right wing political leadership, it's a simple question here divorced from perception of some actors.

Do you believe arming every nation currently politically opposing a nuclear state with it's own nuclear arsenal and delivery systems will lead to a safer international situation or not?

Also, the US trying to curb the proliferation of nuclear weapons is by no means hypocritical, simply by the fact that the nature of the existance of nuclear weapons has changed since 1945 and today. Back then, during the most horrific war in the history of mankind, it was used as a weapon that had a role in ending the conflict and nobody really knew what the impacts of it would be (thus madness like MacArthur's plan to nuke half of China in the Korean War).
Afterwards, the global and political impact of nuclear bombs has changed to something greater, and more unthinkable to use. The cat's out of the bag, and suggesting that 'You did it, so I should do it, it's only fair' is a basis for global security is incredibly simplistic. No major nuclear power has gone un-nuclear, and only one has had a substantial change of government (USSR). Do we really want to see a world with more states with such weapons, so that the possibility of that increases?

[Zaune]

Because surely what the world needs are more antagonistic states with nuclear weapons?

You know what? Yes, it does. Because I can't think of a better way to deter a future Republican administration from going off and liberating another few countries into smoking rubble out of self-righteous Manifest Destiny imperialism of the sort that sent a million British squaddies off to bayonet-charge machine gun nests a hundred years ago. Or just because it seemed like a good idea at the time, for that matter.

[AniThyng]

Because surely what the world needs are more antagonistic states with nuclear weapons?

You know what? Yes, it does. Because I can't think of a better way to deter a future Republican administration from going off and liberating another few countries into smoking rubble out of self-righteous Manifest Destiny imperialism of the sort that sent a million British squaddies off to bayonet-charge machine gun nests a hundred years ago. Or just because it seemed like a good idea at the time, for that matter.

Then you either have to give everyone else nukes and/or be prepared to actually use your nukes because it is fantastic idealism to assume these new nuclear powers may not be drawn into conflicts or wield their new nuclear stick to get their way against those without.

[Crossroads Inc.]

In the mean time... Certain Republican aides think that sending the letter MIGHT not have been a Good IDea

A day after releasing a letter that potentially threatened the administration’s negotiations with Iran, some Republicans who signed on are realizing it was a bad call.

Behind the scenes, Republicans are wondering if sending an open letter to Iran’s leaders was the best strategy to keep a bad nuclear deal from being negotiated.

Earlier this week, 47 Republican senators signed a letter warning the Iranian government that many of them would remain in office long after President Barack Obama’s second term was over, meaning any deal reached between the U.S. and Iran could be easily reversed by the next president.

But even among Republicans whose offices have signed the letter, there is some trepidation that the Iran letter injects partisanship into the Iran negotiations, shifting the narrative from the content of the deal to whether Republicans are unfairly trying to undercut the president.

“Before the letter, the national conversation was about Netanyahu’s speech and how Obama’s negotiations with Iran are leading to a terrible deal that could ultimately harm U.S. national security. Now, the Obama administration and its Capitol Hill partisans are cynically trying to push the conversation away from policy, and towards a deeply political pie fight over presidential and congressional prerogatives,” said a Senate Republican aide whose boss signed the letter.

However, while some on the Republican side are now rethinking the wisdom of sending a letter, none of the 47 Republican signatories are recanting their support for it or signaling an intent to do so.
Republican Sen. Bob Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, did not sign the letter.

“I didn’t think it was going to further our efforts to get to a place where Congress would play the appropriate role that it should on Iran,” Corker told The Daily Beast. “I did not think that the letter was something that was going to help get us to an outcome that we’re all seeking, and that is Congress playing that appropriate role.”

The open letter, organized by freshman Sen. Tom Cotton, was first sent around by Senate staffers in early March. Last Wednesday, with a handful of senators already committed to the letter, Cotton brought up the issue in one of the Senate GOP’s regular weekly luncheons.

“I didn’t think it was going to further our efforts to get to a place where Congress would play the appropriate role that it should on Iran,” Sen. Bob Corker said.
“I immediately knew that it was not something that, for me anyway, in my particular role, was going to be constructive,” Corker said. “I didn’t realize until this weekend that it had the kind of momentum that it had.”

Sen. Jeff Flake was another Republican who declined to sign the letter, telling reporters Tuesday that there was already “a lot of animosity” between Congress and the White House, and that the Iranian nuclear threat was “too important to divide us among partisan lines.”

“I just didn’t feel that it was appropriate or productive at this point. These are tough enough negotiations as it stands, and introducing this kind of letter, I didn’t think would be helpful,” Flake said.

Republican aides were taken aback by what they thought was a lighthearted attempt to signal to Iran and the public that Congress should have a role in the ongoing nuclear discussions. Two GOP aides separately described their letter as a “cheeky” reminder of the congressional branch’s prerogatives.
“The administration has no sense of humor when it comes to how weakly they have been handling these negotiations,” said a top GOP Senate aide.

Added a Republican national security aide, “The Senate should have a role. It would make any agreement have some sort of consistency and perpetuity beyond the president. And it would also be buy-in for the American people. Right now it’s just an agreement between the President of the United States and whoever the final signatory to the agreement is.”

Supporters of the White House’s ongoing negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program pushed back hard against the letter, with some even citing a law written in the 18th century (and not applied since 1803) to say that the senators engaged in illegal conduct by communicating with a foreign government to undermine the U.S. government’s foreign policy.

Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson said he was “appalled and saddened” by the open letter.

“What it sends is a message to the rest of the world that we are not united,” Nelson said.

The GOP senators who signed this letter have the maturity level of pouting child, they whine and stamp and scream when they don't get their way, and the do something to show "their tough" knowing full it will only make things worse... And then are "shocked" when it blows up in their face.

These 47 senators think they are serious adults, when they are actually still in the playpen. I honestly think the response from them is almost as sad as the letter itself.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Then you either have to give everyone else nukes and/or be prepared to actually use your nukes because it is fantastic idealism to assume these new nuclear powers may not be drawn into conflicts or wield their new nuclear stick to get their way against those without.

The thing is, people don't do that. There's a reason nuclear weapons have never been used in anger since shortly after their invention, and we've never even come close to a nuclear exchange. Declassified documents and translated Russian ones show that neither the US nor USSR ever had any intention of launching even when saber rattling was the order of the day, like during the Cuban Missile Crisis. During the early cold war from 1946 to 1949 when the US had the bomb but the Soviets didn't, the USSR became even more belligerent, calling the Americans' bluff. When the USSR acquired the bomb, tensions actually cooled down. In fact, they always do when nukes are involved. India and Pakistan used to go to war almost every decade, but since Pakistan gained nuclear capability they haven't fought once. Iran would never in a million years use a nuke against Israel or anyone else, because (surprise, surprise!) people in power like to stay in power, not preside over an irradiated wasteland. All the spittle-flecked cries from Netanyahu (emphasis on the yahoo) and the GOP to the contrary, being Muslim does not make leaders become suicidal maniacs. The real reason warmongers in the US and Israel are so against a nuclear-armed Iran is because they won't be able to threaten to bomb or invade them anymore, and since either of those would be an absolute disaster that would solidify the Iranian youth against the West for another generation, I would say that a nuclear-Iran world is significantly safer and better than the one we have today.

Iran would most likely be a thriving democracy if it weren't for the CIA overthrow of pro-Western Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953, which set a chain of events that led directly to the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Iran today has a huge, cosmopolitan youth population and a few old geezers with one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel. All the West needs to do is nothing, and Iran will modernize and democratize on its own just like in 1951 when they elected Mossadegh. I fear that without Iran having the bomb, though, Republicans and Likud are just too stupid not to attack and galvanize the youth of the region around the Islamist flag.

[Flagg]

Flagg. You didn't remotely answer the question. I don't really care what you are psychically divining out of the minds of the right wing political leadership, it's a simple question here divorced from perception of some actors.

If you didn't get an answer then you do not possess reading comprehension. I answered your idiotic comparison by ridiculing it as passing out guns to individuals is no more relevant to this discussion than household finances are to a discussion concerning a governments budget. Then I did you a great favor by educating you as to how the world works, which your tiny little mind obviously failed to comprehend. I won't waste my time like that on a stupid dimwitted fuckface such as yourself again. So go fuck yourself.

Do you believe arming every nation currently politically opposing a nuclear state with it's own nuclear arsenal and delivery systems will lead to a safer international situation or not?

Where the fuck did I say we should give Iran nuclear weapons, let alone the delivery methods to use them you lying piece of shit? This is either another case of you being an illiterate fuckwit or you're just an outright dishonest cuntface whose only contribution to this world is that I get to enjoy insulting you while pointing out just how goddamned stupid and what a fucking liar you are.

Also, the US trying to curb the proliferation of nuclear weapons is by no means hypocritical, simply by the fact that the nature of the existance of nuclear weapons has changed since 1945 and today. Back then, during the most horrific war in the history of mankind, it was used as a weapon that had a role in ending the conflict and nobody really knew what the impacts of it would be (thus madness like MacArthur's plan to nuke half of China in the Korean War).
Afterwards, the global and political impact of nuclear bombs has changed to something greater, and more unthinkable to use. The cat's out of the bag, and suggesting that 'You did it, so I should do it, it's only fair' is a basis for global security is incredibly simplistic. No major nuclear power has gone un-nuclear, and only one has had a substantial change of government (USSR). Do we really want to see a world with more states with such weapons, so that the possibility of that increases?

Christ, you're not just a stupid dishonest fuckwit, you're an ignorant, stupid dishonest fuckwit. Did you drink lead paint straight from the can as a child or did you fall out of a 10 story building and land head first to think your ignorant, dishonest, bullshit would go unchallenged?

First of all, 2 nuclear powers have given up their weapons. Namely Ukraine (bet they wish they had them now) and South Africa. Oh, but they weren't "Major Powers" so I guess it doesn't count.
Second of all, The United States has a "substantial change of government" (whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean, I'll bet you're going to move the goalposts and say "coup" or "regime change" or some other bullshit like that, but we'll get there very soon to your dismay) about every 4-8 years. France, The UK, and India off the top of my head also have substantial changes in government quite often. And then there is Pakistan, a country that went through how many coups/ juntas/ whatever since they've had nukes?

As for the US being hypocritical in being militantly anti-proliferation, it just fucking is. Not only because they are the only ones to ever actually drop nuclear weapons on people, but because they don't even acknowledge the widely know secret that Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons. Uncle Sam sure as hell isn't on their asses to turn over their weapons. Wonder why that is.

So to end this fun little learning adventure that I've dragged you through by the ear kicking and screaming like the dumb spoiled brat you are, the only new information revealed is that you are an ignorant, incredibly stupid, cuntfaced liar with the reading comprehension of a blind Dalmatian who has no goddamned clue of what the fuck they are talking about.

[Thanas]

I don't want Iran to have the bomb either, simply for the reason that they are actively building weapons that actually reach the western world. I hope that doesn't make me a dimwitted fuckface.

I also would prefer if Israel not have any because then it would be forced to actually treat the people it currently controls much better lest it give others even more propaganda ammo. Though I guess the argument can be made that nukes guarantee their very existence right now.

[Vaporous]

“The administration has no sense of humor when it comes to how weakly they have been handling these negotiations,” said a top GOP Senate aide.

Is this guy fucking kidding? "Yeah, we got almost half the senate to send a letter to the Iranians letting them know that we're going to undermine the negotiations. It was just a goof, can't you take a joke?"

[Edi]

“The administration has no sense of humor when it comes to how weakly they have been handling these negotiations,” said a top GOP Senate aide.

Is this guy fucking kidding? "Yeah, we got almost half the senate to send a letter to the Iranians letting them know that we're going to undermine the negotiations. It was just a goof, can't you take a joke?"

Back in the days of Shrub the Lesser, merely voicing opposition to Republican policy without any other action elicited instant cries of "Treason!" so these assholes are in no position to whine about the blowback they're getting now for their stunt. Fuck them.

[bilateralrope]

“The administration has no sense of humor when it comes to how weakly they have been handling these negotiations,” said a top GOP Senate aide.

Is this guy fucking kidding? "Yeah, we got almost half the senate to send a letter to the Iranians letting them know that we're going to undermine the negotiations. It was just a goof, can't you take a joke?"

Ah, the I was only trolling defence. Only used by people who are really worried about how much they screwed up with whatever they said.

[Adam Reynolds]

I don't want Iran to have the bomb either, simply for the reason that they are actively building weapons that actually reach the western world. I hope that doesn't make me a dimwitted fuckface.

I also would prefer if Israel not have any because then it would be forced to actually treat the people it currently controls much better lest it give others even more propaganda ammo. Though I guess the argument can be made that nukes guarantee their very existence right now.

I would also say that I don't want Iran to have nukes so that the Saudi Arabia doesn't either(a state far more dangerous). There is a reason the Saudis already made a down payment with the Pakistanis. But at least for now, politically, it isn't worth the cost.

In the interest of preventing America from another endless war in the Middle East, it might be effective, but likely isn't worth the cost.