Credibility

[Tahuyaman]

It is a dangerous precedent to let a president fool you into entering an agreement of this nature with another nation without consent.
@donttread, are you still feeling confused on this issue?

[Dr. Who]

The President is the face of the nation. Regardless of whether an agreement entered into by that President crossed all of the Constitutional 'tees' dotted all of the 'I's' if it wasn't immediately rejected by Congress and stood for any length of time, in the world of common law, that is a legitimate agreement and nations have a right to see it as such, particularly those who were also parties to the agreement. In the nonpolitical world exiting such an agreement without the blessing of the other parties would constitute a breach. As it stands, America is then seen as just as politically unreliable as many third world nations where no agreement has any residual value beyond the next election or coup, as the case may be.

[Mister D]

The President is the face of the nation. Regardless of whether an agreement entered into by that President crossed all of the Constitutional 'tees' dotted all of the 'I's' if it wasn't immediately rejected by Congress and stood for any length of time, in the world of common law, that is a legitimate agreement and nations have a right to see it as such, particularly those who were also parties to the agreement. In the nonpolitical world exiting such an agreement without the blessing of the other parties would constitute a breach. As it stands, America is then seen as just as politically unreliable as many third world nations where no agreement has any residual value beyond the next election or coup, as the case may be.

The US has abandoned many allies in your lifetime. Were you incensed when we abandoned South Africa?

Edit: an even better question might be if you thought Canada ceased to be "politically reliable" when you abandoned apartheid South Africa?

[Ransom]

The President is the face of the nation. Regardless of whether an agreement entered into by that President crossed all of the Constitutional 'tees' dotted all of the 'I's' if it wasn't immediately rejected by Congress and stood for any length of time, in the world of common law, that is a legitimate agreement and nations have a right to see it as such, particularly those who were also parties to the agreement. In the nonpolitical world exiting such an agreement without the blessing of the other parties would constitute a breach. As it stands, America is then seen as just as politically unreliable as many third world nations where no agreement has any residual value beyond the next election or coup, as the case may be.

It was immediately rejected by Congress. Overwhelmingly so. In order to be ratified, our Congress....that is We the People, the REAL face of our nation...must ratify by 2/3rds. We rejected by 60%. It lost by 100+ points in our House of Representatives.

What in the world?

[donttread]

A nation doesn’t make a deal because a president made an arrangement on his own without the consent of the legislature.

If you want to arrange a treaty with another nation, go through the process.

If you aren’t willing to do that, don’t complain when your ill conceived arrangement is withdrawn by your successor.

OK, that makes sense. However he must of at least thought he had the authority which does sound screwed up

[Mister D]

OK, that makes sense. However he must of at least thought he had the authority which does sound screwed up

He also had a "beer summit". Yes, it does all sound screwed up.

[Ransom]

I admit to not understanding the protocol by which nations are held to long term deals with other nations . But doesn't backing out of one effect that nation's credibility for future deals?
Or would we only hold other nations to such a standard?
This is a serious question.

Then learn what that protocol is you speak to above. And remind other nations to do the same. Mitch McConnell in fact spoke to it minutes after Obama himself singed this agreement. And explained the protocols hadn't been followed...and thus this deal wasn't ratified, wasn't agreed to by Congress.....and that should the next President be Republican...it would be reversed.
And that's exactly what happened, despite you're being unaware of protocol.

For the love of God.

[donttread]

The President is the face of the nation. Regardless of whether an agreement entered into by that President crossed all of the Constitutional 'tees' dotted all of the 'I's' if it wasn't immediately rejected by Congress and stood for any length of time, in the world of common law, that is a legitimate agreement and nations have a right to see it as such, particularly those who were also parties to the agreement. In the nonpolitical world exiting such an agreement without the blessing of the other parties would constitute a breach. As it stands, America is then seen as just as politically unreliable as many third world nations where no agreement has any residual value beyond the next election or coup, as the case may be.

Agreed, protocol or no the average world citizen will see it as a broken deal and lose whatever trust they may have had in us.

[Ransom]

OK, that makes sense. However he must of at least thought he had the authority which does sound screwed up

file:///C:/Users/tjohn/AppData/Local...ideagmt-V3.pdf

The Resolution from the House concerning Obama not following protocol.

[Mister D]

Agreed, protocol or no the average world citizen will see it as a broken deal and lose whatever trust they may have had in us.

Aren't you the one who is constantly telling us how bloodthirsty and monstrously evil the US government is? Now a broken deal with Iran undermines our credibility? Seriously? Methinks your problem is that you make far too much out of virtually everything.