What if I don't have a Question? Okay, how many of you read Fabius Maximus?

2015-07-28T09:49:13-04:00

http://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/07/28/history-republican-opposition-arms-control-treaties-87687/

For 50 years Republicans have fought against treaties that brought peace

Summary: To understand the dynamics and stakes of the Iran deal we should look at our past, rather than conservatives' confident warnings about the future. The peace we've enjoyed for decades resu...

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Jul 28 at 2015 9:49 AM

2015-07-28T09:49:44-04:00

"Summary: To understand the dynamics and stakes of the Iran deal we should look at our past, rather than conservatives’ confident warnings about the future. The peace we’ve enjoyed for decades results in part from 50+ years of arms control treaties — all strenuously fought by the Right. We can learn much from their false predictions, as they’re repeated today about Iran."

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Jul 28 at 2015 9:56 AM

2015-07-28T09:56:43-04:00

Capt Walter Miller What I find interesting is that most treaties have had free trade increases imbedded in them. You would think that Republicans as Free Marketers would jump on the wagon! Conversely, Democrats who claim to protect the worker appear to readily support the treaties that facilitate the off shoring of US jobs.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 28 at 2015 10:48 AM

2015-07-28T10:48:12-04:00

I remember when we had treaties ratified by the Senate, in accordance with the Constitution, but that is not how we roll these days. I think that there is a distinct possibility that a veto proof majority votes against this "executive agreement" and that it will be bipartisan. It will get voted down because it allows the Islamic republic of Iran, an avowed adversary on virtually every issue, to pursue it's aims and frees up the resources for it to do so. If it works, President Obama will look visionary and Secretary Kerry has a shot at the Nobel Peace Prize. If it doesn't, they'll say that it was worth the risk. And they'll be out of office by the time we know, probably.

As for the article, it conveniently forgets the SALT treaties. And the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. It touches on the IMF treaty. All negotiated under the Reagan administration. The START treaty was negotiated under George HW Bush.
We have had 14 years of Democrat administrations since then, and there wasn't a whole lot of peacemaking going on. Plenty of foreign relations disasters, though. For all the talk that Republicans pound war drums and Democrats being peacemakers, if you look at history, long or short-term, the two parties are pretty consistent at launching military operations. You can try to make it a partisan issue, but it really isn't. Whoever is in power thinks it is a great idea to go on military operations, and the "loyal opposition" finds fault. Then the other party is elected, and the script flips.