Over the weekend, I had a liberal acquaintance link the following image on her Facebook:
And while I normally have a great deal of tolerance to publicly post ideas I disagree with, this one bothered me, specifically because I happen to know a bit of history about this very question.
You see, during the Carter Administration, the President (through his State Department) negotiated a treaty with the Soviets. The name of this treaty was the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty II Treaty of 1979 (more commonly known by the acronym SALT II). And, generally speaking, the treaty was pretty bad for the US. It committed us to limitations in the very systems most feared by the Soviets, and in return they "promised" to limit the same classes of weapons (which they lacked the technology to duplicate on the scale we had). Before ratification before the Senate occurred, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. So the Senate balked. And in 1986, they flat out repudiated the treaty, and it was dead.
So, what would happen if 47 Senators told the "Russians" that they "shouldn't trust us" because we "wouldn't keep our end of the deal?" Well, I don't know about the exact number of Senators that killed SALT II (but I do know that it was Democrats who held the majority in the Senate in 1986, so that should tell you how bad the deal was), so it may not have been 47. And they didn't tell the "Russians" since it was actually the Soviet Union back then. And as for "they shouldn't trust us" I think the author is saying that "we won't ratify this piece of dreck" is saying "not to trust us" because we "wouldn't keep our end of the deal", but if that's how the Iranian theocratic dictators want to take it, I don't really care.
So I basically summarized all this, linked to the details of the treaty and called it a day. Strangely, no debate followed. I guess pithy quips via image macro are only so clever when there's no competing history to refute them.