Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » "Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won't Last" (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 13 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  11  12  13   
Author Topic: "Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won't Last"
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Such "increased access" makes us less safe because it is the illusion of safety/security/knowledge in the face of Iran's obvious deception. They are known liars and are religiously committed to our destruction.

Let me agree that Iran has pursued a nuclear weapons program. They have enriched uranium beyond what is useful in reactors.

However it has taken them years with thousands of centrifuges to generate what they have. Parts of the deal that I have heard about require Iran to remix that uranium that they have spent years purifying and allow inspectors into all of the centrifuge sites we know about. At the very least this deal will delay there getting a nuclear weapon by years if not decades.

I don't see any other option on the table that gets us as much for as little. I think that if we start bombing without the full support of the world the international sanctions will collapse (what we are giving).

Also as you have mentioned there are secret sites that supposedly we would miss in an aerial bombardment. If we can't find the site on the ground with inspectors we can't find it with a bomb either.

You also ignore the impact that bombing now would have on politics in Iran. Yes the Ayatollah is in charge but the President seems to wield some significant power and the Iranian people elected the most moderate candidate offered to them in the last election. A bombing campaign while he was in office would strengthen the position of the hardliners. Iran has a reasonably sized well educated populace that could help slowly change their country to a better place. Bombing now, with their current president would crush the moderates for probably another generation or more.

In short: I don't think any deal we reach with Iran will be perfect. I see a deal that lets inspectors shut down a site as an advantage to bombs shutting down the same site.

Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Greg: Are you arguing that Hezbollah's links into the Iranian government are that much stronger than the links of either the Taliban or Al Qaeda into the Pakistani government?
Seneca: Yes. Anyone who doubts that for a second can remember this then perish any niggling suspicions.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/12/16/world/asia/ap-as-pakistan.html?_r=0

Seneca, that article is from 2014. If your basic premise was correct, why didn't Pakistan use its nukes as an umbrella to protect the Taliban and Al Qaeda when the US started fighting them in 2001?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
quote:
Greg: Are you arguing that Hezbollah's links into the Iranian government are that much stronger than the links of either the Taliban or Al Qaeda into the Pakistani government?
Seneca: Yes. Anyone who doubts that for a second can remember this then perish any niggling suspicions.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/12/16/world/asia/ap-as-pakistan.html?_r=0

Seneca, that article is from 2014. If your basic premise was correct, why didn't Pakistan use its nukes as an umbrella to protect the Taliban and Al Qaeda when the US started fighting them in 2001?
They've never been as close to each other as Hezbollah and Iran, that's a fact. They've often been at odds and Pakistan is also mountainous in parts and hard for its own government to completely secure and control.

Where is the evidence that the Pakistani government absolutely knew where bin Laden was and was helping AQ?
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/21/opinion/bergen-bin-laden-new-york-times/

[ March 17, 2015, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by yossarian22c:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Such "increased access" makes us less safe because it is the illusion of safety/security/knowledge in the face of Iran's obvious deception. They are known liars and are religiously committed to our destruction.

Let me agree that Iran has pursued a nuclear weapons program. They have enriched uranium beyond what is useful in reactors.

However it has taken them years with thousands of centrifuges to generate what they have. Parts of the deal that I have heard about require Iran to remix that uranium that they have spent years purifying and allow inspectors into all of the centrifuge sites we know about. At the very least this deal will delay there getting a nuclear weapon by years if not decades.

I don't see any other option on the table that gets us as much for as little. I think that if we start bombing without the full support of the world the international sanctions will collapse (what we are giving).

Also as you have mentioned there are secret sites that supposedly we would miss in an aerial bombardment. If we can't find the site on the ground with inspectors we can't find it with a bomb either.

You also ignore the impact that bombing now would have on politics in Iran. Yes the Ayatollah is in charge but the President seems to wield some significant power and the Iranian people elected the most moderate candidate offered to them in the last election. A bombing campaign while he was in office would strengthen the position of the hardliners. Iran has a reasonably sized well educated populace that could help slowly change their country to a better place. Bombing now, with their current president would crush the moderates for probably another generation or more.

In short: I don't think any deal we reach with Iran will be perfect. I see a deal that lets inspectors shut down a site as an advantage to bombs shutting down the same site.

If he's a moderate he has a funny way of showing it. What was the punishment for that YouTube video for those people dancing to a pop song again? How about the parades the government is throwing with effigies of our leaders with noises around their necks and burning American flags? How about blowing up mock US aircraft carriers?

At this point the definition of "moderate" being used here is worthless. Make no mistake, Iran is our enemy and is doing everything it can to make that clear. Only those who don't want to see it like Obama are trying to pretend otherwise. How could Obama negotiate with people who openly hang and burn effigies of him in parades? How can he negotiate with a government who have helped kill Americans as recently as a year or two ago?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because the result of not negotiating is either Iran with nuclear weapons or a war that doesn't seem likely to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why doesn't war seem likely to stop them? How hard is it to make nukes without an economy and strong workforce to support that effort?

How will the scientists eat, drink, get needed supplies, tech, and parts?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Since it is all too obvious that certain factions would like to bomb the hell out of various countries, Iran having been on the list for a long time, I see this issue as being a red herring. I believe the U.S. has the intention of bombing Iran either way, and is looking for an excuse to do it and to find a way of showing that it was Iran's fault.

Maybe they have a nuclear program, maybe they don't, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did that it was a CIA sting operation.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
Since it is all too obvious that certain factions would like to bomb the hell out of various countries, Iran having been on the list for a long time, I see this issue as being a red herring. I believe the U.S. has the intention of bombing Iran either way, and is looking for an excuse to do it and to find a way of showing that it was Iran's fault.

Maybe they have a nuclear program, maybe they don't, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did that it was a CIA sting operation.

Do you think the statements by the Iranian government that the US needs to be destroyed are a "CIA sting" too?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
War seems unlikely to work for two reason: we're unlikely to commit to the level of bombing required to degrade their civilian infrastructure past the point it can support a nuclear program (at least I hope we aren't) and we'll stop bombing eventually. We can bomb all the nuclear sites we know about, but they'll build new ones and hid them better. We can slow them down but we can't stop them with bombs. If we could, we'd have done it already.

That means invasion and regime change and if you're looking forward to that... Well, I have lovely bridge over the Euphrates to sell you. I'm pretty sure the US hasn't successfully installed a new regime by military force since WW2 and you still have military forces in those countries.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by yossarian22c:
[qb]If he's a moderate he has a funny way of showing it.

He was by far the most moderate candidate allowed to run. Meaning he is willing to negotiate with the west and improve relations in exchange for improving the situation in Iran. I have no illusions that he is a peace loving pacifist but an act of aggression by the US right now would put the hardliners in control.

quote:

What was the punishment for that YouTube video for those people dancing to a pop song again? How about the parades the government is throwing with effigies of our leaders with noises around their necks and burning American flags?

Was he at the rallies hanging effigies of Obama or were those the more hard line elements of the Iranian regime?

quote:

How about blowing up mock US aircraft carriers?

As to blowing up mock US aircraft carriers, so their military engages in war games. Our military has simulated several scenarios and drilled for what a conflict with Iran would look like. I see no reason to flip out because their military is preparing to fight us. Particularly as large segments of our political class are calling for bombing them.

quote:

At this point the definition of "moderate" being used here is worthless. Make no mistake, Iran is our enemy and is doing everything it can to make that clear. Only those who don't want to see it like Obama are trying to pretend otherwise. How could Obama negotiate with people who openly hang and burn effigies of him in parades? How can he negotiate with a government who have helped kill Americans as recently as a year or two ago?

Do you think the CIA (or one of our allies) had anything to do with Iranian nuclear scientists being assassinated? John McCain sings bomb, bomb, bomb, bombbomb IRAN. How can they negotiate with US!

But on a more serious note could you please address "How bombs at a site are going to be more effective than inspectors?"

Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Why doesn't war seem likely to stop them? How hard is it to make nukes without an economy and strong workforce to support that effort?

How will the scientists eat, drink, get needed supplies, tech, and parts?

North Korea was able to get a nuke. It would take a full scale invasion to make Iran as ****ty as the hell hole known as North Korea.
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
Maybe they have a nuclear program, maybe they don't, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did that it was a CIA sting operation.

They have a nuclear program. As part of the preliminary agreement they handed over some of their uranium that was enriched beyond what is useful in a reactor.
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Because the result of not negotiating is either Iran with nuclear weapons or a war that doesn't seem likely to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

The way that you present this is a false alternative. There is no evidence that this would be the result of "not negotiating" nor that negotiating would prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. In fact, it seems very unlikely that Iran will negotiate in good faith.

At a minimum, prior to a presumption of good faith, Iran should cease all support of non-state military actions and terrorism. And fully comply with its existing obligations under treaties. Absent that any assertion about the validity of negotiation must be premised on the fact that Iran will not honor the resulting deal.

I'm not going to say that we should fight them, but I do think they should be held to account for the support of non-state military actions as if they were carried out by men in the uniform of Iran. Paying for insurgents to kill people and providing them weapons should be treated as acts of war by the state doing it. The fiction that we all "honor" of allowing a state to conduct acts of war without consequence provided they don't put the men in uniform needs to end. That's true whether its the CIA or Iranian puppets conducting them.

In this case, there are a host of options that you are discounting with the binary choice of support President Obama's negotiations or not. I'd like better negotiations for one, we could consider political solutions that don't require Iran's input, could consider increasing their isolation. Heck if you really think Iran is a responsible enough player to negotiate with we could adopt their approach and provide massive funding to internal dissentors from the regime (you know the ones that Obama previously chose not to support). Not supporting THIS deal is not the same as not supporting any deal.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
War seems unlikely to work for two reason: we're unlikely to commit to the level of bombing required to degrade their civilian infrastructure past the point it can support a nuclear program (at least I hope we aren't) and we'll stop bombing eventually. We can bomb all the nuclear sites we know about, but they'll build new ones and hid them better. We can slow them down but we can't stop them with bombs. If we could, we'd have done it already.

That means invasion and regime change and if you're looking forward to that... Well, I have lovely bridge over the Euphrates to sell you. I'm pretty sure the US hasn't successfully installed a new regime by military force since WW2 and you still have military forces in those countries.

So are you resigned to Iran getting nukes then?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But the arguments against Obama's negotiations ultimately devolve to one thing: you can't negotiate with Iran because they hate us and can't be trusted. Seneca is fairly explicit on that subject. I don't see how "better" negotiations will result in any more confidence in the final product than the current set. If they aren't going to stick to any deal, why does the content of the deal matter?

Sure, it'd be lovely if Iran voluntarily decided to play nice and be a good little country, but why should they? It's not like the US or Israel would be willing to stop their state terrorism or military actions as a gesture of good faith. If you want to drop the fiction about acts of war by proxy, we should probably do the same regarding acts of terror.

Given NK, I wouldn't rely on isolation to keep Iran from getting nukes. I also think we've isolated them as much as we can, especially considering Putin. Unless you want to trade Belarus to Russia in exchange for sanctions?

Seneca, I've yet to see any propose a credible (or practical) plan for avoiding it. At least, not any plan that has "Iran can't be trusted" as a premise.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Because the result of not negotiating is either Iran with nuclear weapons or a war that doesn't seem likely to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

The way that you present this is a false alternative. There is no evidence that this would be the result of "not negotiating" nor that negotiating would prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. In fact, it seems very unlikely that Iran will negotiate in good faith.


And the Republican senators have just proclaimed to the world that we don't either. Woohoo!
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
IIn katespeak, negotiating and good faith means allowing Obama to usurp senatorial constitutional roles?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
Since it is all too obvious that certain factions would like to bomb the hell out of various countries, Iran having been on the list for a long time, I see this issue as being a red herring. I believe the U.S. has the intention of bombing Iran either way, and is looking for an excuse to do it and to find a way of showing that it was Iran's fault.

Maybe they have a nuclear program, maybe they don't, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did that it was a CIA sting operation.

Do you think the statements by the Iranian government that the US needs to be destroyed are a "CIA sting" too?
I think that bluster is one thing, and policy is another. Public statements need to be taken with a grain of salt because it can be unclear what the intended audience is and what effect is desired. Most serious positions are discussed behind closed doors. I honestly don't know what high-up Iranians really think. I do know that since the Shah was removed Iran has been on the U.S.'s hit list. They could have done anything at all other than complete compliance and we would have eventually come to this point where we need to 'deal with them.'

As an aside I know there's a habit in the west of mis-translating comments made in mid-Eastern media, so I'm not that confident that I'm aware of what people on TV there are really saying. Maybe there's a good website that does translations but I haven't bothered trying to find one.

quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:

That means invasion and regime change and if you're looking forward to that... Well, I have lovely bridge over the Euphrates to sell you. I'm pretty sure the US hasn't successfully installed a new regime by military force since WW2 and you still have military forces in those countries.

It's true that regime change is mostly conducted through CIA programs, and that the military invasion method is far less efficient. However it did result in mixed success in Korea, and it seems that that main objectives of Iraq 2.0 were met (even though the official objective of bringing stable democracy there was a failure, notwithstanding the fact that this was a phony objective). The only military attempt at regime change that seems to have blatantly failed at the time was Vietnam.

I'm not saying this to support the idea of military invasion, but rather just to specify that the main reasons not to invade are a combination of the costs involved and the small matter of the morality of ending lives for one's own benefit. "It's not effective" doesn't seem to me a very convincing reason not to invade were an invasion actually necessary. "We can't afford it" would be a far more practical claim. But we can even go further and say that since invasion typically results in special contracts and new deals made for certain industries (oil, military, logistics, infrastructure), these industries reap vast rewards for invasion while the average taxpayer gets stuck with a large bill; the result in effect is a wholesale theft from the average citizen going towards companies with special relationships to powerful men. I would also call this a good reason not to go to war, although naturally these powerful men would argue the opposite. When we hear a call to war we might want to determine who it is calling for it; if it's those who will profit directly from it we may want to not take their suggestions at face value.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
quote:
Greg: Are you arguing that Hezbollah's links into the Iranian government are that much stronger than the links of either the Taliban or Al Qaeda into the Pakistani government?
Seneca: Yes. Anyone who doubts that for a second can remember this then perish any niggling suspicions.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/12/16/world/asia/ap-as-pakistan.html?_r=0

Seneca, that article is from 2014. If your basic premise was correct, why didn't Pakistan use its nukes as an umbrella to protect the Taliban and Al Qaeda when the US started fighting them in 2001?
It did. would have taken Osama out years before and we would be taking out other al-qaeda and tell Yvonne elements in Pakistan, if it were not for the threat of Pakistan's nukes
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring, I forgot about Korea, but the US is even more present there than its other successful occupations. Iraq was failure by my lights since the result was a failed state. Afghanistan isn't doing so well, either. Though I suppose the sample size is smaller than I thought. I could improve it by adding the assorted CIA efforts, but I'm not familiar with them.

"It's not effective" is actually a great reason not to. Though the claim is really a combination of "we can't afford it" and "it's not effective." Think of all the blood and treasure that went into Iraq, and for what? A country run by a government with a military that makes 1939 Red Army look like a bastion of discipline and initiative. Granted, the US could have stuck around longer, but how much longer and would it have changed anything about post-occupation Iraq?

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
But the arguments against Obama's negotiations ultimately devolve to one thing: you can't negotiate with Iran because they hate us and can't be trusted. Seneca is fairly explicit on that subject. I don't see how "better" negotiations will result in any more confidence in the final product than the current set. If they aren't going to stick to any deal, why does the content of the deal matter?

Because if you can trust them the commitments can be made and the enforcement can be handled through the courts of each country or arbitration. This is how for instance the WTO operates, even for major issues, with specific and enforceable judgments that the countries involved with honor.

But if you can't trust them the negotiations have to be structured to provide for measurable and tangible results to get the other side to provide benefits. The assertion on this is that we are giving up too much, for too little and in a way that isn't really verifiable.
quote:
Sure, it'd be lovely if Iran voluntarily decided to play nice and be a good little country, but why should they?
Because diplomacy is a proxy for harsher methods of enforcement. Iran have been protected from the consequences of its actions for far too long.
quote:
It's not like the US or Israel would be willing to stop their state terrorism or military actions as a gesture of good faith. If you want to drop the fiction about acts of war by proxy, we should probably do the same regarding acts of terror.
What acts of state terrorism are you referring to? I'm going to respond differently if you have legitimate state terrorism examples in mind rather than what I expect. Military actions by a state, even if they cause terror, are not state terrorism.

I have no doubt that the US can be bound to enforceable treaty obligations, and can be called to account for violations, subject of course to the limitation that the US produces more lawyers per capita than any other country and engages in ridiculous levels of sophistry in applying those restrictions (true on both sides of the aisle).

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
And the Republican senators have just proclaimed to the world that we don't either. Woohoo!

Not sure why you'd be partisan about it, no Democratic regime has felt particularly bound to carry through on the commitments of Republican regimes either. In fact, it's the one constant of our foreign policy, we can not be relied upon by allies or enemies alike to remain constant to any ideal.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As an aside I know there's a habit in the west of mis-translating comments made in mid-Eastern media, so I'm not that confident that I'm aware of what people on TV there are really saying. Maybe there's a good website that does translations but I haven't bothered trying to find one.
We're also talking about a country where free speech isn't clearly guaranteed, so public participation in any given event may as be as much an attempt to ensure that you don't disappear next week as it is an earnest expression of sentiment.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
IIn katespeak, negotiating and good faith means allowing Obama to usurp senatorial constitutional roles?

Nope, that's a nonsensical strawman with no basis in reality. Why would you suggest that Kate is arguing for something that's purely invention of GOP propaganda in order to undermine the President's Constitutional role in negotiating treaties?
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But if you can't trust them the negotiations have to be structured to provide for measurable and tangible results to get the other side to provide benefits. The assertion on this is that we are giving up too much, for too little and in a way that isn't really verifiable.
The arguments I'm taking exception to depend on the failability of any tangible measure of dismantling a nuclear program. If Iran has secret facilities, they could blithely go ahead and fill all the ones we know about in concrete and they'd still end up with nukes. Again, if Iran isn't going to stick to this supposedly sweet arrangement, why would they stick to the equivalent of the Treaty of Versaille?

I think we have incompatible differences in the definition of terrorism. Though I would point out your distinction matters little to the victims.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
As an aside I know there's a habit in the west of mis-translating comments made in mid-Eastern media, so I'm not that confident that I'm aware of what people on TV there are really saying. Maybe there's a good website that does translations but I haven't bothered trying to find one.
We're also talking about a country where free speech isn't clearly guaranteed, so public participation in any given event may as be as much an attempt to ensure that you don't disappear next week as it is an earnest expression of sentiment.
Also true. I barely believe what I hear on the news hear; I don't see why I should believe what I 'hear' on the news in a theocracy.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
And the Republican senators have just proclaimed to the world that we don't either. Woohoo!

Not sure why you'd be partisan about it, no Democratic regime has felt particularly bound to carry through on the commitments of Republican regimes either. In fact, it's the one constant of our foreign policy, we can not be relied upon by allies or enemies alike to remain constant to any ideal.
Something that the Iranian leadership is completely unaware of? Up till now, no one has seen the need to go out of their way to patronizingly inform a country that we're negotiating about this, so even at the most earnest, the letter was a pretty crude insult to the intelligence of Iran's leaders and diplomats.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The assertion on this is that we are giving up too much, for too little and in a way that isn't really verifiable.
The problem with this assertion is that the agreement itself is still in the process of being formed, so assertions about what we're giving or getting are currently purely speculative and, at best, based on media maneuvering as part of the diplomatic process, not at all reliable for making those kinds of judgments about the actual contents of whatever agreement is ultimately reached.

It would be one thing if the Senate were saying "We think this is a bad agreement for these reasons" it's quite another to say "We want to eliminate the possibility of any possible agreement, even if, essentially, it's complete capitulation on Iran's part to avoid war."

I mean, it's not likely that that's what the agreement will be, but the implied blanket rejection of any negotiated solution effectively rules that out as well as anything less unilateral.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
IIn katespeak, negotiating and good faith means allowing Obama to usurp senatorial constitutional roles?

http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/9780472116874-ch1.pdf

Roughly 60% of international agreements were executive agreements from 1889 until 1939, but from 1939 until 1989 better that 90% are. Since then, over 17,000 such agreements have been made. President Reagan made 2840; the Presidents Bush made well over 3000 between them; President Clinton made over 2000. So far, President Obama has made fewer than 800. Explain how President Obama is usurping anything?

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Roughly 60% of international agreements were executive agreements from 1889 until 1939, but from 1939 until 1989 better that 90% are. Since then, over 17,000 such agreements have been made. President Reagan made 2840; the Presidents Bush made well over 3000 between them; President Clinton made over 2000. So far, President Obama has made fewer than 800. Explain how President Obama is usurping anything?

I don't get the numbers thing. It seems to be very common to cite to the raw number of times the president has done something without any consideration of the substance as having meaning. Kate, I reject that premise.

There is no doubt that a President can enter into some agreements internationally, there are however, distinctions about what they can do and what it means. Congress has delegated historically a broad range of items to the President to allow the President to take executive actions, where the President could not do so without such delegation. Certainly it's also occurred that a President has signed accords that had no legal effect within the US until they were ratified by the Senate (I believe there have been times where we had to retract our signature). And there are even things that are within the President's authority.

That doesn't mean that the President has an independent authority to negotiate a treaty and call it an executive action.
quote:
Nope, that's a nonsensical strawman with no basis in reality. Why would you suggest that Kate is arguing for something that's purely invention of GOP propaganda in order to undermine the President's Constitutional role in negotiating treaties?
No one suggested such a thing, what a false interpretation.
quote:
Something that the Iranian leadership is completely unaware of? Up till now, no one has seen the need to go out of their way to patronizingly inform a country that we're negotiating about this, so even at the most earnest, the letter was a pretty crude insult to the intelligence of Iran's leaders and diplomats.
Who said they were unaware of it? It's not by the way factually true that "no one till now" has felt a need to do such a thing, there were citations to Democrats doing the same thing in this thread. But I do agree, that this President's overall approach to executive authority has prompted the necessity of some extreme reminders of the limits that exist on him (and that he refuses to acknowledge because of the complicity of party first loyalists in the Senate).
quote:
The problem with this assertion is that the agreement itself is still in the process of being formed, so assertions about what we're giving or getting are currently purely speculative and, at best, based on media maneuvering as part of the diplomatic process, not at all reliable for making those kinds of judgments about the actual contents of whatever agreement is ultimately reached.
True, except of course that the people complaining are in a far better position to know what those terms are, and in fact if they haven't been informed it's just more evidence of the dereliction of duty by the President and his own attempt to unconstitutionally aggregate authority in the executive branch.
quote:
It would be one thing if the Senate were saying "We think this is a bad agreement for these reasons" it's quite another to say "We want to eliminate the possibility of any possible agreement, even if, essentially, it's complete capitulation on Iran's part to avoid war."
Is that a direct quote? Lol.
quote:
I mean, it's not likely that that's what the agreement will be, but the implied blanket rejection of any negotiated solution effectively rules that out as well as anything less unilateral.
I think it's more a vote of no confidence on the secret negotiations by the elected president of a democracy who acts more like an autocrat than anything else.

[ March 17, 2015, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: Seriati ]

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Roughly 60% of international agreements were executive agreements from 1889 until 1939, but from 1939 until 1989 better that 90% are. Since then, over 17,000 such agreements have been made. President Reagan made 2840; the Presidents Bush made well over 3000 between them; President Clinton made over 2000. So far, President Obama has made fewer than 800. Explain how President Obama is usurping anything?

I don't get the numbers thing. It seems to be very common to cite to the raw number of times the president has done something without any consideration of the substance as having meaning. Kate, I reject that premise.

There is no doubt that a President can enter into some agreements internationally, there are however, distinctions about what they can do and what it means. Congress has delegated historically a broad range of items to the President to allow the President to take executive actions, where the President could not do so without such delegation. Certainly it's also occurred that a President has signed accords that had no legal effect within the US until they were ratified by the Senate (I believe there have been times where we had to retract our signature). And there are even things that are within the President's authority.

That doesn't mean that the President has an independent authority to negotiate a treaty and call it an executive action.

What about this agreement do you think is different from the thousands of such agreements that previous presidents have made?
quote:


quote:
Something that the Iranian leadership is completely unaware of? Up till now, no one has seen the need to go out of their way to patronizingly inform a country that we're negotiating about this, so even at the most earnest, the letter was a pretty crude insult to the intelligence of Iran's leaders and diplomats.
Who said they were unaware of it? It's not by the way factually true that "no one till now" has felt a need to do such a thing, there were citations to Democrats doing the same thing in this thread. But I do agree, that this President's overall approach to executive authority has prompted the necessity of some extreme reminders of the limits that exist on him (and that he refuses to acknowledge because of the complicity of party first loyalists in the Senate).

What "overall approach" is that? You may not like the "numbers thing" but it is data. Where is yours? You want to show how this agreement is substantively different then you need to explain how. If you want to show that President Obama is somehow usurping authority in a way that other presidents who have enacted substantially more executive orders have, then you need to demonstrate how they are different.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
IIn katespeak, negotiating and good faith means allowing Obama to usurp senatorial constitutional roles?

http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/9780472116874-ch1.pdf

Roughly 60% of international agreements were executive agreements from 1889 until 1939, but from 1939 until 1989 better that 90% are. Since then, over 17,000 such agreements have been made. President Reagan made 2840; the Presidents Bush made well over 3000 between them; President Clinton made over 2000. So far, President Obama has made fewer than 800. Explain how President Obama is usurping anything?

telling the senate to shut up on the matter is usurpation. Simple enough for you?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do you get the difference between telling the Senate to shut up snd expressing the view that individual members of the Senate has behaved recklessly? If not, maybe someone can explain it asI have plans tonight and am on my phpne.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Do you get the difference between telling the Senate to shut up snd expressing the view that individual members of the Senate has behaved recklessly? If not, maybe someone can explain it asI have plans tonight and am on my phpne.

So how about you tell us about this particular individual Senator and what he did that was worse? Find his current position and role a little ironic?

http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/12/kissinger-slammed-kerry-for-negotiating-with-sandinistas-in-1985-video/

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do you get the difference between telling the Senate to shut up snd expressing the view that individual members of the Senate has behaved recklessly? If not, maybe someone can explain it asI have plans tonight and am on my phpne.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Was Kerry a senator when he did that or not and was he attempting to negotiate international agreements as a representative of this government in direct contravention to the wishes of the Reagan administration or not?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
With 99% of the vote in, the Jerusalem Post is reporting Netanyahu's party has a six point gain in seats (30 to 24).
Polling was so far off that the post-mortem will be very interesting given the Obama administration's $350,000 contribution to Bibi's defeat.

More important, there will be no Palestinian state for the foreseeable future, and there is now a mandate for pre-emptive action against Iranian fuel enrichment targets.

Way to go Barry!

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
noel, I am unsurprised that you are proud of the racist fear-mongering used by Netanyahu against Israeli citizens... but all he did was shift votes from the other right wing extremists parties to Likud. So now he can claim the mandate that goes with limiting the total of voters who voted for someone else to 77%.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg,

Your math is (typically) lacking context, as your guy "can claim the (non) mandate that goes with limiting the total of voters who voted for someone else to (slightly over 81%)", and even if Herzog had won, Israel's policy toward Iran would have been precisely the same (minus the Obama interference perks).

Ask Hannibal.

http://www.businessinsider.com/netanyahus-opponent-has-officially-conceded-defeat-in-the-israeli-elections-2015-3

Any way you slice this, the labor party took a grubbing thanks to Barry's meddling in the internal political affairs of one of our most loyal allies.

It is pure karma.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I will acknowledge that I find the result depressing.

Jewish, democratic, and current borders - Israel can only have two of those three characteristics. I have never even seen an argument why all three are possible. Instead, there is inciting fear and hatred as a smokescreen to hide the inevitable. noel c, how do you see this playing out? By 2025 when the majority of human beings living West of the Jordan River are not Jews, would you have the Muslims ethnically cleansed, would you have most of them living within Israel but not eligible to vote, what's your plan?

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 13 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  11  12  13   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1