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 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 13 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  11  12  13   
Author Topic: "Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won't Last"
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This wasn't racist, this was about the survival of Israel when faced with threats of destruction. Accusations of racism sound like sour grapes.

On another note it is extremely distressing to learn of the Obama administration putting tax dollars into the election there to benefit one particular faction. Just goes to show the Israeli people reacted with anger to this blatant attempt at outside manipulation.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  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:
What about this agreement do you think is different from the thousands of such agreements that previous presidents have made?

Kate, both your own source and my prior comment explain the different types of executive actions. The President for instance, executing delegated authority is an "executive" action that would be counted in those numbers you cite to, but it represents the executive branch implementing the will of Congress not usurping it. For treaties, there is no ambiguity, nor is there anything that could be reasonably construed as a delegation to the President in the Iran context.

Unless, you're asking for a lecture on how the powers of the executive branch and legislative branch work, I'm not really sure what you're asking me to prove.

Do you concede that some executive actions are within the power of the executive branch and some are not? If you do, then you should understand that the raw numbers are irrelevant in this evaluation.
quote:
What "overall approach" is that? You may not like the "numbers thing" but it is data. Where is yours?
The numbers are not relevant data, or even on point data. What data do you think I need to understand this issue? It's not like its hard to research, and again, even your own link explains some of the basics.
quote:
You want to show how this agreement is substantively different then you need to explain how.
Until we see what's in it, WE can't do that. What we can say is that the President CAN NOT enter into a treaty, and that some other agreements are beyond his authority. My belief is that he will attempt to sign something that is a treaty but call it by a different name and claim it is within his authority, or attempt to color it in delegated executive authority (which as we saw in the Cuba case he will interpret extremely broadly and well beyond their intended terms).
quote:
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.
Which, again, even your own source explains. I think this confusion may be why we're at so much risk of executive overreach. It doesn't seem like you, for instance, believe that there are limits on a President's authority. That is not the case.
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:
That doesn't mean that the President has an independent authority to negotiate a treaty and call it an executive action.
Indeed, and the accusation that this was going to happen is part of the core of the egregious lie the GOP is fronting on this matter as a way of undermining the President's constitutional role in negotiating the treaty in the first place. The Senate's job is to advise the president directly and review after the fact. Not to sabotage negotiations and attempt to rig a diplomatic collapse to justify authorizing military actions or declaring war.
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 Seneca:
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/

On simple difference- he was still trying to find a diplomatic solution, not to start a war. It was definitely overstepping his authority, but not actively malicious.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 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:
Originally posted by Seneca:
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/

On simple difference- he was still trying to find a diplomatic solution, not to start a war. It was definitely overstepping his authority, but not actively malicious.
This is a presumption. How do you know Obama isn't the one who wants to start a war and the senators are trying to prevent that? Do you have all the facts at hand? One good refutation that the senators are hungering for war is that Rand Paul is among them, and he is firmly anti-war. Perhaps those who signed it weren't all on the same page, or perhaps some were duped, but suggesting their their collective desire was war mongering and malicious is the most opinionated and least factual comment made recently in this thread.
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:
It was definitely overstepping his authority, 
Stop right there. The rest of the sentence is irrelevant. Do you agree that Kerry violated the law and the Constitution?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  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 Seneca:
quote:
It was definitely overstepping his authority, 
Stop right there. The rest of the sentence is irrelevant. Do you agree that Kerry violated the law and the Constitution?
I'm unaware of any trial that occurred that established that my perception of his overreach amounted to either of these. The fact that the Justice department at the time seems not to have seen it as worthy of pressing charges about suggests that remained with in the realm of poor ethics but not an actionable legal violation.

In as much as he had no apparent motivation or intent to provoke or support a country to war against the US, I don't think it comes nearly as close to treasonous behavoir has the Congressional letter did.

In either case, absent a trail to examine whether or not the behavoir actually crossed the line, the best they can be characterized as is rather underhanded, but very significantly different in both intent and execution.

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:
How do you know Obama isn't the one who wants to start a war and the senators are trying to prevent that?
Because Obama is pursuing diplomatic options where as the Senate letter is, at best undermining diplomacy, with military action being the next fallback, and at worst outright insulting and provoking Iran to more aggressive actions. It's entirely possible that most of the GOP in the Senate is simply diplomatically incompetent and clueless about how insulting and patronizing their letter was; I don't think that speaks much better for them. But absent a trail to closely examine the facts and more clearly establish where the line lies, all we have is personal speculation based the nature of their action.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 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 
Except we know by Kerry's own TV interviews he was there negotiating things that HE personally wanted and was in direct opposition to what the Reagan administration was doing. Merely because the Reagan administration practiced prosecutorial discretion and declined to charge Kerry does not change the criminal nature of his actions.

Kerry actually engaged in competitive negotiations with a foreign power that our President was trying to deal with. On the other hand the 47 GOP senators were merely reminding Iran that any treaty must be ratified by the US Senate. They weren't asking for anything specific or really asking for anything at all. Nothing they were doing was competitive or hostile to what Obama was doing because we all know Obama planned on following the Constitution, right? [Smile]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  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:
Except we know by Kerry's own TV interviews he was there negotiating things that HE personally wanted and was in direct opposition to what the Reagan administration was doing.
But it was not an insult or instigation to war. Also, within the bounds of his freedom as an individual, not as an official act of his office at the time.

quote:
h. On the other hand the 47 GOP senators were merely reminding Iran that any treaty must be ratified by the US Senate.
So, at best, insulting it's intelligence, but realistically also communicating that they had no intention of ratifying any treaty that Obama produced, regardless of it content. So, at best instigating conflict, but more likely expressing a will to leave no option but increased conflict by scuttling the negotiations.

[ March 18, 2015, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 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 
It doesn't matter whether Kerry's action was an "insult," or "instigation to war" or not, though I disagree with your characterization of the Senate's letter.

As for not being there as a senator I call BS on that. He was acting as a representative of the US government and he shouldn't have been. That's why he went on national television and said as much. Are you saying that Kerry was lying?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  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:
It doesn't matter whether Kerry's action was an "insult," or "instigation to war" or not
It matters greatly, because attempting to instigate a war with another country can be considered treason, where as negotiation a possible alternate deal may be diplomatically counterproductive, but doesn't rise to the same level of active promotion of harm to the US. Intentionally or not, the Senate's act of self-aggrandizement here brings us much closer to active hostilities and war, where Kerry's did not- that, in and of itself, creates an essential distinction that can't be ignored.

quote:
I disagree with your characterization of the Senate's letter
You yourself have said that it definitely told the Iranians something that they already understood to be true (unless you wish to explicitly accuse their leadership of total incompetence?)

Unless you want to say that the Senators that signed it are incompetent and I don't buy that they're simply being deliberately insulting as you have asserted. It only makes sense as a passive-aggressive statement that they don't intend to ratify any agreement presented to them.

quote:
As for not being there as a senator I call BS on that.
You're suggesting that there is some authority Senators have to conduct such negotiations? IF not, then he was de facto, not operating in an official capacity. Do fell free to cite where you believe he stated that he was acting with the formal powers of the Senate and not, at most, simply using his credentialing as a Senator to gain access to the people he needed to talk to.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 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:
Except we know by Kerry's own TV interviews he was there negotiating things that HE personally wanted and was in direct opposition to what the Reagan administration was doing.
But it was not an insult or instigation to war. Also, within the bounds of his freedom as an individual, not as an official act of his office at the time.

Pyr, you keep tossing about this phrase in an off-hand manner as if it was some kind of fact. It isn't. It's your personal opinion in the form of motive speculation behind the individual intentions of the senators.

Simply remarking in passing that the senators in question have instigated war is more a comment about how precious Obama's diplomatic efforts are to you than anything contained in the letter, which in fact contained nothing aggressive or overtly threatening.

Your opinion about the implication of the letter, though, is irrelevant and sidesteps Seneca's question to you about how what Kerry did was any different. The only difference you've mentioned so far is that in your opinion the senatorial letter seems more pro-war, which actually has no relevance at all to the legality of their actions as compared to Kerry's.

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:
It's your personal opinion in the form of motive speculation behind the individual intentions of the senators.
Their motive doesn't matter. It functional effect matters. The best effect it can have is an insult, which makes war more likely. The worst effect is can have is to cause a diplomatic solution to become completely untenable, which essentially makes war inevitable. It's completely possible that the GOP senators that signed it are just completely ignorant of how insulting their statement is, but the practical effect is instigation regardless of how you slice it.

Both examples were of people placing self-aggrandizement over the formal process. However Kerry did not make war more likely and did not act in any form of formal official capacity. The letter was a formal presentation of Senator acting within the capacity and authority of their offices and did make war more likely.

If they had made an effort to negotiate a different deal with Iran, one that would have still required the executive to sign off on it and then present it to the Senate for ratification, they've have been acting similarly to Kerry. But they did not act to make what they felt might be a better or more expedient deal, only very specifically to prevent the President from being able to reasonably negotiate at all.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 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 
Per, have you read the Logan Act? That is what Kerry violated by negotiating a competing deal with Nicaragua. Congress is forbidden from negotiating competitively or at odds with the administration...

Also, their letter does not hurt Obama at all, it merely states that any treaty must be ratified by the Senate. If you consider that illegal then God forbid you find out about all the people who post copies of the Constitution online...

[ March 18, 2015, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

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 
Pyr, the only point you're making is that you think the senatorial letter is more likely to result in a bad result than Kerry's action was. How do you not see that this has zero to do with what is legal?
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  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 Fenring:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Except we know by Kerry's own TV interviews he was there negotiating things that HE personally wanted and was in direct opposition to what the Reagan administration was doing.
But it was not an insult or instigation to war. Also, within the bounds of his freedom as an individual, not as an official act of his office at the time.

Pyr, you keep tossing about this phrase in an off-hand manner as if it was some kind of fact. It isn't. It's your personal opinion in the form of motive speculation behind the individual intentions of the senators.


Sen. Cotton has said that the goal of the letter was to scuttle negotiations. "The end of these negotiations isn't an unintended consequence of congressional action. It is very much an intended consequence. A feature, not a bug, so speak,"
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 
Agreed with Kate here, which is probably is awkward to her as it is to me. [Smile] yes, it's a motive and friends, but it's the only reasonable motive inference that I can think of.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
By the way, the Logan Act applies to any US citizen, not just Congress.

I can't imagine how restating article 1 of the US Constitution would scuttle any meaningful negotiations.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  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:
this was about the survival of Israel when faced with threats of destruction
Are you seriously making the case that greater voting by Israeli citizens who happen to be Arab is a threat to Israel's survival?

That's as racist as saying that America will be threatened with destruction if African Americans to vote in greater numbers.

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 
No, I was not making that point, though that is how the leftist press is trying to spin things.

It was clear I was talking about a coordinated effort to get a leader with a spine removed from Israel so he could be replaced with a Chamberlain-esque Iran-appeaser that would let the Ayatollah get nukes and then they'd try to destroy Israel.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  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 
A leader with a spine? No, a coward. The Republicans and their ideological allies over in Israel thrive by creating, inciting, and nurturing fear. This strategy has been very politically potent for many years, but it has an achilles heel. Those who are scared do not like picturing themselves as scared, and instead they like to cover their fear with bluster. The Bush over-reaction to 9/11 reeked of this, the irrational need to torture out of a desparation bred of panic and pure fear. The focus on the "cowardice" of terrorists (which is a really odd choice if you had to listy negative characteristics of terrorists). So when I hear you talk about Netanyahu having "a spine", I just hear the irrational fear coming out.

The antidote to the politics of fear is the politics of courage. We should call out the cowards for what they are - scared, panicked people choosing anger because that's less painful than acknowledging their fears. The difference between President Obama and the Republicans is that he can go to the same scary place and not face it with the same level of panicked fear. The right approach for dealing with foreign policy threats is to prudently address risks, but move forward with courage rather than cowardice.

Growing up in the 1960s and 1970s I never really understood FDR's quote "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself", but recent years have shown me its wisdom

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  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 Fenring:
Pyr, the only point you're making is that you think the senatorial letter is more likely to result in a bad result than Kerry's action was. How do you not see that this has zero to do with what is legal?

If you abstract away the motivation, then it's the outcome that determines whether it meets the bar for treasonous activity. Thus a trial might have determined whether Kerry's acts met the bar for something that was simply illegal, a trail of the Senators that issued the letter would determine whether it met the bar for constitutional violations= both of separation of powers and, if negotiations fail to prevent war because of it, of treason.

In either case, the best we can do, in absence of a trial, is speculate as to whether they would have been found in violation; and so long as no charges are pressed, the acts are effectively left as allowable.

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:
Also, their letter does not hurt Obama at all, it merely states that any treaty must be ratified by the Senate.
Something that the Iranians already know, unle3ss you're calling them completely incompetent. So at the very best is was an insult to them, which huts diplomatic efforts. Any reasonable reading, and the express statement of the author of the letter, is that it's a statement that the Senate will refuse to ratify anything. Because the letter did not just say that the Senate needs to ratify a treaty, it also says that any agreement reached will not be enforced if a Republican replaces Obama. And the only way that could be true would be if the Senate refuses to ratify any treaty made.

You're talking here like a middle school kid claiming that hey were just counting one finger at a time and not intentionally flipping someone off, which really amounts to doubling down on the insult to the intelligence of the Iranian leaders and diplomats the letter was sent to, along with anyone else that you expect to buy that nonsense.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
By the way, the Logan Act applies to any US citizen, not just Congress.

I can't imagine how restating article 1 of the US Constitution would scuttle any meaningful negotiations.

Actually, the State Departments official position is that the Logan Act does not apply to members of congress ( link). The rational being thatin Article 2, Section 2, the President has the power “to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” The letter offers no opposition or support towards the ongoing negotiations, but instead, as admitted by Joe Biden, was written as “a constitutional lesson.”

While I like that the left has finally decided that laws mean something, this is nothing more than kabuki political theatre. I suspect that when the democrats do something similar again, as they have done many times before, the rule of law will once again fade as a issue. History will repeat itself.

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The bigger question here is, why is Obama so intent on allowing aIran to become a nuclear power and touching off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East? What's the upside to Iran having nuclear bombs that the left so supports?
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  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 Greg Davidson:
A leader with a spine? No, a coward. The Republicans and their ideological allies over in Israel thrive by creating, inciting, and nurturing fear.

This is a bold face lie. If you want to talk about nurturing fear and which party actually does it, we only need to look back in your own posting history about how Republicans want widows and old people to die from lack of health care, or any Democratic "fact" sheet about the threat to social security and how Republicans want to put grandma out on the street.

What about the fear mongering the Dems do in every election cycle about how if we have a conservative President they will pack the courts and end abortion rights forever, notwithstanding that its the Dems who by a large margin are the ones who misuse administrative and legal power to achieve their own ends.
quote:
The antidote to the politics of fear is the politics of courage. We should call out the cowards for what they are - scared, panicked people choosing anger because that's less painful than acknowledging their fears.
Pot meet kettle.
quote:
The difference between President Obama and the Republicans is that he can go to the same scary place and not face it with the same level of panicked fear.
That's more a consequence of megalomania than any product of nobility.
quote:
The right approach for dealing with foreign policy threats is to prudently address risks, but move forward with courage rather than cowardice.
True, one should have the courage to take a tough stance against a criminal nation, rather than giving into the cowardice that your own party wouldn't support it.
quote:
Growing up in the 1960s and 1970s I never really understood FDR's quote "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself", but recent years have shown me its wisdom
It was very true then, however, I think what we really have to fear is the mis-education of our citizenry that has led to us not even understanding that we're supporting autocrats who are deliberately eroding our constitutional rights.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 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:
The bigger question here is, why is Obama so intent on allowing aIran to become a nuclear power and touching off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East? What's the upside to Iran having nuclear bombs that the left so supports?
If by bigger you mean Big Lie kind of question, I agree with you.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  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 
Seriati, I disagree. Republicans are the ones who have identified multiple dictators and regimes as Hitlers. Remember Saddam Hussein? Qadaffi? And many others? Republicans are the ones who get into a foaming lather over non-issues such as the so-called Ground Zero Mosque. Republicans are the ones who repeatedly tell pollsters that the believe absolutely crazy scary things, like Obama is a secret Muslim, or not really an American, or in one particularly psycho outburst 26% of Republicans said that they believed that Obama may be the anti-Christ.

This is pathetic. And when government action is taken in accordance with the panicky fears of these cowards, it does not make us safer, it just creates problems that have to be fixed later.

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:
A leader with a spine? No, a coward. The Republicans and their ideological allies over in Israel thrive by creating, inciting, and nurturing fear. This strategy has been very politically potent for many years, but it has an achilles heel. Those who are scared do not like picturing themselves as scared, and instead they like to cover their fear with bluster. The Bush over-reaction to 9/11 reeked of this, the irrational need to torture out of a desparation bred of panic and pure fear. The focus on the "cowardice" of terrorists (which is a really odd choice if you had to listy negative characteristics of terrorists). So when I hear you talk about Netanyahu having "a spine", I just hear the irrational fear coming out.

The antidote to the politics of fear is the politics of courage. We should call out the cowards for what they are - scared, panicked people choosing anger because that's less painful than acknowledging their fears. The difference between President Obama and the Republicans is that he can go to the same scary place and not face it with the same level of panicked fear. The right approach for dealing with foreign policy threats is to prudently address risks, but move forward with courage rather than cowardice.

Growing up in the 1960s and 1970s I never really understood FDR's quote "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself", but recent years have shown me its wisdom

The true cowardice is believing that we should or have to negotiate at all with religious zealots who believe it is their holy duty to destroy us when it is clear they will lie, stall and say anything to delay us until they can finally attack us.

Obama is so desperate to avoid war at any cost that I imagine at some point no matter how much the Iranians blow smoke and commit to nothing Obama will still hold a press conference and like Neville Chamberlain proclaim that he has secured 'peace in our time.' That is the true cowardice. Kicking the can to the next administration and ensuring the death of Americans later by nuclear attack. If Obama wasn't such a spineless coward he'd deal with the threat now instead of running from it even in the face of Iran publicly taunting him with parades showing maps of the US with radiation symbols and effigies of our leaders in nooses while they are pretending to "negotiate" with us and yet still commit to nothing.

quote:
If you abstract away the motivation, then it's the outcome that determines whether it meets the bar for treasonous activity. Thus a trial might have determined whether Kerry's acts met the bar for something that was simply illegal, a trail of the Senators that issued the letter would determine whether it met the bar for constitutional violations= both of separation of powers and, if negotiations fail to prevent war because of it, of treason.
Ridiculous. More speculation. Publishing a paraphrase of our Constitution cannot possibly be treason except to a tyrant. On the other hand, Kerry going and actually engaging in in-depth negotiations where he was asking for specific measures in contravention to the Reagan administration actually meets the exact defining forbidden conduct listed in the Logan Act. The 47 Senators weren't asking for anything from Iran in their letter. Do you understand the difference now?

quote:
Something that the Iranians already know, unle3ss you're calling them completely incompetent. So at the very best is was an insult to them, which huts diplomatic efforts.
Yes. I am calling them incompetent. I am calling them crazy. I am calling them psychotic, dangerous and evil. What else do you call a nation that allows itself to be governed by a dictator for life who believes he is a holy man whose word is law and who tells the strongest country on earth that he will destroy them? If that;s not the definition of insanity and incompetence then I don't know what is.

quote:
Any reasonable reading, and the express statement of the author of the letter, is that it's a statement that the Senate will refuse to ratify anything.
Which is completely within the Senate's privilege to do so. Read the Constitution closely, where does it say that Congress has to wait to give their advice and consent until the President claps his hands and says "it's time!" ? Please find that for us.

quote:
Because the letter did not just say that the Senate needs to ratify a treaty, it also says that any agreement reached will not be enforced if a Republican replaces Obama. And the only way that could be true would be if the Senate refuses to ratify any treaty made.
Again, this is 100% legal and basically just restating how our government works. Different administrations change foreign policy all the time when that policy is not a ratified treaty. And since the Iranians are stupid and crazy as demonstrated above, it bears reminding them.

quote:
You're talking here like a middle school kid claiming that hey were just counting one finger at a time and not intentionally flipping someone off, which really amounts to doubling down on the insult to the intelligence of the Iranian leaders and diplomats the letter was sent to, along with anyone else that you expect to buy that nonsense.
The only immaturity hear is the world's most powerful democratic republic pretending it can negotiate in good faith with a Supreme Dictator For Life who rules by Sharia Law and who believes we are evil and need to be destroyed.


quote:
Seriati, I disagree. Republicans are the ones who have identified multiple dictators and regimes as Hitlers. Remember Saddam Hussein? Qadaffi? And many others? Republicans are the ones who get into a foaming lather over non-issues such as the so-called Ground Zero Mosque. Republicans are the ones who repeatedly tell pollsters that the believe absolutely crazy scary things, like Obama is a secret Muslim, or not really an American, or in one particularly psycho outburst 26% of Republicans said that they believed that Obama may be the anti-Christ.

This is pathetic. And when government action is taken in accordance with the panicky fears of these cowards, it does not make us safer, it just creates problems that have to be fixed later.

So Earth is destined to only have one "Hitler" type individual for all time and since we already got rid of Adolf we can never have it again?
Iran bears many similarities to Hitler and the Nazis than most of the small-time recent dictators did. Iran is expanding its sphere of influence. It hates the Jews and wants them exterminated. Is the Ayatollah a clone of Adolf? No. But the example does have some merit.

[ March 19, 2015, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  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 Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
A leader with a spine? No, a coward. The Republicans and their ideological allies over in Israel thrive by creating, inciting, and nurturing fear.

This is a bold face lie. If you want to talk about nurturing fear and which party actually does it, we only need to look back in your own posting history about how Republicans want widows and old people to die from lack of health care, or any Democratic "fact" sheet about the threat to social security and how Republicans want to put grandma out on the street.

What about the fear mongering the Dems do in every election cycle about how if we have a conservative President they will pack the courts and end abortion rights forever, notwithstanding that its the Dems who by a large margin are the ones who misuse administrative and legal power to achieve their own ends.

Do Democrats also use fear to motivate, absolutely. The fact is that Republicans do use fear to motivate their foreign policy. Just look at many posters here whose entire foreign policy outlook is driven by a fear that nuclear weapons are going to explode in American cities unless we (fill in policy proposal here).

Fear is an excellent motivator. I expect both political parties to continue to use it. It is important to analyze the policies pursued as a result of those fears and make sure we are acting in our rational self interest and not acting out of panic induced by exaggerated fears.

Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  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 Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
A leader with a spine? No, a coward. The Republicans and their ideological allies over in Israel thrive by creating, inciting, and nurturing fear.

This is a bold face lie. If you want to talk about nurturing fear and which party actually does it, we only need to look back in your own posting history about how Republicans want widows and old people to die from lack of health care, or any Democratic "fact" sheet about the threat to social security and how Republicans want to put grandma out on the street.

What about the fear mongering the Dems do in every election cycle about how if we have a conservative President they will pack the courts and end abortion rights forever, notwithstanding that its the Dems who by a large margin are the ones who misuse administrative and legal power to achieve their own ends.

Do Democrats also use fear to motivate, absolutely. The fact is that Republicans do use fear to motivate their foreign policy. Just look at many posters here whose entire foreign policy outlook is driven by a fear that nuclear weapons are going to explode in American cities unless we (fill in policy proposal here).

Fear is an excellent motivator. I expect both political parties to continue to use it. It is important to analyze the policies pursued as a result of those fears and make sure we are acting in our rational self interest and not acting out of panic induced by exaggerated fears.

Did you learn anything from 9-11? That was a terrorist group with some financial backing but nowhere near as strong as a country like Iran. The 9-11 terrorists were motivated by their religious faith and belief that they were fighting a holy war against the US. The Iranian government has the same religious convictions. Do you deny this? Do you think the Ayatollah or the zealots he puts into power, especially their military, would hesitate for a second to attack the US with nuclear weapons or via proxy through their terrorists networks?

Acting like we can trust Iran not to kill us is like strapping bloody cuts of steak all over yourself and walking around insider a tiger cage. It's in Iran's nature to destroy us. You can't reason with religious zealots.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  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:
And since the Iranians are stupid and crazy as demonstrated above
Rather, as asserted with no actual evidence but simply on the basis of profession of ignorance and acceptance of propaganda from the war machine.

you don't understand what people would do something. Perhaps you should invest some effort in actually understanding the situation instead of proffering up your ignorance as evidence of them being incompetent or insane, and that's not even getting to conflating their behavior with that of people from completely different political and religious factions.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 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 Pyrtolin:
quote:
And since the Iranians are stupid and crazy as demonstrated above
Rather, as asserted with no actual evidence but simply on the basis of profession of ignorance and acceptance of propaganda from the war machine.

you don't understand what people would do something. Perhaps you should invest some effort in actually understanding the situation instead of proffering up your ignorance as evidence of them being incompetent or insane, and that's not even getting to conflating their behavior with that of people from completely different political and religious factions.

Do you deny that the Ayatollah rules Iran?

Do you deny that the Ayatollah and many of the leaders he has installed have gone on record about how the US is evil and they want to destroy us?

Do you deny that huge portions of the population participate in rallies and parades where they chant "death to America?"

The only ignorance here comes from those who willfully dismiss a threat from people who are literally telling us they want to kill us. And no, it isn't some minor part of the Iranian government, it is their Supreme Leader and the heads of his military.

[ March 19, 2015, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would deny that the Ayatollah rules Iran, actually.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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:
Originally posted by Fenring:
Pyr, the only point you're making is that you think the senatorial letter is more likely to result in a bad result than Kerry's action was. How do you not see that this has zero to do with what is legal?

If you abstract away the motivation, then it's the outcome that determines whether it meets the bar for treasonous activity. Thus a trial might have determined whether Kerry's acts met the bar for something that was simply illegal, a trail of the Senators that issued the letter would determine whether it met the bar for constitutional violations= both of separation of powers and, if negotiations fail to prevent war because of it, of treason.

In either case, the best we can do, in absence of a trial, is speculate as to whether they would have been found in violation; and so long as no charges are pressed, the acts are effectively left as allowable.

Oh yeah, I'm sure anyone who starts a war in America under dubious circumstances will definitely be taken to task for it.

Believe me, if the senators are taken to trial for their actions it will have zero to do with any possible military repercussions, and will entirely be a political ploy in the same vein as trying to impeach Clinton over his affair. To be fair the Republicans made their own bed with that one.

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:
Do you deny that the Ayatollah rules Iran?
He has significant influence. He does not directly rule.

quote:
Do you deny that the Ayatollah and many of the leaders he has installed have gone on record about how the US is evil and they want to destroy us?
Some presidents have been more bellicose than others. I would like to see you explicitly cite the Ayatollah on the record as explicitly vowing to destroy the US.

quote:
Do you deny that huge portions of the population participate in rallies and parades where they chant "death to America?"
There are rallies though the degree to which participation is voluntary is questionable, as are the translations of speech provided by those that benefit from ginning up conflict.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 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 Greg Davidson:
Seriati, I disagree. Republicans are the ones who have identified multiple dictators and regimes as Hitlers.

And no one on the left has ever identified regimes as Nazi's? Seriously, not a single regime that repressed women or that executes people for being gay?

The world is not a safe place. You have to concede that there is clearly a line within people can assert that a particular leader is a danger to the world, to the US or even to humanity in general and it not be a "scare tactic"? And in fact, Islamic extremism with it's root in non-rational (ie ideological/religious) considerations certainly is an area where there is a potential for truly horrible leaders to evolve.
quote:
Remember Saddam Hussein?
Sure. Not clear to me there is a world where he was not a horrible leader that committed atrocities that any civilized world should not tolerate.
quote:
Qadaffi?
You mean the man who "reformed" and then was deemed so dangerous that your great leader decided needed to be terminated?
quote:
Republicans are the ones who get into a foaming lather over non-issues such as the so-called Ground Zero Mosque.
By Republicans, you mean some Republicans correct, I should point out that I know personally a not insignificant amount of life long Democrats who got into a lather over that same Mosque. In fact, when you propose to build anything in NYC its a certainty that the majority of people on both sides of the issue are going to be Democrats.
quote:
Republicans are the ones who repeatedly tell pollsters that the believe absolutely crazy scary things...
Polls are not a particularly good measure. Particularly not the radical results ones. They are a better test of general ignorance (which by the way is at least as present in the Democratic party).
quote:
Originally posted by yossarian22c:
Do Democrats also use fear to motivate, absolutely. The fact is that Republicans do use fear to motivate their foreign policy. Just look at many posters here whose entire foreign policy outlook is driven by a fear that nuclear weapons are going to explode in American cities unless we (fill in policy proposal here).

How many is it? Honestly how many "Republicans" ENTIRE foreign policy is driven solely by such a fear? How many Democrats (I can name a bunch by the way)?

If you're talking about the populace, it's just a fact that citizens are concerned about safety, they are concerned about terrorism, they are concerned about any kind of attack on US soil (why limit it to nukes?).

Basing a foreign policy on the FACT that some other countries are hostile is not the same thing as basing it on fear.
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Something that the Iranians already know, unle3ss you're calling them completely incompetent.

No, I think the more likely claim is that the letter was presented to counteract any false claims the Administration was making. For instance, telling the Iranians that they could make a binding commitment without the approval of the Senate back home. Given the President's already existing history of executive overreach (at least from the perspective of Congress) both domestically and with respect to foreign policy, it's not even remotely unlikely that his administration would have intimated they could make substantial concessions without the approval of Congress.
quote:
So at the very best is was an insult to them, which huts diplomatic efforts.
The very best was to reign in an overreaching executive branch, and to make a potentially touchy party with whom we are currently negotiating be wary of any promises of executive only solutions.

It would be far worse for the country for the President to commit us to a deal that we repudiate than it is to make the counterparty aware he can't commit us at all.
quote:
Any reasonable reading, and the express statement of the author of the letter, is that it's a statement that the Senate will refuse to ratify anything.
Lol, the only reasonable reading, is that if the Senate is not on board it's not a deal. Everything else is just your own opinion over reaching.
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:
For instance, telling the Iranians that they could make a binding commitment without the approval of the Senate back home.
Ah, so the letter was intended to promote Big Lie politics by implying that the President was up to no good where no actual evidence of it exists, then perhaps pointing to people pointing out the absurdity of such an accusation as evidence of denial and cover up of "real" intentions.

quote:
It would be far worse for the country for the President to commit us to a deal that we repudiate than it is to make the counterparty aware he can't commit us at all.
And now we're back to simply insulting the intelligence of the IRanian diplomats. You seriously believe that they just sent random people who wren't fully versed in what the US could and could not legally offer into negotiations? That Iran is simultaneously too clever and too stupid to make a meaningful deal with?
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:
Lol, the only reasonable reading, is that if the Senate is not on board it's not a deal.
But since the Senate doesn't know what the agreement is, then it can't legitimately be on board or not, unless it's simply declaring that it wan't to scuttle any possible diplomatic solution. While, again, insulting the IRanian diplomats who already know that the deal has to pass muster at the Senate.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 13 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  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