Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Should the deal with Iran be considered a treaty and if it is a treaty is not Congress required to approve it?
Wow you're excited most all nuclear testing can be done by computer now. No actual nuclear detonation is required.No sanctions have been lifted yet.
You do know they're set to be...
Yes, they are set to be, that's the whole point of the deal. But it hasn't happened yet, and won't until IAEA inspectors say that Iran is compliant with the deal.
Of course it'll be years of hide and seek again but what the hell,who cares if they sneak in a nuclear device right?
I'll at least take solace that it will more than likely take place in one of the liberal cesspools.
You have quite an active imagination.
You realize that in order to do that, Iran would have to build a functioning device (which will be nearly impossible for them to do under scrutiny), test it (completely impossible to hide), and build a delivery system (which would also require testing that would be impossible to hide).
The idea of a "surprise" nuclear bomb from Iran is ludicrous.
Most of the testing can be done by computer until the final test ,the actual detonation and Noth Korea doesn't have 100s of billions of dollars for advanced testing. They do it the old fashion way. Why are you so fond of the mullahs anyway?Wow you're excited most all nuclear testing can be done by computer now. No actual nuclear detonation is required.You do know they're set to be...
Yes, they are set to be, that's the whole point of the deal. But it hasn't happened yet, and won't until IAEA inspectors say that Iran is compliant with the deal.
Of course it'll be years of hide and seek again but what the hell,who cares if they sneak in a nuclear device right?
I'll at least take solace that it will more than likely take place in one of the liberal cesspools.
You have quite an active imagination.
You realize that in order to do that, Iran would have to build a functioning device (which will be nearly impossible for them to do under scrutiny), test it (completely impossible to hide), and build a delivery system (which would also require testing that would be impossible to hide).
The idea of a "surprise" nuclear bomb from Iran is ludicrous.
You can model weapons with a computer, but you can't test them.
There's no way to know if they'll work or not with blowing one up - North Korea is a good example of that.
A so-called "Snap back" within 30 days is impossible You're not living in the real worldThe idea of a "surprise" nuclear bomb from Iran is ludicrous.
It doesn't have to be a "surprise" nuclear bomb. All they have to do is wait until they get their money and the sanctions are lifted, then start building one. What will the U.N. do then? NOTHING
P.S. Tell us how the nuclear deals with North Korea worked out...
The UN resolution to end the sanctions has an automatic "snap-back" provision that will re-introduce the sanctions within 30 days of any "unresolved issue" - and the only way to override that automatic snap-back would be a unanimous vote from the Security Council.
Iran knows snapback sanctions won t stop it from going nuclear - Business Insider
this guy is so excited that Iran will be a much stronger regional power. It's some kind of madness really
Most of the testing can be done by computer until the final test ,the actual detonation and Noth Korea doesn't have 100s of billions of dollars for advanced testing. They do it the old fashion way. Why are you so fond of the mullahs anyway?Wow you're excited most all nuclear testing can be done by computer now. No actual nuclear detonation is required.Yes, they are set to be, that's the whole point of the deal. But it hasn't happened yet, and won't until IAEA inspectors say that Iran is compliant with the deal.
Of course it'll be years of hide and seek again but what the hell,who cares if they sneak in a nuclear device right?
I'll at least take solace that it will more than likely take place in one of the liberal cesspools.
You have quite an active imagination.
You realize that in order to do that, Iran would have to build a functioning device (which will be nearly impossible for them to do under scrutiny), test it (completely impossible to hide), and build a delivery system (which would also require testing that would be impossible to hide).
The idea of a "surprise" nuclear bomb from Iran is ludicrous.
You can model weapons with a computer, but you can't test them.
There's no way to know if they'll work or not with blowing one up - North Korea is a good example of that.
Doesn't matter, the points are valid, you just choose to ignore them because to like the mullahsA so-called "Snap back" within 30 days is impossible You're not living in the real worldThe idea of a "surprise" nuclear bomb from Iran is ludicrous.
It doesn't have to be a "surprise" nuclear bomb. All they have to do is wait until they get their money and the sanctions are lifted, then start building one. What will the U.N. do then? NOTHING
P.S. Tell us how the nuclear deals with North Korea worked out...
The UN resolution to end the sanctions has an automatic "snap-back" provision that will re-introduce the sanctions within 30 days of any "unresolved issue" - and the only way to override that automatic snap-back would be a unanimous vote from the Security Council.
Iran knows snapback sanctions won t stop it from going nuclear - Business Insider
this guy is so excited that Iran will be a much stronger regional power. It's some kind of madness really
You're using a position paper from a neo-con think tank that was written before the the deal was released as your argument.
Maybe you'd like wherever it is that to you live to be the test area..they'll workMost of the testing can be done by computer until the final test ,the actual detonation and Noth Korea doesn't have 100s of billions of dollars for advanced testing. They do it the old fashion way. Why are you so fond of the mullahs anyway?Wow you're excited most all nuclear testing can be done by computer now. No actual nuclear detonation is required.Of course it'll be years of hide and seek again but what the hell,who cares if they sneak in a nuclear device right?
I'll at least take solace that it will more than likely take place in one of the liberal cesspools.
You have quite an active imagination.
You realize that in order to do that, Iran would have to build a functioning device (which will be nearly impossible for them to do under scrutiny), test it (completely impossible to hide), and build a delivery system (which would also require testing that would be impossible to hide).
The idea of a "surprise" nuclear bomb from Iran is ludicrous.
You can model weapons with a computer, but you can't test them.
There's no way to know if they'll work or not with blowing one up - North Korea is a good example of that.
The only test that matters is the detonation.
Doesn't matter what the computer says if the bomb doesn't work.
Doesn't matter, the points are valid, you just choose to ignore them because to like the mullahsA so-called "Snap back" within 30 days is impossible You're not living in the real worldThe idea of a "surprise" nuclear bomb from Iran is ludicrous.
It doesn't have to be a "surprise" nuclear bomb. All they have to do is wait until they get their money and the sanctions are lifted, then start building one. What will the U.N. do then? NOTHING
P.S. Tell us how the nuclear deals with North Korea worked out...
The UN resolution to end the sanctions has an automatic "snap-back" provision that will re-introduce the sanctions within 30 days of any "unresolved issue" - and the only way to override that automatic snap-back would be a unanimous vote from the Security Council.
Iran knows snapback sanctions won t stop it from going nuclear - Business Insider
this guy is so excited that Iran will be a much stronger regional power. It's some kind of madness really
You're using a position paper from a neo-con think tank that was written before the the deal was released as your argument.
The Iran nuclear agreement includes two secret side deals covering a key Iranian military site and other past arms activities, according to two lawmakers who are demanding that Congress be granted access to the documents.
The secret agreements were reached between Iran and the International Atomic Energy (IAEA) on Tehran’s past nuclear arms work and are a central component of the Vienna accord reached by Iran, the United States, and five other states.
A key part of the nuclear agreement requires Iran to disclose all military nuclear arms work before international sanctions are lifted. The IAEA has until December to report on the past military activities.
Rep. Mike Pompeo, (R., Kan.), a member of the House Permanent Select Committee, said in an interview he first learned of the secret side deals by questioning IAEA officials.
Pompeo, who first revealed the agreements along with Sen. Tom Cotton, (R., Ark.), said there may be additional secret pacts the Obama administration has not disclosed to Congress as required by legislation covering congressional review of the Iran nuclear agreement.
The agreements deal with access to Iran’s military facility at Parchin, a military site that was excluded from the public text of the Vienna agreement reached July 14. A second secret accord outlines how past nuclear arms work by Iran will be addressed.
“It’s outrageous,” said Pompeo of the secret agreements, noting that other members of the six-nation agreement may already have been briefed on the side deals.
“We have asked for information from the intelligence community and the State Department about these agreements,” Pompeo said
Doesn't matter, the points are valid, you just choose to ignore them because to like the mullahsA so-called "Snap back" within 30 days is impossible You're not living in the real worldIt doesn't have to be a "surprise" nuclear bomb. All they have to do is wait until they get their money and the sanctions are lifted, then start building one. What will the U.N. do then? NOTHING
P.S. Tell us how the nuclear deals with North Korea worked out...
The UN resolution to end the sanctions has an automatic "snap-back" provision that will re-introduce the sanctions within 30 days of any "unresolved issue" - and the only way to override that automatic snap-back would be a unanimous vote from the Security Council.
Iran knows snapback sanctions won t stop it from going nuclear - Business Insider
this guy is so excited that Iran will be a much stronger regional power. It's some kind of madness really
You're using a position paper from a neo-con think tank that was written before the the deal was released as your argument.
The "points" are meaningless, because they discuss an entirely hypothetical deal, since the real one didn't exist at the time it was written - and neo-con think tanks don't exactly have a great track record in their recommendations for the middle east.
Not according to Congress...Should the deal with Iran be considered a treaty and if it is a treaty is not Congress required to approve it?
"Should" doesn't mean anything. It's not a "treaty", and Congress doesn't have to approve it.
This has already been determined.
And if Obama ticked off another half-dozen Democrats by going to the UN, the Senate can override a veto.
Iran deal in hand Obama must face Congress - CNNPolitics.com
You're not understanding what happened.
If this were a "treaty", it would need 2/3s of a vote to pass, rather than 2/3s to reject it, and Congress wouldn't have had to pass a law in order to give them the chance to approve it at all.
There's really no chance of Obama's veto being overturned, and that's only if it doesn't pass in the first place.
I'm still awaiting your definition of what a treaty is.
Since you like wikipedia as a source so much, here's what they have to say about it:
Treaty Clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
In the United States, the term "treaty" is used in a more restricted legal sense than in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from congressional-executive agreements and sole-executive agreements.[1] All three classes are considered treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal United States law. Distinctions among the three concern their method of ratification: by two-thirds of the Senate, by normal legislative process, or by the President alone, respectively.
Why build it when they will have BILLIONS of U.S. dollars to buy one from Pakistan, or N. Korea?....Ever hear of immediate gratification?
North Korea doesn't have a working bomb to sell, and Pakistan has no love for Iran and would never sell them one.
Pakistan is probably going to sell nukes to Saudi Arabia, though.
If I may say BULLSHIT! We have NO WAY of knowing what N.Korea has, just as we have no IDEA what MONEY spent by Iran can buy!
Perhaps this can help you, but I doubt it, although others will understand!
Of course we do. Any time there's a nuclear explosion anywhere in the world, the US knows about it within seconds - how big its yield is, etc etc.
NK has tested 3 bombs, ever. The first test was a clear fizzle, and the second two also likely fizzles, since neither had a yield of more than 4 kilotons.
(For reference, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 10 kT, and the biggest bomb ever tested was 75,000 kT)
They've ALREADY tested SEVERAL, they need not TEST anymore!...Even a SMALL ONE, on one of the ICBM's would cause havoc. You apparently don't understand this, and they don't have to land to do their damage! EMP, is more of a bitch than the actual physical damage!
That's not how it works. Every time you build a new type of bomb, you have to test it - hence the reason that the US has performed thousands of nuclear tests, as opposed to NK's 3.
If you don't test it, you don't know if it works - and so far, the tests that NK has done have shown that their bombs don't work very well.
The biggest bomb that NK has built is less than half the size of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
And in your qualified estimation, and since we do know N.K. HAS ICBM's, what would a TINY, LITTLE, FUCKING bomb like that do to our electrical systems?If I may say BULLSHIT! We have NO WAY of knowing what N.Korea has, just as we have no IDEA what MONEY spent by Iran can buy!
Perhaps this can help you, but I doubt it, although others will understand!
Of course we do. Any time there's a nuclear explosion anywhere in the world, the US knows about it within seconds - how big its yield is, etc etc.
NK has tested 3 bombs, ever. The first test was a clear fizzle, and the second two also likely fizzles, since neither had a yield of more than 4 kilotons.
(For reference, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 10 kT, and the biggest bomb ever tested was 75,000 kT)
They've ALREADY tested SEVERAL, they need not TEST anymore!...Even a SMALL ONE, on one of the ICBM's would cause havoc. You apparently don't understand this, and they don't have to land to do their damage! EMP, is more of a bitch than the actual physical damage!
That's not how it works. Every time you build a new type of bomb, you have to test it - hence the reason that the US has performed thousands of nuclear tests, as opposed to NK's 3.
If you don't test it, you don't know if it works - and so far, the tests that NK has done have shown that their bombs don't work very well.
The biggest bomb that NK has built is less than half the size of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
North Korea does not have any ICBMs that can reach the US, but if they did, a bomb of the size they have would deal significant damage to about 30 or so blocks of Manhattan. It's yield would be too small to have a significant EMP effect, which requires much larger weapons and high-altitude rockets, neither of which North Korea possesses, or is capable of building.
You are welcome to hold whatever opinions you like, but they won't change reality.
It's a done deal.
You just forfeited any intellectual credibility with that remark.
Your opinion on my "intellectual credibility" is even less relevant to reality than your opinion on world affairs.
What I have to say is here: A Message To Our Members of Congress Max Blankfeld The Blogs The Times of IsraelShould the deal with Iran be considered a treaty and if it is a treaty is not Congress required to approve it?