Republican Senators send a letter to Iran. Wow. Damn!

[orogenicman]

I disagree. The President is genuinely trying to stave off a wider, more dangerous and deadly war. Full stop. What happens if the Senate Republicans stop his efforts is fair game.

Then you should read the article in the Daily News where they indicate the GOP members were Traitors even though the President's efforts have been irresponsible, ineffective, worthless or incompetent.

.

I don't, as a rule, read conservative rags.

 

[asterism]

And visa versa. Israel also nukes, and unlike Iran's program, there is no spotlight on that one.

Spotlight ? anyone and I mean anyone in the mainstream media who brings up Israel nukes will lose their job and their entire career....

Really?

Israel s Worst-Kept Secret The Atlantic

The two authors seem to be currently employed.

R. Jeffrey Smith Center for Public Integrity
Douglas Birch Center for Public Integrity

Julian Borger is still working after writing this:
The truth about Israel s secret nuclear arsenal World news The Guardian

Can you point to anyone who has lost a job over bringing up Israeli nuclear weapons?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Part of the reason that worked is because of the sizes of the US and the then USSR. A few missiles would not destroy the defensive capabilities of either nation. However, a few nuclear missiles from Iran would eradicate Israel.

a few missiles would not have been launched hundred and hundred of Nuclear bombs would have been delivered to targets ...It was Called MAD

Mutually Assured Destruction

The key being "Mutually Assured." Neither side was able to unilaterally destroy the other side. Thanks not the case in Iran vs. Israel. Iran launches a few nukes, Israel responds, Israel is demolished, Iran takes a few significant hits and moves on.

The Cold War detente perspective doesn't fit here.

you have misconceptions in my opinion as to what a nuclear exchange would be like

 

[Wyatt earp]

Oppose gay rights, or oppose a gay agenda stuffed down our throats and pushed on 5-8 year old children?

There is a difference you know.

No difference, supporting/promoting gay is gay too.

18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments

Current through Pub. L. 113-296, except 113-287, 113-291, 113-295. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
Notes...

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

With regards to Israel and to the Jews, Iran over the 30 years I have been paying attention, has stated numerous times they want to wipe.off Israel off the map

I personally don't know of this is just propaganda because I know Iran has a big Jewish population and they are free in Iran to go to their house of worship.

But then again I grew up with the Iran hostage crisis, know that Iranian back thugs just took over Yemen.

Iran has had decades to destroy Israel. It is noteworthy that in all that time they have not fired a single shot at the "evil Jewish state". I vote that it is propaganda for internal consumption, and the Israelis are silly to pay any heed to it.

Do you recall the old Charles Atlas ads in comic books? The big guy picks on the little guy and the little guy says "one day I will get back at him"...and then the little guy does the Charles Atlas isometrics and becomes bigger than the big guy and beats the crap out of him.

Now, that being said...Iran is saying "death to Israel" but they have not yet fired a shot because they know there is little they can do to beat Israels airforce. But once they have nuclear weapons? They will be the bigger guy.

Just a thought.

Except that Israel has had nukes for decades (and the means to deliver them). Next.

Have proof? And no blog links

Why is the U.S. okay with Israel having nuclear weapons but not Iran - The Washington Post

It is still not proof but we all know she does, another thing I don't like about Iran is there drone and intercontinental missle program, this treaty does not address that, last thing we need in 10 years is Iran getting nukes and a ICBM to deliver it to New York city.

 

[orogenicman]

Jarhead, the President has no duty to include the Congress in the deliberations or where they stand at any given time. That is not how the Constitution reads. The Senators interfered illegally in the President's constitutional duties.

From what I understand, the President wants to sign this unilaterally and without the approval (ratification) of congress. Again, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then he is not following the proper procedure for treaty ratification.

As for the negotiations themselves, I agree. He does not need to consult congress. However, if he plans on getting senatorial ratification, would it not make sense to keep congress in the loop to ensure what he is working towards is something they would ratify?

Is this the norm on these type of agreements? Has most of the other agreements been done by the executive office alone, in the past?

Depends on what it is based. If it is enforcement of the NPPT, he doesn't need Senate approval because that was ratified in the 1970s.

 

[rightwinger]

We do not even have a negotiated agreement with Iran and Republican Senators are attempting to sabotage negotiations

Republicans would rather side with the radicals in Iran than Obama

 

[BlackSand]

I disagree. The President is genuinely trying to stave off a wider, more dangerous and deadly war. Full stop. What happens if the Senate Republicans stop his efforts is fair game.

Then you should read the article in the Daily News where they indicate the GOP members were Traitors even though the President's efforts have been irresponsible, ineffective, worthless or incompetent.

.

I don't, as a rule, read conservative rags.

I don't know if it is a conservative rag or not ... But they broke the story on their cover.
The only reason I know about what they wrote is because a flaming liberal here at USMB posted the cover.

.

 

[asterism]

Part of the reason that worked is because of the sizes of the US and the then USSR. A few missiles would not destroy the defensive capabilities of either nation. However, a few nuclear missiles from Iran would eradicate Israel.

a few missiles would not have been launched hundred and hundred of Nuclear bombs would have been delivered to targets ...It was Called MAD

Mutually Assured Destruction

The key being "Mutually Assured." Neither side was able to unilaterally destroy the other side. Thanks not the case in Iran vs. Israel. Iran launches a few nukes, Israel responds, Israel is demolished, Iran takes a few significant hits and moves on.

The Cold War detente perspective doesn't fit here.

First of all, Iran doesn't have any nukes, and is not expected to have the capability to build them for many years to come. Their efforts are currently frozen and under international monitoring. Secondly, Israel's nuclear capability is believed to be very robust, possibly as much as France's. Thirdly, if Iran was seen as actually building one, they'd never get the chance to finish it. And even if they did, they still have to figure out how to deliver it. And since Israel's air superiority in the Middle East is second to no one's, the chances of it ever getting off the ground are virtually nil. And even if they got one off the ground, Israel's nukes would come into play and turn Iran into so much radioactive slag. You vastly underestimate Israel's capabilities, and overestimate Iran's abilities.

I don't agree with your analysis because it's too similar to the rationale used during the negotiations with Iran's ally, North Korea. How did that one work out?

 

[Jarhead]

Oppose gay rights, or oppose a gay agenda stuffed down our throats and pushed on 5-8 year old children?

There is a difference you know.

No difference, supporting/promoting gay is gay too.

18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments

Current through Pub. L. 113-296, except 113-287, 113-291, 113-295. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
Notes...

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

With regards to Israel and to the Jews, Iran over the 30 years I have been paying attention, has stated numerous times they want to wipe.off Israel off the map

I personally don't know of this is just propaganda because I know Iran has a big Jewish population and they are free in Iran to go to their house of worship.

But then again I grew up with the Iran hostage crisis, know that Iranian back thugs just took over Yemen.

Iran has had decades to destroy Israel. It is noteworthy that in all that time they have not fired a single shot at the "evil Jewish state". I vote that it is propaganda for internal consumption, and the Israelis are silly to pay any heed to it.

Do you recall the old Charles Atlas ads in comic books? The big guy picks on the little guy and the little guy says "one day I will get back at him"...and then the little guy does the Charles Atlas isometrics and becomes bigger than the big guy and beats the crap out of him.

Now, that being said...Iran is saying "death to Israel" but they have not yet fired a shot because they know there is little they can do to beat Israels airforce. But once they have nuclear weapons? They will be the bigger guy.

Just a thought.

Except that Israel has had nukes for decades (and the means to deliver them). Next.

Have proof? And no blog links

Why is the U.S. okay with Israel having nuclear weapons but not Iran - The Washington Post

And visa versa. Israel also nukes, and unlike Iran's program, there is no spotlight on that one.

Spotlight ? anyone and I mean anyone in the mainstream media who brings up Israel nukes will lose their job and their entire career....

Huh? Israel and its Nukes have been discussed in the mainstream media for decades....although Israel has never openly admitted to them.

 

[orogenicman]

Oppose gay rights, or oppose a gay agenda stuffed down our throats and pushed on 5-8 year old children?

There is a difference you know.

No difference, supporting/promoting gay is gay too.

18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments

Current through Pub. L. 113-296, except 113-287, 113-291, 113-295. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
Notes...

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
Iran has had decades to destroy Israel. It is noteworthy that in all that time they have not fired a single shot at the "evil Jewish state". I vote that it is propaganda for internal consumption, and the Israelis are silly to pay any heed to it.

Do you recall the old Charles Atlas ads in comic books? The big guy picks on the little guy and the little guy says "one day I will get back at him"...and then the little guy does the Charles Atlas isometrics and becomes bigger than the big guy and beats the crap out of him.

Now, that being said...Iran is saying "death to Israel" but they have not yet fired a shot because they know there is little they can do to beat Israels airforce. But once they have nuclear weapons? They will be the bigger guy.

Just a thought.

Except that Israel has had nukes for decades (and the means to deliver them). Next.

Have proof? And no blog links

Why is the U.S. okay with Israel having nuclear weapons but not Iran - The Washington Post

It is still not proof but we all know she does, another thing I don't like about Iran is there drone and intercontinental missle program, this treaty does not address that, last thing we need in 10 years is Iran getting nukes and a ICBM to deliver it to New York city.

We do know that Israel has nukes because they detonated one of the coast of South Africa a long time ago. They also have the advanced technology to build them, and even have a nuclear-capable submarine.

As for their missile technology, one thing at a time. You don't think Iran is going to negotiate everything at once, do you? Why would they?

 

[Wyatt earp]

From what I understand, the President wants to sign this unilaterally and without the approval (ratification) of congress. Again, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then he is not following the proper procedure for treaty ratification.

As for the negotiations themselves, I agree. He does not need to consult congress. However, if he plans on getting senatorial ratification, would it not make sense to keep congress in the loop to ensure what he is working towards is something they would ratify?

Since they stated from the beginning that they disagreed with any negotiations with Iran, what would be the point in the president keeping them in the loop? So they can tell him again and again what he already knows?

On the flip side, since congress made it clear that they will not agree to any treaty with a terrorist nation, why does he insist on negotiating with them anyway? So they can tell him again what he already knows when he submits the treaty to the senate for approval and it is denied?

Because, I think, he is telling the Senate 'you are not the boss of me', 'I am the Executive of all the people while you are elected by only one state,' and 'I can.'

I wonder if they President's real target is the ODS far right, and he is hoping for an explosion that will stain the whole GOP.

I get your problem, you can not comprehend there is three branches of government, the president is not the executive of all people, he/she never was

And you prove the point. You don't get it. Yes, the president is the tribune, the executive, of all the people. That's your problem, your ODS.

All you just posted says you are a ignorant asshat about the constitution

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Israel s Worst-Kept Secret The Atlantic

The two authors seem to be currently employed.

R. Jeffrey Smith Center for Public Integrity
Douglas Birch Center for Public Integrity

Julian Borger is still working after writing this:
The truth about Israel s secret nuclear arsenal World news The Guardian

Can you point to anyone who has lost a job over bringing up Israeli nuclear weapons?

That is web based media ...Julian Borger is in the UK.. perhaps I should have said mainstream electronic media .....this is a fact: Netanyahu came to the US to argue on a Nuclear Iran...at no time was it discussed or mentioned in the electronic media that Israel has at least 80 nukes ...how do you explain that to yourself....

 

[Jarhead]

Jarhead, the President has no duty to include the Congress in the deliberations or where they stand at any given time. That is not how the Constitution reads. The Senators interfered illegally in the President's constitutional duties.

From what I understand, the President wants to sign this unilaterally and without the approval (ratification) of congress. Again, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then he is not following the proper procedure for treaty ratification.

As for the negotiations themselves, I agree. He does not need to consult congress. However, if he plans on getting senatorial ratification, would it not make sense to keep congress in the loop to ensure what he is working towards is something they would ratify?

Is this the norm on these type of agreements? Has most of the other agreements been done by the executive office alone, in the past?

Depends on what it is based. If it is enforcement of the NPPT, he doesn't need Senate approval because that was ratified in the 1970s.

It does not take a year to discuss "enforcing" an existing treaty. If, in fact, that is what he is doing, he should be discussing such enforcement with the Department of State, Department of Defense, Department of Justice and congress......all he has to do with Iran is say "we plan to enforce the existing treaty"...and that takes all of one minute.

 

[orogenicman]

Part of the reason that worked is because of the sizes of the US and the then USSR. A few missiles would not destroy the defensive capabilities of either nation. However, a few nuclear missiles from Iran would eradicate Israel.

a few missiles would not have been launched hundred and hundred of Nuclear bombs would have been delivered to targets ...It was Called MAD

Mutually Assured Destruction

The key being "Mutually Assured." Neither side was able to unilaterally destroy the other side. Thanks not the case in Iran vs. Israel. Iran launches a few nukes, Israel responds, Israel is demolished, Iran takes a few significant hits and moves on.

The Cold War detente perspective doesn't fit here.

First of all, Iran doesn't have any nukes, and is not expected to have the capability to build them for many years to come. Their efforts are currently frozen and under international monitoring. Secondly, Israel's nuclear capability is believed to be very robust, possibly as much as France's. Thirdly, if Iran was seen as actually building one, they'd never get the chance to finish it. And even if they did, they still have to figure out how to deliver it. And since Israel's air superiority in the Middle East is second to no one's, the chances of it ever getting off the ground are virtually nil. And even if they got one off the ground, Israel's nukes would come into play and turn Iran into so much radioactive slag. You vastly underestimate Israel's capabilities, and overestimate Iran's abilities.

I don't agree with your analysis because it's too similar to the rationale used during the negotiations with Iran's ally, North Korea. How did that one work out?

Iran is not North Korea. NK is the most closed nation on the planet. And they abdicated the NNPT, while Iran has not, and is still being monitored by international inspectors. Unlike NK, we know full well on the ground what Iran is doing.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Oppose gay rights, or oppose a gay agenda stuffed down our throats and pushed on 5-8 year old children?

There is a difference you know.

No difference, supporting/promoting gay is gay too.

Do you recall the old Charles Atlas ads in comic books? The big guy picks on the little guy and the little guy says "one day I will get back at him"...and then the little guy does the Charles Atlas isometrics and becomes bigger than the big guy and beats the crap out of him.

Now, that being said...Iran is saying "death to Israel" but they have not yet fired a shot because they know there is little they can do to beat Israels airforce. But once they have nuclear weapons? They will be the bigger guy.

Just a thought.

Except that Israel has had nukes for decades (and the means to deliver them). Next.

Have proof? And no blog links

Why is the U.S. okay with Israel having nuclear weapons but not Iran - The Washington Post

It is still not proof but we all know she does, another thing I don't like about Iran is there drone and intercontinental missle program, this treaty does not address that, last thing we need in 10 years is Iran getting nukes and a ICBM to deliver it to New York city.

We do know that Israel has nukes because they detonated one of the coast of South Africa a long time ago. They also have the advanced technology to build them, and even have a nuclear-capable submarine.

As for their missile technology, one thing at a time. You don't think Iran is going to negotiate everything at once, do you? Why would they?

We also know because of the sacrifices made by Mordechai Vanunu in exposing Israel nukes...he has served long prison sentences for that

 

[orogenicman]

Israel s Worst-Kept Secret The Atlantic

The two authors seem to be currently employed.

R. Jeffrey Smith Center for Public Integrity
Douglas Birch Center for Public Integrity

Julian Borger is still working after writing this:
The truth about Israel s secret nuclear arsenal World news The Guardian

Can you point to anyone who has lost a job over bringing up Israeli nuclear weapons?

That is web based media ...Julian Borger is in the UK.. perhaps I should have said mainstream electronic media .....this is a fact: Netanyahu came to the US to argue on a Nuclear Iran...at no time was it discussed or mentioned in the electronic media that Israel has at least 80 nukes ...how do you explain that to yourself....

Because it is already a well known fact. In other words, it isn't news.

 

[Lakhota]

We should all be appalled and embarrassed by the childish and treasonous behavior of these warmongering NaziCon Senators.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Since they stated from the beginning that they disagreed with any negotiations with Iran, what would be the point in the president keeping them in the loop? So they can tell him again and again what he already knows?

On the flip side, since congress made it clear that they will not agree to any treaty with a terrorist nation, why does he insist on negotiating with them anyway? So they can tell him again what he already knows when he submits the treaty to the senate for approval and it is denied?

Because, I think, he is telling the Senate 'you are not the boss of me', 'I am the Executive of all the people while you are elected by only one state,' and 'I can.'

I wonder if they President's real target is the ODS far right, and he is hoping for an explosion that will stain the whole GOP.

I get your problem, you can not comprehend there is three branches of government, the president is not the executive of all people, he/she never was

And you prove the point. You don't get it. Yes, the president is the tribune, the executive, of all the people. That's your problem, your ODS.

All you just posted says you are a ignorant asshat about the constitution

It means I understand American political philosophy and the Constitution whereas you don't.

 

[Lakhota]

I totally agree with Vice President Biden.

Biden, who also serves as president of the Senate, Monday night blasted Senate Republicans in a long, angry statement for their letter to Iran's leaders, which he described as "beneath the dignity of an institution I revere."

"In thirty-six years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which Senators wrote directly to advise another country -- much less a longtime foreign adversary -- that the President does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them. This letter sends a highly misleading signal to friend and foe alike that our Commander-in-Chief cannot deliver on America’s commitments -- a message that is as false as it is dangerous," Biden said in a statement released by the White House.

"The decision to undercut our President and circumvent our constitutional system offends me as a matter of principle. As a matter of policy, the letter and its authors have also offered no viable alternative to the diplomatic resolution with Iran that their letter seeks to undermine," he added.

Joe Biden Goes Ballistic On Senate Republicans: Iran Letter Beneath 'Dignity Of An Institution I Revere'

 

[orogenicman]

Jarhead, the President has no duty to include the Congress in the deliberations or where they stand at any given time. That is not how the Constitution reads. The Senators interfered illegally in the President's constitutional duties.

From what I understand, the President wants to sign this unilaterally and without the approval (ratification) of congress. Again, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then he is not following the proper procedure for treaty ratification.

As for the negotiations themselves, I agree. He does not need to consult congress. However, if he plans on getting senatorial ratification, would it not make sense to keep congress in the loop to ensure what he is working towards is something they would ratify?

Is this the norm on these type of agreements? Has most of the other agreements been done by the executive office alone, in the past?

Depends on what it is based. If it is enforcement of the NPPT, he doesn't need Senate approval because that was ratified in the 1970s.

It does not take a year to discuss "enforcing" an existing treaty.

I know of none that hasn't taken at least that long. Iran is not an easy country to deal with, and we have only recently begun direct negotiations. It has taken time because they were starting from scratch.

If, in fact, that is what he is doing, he should be discussing such enforcement with the Department of State, Department of Defense, Department of Justice and congress......all he has to do with Iran is say "we plan to enforce the existing treaty"...and that takes all of one minute.

And you know what is going on behind closed doors because...?

This entire thing with Iran has been about the NPPT ever since Bush was in office in 2002 when it was first discovered that they were enriching uranium.