Sidebar

Framework for a Nuclear Deal with Iran: apparently agreement

Tidewater

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,447
13,271
287
Hooterville, Vir.
seebell said:
One of us is confused. I think it's you. :) If Congress does not approve the air campaign against ISIS within 60 days -that time has already lapsed- then that particular use of force is illegal. Congress bewails and wrings their hands about the threat but takes no action in either direction.
Click to expand...
I would not wish to mistake an illegal use of force for a constitutional action.
If Congress does not authorize the use of force against ISIS (and I believe they should) and the President takes action anyway, then yes, we can add that to the long list of illegal unconstitutional things he has done.
There is a difference between the categories "good idea/bad idea" and "constitutional/unconstitutional." Some good ideas are unconstitutional. Some bad ideas are constitutional.
Of course bunker busters have limits. Why is everyone so eager to use them?
Click to expand...
Because, once Iran has nukes (or nearly so), bunker busters are the best thing available short of putting soldiers on the ground inside the tunnels to kill the scientists and destroy the machinery.
Saying a young lady is the "best ballerina in Lufkin, Texas" does not mean the ballerina in question is particularly skilled, just the best in Lufkin. Likewise, once the Iranians put stuff deep underground, a bunker buster is the best option short of putting troops in the tunnel.
 
M

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
seebell said:
Check this out.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/the-iran-debate-moves-on/399713/

Quite a few support the deal. Including people from Israeli Intelligence. The P5+1 who helped negotiate the deal with us support it. The UN Security Council has voted in favor.

Your alternative is?

“What’s your better idea?” is a challenge any honest opponent must accept. If this deal fails—which means, if the U.S. Congress rejects an agreement that the U.K., France, Germany, Russia, China, and Iran have accepted—then something else will happen, and all known “somethings” involve faster Iranian progress toward a bomb.
Click to expand...
I get what the article is saying, but the rest of the world comment overstates. Hans Blix? Really? The poster child for an inept inspection system is not someone I would put on my list to lend credence.

The support is tepid no matter how they spin it. The P5+1 were in on it, but we are not seeing a loud and clear galvanized coalition. I don't think any one takes any enforcement action tied to the agreement seriously.

All that said. I don't think Congress has a choice but to go along, and I agree with the last statement. But, Congress should never sign off on something without knowing the details. There is a reason Pelosi's statement about having to sign the bill to know what is in it resonated with those frustrated with them. This is another example of trying to just shove something through, and I don't blame them for being belligerent about it.
 
seebell

seebell

Hall of Fame
Mar 12, 2012
11,919
5,105
187
Gurley, Al
Here is the passed so called Corker Act.

Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...and-treat-iran-deal-either-treaty-or-proposed

https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ17/PLAW-114publ17.pdf

I understand the use of bunker buster TW. You neglected the "eager" part.

Knowing you TW, the Lufkin Ballerina probably performs in a confederate flag tutu!:tongue: While reciting John Randolph! :biggrin:

I agree with you mittman. But is approval by the Congress even required?
 
M

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
seebell said:
...
I agree with you mittman. But is approval by the Congress even required?
Click to expand...
Yes, this is a treaty whether they call it one or not. Treaties require a 2/3 vote.

I know since FDR did his end around, and just didn't call it a treaty, things have gotten murky, but if it is to be done the way it was constitutionally envisioned it should be. I can understand why Tidewater sees this administration as an enemy of our current system of government.
 
Last edited:
jthomas666

jthomas666

Hall of Fame
Aug 14, 2002
22,665
9,851
287
60
Birmingham & Warner Robins
Bodhisattva said:
What's Obama's rationale for not securing the release of American hostages in the negotiations? Or is there some side deal to their release?
Click to expand...
What I heard was that if the hostages' release had been put on the table, we would have been in a weaker bargaining position--that's the one aspect the people keep overlooking. Iran was VERY close to a bomb, so they were already in a strong bargaining position.

If Iran is smart, it will wait until people opposed to the bill get worked up and then release the hostages as a show of good faith.
 
jthomas666

jthomas666

Hall of Fame
Aug 14, 2002
22,665
9,851
287
60
Birmingham & Warner Robins
81usaf92 said:
If you put a boot up their butt and blow them them to kingdom come it would push that date to another hundred years. Obama is scared Russia will step in because Iran and Russia are quasi allies. But it is highly unlikely because Russia is involved in the Crimea.

Also why not give this same deal with Syria while we are at it because they have caused us so much trouble lately so why don't we appease them as well? Let's not forget Iran took advantage of another dummy president in 1980 only to cower away on the day a firm president took power. Also Iran sent insurgents over into Iraq to kill Americans and have taken hostages lately as well. So this deal is the deal of deals with the greatest people on earth*** blue font last sentence***
Click to expand...
The goal is to avoid military action, you know.
 
Tidewater

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,447
13,271
287
Hooterville, Vir.
seebell said:
Here is the passed so called Corker Act.

Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...and-treat-iran-deal-either-treaty-or-proposed

https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ17/PLAW-114publ17.pdf

I understand the use of bunker buster TW. You neglected the "eager" part.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure anyone is "eager" to use a bunker buster. Given a choice between dropping a big honking bomb on an Iranian nuclear facility to stop it from achieving a nuclear bomb, and sending troops to go down inside the facility to prevent that same end, most politicians would be "eager" to eagerly drop a big conventional bomb. Underground facilities are tough. Once the Iranians have a bomb (or are close) which this deal guarantees at some point in the future, we will be working our way down a list of bad options.
Knowing you TW, the Lufkin Ballerina probably performs in a confederate flag tutu!:tongue: While reciting John Randolph! :biggrin:
Click to expand...
Well, any ballerina who wears a Confederate flag tutu and can recite Randolph while dancing would be an interesting and talented young lady.
I agree with you mittman. But is approval by the Congress even required?
Click to expand...
Only if one wishes to maintain the fiction that the Federal government is limited in some substantive way by the provisions of the Constitution.
 
Tidewater

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,447
13,271
287
Hooterville, Vir.
jthomas666 said:
The goal is to avoid military action, you know.
Click to expand...
That is exactly wrong.
The policy goal is to prevent a certifiably insane state sponsor of terrorism from getting nuclear weapons.
Military force is a means. One of many. The others include (but are not limited to) diplomacy, economic sanctions, moral suasion, strategic communications/public information.
All oriented towards the policy goal: a nuke free Iran.
 
TideEngineer08

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
36,315
31,016
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
jthomas666 said:
What I heard was that if the hostages' release had been put on the table, we would have been in a weaker bargaining position--that's the one aspect the people keep overlooking. Iran was VERY close to a bomb, so they were already in a strong bargaining position.

If Iran is smart, it will wait until people opposed to the bill get worked up and then release the hostages as a show of good faith.
Click to expand...
I find this to be an utter load of bull crap. We are the United freaking States and there is no universe, presently, in which Iran should be in any stronger bargaining position than us. But, our President ideologically believes we should make ourselves weaker. Now I'm not directing this towards you (even if you may believe his rationale). I saw his press conference when he made these statements. He is horrendously mistaken.
 
B

bama_wayne1

All-American
Jun 15, 2007
2,700
16
57
jthomas666 said:
If we stand firm, maintaining the status quo, Iran could have an atomic bomb in three months. Is that a desirable outcome?
Click to expand...
And if we make deals with people that can delay inspections for a month they can still do it in the same three months.
 
jthomas666

jthomas666

Hall of Fame
Aug 14, 2002
22,665
9,851
287
60
Birmingham & Warner Robins
Tidewater said:
That is exactly wrong.
The policy goal is to prevent a certifiably insane state sponsor of terrorism from getting nuclear weapons.
Military force is a means. One of many. The others include (but are not limited to) diplomacy, economic sanctions, moral suasion, strategic communications/public information.
All oriented towards the policy goal: a nuke free Iran.
Click to expand...
OK, If you want to misrepresent my point, that's fine. I was speaking more broadly, as in "our history of military intervention in the middle east is problematic at best, so we really need to consider military intervention as a last resort with regard to Iran's nuclear program."

But is suspect you knew that.

I've yet to hear an alternative solution that doesn't involve bombing Iran back to the stone age--which would likely have spectacularly bad consequences.
 
Tidewater

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,447
13,271
287
Hooterville, Vir.
jthomas666 said:
OK, If you want to misrepresent my point, that's fine. I was speaking more broadly, as in "our history of military intervention in the middle east is problematic at best, so we really need to consider military intervention as a last resort with regard to Iran's nuclear program."

But is suspect you knew that.

I've yet to hear an alternative solution that doesn't involve bombing Iran back to the stone age--which would likely have spectacularly bad consequences.
Click to expand...
No, I just quoted you. You seemed to be confusing means and ends.
I am unconvinced that the status quo ante was not working. And before you say that His Arrogance said that Iran was close to getting a nuclear weapon, that is not really an argument. HA wanted a deal so badly he was (is) willing to ignore evidence to the contrary.
Instead, we have now given millions of dollars that the Secretary of State said will likely use the money to kill Americans. That is some policy.

Still, he owns this one. When it goes south (and I believe it will), it will be cold comfort to know that this was exclusively his policy. Hopefully, ex-President Obama will take up residence within the prospective blast radius, so he can experience first hand the benefits of his policy decision.
 
jthomas666

jthomas666

Hall of Fame
Aug 14, 2002
22,665
9,851
287
60
Birmingham & Warner Robins
Tidewater said:
No, I just quoted you. You seemed to be confusing means and ends.
whatever. I've been pretty clear earlier in the thread that the goal is to keep Iran from getting a nuke. Enjoy your little gotcha moment.

I am unconvinced that the status quo ante was not working. And before you say that His Arrogance said that Iran was close to getting a nuclear weapon, that is not really an argument. HA wanted a deal so badly he was (is) willing to ignore evidence to the contrary.
Instead, we have now given millions of dollars that the Secretary of State said will likely use the money to kill Americans. That is some policy.
Click to expand...
I've been pretty consistent earlier in the thread about the goal being keeping Iran from nukes.

The rest of your statement is perplexing--"Iran was close to getting a nuclear weapon, that is not really an argument." Uh, no, it's not an argument. For that matter, neither is "I am unconvinced that the status quo ante was not working." An argument would be more along the lines of "We should do X because Iran is close to getting a nuclear weapon."

Kerry has helped negotiate a deal that defines X. If you think it won't work, fine. I'm still trying to sort details out. Explain why you think it won't work. Better still, offer a viable alternative or offer evidence that the current system is working. For the record, I don't think bombing Iran back into the stone age is a particularly viable alternative.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Al A Bama

Al A Bama

Hall of Fame
Jun 24, 2011
6,658
934
132
jthomas666 said:
Tidewater said:
No, I just quoted you. You seemed to be confusing means and ends.
whatever. I've been pretty clear earlier in the thread that the goal is to keep Iran from getting a nuke. Enjoy your little gotcha moment.

I've been pretty consistent earlier in the thread about the goal being keeping Iran from nukes.

The rest of your statement is perplexing--"Iran was close to getting a nuclear weapon, that is not really an argument." Uh, no, it's not an argument. For that matter, neither is "I am unconvinced that the status quo ante was not working." An argument would be more along the lines of "We should do X because Iran is close to getting a nuclear weapon."

Kerry has helped negotiate a deal that defines X. If you think it won't work, fine. I'm still trying to sort details out. Explain why you think it won't work. Better still, offer a viable alternative or offer evidence that the current system is working. For the record, I don't think bombing Iran back into the stone age is a particularly viable alternative.
Click to expand...
The reason it won't work: we are dealing with a FANATICAL and EVIL REGIME in Tehran that has already killed and maimed many American soldiers in Iraq.

Viable alternative: provide everything that Israel needs to combat this EVIL and FANATICAL regime.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
81usaf92

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,344
31,537
187
South Alabama
jthomas666 said:
Tidewater said:
No, I just quoted you. You seemed to be confusing means and ends.
whatever. I've been pretty clear earlier in the thread that the goal is to keep Iran from getting a nuke. Enjoy your little gotcha moment.

I've been pretty consistent earlier in the thread about the goal being keeping Iran from nukes.

The rest of your statement is perplexing--"Iran was close to getting a nuclear weapon, that is not really an argument." Uh, no, it's not an argument. For that matter, neither is "I am unconvinced that the status quo ante was not working." An argument would be more along the lines of "We should do X because Iran is close to getting a nuclear weapon."

Kerry has helped negotiate a deal that defines X. If you think it won't work, fine. I'm still trying to sort details out. Explain why you think it won't work. Better still, offer a viable alternative or offer evidence that the current system is working. For the record, I don't think bombing Iran back into the stone age is a particularly viable alternative.
Click to expand...
Reagan had a sec def that outlined a successful military engagement for modern warfare.He stated 3 things must be considered before going to war.
1. Go to war when all resolutions have been unsuccessful
2. Go to war with a specific purpose
3. Accomplish that purpose and get out

While the first point maybe seems fulfilled, you have to ask the question" how was the policy a broken system?" The answer is it wasn't. So we should've upheld the policy. If they try to get froggy then bomb them until they drop that idea. Having a nuke in the Middle East allows the opportunity for Islamic extremists the opportunity to having one so why give them that opportunity.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
jthomas666

jthomas666

Hall of Fame
Aug 14, 2002
22,665
9,851
287
60
Birmingham & Warner Robins
81usaf92 said:
jthomas666 said:
Tidewater said:
No, I just quoted you. You seemed to be confusing means and ends.

Reagan had a sec def that outlined a successful military engagement for modern warfare.He stated 3 things must be considered before going to war.
1. Go to war when all resolutions have been unsuccessful
2. Go to war with a specific purpose
3. Accomplish that purpose and get out

While the first point maybe seems fulfilled, you have to ask the question" how was the policy a broken system?" The answer is it wasn't. So we should've upheld the policy. If they try to get froggy then bomb them until they drop that idea. Having a nuke in the Middle East allows the opportunity for Islamic extremists the opportunity to having one so why give them that opportunity.
Click to expand...
To what policy are you referring? The policy that allowed Iran to make steady progress towards obtaining a nuke?

It's certainly a good philosophy for governing the use of military force. What it fails to consider is what happens after step 3. Say we bomb Iran, and then Syria gets close to having a nuke. Do we bomb them as well?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
81usaf92

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,344
31,537
187
South Alabama
jthomas666 said:
81usaf92 said:
jthomas666 said:
To what policy are you referring? The policy that allowed Iran to make steady progress towards obtaining a nuke?

It's certainly a good philosophy for governing the use of military force. What it fails to consider is what happens after step 3. Say we bomb Iran, and then Syria gets close to having a nuke. Do we bomb them as well?
Click to expand...
Yes we do. It violates the nuclear policy amongst superpowers and the worry is terrorist obtaining a nuke. That is the problem. Weapons are way easier to obtain in the Middle East than they are in somewhere in the snow part of Russia, the Korean Peninsula, and somewhere in France. Iran having a nuke isn't the issue it's their security of them. Imagine Isis with a nuke. It is a real possibility with this deal.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Tide1986

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
2
0
Birmingham, AL
jthomas666 said:
81usaf92 said:
jthomas666 said:
To what policy are you referring? The policy that allowed Iran to make steady progress towards obtaining a nuke?

It's certainly a good philosophy for governing the use of military force. What it fails to consider is what happens after step 3. Say we bomb Iran, and then Syria gets close to having a nuke. Do we bomb them as well?
Click to expand...
The irony is that Iran has been developing nuclear capabilities for at least a decade, so efforts to date have been at least as effective if not more effective than the new agreement from a timeline perspective.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a> <br /> <!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \--> <p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.

Top Bottom