Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is Obama the King now? Is it no longer Obama's sworn duty to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution? Is it not the power to approve international agreements reserved to the Senate in the Constitution?
All the Republicans have done is explained some basic facts about how our Constitution works, and therefore how our government works and why Obama's attempts to usurp powers that he does not actually have (by executive order) does not result in promises that they can depend on.
Now of course his narcissistic highness Barack Obama is not going to like people from the Senate effectively spreading the message that the emperor has no clothes. But it is something that everyone should be made aware of on this, including Barack Obama.
This letter was timely, appropriate and very well done.
Just about every administration has made agreements with foreign governments through negotiations, I don't recall any congress sending an open letter. If we had to rely on congress to vote on every detail our foreign affairs nothing would ever be accomplished. It's important for congress to approve military interventions but this is well beyond, explaining how our government works to another country is an embarrassment.
some people in this thread really do not have the slightest idea of they are talking about (at least when it comes to foreign policy).
They see a headline on cnn.com and they rush to forums to comment on it.
It looks like you need to listen to a few Ron Paul Speeches on how empires go bankrupt.
Ron Paul? Really?
Quote:
First: if a country like ours decided to go to war each time that somebody in the world did not follow our precise instructions we would be spending 100% (or more) of our GDP on military spending and we would very quickly become bankrupt like the Soviets. There are people on this board who have argued for us to strike Syria, Lybia (which we sort of did), Sudan, North Korea, China, Iran, probably go fight the Russians in Ukraine, Deploy forces in Venezuela, Yemen, Pakisan and the list just goes on.
Second: There is no U.S intelligence Analysis that believes Iran is developing Nuclear weapons. But rather They are trying to become nuclear capable. meaning having similar capacity to Japan and Germany where if they have decided it makes sense for them They can build a nuclear weapon in matter of a year or two. This is something that is completely legal under the NPT.
For the Nth time, nobody rational is saying that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Iran has violated NPT agreements by not giving full transparency to their nuclear program. If Obama strikes a deal with Iran prior to the full inspection of the IAEA, they will be able to create nuclear weapons with full legitimacy.
Quote:
Third: You do not just need a nuclear weapon (the so called trigger device). You need a delivery System. As it stands today Iran does not have the capacity to have nuclear launch without the U.S ability to taking the launch pad out.
Quote:
Fourth: Let's assume that Iran was building a Nuclear bomb (which is not true). Nuclear weapons are not a weapons you use but rather it is weapon that ensures restraint to your adversaries.
If we set aside Hitler and his Nazi regime, you would be hard pressed to find regimes that are responsible for death of more people than Stalin, Mao Zedong, and the North Korean Kim Dynasty. but even those despots did not use the nuclear weapons at their disposal because it would in essence bring an end to their regime. and if anybody knows anything about politics they know that a politician's number one priority is staying in power.
Fifth: Let's assume that Iran was building nuclear weapons (which they are not). Let's Also assume that we could not live with that hypothetical capability (which we could). let's examine the possible consequences of an American Military Action toward Iran.
Possible consequence 1: The United States has a very long bombing campaign to take out all infrastructure that Iran has. This would include all their Air defense, most their military bases, missile sites, power plants, oil refineries, bridges, munition factories, Still Factories, Aluminum plants. Mines.....
Well This would put an immense pressure on Iranian political system to respond. They probably have multiple direct response options but we don't fully know about the efficiency of their direct responses.
Direct responses could include possible successful attacks on a U.S Naval Vessel. Let's remember that in the event of such an Attack we will have at the very minimum one Carrier Battle Group but possibly 2-3 battle groups in the region (Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea). So there will be no shortage of Possible Targets the Iranian Armed forces could be tempted to target.
more indirect responses: Iranians could always attempt to mine the Straight of Hormuz which something like 30% of the world energy shipments pass through. Well This would almost certainly mean interruptions of supply in the global market and possible harm to the global economic system.
Iran could increase the cost in countries of the region: They could cause instability in Saudi Arabia, Lebenon (Israel), UAE, Jordan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait,Qatar, Yemen, Pakistan.
This would probably completely destroy the Iranian economy.
Turn the most pro western population in the entire middle east into enemies of the U.S.
Create massive refugee problems that would create imbalances in all countries of the region.
long-term strategic consequences: Such a hypothetical massive military action would almost certainly cause
Iran to go all out to actually try to build a real nuclear weapon to create deterrence capability.
This will almost certainly guarantee that Iran will abandon their self "sufficiency policy" in military affairs. This will likely mean the following. Iran will grant the Russians or the Chinese a warm water port in the Persian Gulf or Arabian Sea under the auspices of military cooperation. perhaps granting logistical support for intelligence or missile sites to the Russians or the Chinese.
Summary: not withstanding the fact that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon let's assume we are illogical and oppose their status as a nuclear-capable country which is by the way is completely legal under the NPT.
The costs of a Military action is too great for us not to consider diplomatic solutions that readily available.
While you continue to same mantra that Iran is a victim, you continue to whitewash this barbaric, human rights violating, terror supporting regime who makes repeated statements of annihilation to another UN Charter Member (And a Liberal Democracy with that).
While some of your points could be debated, the simplistic overview is that a military conflict should be avoided. Military action can be avoided if the United States creates an effective diplomatic response to prevent a Iranian nuclear weapon. if the U.S allows Iran to the bomb and exploit its hegemony in the Middle East, conflict with Europe will be inevitable. Contrary to your opinion, ballistic missiles are already in range of Southern Europe (which a nuclear warhead could be attached), especially with its new missile the "Soumer" ( PressTV-Iran unveils long-range cruise missile ). Conflict in the Middle East will conflict with U.S interests and a security dilemma will emerge. The NPT will no longer be valid, and their will be no international enforcement to deter anybody from nuclear weapons. There are much more issues to worry about than
Just about every administration has made agreements with foreign governments through negotiations, I don't recall any congress sending an open letter. If we had to rely on congress to vote on every detail our foreign affairs nothing would ever be accomplished. It's important for congress to approve military interventions but this is well beyond, explaining how our government works to another country is an embarrassment.
It is also a specifically enumerated Constitutional power and responsibility of the Senate to approve treaties (substantial ongoing long-term agreements) with other countries, which this certainly is.
Last edited by Spartacus713; 03-09-2015 at 10:20 AM..
It is also a specifically enumerated power and responsibility of the Senate to approve treaties (substantial ongoing long-term agreements) with other countries, which this certainly is.
I am beginning to think some think he is a king. Obama isn't even 1% of either house in number.
... why make weapons when your secret intelligence people can steal or buy them from some other country.
Because you cannot buy or steal weapons from other States that have them. Even if that was possible, it wouldn't matter.
What's the first thing you do?
Oh, sorry, that is a grossly unfair question on my part. I'll rephrase.
How do you know if the nuke is dead, asleep or awake?
People who know how to play with nukes can answer the question, everyone else just looks stupid.
It's a nuke, not a hand grenade.
Nuclear warheads have protocols, and special equipment to engage and apply the protocols.
The point being: Steal a nuke without also stealing the special equipment needed for the protocols (which is no co-located with the nukes), and you end up with nothing but scrap metal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
Doesn't the Constitution mention states rights? Oh wait Iran isn't one of our states, why are we getting involved?
You're getting involved so you don't have to waste money scrapping your coins and re-minting $1, $2, $5, $10 and $20 coins, and then spending lots of money re-tooling ATMs to dispense $500, $1,000 and $5,000 bank-notes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713
Is it not the power to approve international agreements reserved to the Senate in the Constitution?
Treaties, not agreements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713
All the Republicans have done is explained some basic facts about how our Constitution works, and therefore how our government works and why Obama's attempts to usurp powers that he does not actually have (by executive order) does not result in promises that they can depend on.
Which part of healthcare is Interstate Commerce?
That, in fact, is a trick question, since no part of healthcare is Interstate Commerce.
The US Constitution says so, and the US Supreme Court has said so in more than a dozen legal rulings since 1919, most recently in the Sibelius Decision involving the ACA.
When Republicans stop being hypocrites and enforce the Constitution 100% of the time, let me know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
Or perhaps a Fanatical Islamic government is trying to establish an empire in the ME.
Or perhaps a Fanatical Jewish Sect like the Zionists are trying to establish an empire in the Middle East.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713
It is also a specifically enumerated Constitutional power and responsibility of the Senate to approve treaties (substantial ongoing long-term agreements) with other countries, which this certainly is.
Too bad you didn't take my Intro to International Relations class or US Foreign Policy class. You'd know the difference between treaties, bilateral agreements, multilateral agreements, Memorandums of Understanding and such.
Oddly, a turd called JFK entered into MOUs with Italy and Turkey to deploy Jupiter IRBMs.
That act -- which constitutionally did not require Senate approval -- was an hostile act of aggression against the Peoples of Eastern Europe.
That act was the initiator and proximate cause of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
If Republicans had stood up to Kennedy, the Cuban Missile Nonsense never happens.
Of course, JFK was giving the Republicans a giant tax cut, which is why they were on board with whatever JFK did. And of course, if the Cuban Missile Crisis never happens, then JFK gets re-elected instead of being assassinated by his own party.
Constitutionally nuclear...
Maybe, just maybe, to tell them, that because Obama has a pen and a phone means he cannot make the deal all by himself....
He kinda can though.
The letter is just smoke and mirrors anyway. Once Obama leaves office, they ain't gonna do a damn thing to Iran's facilities. The letter is a desperate attempt to scare the Iranians.
We're not going to war with Iran and we're not gonna bomb their facilities even if a Republican is the next president.
Iran is under obligation to the JPOA to provide answers to the IAEA about its past nuclear activities. Iran still has not provided answers from August 2014. Iran is not complying to its terms and the IAEA finds this unsatisfactory. Sites that are undeclared and not allowed to be inspected have accumulated evidence from intelligence agencies that military research has been conducted. Since these military sites are restricted from access, in violation of the NPT, the IAEA Is suspect what they are hiding.
And the report is not making a claim that Iran is obfuscating, hiding, or lying. It states that there are issues to resolve. There are "possible military dimensions" identified in the report--not "military research" or "military sites."
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
That's correct. Does not change the fact that Iran is under obligation of NPT framework. Iran has been non-compliant with its obligations its signed.
61. Paragraph 10: "Iran has not provided any explanations that enable the Agency to clarify the two outstanding practical measuresrelating to the initiation of high explosives and to neutron transport calculations."
Iran is working with the P5+1 and the IAEA to resolve these questions. We have already come a long way from 2006.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
Any compromise that will allow Iran to have legitimacy to the bomb once supervision is withheld is a crisis for U.S-European interests.
There is a difference between legitimacy of the nuclear program and "legitimacy to the bomb." The US interest is best served by a negotiated agreement with Iran that leads to normalized relations and a normalized civilian nuclear program.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
Please, spare the definitions like I'm some sort of idiot. The original poster pretends that Israel has as much blood on its hand as ISIS. Israel in its war's has all been either a defensive or a preemptive war with casus belli. Defending your homeland is much different than the brutal slaughtering of ISIS.
You conflated the two concepts, so I clarified the differences between them. ISIS has nothing to do with the Iranian nuclear program. Iran is fighting ISIS. While you have left the topic behind somewhat, some of Israel's military actions on Gaza do not fit neatly in the defensive/preemptive war framework.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
Reached its limit? Iran has established a vast amount of influence in Iraq. It is has just spread its influence in Yemen with the Houthies. Iran is keeping the Syrian dream alive, and a victorious Assad would allow Iranian IBC's and Hezbollah stationed in Syria; threatening the somewhat peaceful border with Israel. Now, the U.S and Europe have plenty to fear with a nuclear Iran. Nuclear weapons and the means to transport will strengthen Iran's hegemonic interests.
I did not say reached its limit, I said it's reach is limited. Iran's influence in Iraq is strictly thanks to the US invasion of Iraq. Iran and Syria have been allies for decades, obviously long before the Syrian civil war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
Does your crystal ball say anything about me winning the lottery? Or are you trying to whitewash Iran's activities of terror sponsorship? Sorry to say but Iran is much closer to influencing Iraq now. A Iran with nuclear weapons will allow Iran to be the dominate in the region, while a security dilemma will emerge in the region. Your fortune cookie predictions will not be heard when KSA, Turkey, Qatar, Egypt, ect rush for the bomb to counter Shia influence.
Iran's influence in Iraq is centered on the southern, predominantly Shi'a region of that country. In the northern, predominantly Sunni, region Iran is unwelcome.
You claim that Iran is building a bomb, but they have been "close to" a bomb for decades according to fear-mongers. I think that Iran's favored stance is a nuclear program with "breakout" capability. Diplomatically, that approach is acceptable to the powerful countries, even though it rankles regional rivals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
This rift between Obama and Netanyahu will die off soon. Either way these are political disputes and they change with every administration. No one in the Middle East is a closer ally to the U.S than Israel.
It is a political dispute, as are all disputes between nations. But you are wrong to think that this will change with every administration. The Netanyahu government has chosen to fight core US policy in the Middle East by overtly trying to insert a wedge between the White House and Congress, diving headlong into Democrat/Republican politics. Any future US President will remember this when s/he takes calls from future Israeli Prime Ministers. That will be doubly true when US foreign policy aims differ from Israeli aims, and even more so with a future Democratic President.
Israel is the junior partner in this alliance, and that makes a difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
While these are two different positions, the Obama Administration takes this stance because they believe their "deal" will prevent Iran from producing a nuclear bomb. Israel as well as our allies do not trust the deal. Pakistan and India never joined the NPT, thus they are not required to follow obligations like Iran. Unlike Iran, Pakistan and India have no hegemonic interests that will destabilize the region.
Our allies are on board. The P5+1 includes Germany, France, and the UK. Israel and Saudi Arabia are bothered, but they are regional powers who want to keep Iran on the outside looking in.
Pakistan and India's refusals to join the NPT are more dangerous than Iran's ongoing process with IAEA and the P5+1. The rivalry between Pakistan and India was (and probably still is) far more dangerous than Iran's interests in the Middle East (which are not hegemonic).
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
American Bi-Partisan politics is blinding Americans to the true dangers at hand. Anybody who is playing with fire with an Iranian nuclear program just to support their political party is dangerous. As of now, a portion of Congress is not supportive of Obama's ambiguous deal. Now, Post-Bibi speech will give Obama some trouble to pass his deal. And if he veto's Congress, he must expose the elements to the public.
Negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program is not a partisan issue--it is a global security issue. It is Netanyahu who is diving into partisan politics by attempting to drive a wedge between the White House and Democrats in Congress.
The Executive negotiates agreements with foreign powers. If the result of negotiations is a treaty, then the Senate confirms. The result could also be an Executive Agreement. The result could be an agreement that goes through the UN Security Council. Congress' power is limited. They could try to ratchet up sanctions (if they can override a veto). But US sanctions, alone, probably do not scuttle a deal (the other members of the P5+1 are far more important trading partners to Iran than the US).
Both Iran and the White House know that this Republican Senate is unlikely to approve a treaty. So expect the deal to use through other mechanisms to get what each side wants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
I will not trust any source about this "secret" deal until it is fully disclosed. 10 year freeze? What happens when they are no longer under supervision and their infrastructure is in tact? I will reserve my opinion until the deal is disclosed. But I have a feeling this deal will not go through.
Negotiations are obviously sensitive. We can reasonably expect that after ten years there will be a (gradual) lifting of limits on nuclear work and a (gradual) reduction in the intensity of inspections. Ten years is a lot of time to build confidence that each party is working in good faith. I think the parties are approaching a deal. There is too much progress being made for abandonment, and the stakes are too high to refuse to reach agreement.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
