Posted on Apr 2, 2015
4
4
0
Congress
Democrats
Republicans
Nuclear
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 16
1
1
0
There can't be any hidden agendas here so congress needs to see the details. Now that being said, and Iran being the A-hole country they are - remember the whole hostage thingy a few years ago that our government essentially gave them a pass on - does anyone think that we're going to walk away from the table with a truly enforceable deal that gives us the upper hand??
(1)
(0)
LTC John Shaw
Bob,
Good to see you in RP!
Yes, many details yet to be worked through to be an enforceable agreement.
Adding a PBS link from the Iraq weapons inspector David Kay.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/good-bad-ugly-iran-nuclear-deal/
Good to see you in RP!
Yes, many details yet to be worked through to be an enforceable agreement.
Adding a PBS link from the Iraq weapons inspector David Kay.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/good-bad-ugly-iran-nuclear-deal/
Former inspector: The good, bad and ugly from Iran Nuclear Deal
David Kay, the former Chief Nuclear Weapons Inspector for the International Atomic Energy Agency, applauds the completion of a framework for a final nuclear deal with Iran. But, he warns, the hard part will be turning this into an enforceable agreement.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I ask simple questions, what is the alternative to an agreement? Do we really want to bomb Iran? Do you think we alone can hold together the sanctions without support from the other partners? They want the agreement.
(1)
(0)
LTC John Shaw
Sir,
1) Good point on a Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). US options are limited but we have held an economic embargo since 1979, the hostage takeover of the US Embassy.
2) Do we want to war? Of course the point is to prevent this type of escalation.
3a) I will have to disagree on the other partners wanting the agreement. Russia, China, France and Britain walked away from the framework, then two days later Sec of State Kerry announces the framework.
3b) The US seems to be the only partner that wants the agreement based on this framework, which gives me pause and makes me want to contact my representative to say we need to use caution.
1) Good point on a Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). US options are limited but we have held an economic embargo since 1979, the hostage takeover of the US Embassy.
2) Do we want to war? Of course the point is to prevent this type of escalation.
3a) I will have to disagree on the other partners wanting the agreement. Russia, China, France and Britain walked away from the framework, then two days later Sec of State Kerry announces the framework.
3b) The US seems to be the only partner that wants the agreement based on this framework, which gives me pause and makes me want to contact my representative to say we need to use caution.
(0)
(0)
BG David Fleming III
LTC Shaw, I appreciate your thought out response, nevertheless, Russia benefits significantly from this agreement. They are most likely going to handle the Nucleur material, giving them more influence. China will probable be Irans biggest financial invester after the sanctions are lifted. The other nations really don't matter. Just my opinion!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Congress' role (specifically, the Senate's) is to "advise and consent" on matters concerning treaties. The issues that Senators may have with this bill are appropriately raised in the Foreign Relations Committee and questions posed to appropriate administration officials. Done properly, issues that affect the quality and terms of an agreement can be identified and addressed through supplementary diplomatic exchanges.
In short, the process is there to make a deal better, not necessarily kill it.
Having said that, I don't know what the HE-double hockey sticks we are doing here. This deal, in my humble opinion, concedes plenty and the only win is monitoring through the IAEA... which was doing that anyway.
The only thing I can figure is that this opens the door to dialogue and perhaps more substantive conversations at a later date, a la Cuba.
Maybe I am missing something, but I just don't see much substantive at all about this agreement. I'm left wondering if this deal is just diplo-speak for "hey world, look how we worked together" to write up a note that is not worth the paper it is printed on.
Somewhere in a British cemetery, Neville Chamberlain is glad to be forgotten.
In short, the process is there to make a deal better, not necessarily kill it.
Having said that, I don't know what the HE-double hockey sticks we are doing here. This deal, in my humble opinion, concedes plenty and the only win is monitoring through the IAEA... which was doing that anyway.
The only thing I can figure is that this opens the door to dialogue and perhaps more substantive conversations at a later date, a la Cuba.
Maybe I am missing something, but I just don't see much substantive at all about this agreement. I'm left wondering if this deal is just diplo-speak for "hey world, look how we worked together" to write up a note that is not worth the paper it is printed on.
Somewhere in a British cemetery, Neville Chamberlain is glad to be forgotten.
(1)
(0)
LTC John Shaw
Jerry,
Great point of the President's vs. Senate's role. If the President strikes a deal, should the Senate kill the deal, this can be in good faith disagreement with the policy and strategy of the differing major parties. This will not be the first time a treaty supported by the President did not get approved/supported by an unfriendly Senate.
I believe the framework is a quick win and way to show positive movement between the countries verses just breaking off the talks and having this perceived as an abject failure of policy.
I have been on the receiving end of too much Iranian ordinance and seen too many kids die by their hands to just accept the kiss and make up option. Agreed on the Neville Chamberlain comments, so much for 'guaranteeing peace in our time' as he had hoped for with the Nazi Party.
Great point of the President's vs. Senate's role. If the President strikes a deal, should the Senate kill the deal, this can be in good faith disagreement with the policy and strategy of the differing major parties. This will not be the first time a treaty supported by the President did not get approved/supported by an unfriendly Senate.
I believe the framework is a quick win and way to show positive movement between the countries verses just breaking off the talks and having this perceived as an abject failure of policy.
I have been on the receiving end of too much Iranian ordinance and seen too many kids die by their hands to just accept the kiss and make up option. Agreed on the Neville Chamberlain comments, so much for 'guaranteeing peace in our time' as he had hoped for with the Nazi Party.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
This is hard for me because I don't have all the facts on what Congress knows or does not know. I know that in principle we are a United States and if we appear divided to the world that is one thing. But when we operate like we are divided then it leaves a huge crack for other countries to affect our governance credibility.
I think Russia has a lot to benefit from our divided government and will do their best to destroy our way of life like I believe we worked hard to do prior to 1989. We should be very careful.
I think Russia has a lot to benefit from our divided government and will do their best to destroy our way of life like I believe we worked hard to do prior to 1989. We should be very careful.
(1)
(0)
Suspended Profile
I am very concerned about what the Iranian people will do. They are being starved and cut off from the world, because of the actions of the Ayatollahs and the elite class rulers. The boycott doesn't hurt the elite - they get their fancy stuff anyway.
If a revolution occurs because of people starving (that's never happened before, now has it?) how will they feel about the US, the main country pushing the boycott.
I have heard that the Iranian populace doesn't hate us so much right now, but will things stay that way? What happens if they over-run a nuclear facility and take control of it...
It's not quite as simple as people think; cut them off and the leaders will cave. They won't, because Russia keeps the leaders fat, dumb and happy.
Do we need to worry about Iran's nukes? Of course we do. But there are a lot of other countries in the area who already have nukes, and who already hate Israel. So, I am not convinced that this is the Doomsday toll that everyone is making it out to be.
After all, think about all the suitcase nukes that Russia lost control of with the breakup of the USSR. What happened to them? Who has them now?
The general rule of warfare is to make the other poor schlub die for his country; I think everyone knows that if you nuke Israel, the US, UK, etc, you'll be a parking lot in a couple minutes. MAD has kept the world from shooting off nukes so far (outside of Nagasaki and Hiroshima...).
If a revolution occurs because of people starving (that's never happened before, now has it?) how will they feel about the US, the main country pushing the boycott.
I have heard that the Iranian populace doesn't hate us so much right now, but will things stay that way? What happens if they over-run a nuclear facility and take control of it...
It's not quite as simple as people think; cut them off and the leaders will cave. They won't, because Russia keeps the leaders fat, dumb and happy.
Do we need to worry about Iran's nukes? Of course we do. But there are a lot of other countries in the area who already have nukes, and who already hate Israel. So, I am not convinced that this is the Doomsday toll that everyone is making it out to be.
After all, think about all the suitcase nukes that Russia lost control of with the breakup of the USSR. What happened to them? Who has them now?
The general rule of warfare is to make the other poor schlub die for his country; I think everyone knows that if you nuke Israel, the US, UK, etc, you'll be a parking lot in a couple minutes. MAD has kept the world from shooting off nukes so far (outside of Nagasaki and Hiroshima...).
LTC John Shaw
Rabbi Jaron,
So you believe Congress needs to be supportive of Obama's efforts, just on pure humanitarian grounds alone. Maybe this will be an Obama brilliant game changer.
Perhaps this is similar to Nixon unannounced visit to China in 1972, leading to repaired relationships.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/nixon-arrives-in-china-for-talks
So you believe Congress needs to be supportive of Obama's efforts, just on pure humanitarian grounds alone. Maybe this will be an Obama brilliant game changer.
Perhaps this is similar to Nixon unannounced visit to China in 1972, leading to repaired relationships.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/nixon-arrives-in-china-for-talks
Nixon arrives in China for talks - Feb 21, 1972 - HISTORY.com
On this day in History, Nixon arrives in China for talks on Feb 21, 1972. Learn more about what happened today on History.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Since you see fit to twist everything I say, I won't have any further engagement with you. Take it somewhere else...
LTC John Shaw
Rabbi Jaron,
I am very surprised by your last comment and disengagement.
How did I twist your comment?
Your answer started by addressing the humanitarian needs of the Iranian people and how in-effective sanctions are on the regime.
I am trying to engage in a balance thoughtful conversation.
I was trying to summarize and fit your comments to the questions, which is Congressional support or not.
I was trying to work the Nixon/China comment because it was at the time very controversial with the Democratic congress at the time, but turning out to be a huge success.
Perhaps this will happen the same way for Obama, only time will tell.
If I have offended you, I am not sure how to remedy...
I am very surprised by your last comment and disengagement.
How did I twist your comment?
Your answer started by addressing the humanitarian needs of the Iranian people and how in-effective sanctions are on the regime.
I am trying to engage in a balance thoughtful conversation.
I was trying to summarize and fit your comments to the questions, which is Congressional support or not.
I was trying to work the Nixon/China comment because it was at the time very controversial with the Democratic congress at the time, but turning out to be a huge success.
Perhaps this will happen the same way for Obama, only time will tell.
If I have offended you, I am not sure how to remedy...
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
It is very difficult for me to tell, quite often, the difference between sarcasm and honest answers. If you were giving a straightforward answer, then I apologize. I have seen many conservatives who criticize Nixon (as well as the Dem Congress as you point out) for making a deal with Congress. Thus your statements felt like an attack on me. Maybe I've gotten you confused with some other folks on the thread I started, but there are a select few (O5s, btw) who HAVE and continue to twist my words around and use them against me...
1
1
0
The essential people on the congressional oversight committee already know every aspect of the deal and are kept apprised of it on a regular basis...
We do remember this from civics class, don't we? As a matter of fact, several of the Patriot Acts introduced legislation increasing oversight on several areas, including War Powers and other executive responsibilities.
We do remember this from civics class, don't we? As a matter of fact, several of the Patriot Acts introduced legislation increasing oversight on several areas, including War Powers and other executive responsibilities.
(1)
(0)
LTC John Shaw
Chief Evans,
Maybe not on the congressional oversight committee. The DOJ announced the same day to indite NJ (D) Sen. Robert Menendez, who was a critic of the deal on the Dem side and was the minority member in charge of the foreign affairs committee. I am sure you can imagine that Obama is not expecting letters of endorsement from the Republican leader, Bob Corker, who has already publicly vocal against the framework and future agreement.
Maybe not on the congressional oversight committee. The DOJ announced the same day to indite NJ (D) Sen. Robert Menendez, who was a critic of the deal on the Dem side and was the minority member in charge of the foreign affairs committee. I am sure you can imagine that Obama is not expecting letters of endorsement from the Republican leader, Bob Corker, who has already publicly vocal against the framework and future agreement.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google