Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Also, as pointed out time and time again, there is no good reason Congress wouldn't ratify it.

Every argument Whembly has put forward about why the deal is bad has been debunked by multiple posters in detail.

Their refusal to ratify boils entirely down to party politics and hatred of Obama.

Needless to say that is no way to govern a country.

"No good reason?"
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm

The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2). The Constitution's framers gave the Senate a share of the treaty power in order to give the president the benefit of the Senate's advice and counsel, check presidential power, and safeguard the sovereignty of the states by giving each state an equal vote in the treatymaking process. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist no. 75, “the operation of treaties as laws, plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them.” The constitutional requirement that the Senate approve a treaty with a two-thirds vote means that successful treaties must gain support that overcomes partisan division. The two-thirds requirement adds to the burdens of the Senate leadership, and may also encourage opponents of a treaty to engage in a variety of dilatory tactics in hopes of obtaining sufficient votes to ensure its defeat.

Nevermind the merits or demerits of the Iran deal... this was Obama's agreement as POTUS. Since it wasn't a treaty, any such agreement is vulnerable to the next administration.

You can yell at that sky that "it's a poor way to run a government" all you want.

I'm trying to explain how this works.

So your response to the statement "There is no good reason to not ratify the agreement in treaty form" is that to do so requires support in congress.

Completely ignoring the point actually being made that the opposition to doing so is not based on the actual merits of the agreement but rather hatred of the person who brokered it.

Please, list any reasons to not ratify the agreement in treaty form, which are based purely on the content of the agreement, which haven't already been debunked in this thread.

Iran dictated the terms of IAEA access; sauce
which included asking permission for inspections;
violated the heavy water provisions; sauce sauce sauce
allowed Iran to deny access to military sites; sauce key point:

“[We] regard the maintaining of the Fordo facilities as a point of strength in the JCPOA, whereas they [the U.S. and EU3] did not even want the Fordo [facility to] exist and said we had to shut it down. [Newspaper and television] reporters are supposed to visit the various areas of this [Fordo] facility. If you have archive photos [of it], you can see how much the facility has changed and what activities are taking place, especially in the field of stable isotopes and in the various labs. We maintained Fordo in the JCPOA so that if we want, we can start enriching [uranium] to 20% within five days.”

the ability to take nearly a month’s time to clean up at sites;
didn't come clean regarding past/future plans for nukes per the agreement; sauce
unwilling to renegotiate the sunset provisions;
numerous watchdogs reported violations; key bits'n'bob:

Iran has repeatedly tested the boundaries of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and in many cases crossed the line into a violation. Many of these violations and efforts to push the boundaries have not been reported by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in its quarterly reports to member states, reflecting a failing on its part. But the information is not classified, and we have reported on these violations and controversies in previous reports.

I mean, we're not dealing with good actors here...

 whembly wrote:
That fact that this Iran deal would've never been passed by the GOP control Senate speaks volume regarding the merits of this deal.

Are you sure the GOP opposition was based on the merits of the deal? Was their opposition to Obama's supreme court pick based on the merits of Merrick Garland? It wouldn't pass the GOP congress because almost nothing the Obama administration was for could pass through congress. Actually, even with Mango Jesus, almost nothing gets through the GOP congress....except for YUUUGE tax cuts for those already doing pretty well for themselves....

This is my surprised face:

I hope this discussion goes on for another 10 pages with ever more elaborate italics, fonts, and colors.

10 pages, minimum.

He's said it would need to be ratified by the Senate while also conceding that Obama could get literally nothing ratified by the Senate due to their political strategy.

What more is there to debate on that?

mikosan wrote:

 whembly wrote:
That fact that this Iran deal would've never been passed by the GOP control Senate speaks volume regarding the merits of this deal.

Are you sure the GOP opposition was based on the merits of the deal? Was their opposition to Obama's supreme court pick based on the merits of Merrick Garland? It wouldn't pass the GOP congress because almost nothing the Obama administration was for could pass through congress. Actually, even with Mango Jesus, almost nothing gets through the GOP congress....except for YUUUGE tax cuts for those already doing pretty well for themselves....

This is my surprised face:

Even prominent democrats didn't approve of the deal... (see my previous posts)

But, yes the partisan climate at the time does heavily factor in whether or not the Senate would ratify something that Obama my put forth. I'm not disputing that.

Also...kudos on Mango Jesus™. Imma steal that!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
I hope this discussion goes on for another 10 pages with ever more elaborate italics, fonts, and colors.

10 pages, minimum.

He's said it would need to be ratified by the Senate while also conceding that Obama could get literally nothing ratified by the Senate due to their political strategy.

What more is there to debate on that?

Actually... you're right. Ya'll mad at Trump for undoing Obama's legacy.

Have at it.

I'm not even bagging on you, so much as saying this is a clearly unbroachable impasse. Which it totally is! There is no middle ground between these two factions.


So far as being mad at The Fanta Menace for undoing Obama's legacy, well, elections have consequences. You have to accept November 2016 that as a Republican he's going to push GOP platform policies. Will there be an unfunded tax break highly favoring the very rich? Removing regulations meant to protect workers? Gutting social safety net programs and spending? Increased military spending and adventurism? Of course. Do I think those things are good ideas? No. However, that's all in the game, you know? That's normal. I think it's poor governance, but if the GOP pushes those things and the public wants them and they win an election on that platform then that is what the people wanted.

I'm less concerned with some of the stuff he has done politically which is well within his rights even if I disagree with it, and the lasting institutional attacks he has made on us having a functional government with the sole aim of protecting himself and his business's profits. All the off-brand Trumpian crazy gak, you know? The way that every department now has an incompetent grifter destroying it by design, the normalization of constant dishonesty, the wall of scandals that prevents any one scandal from being processed, the failure to protect our electoral system from outside influence, the damage done to an independent Justice Department, the way he is leveraging Nunes et al to defeat an investigation into his own corruption.... these are all things you're going to see again in the future; that box is not going to be closed again.

Doesn't want Iran to build nuclear weapons, cancels the only deal preventing that.

"You only care about Trump dismantling Obama's legacy!"

As others have said, I just can't see the benefits of pulling out rather than staying in and trying to build consensus among the nations involved to close loopholes and strengthen the parts deemed deficient.

Whats that you say? The other countries would never agree to that. Well what are the chances of that happening now?

Sorry but just like healthcare, this isn't about fixing whats wrong with the deal. What exactly is the plan now? Did i miss where they communicated a coherent strategy for what comes next? I for one don't feel very positive about the whole mess now that Bolton is no doubt pushing for boots on the ground.

 whembly wrote:

violated the heavy water provisions; sauce sauce sauce

JFC, do you read your own sources you post. The first article has nothing on violations;

Without confirming the reported agreement, U.S. officials argued that such shipments would neither endanger nor violate the Iran nuclear deal.
State Department spokesman John Kirby told reporters there was no prohibition on such imports by Iran and noted natural uranium “cannot be used ... for a weapon” in its original form.

The second two note that Iran did not violate its heavy water provisions. It goes over its limit and immediately transfers it out of Iran.

Iran has continued to inform the Agency about the inventory of heavy water in Iran and the
production of heavy water at the Heavy Water Production Plant (HWPP) and allowed the Agency to
monitor the quantities of Iran’s heavy water stocks and the amount of heavy water produced at the
HWPP (para. 15). On 13 and 14 February 2016, 20 metric tonnes of heavy water was verified and
sealed by the Agency in preparation for its shipment out of Iran. On 17 February, the Agency verified that Iran’s stock of heavy water had reached 130.9 metric tonnes.
The Agency confirms that, on 24 February 2016, the aforementioned 20 metric tonnes of heavy water had been shipped out of Iran,
bringing the stock of heavy water in Iran to below 130 metric tonnes (para. 14).

We're talking about an occasion where they went .1 over their 130 limit and prepared to ship out 5 metric tons the day after.

Iran has continued to inform the Agency about the inventory of heavy water in Iran and the production of heavy water at the Heavy Water Production Plant (HWPP)7
and allowed the Agency to monitor the quantities of Iran’s heavy water stocks and the amount of heavy water produced at the
HWPP (para. 15). On 25 October 2016, the Agency verified that Iran’s stock of heavy water had reached 130.0 metric tonnes (para. 14).
On 2 November 2016, the Director General expressed concerns related to Iran’s stock of heavy water to the Vice-President of Iran and President of the
Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, HE Ali Akbar Salehi. On 8 November 2016, the Agency verified that Iran’s stock of heavy water had reached 130.1 metric tonnes. In a letter received by the Agency on
9 November 2016, Iran informed the Agency of “Iran’s plan to make preparation for transfer of 5 metric tons of its nuclear grade heavy water” out of Iran.

The terms you want to set on Iran are completely ridiculous, no country is going to give you unlimited access to R&D labs and military facilities.

 whembly wrote:

allowed Iran to deny access to military sites; sauce key point:

 whembly wrote:

Actually... you're right. Ya'll mad at Trump for undoing Obama's legacy.

But Trump hasn't actually done that. Obama's legacy is still there, in the fact that every other country involved is backing the deal. Obama still managed to curtail Iran's nuclear programme in a manner which satisfied all of the other big world players and Iran itself.

If Trump really wanted to undo Obama's legacy he'd set up a better deal and get everyone on board with that. Or at least get the other players to pull out and reimpose sanctions alongside the US.


But he can't do that. He doesn't have the skills himself and he doesn't have anyone around him with them either.

I mean, has Trump learned what the nuclear triad is yet?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Doesn't want Iran to build nuclear weapons, cancels the only deal preventing that.

"You only care about Trump dismantling Obama's legacy!"

Funny thing if obama had switched to reb with same ideas he would now be praising obama. Or if trump would switch to dem with no policy change whemb would be avid trump hater

Can...can he please just stop existing already?

Cheney calls for US to restart interrogation programs

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/387109-cheney-calls-for-the-us-to-restart-enhanced-interrogation-programs

 Ouze wrote:
I'm not even bagging on you,

I know that

so much as saying this is a clearly unbroachable impasse. Which it totally is! There is no middle ground between these two factions.

Well said. I'm going to drop this as this seems to be dominating the oxygen when there are other crazy gak to talk about.

So far as being mad at The Fanta Menace for undoing Obama's legacy, well, elections have consequences. You have to accept November 2016 that as a Republican he's going to push GOP platform policies. Will there be an unfunded tax break highly favoring the very rich? Removing regulations meant to protect workers? Gutting social safety net programs and spending? Increased military spending and adventurism? Of course. Do I think those things are good ideas? No. However, that's all in the game, you know? That's normal. I think it's poor governance, but if the GOP pushes those things and the public wants them and they win an election on that platform then that is what the people wanted.

And likely whenever the Democrats takes contol. The ebb & flows of politics.

As for "The Fanta Menace™"... I laughed out loud in my office I had to explain this to a couple of my collegues. Imma see if I can photoshop Trump's face on a can of fanta.

I'm less concerned with some of the stuff he has done politically which is well within his rights even if I disagree with it, and the lasting institutional attacks he has made on us having a functional government with the sole aim of protecting himself and his business's profits. All the off-brand Trumpian crazy gak, you know? The way that every department now has an incompetent grifter destroying it by design, the normalization of constant dishonesty, the wall of scandals that prevents any one scandal from being processed, the failure to protect our electoral system from outside influence, the damage done to an independent Justice Department, the way he is leveraging Nunes et al to defeat an investigation into his own corruption.... these are all things you're going to see again in the future; that box is not going to be closed again.

Can't really dispute all of this. I still think it'll get worse, with no end in sight in our lifetime. I don't even know where to start to change all of this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Can...can he please just stop existing already?

Cheney calls for US to restart interrogation programs

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/387109-cheney-calls-for-the-us-to-restart-enhanced-interrogation-programs

o.O

Yeah... this is a non-starter. Obama's executive order needs to stay. (yes, you saw that! )

 Vaktathi wrote:
Can...can he please just stop existing already?

Cheney calls for US to restart interrogation programs

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/387109-cheney-calls-for-the-us-to-restart-enhanced-interrogation-programs

Well Trump like those programs and his new CIA pick is just the woman with the experience to carry them out!

http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TM1212Y17/type/smallest/filters/PD1:1/dates/20180101-20180509/collapsed/true
Very cool polling aggregate.

The difference between Democrats and Republicans as of the last one (May 7th) is 1.4%.

Historically, Democrats need >5% to take the House.

I still think it's too early for this to carry any weight all the way to midterms...



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Can...can he please just stop existing already?

Cheney calls for US to restart interrogation programs

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/387109-cheney-calls-for-the-us-to-restart-enhanced-interrogation-programs

Well Trump like those programs and his new CIA pick is just the woman with the experience to carry them out!

She did explicitly pledged to not allow a restart of “enhanced interrogation techniques”...

Which is kinda meaningless as its now explicitly barred by law and obama's executive order.

 whembly wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Can...can he please just stop existing already?

Cheney calls for US to restart interrogation programs

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/387109-cheney-calls-for-the-us-to-restart-enhanced-interrogation-programs

Well Trump like those programs and his new CIA pick is just the woman with the experience to carry them out!

She did explicitly pledged to not allow a restart of “enhanced interrogation techniques”...

Which is kinda meaningless as its now explicitly barred by law and obama's executive order.

Forgive me if she lacks credibility after already having willingly carried out such programs. At least we have a pinkie promise of her to not do what she already was more than willing to do before. It was already against the law when they did it under Bush. Also the executive order was made by no longer President Obama, so that makes easily invalidated, as you like to say.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Can...can he please just stop existing already?

Cheney calls for US to restart interrogation programs

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/387109-cheney-calls-for-the-us-to-restart-enhanced-interrogation-programs

Well Trump like those programs and his new CIA pick is just the woman with the experience to carry them out!

She did explicitly pledged to not allow a restart of “enhanced interrogation techniques”...

Which is kinda meaningless as its now explicitly barred by law and obama's executive order.

Forgive me if she lacks credibility after already having willingly carried out such programs. At least we have a pinkie promise of her to not do what she already was more than willing to do before. It was already against the law when they did it under Bush. Also the executive order was made by no longer President Obama, so that makes easily invalidated, as you like to say.

You do know that John Brennen was her superior who sailed through his confirmation...eh?

It's meaningless for Trump rescind Obama's executive order on this as we have specific laws on the books to prohibit that.

 whembly wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Can...can he please just stop existing already?

Cheney calls for US to restart interrogation programs

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/387109-cheney-calls-for-the-us-to-restart-enhanced-interrogation-programs

Well Trump like those programs and his new CIA pick is just the woman with the experience to carry them out!

She did explicitly pledged to not allow a restart of “enhanced interrogation techniques”...

Which is kinda meaningless as its now explicitly barred by law and obama's executive order.

Forgive me if she lacks credibility after already having willingly carried out such programs. At least we have a pinkie promise of her to not do what she already was more than willing to do before. It was already against the law when they did it under Bush. Also the executive order was made by no longer President Obama, so that makes easily invalidated, as you like to say.

You do know that John Brennen was her superior who sailed through his confirmation...eh?

It's meaningless for Trump rescind Obama's executive order on this as we have specific laws on the books to prohibit that.

Under Obama who did not publicly advocate for enhanced interrogation unlike Trump.

Again you already had torture laws before Bush on this back in1994 when the US ratified the UN Convention against Torture. Bush violated international law ratified by the US. The law didn't do anything to stop this last time. We could put Bush on trial for this tomorrow and by US and international law he would be convicted. But sure, this is going to be the time the law prevents it.
.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Can...can he please just stop existing already?

Cheney calls for US to restart interrogation programs

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/387109-cheney-calls-for-the-us-to-restart-enhanced-interrogation-programs

Well Trump like those programs and his new CIA pick is just the woman with the experience to carry them out!

She did explicitly pledged to not allow a restart of “enhanced interrogation techniques”...

Which is kinda meaningless as its now explicitly barred by law and obama's executive order.

Forgive me if she lacks credibility after already having willingly carried out such programs. At least we have a pinkie promise of her to not do what she already was more than willing to do before. It was already against the law when they did it under Bush. Also the executive order was made by no longer President Obama, so that makes easily invalidated, as you like to say.

You do know that John Brennen was her superior who sailed through his confirmation...eh?

It's meaningless for Trump rescind Obama's executive order on this as we have specific laws on the books to prohibit that.

Under Obama who did not publicly advocate for enhanced interrogation unlike Trump.

Again you already had torture laws before Bush on this back in1994 when the US ratified the UN Convention against Torture. Bush violated international law ratified by the US. The law didn't do anything to stop this last time. We could put Bush on trial for this tomorrow and by US and international law he would be convicted. But sure, this is going to be the time the law prevents it.
.

The office of legal counsel argued, during Bush's tenure, that enhance interrogation did NOT meet the definition of torture, hence that UN treaty didn't apply.

I'm not arguing that they're right or wrong...I'm explaining what happend.

Hence why this law

 whembly wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Under Obama who did not publicly advocate for enhanced interrogation unlike Trump.

Again you already had torture laws before Bush on this back in1994 when the US ratified the UN Convention against Torture. Bush violated international law ratified by the US. The law didn't do anything to stop this last time. We could put Bush on trial for this tomorrow and by US and international law he would be convicted. But sure, this is going to be the time the law prevents it.
.

The office of legal counsel argued, during Bush's tenure, that enhance interrogation did NOT meet the definition of torture, hence that UN treaty didn't apply.

I'm not arguing that they're right or wrong...I'm explaining what happend.

Hence whythis law was passed to explicitly prohibit that.

Funny, the UN seems to hold an entirely different opinion on if it constituted torture. But I mean if the office of legal council, the legal adviser of the President, who has no vested interest in not wanting it to be torture says it isn't what are you supposed to do right? But at least they passed yet another bill on torture.

So...do we want to talk about the 3 hostages NK released...or nah?

Is this a head-fake by NK, or is this looking promising?

Looks like the summit is June12th in Singapore.

 whembly wrote:
So...do we want to talk about the 3 hostages NK released...or nah?

Is this a head-fake by NK, or is this looking promising?

Looks like the summit is June12th in Singapore.

I mean most of the leg work was done by the SK president

 whembly wrote:
So...do we want to talk about the 3 hostages NK released...or nah?

Is this a head-fake by NK, or is this looking promising?

Looks like the summit is June12th in Singapore.

I think you already said all there was to be said about it yesterday. Releasing hostages you got from the most trumped up charges imaginable is a meaningless gesture, as that's what they are captured for in the first place.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/159377740569645056

@BarackObama will attack Iran in order to get re-elected.

12:53 PM - 17 Jan 2012

Future historians are going to have a field day.

 whembly wrote:
So...do we want to talk about the 3 hostages NK released...or nah?

Is this a head-fake by NK, or is this looking promising?

Looks like the summit is June12th in Singapore.

SOP as far as NK is concerned.

They arrest/kidnap Americans dumb enough to try and go rooting around there without sticking to their given script, usually missionary or activism work, and are then used as negotiating tokens.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/159377740569645056

@BarackObama will attack Iran in order to get re-elected.

12:53 PM - 17 Jan 2012

Future historians are going to have a field day.

Indeed...and it is disturbing how often Trumps tweets come back from yesteryear

 reds8n wrote:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/159377740569645056

@BarackObama will attack Iran in order to get re-elected.

12:53 PM - 17 Jan 2012

Future historians are going to have a field day.

It's called "there's a tweet for that..."

 whembly wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/159377740569645056

@BarackObama will attack Iran in order to get re-elected.

12:53 PM - 17 Jan 2012

Future historians are going to have a field day.

It's called "there's a tweet for that..."

r/trumpcriticizestrump, if you are on the Reddit. It manages to be new and relevant nearly every day.

 whembly wrote:

Leaving an agreement from previous administration is not breaking the countries' word.

If that were true, why did we hang all those Nazis? They didn't sign the Geneva Conventions, a previous government did.

And speaking of Nazis, seems Iran and Israel are taking advantage of the moment to get a good ol shooting war going. This may be a problem that solves itself, with Iran and Israel getting into a Nuclear Exchange.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Leaving an agreement from previous administration is not breaking the countries' word.

If that were true, why did we hang all those Nazis? They didn't sign the Geneva Conventions, a previous government did.

And speaking of Nazis, seems Iran and Israel are taking advantage of the moment to get a good ol shooting war going. This may be a problem that solves itself, with Iran and Israel getting into a Nuclear Exchange.

Do you think Iran already has a nuke?

whembly wrote:I mean, we're not dealing with good actors here...

We are talking about the US leadership here, aren't we?

To make a wargaming comparison about this whole clusterfeth: It looks like Trump's actions will lead to everybody at the club shunning him and not wanting to play with him anymore.

 feeder wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Leaving an agreement from previous administration is not breaking the countries' word.

If that were true, why did we hang all those Nazis? They didn't sign the Geneva Conventions, a previous government did.

And speaking of Nazis, seems Iran and Israel are taking advantage of the moment to get a good ol shooting war going. This may be a problem that solves itself, with Iran and Israel getting into a Nuclear Exchange.

Do you think Iran already has a nuke?

The question is more if either country wants to risk lobbing missiles over two or three other countries to do it. its about 600 miles from Tehran to Tel Aviv, so ICBMs are a bit much for the task at hand. So they would have to shoot over Jordan and Iraq. Or it it was to/from southern Iran, it would be over Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Israel has the reliable tech to do it, but Iran's missile program is still unproven, with I think about 600 miles being as far as one went before it exploded. Thats dicey for Iran, they would risk most of the other Arab countries joining SA in an attack.