[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
So ya, it wouldn’t surprise me if we end up with boot on the ground in 5-10 years. [/quote]
Only one boot, huh?
Well, maybe it’ll be this boot. He looks pretty bad-ass.[/quote]
Murica only needs one boot especially if it’s the Mad Dog himself![/quote]
Off the subject, but I would love to see a bare-knuckle match between General Mathis and a reincarnated General Patton.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
So ya, it wouldn’t surprise me if we end up with boot on the ground in 5-10 years. [/quote]
Only one boot, huh?
Well, maybe it’ll be this boot. He looks pretty bad-ass.[/quote]
Murica only needs one boot especially if it’s the Mad Dog himself![/quote]
Off the subject, but I would love to see a bare-knuckle match between General Mathis and a reincarnated General Patton.
[/quote]
That would definitely be interesting.
Is it fair for me to assume that you don’t have a response to what I wrote on an agreement and the use of force and the international sanctions regime?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
“The JCPOA was an agreement based squarely upon the issue of Iran?s nuclear program.”
Then why did Iran get concessions from the United States that have zero to do with their nuclear program?
[/quote]
If you could cite where in the agreement these concessions appear, I’d be happy to answer the question.
I find it overly simple. Do you not see that you’re making a very bold prediction (a ground invasion of Iran within a decade as a result of what is actually quite a good deal) based on little more than ahistorical intuition? A causal chain is non existent. The Iranians have been a thorn in America’s side since the 1979 Revolution, yet, we have yet to invade Iran. You think such an endeavor is tenable from a political, strategic, or military-technical perspective, especially after the American experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq and the fact that Southwest Asia is already in shambles?
The US military is extremely wary of conducting a surgical air campaign against Iranian nuclear facilities, much less a ground invasion of a country roughly the size of Alaska with a populace of nearly 80 million. The IRGC, Iranian army, and Basij militia have the ability to transform themselves into formidable unconventional forces within days. You think Iraq was a tough nut to crack? A counterinsurgency campaign in Iran would be an exceedingly bloody, costly, and futile endeavor.
The result wouldn’t have been a better deal in 2015, if that’s what you’re thinking. And I write that while maintaining the highest respect for President Bush and Dr. Rice. You can’t see the world for what it is for the world as it ought to be. Soon after the fall of Baghdad in 2003, the Iranians sent a communique to the Near East bureau of the State Department (Rice was then National Security Adviser). The two page document was a proposal for a broad dialogue with the United States. The Bush 43 administration chose to ignore this so called grand bargain, in which Iran said that it was willing to significantly restrain Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, and even sign on to the 2002 Saudi peace plan, which offered the recognition of Israel by every country in the Muslim world in return for an Israeli recognition of a Palestinian state. US diplomatic leverage vis-a-vis Iran had never been so strong when US forces routed an army in three weeks that the Iranians couldn’t defeat in eight years, which is why it’s laughable when critics complain that the US is surrendering the “leverage of sanctions”. The Bush administration lost a lot of opportunities by mistakenly assessing that the clerical regime was on the verge of collapse and went beyond the American point of culminating victory.
Well, I suppose it’s a good thing that the US isn’t a pure democracy a la Athens and that foreign policy isn’t a popularity contest dictated by the ignorant and emotive masses. You’d throwaway a breakthrough diplomatic and security achievement for what, exactly? You think keeping Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state is less important than the freedom of 4 Americans, three of whom are also Iranians? It has rightfully been perceived as a separate issue. You do realize that if the US made the release of the prisoners contingent on a nuclear deal that it would only increase the leverage of the Iranians and further incentivize similar behavior in the future? Prudence trumps principle in an anarchic international system. It isn’t a realm for the weak or fainthearted.
Treaty: an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations.
United States Constitution: Article II, Section II, Clause 2: 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…
The Treaty Clause has a number of striking features. It gives the Senate, in James Madison’s terms, a “partial agency” in the President’s foreign-relations power. The clause requires a supermajority (two-thirds) of the Senate for approval of a treaty, but it gives the House of Representatives, representing the “people,” no role in the process.
Another reason for involving both President and Senate was that the Framers thought American interests might be undermined by treaties entered into without proper reflection. The Framers believed that treaties should be strictly honored, both as a matter of the law of nations and as a practical matter, because the United States could not afford to give the great powers any cause for war. But this meant that the nation should be doubly cautious in accepting treaty obligations. As James Wilson said, “Neither the President nor the Senate, solely, can complete a treaty; they are checks upon each other, and are so balanced as to produce security to the people.”
The fear of disadvantageous treaties also underlay the Framers’ insistence on approval by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. In particular, the Framers worried that one region or interest within the nation, constituting a bare majority, would make a treaty advantageous to it but prejudicial to other parts of the country and to the national interest.
This “deal” is a TREATY, plain and simple. It HAS NOT been ratified by two thirds of the Senate. Therefore it it unconstitutional.
But the Congress (in their infinite wisdom) passed a law giving away it’s power. I hope Mitch McConnell, and every one of those traitors who actually voted in favor, burn in hell for this. Even so, let’s pretend for a minute that this bullshit law is even Constitutional (which it’s not), it still gives Congress the power to REVIEW the treaty (or agreement, or whatever they are calling it these days). The law still gives Congress sixty days to review the deal, but even if they vote “no”, Obama will just VETO it and it will become law anyway. But even while Congress is still reviewing the “deal”, it was submitted to the UN and APPROVED…
The way I see it, Obama took this deal, spit on the tip and RAMMED IT UP OUR ASS! You know, why do we even have a fucking Constitution anyway? If no one is going to follow it, why bother? What are we electing Republicans for if they are going to give away their power to the worst President in history?
The manner in which this deal came about is simply reprehensible. Forget about how it gives Iran, the worlds leading state sponsor of TERRORISM access to over a hundred billion dollars. Forget that we left American citizens hanging out to dry. Forget that even as this deal is passed the Iranians are chanting “death to America!” in their streets. Forget that Israel, our closest ally, opposes this “deal” with every fiber of it’s being. This modern circus of manipulating the balance of power in such a way that it shit’s on the Constitution is what bothers me the most.
If they can do this and get away with it, WHAT’S NEXT?
Oh and how about the “side deals”? You know, the ones between the IAEA and Iran that are a PART of this “deal”, but that we are not allowed to know about? Where “certain members” of Congress will be briefed at “the proper time”… WTF???
But I think SENATOR Marco Rubio sums it up best:
This is OBAMA’S deal, not AMERICA’S deal.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Is it fair for me to assume that you don’t have a response to what I wrote on an agreement and the use of force and the international sanctions regime? [/quote]
You’re free to assume whatever you want.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
“The JCPOA was an agreement based squarely upon the issue of Iran?s nuclear program.”
Then why did Iran get concessions from the United States that have zero to do with their nuclear program?
[/quote]
If you could cite where in the agreement these concessions appear, I’d be happy to answer the question. [/quote]
Excuse me, I mean’t the side deals that directly affect the nuclear deal itself.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
My point of view is pretty simple:
So ya, it wouldn’t surprise me if we end up with boot on the ground in 5-10 years.
[/quote]
I find it overly simple. [/quote]
Good for you.
[quote]
Do you not see that you’re making a very bold prediction (a ground invasion of Iran within a decade as a result of what is actually quite a good deal) based on little more than ahistorical intuition? A causal chain is non existent. The Iranians have been a thorn in America’s side since the 1979 Revolution, yet, we have yet to invade Iran. You think such an endeavor is tenable from a political, strategic, or military-technical perspective, especially after the American experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq and the fact that Southwest Asia is already in shambles? [/quote]
It isn’t all that bold of a prediction. If Iran moves on one of our allies it is not that big of a stretch to anticipate the U.S. backing them up with boots on the ground in some form or fashion.
Well, I suppose it’s a good thing that the US isn’t a pure democracy a la Athens and that foreign policy isn’t a popularity contest dictated by the ignorant and emotive masses. You’d throwaway a breakthrough diplomatic and security achievement for what, exactly? You think keeping Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state is less important than the freedom of 4 Americans, three of whom are also Iranians? It has rightfully been perceived as a separate issue. You do realize that if the US made the release of the prisoners contingent on a nuclear deal that it would only increase the leverage of the Iranians and further incentivize similar behavior in the future? Prudence trumps principle in an anarchic international system. It isn’t a realm for the weak or fainthearted. [/quote]
The world doesn’t work like you text books. Boot on the ground buddy, I bet it happen.
“It isn’t a realm for the weak or fainthearted.”
Easy to say while not rotting in a prison cell.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
. . . The thing is that nuclear weapons aren’t particularly useful anymore. It’s a case of mutually assured destruction. Sure they can nuke Israel, but Israel will nuke them out of existence . . . [/quote]
On the contrary. Nuclear deterrence trumps conventional deterrence, which would be far more difficult for Iran to establish vis-a-vis the United States. As Mohsen M. Milani writes in his article “Tehran’s Take - Understanding Iran’s U.S. Policy”, “Tehran’s top priority is the survival of the Islamic Republic as it exists now. Tehran views the United States as an existential threat and to counter it has devised a strategy that rests on both deterrence and competition in the Middle East.” A key aspect of Iran’s deterrence strategy is the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.
Mutually assured destruction (MAD) is an implementable doctrine in a conflict dyad when the nuclear weapon states in question are capable of pursuing massive retaliation and can sustain an initial nuclear strike. According to a 1999 declassified US Defense Intelligence Agency report, the intelligence community estimated that Israel possessed between 60-80 nuclear warheads. It isn’t unreasonable to assume that number is higher now. That significant quantity gives Israel the ability to massively retaliate. The Israeli Navy has procured three German made dolphin class submarines, which can deploy nuclear capable Popeye Turbo cruise missiles. This gives Israel a secure second strike capability. By contrast, a nuclear Iran’s immature arsenal would confer neither of the requirements of MAD.
[/quote]
Your entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. A nuclear action would be detrimental to their health and everybody, including them knows that.
Iran’s nuclear deterrent would be short lived as every other Arab state would go nuclear as fast as possible, hence their advantage would not last.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
. . . Obama - so desperate to get Congress on board - very publicly explained that it was this deal or a far worse alternative. [/quote]
The alternatives to the United States’ coercive diplomacy are war or containment, a daunting dilemma to say the least. Critics of the deal (the vast majority of whom hadn’t even bothered to read the text of the JCOPA before voicing their vehement opposition to it) have been unable to articulate cogent policy alternatives. The challenge in Iran policy (as is so often the case) lies not in picking an ideal course but in choosing among lesser evils. Diplomacy is preferable over containment, and containment over war.
As Robert Jervis writes, “The deal with Iran falls far short of what the United States and its European allies would like. Although the question of whether the West could have gotten a better deal is interesting, much more important is the question of whether the deal was better than the breakdown of the negotiations. It was, and by quite a large margin.” According to the senior RAND analyst Dalia Dassa Kaye, failure to reach a deal would likely have produced one or more of the following: an expanded Iranian nuclear program; an erosion of broad international sanctions without any benefit to regional or global security; heightened potential for military conflict; and the loss of opportunities to work on major areas of common concern to Iran and the United States.
[/quote]
Lifting the conventional weapons embargo does not increase regional or global security, it increases it. It was a terrible concession.
We gave up the goose for a promise of something they already promised they were not going to do. The verification process is weak.
Also, ‘sanctions snapping back in to place’ is not going to be as immediate as the linguistics make it sound. Once trade and commerce are established, or reestablished, re-implementing sanctions are not that easy. It’s not Iran that will lose alone, but their trading partners as well. And if their trading partners are, as they are likely to be, states hostile to the U.S., they will not be so keen on implementing the sanctions again because it affects their economy too.
So, for instance, Russia, Columbia, Venezuela, North Korea, etc. is in partnership with Iran and Iran violates the agreement, we will snap the sanctions back into place. Is Russia going to immediately comply? Doubtful, very doubtful. What method of compellence does the U.S. hold over these nations to impose these sanctions?
All Iran has to do is comply long enough, once trade agreements are signed and commerce is established, it will take more than act of congress to stop it.
The only way we can truly manage these sanctions in the way that obama has claimed is if we and our close allies are their trading partners. Those outside the ring will have little interest in complying, why would they? We could not stop them all. Once that dam has opened, it’s a pipe dream to think we could snap it closed. That would require a show of force, such as a blockade. Such force would not be well received.
If we could truly trust Iran to be a fair and honest player here, we did not need this treaty. Of course they call it an agreement, rather than a treaty to circumvent the whole constitutional problem of congressional approval.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Besides reading the treaty, it would probably also be a good idea to read Khamenei’s new book:
Their plans to re-take Israel for Islam.[/quote]
We don’t need to read his book to know that, they have said as much on twitter.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Treaty: an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations.
United States Constitution: Article II, Section II, Clause 2: 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…
The Treaty Clause has a number of striking features. It gives the Senate, in James Madison’s terms, a “partial agency” in the President’s foreign-relations power. The clause requires a supermajority (two-thirds) of the Senate for approval of a treaty, but it gives the House of Representatives, representing the “people,” no role in the process.
Another reason for involving both President and Senate was that the Framers thought American interests might be undermined by treaties entered into without proper reflection. The Framers believed that treaties should be strictly honored, both as a matter of the law of nations and as a practical matter, because the United States could not afford to give the great powers any cause for war. But this meant that the nation should be doubly cautious in accepting treaty obligations. As James Wilson said, “Neither the President nor the Senate, solely, can complete a treaty; they are checks upon each other, and are so balanced as to produce security to the people.”
The fear of disadvantageous treaties also underlay the Framers’ insistence on approval by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. In particular, the Framers worried that one region or interest within the nation, constituting a bare majority, would make a treaty advantageous to it but prejudicial to other parts of the country and to the national interest.
This “deal” is a TREATY, plain and simple. It HAS NOT been ratified by two thirds of the Senate. Therefore it it unconstitutional.
But the Congress (in their infinite wisdom) passed a law giving away it’s power. I hope Mitch McConnell, and every one of those traitors who actually voted in favor, burn in hell for this. Even so, let’s pretend for a minute that this bullshit law is even Constitutional (which it’s not), it still gives Congress the power to REVIEW the treaty (or agreement, or whatever they are calling it these days). The law still gives Congress sixty days to review the deal, but even if they vote “no”, Obama will just VETO it and it will become law anyway. But even while Congress is still reviewing the “deal”, it was submitted to the UN and APPROVED…
The way I see it, Obama took this deal, spit on the tip and RAMMED IT UP OUR ASS! You know, why do we even have a fucking Constitution anyway? If no one is going to follow it, why bother? What are we electing Republicans for if they are going to give away their power to the worst President in history?
The manner in which this deal came about is simply reprehensible. Forget about how it gives Iran, the worlds leading state sponsor of TERRORISM access to over a hundred billion dollars. Forget that we left American citizens hanging out to dry. Forget that even as this deal is passed the Iranians are chanting “death to America!” in their streets. Forget that Israel, our closest ally, opposes this “deal” with every fiber of it’s being. This modern circus of manipulating the balance of power in such a way that it shit’s on the Constitution is what bothers me the most.
If they can do this and get away with it, WHAT’S NEXT?
[/quote]
Oh no it’s not a treaty, it’s an agreement. Ridiculous.
[quote]pat wrote:
Oh no it’s not a treaty, it’s an agreement. Ridiculous.[/quote]
The JCOPA is not a treaty under American or international law, but what’s known as an international political agreement. The charge that the JCPOA is unconstitutional is inaccurate, as the administration does not claim that the Iran Deal itself is binding under international law, and such non-binding deals needn’t receive Senate consent. By the way, the President ratifies and proclaims treaties, not the Senate. And no, that isn’t pedantic.
Even if the Iran Deal itself were an international obligation, it is not true that “significant international obligations have always been established through treaties, which require Senate consent by a two-thirds majority.” See, e.g., SALT I, NAFTA, most other free trade agreements, the Algiers Accords, and most Chapter VII Security Council Resolutions. These are examples of executive agreements. In addition to “treaties”, the president has the power to make other international agreements: (1) on the basis of congressional authorization; (2) on the basis of his own foreign relations power; or (3) on the basis of authority contained in an earlier treaty made pursuant to Article II. These agreements are also considered to be federal law, and enjoy legal parity with a “treaty” that has been ratified. The administration isn’t even claiming the JCPOA is an executive agreement.
The administration did use the JCPOA as a basis for a UN Security Council Resolution that is in part binding under international law. But as John Bellinger explained, the Iran Resolution does not appear to obligate the United States under international law to lift domestic US sanctions, and thus does not tie Congress’s hands as a matter of international law. Congress has expressly approved this practice, which has been employed since the 1940s. (See especially 22 USC 287 and 22 USC 287a.)
Some complain about the president’s ability to vote in favor of any UN Security Council Resolution that would impose binding obligations on the United States, included related to sanctions, without Senate consent. This is a power long exercised by the President under Article II and pursuant to authority conferred by Congress. See the following:
As for the Iran Review Act, all it did was delay the President’s ability to waive domestic sanctions. Congress is effectively powerless to stop the Iran deal. The main cause of Congress’s lack of leverage on the Iran deal is the pre-existing congressional sanctions regime that gave the president discretion to waive or lift the sanctions under certain circumstances. If Congress had not delegated to the president authority to lift the sanctions, the president could not lift them now, either directly or via an international agreement. See the following:
In sum, the shrill cries of “this deal is unconstitutional” don’t have a leg to stand on under US and international law.
[quote]pat wrote:
Your entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. A nuclear action would be detrimental to their health and everybody, including them knows that.[/quote]
What are you prattling on about? You were completely mistaken when you denied the strategic effect of nuclear weapons and asserted that a conflict dyad between a nuclear Iran and Israel would be characterized by MAD.
Those pesky I-Ranians would inspire an implacable fear in their fellow A-rabs! You’re really out of your depth here Pat. Deterrence can be mutual. Recall your (erroneous) invocation of MAD, which is mutual nuclear deterrence.
Horizontal proliferation is not a given, far from it. The GCC states have more reasons to not get the bomb than to match Tehran. Current forward deployed US forces in Southwest Asia are already more than enough to deter or contain Iran, even a nuclear one. Because of the huge disparity in conventional military power between Iran and the US, the GCC states will enjoy the security of American extended deterrence for many years to come.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
. . . Obama - so desperate to get Congress on board - very publicly explained that it was this deal or a far worse alternative. [/quote]
The alternatives to the United States’ coercive diplomacy are war or containment, a daunting dilemma to say the least. Critics of the deal (the vast majority of whom hadn’t even bothered to read the text of the JCOPA before voicing their vehement opposition to it) have been unable to articulate cogent policy alternatives. The challenge in Iran policy (as is so often the case) lies not in picking an ideal course but in choosing among lesser evils. Diplomacy is preferable over containment, and containment over war.
As Robert Jervis writes, “The deal with Iran falls far short of what the United States and its European allies would like. Although the question of whether the West could have gotten a better deal is interesting, much more important is the question of whether the deal was better than the breakdown of the negotiations. It was, and by quite a large margin.” According to the senior RAND analyst Dalia Dassa Kaye, failure to reach a deal would likely have produced one or more of the following: an expanded Iranian nuclear program; an erosion of broad international sanctions without any benefit to regional or global security; heightened potential for military conflict; and the loss of opportunities to work on major areas of common concern to Iran and the United States.
[/quote]
Lifting the conventional weapons embargo does not increase regional or global security, it increases it. It was a terrible concession.
We gave up the goose for a promise of something they already promised they were not going to do. The verification process is weak.
Also, ‘sanctions snapping back in to place’ is not going to be as immediate as the linguistics make it sound. Once trade and commerce are established, or reestablished, re-implementing sanctions are not that easy. It’s not Iran that will lose alone, but their trading partners as well. And if their trading partners are, as they are likely to be, states hostile to the U.S., they will not be so keen on implementing the sanctions again because it affects their economy too.
So, for instance, Russia, Columbia, Venezuela, North Korea, etc. is in partnership with Iran and Iran violates the agreement, we will snap the sanctions back into place. Is Russia going to immediately comply? Doubtful, very doubtful. What method of compellence does the U.S. hold over these nations to impose these sanctions?
All Iran has to do is comply long enough, once trade agreements are signed and commerce is established, it will take more than act of congress to stop it.
The only way we can truly manage these sanctions in the way that obama has claimed is if we and our close allies are their trading partners. Those outside the ring will have little interest in complying, why would they? We could not stop them all. Once that dam has opened, it’s a pipe dream to think we could snap it closed. That would require a show of force, such as a blockade. Such force would not be well received.
If we could truly trust Iran to be a fair and honest player here, we did not need this treaty. Of course they call it an agreement, rather than a treaty to circumvent the whole constitutional problem of congressional approval.
[/quote]
Again I ask, what viable policy alternatives do you propose? I’m not going to rehash what I wrote regarding the international sanctions regime above, nor am I going to hold your hand by rewriting earlier posts that preempted your response.
Gulf Arab States Voice Support for Iran Nuclear Deal
US extended deterrence wins the day.
I haven’t read the agreement, but in the short run my thirsty Duramax/Allison combo likes oil gluts.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Oh no it’s not a treaty, it’s an agreement. Ridiculous.[/quote]
The JCOPA is not a treaty under American or international law, but what’s known as an international political agreement. The charge that the JCPOA is unconstitutional is inaccurate, as the administration does not claim that the Iran Deal itself is binding under international law, and such non-binding deals needn’t receive Senate consent. By the way, the President ratifies and proclaims treaties, not the Senate. And no, that isn’t pedantic.
Even if the Iran Deal itself were an international obligation, it is not true that “significant international obligations have always been established through treaties, which require Senate consent by a two-thirds majority.” See, e.g., SALT I, NAFTA, most other free trade agreements, the Algiers Accords, and most Chapter VII Security Council Resolutions. These are examples of executive agreements. In addition to “treaties”, the president has the power to make other international agreements: (1) on the basis of congressional authorization; (2) on the basis of his own foreign relations power; or (3) on the basis of authority contained in an earlier treaty made pursuant to Article II. These agreements are also considered to be federal law, and enjoy legal parity with a “treaty” that has been ratified. The administration isn’t even claiming the JCPOA is an executive agreement.
The administration did use the JCPOA as a basis for a UN Security Council Resolution that is in part binding under international law. But as John Bellinger explained, the Iran Resolution does not appear to obligate the United States under international law to lift domestic US sanctions, and thus does not tie Congress’s hands as a matter of international law. Congress has expressly approved this practice, which has been employed since the 1940s. (See especially 22 USC 287 and 22 USC 287a.)
Some complain about the president’s ability to vote in favor of any UN Security Council Resolution that would impose binding obligations on the United States, included related to sanctions, without Senate consent. This is a power long exercised by the President under Article II and pursuant to authority conferred by Congress. See the following:
As for the Iran Review Act, all it did was delay the President’s ability to waive domestic sanctions. Congress is effectively powerless to stop the Iran deal. The main cause of Congress’s lack of leverage on the Iran deal is the pre-existing congressional sanctions regime that gave the president discretion to waive or lift the sanctions under certain circumstances. If Congress had not delegated to the president authority to lift the sanctions, the president could not lift them now, either directly or via an international agreement. See the following:
In sum, the shrill cries of “this deal is unconstitutional” don’t have a leg to stand on under US and international law.[/quote]
Yawn. It’s political double talk, nothing more. Sematics used in order to avoid as much congressional scrutiny as possible.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Your entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. A nuclear action would be detrimental to their health and everybody, including them knows that.[/quote]
What are you prattling on about? You were completely mistaken when you denied the strategic effect of nuclear weapons and asserted that a conflict dyad between a nuclear Iran and Israel would be characterized by MAD.
Those pesky I-Ranians would inspire an implacable fear in their fellow A-rabs! You’re really out of your depth here Pat. Deterrence can be mutual. Recall your (erroneous) invocation of MAD, which is mutual nuclear deterrence.
Horizontal proliferation is not a given, far from it. The GCC states have more reasons to not get the bomb than to match Tehran. Current forward deployed US forces in Southwest Asia are already more than enough to deter or contain Iran, even a nuclear one. Because of the huge disparity in conventional military power between Iran and the US, the GCC states will enjoy the security of American extended deterrence for many years to come.[/quote]
You feel compelled to insult me because I voiced an opinion different from yours? Very grown up of you.
I did not make an argument for anything. I stated my opinions with an I think… I made no statement of fact nor was I trying to. I was merely floating hypotheticals, such as ‘perhaps the Iranians were telling the truth and not really looking to make a nuclear bomb’, or that maybe their goals were just to make it look like they wanted a bomb…because MAD. Stuff like that. Perhaps I need to label it as such, just for you since you cannot seem to distinguish facts from opinions. This is a discussion, not a pissing contest. I wasn’t trying to compare my dick size to yours or anybody else’s.
You’re biggest issue, I think, is that you are so desperate to want to look smart that you will jump on anything just so you can demonstrate your vast knowledge. The only problem with that, is most of the time your basing your counter claims on assumptions of what you think people believe rather than what they actually said or meant.
If you really want us to admire you, start a thread posting your resume, IQ test scores, Mensa card, and educational background. I am certain we will all gawk in awe and humility. Then you can live with the satisfaction that the T-Nation PWI forumites think your purty smart.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Oh no it’s not a treaty, it’s an agreement. Ridiculous.[/quote]
The JCOPA is not a treaty under American or international law, but what’s known as an international political agreement. The charge that the JCPOA is unconstitutional is inaccurate, as the administration does not claim that the Iran Deal itself is binding under international law, and such non-binding deals needn’t receive Senate consent. By the way, the President ratifies and proclaims treaties, not the Senate. And no, that isn’t pedantic.
Even if the Iran Deal itself were an international obligation, it is not true that “significant international obligations have always been established through treaties, which require Senate consent by a two-thirds majority.” See, e.g., SALT I, NAFTA, most other free trade agreements, the Algiers Accords, and most Chapter VII Security Council Resolutions. These are examples of executive agreements. In addition to “treaties”, the president has the power to make other international agreements: (1) on the basis of congressional authorization; (2) on the basis of his own foreign relations power; or (3) on the basis of authority contained in an earlier treaty made pursuant to Article II. These agreements are also considered to be federal law, and enjoy legal parity with a “treaty” that has been ratified. The administration isn’t even claiming the JCPOA is an executive agreement.
The administration did use the JCPOA as a basis for a UN Security Council Resolution that is in part binding under international law. But as John Bellinger explained, the Iran Resolution does not appear to obligate the United States under international law to lift domestic US sanctions, and thus does not tie Congress’s hands as a matter of international law. Congress has expressly approved this practice, which has been employed since the 1940s. (See especially 22 USC 287 and 22 USC 287a.)
Some complain about the president’s ability to vote in favor of any UN Security Council Resolution that would impose binding obligations on the United States, included related to sanctions, without Senate consent. This is a power long exercised by the President under Article II and pursuant to authority conferred by Congress. See the following:
As for the Iran Review Act, all it did was delay the President’s ability to waive domestic sanctions. Congress is effectively powerless to stop the Iran deal. The main cause of Congress’s lack of leverage on the Iran deal is the pre-existing congressional sanctions regime that gave the president discretion to waive or lift the sanctions under certain circumstances. If Congress had not delegated to the president authority to lift the sanctions, the president could not lift them now, either directly or via an international agreement. See the following:
In sum, the shrill cries of “this deal is unconstitutional” don’t have a leg to stand on under US and international law.[/quote]
Yawn. It’s political double talk, nothing more. Sematics used in order to avoid as much congressional scrutiny as possible.[/quote]
To be perfectly blunt, you and Angry (and anyone else who read your posts and agreed) know fuck all about international law. One sure mark of a fool is the practice of confirmation bias - that is, to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s beliefs or hypotheses and to ignore any evidence to the contrary. You in particular aren’t even engaging in that practice. You’re arguing just to argue (without providing a shred of evidence to boot) about a subject you don’t know an iota about. This is you and your ilk’s modus operandi in any international relations discussion that PWI gives rise to. And to be perfectly clear, I’m not insulting your intelligence (or anyone else’s in this thread), but illuminating your complete lack of intellectual honesty.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Critics of the deal (the vast majority of whom hadn’t even bothered to read the text of the JCOPA before voicing their vehement opposition to it) [/quote]
You mean, just like the supporters, and every single politician and letter voting member of the public does with every fucking political issue every single day?
I saw someone “thanking” Obama for the recent environmental provisions that HAD YET TO BE RELEASED.
Let’s not pretend what you’re complaining about isn’t so common place that the alternative would truly be shocking.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Oh no it’s not a treaty, it’s an agreement. Ridiculous.[/quote]
The JCOPA is not a treaty under American or international law, but what’s known as an international political agreement. The charge that the JCPOA is unconstitutional is inaccurate, as the administration does not claim that the Iran Deal itself is binding under international law, and such non-binding deals needn’t receive Senate consent. By the way, the President ratifies and proclaims treaties, not the Senate. And no, that isn’t pedantic.
Even if the Iran Deal itself were an international obligation, it is not true that “significant international obligations have always been established through treaties, which require Senate consent by a two-thirds majority.” See, e.g., SALT I, NAFTA, most other free trade agreements, the Algiers Accords, and most Chapter VII Security Council Resolutions. These are examples of executive agreements. In addition to “treaties”, the president has the power to make other international agreements: (1) on the basis of congressional authorization; (2) on the basis of his own foreign relations power; or (3) on the basis of authority contained in an earlier treaty made pursuant to Article II. These agreements are also considered to be federal law, and enjoy legal parity with a “treaty” that has been ratified. The administration isn’t even claiming the JCPOA is an executive agreement.
The administration did use the JCPOA as a basis for a UN Security Council Resolution that is in part binding under international law. But as John Bellinger explained, the Iran Resolution does not appear to obligate the United States under international law to lift domestic US sanctions, and thus does not tie Congress’s hands as a matter of international law. Congress has expressly approved this practice, which has been employed since the 1940s. (See especially 22 USC 287 and 22 USC 287a.)
Some complain about the president’s ability to vote in favor of any UN Security Council Resolution that would impose binding obligations on the United States, included related to sanctions, without Senate consent. This is a power long exercised by the President under Article II and pursuant to authority conferred by Congress. See the following:
As for the Iran Review Act, all it did was delay the President’s ability to waive domestic sanctions. Congress is effectively powerless to stop the Iran deal. The main cause of Congress’s lack of leverage on the Iran deal is the pre-existing congressional sanctions regime that gave the president discretion to waive or lift the sanctions under certain circumstances. If Congress had not delegated to the president authority to lift the sanctions, the president could not lift them now, either directly or via an international agreement. See the following:
In sum, the shrill cries of “this deal is unconstitutional” don’t have a leg to stand on under US and international law.[/quote]
Yawn. It’s political double talk, nothing more. Sematics used in order to avoid as much congressional scrutiny as possible.[/quote]
To be perfectly blunt, you and Angry (and anyone else who read your posts and agreed) know fuck all about international law. One sure mark of a fool is the practice of confirmation bias - that is, to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s beliefs or hypotheses and to ignore any evidence to the contrary. You in particular aren’t even engaging in that practice. You’re arguing just to argue (without providing a shred of evidence to boot) about a subject you don’t know an iota about. This is you and your ilk’s modus operandi in any international relations discussion that PWI gives rise to. And to be perfectly clear, I’m not insulting your intelligence (or anyone else’s in this thread), but illuminating your complete lack of intellectual honesty. [/quote]
Dude, all you know about international law is what you’ve read in book or been told to believe by some professor.
Maybe get off you high horse and spend some time in the real world.