Say hello to a Saudi nuclear program! :w00t:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iran-nuclear-talks/iran-nuclear-deal-what-it-says-n391656
Quote
Iran Nuclear Deal Highlights: The Good, the Bad, the Complicated
by F. Brinley Bruton
Iran and six world powers, including the U.S., unveiled a historic deal aimed at ensuring Iran does not develop nuclear weapons in exchange for the easing of economic sanctions. Here are some highlights from Tuesday's agreement:
Will Iran keep a nuclear program?
Yes. The plan allows Iran to retain its nuclear program for purely peaceful purposes — including electricity and for medical treatments. Tehran has agreed to certain limits on all uranium enrichment and related research and development for the first eight years of the agreement.
"Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons," according to a text of the agreement released Tuesday.
What happens to Iran's existing stockpile of nuclear materials?
Iran has promised to reduce its stockpile of low-enriched uranium — 3.67 percent enriched or less — by around 98 percent to under 300 kg (about 660 lbs) for 15 years. Anything beyond this will be sold and sent abroad. According to the State Department, Iran had been enriching uranium to a level of 20 percent. That's far below the 90 percent typical threshold for weapons-grade material.
Will sanctions be lifted?
Under the deal, all U.N. Security Council sanctions will be lifted, as will other sanctions placed on the country. International sanctions — which had barred Iran from selling its oil abroad and kept it out of the international financial system — have caused Iran's economy to shrink by 20 percent, according to the U.S. government.
It could be months before Iran starts to feel the effect of sanctions being lifted, but once that happens, the country will gain access to some $100 billion in frozen assets.
Who makes sure Iran sticks to the deal?
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will monitor and verify that Tehran abides by the agreement and, according to the State Department, will maintain a "long-term presence in Iran."
The IAEA announced that it had agreed to resolve its own outstanding issues by the end of 2015. The main deal relies on the IAEA being able to inspect Iranian nuclear sites and on Iran answering its questions about possible military aims of previous research.
What if Iran violates the agreement?
The time it would take Iran to develop enough weapons-grade nuclear material to make one bomb is known as the "breakout period." Under the agreement, Iran would need at least one year to do so for the next decade.
Tehran also agreed to a "snap back" mechanism, under which sanctions would be reinstated if it violated the deal, according to the U.S.
Will Tehran be able to buy weapons on the international market?
A United Nations weapons embargo will stay put for five years, while a missile technology ban will remain for eight.
What happens to Iran's nuclear facilities?
Iran pledged to convert its Fordow facility into an international nuclear, physics and technology center.
"International collaboration including in the form of scientific joint partnerships will be established in agreed areas of research," according to the agreement.
Iran will be allowed to rebuild and modernized its heavy water research reactor in Arak. Its reactor will be used for peaceful research and medical purposes, and will not produce weapons-grade uranium, according to the agreement.
What next?
The Republican-controlled Congress has 60 days to review the agreement. Republicans have objected to the deal but President Barack Obama has said he would use his veto to override any resolution of disapproval. The agreement will also need Iran's supreme leader to ratify it. He may face opposition from hardliners in Iran.
It will also have to be ratified by the U.N. Security Council.
Do we have more summits to look forward to?
Ministers from the world powers and Iran will meet at least every two years — or more, if necessary — to review how things are going.
If they start working on a nuclear weapon will we finally have the excuse we need to cut off the snake's head?
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2015, 07:39:43 PM
If they start working on a nuclear weapon will we finally have the excuse we need to cut off the snake's head?
It's a hydra.
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2015, 07:39:43 PM
If they start working on a nuclear weapon will we finally have the excuse we need to cut off the snake's head?
It is bad form to attack a loyal customer :mad:
As I said in the OT thread, the 24 day warning for inspections is wacky. Plus they're going to cheat sooner or later.
The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/iran-nuclear-deal-obama/398450/) has a good article on the deal, and why a deal is the best option at the moment. In a nutshell: Sanctions will have a diminishing effect as other countries, particularly in Asia, have greater incentives to do business with Iran; saber-rattling is pointless since it's been used for over a decade; and war is still the stupidest option (unless you're a contractor who stands to profit, I suppose).
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 14, 2015, 07:33:12 PM
Say hello to a Saudi nuclear program! :w00t:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iran-nuclear-talks/iran-nuclear-deal-what-it-says-n391656
The Saudis can't even build a car. All their country can make is oil and Wahhabi extremists.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/saudi-arabias-nuclear-bluff/2015/06/11/9ce1f4f8-1074-11e5-9726-49d6fa26a8c6_story.html
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2015, 09:13:26 PM
As I said in the OT thread, the 24 day warning for inspections is wacky. Plus they're going to cheat sooner or later.
I'm not sure if that's too long or not. My impression is that centrifuges aren't exactly something you can sweep under the rug, but I'd be interested in seeing evidence either way.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on July 14, 2015, 10:01:22 PM
I'm not sure if that's too long or not. My impression is that centrifuges aren't exactly something you can sweep under the rug, but I'd be interested in seeing evidence either way.
There's other things they pinky promise not to do in addition to enrichment, such as R&D on weaponization.
The Saudis couldn't even assemble an airfix kit.
On the other hand they could probably pay the Pakistanis to do it for them :hmm:
Why do they need 24 day warnings? Do they have to get out the good Silverware and spruce the place up?
I'd be more concerned with a Saudi nuclear test than an Iranian one.
The "friendlyness" of Saudi-Arabia is highly disputable.
Where's the 24 day warning from? Sounds like someone switched hours for days.
Quote from: The Brain on July 15, 2015, 09:54:20 AM
Where's the 24 day warning from? Sounds like someone switched hours for days.
Have you ever seen nuclear equipment? That shit takes time to move.
The 24 day issue isn't really "notice". From what I can gather from the reports is there is a 14 day notice that inspectors are coming and Iran then has the opportunity to dispute the inspection in an arbitration that can last no more than 10 days.
I do not know what grounds Iran can dispute the inspection or on what basis the inspection is permitted.
Those are important details to know. Presumably if Iran delays inspections for no good reason or if there is evidence that something has been moved then that is something that could trigger sanctions being imposed again.
AFAIK standard practice in normal countries is that inspectors can (and do) show up unannounced (notice of an hour or two). 24 h notice at facilities that are low risk.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2015, 11:33:45 AM
The 24 day issue isn't really "notice". From what I can gather from the reports is there is a 14 day notice that inspectors are coming and Iran then has the opportunity to dispute the inspection in an arbitration that can last no more than 10 days.
So then it's a 24 day notice. Unless we made the Iranians pinky-swear not to abuse the arbitration period :lol:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 15, 2015, 01:58:32 AM
The Saudis couldn't even assemble an airfix kit.
On the other hand they could probably pay the Pakistanis to do it for them :hmm:
And the Filipina maids to clean up the mess.
The Iranians are 100% committed to regional hegemony world peace so I wouldn't expect them to do anything that would endanger that. -_-
Quote from: The Brain on July 15, 2015, 12:11:04 PM
AFAIK standard practice in normal countries is that inspectors can (and do) show up unannounced (notice of an hour or two). 24 h notice at facilities that are low risk.
Interesting. What other countries allow foreign inspectors to inspect their nuclear facilities. Not being sarcastic.
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2015, 12:19:42 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2015, 11:33:45 AM
The 24 day issue isn't really "notice". From what I can gather from the reports is there is a 14 day notice that inspectors are coming and Iran then has the opportunity to dispute the inspection in an arbitration that can last no more than 10 days.
So then it's a 24 day notice. Unless we made the Iranians pinky-swear not to abuse the arbitration period :lol:
You realize you cut out the part of my post that was responsive to the "pinky swear" rhetoric right?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2015, 12:56:29 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 15, 2015, 12:11:04 PM
AFAIK standard practice in normal countries is that inspectors can (and do) show up unannounced (notice of an hour or two). 24 h notice at facilities that are low risk.
Interesting. What other countries allow foreign inspectors to inspect their nuclear facilities. Not being sarcastic.
I think it's standard practice for countries that have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but not all of those are into the Additional Protocol which may complicate the exact picture. For official nuclear weapon powers only civilian facilities are inspected.
Edit: https://www.iaea.org/safeguards/basics-of-iaea-safeguards/safeguards-facts-and-figures
Our military facilities are inspected by comedians: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y1ya-yF35g
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2015, 01:12:53 PM
Our military facilities are inspected by comedians: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y1ya-yF35g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y1ya-yF35g)
That's not fair. Sometimes Chinese nationals come by to take a look at our military facilities as well.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2015, 04:01:10 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2015, 01:12:53 PM
Our military facilities are inspected by comedians: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y1ya-yF35g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y1ya-yF35g)
That's not fair. Sometimes Chinese nationals come by to take a look at our military facilities as well.
:pinch:
After Obama's press conference earlier, I realized I'm going to miss having a president that can use the word "a'ight" without trying to be ironic. :D
Too depressing to even comment on this topic.
Quote from: Siege on July 16, 2015, 12:10:11 PM
Too depressing to even comment on this topic.
What? You don't like peace?
He wants ISIS to win?
I'm of two minds on this.
I think the real issue from the perspective of either the 5+1 or Iran isn't nukes, but allowing Iran to become stronger in the face of the ISIS threat.
On the one hand, without a Shi'ite counterbalance, what we are likely to get right now is an ISIS wasteland covering the heart of Syria-Iraq seeking to expand and a bunch of frightened mostly-Sunni states on the one hand, an isolated Iran on the other, and a few oddballs like Israel and Lebanon.
On the other, boosting the Shi'ite sphere will certainly lead to an intensification of the current war, and may undermine Sunni resistance to ISIS - leading to a wider Sunni-Shi'ite civil war, in which all of the little regional conflicts currently underway link up. This could prove a very bloody proposition, and such conflicts have a terrible tendency to expand and suck in others.
This I see as a "worst case" scenario arising from the current deal - not Iran getting the bomb and nuking people (it was always likely Iran would eventually get the bomb, and always unlikely that they would nuke anyone with it), but an intensification of the current sectarian conflict into something worse, arising from Sunni reaction to Shi'ite assertions of strength, funded by Iran.
If that happens, we will all look back nostalgically on the good old days when some people in the West truly though that Israel-Palestinian business was *the* major ME conflict!
I honestly think we should support Iran against ISIS and normalize relations. The Iranian revolution was over 30 years ago, and revolutionary zeal has faded quite a bit. Unlike the Arabs, the Iranians have lived under theocracy for quite while, and know it won't solve all of their problems. I think normalizing relations might help continue to mellow out Iran.
The zealots are still running Iran - we aren't going to normalize.
But this is just common sense power politics diplomacy. US policy in the region is too reliant on the Gulf States and exposure to their problematic agendas. There are problems with the other two traditional poles - Turkey and Egypt. Relaxing a bit on Iran and finding areas of some common ground is a way of hedging bets and expanding possible options.
The problem is that we may be looking at a "30 Year's War - Islamic Style" situation developing.
Sweden is sending fighters. :)
Quote from: The Brain on July 16, 2015, 03:22:42 PM
Sweden is sending fighters. hiring local mercenaries :)
FYP
Quote from: Malthus on July 16, 2015, 03:17:38 PM
The problem is that we may be looking at a "30 Year's War - Islamic Style" situation developing.
If we can keep it contained, then maybe it won't ultimately be a horrible thing.
Quote from: Malthus on July 16, 2015, 03:17:38 PM
The problem is that we may be looking at a "30 Year's War - Islamic Style" situation developing.
Well we are four years in. Just have to make it to 2041.
Quote from: derspiess on July 16, 2015, 03:38:16 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 16, 2015, 03:17:38 PM
The problem is that we may be looking at a "30 Year's War - Islamic Style" situation developing.
If we can keep it contained, then maybe it won't ultimately be a horrible thing.
It's already pretty horrible. ISIS seems to go out of its way to invent new horrors to inflict.
I never thought I'd see the day wehen Americans of all people would decide that Iran's government was, comparatively, the 'good guys'!
Americans thought Stalin was A-OK.
Quote from: Malthus on July 16, 2015, 03:48:42 PM
I never thought I'd see the day wehen Americans of all people would decide that Iran's government was, comparatively, the 'good guys'!
Meh didn't that pretty much happen after 9/11? We have been helping their dudes ever since.
Quote from: Valmy on July 16, 2015, 03:50:36 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 16, 2015, 03:48:42 PM
I never thought I'd see the day wehen Americans of all people would decide that Iran's government was, comparatively, the 'good guys'!
Meh didn't that pretty much happen after 9/11? We have been helping their dudes ever since.
Didn't the US just agree to take off economic sanctions it had helped impose on Iran for being naughty about nukes?
Quote from: Malthus on July 16, 2015, 03:52:08 PM
Didn't the US just agree to take off economic sanctions it had helped impose on Iran for being naughty about nukes?
And? You said 'comparatively'.
Quote from: Valmy on July 16, 2015, 03:58:26 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 16, 2015, 03:52:08 PM
Didn't the US just agree to take off economic sanctions it had helped impose on Iran for being naughty about nukes?
And? You said 'comparatively'.
My impression is that the Deal is a move towards more of that; that prior to the Deal, the US mood was closer to the notion that both sides were 'bad' in their own way. The Deal, it strikes me, indicates not "normalization" exactly but more of a sense that the Iranians should be taken off the leash.
Quote from: Malthus on July 16, 2015, 03:17:38 PM
The problem is that we may be looking at a "30 Year's War - Islamic Style" situation developing.
Yeah, but that is a better problem than ISIL winning in 5.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 16, 2015, 03:10:03 PM
The zealots are still running Iran - we aren't going to normalize.
But this is just common sense power politics diplomacy. US policy in the region is too reliant on the Gulf States and exposure to their problematic agendas. There are problems with the other two traditional poles - Turkey and Egypt. Relaxing a bit on Iran and finding areas of some common ground is a way of hedging bets and expanding possible options.
We aren't going to normalize because they don't want to or because we won't do it? The zealots very recently had a run for the money with that little uprising. I do agree that the US is too reliant on the Gulf states, which are weak, treacherous, and unstable. ISIS is becoming a severe threat. It's not difficult to imagine affiliated uprisings breaking out in Saudi Arabia and Jordan. It's disturbing that groups outside of Syria and Iraq are making attacks in the name of ISIS. God Help us, if Saudi Arabia fell to an uprising of ISIS inspired militants.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 16, 2015, 04:40:37 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 16, 2015, 03:17:38 PM
The problem is that we may be looking at a "30 Year's War - Islamic Style" situation developing.
Yeah, but that is a better problem than ISIL winning in 5.
Maybe, maybe not.
The 'best case' is that, with increased support from Iran, Shi'ite militias and Sunni opponents put down ISIS like rabid dogs, and then work out some sort of peace among themselves.
The 'worst case' is that Iranian support for Shi'ia militias discredits the existing Sunni opposition to ISIS, leading to an increase in ISIS support from Sunnis generally - that is, gives a boost to Sunni radicalism led by its current champions, ISIS, who are able to position themselves as the only real armed response to Shi'ism. That would suck, as it may well widen the conflict and end up with ISIS being even stronger than it is now.
Quote from: Malthus on July 16, 2015, 04:57:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 16, 2015, 04:40:37 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 16, 2015, 03:17:38 PM
The problem is that we may be looking at a "30 Year's War - Islamic Style" situation developing.
Yeah, but that is a better problem than ISIL winning in 5.
Maybe, maybe not.
The 'best case' is that, with increased support from Iran, Shi'ite militias and Sunni opponents put down ISIS like rabid dogs, and then work out some sort of peace among themselves.
The 'worst case' is that Iranian support for Shi'ia militias discredits the existing Sunni opposition to ISIS, leading to an increase in ISIS support from Sunnis generally - that is, gives a boost to Sunni radicalism led by its current champions, ISIS, who are able to position themselves as the only real armed response to Shi'ism. That would suck, as it may well widen the conflict and end up with ISIS being even stronger than it is now.
Yeah, that is possible. One this is certain. The Islamic religious war was long predicted and I am not sure why the West has been backing the most radical form of the Sunni side in that war.
Quote from: Malthus on July 16, 2015, 04:02:58 PM
My impression is that the Deal is a move towards more of that; that prior to the Deal, the US mood was closer to the notion that both sides were 'bad' in their own way. The Deal, it strikes me, indicates not "normalization" exactly but more of a sense that the Iranians should be taken off the leash.
Even after we did so much for them in Iraq and Afghanistan? Seems to me we have clearly been saying they are better than the alternative for a long time. And we tried to have better relations with them for awhile but then they elected that nutcase.
ISIS taking over Saudi Arabia would make no difference, mainly because Saudi Arabia IS ISIS, just in another guise. Or rather it's vice versa.
Quote from: PJL on July 16, 2015, 05:47:06 PM
ISIS taking over Saudi Arabia would make no difference, mainly because Saudi Arabia IS ISIS, just in another guise. Or rather it's vice versa.
I rather think it would bother all the foreign workers there. Cutting off the heads of 9 million people would probably be noticed.
Quote from: Malthus on July 16, 2015, 04:57:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 16, 2015, 04:40:37 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 16, 2015, 03:17:38 PM
We need zombie Kitchener and some maxim guns. That'll teach those Savage neo-mahdists.
The problem is that we may be looking at a "30 Year's War - Islamic Style" situation developing.
Yeah, but that is a better problem than ISIL winning in 5.
Maybe, maybe not.
The 'best case' is that, with increased support from Iran, Shi'ite militias and Sunni opponents put down ISIS like rabid dogs, and then work out some sort of peace among themselves.
The 'worst case' is that Iranian support for Shi'ia militias discredits the existing Sunni opposition to ISIS, leading to an increase in ISIS support from Sunnis generally - that is, gives a boost to Sunni radicalism led by its current champions, ISIS, who are able to position themselves as the only real armed response to Shi'ism. That would suck, as it may well widen the conflict and end up with ISIS being even stronger than it is now.
It begins! :ph34r:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/carter-vows-to-help-saudi-arabia-contain-irans-regional-ambitions/2015/07/22/db535af8-2ff3-11e5-a879-213078d03dd3_story.html
QuoteCarter vows to help Saudi Arabia contain Iran's regional ambitions
By Missy Ryan July 22 at 3:58 PM
JIDDAH, Saudi Arabia — Saudi and U.S. leaders agreed Wednesday to curb Iran's military reach across the Middle East, amid fears that last week's nuclear deal with Tehran would encourage it to pursue more aggressive regional ambitions.
Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter held talks with Saudi Arabia's king and its defense minister in the seaside city of Jiddah, where Saudi officials have decamped for the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Fitr, as he tours Middle Eastern nations that are anxious about the Iran accord.
As the region's largest Sunni power, Saudi Arabia has privately issued warnings about the deal, which would curb Shiite Iran's nuclear program in exchange for the easing of economic sanctions, and those warnings carry weight in Washington. At the end of the Iran nuclear talks, the Saudi government threatened "harsh and determined responses" if Tehran used the proceeds of sanctions relief to enhance support for proxy groups in the region, including Shiite Houthi rebels in Yemen.
But U.S. officials said King Salman voiced solid support for the Iran agreement in his talks with Carter. The monarch noted, however, that the accord must be accompanied by a strong inspections program and measures to put sanctions back in place should Iran violate its terms.
The talks, the first face-to-face encounter between a top Obama administration official and the Saudi leader since the deal was struck July 14, also addressed the deepening conflict in Yemen. More than 3,000 people have been killed there since a Saudi-led coalition began airstrikes in late March against the Houthis, who Riyadh says receive backing from Iran.
In recent days, forces loyal to Saudi Arabia and embattled Yemeni President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi have made major gains against the Houthis, boosting Saudi efforts to reinstall the exiled president.
Carter, speaking to reporters after talks with the Saudi leaders, said he shared their fears about Iran's influence in Yemen. But he noted that a political solution is crucial.
"The Iranian influence with the Houthis is real," Carter said, but he insisted that "what Yemen needs is a political settlement that allows peace to be restored."
Richard LeBaron, a former U.S. ambassador to Kuwait who is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, said the military campaign against the Houthis offers Saudi leaders an opportunity to evaluate the post-deal realities in the region.
"It's a test case of their ability to project power against what they see as an Iranian proxy with direct Iranian involvement . . . especially as, in their view, Iran emerges from the shadows because of the nuclear deal," he said. "It's also a test case of U.S. support for Saudi Arabia."
Washington has sought to reassure friendly Persian Gulf nations that it is a reliable ally despite their misgivings about the Iran deal, which the United States pursued alongside five other world powers. In recent months, the U.S. military has provided intelligence and logistical support to the Saudi campaign in Yemen and has placed personnel at a Saudi operations center where targets are selected.
It also is accelerating weapons shipments and continuing sales of military hardware, including Seahawk maritime helicopters and Patriot missile defense systems.
But whether the Saudi-led coalition will prevent the spread of Iranian influence on the Arabian Peninsula remains unknown.
A Western diplomat, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the conflict, said that Iran and Hezbollah, the Tehran-backed Shiite armed movement in Lebanon, have sent advisers to Yemen. He declined to say how many but noted that even a dozen could have a notable effect by teaching Houthis to operate sophisticated weapons.
Last month, Houthi forces fired a Scud missile into Saudi Arabia. The missile was shot down, but the attack underscored that the group could adopt more sophisticated military technology.
"Over the last four months, the conditions have really allowed Iran to flood the zone," the diplomat said.
U.S. officials, however, have been hesitant to embrace the Saudi assertion that the Houthis provide Iran with a proxy force that could easily become a permanent military power akin to Hezbollah or Shiite militias in Iraq. "They are essentially Yemeni, and they are part of the spectrum of Yemeni political parties," the diplomat said.
Advertisement
U.S. officials also hope that Saudi Arabia will prove a strong partner in combating the Islamic State, whose advances have pulled the Obama administration back into Iraq, and other extremist groups such as al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), which has a strong presence in Yemen.
U.S. objectives may diverge from those of Saudi Arabia when it comes to the groups in Yemen, where AQAP has plotted attacks on U.S. soil but Houthi rebels, despite their distaste for the United States, have not.
The diplomat said Saudi Arabia remains "deeply concerned" about al-Qaeda and the Islamic State but prefers to save that fight until the defeat of the Iranian-allied rebels is assured. "They see that the first order of business is restoring a legitimate government" in Yemen, he said.
From Ayatollah Ali Khamenei twitter account this weekend:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKwfebWWcAAdjds.png:large)
It seems Iran has emerged winner of friends and influencer of people from the negotitaions.
Why is the president black?
Quote from: The Brain on July 28, 2015, 03:18:00 PM
Why is the president black?
He has lots of melanin in his skin, but that's not important right now.
What the hell did we do to justify that? Or does he just regularly call for our deaths as some kind of traditional form of communication? I don't pretend to understand foreign cultures.
Quote from: Valmy on July 28, 2015, 03:33:22 PM
What the hell did we do to justify that? Or does he just regularly call for our deaths as some kind of traditional form of communication? I don't pretend to understand foreign cultures.
I think that's how they break the ice there.
That's a tiny gun.
Barry pardoned Jonathon Pollard. He promised it had nothing to do with the nukalar deal.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 28, 2015, 04:46:10 PM
Barry pardoned Jonathon Pollard. He promised it had nothing to do with the nukalar deal.
I was about to be outraged, but a quick google suggests that Pollard is being granted his statutory parole, and has NOT been pardoned.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/29/world/middleeast/jonathan-pollard-spy-for-israel-to-be-released-on-parole-in-november.html?_r=0
My bad. Misheard.
Maybe Pollard can go on tour with some of the Republican candidates now.
CNN cited a poll that says 44% of Americans approve of the deal vs. 52% against.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 28, 2015, 05:25:19 PM
CNN cited a poll that says 44% of Americans approve of the deal vs. 52% against.
And 7% are remotely aware of the terms of the deal.
I remember when having the polls against you was indicative of "leadership".
Quote from: DGuller on July 28, 2015, 05:26:44 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 28, 2015, 05:25:19 PM
CNN cited a poll that says 44% of Americans approve of the deal vs. 52% against.
And 7% are remotely aware of the terms of the deal.
Yeah, but that 7% is part of the 44% who approve.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 28, 2015, 05:25:19 PM
CNN cited a poll that says 44% of Americans approve of the deal vs. 52% against.
What? DEATH TO AMERICA!
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2015, 05:00:30 PM
Maybe Pollard can go on tour with some of the Republican candidates now.
He should have been shot.
How partisan politics is ruining our Constitution.
So a majority of senators and Congressmen secretly want the Iranian treaty to pass. But they have to pretend they do not since OMG OBAMA. So they change the rules so they can all pretend to oppose the deal.
I guess this is what you have to do in DC to do anything these days.
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/09/02/436647276/minority-rules-capitol-hill-vote-tactics-displayed-in-iran-deal
QuoteCongress votes on President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran this month. Most lawmakers have said they oppose the deal, yet he has a good chance of winning.
That is because the deal will be considered under rules that favor him, even if only a minority supports him in Congress.
That's the backdrop that led to a question I posed to the president in a recent interview: "Are you entirely comfortable going forward with a historic deal knowing that most of the people's representatives are against it?"
"Well, what I know is, is that unfortunately, a large portion of the Republican Party, if not a near unanimous portion of Republican representatives, are going to be opposed to anything that I do," Obama said.
So the White House and Congress are working around their mutual opposition. What follows is the story of how they do that on multiple issues.
The Iran deal is one example. The White House contends Congress has no business in that deal. It's an executive agreement, not a treaty. Lawmakers in both parties demanded a voice. Many dislike the deal — a lot.
When Secretary of State John Kerry appeared before Congress, Sen. Bob Corker described the agreement this way:
"From my perspective, Mr. Secretary, I'm sorry. Not unlike a hotel guest that leaves only with a hotel bathrobe on his back, I believe you've been fleeced."
So he said — yet Corker was among the architects of rules that make it hard to stop the deal.
Lawmakers sometimes set up votes to oppose important measures that they know will likely take effect anyway.
"Creative means, or desperate means, however it may be, are the order of the day," said Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute.
He's watching Corker, who's chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and "a very strong, legislative-minded, policy-minded guy," according to Ornstein. He's also a guy in a tough spot.
Corker has known for some time that the president and the United Nations were on their way to approving the Iran agreement. "Once the president has made a deal with all these other nations, endorsed by the U.N. Security Council," said Ornstein, "if Congress votes to block it, it's not going to look good for anybody — the country or them. So, you find a way to make it work."
They found a way within the arcane rules of congressional voting — borrowing an old mechanism used in civilian nuclear agreements.
Here's how it works. Instead of voting on whether to approve the Iran deal, Congress votes on whether to disapprove.
If they disapprove, the president can veto their disapproval. And under the normal rules, it would take two-thirds of the House and the Senate to override the veto. That makes all the difference.
We asked NPR editor Ron Elving how this changes the number of votes the president's side needs.
"If it were normal legislation and not a treaty, you would need 60 to shut off debate and then 51 to prevail," he said. For a treaty, 67 votes would be needed.
So how many does the president need for this deal? Thirty-four, said Elving. "That's the essence of what we're talking about here. If the Senate gives the president 34 votes to sustain his veto, he has won and it's over."
The president can also win without a veto, if a minority of 41 senators sustains a filibuster. All the checks and balances that make congressional action difficult work in the president's favor because his opponents, not Obama, are the ones who need Congress to pass something.
As of Wednesday, 34 Democrats had already voiced their support for the deal, with a number of others undeclared.
That means even if Republicans all vote no — and even if Democratic skeptics like Sen. Charles Schumer of New York also vote no — it looks like the president will have enough votes to prevail.
"It is a mechanism by which lawmakers can deal with the contradictions that reality presents them. You can call it cynical, you can call it pragmatic, but it gets the job done," Elving said, "both in the sense of keeping the government going forward and in the sense of solving the political problem of the individual lawmaker."
This happens more often than you might think. Consider a story we heard recently from Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, a Tea Party favorite and presidential candidate.
He told us about a Senate Republican lunch in 2014 where party leaders planned to change the voting rules for an increase in the federal debt ceiling.
"That Tuesday lunch began with our leadership saying, 'We're asking every Republican senator here to affirmatively consent to lower the threshold to take up the debt ceiling, from 60 votes to 50 votes,' " he said.
The change meant no Republican would have to join the effort to pass the debt ceiling hike.
Here's how Cruz described the Republican thinking: "The Democrats will have the votes to do it on their own, which means all of us Republicans can vote no. And we can go home and tell our constituents we opposed the thing we just consented to allow happen."
Cruz accuses his party leaders of "mendacity" — he says they're misleading voters.
Elving said lawmakers were working around people like Cruz.
"And that is a Washington solution," he said. "Ted Cruz is not wrong about that."
Lawmakers have used variations on this solution over the years. A dramatic one came in the debt ceiling confrontation in 2011.
Congress approved a rule that let President Obama raise the debt ceiling, even as majorities in Congress voted their disapproval.
Ornstein views this philosophically. "What Republicans in Congress have tried to do, the leaders, who first and foremost are pragmatists — they've got to find ways to accommodate the rowdy radical wing of their party," he said, "and yet still keep disaster from befalling them by bringing the place to a halt or having them blamed for terrible things that happen."
For generations, Democrats and Republicans alike found ways to let individual lawmakers vote no if their votes weren't really needed.
"This is called passing the buck and pointing the finger. And it is a long tradition," Ornstein said.
Today's partisan atmosphere leads to more dramatic tactics.
Certain mechanisms let a whole party vote no without affecting the outcome.
"If you didn't come up with mechanisms, you could have not just a sort-of gridlock but a real gridlock, and it could lead to catastrophic results," said Ornstein.
Lawmakers will use such a mechanism for the Iran vote this month. Then, another confrontation looms — over the federal budget.
It's possible lawmakers could find agreement not on substance but on how they vote.
It's a representative democracy, where the majority rules. Except when the majority agrees in advance that they won't.
Oh our brave principled representatives of the people. Doing what is right and providing visionary leadership.
War is inherently an uncivilized endeavor and is best concluded swiftly, with minimum cost to one's own side. Any efforts to be "civilized" about it only prolong the agony and make matters worse.
Quote from: Siege on September 06, 2015, 10:35:15 PM
War is inherently an uncivilized endeavor and is best concluded swiftly, with minimum cost to one's own side. Any efforts to be "civilized" about it only prolong the agony and make matters worse.
Indeed but in the modern era of cell phones you cannot strike with the ruthlessness required. Hard power is therefore not terribly effective anymore.