Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:I am not sure citing a "liberal" constitutional expert like Dershowitz is all that convincing. Dershowitz is Jewish and in this context his Jewish identity (and what he see are in the interests of Israel) trump his liberalism.

That has nothing to do with his opinion as to whether or not this should be a treaty. It clearly is.

Really? So his bias on the issue of Iran and Israel could not possibly have anything to do with the arguments he makes or the conclusions he draws?

And yet in introducing him you make it clear that he does in some way allow his bias in favour of some liberal views to colour his Constitutional opinions.

I am now a very confused bear.

rickyp wrote:Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction. Opened for Signature at London, Moscow and Washington. 10 April 1972.

The Islamic Consultative Assembly (the Parliament) of the Islamic Republic of Iran approved the bill presented by the Government to join the [said Convention] on 27 July 1997, and the Guardian Council found the legislation compatible with the Constitution and the Islamic Tenets on 30 July 1997, in accordance with its required Constitutional process. The Islamic Consultative Assembly decided that:

The Government is hereby authorized, at an appropriate time, to accede to the [said Convention] - as annexed to this legislation and to deposit its relevant instrument.

Article IX of the Treaty calls for eliminating chemical weapons. It's unclear the extent to which Iran bears some responsibility for Syria's use of those weapons. BTW, the latest reports are that IS got a hold of Syria's chemical weapons and is now using them.

fate

Furthermore, the US can reimpose sanctions. But, rickyp tells us those will have no impact.

Misquoted again.

The sanctions that can be reimposed under the agreement include all signatories to the agreement. They would be, and have been far reaching and effective.

If the agreement falls through then the Us will most likely is left to a unilateral sanctions regimen. That would be ineffective.

ray jay

Article IX of the Treaty calls for eliminating chemical weapons. It's unclear the extent to which Iran bears some responsibility for Syria's use of those weapons. BTW, the latest reports are that IS got a hold of Syria's chemical weapons and is now using them

.
The problems with this treaty are
1) verification of compliance seems difficult.
2) penalties for non-compliance are not defined nor enforceable

The reasons that the current nuclear agreement are better are
1) a very strong verification system
2) defined, easily enforcable sanctions that have already proved to be effective with Iran.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

The author linked here vouches for the treaty and asks one particularly interesting question.

If congressional action prevents U.S. adherence to the deal, Iran would likely go full bore on its nuclear weapons program. The most informed opinions suggest that Iran could then have nuclear weapons in two years. Opponents of the deal warn that in 10 to 15 years’ time, the deal allows Iran to be only a couple of years away from a nuclear weapon. Why does accepting that danger now seem to bother opponents less than coping with a danger that might be 10 years away?

How do you answer this Fate?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:I am not sure citing a "liberal" constitutional expert like Dershowitz is all that convincing. Dershowitz is Jewish and in this context his Jewish identity (and what he see are in the interests of Israel) trump his liberalism.

That has nothing to do with his opinion as to whether or not this should be a treaty. It clearly is.

Really? So his bias on the issue of Iran and Israel could not possibly have anything to do with the arguments he makes or the conclusions he draws?

And yet in introducing him you make it clear that he does in some way allow his bias in favour of some liberal views to colour his Constitutional opinions.

I am now a very confused bear.

You're confused; Dershowitz is not.

Even the White House has claimed they could not get it passed as a treaty so they did not try. That should be illegal. It is a treaty.

rickyp wrote:fate

Furthermore, the US can reimpose sanctions. But, rickyp tells us those will have no impact.

Misquoted again.

The sanctions that can be reimposed under the agreement include all signatories to the agreement. They would be, and have been far reaching and effective.

If the agreement falls through then the Us will most likely is left to a unilateral sanctions regimen. That would be ineffective.

That's exactly what I said--your complaint notwithstanding.

freeman3 was claiming the US could reimpose sanctions.

freeman3 wrote:. . . and that's why the US can unilaterally reimpose sanctions if Iran reneges on the deal.

I said you said the US alone would have no impact.

So, you astutely *cough* point out that:

1) you have been misquoted (by me)

2) unilateral (US-only) sanctions would be "ineffective."

So, I quoted you accurately and you claim I didn't. Well done!

rickyp wrote:How do you answer this Fate?

Not sure how a response to Ray Jay ends with a question for me, but let me start this way:

Harold Brown was secretary of defense during the Carter administration

If everyone starts with a perfect score of 100, Mr. Brown loses 40 points for serving under Carter. It's an op-ed, not the Bible. Mr. Brown is not infallible.

Senator Schumer (and others) have noted voting down this deal means going back to negotiations with Iran.

fate

If everyone starts with a perfect score of 100, Mr. Brown loses 40 points for serving under Carter. It's an op-ed, not the Bible. Mr. Brown is not infallible

.

So what? He made this statement.

If congressional action prevents U.S. adherence to the deal, Iran would likely go full bore on its nuclear weapons program. The most informed opinions suggest that Iran could then have nuclear weapons in two years. Opponents of the deal warn that in 10 to 15 years’ time, the deal allows Iran to be only a couple of years away from a nuclear weapon. Why does accepting that danger now seem to bother opponents less than coping with a danger that might be 10 years away?

Please answer that last question.
RayJay too...
That's the crux of the incongruity in the argument offered by critics of the deal.

Fae

Senator Schumer (and others) have noted voting down this deal means going back to negotiations with Iran

.
Yes. And the German foreign ministry and others have said that the chance of new negotiations occurring if Congress scuttles the deal are zero.
So, what kind of option is that?

rickyp wrote:fate

If everyone starts with a perfect score of 100, Mr. Brown loses 40 points for serving under Carter. It's an op-ed, not the Bible. Mr. Brown is not infallible

.

So what? He made this statement.

If congressional action prevents U.S. adherence to the deal, Iran would likely go full bore on its nuclear weapons program. The most informed opinions suggest that Iran could then have nuclear weapons in two years. Opponents of the deal warn that in 10 to 15 years’ time, the deal allows Iran to be only a couple of years away from a nuclear weapon. Why does accepting that danger now seem to bother opponents less than coping with a danger that might be 10 years away?

Please answer that last question.
RayJay too...
That's the crux of the incongruity in the argument offered by critics of the deal.

Fae

Senator Schumer (and others) have noted voting down this deal means going back to negotiations with Iran

.
Yes. And the German foreign ministry and others have said that the chance of new negotiations occurring if Congress scuttles the deal are zero.
So, what kind of option is that?

I think you are right in that now that the deal has been negotiated we are damned if we do don't sign it. If the Congress overrides Obama's veto, we get the worst of all worlds. Sanctions are lifted by Europe and Asia but Iran can still blame the US and Israel for the breakdown in an agreement. They will not feel constrained in their nuclear activities and will be even more likely to cheat. Meanwhile we show the world a huge level of dysfunction in the US government. Whether you consider it a rogue President or a rogue Congress doesn't matter. It is dysfunction.

Doctor Fate wrote:You're confused; Dershowitz is not.

It is you who is confusing, not Dershowitz.

Even the White House has claimed they could not get it passed as a treaty so they did not try. That should be illegal. It is a treaty.

Not necessarily. If you know you aren't going to get a treaty through, you don't negotiate for one. And there are other reasons why it's not a full treaty that your fixation on that one out of context quote misses completely.

rickyp wrote:fate

If everyone starts with a perfect score of 100, Mr. Brown loses 40 points for serving under Carter. It's an op-ed, not the Bible. Mr. Brown is not infallible

.

So what?

Here's "so what." Mr. Brown has an opinion; he's not necessarily correct. There are contrasting opinions; they are not necessarily wrong. We can post endless op-eds.

He made this statement.

If congressional action prevents U.S. adherence to the deal, Iran would likely go full bore on its nuclear weapons program. The most informed opinions suggest that Iran could then have nuclear weapons in two years. Opponents of the deal warn that in 10 to 15 years’ time, the deal allows Iran to be only a couple of years away from a nuclear weapon. Why does accepting that danger now seem to bother opponents less than coping with a danger that might be 10 years away?

So, since Obama made a lousy deal, Congress is bound to tie itself to it so they can share in the ignominy history will attach to this deal? That's quite an argument.

Please answer that last question.

First, I would note it's a lousy question. The President is not an Emperor, no matter how much he thinks he is.

Second, why can't we hold the President to what he promised in the first place? Why isn't Iran dismantling its program like he promised? Why is Iran getting the conventional arms trade ban lifted? Why is Iran getting green lit on its ICBM program?

Brown's argument is thus: the captain of the ship is going down with the ship, if the crew fails to go down with him, what shame there will be!

Again, as Dershowitz pointed out, Obama took every other option off the table, then negotiated a crappy deal, and now, for some reason, the only course of action anyone else can take is to fall in line? Obama created this problem and the rest of us just have to suck it up?

The reality is this: if the deal goes down in flames. the President has already hinted he will "go it alone"--ignore the Congressional vote. Frankly, I'd love to see it. Maybe he can get himself impeached.

Furthermore, the pressure will remain on Iran and Russia and China. For example, Kerry says Suleimani went to Moscow in violation of a UN travel ban. Russia denies it. These are the people we are going to trust to help us enforce the inspections regime? They won't even tell the truth about lesser violations!

It's better to deal with it than 10 years from now when they have had more than a trillion dollars of additional income. It's as easy as that.

Fae

Senator Schumer (and others) have noted voting down this deal means going back to negotiations with Iran

.
Yes. And the German foreign ministry and others have said that the chance of new negotiations occurring if Congress scuttles the deal are zero.
So, what kind of option is that?

I'm willing to take that risk. If Germany wants Iran to go nuclear, that's their right. I don't think we have to go the "Full Munich" with them.

We're just not going to agree. You think it's swell. I think Iran is already cheating--and that they crushed Obama/Kerry in the negotiations. I think Iran, like North Korea, will evade the inspectors, develop a nuke, and we will see a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

Well done, Mr. Obama!

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:You're confused; Dershowitz is not.

It is you who is confusing, not Dershowitz.

Even the White House has claimed they could not get it passed as a treaty so they did not try. That should be illegal. It is a treaty.

Not necessarily. If you know you aren't going to get a treaty through, you don't negotiate for one. And there are other reasons why it's not a full treaty that your fixation on that one out of context quote misses completely.

It's not out of context and you're ill-informed.

Fate

I'm willing to take that risk. If Germany wants Iran to go nuclear, that's their right. I don't think we have to go the "Full Munich" with them.

Your an idiot.
Its obvious that Germany doesn't want Iran to go nuclear. They are, after all, important partners in the agreement that ensures Iran won't go nuclear.
What Germany has clearly told the Senators in Washington is that the agreement does meet the goal of ensuring Iran won't go nuclear. And they've said that the chances of renegotiating a better deal are zero.
If the deal is scuttled by the US Senate it
means that the current level of danger, is maintained and there is no inspection regiment, and no way to genuinely know what Iran is doing. (The status quo, minus sanctions since scuttling the deal will also scuttle sanction.)
In hopes of renegotiating a better deal that allies of the US, never mind China and Russia, say is next to impossible.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... story.html

Which comes back to the question.

Why does accepting that danger now seem to bother opponents less than coping with a danger that might be 10 years away?

Or Answer Rays POV...

If the Congress overrides Obama's veto, we get the worst of all worlds. Sanctions are lifted by Europe and Asia but Iran can still blame the US and Israel for the breakdown in an agreement. They will not feel constrained in their nuclear activities and will be even more likely to cheat. Meanwhile we show the world a huge level of dysfunction in the US government. Whether you consider it a rogue President or a rogue Congress doesn't matter. It is dysfunction

.

Dysfunction that comes from the form of government. The parliamentary democracies involved in the negotiations have a populace that trusts that the experts involved in the negotiations to achieve the best possible out come. There is general support in Germany, France and the UK for the agreement. (And the reality of a nuclear Iran has more meaning to each of these nations than the US).
On the other hand the US populace is handed a distorted view of the agreement and its bandied about in the media as another political football rather than the important agreement that it is. And the experts who actually understand nuclear inspection, and nuclear weapons creation are trumped by the opinions of know nothings like Tom Cotton.

rickyp wrote:Fate

I'm willing to take that risk. If Germany wants Iran to go nuclear, that's their right. I don't think we have to go the "Full Munich" with them.

Your an idiot.

Waiting on danivon, again.

On the other hand, when calling someone else "an idiot," you might want to make sure your grammar is correct. It makes one look a bit silly.

Its obvious that Germany doesn't want Iran to go nuclear. They are, after all, important partners in the agreement that ensures Iran won't go nuclear.

Great! So, they'll link arms with us if we vote down the horrid, one-sided agreement Obama/Kerry "negotiated," right?

What Germany has clearly told the Senators in Washington is that the agreement does meet the goal of ensuring Iran won't go nuclear. And they've said that the chances of renegotiating a better deal are zero.

Wait. So, they don't want Iran to go nuclear, but they'll let them go nuclear if Congress votes down the deal?

Hmm.

If the deal is scuttled by the US Senate it
means that the current level of danger, is maintained and there is no inspection regiment, and no way to genuinely know what Iran is doing. (The status quo, minus sanctions since scuttling the deal will also scuttle sanction.)
In hopes of renegotiating a better deal that allies of the US, never mind China and Russia, say is next to impossible.

But, the deal permits Iran to go nuclear, if Iran keeps the deal, in 10+ years. So, we're back to Germany doesn't care if Iran goes nuclear. It's in the deal--the nuke is delayed, but they will get it.

Which comes back to the question.

Why does accepting that danger now seem to bother opponents less than coping with a danger that might be 10 years away?

I already answered it.

It's better to deal with it (now) than 10 years from now when they have had more than a trillion dollars of additional income. It's as easy as that.

If you think Iran won't spend some of that $1.5T+ on defense and hardening some sites to do nuclear work, then you're not paying attention.

On the other hand the US populace is handed a distorted view of the agreement . . .

So true, after all we have a President who distorts everything.

. . . know nothings like Tom Cotton.

Uh-huh.

Mr. Cotton's resume is far more impressive than Mr. Obama's, if one removes from it his good fortune at fooling the American public into electing him President. Have a nice day.

Ricky:

Your an idiot

Two funny