SOCNET

Go Back   SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network > General Topics > The Lounge

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 14 July 2015, 14:04
Matchanu's Avatar
Matchanu Matchanu is offline
Creepy ass cracka
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Isle of misfit toys
Posts: 12,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve509 View Post
If what I read is factual, it will take a veto proof majority in congress to block this and that is unlikely to happen.

For me, the questions I have now is what will Israel do?
What will we do if Israel takes matters into their own hands?

I don't expect Israel will be a passive spectator as Iran builds a nuke.
Depends who the next POTUS is and their relationship to Israel, during this administration you can pretty much guess the cause/effect.

If Iran does manage to build a functional nuke and delivery system and it's confirmed Israel would have little choice except for pre-emptive action, much like the destruction of Iraq's nuke power generating station in the 80's, however the international consequences would be far more dire this time around.

This all depends on the next administration however, the US still carries a lot of power and clout regardless of the last decade.

It's also going to depend on who is going to back Iran and the weight they carry.

Long story short, this could get very, very ugly.
__________________
O pointy birds, o pointy pointy,
Anoint my head, anointy-nointy.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 14 July 2015, 14:06
Five-O's Avatar
Five-O Five-O is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 1,072
Israeli PM has clearly stated they will act unilaterally if need be. Current POTUS won't have to deal with that reality but he is surely blue falconing his successor(s).
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 14 July 2015, 14:08
Five-O's Avatar
Five-O Five-O is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 1,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matchanu View Post
Depends who the next POTUS is and their relationship to Israel, during this administration you can pretty much guess the cause/effect.

If Iran does manage to build a functional nuke and delivery system and it's confirmed Israel would have little choice except for pre-emptive action, much like the destruction of Iraq's nuke power generating station in the 80's, however the international consequences would be far more dire this time around.

This all depends on the next administration however, the US still carries a lot of power and clout regardless of the last decade.

It's also going to depend on who is going to back Iran and the weight they carry.

Long story short, this could get very, very ugly.
I see Russia or China stepping up to support Iran.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 14 July 2015, 14:12
Boyo72's Avatar
Boyo72 Boyo72 is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Amongst the masses
Posts: 283
Depending on where you read, anybody have any idea how long until Iran has the actual weapon capability, (not the delivery system)?
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 14 July 2015, 14:22
Gray Rhyno's Avatar
Gray Rhyno Gray Rhyno is offline
Authorized Personnel
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NoVa
Posts: 9,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyo72 View Post
I read the same thing I think. Congress has 60 days to mull this over and vote. if they vote it down POTUS has already said he will veto it, then goes back to the house and senate and need a 2/3 majority to over ride the veto.
I'm confused.

Historically, if the Executive Department negotiates a treaty with a foreign power, it first goes in front of Congress. If Congress passes it, it then goes to the President for signature. If Congress doesn't pass it, it doesn't even go to the President's desk. The bill has to be passed before the President even gets to sit in front of it with a pen.

Are you saying that this treaty is the exact opposite from every other treaty in history? That it's a done deal, but the Congress has to vote against it for it to NOT go into effect?

If that's the case, that scares me more than the treaty itself. That establishes a new precedent that effectively says the President can do whatever he wants, and Congress has to say no in order for it to not happen.
__________________
"The most HSLD stuff ever taught was the basics. So-called 'advanced training' is often no more than the very fluid and expert application of those basic skills." - SOTB
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 14 July 2015, 14:22
Steve509 Steve509 is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: NV
Posts: 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyo72 View Post
Depending on where you read, anybody have any idea how long until Iran has the actual weapon capability, (not the delivery system)?
I don't and I'm not sure the people doing the reporting know either. Opinions seem to vary and fall along party lines or level of support for Pres Obama. Just like damn near any political or social issue.

IMO, the only non-military event that can stop this, is public outrage at a level where our elected officials fear for their job.

Sadly, I don't think enough people even give a shit and many just disconnect when discussions turn towards the Middle East. They just don't want to hear it.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 14 July 2015, 14:28
Steve509 Steve509 is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: NV
Posts: 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by 0699 View Post
I'm confused.

Historically, if the Executive Department negotiates a treaty with a foreign power, it first goes in front of Congress. If Congress passes it, it then goes to the President for signature. If Congress doesn't pass it, it doesn't even go to the President's desk. The bill has to be passed before the President even gets to sit in front of it with a pen.

Are you saying that this treaty is the exact opposite from every other treaty in history? That it's a done deal, but the Congress has to vote against it for it to NOT go into effect?

If that's the case, that scares me more than the treaty itself. That establishes a new precedent that effectively says the President can do whatever he wants, and Congress has to say no in order for it to not happen.
From what I read, Boyo72 is right.

Like you, I thought congress could just vote it down. Apparently, that's not the case.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 14 July 2015, 14:30
Hoepoe's Avatar
Hoepoe Hoepoe is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Israel
Posts: 2,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Five-O View Post
Israeli PM has clearly stated they will act unilaterally if need be.
It depends what that means. Israel cannot militarily stop the nuclear process.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 14 July 2015, 14:30
RedDawg_03's Avatar
RedDawg_03 RedDawg_03 is offline
Pirate and Rogue
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Central Savannah River Area
Posts: 967
Doesnt he already do whatever he wants?
__________________
My suggestion to you is to start drinking heavily - Bluto Blutarsky

Stupid should be a medical diagnosis - Texan

Being smart does not guarantee success, but being stupid practically guarantees failure - GSniper
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 14 July 2015, 14:34
Boyo72's Avatar
Boyo72 Boyo72 is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Amongst the masses
Posts: 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by 0699 View Post
I'm confused.

Historically, if the Executive Department negotiates a treaty with a foreign power, it first goes in front of Congress. If Congress passes it, it then goes to the President for signature. If Congress doesn't pass it, it doesn't even go to the President's desk. The bill has to be passed before the President even gets to sit in front of it with a pen.

Are you saying that this treaty is the exact opposite from every other treaty in history? That it's a done deal, but the Congress has to vote against it for it to NOT go into effect?

If that's the case, that scares me more than the treaty itself. That establishes a new precedent that effectively says the President can do whatever he wants, and Congress has to say no in order for it to not happen.
Ha! Are you saying this POTUS has not been doing whatever the hell he wants lately in regards to presidential authority? I have lost all sort of common sense thoughts lately when it comes to our three branches of government. No disrespect meant in my reply BTW.

I read this blurb on Fox News earlier:

But Congress, under legislation approved earlier this year, has a say and will be able to approve or reject the terms after a 60-day review period. While lawmakers wouldn't necessarily be able to block the entire deal, they could keep U.S. sanctions in place.

With a potential veto showdown on the horizon, Obama faces a tough sales job, and his task is only compounded by the fact the vote could easily slip into September -- after the August recess, where wavering lawmakers could face pressure from voters and advocacy groups...

Obama does have a veto pen at his disposal, and threatened to use it.

"I will veto" any attempt to undo the deal, he vowed Tuesday."
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 14 July 2015, 14:34
Matchanu's Avatar
Matchanu Matchanu is offline
Creepy ass cracka
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Isle of misfit toys
Posts: 12,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Five-O View Post
I see Russia or China stepping up to support Iran.
Yup, add NK in there as well but they really aren't much of a threat.
__________________
O pointy birds, o pointy pointy,
Anoint my head, anointy-nointy.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 14 July 2015, 14:35
Boyo72's Avatar
Boyo72 Boyo72 is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Amongst the masses
Posts: 283
Here is the link to said article...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...ation-to-iran/
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 14 July 2015, 14:40
Five-O's Avatar
Five-O Five-O is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 1,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoepoe View Post
It depends what that means. Israel cannot militarily stop the nuclear process.
I would suspect you are correct, at least not with convention munitions.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 14 July 2015, 14:42
Matchanu's Avatar
Matchanu Matchanu is offline
Creepy ass cracka
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Isle of misfit toys
Posts: 12,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoepoe View Post
It depends what that means. Israel cannot militarily stop the nuclear process.
Not from lack of trying.
__________________
O pointy birds, o pointy pointy,
Anoint my head, anointy-nointy.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 14 July 2015, 14:55
SATCOM's Avatar
SATCOM SATCOM is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,108
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Five-O View Post
I would suspect you are correct, at least not with convention munitions.
Why not? They did it once already in 1981...... to stop the Iraqis from proceeding with their nuclear program:

1981: Israel bombs Baghdad nuclear reactor

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/3014623.stm

The Israelis have bombed a French-built nuclear plant near Iraq's capital, Baghdad, saying they believed it was designed to make nuclear weapons to destroy Israel.
It is the world's first air strike against a nuclear plant.

An undisclosed number of F-15 interceptors and F-16 fighter bombers destroyed the Osirak reactor 18 miles south of Baghdad, on the orders of Prime Minister Menachem Begin.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 14 July 2015, 15:11
btq96r's Avatar
btq96r btq96r is offline
Calix Meus Inebrians
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Improving my Foxhole
Posts: 3,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by 0699 View Post
Are you saying that this treaty is the exact opposite from every other treaty in history? That it's a done deal, but the Congress has to vote against it for it to NOT go into effect?
This isn't being submitted to the Senate as a treaty, it's being considered an executive agreement. The "compromise" that the Republicans accepted to have some voice is only forceful if a disapproval is strong enough in both houses to over ride a veto. If it was just the Senate voting, there might be a chance to get 2/3rds against it, but with the House involved, not likely. Republicans accepted the deal to have an official vote so they could be on the record as being against it. To quote a good explanation from a NYT article...
Under the terms of legislation passed in May, Congress has 60 days to scrutinize the accord between Iran and the United States, Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany, and then to vote to accept or reject it or to do nothing. The president can veto any resolution of disapproval. Congress needs a two-thirds majority in each house to override the veto, so to put the deal into force, Mr. Obama only needs one-third of one of the houses to stand with him.
This is what Sen. Tom Cotton meant in his open letter to Iran when he said "The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time." This "treaty" doesn't have the full legal force of a treaty.

Executive overreach some will say, within the powers of the Presidency others will say...opinions on that will usually differ based on who's actually in the White House and what party the person opining has loyalties to.

In the end, it handed an election issue to the Republicans who can now turn to the electorate and say, if you want this deal scrapped, vote for us. If American's care enough for that to be any kind of issue is another story.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyo72 View Post
Israel is going to be the 800 lb. gorilla in the room on this. I don't see them idly sitting back and letting the mullahs cook up a bomb.
The bigger worry, to me, are the Saudi's. If Iran gets a nuke, they'll want their own, and they have the leverage (oil) to avoid sanctions and the money to get it done on a condensed timeline. Iran having the bomb is going to make proliferation a historical concept.
__________________
Moderation is for Canadians.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 14 July 2015, 15:19
Steve509 Steve509 is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: NV
Posts: 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by 0699 View Post
I'm confused.

Historically, if the Executive Department negotiates a treaty with a foreign power, it first goes in front of Congress. If Congress passes it, it then goes to the President for signature. If Congress doesn't pass it, it doesn't even go to the President's desk. The bill has to be passed before the President even gets to sit in front of it with a pen.

Are you saying that this treaty is the exact opposite from every other treaty in history? That it's a done deal, but the Congress has to vote against it for it to NOT go into effect?

If that's the case, that scares me more than the treaty itself. That establishes a new precedent that effectively says the President can do whatever he wants, and Congress has to say no in order for it to not happen.
From what I read, Boyo72 is right.

Like you, I thought congress could just vote it down. Apparently, that's not the case.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 14 July 2015, 16:21
Gray Rhyno's Avatar
Gray Rhyno Gray Rhyno is offline
Authorized Personnel
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NoVa
Posts: 9,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by btq96r View Post

This is what Sen. Tom Cotton meant in his open letter to Iran when he said "The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time." This "treaty" doesn't have the full legal force of a treaty.
Thank you. Now this makes more sense. Not that it makes sense in the traditional sense of "making sense", but now I understand how Congress can't reject it out of hand. I think.

It's like a "police action".
__________________
"The most HSLD stuff ever taught was the basics. So-called 'advanced training' is often no more than the very fluid and expert application of those basic skills." - SOTB
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 14 July 2015, 16:26
poison poison is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: California
Posts: 3,336
The Saudis and Egyptians have said straight out they'll buy nukes if Iran gets a bomb. The following link shows what the president has said, and it's an emphatic 'No bomb'.

http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...weapon/262951/

If this is all just part of the game, cool. If he just delayed military action a few years, and still intends to use it if necessary, ok maybe. But I don't think that's the case, seems like most here don't.

Last edited by poison; 14 July 2015 at 16:33.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 14 July 2015, 16:48
Xdeth's Avatar
Xdeth Xdeth is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 4,716
What do you expect? Since the Baby Boomers we can't win a war or shape a political landscape. Get on your knees and suck it America.
__________________
"First, decide who you would be. Then, do what you must do." -Epictetus
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Our new posting rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 19:52.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Socnet.com All Rights Reserved
SOCNET 1996-2018