More Demawon't Shenanigans

[sirs]

What part of not passing are you not getting?  But by all means,  please share how you're so intimately privvy to the inner goings-on of the Senate GOP leadership.   And no, your say so or it's just "obvious" doesn't cut it.   Try linking zome report from some news source that chronicles this supposed diabolical plan, you keep fantasizing about.

[Plane]

The Republicans went along with finagling the deal so it could be passed by a third plus one. So they are clearly accomplices in it passing. It was a wily trick to counter Netanyahu's  plan to steer our government in his direction.  Sneaky times call for sneaky measures.

Outwitting a sly trickster like Netanyahu was required and masterful.

   This seems to be an agreement on your part that little respect for the common man is found in this administration.

   You just want Republicans to share this.

    Ok, yes there isn't enough respect for the common man in the Republican camp either.

     More than the Democrats still might not be ,..enough.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The Iran deal was the very best deal possible. The only alternative was no deal at all, and Iran could start working on their nukes right away.

By the way, they are not very good at this, The US produced two different kinds of A bombs in four years, and no one had ever done it before, Nearly Every procedure was untried and untested. Now the technology is understood, and the obstacles are simply getting enough U-238 or Plutonium. Iran has been thinking about this for over 20 years. Every three months, Israel tells us they are only three or six months from having their bomb.

But it never, ever happens.
Years go by and there are no results.
So either they are faking building a bomb just to pester the Israelis, or they are amazingly incompetent.

[Plane]

  What ,in particular, makes this deal better than no deal?

   The entire Iranian program was under cover until intelligence dug it out.

     Why should they not enjoy their new freedom from embargo and build bombs too?

       They haven't promised to stop enriching uranium and they probably have facilities we haven't found yet.

[sirs]

  What ,in particular, makes this deal better than no deal?

Exactly.  Iranians would still be trying to acquire their nukes via their enriched uranium efforts, but at an exponentially higher cost to their economy and sponsored terrorist efforts.  They'd be under a global microscope, would have no credibility in anything they claim, and at the 1st sign of them trying to weaponize anything, would quickly be taken out.  Instead now we have precisely the opposite, where they even get to "inspect themselves".  EVERY one of the concrete pledges Obama made as a cornerstone to ANY "deal" with Iran, completely scrapped.  And as such, gives Israel every justification for a preemptive attack now, that wouldn't have been the case under the no-deal scenario......unless of course, Iran attacks 1st 

NO deal was far superior to this "deal"

And repeating the point of the tread, the Democrats led by Reid, even prevented a vote on a resolution that not only a majority of the Senate agreed with, but so does a majority of the country, in denouncing this "deal".  Remember the reckless words of Pelosi laying the irresponsible claim that "we need to pass it, to see what's in it".  Here, the Democrats wouldn't even allow it to be passed

[Xavier_Onassis]

Iran would only attack Israel to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran.
Israel would only attack Iran to prevent an Iranian attack on Israel.

Both would be preemptive attacks.  And both would violate some third country's airspace.
Look at a map.

[sirs]

1 little, yet extremely important wrinkle in your scenario, I'm afraid.  Only ONE of those nations has publically declared death to the other country.  Here's a hint, it's NOT the one who already has nukes

In other words, a pre-emptive attack by Iran would be for the express purpose of trying to bring about death to the country of Israel, and it would include any nukes they had managed to make.  A preemptive attack by Israel would be for the express purpose of trying to take out Iran's nuclear threat to themselves, and the region in general, and would be limited to conventional ordinance

1 would be absolutely justified now, thanks to Oblather

[Plane]

Iran would only attack Israel to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran.

This is not what they say in Iran , and it is not what they have done either.


They see a lot of virtue in attacking , so why not first?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Iran has not attacked Iran, what the Hell are you talking about?

Hezbollah is hardly any sort of major threat.

This deal is done. Nothing the Republican'ts can do but bitch about it.

They sort of lost. But they managed to get it approved without actually having to vote for it.

As I said, this was a clever ruse.

[sirs]

And one more time, what part of it not having majority support to get approved, are you having trouble with??

[Xavier_Onassis]

It did not require a majority  because the process was finagled with before they voted on it, so that it would pass (as it has) without the Republican'ts having to vote for it.
You do not seem to be paying attention.

Now the deal is done, and they do not have the voted to override the President's veto to say they do not like it.

It's a DONE DEAL! The Fat Lady has sung! It is ALL OVER!

[sirs]

There was no finagaling......it was a resolution that the entire senate could vote up or down on, regarding their non-support of the "deal".  IT HAD EVERY REPUBLICAN SUPPORTING IT, and some prominent Democrats as well.  The DEMOCRATS however, used a fillibuster to even prevent it from coming to a vote

in other words, ANY APPROVAL OF THE "DEAL" REQUIRED MAJORITY SUPPORT.  AND WHILE the "Deal" DID NOT HAVE MAJORITY SUPPORT, A RESOLUTION DENOUNCING THE "DEAL" DID, and THAT is what the DEMS, ALL BY THEMSELVES, WITH NO HELP FROM ANY REPUBLICAN, PREVENTED FROM EVEN BEING VOTED ON

SO ONE MORE TIME.....IT DID NOT PASS, BECAUSE THE DEMS WOULDN'T EVEN ALLOW IT TO BE VOTED ON.  There was no finagling on any Republican's part, since they ALL supported the resolution, and NONE supported the fillibuster.  The worst part is that although Democrats also disagreed and supported the resolution, Reid had enough Democrats who even didn't support the deal, still support a fillibuster that prevented a vote on a resolution that didn't support the deal

So, don't ever let us catch ANY Democrat crying about Republicans using some parlimentary procedure in not allowing the Senate to vote,.....on anything.  Not one credible leg to stand on

[Plane]

There was no finagaling......

There has been some finagling.

It is not extraordinary.

You should review what the NPR and John Kerry said about it.



 https://reason.com/blog/2015/07/16/doesnt-matter-if-iran-deal-goes-to-un-be

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/07/29/john_kerry_explains_why_iran_deal_is_not_a_treaty_you_cant_pass_a_treaty_anymore.html

REP. REID RIBBLE: For 228 years, the Constitution allowed treaties to [pass] with the advice and consent of 67 U.S. Senators. Why is this not considered a treaty?

 SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY: Well Congressman, I spent quite a few years trying to get a lot of treaties through the United States Senate, and it has become physically impossible.

 That's why. Because you can't pass a treaty anymore. It has become impossible to schedule, to pass, and I sat there leading the charge on the Disabilities Treaty which fell to basically ideology and politics. So I think that is the reason why.

[Plane]

Iran has not attacked Iran, what the Hell are you talking about?

Hezbollah is hardly any sort of major threat.

This deal is done. Nothing the Republican'ts can do but bitch about it.

They sort of lost. But they managed to get it approved without actually having to vote for it.

As I said, this was a clever ruse.

Iran is attacking Iranians all the time , and they are constantly making war on their neighbors right now.

I really do not see why this treaty is "alternative" to war.

There is nothing preventing Iran from making war and bombs as much as ever , only with less hindrance.

As far as I know , this lite treaty does not feature any quality that will make it better for peace than the Molotov - Ribbentrop pact.

[sirs]

There was no finagaling......

There has been some finagling.

It is not extraordinary.

You should review what the NPR and John Kerry said about it.

With all due respect, Plane, this doesn't demonstrate that the GOP finagled anything.  The Senate is supposed to ratify any treaties.  That's a primary Constitutional function.  Just because the Democrats want to throw that function away, and give it to a Democrat President, in the form of a "deal", doesn't take away the fact that this never passed the Senate, because a treaty was never brought to the Senate, which is what Kerry largely infers into why this was merely a deal and not a formal treaty.

The only thing the Senate could do at that point was to write up a resolution either supporting or disapproving the deal.  They did the latter.  They had full GOP support, and even some high ranking Democrats, making it a bi-artisan resolution.  And what'd we get?  Reid and the DEMOCRATS, with no finagling by any Republicans, fillibustering even the oppotunity to vote on nothing more than a resolution