The 47 GOP Senators and Iran.

[VectorVictor]

Note a the glaring difference between your listed points and what happened here. In your points, the people in question were trying to secure some manner of peace. This letter to Iran is trying to break off any talks, and is nothing but trying to start a war. The ring leader, Tom Cotton, is the featured speaker at a defense contractors convention. Wars are finally winding down in the Middle East and these defense contractors' gravy train is going to slow way the hell down. And their stock prices, and executive bonuses are in danger. So the good little lapdogs are off to try to get another war started.

 

Strigori pretty much nailed it right there.

 

For TGHusker:

 

[TGHusker]

 

Note a the glaring difference between your listed points and what happened here. In your points, the people in question were trying to secure some manner of peace. This letter to Iran is trying to break off any talks, and is nothing but trying to start a war. The ring leader, Tom Cotton, is the featured speaker at a defense contractors convention. Wars are finally winding down in the Middle East and these defense contractors' gravy train is going to slow way the hell down. And their stock prices, and executive bonuses are in danger. So the good little lapdogs are off to try to get another war started.

 

Strigori pretty much nailed it right there.

 

For TGHusker:

 

 

I love it. I have no issue with what Strigori said to a point IF Strigori's hypothesis is correct, that Cotton is in the hip of the MIC and is only doing this to further their agenda, then I would be in agreement. I'll look for his supporting evidence that this was the motive behind the letter and the signatures of all of the other Senators. I am not a fan of the MIC and their need for war.

 

What if the motive for the letter was to avoid a 'peace agreement' that would fall far short by not including other parties in the region as well as advice from the Congress? Can we honestly say we can trust this Iranian leadership? They sponsor terrorism in the region. I think we can trust the Iranian people and if we were in negotiation wt a non-radical Islamic govt, I would have more confidence. I would like to see a more comprehensive agreement within the region.

 

To be honest with you, I don't know the base motive of the letter. And each Senator may have their separate reasons for signing. Perhaps all political or perhaps philosophical differences.

My post with the list, is just to point out that these actions cut both ways and have for years.

 

Strigori says the dems' actions were all about peace. However, peace via concession to communism (as in 2 or 3 of the situations on the list) without the reduction of tyranny & the increase in individual liberty is not real peace in my book. Sometimes 'peace' is not the best route (don't quote me out of context here and accuse me of being pro-war) - Think Neville Chamberlain - Munich Agreement 1938. "I have returned from Germany with peace for our time."

 

In the case of Iran, (talking blind here since we don't know the details), shouldn't any agreement be tied to improvement of human rights & liberty within Iran (remember the failed 2009 green revolt in Iran) and securing a trans-MidEast peace agreement by including others - including Israel. The admin could be accused of unilateralism - something GWB was accused of (and rightly so).

[ZRod]

What if the motive for the letter was to avoid a 'peace agreement' that would fall far short by not including other parties in the region as well as advice from the Congress?

No thank you.

 

 

 

Can we honestly say we can trust this Iranian leadership? They sponsor terrorism in the region. I think we can trust the Iranian people and if we were in negotiation wt a non-radical Islamic govt, I would have more confidence. I would like to see a more comprehensive agreement within the region.

Which is different than us sponsoring Israel how? Semantics maybe? Israel has assassinated multiple Iranian scientists, blown up their facilities, and (with the help of the US) hacked into their computer systems.

[TGHusker]

 

What if the motive for the letter was to avoid a 'peace agreement' that would fall far short by not including other parties in the region as well as advice from the Congress?

No thank you.

 

 

 

Can we honestly say we can trust this Iranian leadership? They sponsor terrorism in the region. I think we can trust the Iranian people and if we were in negotiation wt a non-radical Islamic govt, I would have more confidence. I would like to see a more comprehensive agreement within the region.

Which is different than us sponsoring Israel how? Semantics maybe? Israel has assassinated multiple Iranian scientists, blown up their facilities, and (with the help of the US) hacked into their computer systems.

 

Congress does have the responsibility to advice and consent and approve treaties.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements, which must be confirmed by the Senate, between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate.

 

Perhaps the admin is going for a non-binding agreement??

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/did-obama-go-non-binding-deal-iran-dodge-senate-state-dep-t-won-t

 

Regarding Israel blowing up Iranian facilities: up to debate as to what lengths a country can go to in order to guarantee its survival. Israel sees the Iranian program as a direct threat - not to mention Iran's sponsorship of terror groups bent on Israel's destruction - not to mention #2 Iran leaders' stated desire to see Israel destroyed. What might the USA do if Cuba actually ended up wt Soviet missiles or if Venezuela (a known anti-USA govt) was developing terror groups or a missile program to attack the USA? We would act out of self preservation.

 

I get your overall point however: terrorism of one kind breads perceived reactionary terrorist activity of another kind.

Thus my point: What good is a peace agreement between the USA and Iran without Israel (and Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt - who basically with Iran represent the whole region) in the deal. Other than oil and our defense treaty with Israel, we have no skin in the game. The other countries have their survival in the game.

[strigori]

From Cotton's home state of Arkansas

 

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2015/03/09/war-what-is-it-good-for-tom-cotton-has-an-idea

 

 

 

Tomorrow, 24 hours later, Cotton will appear at an “Off the Record and strictly Non-Attribution” event with the National Defense Industrial Association, a lobbying and professional group for defense contractors.

The NDIA is composed of executives from major military businesses such as Northrop Grumman, L-3 Communications, ManTech International, Boeing, Oshkosh Defense and Booz Allen Hamilton, among other firms.

 

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2015/03/10/not-everyone-is-in-tom-cotton-fan-club

 

 

 

Cotton promised Iran that the United States would not live up to its end of the bargain. If Iran turns down an agreement, as Cotton implored it to do, it would deny Obama a great triumph in his last two years in office, the senators’ purpose, but also leave the United States with only two options, to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities with
the attendant risk of war and international condemnation or else leave Israel to do the bombing with our backup. Israel is supposed to have 80 nuclear warheads that it could use if conventional bombs couldn’t get it done.

 

From Politico

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/tom-cotton-joe-biden-iran-letter-defense-115925.html

 

 

 

Cotton said that a “credible threat of force on the table… would only enhance the ability” of the U.S. to disarm Iran.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/tom-cotton-joe-biden-iran-letter-defense-115925.html#ixzz3UIhwQqB5

So we have a guy who wants to end talks with Iran, he has said directly that he wants talks to fail, calls for new sanctions, and the mentality behind his anti-nuclear views with Iran is to do exactly what he wants, or military answers will be used. He has openly called for an increase in spending to give more weapons to Israel. The defense contractors are not inviting him anywhere because he's a funny and entertaining guy. They want things and he is open to giving it to them. And it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the end game.

[strigori]

 

 

What if the motive for the letter was to avoid a 'peace agreement' that would fall far short by not including other parties in the region as well as advice from the Congress?

No thank you.

 

 

 

Can we honestly say we can trust this Iranian leadership? They sponsor terrorism in the region. I think we can trust the Iranian people and if we were in negotiation wt a non-radical Islamic govt, I would have more confidence. I would like to see a more comprehensive agreement within the region.

Which is different than us sponsoring Israel how? Semantics maybe? Israel has assassinated multiple Iranian scientists, blown up their facilities, and (with the help of the US) hacked into their computer systems.

 

Congress does have the responsibility to advice and consent and approve treaties.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements, which must be confirmed by the Senate, between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate.

 

Perhaps the admin is going for a non-binding agreement??

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/did-obama-go-non-binding-deal-iran-dodge-senate-state-dep-t-won-t

 

Regarding Israel blowing up Iranian facilities: up to debate as to what lengths a country can go to in order to guarantee its survival. Israel sees the Iranian program as a direct threat - not to mention Iran's sponsorship of terror groups bent on Israel's destruction - not to mention #2 Iran leaders' stated desire to see Israel destroyed. What might the USA do if Cuba actually ended up wt Soviet missiles or if Venezuela (a known anti-USA govt) was developing terror groups or a missile program to attack the USA? We would act out of self preservation.

 

I get your overall point however: terrorism of one kind breads perceived reactionary terrorist activity of another kind.

Thus my point: What good is a peace agreement between the USA and Iran without Israel (and Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt - who basically with Iran represent the whole region) in the deal. Other than oil and our defense treaty with Israel, we have no skin in the game. The other countries have their survival in the game.

 

Find me a case in the last 200 years of Congress going behind any President's back when there are conversations going on. Again, the points raised earlier were cases when the sitting President had refused to talk with those leaders at all.

[TGHusker]

From Cotton's home state of Arkansas

 

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2015/03/09/war-what-is-it-good-for-tom-cotton-has-an-idea

 

 

 

Tomorrow, 24 hours later, Cotton will appear at an “Off the Record and strictly Non-Attribution” event with the National Defense Industrial Association, a lobbying and professional group for defense contractors.

 

The NDIA is composed of executives from major military businesses such as Northrop Grumman, L-3 Communications, ManTech International, Boeing, Oshkosh Defense and Booz Allen Hamilton, among other firms.

 

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2015/03/10/not-everyone-is-in-tom-cotton-fan-club

 

 

 

Cotton promised Iran that the United States would not live up to its end of the bargain. If Iran turns down an agreement, as Cotton implored it to do, it would deny Obama a great triumph in his last two years in office, the senators’ purpose, but also leave the United States with only two options, to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities with

the attendant risk of war and international condemnation or else leave Israel to do the bombing with our backup. Israel is supposed to have 80 nuclear warheads that it could use if conventional bombs couldn’t get it done.

 

From Politico

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/tom-cotton-joe-biden-iran-letter-defense-115925.html

 

 

 

Cotton said that a “credible threat of force on the table… would only enhance the ability” of the U.S. to disarm Iran.

 

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/tom-cotton-joe-biden-iran-letter-defense-115925.html#ixzz3UIhwQqB5

So we have a guy who wants to end talks with Iran, he has said directly that he wants talks to fail, calls for new sanctions, and the mentality behind his anti-nuclear views with Iran is to do exactly what he wants, or military answers will be used. He has openly called for an increase in spending to give more weapons to Israel. The defense contractors are not inviting him anywhere because he's a funny and entertaining guy. They want things and he is open to giving it to them. And it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the end game.

Good info and thanks. Like I said, I don't know his motive and I don't know his history - even if he is next door in Ark. If this is his motive - then the letter is off based (assumption being that this is the motive behind all of the other signatures on the letter - not a far stretch of the imagination there). I'm tired of the MIC running things and using US foreign policy to place suffering on others while padding the MIC's bottom line.

[BigRedBuster]

From Cotton's home state of Arkansas

 

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2015/03/09/war-what-is-it-good-for-tom-cotton-has-an-idea

 

 

Tomorrow, 24 hours later, Cotton will appear at an Off the Record and strictly Non-Attribution event with the National Defense Industrial Association, a lobbying and professional group for defense contractors.

 

The NDIA is composed of executives from major military businesses such as Northrop Grumman, L-3 Communications, ManTech International, Boeing, Oshkosh Defense and Booz Allen Hamilton, among other firms.

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2015/03/10/not-everyone-is-in-tom-cotton-fan-club

 

Cotton promised Iran that the United States would not live up to its end of the bargain. If Iran turns down an agreement, as Cotton implored it to do, it would deny Obama a great triumph in his last two years in office, the senators purpose, but also leave the United States with only two options, to bomb Irans nuclear facilities with

the attendant risk of war and international condemnation or else leave Israel to do the bombing with our backup. Israel is supposed to have 80 nuclear warheads that it could use if conventional bombs couldnt get it done.

From Politico

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/tom-cotton-joe-biden-iran-letter-defense-115925.html

 

Cotton said that a credible threat of force on the table would only enhance the ability of the U.S. to disarm Iran.

 

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/tom-cotton-joe-biden-iran-letter-defense-115925.html#ixzz3UIhwQqB5

So we have a guy who wants to end talks with Iran, he has said directly that he wants talks to fail, calls for new sanctions, and the mentality behind his anti-nuclear views with Iran is to do exactly what he wants, or military answers will be used. He has openly called for an increase in spending to give more weapons to Israel. The defense contractors are not inviting him anywhere because he's a funny and entertaining guy. They want things and he is open to giving it to them. And it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the end game.

What a load of BS.

 

I don't support either side in this crap but to say if Iran doesn't sign this agreement the only option is to bomb them or allow Israel to bomb them is fear mongering at its finest.

[TGHusker]

 

 

 

What if the motive for the letter was to avoid a 'peace agreement' that would fall far short by not including other parties in the region as well as advice from the Congress?

No thank you.

 

 

 

Can we honestly say we can trust this Iranian leadership? They sponsor terrorism in the region. I think we can trust the Iranian people and if we were in negotiation wt a non-radical Islamic govt, I would have more confidence. I would like to see a more comprehensive agreement within the region.

Which is different than us sponsoring Israel how? Semantics maybe? Israel has assassinated multiple Iranian scientists, blown up their facilities, and (with the help of the US) hacked into their computer systems.

 

Congress does have the responsibility to advice and consent and approve treaties.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements, which must be confirmed by the Senate, between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate.

 

Perhaps the admin is going for a non-binding agreement??

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/did-obama-go-non-binding-deal-iran-dodge-senate-state-dep-t-won-t

 

Regarding Israel blowing up Iranian facilities: up to debate as to what lengths a country can go to in order to guarantee its survival. Israel sees the Iranian program as a direct threat - not to mention Iran's sponsorship of terror groups bent on Israel's destruction - not to mention #2 Iran leaders' stated desire to see Israel destroyed. What might the USA do if Cuba actually ended up wt Soviet missiles or if Venezuela (a known anti-USA govt) was developing terror groups or a missile program to attack the USA? We would act out of self preservation.

 

I get your overall point however: terrorism of one kind breads perceived reactionary terrorist activity of another kind.

Thus my point: What good is a peace agreement between the USA and Iran without Israel (and Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt - who basically with Iran represent the whole region) in the deal. Other than oil and our defense treaty with Israel, we have no skin in the game. The other countries have their survival in the game.

 

Find me a case in the last 200 years of Congress going behind any President's back when there are conversations going on. Again, the points raised earlier were cases when the sitting President had refused to talk with those leaders at all.

 

Strigori, regarding the bold, the assumption behind your statement is that negotiations are always preferable to not talking. This isn't always the case. Lets look at the 2 Reagan cases in the list above.

 

1. That time “liberal lion” Ted Kennedy proposed a secret alliance with the Soviet Union to defeat President Ronald Reagan

A 1983 KGB memo uncovered after the fall of the Soviet Union described a meeting between former KGB officials and former Democratic Sen. John Tunney (Sen. Kennedy’s confidant) in Moscow. Tunney asked the KGB to convey a message to Yuri Andropov, the Soviet leader, proposing a campaign in which Kennedy would visit Moscow to offer talking points to Andropov and Soviet officials on how to attack Reagan’s policies to U.S. audiences. According to the memo, Kennedy, through the intermediary, offered to help facilitate a media tour in a proposed visit by Andropov to the U.S. Kennedy’s hope, as conveyed by the letter, was to hurt Reagan politically on foreign policy at a time when the economic recovery was working in his favor.

In this case, we have a Senator inviting an enemy to interfer in US internal politics but it goes deeper than this. Reagan knew that the old negotiating methods & cold war policy (MAD) had to change. He recognized that the Soviet Union was a corrupt (evil) system that enslaves men. Maintaining status quo (negotiating arms deals that would be broken time and again wt the Soviets, deals that gave them more power) would not solve the greater problem of the Soviet system and its aggression. Reagan would not negotiate on the Soviet's terms. Thus his hawk like stance to break their system. He knew they were a house of cards and our arms deals should no longer prop up that house. Reagon also demonstrated that it is better to walk away from talks than to accept a bad deal - 1986 Reykjavík Summit. In the end a better agreement was created in 1987.

2. “Dear Comandante”

In 1984, 10 Democratic lawmakers — including the then majority leader and House Intelligence Committee chairman – sent a letter to Nicaraguan Communist leader Daniel Ortega known as the “Dear Comandante” letter. In it, the lawmakers criticized Reagan’s policy toward Nicaragua and whitewashed the record of violence by the Sandinista communists.

He we have Ortega, communist leader who is Soviet tool spreading his form of communism in Central America. Negotiations with this guy would gain nothing. Supporting the contras and the other opposition groups was the only way to bring change. The democratic lawmakers letter and visit by Kerry and i believe Harken undermined the strategy to stop the rise of communism in central America.

 

One may be able to argue that the in the case of Iraq and Syria under both Bush admins, we were past the point of negotiation when the dems 'went over the president's head'.

 

Regardless, I think negotiation should always be the 1st option if there is a chance of a fair and balanced agreement and in which 'liberty and freedom' is the winner in the long term.

 

But there is a time, when negotiation is not always the best option and other tactics (not necessarily war - sanctions, economic pressures - Reagan's deal with the Saudi's to drive oil prices down crippled the Soviet's revenue stream at the same time Reagan was building up our military - the Soviets could not keep up)