http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2561314

Not a new tactic. Faux rage...

Still it is bad decorum to communicate with foreign governments regardless of what political side you are on.

Perhaps there are some here who would say the same?

Ricky:

In this specific case, Cotton and his ilk are beholden to an organization that exclusively promotes policies that benefit a foreign government. That's some special interest.

sunlight is the best disinfectant

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians ... =N00033363

Yes, anti-Zionism is a disease.

I can't quite grasp the idea of this being some "joke" with the White House. Maybe that is how it was sold to most of the signers, but sending it to Iran seems not to have been judged well in humour terms.

In both this and in inviting Bibi to speak, it is Congressional Republicans who seem to be using their 'agency' to interfere in foreign matters (giving a stump speech in a foreign election and telling another nation, patronisingly, that the US essentially can't be trusted to abide by its word), as part of some gameplaying against the President.

With majorities in both chambers, I would think a better use of their time to be to get some agreed legislation passed that addresses the major US domestic political issues, and challenge the Democrats and Obama to pass or block it with Senate filibusters or a Presidential veto.

Instead this looks like overgrown schoolboys playing games to spite the teacher. Is this how your country will be running government for the next 20 months?

I thought PMQs were embarassing.

ray jay

Yes, anti-Zionism is a disease

.

who's anti zionist?
paraphrased from robin messing

There is a very special form of bullying used to attack those who question Israel's policies in the West Bank, or AIPAC's role in getting U.S. legislators to unquestioningly support Israel, even if doing so jeopardizes American security interests. These bullies roll all these criticisms into one category and accuse Israel's critics of being Anti-Zionist or even Anti-Semitic. They paint the critics with the same broad brush they would use to paint a Nazi with two objectives in mind:

They want to intimidate Israel's critics into silence to avoid being ostracized as bigots.
They hope their ad hominem attack will confuse those who might listen to the critics and cause them to discount anything they say.

Ricky, you are clearly an anti-Zionist ... why deny the charge? ... your accusing senators of being agents of Israel ... you are saying that they are bought and paid for by wealthy Zionists even when websites show that most of their campaign contributions are from other sources ... you are suggesting that Israel is responsible for the US invading Iraq, and G. Bush's decisions vis-à-vis Iraq as if he and his gang couldn't make their own decisions ... yes, I get your drift ... Zionists are the all powerful puppeteers who control Washington ... now you'll pretend that you are arguing the facts, but you aren't because when I point out the errors in your posts you pretend not to understand or launch into a new tangent about Israeli oppression (Objection, my client misquotes and pretends not to understand and makes no sense on all sorts of posts, objection sustained). ... you then reference anti-Israel articles that have nothing to do with the topic at hand (Israeli espionage from unnamed sources) ... then you quote Mondoweiss and Counterpunch which are openly anti-Zionist publications. So, yes, you are an anti-Zionist.

It's odd to me that people who are against nuclear proliferation are in favor of this deal. The deal will add more than just one more nuclear power at a dangerous time.

http://www.@#$!.com/story/saudi- ... 1-21103596

Saudi Arabia quietly signed its own nuclear-cooperation agreement with South Korea.

That agreement, along with recent comments from Saudi officials and royals, is raising concerns on Capitol Hill and among U.S. allies that a deal with Iran, rather than stanching the spread of nuclear technologies, risks fueling it.

Saudi Arabia’s former intelligence chief, Prince Turki al-Faisal, a member of the royal family, has publicly warned in recent months that Riyadh will seek to match the nuclear capabilities Iran is allowed to maintain as part of any final agreement reached with world powers. This could include the ability to enrich uranium and to harvest the weapons-grade plutonium discharged in a nuclear reactor’s spent fuel.

http://www.thetoc.gr/eng/news/article/d ... ar-weapons

Turkey is seeking to acquire enriched uranium with the goal of building a nuclear weapon, according to a report in the German newspaper Die Welt.

Ray Jay wrote:It's odd to me that people who are against nuclear proliferation are in favor of this deal. The deal will add more than just one more nuclear power at a dangerous time.

I am not in favour of, or against a deal. I want to see the actual deal before I decide.

Saudi Arabia quietly signed its own nuclear-cooperation agreement with South Korea.

What a great ally Saudi Arabia is. And South Korea for that matter. So helpful! Reminds me of when Israel and Apartheid South Africa were working together on nuclear weapons...

We should be worried about any nuclear proliferation, whatever the excuse/reason behind it.

Danivon:

What a great ally Saudi Arabia

That's what they are saying right now about the US ... they are just much more soft spoken than Israel.

Ray Jay wrote:Danivon:

What a great ally Saudi Arabia

That's what they are saying right now about the US ... they are just much more soft spoken than Israel.

Not sure why we should do the Saudis any favours anyway.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Danivon:

What a great ally Saudi Arabia

That's what they are saying right now about the US ... they are just much more soft spoken than Israel.

Not sure why we should do the Saudis any favours anyway.

Favors, no. Whereas we share some economic and geopolitical interests the reality is that our values in many ways are very different.

We certainly don't want them to be motivated to get nuclear weapons. That seems to have been the case until now. Would you be against the pending agreement with Iran if it confirmed that the Saudis will do what they can to get nuclear weapons within the decade?

If that were the only reason, I'd be very surprised. A lack of a deal may also encourage them, of course. Israeli nukes may have already encouraged them.

danivon wrote:If that were the only reason, I'd be very surprised. A lack of a deal may also encourage them, of course. Israeli nukes may have already encouraged them.

Well, Israel has had nukes for over 40 years so I don't think it makes sense to see that as the defining reason why the Saudis are interested in obtaining nukes now. Sure, there are always other factors, but based on what they say, and based on what they do, the pending Iran deal seems to be the big one.

I respect that you have an instinct and desire for peace. A deal with Iran sounds like a great thing on the face of it. Perhaps it will lead to reform over there. Perhaps their economy will be better. It certainly sounds less menacing than a preemptive strike and the associated collateral damage. I also respect that you see how despicable ISIS is, and the reality that Iran is driving them back. However, it seems to me that you have to peel the onion and determine what the world will look like in 10 years. If it is true that Iran will be able to break out, and if it is true that SA (and possibly Turkey) will see that as a threat and use its considerable resources to obtain nukes, then you have to strongly consider that this may result in a new wave of nuclear powers. It's hard for me to square your acceptance of new nuclear regimes with your avowed desire to get rid of all nukes.

It's hard for me to square your acceptance of new nuclear regimes with your avowed desire to get rid of all nukes.

In total agreement.

A while ago, I was actually looking at the things people post on Al Jazeera. As one might predict, it's usually a good deal of America-bashing. One of the recurrent comments was that the United States is ridiculously "hypocritical" in trying to prevent other countries from obtaining nukes, because we're the only country that's used them (two of them, plus a shitload detonated in the atmosphere prior to the 1963 Test Ban Treaty).

Personally, I do not care if it is hypocritical; it's in our national interest, and the interests of humanity, for us to be hypocritical in this case, maybe in others as well. The more countries that acquire the bomb, the more unstable the situation becomes. Anyone who wants "peace" with Iran must realize that. Including the President, I might add.

Ray Jay wrote: It's hard for me to square your acceptance of new nuclear regimes with your avowed desire to get rid of all nukes.

That would be because I don't agree with any new nuclear weapons regimes.

But am I prepared to start a war over it, or risk us losing the war against ISIS? Nope.

Respectfully I have to disagree Danivon. I do not think taking a "hard line" with Iran will start a war. And if it did, at least it would be before they have nuclear weapons, right? But no I do not want to see a war either. Nobody does. And it's for that reason that making a "deal" with Iran at this juncture is the most foolish idea since the atomic hand grenade.