- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
Israel’s Nuclear Advisory Panel Endorses Iran Deal[W:31]
- Thread starter TheDemSocialist
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Re: Israel’s Nuclear Advisory Panel Endorses Iran Deal
All you have presented is total illogical arguments such as:
"well they advice the government"...
---Ok, well guess what you can be an advisory agency/board/department within the government...
"Their actions are independent of the government's actions."
---Ok, you can still advice the government and the ruling party/coalition/powers that actually within the government can still make decisions that are against the agencies advice... Happens a lot actually.
This is my personal favorite so far: "They are a committee formed by the government with members assigned by the government "
---Ok, they are a committee FORMED BY THE GOVERNMENT and MEMBERS ASSIGNED BY THE GOVERNMENT, but somehow they aren't the government!?
Totally illogical.
"Being under the government is not equal to being part of it."
---Being in the government does not make you apart of the government? Again, totally illogical
"A committee assigned by the government can have independent views."
---One views or committee or agencies views has nothing to do with if you are a part of the beucarcy/government... EPA might recommend certain policies that both Republicans and Democrats disagree with and dont want to move forward with, this does not make them not part of the government because the legislative or executive branch does not want to move forward with or take their advice...
So illogical.
Replace "Israel" with the US.. "The Attorney General of Israel for example is not the government. "
"On the US one"? What?
Breaking news, the fundamental structure of government is still the same.. Its not about "ideology" or pandering an administrations line. Its pretty simple, a commission created by the government and serves the government becomes part of the government bureaucracy. Same as if you are appointed to a position within the government such as an agency, a department, etc its the GOVERNMENT.
All you have presented is total illogical arguments such as:
"well they advice the government"...
---Ok, well guess what you can be an advisory agency/board/department within the government...
"Their actions are independent of the government's actions."
---Ok, you can still advice the government and the ruling party/coalition/powers that actually within the government can still make decisions that are against the agencies advice... Happens a lot actually.
This is my personal favorite so far: "They are a committee formed by the government with members assigned by the government "
---Ok, they are a committee FORMED BY THE GOVERNMENT and MEMBERS ASSIGNED BY THE GOVERNMENT, but somehow they aren't the government!?
Totally illogical. "Being under the government is not equal to being part of it."
---Being in the government does not make you apart of the government?
Again, totally illogical "A committee assigned by the government can have independent views."
---One views or committee or agencies views has nothing to do with if you are a part of the beucarcy/government... EPA might recommend certain policies that both Republicans and Democrats disagree with and dont want to move forward with, this does not make them not part of the government because the legislative or executive branch does not want to move forward with or take their advice...
So illogical.
- Joined
- May 14, 2009
- Messages
- 24,544
- Reaction score
- 8,614
- Location
- Israel
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Re: Israel’s Nuclear Advisory Panel Endorses Iran Deal
I can't... I can't even...
Since when is the Israeli government and the US government the same thing?
Did you know that the Congress is part of the US government? Did you know that the Knesset, which is the same thing as the Congress just in Israel, is not part of the Israeli government?
Do you know the differences between the UK government and that of the US? That the parliament is not part of the UK government? Do you?
No, you don't get to do Breaking News now. I'm sorry but you just don't.
I have provided you with the basic law in Israel that defines what is the Israeli government. If you fail at understanding that law then that is on you.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/redir...Basic%20Law-%20The%20Government%20-2001-.aspx
I can't... I can't even...
Since when is the Israeli government and the US government the same thing?
Did you know that the Congress is part of the US government? Did you know that the Knesset, which is the same thing as the Congress just in Israel, is not part of the Israeli government?
Do you know the differences between the UK government and that of the US? That the parliament is not part of the UK government? Do you?
No, you don't get to do Breaking News now. I'm sorry but you just don't.
I have provided you with the basic law in Israel that defines what is the Israeli government. If you fail at understanding that law then that is on you.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/redir...Basic%20Law-%20The%20Government%20-2001-.aspx
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Re: Israel’s Nuclear Advisory Panel Endorses Iran Deal
"well they advice the government"...
---Ok, well guess what you can be an advisory agency/board/department within the government...
"Their actions are independent of the government's actions."
---Ok, you can still advice the government and the ruling party/coalition/powers that actually within the government can still make decisions that are against the agencies advice... Happens a lot actually.
This is my personal favorite so far: "They are a committee formed by the government with members assigned by the government "
---Ok, they are a committee FORMED BY THE GOVERNMENT and MEMBERS ASSIGNED BY THE GOVERNMENT, but somehow they aren't the government!? Totally illogical.
"Being under the government is not equal to being part of it."
---Being in the government does not make you apart of the government? Again, totally illogical
"A committee assigned by the government can have independent views."
---One views or committee or agencies views has nothing to do with if you are a part of the beucarcy/government... EPA might recommend certain policies that both Republicans and Democrats disagree with and dont want to move forward with, this does not make them not part of the government because the legislative or executive branch does not want to move forward with or take their advice...
"well they advice the government"...
---Ok, well guess what you can be an advisory agency/board/department within the government...
"Their actions are independent of the government's actions."
---Ok, you can still advice the government and the ruling party/coalition/powers that actually within the government can still make decisions that are against the agencies advice... Happens a lot actually.
This is my personal favorite so far: "They are a committee formed by the government with members assigned by the government "
---Ok, they are a committee FORMED BY THE GOVERNMENT and MEMBERS ASSIGNED BY THE GOVERNMENT, but somehow they aren't the government!? Totally illogical.
"Being under the government is not equal to being part of it."
---Being in the government does not make you apart of the government? Again, totally illogical
"A committee assigned by the government can have independent views."
---One views or committee or agencies views has nothing to do with if you are a part of the beucarcy/government... EPA might recommend certain policies that both Republicans and Democrats disagree with and dont want to move forward with, this does not make them not part of the government because the legislative or executive branch does not want to move forward with or take their advice...
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2010
- Messages
- 44,019
- Reaction score
- 29,303
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Re: Israel’s Nuclear Advisory Panel Endorses Iran Deal
| Moderator's Warning: |
 Though there have been not posts in this thread for 3-days, the direction of the conversation was getting a pit personal and baiting. Please remember this thread is in the ME forum. |
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2010
- Messages
- 5,418
- Reaction score
- 1,903
- Location
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Re: Israel’s Nuclear Advisory Panel Endorses Iran Deal
This is a fair point. In Canada we have "Royal Commissions" which are independent panels appointed by the government to look into one or more issues. They usually do so, at great expense, and then write a bunch of policy views and recommendations which are then generally ignored.
But would still be interested in parsing what they have to say. A lot of these "everything will be ok" analyses are on closer reflection contingency analyses, where they say "well, if Iran actually abides by the agreement, we should be ok", but simply assumes Iran will not try to cheat, which is sort of like an analysis that concludes that the next election in Syria would elect western-oriented reformers assuming Assad allows free and fair elections. That analysis might be all fine and good, but the assumption is wrong so the analysis doesn't mean a whole lot.
Ok, so a bit of digging and I'm not sure we can go anywhere with what is available:
Israel's nuclear energy authority said to endorse Iran deal | The Times of Israel
"The commission’s conclusions — based solely on the technical aspects of the agreement as opposed to its strategic or geopolitical ramifications — were reportedly presented to the government at top-level meetings."
So it may be they are assuming that Iran behaves itself or maybe they actually looked at whether they think (i) any cheating would be detected and (ii) the international community, when faced with cheating, would Do Something. In my view I think they may be able to offer an educated opinion on (i) (may because they may not be sufficiently qualified or knowledgeable in respect of classified info about what Iran is doing) but would not be in any sort of position to provide a view on (ii), which to me is the clearest place where all of this falls apart.
This is a fair point. In Canada we have "Royal Commissions" which are independent panels appointed by the government to look into one or more issues. They usually do so, at great expense, and then write a bunch of policy views and recommendations which are then generally ignored.
But would still be interested in parsing what they have to say. A lot of these "everything will be ok" analyses are on closer reflection contingency analyses, where they say "well, if Iran actually abides by the agreement, we should be ok", but simply assumes Iran will not try to cheat, which is sort of like an analysis that concludes that the next election in Syria would elect western-oriented reformers assuming Assad allows free and fair elections. That analysis might be all fine and good, but the assumption is wrong so the analysis doesn't mean a whole lot.
Ok, so a bit of digging and I'm not sure we can go anywhere with what is available:
Israel's nuclear energy authority said to endorse Iran deal | The Times of Israel
"The commission’s conclusions — based solely on the technical aspects of the agreement as opposed to its strategic or geopolitical ramifications — were reportedly presented to the government at top-level meetings."
So it may be they are assuming that Iran behaves itself or maybe they actually looked at whether they think (i) any cheating would be detected and (ii) the international community, when faced with cheating, would Do Something. In my view I think they may be able to offer an educated opinion on (i) (may because they may not be sufficiently qualified or knowledgeable in respect of classified info about what Iran is doing) but would not be in any sort of position to provide a view on (ii), which to me is the clearest place where all of this falls apart.
Last edited: