SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (VS)

[tpfkaw]

Motion to table.

[tpfkaw]

Frankly, given that shortly after Atlasia sold Israel a load of F-16s, the Chinese Air Force started flying a new plane... (as acknowledged by an Atlasian military report: "United States technology has been acquired through Israel in the form of the Lavi [Israeli domestic variant of the F-16] fighter and possibly SAM technology").





That and its repeated spying, theft of sensitive technology including WMD technology, and other illegal activities in the US. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) - and that is only a partial list of the incidents we know about!

This GAO report from 1996 provides an interesting look into "Country A's" [Israel's] spying activities in Atlasia.  This more recent article is a nice summary if you don't want to click on all the above links.  Of particular interest is the paragraph about Israeli sales of US intelligence to hostile foreign governments:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Israel has fooled us once, twice, dozens of times.  Shame on us if we decide to deepen our sharing of military technology and military intelligence with a country that has proven, time after time, broken promise after broken promise, that it absolutely cannot be trusted with either.  Shame on us too if we decide to "improve our alliance" with a country that conducts itself in a manner more befitting of our enemy than our ally (as the GAO report says, "the government of Country A conducts the most aggressive espionage operation against the United States of any U.S. ally").

[tpfkaw]

Aye.

[tpfkaw]

While the SoEA's Wikipedia research is admirable, it doesn't make him an expert on military aircraft.  It is a frequent marketing tactic for local manufacturers of foreign weaponry to claim theirs is "different," when in fact it is largely or entirely the same.  The Lavi is clearly F-16-based, with a delta instead of conventional wing and some Israeli avionics (using Atlasian technology).  Similarly, the other "unique" plane produced by Israeli Aircraft Industries, the Kfir, is a copy of the French Mirage V.  Whatever the case, China has produced a near-exact copy (with slight, mainly cosmetic modifications) of the F-16 in the J-10, as I demonstrated earlier, and our own Navy is confident enough to call out Israel as the culprit by name in an official, declassified report (which implies complete certitude given the potential diplomatic issues involved in such an accusation).

Images for reference

F-16:



Lavi:

[tpfkaw]

I'm not really seeing the gentleman's point; his diagrams indicate that the F-16/Lavi/J-10 are all very similar in design (obviously), while the others are substantially different (also, obvious).

[tpfkaw]

Nay.

[tpfkaw]

Actually, as far as I can tell, the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to ratify treaties.

[tpfkaw]

Actually, as far as I can tell, the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to ratify treaties.

Well, while Article I of the Constitution does not explicitly mention treaties on section 5, it does state that the Senate can-

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A treaty is pretty obviously not the same as an "activity" - an activity is a one-time thing while a treaty is a binding commitment to perform some activity for a set length of time.

[tpfkaw]

Actually, as far as I can tell, the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to ratify treaties.

Well, while Article I of the Constitution does not explicitly mention treaties on section 5, it does state that the Senate can-

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A treaty is pretty obviously not the same as an "activity" - an activity is a one-time thing while a treaty is a binding commitment to perform some activity for a set length of time.

'Activity' means "the condition in which things are happening or being done."  There are no time limits as to what would constitute as an "activity," last I checked, as they can be short term or long term; duration is irrelevant.

A treaty is not an activity, it's a commitment to engage in activity.  The Constitution gives no authority for the Senate to agree to such a commitment with a foreign nation.

[tpfkaw]

Actually, as far as I can tell, the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to ratify treaties.

Well, while Article I of the Constitution does not explicitly mention treaties on section 5, it does state that the Senate can-

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A treaty is pretty obviously not the same as an "activity" - an activity is a one-time thing while a treaty is a binding commitment to perform some activity for a set length of time.

'Activity' means "the condition in which things are happening or being done."  There are no time limits as to what would constitute as an "activity," last I checked, as they can be short term or long term; duration is irrelevant.

A treaty is not an activity, it's a commitment to engage in activity.

...Which would be, in itself, an activity, as it fits under dictionary definition.

No, a treaty is a document.  A document is not an activity.