Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » "Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won't Last" (Page 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 13 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  11  12  13   
Author Topic: "Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won't Last"
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
For instance, telling the Iranians that they could make a binding commitment without the approval of the Senate back home.
Ah, so the letter was intended to promote Big Lie politics by implying that the President was up to no good where no actual evidence of it exists, then perhaps pointing to people pointing out the absurdity of such an accusation as evidence of denial and cover up of "real" intentions.
I'm not sure you understand what "Big Lie" politics actually means.

In any event, it's completely consistent with this President's history to take an action on his own authority and to challenge Congress or the Court's to stop him. Pointing out that in the case of treaty there is no deal on his authority, isn't a lie or a Big Lie.
quote:
quote:
It would be far worse for the country for the President to commit us to a deal that we repudiate than it is to make the counterparty aware he can't commit us at all.
And now we're back to simply insulting the intelligence of the IRanian diplomats. You seriously believe that they just sent random people who wren't fully versed in what the US could and could not legally offer into negotiations? That Iran is simultaneously too clever and too stupid to make a meaningful deal with?
You do know that nothing you just wrote actually responds to what I said? Right? That you're just repeating your own nonsensical premise.

Telling Iran that any promises the administration is making about it's own authority or ability to go it alone are false, is not insulting their intelligence. What's insulting their intelligence is pretending to have an authority to strike a binding deal with them in the first place when you don't have buy-in back home for the deal.
quote:
But since the Senate doesn't know what the agreement is, then it can't legitimately be on board or not, unless it's simply declaring that it wan't to scuttle any possible diplomatic solution. While, again, insulting the IRanian diplomats who already know that the deal has to pass muster at the Senate.
I'm already on record, in pretty much my first post, stating that I believe the President will strike a deal without Senate support and assert he can do so because he will claim it's not a treaty. He may do it in stages, with a token treaty to be rejected, and what ever binding commitments he thinks he can make in other ways.

I don't even think its reasonable of you to question that this is a possibility based on the way he believes he can rule with the stroke of a pen.

In any event, the Senators may or may not know more about the "deal" than we do. They certainly have access to non-public sources of information. So your conclusions lead from an invalid premise and accordingly are not a logical necessity.

[ March 19, 2015, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Seriati ]

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Telling Iran that any promises the administration is making about it's own authority or ability to go it alone are false, is not insulting their intelligence. What's insulting their intelligence is pretending to have an authority to strike a binding deal with them in the first place when you don't have buy-in back home for the deal.
So, once again, falsely asserting a narrative about something that no evidence exists to support was happening, while telling them something they already knew.

And the only evidence to support the need for this letter is, apparently, the GOP's political posturing about imaginary overreach, not any actual evidence that such action was intended. Posturing that they're apparently willing to let a war happen to help double down on, despite its disingenuity.

quote:
I don't even think its reasonable of you to question that this is a possibility based on the way he believes he can rule with the stroke of a pen.
Why should I base anything based on made up political allegations with no evidence or basis in reality?

[ March 19, 2015, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
So, once again, falsely asserting a narrative about something that no evidence exists to support was happening, while telling them something they already knew.

No assertion of a false narrative. Implication that they believe the President may be making promises that exceed his authority, sure.

And by the way, no one is required to hold to some legal standard of proof before they can act. It's actually enough that the President has excluded them from participation and having the information they would need to make a judgment for them to have an ethical obligation to act. Again, this is a problem completely of the President's own making with his autocratic tendencies.
quote:
And the only evidence to support the need for this letter is, apparently, the GOP's political posturing about imaginary overreach, not any actual evidence that such action was intended.
I don't think anyone has asserted there was a need for this letter. That's a far cry however from deeming your "complaints" about it as legitimate.
quote:
Posturing that they're apparently willing to let a war happen to help double down on, despite its disingenuity.
There's virtually no part of your sentence that represents any kind of objective truth or reasonable interpretation of events. I'm not aware that any "war" is contemplated or on the horizon. Nor that any disingenuity has occurred (odd interpretation that telling the truth, specifically because you think someone else is NOT telling the truth could be characterized in this way - it takes the white is black lexicon to even think that makes sense).

And even end of day, you're skipping over a hole host of considerations about whether the "deal" the administration is negotiating would itself actually be worse than no deal.
quote:
quote:
I don't even think its reasonable of you to question that this is a possibility based on the way he believes he can rule with the stroke of a pen.
Why should I base anything based on made up political allegations with no evidence or basis in reality?
Beats me, why do you do it now?
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
quote:
The bigger question here is, why is Obama so intent on allowing aIran to become a nuclear power and touching off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East? What's the upside to Iran having nuclear bombs that the left so supports?
If by bigger you mean Big Lie kind of question, I agree with you.
That is what this thing is about. You're aware of that?
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Could someone opposed to the negotiations please explain how bombs/sanctions will slow the development of a nuclear weapon more than inspectors at every nuclear site?
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by yossarian22c:
Could someone opposed to the negotiations please explain how bombs/sanctions will slow the development of a nuclear weapon more than inspectors at every nuclear site?

Simple. If we put fear of death into the Iranians BEFORE they get nukes and BEFORE they can die while hitting us with nukes, then there is more of a chance they won't do it or will do it a lot slower than some elaborate show where they pretend to let us inspect some fake nuclear sites.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If we put fear of death into the Iranians BEFORE they get nukes and BEFORE they can die while hitting us with nukes, then there is more of a chance they won't do it...
It seems to me that putting the fear of death into a country's people is actually very likely to drive them towards researching and developing weapons to remove the threat of death. If we make Iran honestly believe that we are poised to destroy them, the only feasible scenario for them in which they are not threatened with destruction is if they can do enough damage to us to force detente.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Simple. If we put fear of death into the Iranians BEFORE they get nukes and BEFORE they can die while hitting us with nukes, then there is more of a chance they won't do it or will do it a lot slower than some elaborate show where they pretend to let us inspect some fake nuclear sites.
This comment just sounds to me like a good example of how irrational fear is driving today's conservatives. It's all "omigod omigod omigod" and we have got to make them scared of us so maybe they won't be so mean to us.

When we invaded Iraq because we were irrationally scared of them, we killed many tens of thousands of people, and somehow that only resulted in more attacks on Americans. So how are we going to make Iranians more scared of us than the Iraqis should have been? Particularly from your perspective Seneca, as it seems in your current delusion that the Iranians are all absolutely crazy religious extremists - how can something short of the force applied in Iraq create enough Iranian fear to make us safe from what you depict as monsters?

[ March 19, 2015, 09:51 PM: Message edited by: Greg Davidson ]

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Originally posted by yossarian22c:
Could someone opposed to the negotiations please explain how bombs/sanctions will slow the development of a nuclear weapon more than inspectors at every nuclear site?

Simple. If we put fear of death into the Iranians BEFORE they get nukes and BEFORE they can die while hitting us with nukes, then there is more of a chance they won't do it or will do it a lot slower than some elaborate show where they pretend to let us inspect some fake nuclear sites.
Imagine I wanted to buy a gun to defend myself from my distant neighbor who is armed to the teeth. Hearing that I want I gun he gets afraid and comes and beats the **** out of me. Do you think I am going to be more or less likely to go buy a gun to defend myself at this point? Would I be more or less likely to use it on my neighbor who just assaulted me?
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
When we invaded Iraq because we were irrationally scared of them, we killed many tens of thousands of people, and somehow that only resulted in more attacks on Americans. So how are we going to make Iranians more scared of us than the Iraqis should have been? Particularly from your perspective Seneca, as it seems in your current delusion that the Iranians are all absolutely crazy religious extremists - how can something short of the force applied in Iraq create enough Iranian fear to make us safe from what you depict as monsters?

Greg, I think are you fundamentally wrong about the motives and thinking behind America going to war in general. American leadership doesn't do anything out of fear, it's pure calculation and strategy. Their objectives are certainly kept to themselves, but I assure you that they are not operating out of "omigod" feelings. That they use feelings such as this on the populace in order to create support for plans they've already made is another matter; that's just pure statecraft.

So when you say that "we invaded Iraq because we were irrationally scared of them" I hope by "we" you're talking about some of the population; no one in any serious position of power was afraid of Saddam. It was a mission to achieve a tactical objective of which there was a 100% chance of success, and had nothing to do with any threat towards America. Iraq was a zero threat. It was more like a treasure chest than a cause for fear, irrational or otherwise. If the issue of Iran and nukes is real then it's a totally different scenario since a nuclear threat is a real cause for real (not irrational) fear.

Offhand the only war America has gotten into that I could accept was done out of fear might have been Vietnam. The rest was all cold and calculated decision-making. In general fear-mongering is done to control the population, but I believe it plays little to no part in high-level strategy.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This comment just sounds to me like a good example of how irrational fear is driving today's conservatives. It's all "omigod omigod omigod" and we have got to make them scared of us so maybe they won't be so mean to us.

When we invaded Iraq because we were irrationally scared of them, we killed many tens of thousands of people, and somehow that only resulted in more attacks on Americans. So how are we going to make Iranians more scared of us than the Iraqis should have been? Particularly from your perspective Seneca, as it seems in your current delusion that the Iranians are all absolutely crazy religious extremists - how can something short of the force applied in Iraq create enough Iranian fear to make us safe from what you depict as monsters?

It's not a delusion. Are you denying that Iran is a theocracy? When have you known religious leaders to make sound geopolitical decisions when they are based on religious-inspired hatred for someone else?

And yes, I'd say that the fear of us destroying Iran before it can deal any significant damage to the US frightens these religious nutjobs a great deal, no doubt they're worried that Allah will not be pleased with their dying before they could try and wipe us out.

quote:
Imagine I wanted to buy a gun to defend myself from my distant neighbor who is armed to the teeth. Hearing that I want I gun he gets afraid and comes and beats the **** out of me. Do you think I am going to be more or less likely to go buy a gun to defend myself at this point? Would I be more or less likely to use it on my neighbor who just assaulted me?
Terrible analogy. Iran and these Islamo-Nazi regimes know we aren't going to preemptively nuke them unless they try and nuke us first, and even then they think there's a chance that pacifist governments like the Obama admin might let them sneak through anyway, which is what they're trying.

Can anyone doubt Iran's intent?
http://abcnews.go.com/International/iranian-crowd-chants-death-america-huge-revolution-rally/story?id=28895655

quote:
ABC News’ Martha Raddatz attended the rally, where crowds chanted “Death to America” and thousands of signs read “Down with the U.S.” and “Down with Israel.


[ March 20, 2015, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by yossarian22c:
Could someone opposed to the negotiations please explain how bombs/sanctions will slow the development of a nuclear weapon more than inspectors at every nuclear site?

I don't actually qualify because I am not opposed to effective negotiations, but I do have a straight forward answer for you. I have no confidence that inspectors will actually be at every site, and I have even less confidence that a team of inspectors can adequately inspect a country. Flat out if Iran is going to operate in bad faith inspections are the single best way to buy themselves the time they would need to complete the project.

Sure bombs may miss a target, but they will destroy identified targets. They will also provide an enormous distraction from development efforts, destroy secondary capacity needed to run high level programs and starve those programs of funds that are diverted to other uses.

Now a simple question for you, since the logic on this seems inescapable, why do you seem to believe that it would NOT be more effective?
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
This comment just sounds to me like a good example of how irrational fear is driving today's conservatives.

At this point the claim about irrational fear is nothing but a strawman. Opposing an autocratic president is a good policy. Taking extremists at face value when they say they want to kill us, in a world where extremists are killing people every day and have in fact killed us before is completely rational. No one has suggested anything here that could be deemed an overreaction. Yet you seem to be asserting that we should ignore actual reality in favor of a discredited belief that there isn't a risk?
quote:
It's all "omigod omigod omigod" and we have got to make them scared of us so maybe they won't be so mean to us.
That's funny, cause it's your philosophy that hangs it's hat on taking an action so "they won't be so mean to us." Seneca's philosophy for instance doesn't require any input on "their" part, and would reject even putting ourselves in a position where they could be "mean" to us.
quote:
When we invaded Iraq because we were irrationally scared of them, we killed many tens of thousands of people, and somehow that only resulted in more attacks on Americans.
That's at false claim, both that we invaded because we were irrationally scared, and that it resulted in more attacks on Americans.

It's not actually even about generating fear, its about making people understand the factual consequences of their actions will not be ones they can accept. There are plenty of people I have no fear of, that I have no doubt would kill me if I was stupid enough to provoke them and leave them no choice.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do you remember the fear of Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction? Go google some of what Bush administration officials actually said. It was fear. Foolish fear and ignorance. Many conservative pundits spoke of the 1.6 billion Islamofascists who were out to get us. And this led us into stupid wars and stupid geopolitics (if you really wanted to keep pressure on Iran, don't take out their two regional enemies Afghanistan and Iraq).
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And pretending that we went after Saddam because he was uniquely evil is as bogus as the claim that the civil war was about states rights and not slavery. Since 9/11 the most evil has been done in the Second Congo War - nothing in the Middle East compares to it
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Do you remember the fear of Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction? Go google some of what Bush administration officials actually said. It was fear. Foolish fear and ignorance. Many conservative pundits spoke of the 1.6 billion Islamofascists who were out to get us. And this led us into stupid wars and stupid geopolitics (if you really wanted to keep pressure on Iran, don't take out their two regional enemies Afghanistan and Iraq).

The NYT recently reported that thousands of chemical warheads were discovered in Iraq but it was not made public by the Bush administration. You should Google that up.

For nearly 40 years, Friday prayers in Iran end with the chant "death to America". You can google that too.

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
And pretending that we went after Saddam because he was uniquely evil is as bogus as the claim that the civil war was about states rights and not slavery. Since 9/11 the most evil has been done in the Second Congo War - nothing in the Middle East compares to it

Your history teacher really failed you.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I heard a blurb a couple of days ago that SA is now looking to develop nukes. If that plays out when and where do we target them?
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
And pretending that we went after Saddam because he was uniquely evil is as bogus as the claim that the civil war was about states rights and not slavery. Since 9/11 the most evil has been done in the Second Congo War - nothing in the Middle East compares to it

Your history teacher really failed you.
What part of Greg's statement indicates a lack of knowledge of history?
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by yossarian22c:
Could someone opposed to the negotiations please explain how bombs/sanctions will slow the development of a nuclear weapon more than inspectors at every nuclear site?

I don't actually qualify because I am not opposed to effective negotiations, but I do have a straight forward answer for you. I have no confidence that inspectors will actually be at every site, and I have even less confidence that a team of inspectors can adequately inspect a country. Flat out if Iran is going to operate in bad faith inspections are the single best way to buy themselves the time they would need to complete the project.

Sure bombs may miss a target, but they will destroy identified targets. They will also provide an enormous distraction from development efforts, destroy secondary capacity needed to run high level programs and starve those programs of funds that are diverted to other uses.

Now a simple question for you, since the logic on this seems inescapable, why do you seem to believe that it would NOT be more effective?

If we know about a site (also a prerequisite for bombing it) we can send inspectors there to make sure no work is being done on developing a bomb. I don't buy the argument that we would actually bomb enough that we will starve the nuclear program of resources. If the regime makes a nuclear weapon a priority then they will divert the resources necessary from elsewhere. Remember that the US managed to develop nuclear weapons in about 3 years while also supporting the largest military build up ever. If the Iranian regime makes getting a nuclear weapon one of their top priorities then nothing short of a full scale invasion will prevent the program from getting enough resources to proceed.

I think that preemptively bombing their country would make them more likely to make getting a nuke a top priority. I don't understand the idea that if we just drop a few bombs on them they will all of a sudden start to play nice and give up aspirations on a nuke. I think that a belligerent act now would only solidify the belief that they need a nuke to defend themselves from American aggression.

In short bombs/inspectors at a site means no work being done at that site.
IMO bombs makes developing a nuke a higher priority which leads to a successful development sooner rather than later.

Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Also the Iranians have fortified/buried many of their nuclear installations. This makes effectively destroying them with air strikes very difficult.
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Imagine I wanted to buy a gun to defend myself from my distant neighbor who is armed to the teeth. Hearing that I want I gun he gets afraid and comes and beats the **** out of me. Do you think I am going to be more or less likely to go buy a gun to defend myself at this point? Would I be more or less likely to use it on my neighbor who just assaulted me?
Terrible analogy. Iran and these Islamo-Nazi regimes know we aren't going to preemptively nuke them unless they try and nuke us first, and even then they think there's a chance that pacifist governments like the Obama admin might let them sneak through anyway, which is what they're trying.

The analogy was a beating is equivalent to conventional weapons and guns are nukes. I don't think they believe that we will nuke them. I do think they believe we will use conventional weapons on them unless they have a nuke.


Also Obama a pacifist, LOL. Seriously are you drinking the same cool-aid the noble committee was in 2001?

Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe I'm missing something but while Iran's leaders may be a little crazy I have yet to see them become suicidal. Even if they developed a nuke why are they an immediate threat to the US. Assuming they have the tech to launch a strike that would hit the US without us taking it out our immediate response would be to counter attack. I don't think they are stupid enough to believe that we would allow them to survive. If the argument is that they will attack Israel the same applies except whereas we might not drop nukes Israel would.

I am all for limiting nukes but I find it unlikely that they are doing more than playing games to improve their standing in the region. Note you don't hear about terrorist leadership carrying out suicide bombings. They leave that to those easily manipulated while they issue orders from safety. The Iranian leadership is not going to put themselves at risk by attacking a target that can destroy them.

Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You know what would unequivocally stop iranian nuclear aspirations without a single loss of US military personnel?

Simply drop multiple nuclear warheads on all Iranian major and secondary population centres.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Donald
quote:
You know what would unequivocally stop iranian nuclear aspirations without a single loss of US military personnel?

Simply drop multiple nuclear warheads on all Iranian major and secondary population centres.

Don't forget Syria and Iraq to wipe out Isis but I guess you had better add Indonesia, Yemen, Pakistan....... Maybe just everybody outside the US and we can throw in Detroit because of the Arab population.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The NYT recently reported that thousands of chemical warheads were discovered in Iraq but it was not made public by the Bush administration. You should Google that up.
Rafi, please read the actual article that you cite, which refutes the point you were trying to make:

quote:
The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.
There was no doubt that Iraq had chemical weapons in the 1980's - that's when Iraq attacked Iran, and later with US support for intelligence data that was used in targeting Iranians, they killed about 100,000 using those weapons of mass destruction. All of which had nothing to do with the bogus claims referred to in the NYT quote above.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Taking extremists at face value when they say they want to kill us, in a world where extremists are killing people every day and have in fact killed us before is completely rational. No one has suggested anything here that could be deemed an overreaction.
We were able to develop nuclear arms treaties with the Soviet Union at a time when they were considered to be extremists who hated our freedom and way of life, and who were killing people every day. The Republican position towards Iran continues to strike me as cowardice - how can Iran be viewed as a greater threat than the Soviet Union was?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Originally posted by yossarian22c:
Could someone opposed to the negotiations please explain how bombs/sanctions will slow the development of a nuclear weapon more than inspectors at every nuclear site?

Simple. If we put fear of death into the Iranians BEFORE they get nukes and BEFORE they can die while hitting us with nukes, then there is more of a chance they won't do it or will do it a lot slower than some elaborate show where they pretend to let us inspect some fake nuclear sites.
No, it will just prove to them that we are an enemy that wants to wipe them out that they need to take extreme measures to defend themselves against.

I do like how you point to the possibility that people who are coerced and deliberately mistranslated seem to be calling for our death, while you, of your own free will and with no need for translation blithely call for their genocide.

The Iranian government doesn't even need to create propaganda, as long as people like you do the job of creating a legitimate case for fear of outside aggression on their behalf.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe a question we need to ask is what have we gained in the last 30 years in our ME policies. If you are a military contractor or arms manufacturer than lots. If you are an American citizen you have gained a less stable ME. The loss of thousands of US citizen's lives. A huge increase in debt triggered by the wars. An indirect loss of constitutional freedoms.

This is the result of allowing fear, hate, and anger to dominate our foreign policy rather than clear thinking. Those in power use fear and half truths to promote their own agendas that seldom have anything to do with a real threat and a lot to do with money.

Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
There was no doubt that Iraq had chemical weapons in the 1980's - that's when Iraq attacked Iran, and later with US support for intelligence data that was used in targeting Iranians, they killed about 100,000 using those weapons of mass destruction. All of which had nothing to do with the bogus claims referred to in the NYT quote above.

Yeah, chemical weapons they bought from the U.S. to use against Iran. The fact that Saddam seems to have used them on his own people too shows he wasn't a boy scout, but doesn't change the landscape much. The idea that we attacked Iraq because we were scared of Saddam is farcical. It was more like this:

"We should attack Iraq."
"Grrr! Wait...why should we do that?"
"They have ties to Al Qaeda."
"Grrr! Wait...do they?"
"Well, they have WMD's!"
"Grrr! Wait...what kind?"
"Well, gas weapons for sure, MAYBE NUKES!"
"Grrr! Go get 'em, tiger!"

That's the lead-up to the war, in a nutshell. There was about as much fear as Spider Man has when he is confronted with a petty thief. I know you claimed earlier that he gusto and bluster was really cover for fear, but...that's wrong. People were feeling afraid as a result of 9-11, but they were never afraid of Saddam, ever, not one tiny bit. The government directed the anger of the people towards Iraq, but zero people thought Saddam was any threat to the U.S. in any capacity. Him having WMD's was the equivalent of having a target painted on his face, a shooting gallery.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No assertion of a false narrative. Implication that they believe the President may be making promises that exceed his authority, sure.
Which is to say, continuing to advance the lie that that's a reasonable thing to suspect him of, despite it having no grounding in reality and just being pure political posturing to amp up political division. They keep repeating the lie that he's prone to abusing executive authority and people buy it because they keep repeating it, not because there's a shred of truth that actually backs it up. Heck you even seem to be trying to use their posturing and lies as if they were evidence to support anything. What proof do you have that Obama might be planning to work out a deal that wouldn't need to be ratified in the the Senate? The implicit claim that he might in the Senate letter. What evidence is there to support that claim? ell the GOP senators say that it's something he's likely to do. Really, this time for sure, pay no attention to the fact that none of their past claims to that effect have actually held water.

Now, if you want to say taht he has done his best to try to work within the limits of his authority to solve urgent problems where Congress has been given more than enough time to do so and proven itself incompetent, that's one thing BUt that would suggest that, to follow his past plan, he's going to try to work out a reasonable deal, submit it for ratification, and then if the Senate once again proves itself unable to act coherently, perhaps see what he can work out for our allies with less dysfunctional systems to salvage, but none of that matches the false GOP narrative that you've been representing as if it has any factual basis.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The WSJ has just broken a story today that France is taking a harder stance on Iran than the US, and that the Obama admin is now worried that talks may fail and is attempting to pressure France into capitulating.

We are now to the left of France. Consider that.

France objected to the rapid easing of sanctions that Obama was desperately trying to ram through to ensure his "legacy" for foreign policy. In turn, the Obama administration has attempted to smear with back-handed accusations that France is motivated only by defense contracts they have with other opposed nations.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/european-leaders-discuss-iran-nuclear-talks-1426845251

Unbelievable. France, under a Socialist government, has more of a spine than Obama. Just sickening.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Everytime you mention "spine" as if that were a relevant factor, it just is weird.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
France objected to the rapid easing of sanctions...
Seneca, whenever France objects to something related to Iran, I suggest looking to their defense and oil industries. They very aggressively defend their profit margins there, to the extent that they have sided with Russia against NATO several times in the past where things like sanctions are concerned.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I didn't think it needed to be said to the crowd here, but...

A lot of you aren't jaded enough in your assessment geopolitical maneuvering. The bogyman is for the public not for herding anyone's foreign policy.

Quit thinking of "us" as the "good guys" or "them" as the "bad guys" and think of it in terms of security and much more importantly, profit or laying groundwork for future profit. Hell, some of the foreign threats are brought to our attention only to justify local policy changes.

That isn't to say the threats are nonexistent or manufactured, but some of them are more useful looming than dealt with.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
By the way, for those who wanted specific proof of when the Iranian government said they wanted us dead, you got some more of it this last weekend.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/23/obama-downplays-iran-death-to-america-remarks-toes/

Of course the Obama administration is trying to downplay it when they were asked by CNN how could they negotiate with someone who says "Death to America," and yet they are trying to drop a hammer on Netanyahu for infinitely less important and less hostile remarks.

Incredible.

Will those of you who demanded proof of Iran's official government position on the health and well being of America finally admit it now, or will you try and brush it off like Obama?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
CNN how could they negotiate with someone who says "Death to America,"
Rather, again, someone who says something that people who profit from making the case for war choose to translate as "death to America" when it' means something closer to "Down with America" and is not actually a literal call for death.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
shades of "die bart die"

What about the signs carries in English that actually read "death to America?"

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Whay pyr says is what iran pretends in its english translation.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America

"Following the fall of the pro-American Pahlavi dynasty in early 1979, Iranian protesters regularly shouted "Death to America" and "Death to the Shah" outside the U.S. embassy in Tehran, including the day the embassy was seized on November 4, 1979, which commenced the Iran hostage crisis."

Shah was already down, deposed. What was meant was DEATH. As they killed all the shah's flunkies they could catch.

[ March 25, 2015, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
CNN how could they negotiate with someone who says "Death to America,"
Rather, again, someone who says something that people who profit from making the case for war choose to translate as "death to America" when it' means something closer to "Down with America" and is not actually a literal call for death.
Even the Obama administration admits that death means death and this statement means Iran wants us dead, they just claim it doesn't matter, which is insane.

You cannot have meaningful, good faith negotiations with someone who is simultaneously saying they want you dead.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You cannot have meaningful, good faith negotiations with someone who is simultaneously saying they want you dead.
Says the person looking for an excuse to advocate genocide.

Pyrtolin: Please see your email. -OrneryMod

[ March 27, 2015, 04:09 AM: Message edited by: OrneryMod ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 13 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  11  12  13   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1