The preliminary agreement allows all sides -- the U.S., Iran and five other world powers -- to continue working toward a final agreement by a June 30 deadline.At the outset of his show today, Rush was pointing out how far the left has traveled (my word) following Obama. The left that was adamantly anti-nukes, before and during the Reagan years, is now, in the personification of the United States president, about to welcome another country into the nuclear club.
"It is a good deal," Obama said.
Thursday, April 2, 2015
Iran and USA: Let's keep talking
"International negotiators announced the framework for an Iranian nuclear deal Thursday, capping days of exhaustive and tense talks that blew past their original deadline."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
47 comments:
Good point. Plus, that new member is an extremist state bent on destroying Israel. Can you say WWIII?
Liz Cheney said 2 hours ago...
Iranian FM sums up "deal" - "We'll continue enriching, we won't close any facilities...all UN and US sanctions will be terminated."
The left has always been a political barometer of what is expedient for the sake of the cause, not a long viewed principled stance that will hold the test of time and be good for the country in the long run.
But the idea that left, which has always been adamantly anti-nuke (in all it's forms), finds it plausible and favorable for Iran to have nukes, not only because the man-child wants it for his legacy, but also because the left believes that it's aligned with their self interests, namely keeping Israel at bay while allowing room for their leftist brethern, namely Russia, the DPRK, Cuba, and islamo-collectivists to flourish, while diminishing the standing of the US at the same time.
Nevermind, the fact that while we here on the home front have all of a sudden seen homosexual discriminators lurking behind every corner, while the left blindly does deals with countries and associates that routinely violate human rights and seek the eradication of homosexuals where they may be. But that doesn't matter, because the ideology must prevail above all else regardless of the sacrifice. The hypocricy of it all just stinks beyond belief, but then again, leftism is and always has been about expedient hypocrisy to one degree or another. They would rather be viewed as hypcrits, but they know they are hypocrits that get things done in the name of their ideological dogma. They are no better than ISIS in that regard, willing to take it for the team, so their ideological martyrdom can continue.
Why you think the left and their cohorts known as the democrat party is the party of yes, because it's easy. You don't have to think when you are a democrat or a leftist. There is no thought required at all. Drug legalization? Of course. Abortion on demand. No problem. Wage inequality and minimum wage increases? Go for it. War on women? You bet it's happening. International relations with countries that would snuff you out if given half the chance if they could. Yeah, absolutely. Mandatory voting, country wide unionization, illegal immigration, expanded welfare, single payer health care, gay rights, gay marriage, etc. etc. You fucking bet your bottom tax dollar OH HELL YES!!! This take zero thought. ZERO. Because it's specifically tailored to their constituents who don't think and are easily swayed.
Democrats basically have owned the social issues sphere for decades now and the GOP has no way to fight it because of the inertial mass all of the social issues have taken over time. They are now a tsunami that is swamping the land and the GOP has no anchor to moor too to fight against that tsunami. Never mind the fact that the democrats are wrong on every issue they present, but you see that doesn't matter because as long as they can pass laws that a guy like Urkel will sign that are in favor of any of these social issues, it will happen.
The GOP doesn't stand a chance when they are labelled the party of No or the obstructionist party. Not because saying No or being obstructionists matter, but because the GOP simply cannot articulate why they are saying NO and why they are being obstructionists and how it affects the daily lives of us all. They are too busy trying to be liked and walk the fine line of pacifying their constituents to be useful anymore.
Lem said...
Liz Cheney said 2 hours ago...
Iranian FM sums up "deal" - "We'll continue enriching, we won't close any facilities...all UN and US sanctions will be terminated."
Lem, it doesn't matter. At this point I don't even know why Obama/Kerry even bothered to show up. All they had to do was unilaterally lift the sanctions without saying a word and let Iran do what it's always been doing. This is Kabuki theater. They have to look like they are doing something important and they are doing everything in their power to affect change. Regardless of whether that change is in the interests of the US.
So it doesn't matter what Liz Cheney says because no one on the left cares. The ideological wall is up and it's never coming down.
So clearly the right believes no leverage is preferable to leverage. And no monitoring of Iran's facilities is preferable to monitoring. And empty threats of a war they're even less prepared to fight than they were their war (and bungled reconstruction!) in Iraq is better than credible threats of reimposed sanctions and worse down the line, once we're actually better prepared for the kind of conflicts Republicans can't stand not being able to drag America into.
But at least they got to pretend they're all a bunch of Rambos for another day.
Party of Zombies.
But the idea that left, which has always been adamantly anti-nuke (in all it's forms)
Right. Which is why the left ever pushed for changing the NPT to a way of preventing us from having nukes. Have you ever even read the NPT? It's the very framework that allows us to have hegemony over other states while preventing a bunch of pipsqueaks (like Iran) from weaponizing nukes. That's why it's so stupid to prevent an NPT signatory like them from concluding agreements that restrict them even further.
All you guys are going off is how distrustful you are of Iran and how insufficiently militant/bellicose you think Democrats are. But the global order and pro-U.S. statecraft would never happen without the legal framework ("TREATIES") that give us leverage in the first place, and the rest of the world a reason to go along with it. This has been the norm since WWII. Such willingness to wreck it in order to become part of some pre-modern global anarchy shows just how bad Republicans are at thinking through a way of actually achieving U.S. interests. "Distrust anyone you can all the time" makes for one hell of a mantra, but a pretty shitty presidential doctrine.
Rhythm and Balls said...
So clearly the right believes no leverage is preferable to leverage
Leverage? That is when you deal with people who hates your fucking guts, and you grab their arm, or throat, or their short hairs and you twisted and turn to get their attention to do what you want, and not what they want.
The leverage we had was the international sanctions and the threat of heavier sanctions. We've traded that for no sanctions and the threat of future sanctions.
We already have UN inspections but the Iranians have hidden portions of their nuclear program from the inspectors. We're now trusting them to cooperate.
The "empty threats of a war" comment I suppose refers to Obama's "no options off the table" promises. So you're probably right on that one.
As for being better prepared for war in the future, I don't think you're keeping up with what Obama is doing to our military.
But it may actually work out for the best. If Iran does truly open all its nuclear work to the UN inspectors, we can keep them under control. It's never happened before but wishful thinking can work miracles.
Leverage? That is when you deal with people who hates your fucking guts, and you grab their arm, or throat, or their short hairs and you twisted and turn to get their attention to do what you want, and not what they want.
Hey, like I said. Any time you want to drop into Tehran and pull off your one-man Rambo fantasy on their leaders, feel free. Or even try it with a whole team of people. Clearly the situation as it exists in reality is no match for how much emotional glory you can pour into your thoug-- I mean, your feelings on the matter.
And what very visceral feelings they are.
The leverage we had was the international sanctions and the threat of heavier sanctions. We've traded that for no sanctions and the threat of future sanctions.
How willing were the fellow sanctions parties to extend them indefinitely? And how long do you extend them without that backfiring among the population? And how well did those sanctions keep them from doing what we didn't "want" them to do?
We already have UN inspections but the Iranians have hidden portions of their nuclear program from the inspectors. We're now trusting them to cooperate.
The outline of what's agreed to in the NYT sounds like it's a lot more robust.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/02/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-agreement.html
The "empty threats of a war" comment I suppose refers to Obama's "no options off the table" promises. So you're probably right on that one.
Which is the same options Republicans have. "Feel our wrath while we have no national will and less free resources and less money for fighting a war with no conclusive end with a country two to three times more powerful than Iraq and no allies" is not an option that exists in the realm of U.S. national reality. It's a blustering fantasy that mistakes rhetoric and emotionality for a policy.
As for being better prepared for war in the future, I don't think you're keeping up with what Obama is doing to our military.
Probably nothing worse than what the Pentagon's been asking us to do all along.
But it may actually work out for the best. If Iran does truly open all its nuclear work to the UN inspectors, we can keep them under control. It's never happened before but wishful thinking can work miracles.
Wishful thinking is the kind of "war or threat of it with no politically viable aim in Iran" that the Republicans - let's admit it - wish for, even though they clearly must know that's not an option in reality.
In high-stakes situations, dissenters have to present their alternative. The fact that your war-on-Iran (or some other "last ditch") option never gets aired reminds everyone that bellicosity is what matters most to the opposition. Sanctions are a tool to get what you want. If you don't feel you've gotten what we want, then you need to come out in the open with your flirtation of war, and admit that's what you want next. And then be open about the costs and the fact that you can't occupy it any more effectively than you did Iraq. In other words, disaster. A war we pretended would end a nation's nuclear energy ambitions because we hated treaties and saw them as useless pieces of paper. And good luck protecting your Israeli proxies during that war.
Just to save myself a long quoting column, I'll just try to hit the primers based on Ritmo's points. Have a doctrine of non-trust is exactly what a president should have when dealing with allies and enemies. Until proven otherwise. There was zero reason to trust Iran on anything. They sponsor three known terror groups. They are looking for hegemony in the region. They are seeking a nuclear option to bolster all of those positions. What possible good will has Iran given the US or the world to get us to negotiate with them in good faith? It's funny when sanctions actually do work (which even surprises me sometimes) all of a sudden, they become a point of parlay with these guys. So you keep the instituted sanctions in place until Iran shows an article of good faith in the negotiations as a part of a small step agreement. Then once that milestone is met, you enact whatever lifting of the agreed upon sanction and so one and so forth until there is parity. Then when some level of trust on both sides is earned and you may have mutual respect at this long view stage. There is none of that here. None.
Instead we give up everything and Iran keeps the good times rolling. Obama as has been stated before is the worst negotiator of deals and treaties in my lifetime and he's deliberate in it. I believe it is part of his plan to diminish the standing of the US to realize his vengeance against his collectivist anti-colonial sentiments. But that's just me. I can't speak for other people.
You see the problem with nukes for 1st world civilized nations is that they are political tools not military ones. They are only enacted by the military at the behest of the politician(s)/President. Allied relationships are formed through mutual declarations of peace between nations with the idea that rogue nations who also have nukes face total annihilation if they veer off the reservation.
Iran sees nukes as a military option, not a political one. The fact that they are a dictatorial sharia based theocracy makes the crazy even more insane as to why we are even negotiating with them on nukes. There is zero justification for it at this stage, but legacy must be maintained.
If this isn't a mistake, I'd like to know just what making a bad future would look like. The most determined anti-west, anti American, anti-Israel nation is heading toward nuclear weapons and we just agreed to stop trying to stop them. They want nukes, they want to use them, they hate us and all our kind. We are just trading a potentially bad situation for a certainly bad one later. Because legacy, because cowardice, because Neville Chamberlain wasn't a rare person but a common one with uncommon responsibility, and his foolishness was neither the last nor the worst case of bad leadership. It's likely this will end in millions of deaths on both sides... again. Small men make the biggest mistakes.
The problem is: What does "trust" have to do with anything? When you have an opportunity to put restrictions on someone you don't have any interest in being up to no good, it's stupid to walk away and say, "Nope. I'm too good for that." Laws like this are leverage. If you want allies, you hold your enemies to treaties or laws in order to legitimize your demands on them. You get them to sign things attesting to their agreement with your demand for their compliance. Did we refuse to accept Japan's unconditional surrender in WWII because of how "untrustworthy" they'd been? Of course not. We told them to sign the damn piece of paper, anyway. It's the way it's always been done.
Iran sees nukes as a military option, not a political one.
THis is blatantly wrong. The only reason the Iranian regime has any support from its people is because they agree with this supposed "right" to develop nuclear energy, and it's the only thing the regime can use when it comes to Iranian public opinion against Western powers. The people already hate the regime. Getting them to hate us by telling them they can't develop energy is against U.S. interests. It's against U.S. interests to get an enemy authoritarian regime's pro-Western dissident population to hate us more and side with the regime instead.
This is aid and comfort to a sworn enemy of this country.
We knew Lurch was a traitor.
Now we have Selfie.
Rhythm and Balls said...
So clearly the right believes no leverage is preferable to leverage. And no monitoring of Iran's facilities is preferable to monitoring. And empty threats of a war they're even less prepared to fight than they were their war (and bungled reconstruction!) in Iraq is better than credible threats of reimposed sanctions and worse down the line
What, pray tell, is our leverage now?
I'd say we've thrown it away.
And who's going to do the monitoring, Hans Brix? We're back to Saddam.
Does Ritmo mean the campaign IdiotBoy and the rest of the Demos tossed away after it had been won? Or the one they tried to turn into another 'Nam?
Last I looked, we had won in Iraq, despite Ritmo's dearest hopes, until we put the Choom Gang in power.
The US can blow away Iran in a blink of an eye as it is.
That's the only leverage we have and, yes, thanks to Ritmo and his little friends, it may well come to that since they're all too happy to sabotage any conventional effort.
Of course, Israel may save us all the trouble, but they'll have to beat Poot and the Choom Gang's best efforts to do so.
You know what's ant-Israel? Agitating for war with Iran. Literally hundreds of former Mossad etc. agree. But a SoCal CEO has some thoughts on how to prove American strength so let's see our country of 7 million go up against 80 million Iranians.
You guys are as bad as Arab states, the way they push the Palestinians to fight futile wars with more powerful armies they can't defeat. Replace Palestinians with Israel and Arabs with Iran and it gives an accurate picture of how you don't mind abusing your proxy. Somehow, American glory will surely result.
"You know what's ant-Israel? Agitating for war with Iran."
We've been doing that forever. It's clearly not the the worst possibility. Actually going to war is worse, but even that is a flesh wound compared to waiting for them to have nukes, which will immediately eliminate any leverage we will ever have while assuring that the unavoidable war they are begging for and promising will start with millions of dead Jews, followed by millions of dead Iranians. That is why what is normally avoided cannot be here. The stakes are too high, and you can't go back to today's situation once we get there. Believe it, as untenable as it seems now, we will pine for the current opportunity and wonder why we were so foolish. Why we put the dreams and demands of Iranian Mullahs ahead of so many innocent lives when their intentions were so transparent.
ed, the Israeli military's just itching for you. The one mercenary they've been missing. All those wars "won", so obviously no more threats. But still, there must be more wars to fight. Somehow. Somewhere. With someone.
The issue with ed is he's the gentile so dumb that he exemplifies why Israelis would never want anyone else to fight their wars for them. But that doesn't mean that eddie can't get some of "God's People" to fight his country's wars for him.
He doesn't even know that Iran isn't an Arab country.
As edutcher points out, the only reason they are not waging war with Israel right now is they know they would lose. Once they have nukes, the internal politics in Iran will always be about who has the guts to finally punish Israel. Any Iranian leader not saying he will use it will be second tier, and eventually they will have to prove it.
Bag, clearly you know more than all those Mossad guys. Did you ever consider joining them (or any special ops or intel forces) on those off-days? Maybe instead of hang-gliding, surfing and more-or-less just living the privileged life in a paradise where your worst concern isn't a bombing or two up the street or on your driveway you can join up for service in the Middle Eastern country you wished you were a citizen of, but would never live in.
Once they have nukes
You have not read the agreement. It limits them to enrichment levels orders of magnitude less than what they're currently already enriching.
Facts that obviate your war-itch, obviously. Not worth noticing, I guess.
Poor Ritmo, can't deal with facts, so he just blusters the usual chickenhawk misdirection.
Yeah, IS was always there in Iraq, Petraeus and Dubya just didn't notice them.
PS A-stan was a loss, too, of course, but you still have to explain how things got worse after '08 including the fact that 3/4 of the casualties on our side (including 92% of the Marine casualties) since '01 have been on the 5 years of the Choom Gang's watch.
The US can blow away Iran in a blink of an eye as it is.
First-strike nuclear war with an adversary not even shown to possess a nuke. What a disaster you'd be with that button.
Every reason that Palin never gets anywhere near the nuclear codes are exemplified in the person of edutcher.
The clear possibility of millions of dead in an instant and Ritmo thinks this is about us. Studies show myopia is a leading cause of genocide.
Hey, you're the one who wants to keep them enriching at current levels. But keep tough-talking.
Take up your accusation of myopia with all those Mossad. Clearly you know something they don't.
Not necessarily with evidence, but you know it.
The clear possibility of millions of dead in an instant and Ritmo thinks this is about us.
You've never been to Israel. It is about you. At least, when you argue it it is.
Studies show myopia is a leading cause of genocide.
That, and pride.
You seem too proud to be discussing this rationally.
What's going to kill lots of people is your savior complex.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-01-22/netanyahu-mossad-split-divides-u-s-congress-on-iran-sanctions
The recipe for genocide stew is a simple one. Let's see if we have what we need.
1) Bad guys who want to kill millions - Check
2) Good guys unwilling to stop them unless it's painless - Check
* If you don't like the taste of ingredient 2, then you can substitute any number of lame excuses, but best is to just tell your guests that you discovered a milder form of ingredient 1 that does not overpower the dish. They probably forget the last time you fucked up dinner the same way.
Ritmo, maybe you are confused about who the bad guys are. There are no cases of genocide due to excess pride in the good guys - unless you mean they are too proud to admit they misjudged the enemy. Then yes, that's spot on.
Oops, I left out one ingredient in the genocide stew - a heat source up to the task. You gotta have that, but we can wait.
Bag, you're a pretty rich guy - at least from what you keep telling us. Chartering a flight or taking a commercially available route to Tel Aviv shouldn't be too much of a problem for you.
Who knows, you might even run into your buddy Sheldon Adelson.
Go on over to visit the country you want people to believe you love so much. Survey its landscape. Meet with its soldiers. Develop your fool-proof war plan. Invest in some defense hardware.
Put on a sports jersey with a big cross on it and show those millions of Jews how you're going to save them.
Show some face. Do it in person. Don't just call it in. Don't delegate it to your admin, either.
Go and show what you're all about.
Rhythm and Balls said...
The US can blow away Iran in a blink of an eye as it is.
First-strike nuclear war with an adversary not even shown to possess a nuke.
Hmm, Ritmo wants to wait until somebody shoves a nuke up his ass.
That's what they did back in '39. We all know how it ended.
But keep barfing up the talking points. It shows the desperation on your side.
Isn't "Mossad" Hebrew for Maginot Line?
That would win for most idiotic comment, ever.
Bag, how many militaries have you fantasized fighting for? Just Israel's? Or America's, also?
You have no family.
You have nothing you care about - save yourself.
Trust me, you don't want to take this on.
UNless you want to be a human shield. That's kind of how people prove themselves… over there.
Come on. You can't lead Israel's dead from a CNN hologram image. Although that sounds kind of poetic.
You can't do it by Skype, either.
That's what they did back in '39. We all know how it ended.
But keep barfing up the talking points.
Lol. A guy who thinks the only war ever fought was the one ending in 1945 has the nerve to accuse others of "talking points".
It shows the desperation on your side.
Desperate is not being able to feed your family, while thinking you're going to stop nuclear wars and apparently, genocide.
Ritmo, I want to avoid a war, and a horrible one if possible by strong sanctions, policy and leadership, or if necessary by a a limited non-nuclear war.
I would fight in it, if I was able. Once it goes nuclear, nobody can stop the carnage.
BTW, I'm not rich unless you call rich owing more money than you will ever earn in your lifetime. I just aim higher. I also have an extensive family, but none are Jews, and yet I still care about Israel. I just have a thing for Canaries.
Ritmo has nothing left so he falls back on the chickenhawk routine.
Go home, son, this is not your room.
A better word than "chicken hawk" is "military masturbators".
That would be you, Ed. Like most everything in life, being in the military - let alone a military advisor - is something you pretend to do.
But you've got to have something to get off on.
These chickenhawk, wingnut, warmongers don't seen too happy about the deal.
Underestimating the Iranians is just dumb. They are serious, dedicated fanatical, smart, and most important, and where we are currently far out-classed: they are patient and disciplined.
The just just got hugely rewarded for it, as you can see clearly in their faces and statements tonight. Anyone who listens to what they want can't possibly feel good about them being happy with this agreement. Simply put: they want evil things and they are smiling tonight. They have human beings in their sights.
When Balls loses the argument, he always makes it personal. So boring.
bottom line is leftists hate Israel and they want to punish Israel., Period.
Why do leftists like to throw around the phrase "chicken hawk" so much? It's weird.
Is it major projection, or what?
from Rabel's link:
THE “KEY parameters” for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program released Thursday fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration. None of Iran’s nuclear facilities — including the Fordow center buried under a mountain — will be closed. Not one of the country’s 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled. Tehran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be “reduced” but not necessarily shipped out of the country. In effect, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, though some of it will be mothballed for 10 years. When the accord lapses, the Islamic republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state.
That’s a long way from the standard set by President Obama in 2012 when he declared that “the deal we’ll accept” with Iran “is that they end their nuclear program” and “abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place.” Those resolutions call for Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium. Instead, under the agreement announced Thursday, enrichment will continue with 5,000 centrifuges for a decade, and all restraints on it will end in 15 years.
Obama undercut himself and his own promises. Obama promise expatriation date - met.
AprilApple said...
Why do leftists like to throw around the phrase "chicken hawk" so much? It's weird.
Is it major projection, or what?
When the script isn't cogent anymore, then you fall back on the plan B script. All of the labels you can trot out to keep the hate going.
Rhythm and Balls said...
The problem is: What does "trust" have to do with anything? When you have an opportunity to put restrictions on someone you don't have any interest in being up to no good, it's stupid to walk away and say, "Nope. I'm too good for that." Laws like this are leverage. If you want allies, you hold your enemies to treaties or laws in order to legitimize your demands on them. You get them to sign things attesting to their agreement with your demand for their compliance. Did we refuse to accept Japan's unconditional surrender in WWII because of how "untrustworthy" they'd been? Of course not. We told them to sign the damn piece of paper, anyway. It's the way it's always been done.
All negotiations come in from two directions. When you deal with your allies, you are usually coming from a place of trust for a usual common goal. If it's your enemies, it's from a place of distrust and the leverage you have is that you hold the cards and your willing to deal with them because they want a deal of some kind too. They've been hurting too long and they are tired, so they are willing to make a deal of some kind. That's what leverage is. Obama doesn't understand that because he doesn't have that kind of time to exert it on Iran. Hence the piece of shit deal you think is so great because in your mind, at least some kind of deal is better than no deal. You see, you're a shitty negotiator too and you are projecting that crappy negotiating skill to this.
Japan's surrender was due to the fact that they saw the utter and total annihilation before them in the form of two atomic bombs dropped on their mainland. That was their motivator. That was their stick and if they didn't, the rest of the country would be annihilated too. You see how those kinds of weapons are political? Iran doesn't see it that way, which is why I made that statement. They will get enriched uranium, they create a bomb or give it to one of their three terror cells to detonate and voila, one of their checkbox objectives is complete. Multilateral attacks on Tel Aviv and Jerusalem coming next. Do you really believe that is not what they want?
cont...
This is blatantly wrong. The only reason the Iranian regime has any support from its people is because they agree with this supposed "right" to develop nuclear energy, and it's the only thing the regime can use when it comes to Iranian public opinion against Western powers. The people already hate the regime. Getting them to hate us by telling them they can't develop energy is against U.S. interests. It's against U.S. interests to get an enemy authoritarian regime's pro-Western dissident population to hate us more and side with the regime instead.
Maybe you don't understand what the Iranian Revolution created. Go talk to any number of long time US living Iranians who were there during the reign of the Shah and then escaped when the 'revolution' began and see what it is like now vs. what it was like then. Iranians do not support the islamic theocracy, hence the Green Movement recently within Iran. The people have never liked the revolution, they never like the Shah either, but even the iranian people have an affinity for america and they know that America is trying to help them defeat the theocracy. I don't believe for a second that the regime is remotely successful in fomenting hatred for the US in these negotiations. Why do you think the Grand Ayatollah has said he doesn't support this deal. He's the final authority on the subject in Iran. You ever been to Iran? To the middle east, just out of curiosity? Israel perhaps? I have. It's different than what you think.
Iran has done nothing to show that they can be trusted and to come into a deal giving away the house against their level of trust that they've never shown is not only stupid, but willfully ignorant because Obama is hell bent on legacy. The idea that you would be tripping over yourself to support this just shows that you aren't capable of knowing how negotiations work and how to approach them.
Circle jerk while the world burns.
Post a Comment