"... because they’d find some way to get around it because they're untrustworthy. And if that's your view, then we go back to the choice that you have to make earlier. That means, presumably, that you can't negotiate. And what you're really saying is, is that you've got to apply military force to guarantee that they don't have a nuclear program. And if somebody wants to make that debate — whether it’s the Republican leadership, or Prime Minister Netanyahu, or the Israeli Ambassador or others, they're free to make it. But it’s not persuasive."
The President's press conference.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
178 comments:
How about a "drop in any time with no warning" inspection mechanism instead of a "we give you 24 days to hid the evidence" inspection mechanism? Why is that so difficult to understand, President Obama?
WSJ editorial -- Obama's False Iran Choice -- excerpts:
Mr. Obama knows there has always been an alternative to his diplomacy of concessions because many critics have suggested it. It’s called coercive diplomacy, and it might have worked to get a better deal if Mr. Obama had tried it. ...
Mr. Obama now argues that the sanctions could not have been maintained, and that they are sure to collapse if Congress scuttles his deal. But there was no sign sanctions were collapsing as long as the U.S. continued to keep the pressure on. And to the extent support did weaken, one reason was the momentum of Mr. Obama’s negotiations. The more the U.S. gave the impression that it desperately wanted a deal, the more other countries and businesses began to maneuver for post-sanctions opportunities. ...
As for Mr. Obama’s false choice of war and diplomacy, the truth is that war becomes less likely when diplomacy is accompanied by the credible threat of war. The President removed that credible threat from Iran by insisting war was the only (bad) alternative to his diplomacy, as well as by threatening force against Syria only to erase his own “red line.” In May Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei boasted that the U.S. military “can’t do a damn thing” against Iran. He understood his negotiating partner all too well.
"That means, presumably, that you can't negotiate. And what you're really saying is, is that you've got to apply military force to guarantee that they don't have a nuclear program."
O didn't negotiate. He just capitulated.
Just a few years ago, O himself said the only acceptable outcome of negotiations was no Iran nuke program; now they get to keep it.
By O's own logic, if this deal is the best "negotiation" can produce, leaving the nuke program obviously in place, then if we want to get rid of the program, force is the only alternative.
Of course, O doesn't want to get rid of it. He likes it. He likes them. He just doesn't like us.
We have to drop sanctions and reward Iran with $150 billion because sanctions are unsustainable and bound to fail. But don't worry, 'cause if there's trouble, the unsustainable sanctions will return!
- B Obama 'splainin
If George W Bush had Obama's wisdom in 2002, Iran would have been free to build a bomb three years ago.
I think President Obama is a smart guy with very bad judgment and with little or no hesitation in misleading people in order to achieve his objectives. But I must also say, he is pretty good at confidently setting forth his argument. He is very effective when he gets to filibuster. I suspect he would be pretty bad in a back and forth discussion where someone could pin him down.
From mid 1942 until April, 1945 the USA raced ,with all its might and lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors nod airmen to get the nuclear bomb at least 24 days before the Germans got theirs delivered to the east coast of the USA. No price was too high to pay.
Now we let a Muslim fifth columnist intentionally give Shia Mullahs at war with us that same bomb and delivery system because "going to war" is not an option for the USA.
Somebody is insane for following that leadership that made that decision.
And if somebody wants to make that debate — whether it’s the Republican leadership, or Prime Minister Netanyahu, or the Israeli Ambassador or others, they're free to make it. But it’s not persuasive.
Why is it not persuasive? It strikes me as very persuasive.
blue ox's splaining comment is very good.
But I must also say, he is pretty good at confidently setting forth his argument.
Well ... no, not actually. Because he's not setting forth an argument. He's making a statement, with no one challenging him then and there to his face on it. If he were to actually be engaged in a real debate, in which he was forced to defend his position, I suspect he would put on a pretty poor show.
Not to go all Godwin or anything, but negotiation with Hitler was pretty damn fruitless, too. Some people are not just untrustworthy but evil as well, and that description fits the genocidal mullahs of Iran to a T.
But it’s not persuasive.
I agree with Roughcoat; it's pretty persuasive to me.
If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.
"Hope is not a method." - Gen. Gordon R Sullivan
I liked the way he pretended democrats have voiced no objections to his plan.
Anybody know where I can buy stock in Pakistan's nuclear program? It is about to get some very big orders....
Barack: But our goal is to get Iran to recognize it needs to give up its nuclear program and abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place.
Hussein: And we hope that their leadership takes the right decision, but the deal we'll accept is they end their nuclear program.
Obama: And that clock is ticking. And we're going to make sure that if they do not meet the demands of the international community, then we are going to take all options necessary to make sure they don't have a nuclear weapon.
And yes, I realize that it is racist to quote obama about obama.
From the beginning, there has been no way Iran is not getting the bomb.
I think I our best strategy would have been to tell Iran that if they don't close up the program we were giving the Saudi's the bomb. That might have stopped them.
Obama probably thinks he has done the right thing... so that should be of some comfort.
Original Mike: "From the beginning, there has been no way Iran is not getting the bomb."
That's not entirely accurate.
You would be on much safer ground arguing there was no way we (or anyone else) was actually going to do what it would actually take to keep Iran from getting the bomb.
I lived most of my life in the 20th century. Artists and intellectuals were always warning us about the dangers inherent in nuclear weapons. Remember Dr. Strangelove and Fail-Safe. Nuclear weapons were just too incredibly dangerous to be left in anyone's hands, even--one might say, especially--in the hands of our own military, many of whose members voted Republcan.....I was pleasantly surprised that the world didn't end in a nuclear holocaust. All the historians were agreed that any weapon once invented would someday be utilized. That was the historical record, but it didn't happen with nuclear weapons after Hiroshima......Nowadays the artists and intellectuals have a more evolved position on nuclear weapons. If containment worked with the Soviets, there's no reason to believe that it won't work with the North Koreans or the Pakistanis or the Iranians when they eventually get the bomb. Artists and intellectuals are more imaginative and smarter than the rest of us so there's no reason to question their judgment......I note in passing, however, that poison gas had not been used since WWI. It has since been used by both Iraq and Syria. I really think it would behoove us to have as much anxiety about Koran obsessed mullahs as we did about, say, an Air Force general with excessive concerns about fluoride in the drinking water.
I think I our best strategy would have been to tell Iran that if they don't close up the program we were giving the Saudi's the bomb. That might have stopped them.
Ha Ha. I like that a lot.
The country that took our hostages and has waged at the very least a proxy war is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt. They should be deemed untrustworthy until they prove otherwise.
Obama hasn't even read his own treaty. There is specific language in there that permits Iran to block inspections.
He seems to have no other rhetorical device than fallacy of excluded middle.
Re: Containment
If Iran nuked Israel who would nuke Iran in return? Or do anything at all about it?
Perhaps the sanctions would snap back.
@Gabriel, the fallacy of the excluded middle has worked very well for him with the MSM for 6 1/2 years. Why should he stop now?
Whether it's working as well with the voting public is something we'll find out in November of next year.
What Obama is doing is using a 'strawman' argument.
Nuke or agree is the theme and no matter what inspections is the strawman argument.
But in fact, like North Korea, the inspections agreed to are a farce.
All we have here is 'peace in our time'.
""And so really the only argument you can make against the verification and inspection mechanism that we’ve put forward is that Iran is so intent on obtaining a nuclear weapon that no inspection regime and no verification mechanism would be sufficient..."
No. Not "really". The argument is that your inspection regime is a joke.
The inspection process under the new Iran deal.
"And so really the only argument you can make against the verification and inspection mechanism that we’ve put forward is that Iran is so intent on obtaining a nuclear weapon that no inspection regime and no verification mechanism would be sufficient..."
"... because they’d find some way to get around it because they're untrustworthy. And if that's your view, then we go back to the choice that you have to make earlier. That means, presumably, that you can't negotiate. And what you're really saying is, is that you've got to apply military force to guarantee that they don't have a nuclear program. And if somebody wants to make that debate — whether it’s the Republican leadership, or Prime Minister Netanyahu, or the Israeli Ambassador or others, they're free to make it. But it’s not persuasive."
The argument is utterly persuasive. Obama's isn't. Better negotiators than Obama's have negotiated far better deals with the Soviets than Obama did with the Iranians and in the end of the day it turned out that the Soviets were cheating left and right. At least the Soviets weren't crazy which is more than can be said about the Iranians. Obama is just too stupid, too arrogant and full of himself to get to understand that he is being played for a chump and in the end he will be seen as being played. His legacy will be bitter and he will live to see it turn out badly.
It's times like this you wish you lived in Madison Wisconsin. Cuz nobody even knows it exists. No worries about nukes.
Chamberlain negotiated, too.
Peace for Our Time is what he proclaimed. WWII is what he delivered.
"Why is it not persuasive?"
Because you don't have a fucked up outlook like he does. You are looking for the truth and he's looking for a convenient lie. (I wonder if the mullahs get to keep their doctors? They get to keep everything else.)
I suspect an "oil for food" revenue scheme unfolding. Followed by a cleanup operation in the next administration. I wonder if history will repeat in the interim.
I am persuaded that President Obama is stupid. He does stupid things (e.g., the executive agreement with Iran); makes stupid arguments (e.g., today's press conference); surrounds himself with stupid people (e.g., Vice President Biden, Secretary Kerry); says stupid things (e.g., how do you say that in Austrian?); keeps telling lies as if the lies will never damage him (e.g., Obamacare); is comprehensively ignorant of history (e.g., his grandfather liberated Auschwitz) and geography (e.g., the Maldives are in the South Atlantic); and has no knowledge of any language other than English. His mother was an anthropologist, but he doesn't seem to have absorbed the central point of the discipline, that culture differs because people have profoundly different notions of proper behavior.
No single deficiency listed above proves that he is stupid, but how many smart people show all these deficiencies?
This is the BS logic of someone who wants a deal, but doesn't know how to get a good deal.
Look, it's very simple.
We want to deny Iran the bomb. Denying Iran the bomb requires a certain level of inspection ability. Thus, that level of inspection ability is the bare minimum we can get out of a deal. Anything worse than that, and we have to walk away from the table. Obama knows this. This was his negotiating position when we started the negotiations.
All of this mumbling rationalization starts from the premise that we can't get our minimum acceptable concessions. So Obama invents a new negotiating tactic -- let's take less than the minimum! Really, the only difference is if Iran is cheating by a certain amount, and how likely is that? It's a way to talk yourself into taking a deal that is worse than you set out to get.
But all of this is really misdirection for the real failure of the deal. Iran gets everything they want on the first day -- their assets are freed, and our sanctions are lifted. We maybe get part of what we want, several years in the future, provided that Iran doesn't cheat. But in that sort of deal, the textbook move is for Iran to cheat -- that's how they put pressure on us for more concessions.
"Snapback sanctions" are not a credible threat -- sanctions are much harder to introduce than to maintain. Remember that Russia has a veto on the Security Council, and they are engaged in their own challenges to American commitments.
I don't see why this has to be our problem. Just sell Iran a few intermediate-range ballistic missiles, and Europe will be motivated to deal with it.
I wonder who will be serving as ambassador to Iran in our new embassy? John Kerry, perhaps.
Hey, don't worry, John. We'll put Hillary in charge of security.
No worries at all, buddy!
My hope, my wish, is that the Obama administration has made some sort of realpolitik calculation that
a) Iran had a nuke or was going to get a nuke
b) kowtowing to Iran and humiliating ourselves was the only way to keep a terrorist from driving a nuke into D.C. or New York, or Chicago, or some other very liberal city, and setting off a nuclear car bomb.
In other words, by fleeing or running away from the Middle East, we have successfully isolated ourselves from terrorist insanity. (I would feel better about this plan if we built a wall on our Mexican and Canadian borders).
I think this is a morally despicable plan, abandoning Israel (most obviously).
But my fear is actually worse. My suspicion is that Obama's Iran negotiation was rather like Obama's execution of the Obamacare website. It's all phony, for show, to make Obama look good, to justify that Nobel peace prize. He wants to brag about peace in Iran the same way he wants to brag about killing Osama bin Laden. He has no thoughts about a terrorist driving a car into one of our very liberal cities. Hasn't even occurred to the man.
"Hi! Good news, American hostages! We've negotiated with Iran, and your no longer hostages. You will have to stay in Iran, however -- but as America's newest ambassadors!
"Hillary Clinton will be providing security."
. . .
"Yay."
It is a gift for any and all Republicans that we can now justify a wall on our Mexican border by adding a wall on our Canadian border, and naming Islamic terrorism as the reason that we are building these walls. President Rubio can avoid the inevitable "racist!" shouts by putting walls on both borders. When asked why we are building a wall on our Canadian border, he can cite the U.S.-Iran Peace Accord of 2015.
And while it might seem quaint and rather Asian to build a great wall around our country, like something out of B.C. era, we are dealing with terrorists whose method of attack will be rudimentary and simple.
"My way was diplomacy and peace. The Republican way is only war. Go make them explain how war will make us more secure."
Jeezuz I cannot believe this affirmative action numbskull is president. You'd think that even the Democrats would see through mister excuse-of-the-week, especially since he's cost them control of congress, and soon most of the Jewish liberal donating class.
Also, suicide bomber flying a plane with a nuke on board might be a problem, too.
Smilin' Jack wrote:
"Just sell Iran a few intermediate-range ballistic missiles"
They've already got them.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/world/iran/irislv-x-space-icbm.htm
My own personal safety plan is to never live in Washington D.C. or New York City.
Also I will definitely be avoiding the pacific northwest.
Of course, we all die anyway.
This is why I go to church.
Blogger Saint Croix said...
My own personal safety plan is to never live in Washington D.C. or New York City.
Also I will definitely be avoiding the pacific northwest.
Maybe God put all the liberals on the coasts to make it easier to wipe them all out in one big Earthquake.
ddh wrote:
"[Obama]has no knowledge of any language other than English."
He lived in Indonesia for years as a child. With his Malaysian step father. He can't speak Malay.
On the positive side, a complete and utter abandonment of the Middle East by the U.S. might shock Israel, Saudi-Arabia, and Egypt into signing some sort of official recognition of Israel, and non-aggression pact. Israel could admit to having nuclear missiles, and could agree to set up nuclear bases in Saudi-Arabia to project the people there from the evil mullahs of Iran. Ditto Egypt. This might cause Saudi-Arabia to crackdown on the crazy people in their own kingdom.
Sometimes evil rebounds in surprising and happy ways.
Letter from Iran to Obama, and his entourage:
"You must be stupid, stupid, stupid."
(From the movie "The Rainmaker." I link to it a lot because, sadly, it is becoming increasingly apropos).
This awful, awful treaty is a gift for Marco Rubio, by the way. Also Lindsey Graham, and maybe Rand Paul, too.
It could hurt Wisconsin's favorite son.
Because foreign policy is definitely an important issue in the Republican primaries.
Also the joke of Donald Trump's campaign is now over.
Letter from Obama to Congress and the American people:
http://youtu.be/9EQPrFR9KRo
(same)
Maybe God put all the liberals on the coasts to make it easier to wipe them all out in one big Earthquake.
God kills everybody. You think God is going to spare you from death?
(Religious people do think this, actually. It keeps us happy and fairly optimistic. We are not trembling in fear like Woody Allen in one of his better comedies).
Dear Obama,
http://youtu.be/9EQPrFR9KRo
Yours truly,
Donald Trump
____________
Dear Major Garrett,
http://youtu.be/9EQPrFR9KRo.
That is nonsense, and you should know better.
Superior in intellect, I remain
Obama
____________
What was it Flo used to say on that show "Alice"?
YOU CAN KISS MY AD HOMINY?
It would be nice if liberals would stop cowering from Christianity, that horrifying religion that surrounds them wherever they go.
I would ask my atheist friends, or atheist allies, whatever, if it's "rational" to be so afraid of Christianity, or to lump Christianity and Islam together as if these religious faiths are identically dangerous.
Bill Maher is actually really smart on this point.
Here is Fox News, celebrating Bill Maher. He's actually pretty awesome here. He's very careful and he's thought deeply about this. Kudos.
And Bill Maher is, very clearly, not a coward. Again, kudos.
This is not to say that Christians cannot behave badly when we are in power. Anthony Kennedy would be a good example of that.
Or George Washington, for that matter.
More Obama bullshit, he's always putting up straw man arguments that amount to, his way or no way. I remember another "good deal" on nuclear weapons that Bill Clinton got with North Korea back in the 90's, same old bullshit, different day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TcbU5jAavw
As Christopher Hitchens often said, "they lie".
We didn't even meet the requirements Obama and Kerry said were required to be in for it to be a good deal. I agree with Obama and Kerry of a few months ago that this is a bad deal.
Maybe we could have traded our ability to effectively inspect declared, known but not declared and suspected nuclear sites [instead of only declared!] to at least liberate prisoners being held in Iran, or maybe for an agreement for Iran to stop arming people who kill innocent people.
You know, maybe get something out of the deal. Like a negotiation.
Some things are worth fighting for.
Not this, in Obama's view. At least not now while he is President.
He has achieved Peace in His Time.
He has also made Iran more powerful. There are holes to fill in the Middle East and Iran will fill them.
It is a huge gamble, not necessarily doomed to failure, but filled with high risk. Time will tell, and men and women other than Obama will have to deal with the consequences. Not me. I will probably be dead by the time this plays out. I just hope a lot of other people do not end up joining me on a less timely basis.
Logic strait from hell.
Or the politically correct version of surrender to evil.
I'd like to see Obama as a GM of a sports team.
"Here's our best player. What's your offer?"
"Nothing"
"Deal!"
The President sounds like a kid who has rushed through an assigned project. When his teacher tells him its not acceptable for the following reasons, he blames the teacher and says, Nothing could ever be good enough for you and the only alternative to giving him a passing grade is that he flunks out of school and becomes a bum. Then asks, Is that what you want?
Nothing says "We have a serious inspection agreement" like saying there is literally no way military force will ever be used. Because no country in history has ever reneged on an international agreement.
Say --- didn't Iran sign the NPT?
I'll also say --- reading Reason this past week reminds me why I am not a Libertarian. That site has gone bat shit insane over immigration and this terrible deal.
Disastrous deal. Disastrous president.
The king of slaying strawmen.
He couldn't hinge the release of Iranian funds on the release of 4 hostages?
Dangerously pathetic.
So many times he and Kerry publicly promised things that absolute requirements, yet some were never brought up in negotiations.
Dangerously liars.
Major Garret was the star of the press conference. He forced Obama to hoodwink and bamboozle more than usual.
Shorter Obama:
"They were going to get what they really wanted anyway, so we decided to negotiate and give them what they wanted faster, and throw in a bunch of stuff in addition to what they really wanted.
"God kills everybody."
Well, no. We die. Life forms die. "God" isn't "killing us."
The mainstream media will find a way to dress this agreement up and pretend it is a desirable outcome. Obama will continue to make snide remarks toward his critics. Obama will boldly slay the straw men who challenge him and rebuke those who ask penetrating questions.
For 6 1/2 years we have watched Obama put his personal "optics" ahead of issues of state. He has placed his personal agenda ahead of America's well being. When negative outcomes result he ignores the results and doubles down on the failed policies.
I can't feel sorry for a public that elects men like Obama, but may God bless those brave men in our military who defend America around the world.
If more journalists asked honest questions, Obama would look really bad when he doesn't answer or responds petulantly.
Ah, the soft bigotry of low expectations.
So, Mr. Obama, what do you think is most on the minds of the ayatollahs? Peaceful coexistence and commerce, or finally setting those #@%&!!! Sunnis straight and then conquering the world for Islam?
I think it is hard for Obama to understand that other people just do not think like he does, and never will. Not just the evil Republicans here in the USA, but just about everybody everywhere.
"There is a blindingly obvious third alternative, which we and countless others have advocated, and which Obama, despite his disingenuous disclaimers, is obviously aware of: don’t do anything! Keep the sanctions in place and keep the pressure on Iran’s rulers with a view toward ultimate regime change, the only contingency that will prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and using them to threaten the United States and our major population centers." -- John Hinderaker
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/07/clueless-reporters-question-president-pinocchio-a-pathetic-press-conference.php
The notion that Iran is eager to build nukes so they can attack Saudi Arabia or Israel is risible, the successful result of propaganda intended to portray them as crazies. They are as rational as any other nation and have no interest in bringing about their own annihilation. Moreover, they have not attacked any other nations in modern times. (Would that the same could be said for us.)
Of course, it is never a good thing when another country develops nuclear weaponry, as this adds to the number of players who could, even if only in perceived or actual self-defense, or by accident, set off a nuclear strike. If they do actually hope to one day build nukes, it is more likely they wish to have them for deterrence, to forestall nuclear aggression against them by other nations. Isn't this why WE claim the need to maintain our enormous nuclear stockpile?
If Iran nuked Israel who would nuke Iran in return? Or do anything at all about it?
Perhaps the sanctions would snap back.
Any Islamist nuking of Israel is an interesting discussion. Israel is, pretty much, a single-bomb job. Two would make things more complete, I suppose. If someone destroys Jerusalem, that would destroy Islam's third-holiest city.
I'm no bomb expert, so I do not know how yields and altitudes affect results, or what precisions are possible, so it may be possible to take out Tel Aviv without harming Jerusalem, but I think they are only forty miles apart(?), and Tel Aviv is even closer to the West Bank.
And Israel may take the first step, eh?
"The notion that Iran is eager to build nukes so they can attack Saudi Arabia or Israel is risible,"
Says the expert on "Twelvers." And they came to rule Iran.
"how they came..."
It's an interesting read but Cookie is not interested. Fantasy world of the left covers it well.
"The notion that Iran is eager to build nukes so they can attack Saudi Arabia or Israel is risible,"
The notion comes directly from what they have been consistently saying for years. So you doubt their public proclamations for the last 40 years yet believe them at the negotiation table? That is ridiculous.
"They are as rational as any other nation and have no interest in bringing about their own annihilation."
-- Remember, Iran currently arms people who kill American warfighters and our allies. It is perfectly rational to think that they may come to the conclusion, given how the west has been cautiously backing off supporting military ventures in the Middle East and support for Israel is continuing to drop, that an aggressive action against Israel may not lead to the complete destruction of Iran, and may, in fact, give them a stronger local bargaining power while being able to weather sanctions for a decade or two like they've done before.
Note that Iran has not gotten much from the West until it started funding people who kill our people and acting aggressively towards our allies in the Middle East. In doing so, they're getting all their money back and sanctions reduced/eliminated.
What logical reason is there for them to think that FURTHER aggression might be punished, when the only time they've been punished is when they were NOT openly belligerent?
I would ask my atheist friends, or atheist allies, whatever, if it's "rational" to be so afraid of Christianity, or to lump Christianity and Islam together as if these religious faiths are identically dangerous.
It's not rational, but I'm the rare atheist who is conservative and the Left is wildly in love with the neverending culture war. A culture war with Islam would be over very rapidly, with a bunch of heads separated from bodies and women sold in slave markets to the highest bidder. So Christianity it is.
Kansas City wrote -
"He is very effective when he gets to filibuster. I suspect he would be pretty bad in a back and forth discussion where someone could pin him down."
Someone. Like a cruelly neutral press perhaps? Good Lord! This was a press conference for heaven's sake. Major Garret tried to pin him down, and the others not only didn't follow-up up with their own pointed questions, but did a Candy Crowley on him after the fact. I've come to expect this, but it still demoralizes me; which I guess is the ultimate point.
The notion that Iran is eager to build nukes so they can attack Saudi Arabia or Israel is risible
Saudi officials even threatened to get their own nuclear weapons; just before the talks concluded the Saudi ambassador to the U.K., Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf bin Abdulaziz, told the Times of London: “We are not going to sit idly by and receive a threat there and not think seriously how we can best defend our country and our region.”
The threat is laughable only from where you sit, apparently.
************************************************************************
And, ladies and gentlemen, from a time when the threat of Germans starting a war was risible because of the successful result of propaganda intended to portray them as crazies:
Press hails Chamberlain
Suggestions to honour Mr Chamberlain in some tangible form for his great services to peace continue to be made in many parts of Europe. The French nation is now concentrating on how it can repay "the first artisan of peace".
Numerous proposals for renaming streets, starting funds and erecting statues are contained in the French press, and Le Figaro states that the British prime minister should be immediately invited to Paris so that all can acclaim him. One paper suggests starting a fund so that monuments and statues might be erected to the "saviour of modern Europe" in every capital in the world. Strasbourg has overnight renamed streets: the Avenue de la Paix is now the Avenue Neville Chamberlain.
The assertion that Mr Chamberlain should receive the Nobel peace prize, says the Stockholm Tidningen [newspaper], is warmly supported in all quarters in Sweden and Norway, and England. Mahmond Pasha, the prime minister of Egypt, has telegraphed Mr Chamberlain the thanks of the Egyptian government and people for averting war. The telegram concludes: "Your name will go down in history as a statesman who saved civilisation from destruction."
The Observer, 2 October 1938
Link
Obama thinks the Iranian government speaks truth to him and lies to its own people.
But Islam says it is a sin to lie to your fellow Moslems, but deceiving the infidel in the cause of Allah is praiseworthy.
I do not think Obama realizes that in their eyes, he is the Infidel in Chief.
The notion that Iran is eager to build nukes so they can attack Saudi Arabia or Israel is risible,
So we should just ignore everything they've been saying for forty years? How did that work out for Europe and Hitler?
the successful result of propaganda intended to portray them as crazies. They are as rational as any other nation and have no interest in bringing about their own annihilation.
You are wrong. There are not as rational as any other nation. They are a theocracy, one based on bringing about the end of times. They are perfectly willing to suffer annihilation in order to create a heaven on Earth.
Moreover, they have not attacked any other nations in modern times. (Would that the same could be said for us.)
Tell that to Lebanon, Israel, Yemen, Iraq, Saudi Arabia etc.
"The notion that Iran is eager to build nukes so they can attack Saudi Arabia or Israel is risible"
Yes. In Israel the remarks on the subject never fail to get a laugh.
And it is not just the Middle East that is looking to arm itself.
Viet Nam just signed some sort of mutual defense treaty with India, a nuclear nation. The Philippines and Indonesia won't be far behind.
Japan just passed a law removing restrictions on military development.
The European nations are in a tizzy about Putin's Russia and talking to each other, excluding the US.
Etc.
Our next president is going to have to start all over with a new and very dangerous world.
"Yes. In Israel the remarks on the subject never fail to get a laugh."
And what bearing do "remarks in Israel on the subject" have on reality?
"What logical reason is there for them to think that FURTHER aggression might be punished, when the only time they've been punished is when they were NOT openly belligerent?"
What logical reason is there to think they would not be annihilated if they were to nuke Israel or Saudi Arabia? What logical reason is there to assume they don't know they would be annihilated? What logical reason do they or would they even have to attack Israel of Saudi Arabia with nukes? What strategic aims would be realized? What purpose would be served? The unquestioning belief that they want to nuke their neighbors and would do so once they have a nuke is, again, merely the successful fruit of propaganda intended to paint them as crazies.
"And what bearing do "remarks in Israel on the subject" have on reality?"
Have you ever heard Samuel Johnson's comment, "Depend upon it, Sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.”
Israelis have made funny videos from Palestinian propaganda. They know about joking in the face of death.
Did you read about how Iran became Shia ? Of course not. Just as you do not pay attention to what Iran is saying to its own people about how they have made a fool of Obama.
"What logical reason is there to think they would not be annihilated if they were to nuke Israel"
What makes you think the theology of Iranian leaders uses logic ? You fool.
What logical reason do they or would they even have to attack Israel of Saudi Arabia with nukes?
Stop spattering spittle and read what Michael K suggested.
What makes you think the political planning of Iranian leaders does not use logic ? You fool.
Moreover, they have not attacked any other nations in modern times. (Would that the same could be said for us.)
That is risible; Iran has carried on a proxy guerilla war against the US for more than a decade.
The US has not retaliated against Iran militarily. Perhaps we should have. Certainly we should have pushed much harder for "regime change."
The "rational" generals in Iran may reason that having nukes will prevent Iran being attacked with nukes (by the US, or whoever) and they can proceed to conquer the "Arab" Sunnis with conventional forces. That is logical. But Islam, Shia or Sunni, is not founded on logic, but on conquest and conversion of infidls and apostates at any cost. In fact ther is no cost, since dying fighting the infidel just means a release from the misery here on earth and a free pass into the top level of Paradise.
"What logical reason is there to think they would not be annihilated if they were to nuke Israel or Saudi Arabia?"
-- Because we've backed off and given them more power and hegemony when they've killed people. It is a serious question if the west would have the fortitude to engage in the Middle East, especially once our major ally has been destroyed, and Iran would be quickly coalescing power in the sudden vaccuum left by Israel's departure.
We MIGHT strike back at Iran, but we also MIGHT NOT. Iran has made lots of gambles before; there's no reason to assume they won't gamble again. It is better to have made a stronger deal, and maybe liberated four political hostages too, than to just trust Iran won't escalate, despite the fact all evidence points to "If we escalate, we get what we want," as far as Iran can see.
Cookie, do you believe the Iranians in what they say ?
"“To our neighbours: Do not be deceived by the propaganda of the warmongering Zionist regime. #Iran & its power will translate into your power,” President Hassan Rouhani tweeted. During a state TV address, Rouhani said Iran had achieved all of its objectives through negotiations. “All the sanctions, even arms embargoes and missile-related sanctions… would all be lifted,” he said."
QED as we say in math.
While others are focusing on "Iran is not logical," I think Iran is incredibly logical, and eliminating a local enemy while demonstrating extreme power [or even threatening to do so and demonstrating the same power] is PERFECTLY logical given the incentives they've been given.
Arming terrorists means they no longer have sanctions and are getting some money back. Why shouldn't they keep pushing the envelope?
"Have you ever heard Samuel Johnson's comment, 'Depend upon it, Sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.'”
Yes, of course.How is it applicable to Israel? Iran--at present, and possibly the future--has no nukes, while Israel has a stockpile of them, (undeclared, and therefore, "illegal," if we are to accept that the protocols governing nations who may possess nukes have any bearing any longer).
"The unquestioning belief that they want to nuke their neighbors and would do so once they have a nuke"
You're knocking down a straw man.
The fact is if Iran has nukes there are circumstances, not all of them foreseeable, in which they might choose to use them against Israel and/or Saudi Arabia. If they don't have nukes there are no such circumstances. Which is better?
Iran is world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. They make outrageously belligerent statements all the time. Maybe its all bluff, but we don't know their true mind. We can only guess. Consequences of being wrong are very high.
Moreover, they have not attacked any other nations in modern times.
First, remind me again of what happened to our embassy in 1979.
Second, you may want to pay more attention to yourself. Your glib assertion of how God actually behaves implies an acknowledgement that not everyone on the planet has achieved your glorious pinnacle of pseudo-intellectual atheism. Maybe you should take that into account when you insist, with no evidence and even less understanding, that (t)hey are as rational as any other nation.
Maybe the Iranians are, in fact, as rational as the Nazis were.
Cook,
There's no reason to believe you use logic or will listen to reason, your position is unreal.
"While others are focusing on 'Iran is not logical,' I think Iran is incredibly logical, and eliminating a local enemy while demonstrating extreme power [or even threatening to do so and demonstrating the same power] is PERFECTLY logical given the incentives they've been given."
Iran would not successfully eliminate Israel, as Israel would launch their nukes once an Iranian nuke was detected as in the air. Moreover, assuming Israel were eliminated, there is no question America would annihilate Iran with nukes. We have always had people in Washington hungry to use our nukes, and an Iranian nuclear assault on Israel or Saudi Arabia would give them the okay to feast!
"First, remind me again of what happened to our embassy in 1979."
That was not an attack on our country.
We have always had people in Washington hungry to use our nukes, and an Iranian nuclear assault on Israel or Saudi Arabia would give them the okay to feast!
Apparently America isn't as rational as any other nation.
"Moreover, assuming Israel were eliminated, there is no question America would annihilate Iran with nukes."
-- There are plenty of questions if we would. I understand you have a limited, black and white view of things, but the reality is that the West has stood by while Isis commits a variety of crimes and horrors on people. It's just a question of what scale will the West accept? There's no guarantee that -- once the bomb had hit and there was nothing to save -- that people would be willing to engage to fight over a lost cause.
"Your glib assertion of how God actually behaves...."
I have no more asserted how "God" would or does behave than I have asserted how Hobbits or elves behave. Non-existent entities do not "behave," except in our own imaginations.
That was not an attack on our country.
Wrong - every embassy is legally on American soil.
What I suspect you mean is that you weren't at risk, so it's okay. Got it.
I have no more asserted how "God" would or does behave than I have asserted how Hobbits or elves behave. Non-existent entities do not "behave," except in our own imaginations.
I'm just pointing out that not everyone lives their lives with the same set of smug assumptions with which you live yours, which is why you may want to temper your ignorant assertion of Iran's rationality. They actually believe that God exists, and they act on that basis.
Obama made a shit ton of promises --- some as recently as April about what the deal would "have to" include.
He then backed down on ALL of them.
And he wonders why people are annoyed?
Why the fuck can he NEVER be open or upfront about what he wants about anything? I can get why some didn't take his "I was born in Hawaii" statements seriously. I don't buy a word the man says until he backs it up with hard evidence on anything.
"There's no guarantee that -- once the bomb had hit and there was nothing to save -- that people would be willing to engage to fight over a lost cause."
What fight? It would consist of a barrage of nuclear weapons turning Iran into a wasteland. Also, what "lost cause?" An Iranian destruction of Israel would unleash all our desires for bloody revenge. The cause would not be "saving Israel" but "kill them all!"
That was not an attack on our country.
In what world is --- according to the joke that is "international law" --- an embassy not the sovereign soil of the country who runs the embassy, not the one who hosts it?
Is the US able to just enter any embassy it wants and do whatever it wants inside its borders? If so, we should do some deep digging in the UN...
Launching missiles is not the only scenario. If they can produce a nuke or even a lot of radioactive material, they could provide the stuff to their terrorist allies and trying to trace it back to Iran would be difficult enough to create doubts that would likely shield them from nuclear retaliation. Who wants to wipe out thousands, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iranian people who had nothing to do with it? Obama? Hillary? Jeb? Sanders? These folks are hungry to launch nukes? I don't see that.
Hey Cookie,
I think it has fairly generally been the liberal position since WWII that there was no reason to drop "the bomb" on Japan, because Japan was on the brink of surrendering anyway.
But we did drop "the bomb," didn't we?
Do you have any evidence that the Islamists, Shia or Sunni, are more "rational" than the US Government in 1945?
An Iranian destruction of Israel would unleash all our desires for bloody revenge. The cause would not be "saving Israel" but "kill them all!"
It's not often you come across someone that thinks that the Iranians would never act on emotion, but Americans would.
Cook probably deserves credit for consistency, but he's simply a "Blame America First!" caricature.
"What I suspect you mean is that you weren't at risk, so it's okay. Got it."
What I mean is that the nation of Iran did not launch a military attack on the United States, and students taking over the embassy does not rise to that status. I will also point out that, however wrongly, they acted in response to what they considered America's provocation: their despotic Shah had fled the country and been given haven here in the United States. They wanted him back to face Iranian justice, (just as would any country wish to prosecute and punish any dictators who had been forced out of power). We would not return him, and their takeover of the embassy was their response.
"It's not often you come across someone that thinks that the Iranians would never act on emotion, but Americans would."
I don't necessarily think the Iranians would not act on emotion--and when I speak of "our" hunger to "kill them all," I'm speaking mainly of the feelings of the American public, and a few crazies in Washington such as John Bolton--but they would weigh the consequences of "acting emotionally," (i.e., nuking Israel or Saudi Arabia) and conclude it was not worth it.
Again, Iran has not been an aggressor nation, so there is no suggestion in their behavior that they would suddenly decide to annihilate themselves by attempting to annihilate their neighbors.
Robert Cook said...
"First, remind me again of what happened to our embassy in 1979."
That was not an attack on our country.
An embassy IS our country on foreign soil. Otherwise it is not an embassy.
Iran is not in a position to launch a military attack on the United States, so that is hardly a good indicator of their desires or intentions.
However, they have attacked our people, our allies and our interests through their terrorist proxies many times. A lot of people have died. That is the reason for the sanctions in the first place. Did they renounce such tactics as part of "the deal"? Nope.
"Do you have any evidence that the Islamists, Shia or Sunni, are more "rational" than the US Government in 1945?"
Who says the US Government in 1945 was not rational? If one accepts they believed nuking Japan was necessary to end the war and save American lives, it was logical; if one does not accept this, it is easy to see the logic of an alternative reason to nuke Japan: to demonstrate our power to Soviet Russia, (and the world). "Rationality" does not mean a decision won't be made to kill innocent people.
What would not have been rational would have been for us to nuke Japan if we knew it would bring about a cataclysmic attack on our country.
Saudi Arabia is in negotiations with Germany to have a nuclear plant built in Saudi Arabia.
So.
Win!
I don't necessarily think the Iranians would not act on emotion--and when I speak of "our" hunger to "kill them all," I'm speaking mainly of the feelings of the American public, and a few crazies in Washington such as John Bolton--but they would weigh the consequences of "acting emotionally," (i.e., nuking Israel or Saudi Arabia) and conclude it was not worth it.
Your description of the feelings of the American public demonstrates nothing beyond the fact that you are a contemptible bigot.
Again, Iran has not been an aggressor nation, so there is no suggestion in their behavior that they would suddenly decide to annihilate themselves by attempting to annihilate their neighbors.
You're clearly also an ignorant bigot. Iran has been an aggressor nation through its persistent sponsorship of terror, and it justifies its rabid antisemitism using the same justifications that you offer for its attack on the U.S. embassy.
"An embassy IS our country on foreign soil. Otherwise it is not an embassy."
Rusty, see my previous response to this matter.
" Iran--at present, and possibly the future--has no nukes, while Israel has a stockpile of them,"
I would not be too sure. There is an entire school of thought, especially among those with experience in nuclear energy and physics, that thinks they have already a few bombs just as South Africa did before it was acknowledged. What we have given them is $150 billion and authorization to continue.
Israel acquired atomic weapons the way people arm themselves when they live in bad neighborhoods.
You are too much a fool to understand.
You are too much a fool to understand.
To understand Cook, I think you need to accept that what makes him tick is his laughable belief that he is superior to the unwashed American public, whose bloodthirstiness exists, of course, only in his fevered imagination.
Everything else that he posits, such as how the Iranians would expect America to respond to an Iranian attack on Israel, stems from that flawed premise, and is therefore not worth considering.
Cook probably deserves credit for consistency, but he's simply a "Blame America First!" caricature.
Cook is a Communist who wants to destroy the United States and what it represents.
Robert Cook wrote -
"Moreover, assuming Israel were eliminated, there is no question America would annihilate Iran with nukes."
Bullshit. If anything today the West is as likely to respond with collective relief behind a screen of verbal condemnation and symbolic action.
"We have always had people in Washington hungry to use our nukes, and an Iranian nuclear assault on Israel or Saudi Arabia would give them the okay to feast!"
As you said Robert, Iran is a rational as any other country. Applying to Iran the same assumptions you make about your own country, I'd say there's plenty to fear from Iran.
And if that's your view, then we go back to the choice that you have to make earlier. That means, presumably, that you can't negotiate. And what you're really saying is, is that you've got to apply military force to guarantee that they don't have a nuclear program.
False choice on two fronts. From our perspective we are not at war today yet we are keeping them from attaining nuclear weapons through sanctions. Why does his presentation preclude this option?
From their perspective we are already at war, a status defined by their paying people to kill our soldiers to which we should respond in kind.
Cooktards personal lord and savior, Uncle Joe Stalin, didn't like the jews very much either.
"If Iran nuked Israel who would nuke Iran in return?"
Well, Israel might. Israel has conventionally powered submarines in the Mediterannean that are almost surely equipped with nuclear missiles, and which could be expected to survive after a nuclear attack on Israel.
There might be some doubt as to whether they would do so. After all, their purpose is deterrence and, once Israel has been nuked then deterrence has already failed. Would their crews launch because they had standing orders to do so, and/or for revenge? Or would they decide that doing so would amount to little more than gratuitous mass murder as it would kill millions and could no longer do anything for Israel or Israelis?
Mutual Assured Destruction is a doctrine that contains an inherent paradox, as to be effective one's potential enemies must be convinced that the weapons will definately be used, yet, the reason for the weapons evaporates at the very moment they would be used.
They[the Iranians] are as rational as any other nation …
Holy smokes!
If they do actually hope to one day build nukes …
“IF”!!! Whew!
… it is more likely they wish to have them for deterrence, to forestall nuclear aggression against them by other nations.
O those sweet mullahs! They just want to protect themselves.
What I mean is that the nation of Iran did not launch a military attack on the United States, and students taking over the embassy does not rise to that status.
Attacking an embassy is an act of war. The “students” were under control of the mullahs, who soon dropped that rather transparent pretense and took over. But we had a President then, Jimmy Carter, who was born without a cojones one. If Carter had acted like a leader we might not have the problem we have today.
BTW, as soon as Reagan was elected and sworn in the hostages were released.
I will also point out that, however wrongly, they acted in response to what they considered America's provocation: their despotic Shah had fled the country and been given haven here in the United States.
That “despotic Shah” was an American ally in the process of modernizing and secularizing Iran.
"As you said Robert, Iran is a rational as any other country. Applying to Iran the same assumptions you make about your own country, I'd say there's plenty to fear from Iran."
America and Iran are not in the least comparable in size, military budget, or weapons stockpiles. "Rationality" assumes one acts with an idea of one's potential to succeed or fail in one's endeavor.
"That 'despotic Shah' was an American ally in the process of modernizing and secularizing Iran."
This makes him no less a despot and no less hated by his subjects. (America has never hesitated to ally itself
with or to support despicable despots.)
Robert Cook said...
"An embassy IS our country on foreign soil. Otherwise it is not an embassy."
Rusty, see my previous response to this matter.
I refer you back to my statement.
The destruction of Israel is an ancillary benefit to a Mideast
hegemony. It would be the height of hubris to assume that Iran is a rational actor from the wests point of view. From their point of view-the realization of a middle eastern caliphate answerable to Tehran- the destruction of Israel is necessary. The mistake is not taking them at their word. IOW Iran is not N.Korea.
Cookie, what makes you think Israel will detect a nuclear strike? In other words, what makes you think that, if Iran chooses to nuke Israel, they will do it via an airstrike or a missile attack? Would not a flatbed truck or a Toyota Hilux work just fine?
Hell, Iran could give the bomb and it's triggering mechanism to HAMAS, Hezbollocks, or any of the other dozen or so organizations in that area, and let them decide where to use it. Or, Iran puts an SRBM on a cargo ship, sails into the Eastern Med around the horn of Africa, and shoots at Israel from there on a depressed-trajectory shot. We know Iran has SRBMs and MRBMs - they also have diesel subs capable of firing cruise missiles. With information available in modern times, it would not be hard for them to miniaturize a single, over-engineered fission warhead and stick it in the payload section of a missile like that. Tel Aviv would have 2 to 6 minutes warning, if that, and after the decapitation happens, either more close-range strikes happen or Iran launches IRBMs from it's own territory at the Israeli airbases. For relatively low-yield fission bombs (10-70 kiltons), Israel is certainly not a "one bomb" job - there are plenty of ways to spread a strike around, destroying Israeli defenses and military centers, without harming Jerusalem much. Heck, their first strike might be two weapons at once - one to actually flatten Tel Aviv and a second detonating at 60,000 feet to disable Israeli military electronics. Sure, those electronics are "mostly" hardened against EMP effects, but how much trust can you really place in that protection? Enough to feel confident in riding out a strike?
Cookie, you know nothing about nuclear policy. You know nothing about nuclear strategy. And you know nothing about war. I'd love to do what Obama is afraid to do and debate you in front of a neutral audience. I'd wipe the floor with you, wring you out to dry, and then do it again.
Cook's bigotry eliminates his ability to think clearly, but it's worth pointing out that Iran can very rationally count on Cook and his equally infantile fellow travelers to object to any response to an Itanian attack, be it on Israel, the U.S., or anywhere else.
Robert, your stated assumptions were that some number of Americans in Washington were hungry to use nuclear weapons and that doing so would constitute a feast. Yet you cannot conceive of a nuclear Iran using its own weapons once they have them in sufficient numbers. Your idea of what is rational is your idea of what is rational, not necessarily that of Iran's decision makers. Relative capabilities are relevant only to the actor's willingness to exploit the differences and the actor's skill in doing so. It's not a physical equation Robert, and "rationality" is a complex intersection between the outside world and what's between the ears, with the emphasis on the latter.
Your reply to me simply dodged confronting the assumptions application I posed to you.
Gabriel said...
He seems to have no other rhetorical device than fallacy of excluded middle.
7/15/15, 11:06 PM
I believe the straw man is go-to rhetorical trick. There's a standing army of 50,000 or so of his Poaceae-American allies always ready!
But good people can have differing opinions on this matter seeing as how their is so much verbiage to choose from. Has there ever been a president who spent so much time talking and said so little of substance?
PERFECT:
Saint Croix said...
I wonder who will be serving as ambassador to Iran in our new embassy? John Kerry, perhaps.
Hey, don't worry, John. We'll put Hillary in charge of security.
No worries at all, buddy!
7/16/15, 1:13 AM
America has never hesitated to ally itself with or to support despicable despots
What the commentor does not realize is that in that region at that time if you had any ally in the middle-east you necessarily had to go with a dictator, there being no government back then other than Israel that was not gained and ruled by force of arms.
Was the USA supposed to have no allies in that very important region at all?
It would be nice if that sometimes the hate-America crowd would read history instead of spouting secondhand, watered down Marxist-derived insults.
Robert Cook said...
What I mean is that the nation of Iran did not launch a military attack on the United States, and students taking over the embassy does not rise to that status.
Those "students" not only included government agents but were led by them. You should ask yourself why you challenge everything about America, even to idiotic levels, but accept every bit of propaganda produced by any country as long as it is critical of America.
"What the commentor does not realize is that in that region at that time if you had any ally in the middle-east you necessarily had to go with a dictator, there being no government back then other than Israel that was not gained and ruled by force of arms."
And...so we allied ourselves with the Shah. Another commenter seemed it important to mention he was an ally of ours, as if that refuted the reality I stated in my previous remark that the Shah was a despot hated by his subjects.
"Was the USA supposed to have no allies in that very important region at all?"
Well, I don't know. One could argue that we should hold ourselves to our own purported high standards and deal with tyrants not at all or only to the degree we must, to maintain peace, rather than entering into wholesale alliances with them. One could also argue that there are legitimate reasons for us to enter into robust alliances with tyrants and despots. However, if there are such reasons, we have no right to condemn the despots and tyrants with whom we are not in alliance--but who otherwise are no different than the tyrants we are allied with. In such cases, we are merely trash-talking for rhetorical effect, despite it making us hypocrites.
… One could argue that we should hold ourselves to our own purported high standards and deal with tyrants not at all or only to the degree we must, to maintain peace, rather than entering into wholesale alliances with them. One could also argue that there are legitimate reasons for us to enter into robust alliances with tyrants and despots. However, if there are such reasons, we have no right to condemn the despots and tyrants with whom we are not in alliance--but who otherwise are no different than the tyrants we are allied with. In such cases, we are merely trash-talking for rhetorical effect, despite it making us hypocrites.
The question remains unanswered - was the USA not to have ANY allies in the Middle-East?
And the commentator has the goal of foreign affairs all wrong. The USA enters into alliances for the purpose of furthering American interests abroad, not to obsess over hair-splitting non-existent degrees of robustness or “wholesale alliances” as opposed to what - ‘partial alliances?’ I believe the recipients of a ‘partial alliance’ would look upon it as no alliance at all.
If an important region is almost exclusively populated by despots no nation really has any choice but to pick the one most likely to further its interests. The yardstick should only be whether the alliance benefits America. Period.
And...so we allied ourselves with the Shah. Another commenter seemed it important to mention he was an ally of ours, as if that refuted the reality I stated in my previous remark that the Shah was a despot hated by his subjects.
The “reality” was that the Middle-East was populated almost exclusively by despots who all ruled by force of arms because they ALL came to power and perpetuated their regimes through violence against their subjects.
Cook, so since we aligned ourselves with the horrible Soviet Union, we had no right to criticize Nazi Germany? Interesting.
Also, despot is just another word for Middle Eastern ruler. As they go, the Shah was not such a bad one; his mistake if any was trying to bring Iran into the 20th century. Education, liberalization, women's rights. It's not surprising that a Mohammedan culture would have resented it. Certainly his replacements are not purveyors of sunshine and daisies.
And I think it's a very excellent question above and nobody should speak to you about anything else until you answer it. Why will you always believe and say the worst about America, and the best of those opposed to it?
Cook does not improve with the age of his droppings. So i will go back to my other life, non-online.
Maybe its all just a ruse. Obama and Kerry realized here was no way they could get anywhere near a real deal so hey agreed to the worst deal so when it gets rejected by the Senate Obama can blame Republicans for his failure.
Why will you always believe and say the worst about America, and the best of those opposed to it?
Cook is a Communist, and wants to destroy America and everything it stands for.
"...despot is just another word for Middle Eastern ruler. As they go, the Shah was not such a bad one; his mistake if any was trying to bring Iran into the 20th century. Education, liberalization, women's rights. It's not surprising that a Mohammedan culture would have resented it. Certainly his replacements are not purveyors of sunshine and daisies."
I'm sure the Iranians found it difficult to be so glib about their despot being "not such a bad one," given the danger (and reality) that members of SAVAK would arrest anyone expressing views displeasing to the regime, and would apply brutal torture to their captives.
Saddam Hussein also modernized Iraq, and yet he was a cruel dictator who was feared and disliked by his people. Modernization qua modernization is not necessarily seen as a good thing or received favorably by people who see their traditions being erased. Rapid and forced modernization can cause great ruptures in the society. Stalin modernized Russia, brutally so. Does his modernizing of Russia or does Saddam's modernizing of Iraq mitigate their cruelty and brutality?
"Why will you always believe and say the worst about America, and the best of those opposed to it?"
I don't believe the worst about America and the best about those who opposed to it. You're reading my remarks through your own biases.
I deplore America's lawlessness in the world, our betrayal of our own purported principles, our lies and hypocrisy. Of course, any nation will betray their own purported principles, will lie and behave lawlessly--to the degree they can do so, (determined in part by the degree of power they hold)--but I'm an American. I live here and I feel compelled to criticize our own behavior when it has gone wrong. What point is there in my criticizing another country? One's responsibility is to criticize one's own country.
We are not uniquely bad, but neither are we uniquely good. We are as any other country, but we are an empire, and we are behaving as any powerful empire behaves in the world: with an eye toward conquest and acquisition of resources and assertion of dominance. Other empires have behaved thus before us, and, presumably, other empires will behave exactly the same in future.
As to my "believing the best" about countries "opposed" to America, what examples can you provide?
Now that the agreement is out it seems like we gave away the farm. In return for god only knows what, Iran can continue their conventional weapons procurement. Which means that they will now have state of the art Russian and Chinese missile systems. The signatories of this agreement must give 24DAYS notice of any nuke site inspection which the Iranians can decline at a whim. Oh and Iran gets all their frozen foreign assets back. Tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars to buy all that new military hardware.
I'm just a blue collar worker, but can someone explain to me how this is a win for America? What, exactly, did we get in return?
any nation will betray their own purported principles,
But you don't believe in those principals.
but neither are we uniquely good.
Yes we are.
We are the most charitable nation in History. We donate billions in public and private funds to people all over the world, every year. The norm is extorting tribute from other nations.
When we win wars, we do not plunder the defeated, instead we give them wealth and restore their economy.
We had the chance to create a global empire, instead we fought wars to free people.
We created a system of international capitalism and free trade which has produced the highest standard of living, for the greatest number of people, in History.
We are uniquely good.
'm sure the Iranians found it difficult to be so glib about their despot being "not such a bad one," given the danger (and reality) that members of SAVAK would arrest anyone expressing views displeasing to the regime, and would apply brutal torture to their captives.
Something the current regime would never do.
"Something the current regime would never do."
Well, it's up to the Iranians to overthrow their current regime if they find it more odious than they can bear. It's certainly not a regime I would want to live underr. But...what is the point of your comparison?
"But you don't believe in those principals."
Yes, I do, Rusty. That's why I criticize America...because we shit on our purported principles as a matter of routine and policy.
I'm sure the Iranians found it difficult to be so glib about their despot being "not such a bad one," given the danger (and reality) that members of SAVAK would arrest anyone expressing views displeasing to the regime, and would apply brutal torture to their captives.
Here we go again. At the time of the Shah’s reign every nation in the Middle-East, with the exception of Israel, had their version of SAVAK, yet the commentor insists on singling out the Shah of Iran for this distinction. I suppose it’s because he seems to be desperately searching for excuses to denounce America. Readers, the Middle-East nations of that time, with the exception of Israel, were ruled entirely by despots who had gained power by force of arms and kept their power by force of arms.
I deplore America's lawlessness in the world, our betrayal of our own purported principles, our lies and hypocrisy.
Readers, history shows that the USA is the most benign great power that has ever existed – much more benign than the longest-running empire the world has ever seen, the Islamic empire. Which, btw, seems to be starting up again after its hiatus starting just before WW2.
Yes we are.
We are the most charitable nation in History. We donate billions in public and private funds to people all over the world, every year. The norm is extorting tribute from other nations.
The difference, Gahrie, is that you base your opinion on how Americans actually act. Cook's ego-driven impression only reveals his bigoted and ignorant expectation of how Americans would respond to a hypothetical provocation.
Actual facts confuse his contorted Marxist worldview, so he just ignores them.
That's why I criticize America...because we shit on our purported principles as a matter of routine and policy.
Always the blanket condemnations, usually without sources cited, linked to or examples given. What “principles,” what “matter of routine,” what “policy” exactly is the commentor talking about? The alliance with the Shah? We’ve already shot down that bit of ignorance.
I deplore America's lawlessness in the world, our betrayal of our own purported principles, our lies and hypocrisy.
Absolute bullshit. You criticized Americans for the bloodthirstiness you expect if and when the Iranians attack Israel.
Robert Cook said...
"But you don't believe in those principals."
Yes, I do, Rusty. That's why I criticize America...because we shit on our purported principles as a matter of routine and policy.
No you don't. Otherwise you would applaud our efforts to afford those principals to others. Something which you have never done.
We don't make efforts to afford those principles to others. You're deeply confused. Why would we do that when we don't honor them here?
We don't make efforts to afford those principles to others. You're deeply confused. Why would we do that when we don't honor them here?
Well, at least that makes thing clear for anyone that thought that Cook was capable of anything beyond brain-dead sloganeering.
(I'm ashamed to admit that I thought so, myself.)
Workers of the world, unite!
We don't make efforts to afford those principles to others. You're deeply confused. Why would we do that when we don't honor them here?
Still no examples. Readers, why must the hate-America crowd be so vague? It’s as if they had no substance to their anti-American propaganda. Surely there is some recent example of an American leader not honoring “principles,” other than Obama I mean. We all know that Obama has a rather strange set of “principles.”
I’ll try again: What are those “principles” that American leaders have not honored here in the USA and subsequently not afforded to “others?” It’s a pretty simple question.
"The difference, Gahrie, is that you base your opinion on how Americans actually act."
Hahahaha!
"What 'principles,' what 'matter of routine,' what 'policy' exactly is the commentor talking about? The alliance with the Shah? We’ve already shot down that bit of ignorance."
What does this even mean, "the alliance with Shah"? Certainly, nothing I said about the Shah has been shot down by anyone here.
What does this even mean, "the alliance with Shah"? Certainly, nothing I said about the Shah has been shot down by anyone here.
I’m thinking that most readers understand what it means but I am glad to explain:
The commentor criticized America’s alliance with the Shah because he was a “despot.”
I replied that ALL the Middle-East nations of that time, with the exception of Israel, was ruled by despots who rose to power by force of arms and kept their power through force of arms. I then asked the commentor a question:
Was the USA supposed to have no allies in that very important region at all?
We got the response below, which doesn’t answer the question:
… One could argue that we should hold ourselves to our own purported high standards and deal with tyrants not at all or only to the degree we must, to maintain peace, rather than entering into wholesale alliances with them. One could also argue that there are legitimate reasons for us to enter into robust alliances with tyrants and despots. However, if there are such reasons, we have no right to condemn the despots and tyrants with whom we are not in alliance--but who otherwise are no different than the tyrants we are allied with. In such cases, we are merely trash-talking for rhetorical effect, despite it making us hypocrites.
The commentor then railed against the fact that Iran at that time had SAVAK.
I'm sure the Iranians found it difficult to be so glib about their despot being "not such a bad one," given the danger (and reality) that members of SAVAK would arrest anyone expressing views displeasing to the regime, and would apply brutal torture to their captives.
My reply:
At the time of the Shah’s reign every nation in the Middle-East, with the exception of Israel, had their version of SAVAK, yet the commentor insists on singling out the Shah of Iran for this distinction.
From the commentor:
That's why I criticize America...because we shit on our purported principles as a matter of routine and policy.
I then criticized his vagueness:
Always the blanket condemnations, usually without sources cited, linked to or examples given. What “principles,” what “matter of routine,” what “policy” exactly is the commentor talking about? The alliance with the Shah? We’ve already shot down that bit of ignorance.
Which brings us to this:
We don't make efforts to afford those principles to others. You're deeply confused. Why would we do that when we don't honor them here?
My reply:
Still no examples. Readers, why must the hate-America crowd be so vague? It’s as if they had no substance to their anti-American propaganda. Surely there is some recent example of an American leader not honoring “principles,” other than Obama I mean. We all know that Obama has a rather strange set of “principles.”
I’ll try again: What are those “principles” that American leaders have not honored here in the USA and subsequently not afforded to “others?” It’s a pretty simple question.
Next the commentor pretends to not understand what I mean.
What does this even mean, "the alliance with Shah"? Certainly, nothing I said about the Shah has been shot down by anyone here.
I guess that’s easier than answering questions.
Post a Comment