२७ एप्रिल, २०१६
Here's the video of Trump's foreign policy speech, the one that Cruz stepped on with his Fiorina's-my-VP announcement.
Classes just ended for the semester, and it's raining here in Wisconsin, where I'm nursing a bruised (broken?) rib after my feel-the-berm experience last Sunday, so I'm just going to settle in and watch Trump read the teleprompter. I watched a few minutes of it live. Got distracted by the hand gestures. It was like he was signing "L" and "O" repeatedly — LOL.
Here's the full transcript of the speech.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
११४ टिप्पण्या:
Trump's hands are so distracting, I forgot what he was talking about. LOL!
His hand gestures always distract me. They seem so effeminate for such a supposed alpha male.
Just like the best artists are very funny and very serious and — think of Prince — both heavy and light, it's a good thing for a man to combine strong masculinity with a feminine element. It's not the only way for a man to be good, but I strongly approve and consider it a high level of performance.
How do you render Donald Trump mute? You cut off his hands.
A variation on an old joke about Italians.
Are we sure the Cruz picking a pretend VP stepped on Trump's speech?
An outstanding policy speech. Could have been written by Reagan.
There is hope for the Republic, after all.
And if only Fiorina had been VP at H-P (instead of CEO), they would be in better shape today too. This stuff writes itself. Ted and Carley. Two acerbic and humorless people without a turn-on-the-charm counterbalance.
Fiorina's a sub-optimal pick. She's smart and talks a good game, but she's got no pull, in California or anywhere else. She's another Palin-style pick.
I wonder if he tried for Nikki Haley?
Cruz stepped on this speech with a pretend VP selection that can only be described as desperate and is being widely viewed as such. It is being viewed even more negatively than his desperate plan to team up with Kasich.
I think Cruz is doing real damage to any chances at party unity. This makes me sad.
That will quickly turn to anger. You lost the primary. Now grow up and try to defeat hillary. If you people continue with this path the relatively small number of you will deserve all blame and condemnation you receive.
Ann Althouse said...
Just like the best artists are very funny and very serious and — think of Prince — both heavy and light, it's a good thing for a man to combine strong masculinity with a feminine element
You think Fiorina brings a "feminine " element? Ha. Good one. She's female, all right, but not feminine. Kind of school marm-ish, spinster-y. You don't see that?
Dan Drezner does a great job of dissecting Trump's foreign and economic policies. From his latest article at WP:
"Trump doesn’t really have any useful ideas or strategies to offer for how to improve American foreign policy. What he does have, however, is a really stinging indictment of the existing foreign policy establishment. This certainly resonates with a lot of Americans, even people who wouldn’t otherwise symathize with Trump.
The challenge for Hillary Clinton will be to point out that whatever qualms one has about the foreign policy status quo, Trump’s alternative would be worse.
"
Perhaps Hillary will reveal his geopolitical ignorance like Hitch did with Heston:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scmhi2Ub_g0
Classic.
Think of Trump floundering when asked to list the major players in Syria in a debate with Hillary. Being ignorant about geopolitics and trade isn't an issue for the GOP base but I imagine that won't sit well with the general electorate.
"You think Fiorina brings a "feminine " element? Ha. Good one. She's female, all right, but not feminine. Kind of school marm-ish, spinster-y. You don't see that?"
No. I was talking about Donald Trump, responding to Bushman of the Kohlrabi, who said "His hand gestures always distract me. They seem so effeminate for such a supposed alpha male."
My point relates to one person, not 2.
As I noted before Quaestor once felt the berm. That was back in my hunting days. We had to ride around the plowed fields, which only makes sense both as a matter of safety and simple courtesy. My hunter that morning was a big heavy type known as Milwaukee because he looked like he should have been hauling beer rather than galloping after hounds. The field we we riding around had been subsoiled — kind of deep plowing — that pushed up a huge 3 foot high berm of red dirt and slippy clay on one side of the track. Milzer evidently put a right hoof on the face of the berm and began to lose footing, but being an entirely reasonable and good-hearted horse he left himself fall gently to the right side instead of scrambling in a blind panic as some will do. He fell so gently that I was able to literally step off to the left, hardly getting my boots muddy in the process. Milwaukee stood up, shook himself from nose to tail like a doused Labrador, and waited for me to remount. One foot in the stirrup and he began to canter away. My berm experience could have been as bad as yours, but as it was it made me busting-breeches proud of old Milwaukee.
As for Cruz's announcement I think it does little for him, and I agree completely with your point about the tactical consequences. Actually his announcement is a grave strategic error. Cruz has no chance to garner (Read the dreaded g-word, me proud beauty! insert moustache twirl here) a first ballot nomination, which means a brokered convention is his best hope. Brokered conventions often call for deals with High Muckily-Mucks and Grand Poobahs who often have their own ideas about running mates, which is why even shoo-ins typically wait until the closing night of the convention to announce their picks. Recall the case of JFK in 1960. The DNC insisted he take on Lyndon Johnson, a man Kennedy personally despised, as his running mate, which he did dutifully but without the enthusiasm a team built on mutual good would engender. By choosing now Cruz has put himself in the position of possibly having to ditch Carley to cement a coalition.
The speech was good enough policy wise. Trump is clearly not a natural politician and his speech mannerisms and pacing are distracting to me. I think there are regional speech norms that might sound natural in new York but sound off to others. Yuge came out clearly several times.
Other than that it was a million times more presidential than Cruz making a desperation fake VP pick. Cruz is hurting his future as a politician now.
The funny thing about the Trump hands controversy is that Cruz has especially feminine hands, and it's never been mentioned. A friend pointed out Cruz's woman-hands to me the other night while watching the news, and now I can't watch him without focusing on them.
Dan Drezner is a dumb neo-con who never says anything that isn't the conventional wisdom.
Given Drezner's track record of being wrong over the past 16 years, I'd say Trump is doing well if DD criticizes him.
As for Mountain Biking, I never saw the point. Just walk. And if you need more exercise walk up hill. And if you don't have a Hill, jog.
Read Trump's speech. The idiot is going to try to reset relations with Russia.
Ann,
NO: I was talking about Donald Trump, responding to Bushman of the Kohlrabi, who said "His hand gestures always distract me. They seem so effeminate for such a supposed alpha male."
YES: I was talking about Donald Trump, responding to Bushman of the Kohlrabi, who said, "His hand gestures always distract me. They seem so effeminate for such a supposed alpha male."
After the verb said, use a comma to introduce a quote. You could also have used a colon.
Comma basics.
Speaking about hand gestures, how about a massive step in virtual reality applied to a real problem.
Those kids are UNDERGRADUATES !
Determined to better connect native ASL speakers with the rest of the world, while capturing the “very difficult” intricacies of sign language, Azodi and Pryor designed SignAloud in the UW CoMotion MakerSpace, a community campus space with tools and equipment available to anyone who wished to tinker or invent. Pryor and Azodi made the award-winning device for less than $100, and plan to use their prize money to improve the prototype. “Now that we have a few extra 0’s,” said Azodi, “we really want to invest back in the gloves and make them more ergonomic and practical to use.”
"I wonder if he tried for Nikki Haley?" She would have been a better choice but probably too savvy to get into such a spot.
Trump's VP is going to be very interesting.
I couldn't get 5 minutes into it and just thought, Trump on a TelePrompTer. I am note sure which version of Trump is worse, but you know the new handlers are trying to get him to stick with the script so he doesn't say his usual nonsense.
Nyamujal: Dan Drezner does a great job of dissecting Trump's foreign and economic policies.
Drezner on foreign policy: "OMG! Acting as if Americans had a right to control who can and cannot come here, and temporarily restricting entry of Muslims into this country? Madness! OMG! Setting our own visa policies as we see fit and in our own interests will make every Muslim on earth a jihadi sympathizer and ISIS recruit and provoke an apocalyptic Clash of Civilizations! All the wise experts in our foreign policy establishment, universities, and think tanks agree! [You know, those guys whose brilliant MENA policies of the last 15 years have only killed thousands of innocent Muslims and totally not antagonized anybody or enabled terrorist recruitment or destablilized nothin' or had anything to do with the migration problems/anti-Muslim reaction now roiling Europe. (Must have been something Trump said that's causing that, too.) And brilliant Russia policies, let's not forget that, either. How can we revive the good old days of the Cold War without their expertise?]"
Yeah, great job there.
Think of Trump floundering when asked to list the major players in Syria in a debate with Hillary.
I can see that. I can also think of Hillary melting down when skewered about her excellent adventures in foreign policy.
Good hands and wrists. I bet Trump is a pretty good golfer
I can see that. I can also think of Hillary melting down when skewered about her excellent adventures in foreign policy.
Right....so it is possible for them both to lose the debate. Unfortunately it's looking like it won't be possible for them both to lose the election though.
Oh brother. More military spending? Bowing to foreign leaders? Israel is our friend? This is AM radio talk show fluff, but I understand why party politics demand a presumptive nominee to make these facile, cliche statements. Ironic given how much Trump has played up his dealmaking prowess as an answer to his foreign policy credentials that he doesn't recognize what a good deal the Iran nuclear one was. The P5+1 gained significant concessions from Iran, and the US gave up practically nothing in return, save the lifting of sanctions, which may provide a one-time cash infusion into Iran but nothing remotely enough to make any difference to the regional balance of power. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States vastly outspent Iran and have much better trained and technologically sophisticated militaries. Iran has no real significant ability to project military force outside of its borders. It's reliance on Hamas and Hezbollah is a signal of their weakness, and even these groups are only really significant to Israel. The two biggest gains to Iranian strategic position was the destruction of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.
I like Trump's Putinesque nationalist chauvinism, but he's just too incoherent on foreign policy. Oh, what is a non-interventionist ethno-nationalist like myself to do come November?
"I think Cruz is doing real damage to any chances at party unity."
Ah..he's the one...
It's the return of that corny, hand puppet voice he had when delivering his Ethanol subsidy pander.
There's nothing wrong with Carly Fiorina. If she was on the top of the ticket I'd cast my ballot early and often for her. Being a woman is irrelevant. If being male is not a legit argument in favor Trump or Cruz or Sanders, then being female is not a sound argument either (not that that will cut any ice with the SJW/Feminist bloc).
The only big negative Carly has is tactical. Under her tutelage HP's numbers were underwhelming to say the least. If she had presided over an epic comeback, well...
Anglelyne, you clearly didn't read Drezner's latest article at the Washington Post, because your paraphrase- intended as it was to be a caricature- didn't even satirize the points that Drezner actually made.
And even within that caricature of a straw-man argument, you managed to miss the mark by blaming the "wise experts in our foreign policy establishment, universities, and think tanks" whose "brilliant MENA policies of the last 15 years" have created so much chaos and destruction... As if "they" were actually endorsing the various policies of the last decade and a half... Yeah...
Got distracted by the hand gestures. It was like he was signing "L" and "O" repeatedly — LOL.
I usually just read transcripts, but I watched this - and couldn't unsee that "LOL", lol.
"All the wise experts in our foreign policy establishment, universities, and think tanks agree! [You know, those guys whose brilliant MENA policies of the last 15 years have only killed thousands of innocent Muslims and totally not antagonized anybody or enabled terrorist recruitment..."
Are you claiming that Obama's and Bush's foreign policy doctrines are the same?
If anything Obama has spent a good part of his presidency mitigating the damage inflicted on the mid-east by his predecessors. BTW, "all the wise experts" don't agree on a lot of things. They do agree that Trump doesn't know anything about trade or FP, and you don't have to be an expert to reach that conclusion.
"Dan Drezner is a dumb neo-con who never says anything that isn't the conventional wisdom.
"
Of course. Being dumb gets you a PhD and a professorship at great IR program. I usually disagree with him on a lot of things, but I'm not proud enough to dismiss him that flippantly.
But what do I know, I guess I should just blindly trust Trump to solve all our problems because he says he can. Paying attention to pesky details is something that losers do.
@Anglelyne
Yeah, the Obama-Hillary approach of ignoring everything Putin said and did for years on the theory that it was US policy that was causing a return to the Cold War worked so well last time, it's sure to work when Trump tries it!
Putin's foreign policy is, at its core, driven by the fact that Putin's political brand is "Make Russia Great Again". Which includes demonstrating to low-information Russian idiots that Russia is a very important player on the world stage whose voice cannot be ignored.
So, how do you demonstrate that to low-information Russian idiots? You make sure there's a steady stream of international stories where Russia successfully "stands up" to the world's sole superpower. Which means the Putin government has to pick fights with the US. Do anything you like to accommodate Russian interests, next week Putin will pick a fight over something else, because he has to show his domestic audience that Russia can cause the US trouble.
And Dummy Twerp is announcing, in advance, that he's going to waste time and US prestige trying to make a deal with him. What a loser.
Mincing.
That's the word. "Mincing."
In our hidebound, caste-ridden society, one couldn't say that if he were homosexual, I suppose, but he is extravagantly heterosexual, so I think it's allowed. His body language is mincing. His gestures are dainty. He is like a cartoon character.
Honestly, I find it rather charming, if distracting.
Rest Ice Compression Elevation
RICE.
Broken ribs, I hear, are the worst....
2 Aleve in the AM 1 Aleve 12 hours later.
I only play a doctor...
Feel better soon!
Get well soon, Althouse.
RE: J. Farmer:
the US gave up practically nothing in return, save the lifting of sanctions,
Sanctions are basically the only leverage we have in negotiations with hostile powers, short of actually sending out gunboats to enforce an embargo. It's not "practically nothing" -- it's everything! The better argument here, if you want to defend that silly deal, is that the vast majority of oppressive US sanctions against Iran actually remain in place.
It's sort of like the Agreed Framework with North Korea in the 1990's: they'll pretend to do something, and we'll pretend to do something in return, but actually we'll both do a lot less than we promised/nothing and someone else will deal with it 10 years later.
LOL, Birches.
"An outstanding policy speech. Could have been written by Reagan."
Uh I think Ronald Reagan believed in free trade.
And I seem to recall a certain phrase... "Evil Empire"
(Ronald Reagan has become whatever the hell I want him to be!)
I heard Trump's speech on the radio.
I could "hear" the teleprompter.
Trump and foreign policy--or any policy.
I don't listen to the Orange One. Can't take it. Was it:
"You're ugly. You're stupid. You're not gonna believe how great i am. i'll bore you with my greatness! I will bore Putin to death, I just gotta say."
Something like that? if not, he read it off somebody else's words.
"i used to care... but things have changed."
- R. Zimmerman
Although, i do like it when the good professor LOLs. It's really cute.
And that's enough for me.
Until whatever comes tomorrow. I'm starting to look forward to that. I'm sharpening my teeth as we speak.
walter said...
"I think Cruz is doing real damage to any chances at party unity."
"Ah..he's the one..."
There are a lot of jackasses out there projecting their fever dreams of what trump "really thinks" calling themselves nevertrumpers too.
Next time one of you idiots posts that he wants single payer punch yourself in the face please.
"Could have been written by Reagan." Umm, no. Very globalist guy, you know.Thought America could and should make world a better place. Liberty and all that. In favor of free trade. Helped China gain a foothold here. Wanted to "impose democracy" on countries that had rarely or never had it -- Poland, Hungary, you name it. Wanted to deal with Iran (remember Iran-Contra?). Signed off on big amnesty -- was pretty enthusiastic about brown people coming to City on Hill. (Not saying I approve!)
BN said...
"Trump and foreign policy--or any policy.
I don't listen to the Orange One. Can't take it. Was it:
"You're ugly. You're stupid. You're not gonna believe how great i am. i'll bore you with my greatness! I will bore Putin to death, I just gotta say."
Something like that? if not, he read it off somebody else's words."
This is it. The epitome of the nevertrumper. No matter what trump says or does he knows the truth! He knows what festers in the depths of Trump's fetid LIBERAL mind! He doesn't need to watch trump say stuff he knows isn't true.
Pure. Idiotic. Projection.
Grow up please.
"Just like the best artists are very funny and very serious and — think of Prince — both heavy and light, it's a good thing for a man to combine strong masculinity with a feminine element. It's not the only way for a man to be good, but I strongly approve and consider it a high level of performance." A little late in the thread, apologies, but to quote a certain law prof: LOL. I guess "alpha male" doesn't quite mean the same thing for the two genders/sexes/whatevers. My namesake, the "best artist" of all time, managed to repress his fun side pretty well, though he is supposed to have enjoyed his beer, but I guess the fun/serious criterion was not meant to be a statement that could be refuted by reality.
"Grow up please."
You won't believe how grow'd up I am. I will be so grow'd up--and presidential!--did i mention how presidential i'll be? I'll be so presidential you won't believe your ears! Achilles the Weak Heelies! Achilles with the Weak Heelies! Achilles Weak Heelies!"
Buy my brand! I am Trump. I BUILD TOWERS! I AM TRUMP!
Achilles the sad weak Heelies!
You won't believe how great it will be with me in charge. We will make America Grown Up Again!
@Balfegor:
Sanctions are basically the only leverage we have in negotiations with hostile powers, short of actually sending out gunboats to enforce an embargo. It's not "practically nothing" -- it's everything! The better argument here, if you want to defend that silly deal, is that the vast majority of oppressive US sanctions against Iran actually remain in place.
As you already pointed out, the sanctions were not limited to US but were point in place by an agreement between six nations. And the entire point of the sanctions was to bring Iran to the table, which is exactly what they succeeded in doing. Iran needed concessions to to sell the deal to its public and the various factional forces between the vying power centers in Iran. Predictably, hardliners in Iran have attacked the deal as capitulation to the west. Iran has agreed to concessions above and beyond what is already permitted to do under the NPT. Its entire fuel cycle will be under 24-hour surveillance. Here and here are the Arms Control Association's two-part FAQ on the deal. Here Efraim Halevy, former director of Mossad and head of Israel's National Security Council, arguing for the deal. Here is an article in the Times of Israel detailing Ami Ayalon, former Shin Bet leader's approval of the deal.
I agree SomeoneHasToSayIt, it sounds almost like Reagan.
I hope he is not a Democrat in Republican cloths.
My prediction is this. Trump WILL win the Presidency. The Republicans WILL hold both houses (and gain a few to boot.)
Will Trump be a Reagan? I dunno. Will he build a wall? Yes. Will he keep all his promises? Maybe.
But we do live in interesting times!
Achilles getting Trumpy..
"But we do live in Interesting times."
You do know that's a curse, right?
BN said...
"Grow up please."
"You won't believe how grow'd up I am. I will be so grow'd up--and presidential!--did i mention how presidential i'll be? I'll be so presidential you won't believe your ears! Achilles the Weak Heelies! Achilles with the Weak Heelies! Achilles Weak Heelies!"
Buy my brand! I am Trump. I BUILD TOWERS! I AM TRUMP!
Achilles the sad weak Heelies!
You won't believe how great it will be with me in charge. We will make America Grown Up Again!"
Hopefully in a few days you will look back on this time and regret acting like a child throwing a tantrum. Or at least by November.
Bobby: Anglelyne, you clearly didn't read Drezner's latest article at the Washington Post, because your paraphrase- intended as it was to be a caricature- didn't even satirize the points that Drezner actually made.
You're right, I googled the wrong article. (No link was given. Not impressed by the one I did read.) OK, so I found the most recent one, read it, and found it flippant. I'm not up with Drezner's serious, professional oeuvre, and this a blog post that we're commenting on here, but I would expect even that to give some solid points about why he's so thinks Trump would be "would be worse". It didn't. What it really is is just an assertion that contemporary economic neoliberalism/globalism has the correct understanding of things, and is the way to go, and that the economic nationalism and "civilizational" perspective is disproved/ignorant/the wrong way to go. Which is a legitimate assertion from which to start a good argument, but nothing more.
It's also an important argument. The "globalist" (and I don't use that term to grind any ideological axe here) consensus/CW is starting to fray badly (and not just in the U.S.), and it's not fraying because dumb populists just don't understand comparative advantage.
(Quick comment on what he did say: I thought the "hegemonic stability theory" analysis obtuse/uninteresting, and his list of "foreign policy contradictions" aren't contradictions. Also, he's trying to squeeze something out of "Air Force One" lines that ain't there.)
As if "they" were actually endorsing the various policies of the last decade and a half... Yeah...
Nice to know our foreign policy establishment has nothing to do with our foreign policy. (Actually, I know career FP people who would agree with that statement...)
Yes, "they" (some of them) have been critical of the policies that "have created so much chaos and destruction". But that's just the thing - we have decades of "chaos and destruction", to the point where "looming catastrophe" is no longer sounding hyperbolic, and "experts" are terrified of Trump? It's not about Trump.
You won't believe how I will look back on this time!
I will look back with broken eyes and a dissipated soul.
Our country--our wonderful, great and magnificent country--has come to this: out of 320 million people our choices are Hillary and Trump.
You tell me how it feels.
Me... I despair. I weep. I pray for my children and my sweet, innocent, and beautiful grandchildren.
And I ask God for forgiveness.
less than you would think,
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/18301
as for nato, well we saw how secure their seat of authority was last month didn't we,
another point, we didn't have long standing expeditionary forces encamped in combat scenarios, we had small teams of advisors aiding proxies, in central america, in southern africa, and the subcontinent, the problem is there are few durable proxies,
"Hopefully you will look back..."
Hope died with "hope and change."
"Making America Great Again" will die with a whimper.
Oh, and did I mention?
Achilles with the Weak Heelies!
Ha ha! Branding rocks!
The P5+1 gained significant concessions from Iran,
And I was starting to think that farmer was not an idiot.
A reading suggestion. Why not read a few things written by a former foreign service office, now retired. He has a lot of other FSOs commenting. I know Daily Kos is more yur line but you could try not to appear stupid.
You could read this one, for example.
You could even read "Spengler on Iran and its future.
We are propping up a dying civilization that might have suicide on its mind.
" Are you claiming that Obama's and Bush's foreign policy doctrines are the same?
If anything Obama has spent a good part of his presidency mitigating the damage inflicted on the mid-east by his predecessors."
If mitigating means compounding then you're absolutely right.
BN said...
"You tell me how it feels.
Me... I despair. I weep. I pray for my children and my sweet, innocent, and beautiful grandchildren.
And I ask God for forgiveness."
Spare me. In the Army I had to make the choice between a shit sandwich and a shit sandwich with an article 15 many times and more than a dozen times where actual forgiveness would be required.
This bleak outlook is entirely your creation. Trump has the best 2nd amendment platform of any legitimate candidate ever. His health care platform is free market. His foreign policy actually puts America first. He has taken zero special interest money and has broken the Overton window on PC gotcha crap. He is giving the Republican party a chance at the Reagan coalition again.
You are the same group that thought Reagan would be a disaster then and think he is God now.
"He has taken zero special interest money and has broken the Overton window on PC gotcha crap. He is giving the Republican party a chance at the Reagan coalition again. "
I agree.
Reagan was hated by the same people who hate Trump and they have forgotten or, in the case of most of them, never knew.
It's the old problem of the whore's child at the wedding. Some of us remember.
My Chicago family was furious with me when I voted for Nixon in 1960, my first vote. I had taken an economics class. Today, it would probably not help. Faculty are no longer neutral.
"Reagan was hated by the same people who hate Trump."
Most of those people are dead.
And whores don't get married.
And Nixon was a liberal. Like Trump.
So... what is your point?
actually george will was for poppy, the year before, stockman, future betrayer was for connally, the quixotic candidate for that term,
"You are the same group that thought Reagan would be a disaster then and think he is God now."
No. I am the guy who thought Reagan saved us from the NYC blackout of the late 1970s becoming the future and who voted for him. I am the guy who thinks Cruz is Reagan's disciple and Trump is the Great Deceiver incarnate. I am the guy who thinks special interest money is free speech. I am the guy who knows that the Reagan coalition was just people who were tired of stagflation.
I'll spare you if you'll spare me.
But I don't think you will. So I'm hunkering down.
stuart spencer now working for kasich, used to badmouth reagan behind his back, he's the dinosaur now, james baker, servant of the kingdom and more recently the mullahs was undercutting reagan as chief of staff, kissinger wasn't particularly amused by reagan,
stagflation was just one of the issues back then, the mariel boatlift, the hostage crisis, the collapse of our allies in central america, richard burt, most recently with rand paul's campaign, pushed the detente line vs, richard perle who was more confrontational,
Oh, and you were in the Army?
Thank you for your virtue signaling.
@Michael K:
"And I was starting to think that farmer was not an idiot."
Ah, nice to have the pubescent you back. I linked to articles by or about individuals with pretty decent credentials, including background and management of Israeli intelligence and security services, who made arguments for the deal. They're just idiots? From the Arms Control Association's fact sheet:
"Under the terms of the JCPOA, Iran is required to provide inspectors access to undeclared facilities (military or civilian) if the IAEA requests it under the terms of Iran’s additional protocol. Under an additional protocol, the IAEA can request explanations for suspect activity and access to a potential covert site to investigate evidence of undeclared nuclear-related activities.
Critics of the JCPOA site access provisions charge that 24 days may provide Iran with enough time to cover up certain types of nuclear activities.
As IAEA safeguards veteran Thomas Shea has noted, when an IAEA request for timely site access involves a building, and especially when it involves uranium (or plutonium), 24 days will not be long enough to prevent detection.
Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz told Politico on July 22 that Energy Department specialists assess that, “It is essentially impossible, certainly with confidence, to believe that you’re going to do this kind of work with nuclear materials and be confident at having it cleaned it up.”
We are propping up a dying civilization that might have suicide on its mind."
Which dying propped up civilization are you referring to? If it's Iran, then I think your opinion is just detached from reality. The martyr state stuff is bogus mythology. If the regime has demonstrated a defining interest since '79, it's self-preservation. Normalizing relations with Iran and abandoning our policy of overt and covert support for regime change in Iran would actually put us in a better position to positively influence events on the ground. An aggressive posture will predictably provoke a defensive response. Think about it for a second. If you were in the regime and American politicians and commentators talked every day about bombing you, overthrowing your regime, using covert resources to undermine your regime, what would normal self-interested human nature suggest you to do? Perhaps try your best to counter these efforts?
well ahmadinejad was more in the stalinist vein, however if we see rouhani as an andropov figure, we saw how his instincts almost led us world war 3, after kal 007, operation ryan and the like, kennedy and tunney among others were encouraging this response,
BN: "I am the guy who knows that the Reagan coalition was just people who were tired of stagflation."
Oh, is that all it was? Just a group of people who were tired of stagflation?
Well then.
it was a much broader response,
some of the details I mentioned come from here,
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html
"If it's Iran, then I think your opinion is just detached from reality. The martyr state stuff is bogus mythology."
I assume you are an authority on Shia Islam and the scourging that male adherents subject themselves to on the anniversary of Ashura.
Ashura, as you no doubt know, is the date of the massacre of Hussein ibn Ali, who they consider the rightful heir of Muhammed.
Yes, just more "bogus mythology. "
You really sound ignorant but I expect as much from those of your age and level of education.
Why not read Persian Night, by Amir Tehari ? You might learn something.
no that would dissabuse him of the notion that 1953 was a uniquely anno horribilis, the truth is mossadegh mostly supported by the tudeh, angered the merchants and the mullahs, the same folk the shah ran afoul of a quarter century later, in part due to the fatuous land reform bill
"Oh, is that all it was? Just a group of people who were tired of stagflation?
Well then."
Well then what?
I thought it was a good speech, much better than the chiding and whining the current president subjects us to. As far as NAFTA goes, Ross Perot told America what would happen if it was enacted, but did America listen? Nooooo...
it was much more then that, evangelicals, the former sane liberals that were the neocons, working class ethnics in the midwest, ranchers and others in the sunbelt concerned with environmental overreach,
Anne - Confused.
Did YOU say this about Carly or what? I think I missed what you responded to but....you did say this.....and I know this is nothing you meant to say out of context,,,,
"You think Fiorina brings a "feminine " element? Ha. Good one. She's female, all right, but not feminine. Kind of school marm-ish, spinster-y. You don't see that?"
BTW - we all need to calm down about Trump's hands - it's the Kasich Hand Chop that we need to fear unless he is reduced to a footnote in 2016 political history soon.
If by some crazy fluke Kasich ends up beyond the GOP Convention - we know we're screwed and we'll all turn all the Cable TV media crap off.
BM "i used to care... but things have changed."
- R. Zimmerman
Bob Dylan says it too - so beautifully:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9EKqQWPjyo
@J Farmer What is the current status of the Iran Agreement? You cited some credible, persuasive sources in favor of the deal, but I thought that Iran disavowed it, and declared that they would not honor it, and since then they have defied the terms of the agreement in a couple of ways, something about missiles and the other had to do with uranium enrichment or something like that. I know that the Obama administration considers the agreement ongoing, but does Iran?
BN said...
"Oh, is that all it was? Just a group of people who were tired of stagflation?
Well then."
"Well then what?"
1. Observe the rule of holes.
2. Go back and read your posts.
3. Do some self reflection.
Trump made perfect sense. The Trump doctrine is "America First". When he blasted the Usurper and Clinton on Benghazi and for destabilizing the Middle East, and lying about some anti Muslim movie, he was telling the world that the leadership of the US is CRIMINAL.
The Usurper and Clinton haven't even responded, and I guess the media is trying to ignore it and hope it goes away, but he will continue to hammer away on that theme until they have to respond. In a head to head contest he will wipe the floor with the coughing criminal old lady, and the "secrets" of Benghazi will be exposed--- she has no answer, and the media will not be able to ignore it any longer.
"I am the guy who knows that the Reagan coalition was just people who were tired of stagflation
And all of the policies that produced stagflation are back in style with the left. The only limit to the amount of money we can print is our balls! I think that is Krugman's take on it, isn't it. Well, this experiment has been tried many times in the past. Right now internet startups are soaking up all of the money on ventures, many of which have no clear path to viability, but hey! It will work out this time, that bubble will never crash, even though the whole economics of it are based on the huge value of being first in a new industry. It won't be a new industry pretty soon, and the economics will change, and those billions that now take the form of infrastructure for web businesses that nobody will ultimately use? Well, those billions will just evaporate. It's not like you can melt down the bits and re-use them.
Phil 3:14 said...
Uh I think Ronald Reagan believed in free trade ...
I heard Trump's speech on the radio.
I could "hear" the teleprompter.
You may have heard the speech, but you failed to catch
key points.
Trump was explicitly talking about "fair" trade, a concept
that was implicit in the Reagan policy that you think Trump
varies from. Up your game, dude.
Is farmer still flogging what a great deal the Iran agreement is?
The deal that they, the Iranians, proceeded to break even before the ink was dry?
I think I can sell farmer some life insurance for his cats.
Iran has no intention of honoring any agreement it has made with the "Great Satan". Since no one would rationally keep a bargain with the devil, especially since the devil, in this case the United States, has no teeth.
What they wanted was the resources to pursue their armament goals. We gave them the resources.
You hang in there, JF. There's a pony in there somewhere.
"Trump has the best 2nd amendment platform of any legitimate candidate ever."
Whatever floats your boat.
"Trump was explicitly talking about "fair" trade, a concept
that was implicit in the Reagan policy that you think Trump
varies from. Up your game, dude."
Up yours!
(Sorry, just too easy of a response.)
Here is some interesting background that may have something to do with Cruz selecting Fiorina
Fact-In the first half of 2015 Cruz' superpac gave Fiorina's superpac $500,000
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-did-ted-cruzs-pac-give-half-a-million-to-carly-fiorinas/
Fact-FEC said it was improperly reported and the superpac re-reported it still with no reason given for the donation.
Allegation-One of the alleged affairs Cruz had was with a Fiorina staffer
Speculation-The $500m was a disguised payoff to keep the woman quiet
Speculation-Nominating Fiorina VP is part of the payoff.
http://moneymorning.com/2016/03/29/why-a-ted-cruz-super-pac-gave-500000-to-carly-fiorina/
Trump should be pointing out the $500m and asking Cruz what it was for.
Cruz' response will be that, by law, he can have no control over what the superpac does.
To which most people would reply: Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.
John Henry
In order to have free trade why do we need secret treaties?
In order to have free trade, why do we need any treaties of any kind at all on trade?
Oh, yeah, because of the mythical trade deficit. There is no trade deficit. There can be no trade deficit unless one country is giving free gratis goods and services to the other with no expectation of payment ever.
Trump is at least talking about doing away with TPP. That is a step in the right direction.
ICYMI, I am pretty absolutist on free trade.
John Henry
the first point is worth noting,
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/cotton-white-house-subsidizing-irans-nuclear-program-laughing-matter/
Iran will get the bomb, the Kingdom and perhaps Egypt will get in next,
@Michael K:
"I assume you are an authority on Shia Islam and the scourging that male adherents subject themselves to on the anniversary of Ashura."
I am no more an "authority on Shia Islam" than you are, but I do know that nothing you linked to or any argument you made actually supports the martyr-state myth. There are about 200 million Shia Muslims in the world. Are they all suicidal? Here is Matt Duss on "The Martyr-State Myth" in Foreign Policy. Though somewhat based on the Iran-Iraq War, the martyr-state myth essentially starts with a Bernard Lewis op-ed in 2006 (where he made spectacularly wrong predictions), and the line has been picked up and repeated by Iran hawks ever since. Daniel Larison writes in The American Conservative here:
"Attentive readers will note that Twelver Shi’ites do not look forward to the return of a 13th imam, but the bigger problem with this statement is Rubio’s uncritical repetition of one of the most ridiculous myths about Iran currently in circulation. This is the so-called “martyr-state” myth that holds that Iran’s leaders are motivated by a desire to hasten an apocalypse in order to bring about the return of the Mahdi. There is no basis for this claim. It is a spurious, nonsensical claim that cropped up in the last decade (made famous by Bernard Lewis’ silly prediction here), and has since been eagerly repeated by Iran hawks that unsurprisingly know very little about the country or its culture."
"You really sound ignorant but I expect as much from those of your age and level of education."
Yes, I know, Michael. Anyone who is younger and doesn't have as much of an alphabet soup after their name must not be as smart as you. So, if you're a big supporter of the martyr state claim, how about linking to some actual evidence for it? How about the Israeli officials I linked to (and the more others I could continue to link to)? Are they just not as smart as you? They just don't understand Iran has much as you do?
"Why not read Persian Night, by Amir Tehari ? You might learn something."
If Amir Tehari has made the argument that the Iranian leadership is suicidal, please point me in that direction. I'd be happy to consider it.
@Rusty:
"The deal that they, the Iranians, proceeded to break even before the ink was dry?"
Here is the Arms Control Association's fact sheet on ballistic missile testing, which did not violate the nuclear deal. And here is Ariane Tabatabai analyzing Iran's domestic progress report, which she translated from the original Farsi.
"Iran has no intention of honoring any agreement it has made with the "Great Satan".
If your personal incredulity is the only evidence you have, then count me unpersuaded by your argument.
"Trump should be pointing out the $500m "
$500k?
J. Farmer,
""Attentive readers will note that Twelver Shi’ites do not look forward to the return of a 13th imam,"
More attentive readers will note that Twelver Shi'a believe the Mahdi is the 12th imam, currently in occultation, and that his return would be the return of the 12th imam, not the 13th (that's from where they get the name Twelver). I know you're just quoting Daniel Larison, and I don't know him, but that's a spectacularly misinformed detail. Hopefully, the attentive readers of The American Conservative caught that mistake.
Or was Larison referencing someone else (presumably Rubio, since he's named in the next sentence) who talked of Twelver Shi'a awaiting the "returh of the 13th imam?" In which case, he's just accurately quoting someone else's mistaken quote.
An outstanding policy speech. Could have been written by Reagan. There is hope for the Republic, after all.
Reagan had a different set of foreign policy problems to confront … but close enough.
What I liked:
The overriding theme was a foreign policy based on reality.
Trump is yet again single-handedly raising an issue that begged to be raised: That our NATO “partners” are not paying their way in either treasure or troops.
Foreign policy will be based on American interests and security – not unicorn-chasing.
There will be no “international virtue signaling” with the use or withdrawal of military forces – a phrase that exactly describes the Obama/Progressive foreign policy philosophy.
We will not be intervening every time some despot decides to massacre some of their own subjects.
We will not be arming every rag-tag, vaguely and usually incorrectly defined group only to find those same weapons end up used against America and American allies.
Our dealings with opposing nations such as Russia and China will be on the basis of practical considerations instead of the ideological postures of political hacks.
If military actions become necessary they will not be half-hearted fiascoes hampered by idiotic, counterproductive Rules of Engagement. Dates of entry and withdrawal will be fluid, opportunity-based and not stupidly announced beforehand. Strategies and tactics will not be casually broadcast to targets.
Israel will be treated like the ally they are.
@Bobby:
Or was Larison referencing someone else (presumably Rubio, since he's named in the next sentence) who talked of Twelver Shi'a awaiting the "returh of the 13th imam?"
Yes, he was referencing (and ridiculing) Rubio's quote of the "13th imam." It was not clear in the piece I excised, but I felt the paragraph overall was a concise refutation of the martyr-state myth. If you're not reading Larison's blog on The American Conservative do so. He's a Byzantist and pretty much a paleocon by predisposition. I am generally in line with his way of thinking on US foreign policy. He's also an Orthodox Christian, and I sometimes suspect this influences his opinion of Russia and pan-Slavism more generally. But otherwise, he is a sharp, smarter writer.
Blogger EMD said...
"Trump should be pointing out the $500m "
$500k?
$500 kilobytes? I didn't pay that much even in the early 80s.
$500m dollars. $500,000, half a million simoleons, 500x10^3 bucks etc.
Not $500k
John Henry
Grackle,
"Trump is yet again single-handedly raising an issue that begged to be raised: That our NATO “partners” are not paying their way in either treasure or troops."
This is only true if there's some kind of invisible clause qualifying what you mean by "single-handedly." Ashton Carter, for example, publicly stated that Europe needs to increase its military spending just over a year ago (and numerous times thereafter) which- as far as I know- precedes Trump's entry into the Presidential race (at least this cycle). One can find similar complaints from a number of senior American officials going back many, many years.
Without a qualifying clause, your statement is only true if you meant that the others who said it don't really count because you're not personally informed enough to know that they said it.
J. Farmer,
I checked out Larison's blog, but haven't read through any of his posts yet. His blog says he's a U of Chicago Ph.D., which means he would almost certainly have studied under Mearsheimer and been indoctrinated into the Realist school-- given that your own foreign policy comments tend to track very closely with the Realists (albeit with a very healthy dose of Comparativism mixed in), I'm guessing that might be a reason why you find his writing sharp and smart?
In any case, I'll give Larison's writing a try and see if it does anything for me -- thanks for the tip!
Anglelyne,
"Nice to know our foreign policy establishment has nothing to do with our foreign policy. (Actually, I know career FP people who would agree with that statement...)"
Well, there's a bit of goalpost moving going on here -- that the "brilliant MENA policies of the last fifteen years" do not belong to the "foreign policy establishment" (an absurd grouping, if you recognize how diverse they are and how infrequently- as in never- they speak with one voice) does not mean they have "nothing" to do with foreign policy. But, yes, the point you recognize there at the end is that the professional military, intelligence and diplomatic services implement the policies selected by elected and politically-appointed decision-makers who, at least for the last few Administrations, have tended not to be from those services.
Yes, "they" (some of them) have been critical of the policies that "have created so much chaos and destruction". But that's just the thing - we have decades of "chaos and destruction", to the point where "looming catastrophe" is no longer sounding hyperbolic, and "experts" are terrified of Trump? It's not about Trump.
This I can understand. As a Libertarian who's been around for a half-dozen Presidential elections, I have heard Republicans and Democrats alike (usually from whichever side is about to lose the election) proclaim that the end is nigh if the other party wins this election, and so we must back their candidate (and as an amateur historian, I can also point out numerous instances of the same rhetoric being used, going back to both the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans in the elections of 1796 and 1800; it was also used by all sides at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, so perhaps this is hard-wired into our national character). But you hear that rhetoric enough times, and you realize that the end hasn't cometh, you tend to see the world in more sober tones. Now perhaps this time if Clinton or Trump win the election, the world really will end... But forgive me if I'm too skeptical to buy it. And likewise, I totally understand why you might similarly believe that the American political processes and institutions are such that even a President Trump could not bring on "chaos and destruction" that would be sufficiently distinguishable from what you've seen in the last 15 years. That I can totally understand.
@Bobby:
"U of Chicago Ph.D., which means he would almost certainly have studied under Mearsheimer "
Larsson's degree is in Byzantine history. He has no formal academic training (as far as I know) in international relations or international theory, though his blog focuses primarily on US foreign policy and espouses an anti-interventionist disposition generally. What more would one expect from Pat Buchanan's magazine, after all?
"I'm guessing that might be a reason why you find his writing sharp and smart?"
It may be true that a suffer the human condition of being prone to people who agree with me, but then again, I always found Christopher Hitchens' writing sharp and smart while simultaneously disagreeing with pretty much everything he wrote about foreign policy post-9/11.
The usual pattern is: Trump says something perfectly sensible, the media lie about it, then voters find out the truth and like him more and the media less.
http://tinyurl.com/jensjz4
This is only true if there's some kind of invisible clause qualifying what you mean by "single-handedly." Ashton Carter, for example, publicly stated …
Kind of true. Allow me to elaborate. Before Trump obviously NATO was discussed and testified about many times but with zero results or even much attention being paid. Now that Trump has forced the issue into the spotlight it will be part of a national debate.
It’s sort of like what Trump did with illegal immigration. Immigration was also debated before Trump entered the race. After Romney lost, according to the eGOP’s own “autopsy,” members of the eGOP in good standing mustn’t offend potential Latino voters with controversial talk about border security. That was the eGOP mantra after Romney tanked. And that’s where the issue stayed until Trump entered the race and blew that meme up.
If your personal incredulity is the only evidence you have, then count me unpersuaded by your argument.
If past behavior is indicative of future performance, then I may be on to something. Iran seeks hegemony over the middle east, it will do whatever it has to do to achieve it.
Consider this agreement the iotolas Hitler-Stalin pact.
Achilles with the weak heelies:
"1. Observe the rule of holes.
2. Go back and read your posts.
3. Do some self reflection."
Is that irony or projection?
Or an argument without a point?
Debate is hard!
Nyamujal:
"Are you claiming that Obama's and Bush's foreign policy doctrines are the same?"
President Obama's foreign affairs clearly deviated from President Bush. See Is Syria Obama’s Fault?.
Nyamujal:
"If anything Obama has spent a good part of his presidency mitigating the damage inflicted on the mid-east by his predecessors."
Incorrect. See:
Security Council Takes Action to End Iraq Sanctions, Terminate Oil-For-Food Programme as Members Recognize ‘Major Changes’ Since 1990 (15 December 2010) by VP Joe Biden on behalf of the UN Security Council;
Withdrawal Symptoms: The Bungling of the Iraq Exit by OIF senior advisor Rick Brennan;
How Obama Abandoned Democracy in Iraq by OIF official and senior advisor Emma Sky.
Obama's deviation from Bush was not "mitigating the damage". It was destroying the hard-earned good.
Excerpt from the answer to "Was Operation Iraqi Freedom a strategic blunder or a strategic victory?":
_"Obama should have built upon the hard-won foundational progress made under Bush in geopolitically critical Iraq. However, instead of staying the course from Bush like President Eisenhower stayed the course from President Truman at the turning point of the Cold War, Obama committed the strategic blunder of disengaging from US-Iraqi affairs at a critical stage of Iraq's post-Surge development, passive-aggressively bungling the SOFA negotiation with Iraq, and abandoning the Bush Freedom Agenda. The premature departure of US forces removed America's protection at the same time Iraq's vicinity was growing dangerously unstable as the Arab Spring disintegrated, particularly in neighboring Syria. In the singular pivotal moment that sure-handed American leadership could have redirected the current course of history, Obama's irresponsible exit from Iraq and feckless 'lead from behind' approach to the Arab Spring, instead, opened great gaps for the terrorists to resurge. Iraq is suffering the consequences.
...
To wit, in May 2011, President Obama marked Iraq's "promise of a multiethnic, multisectarian democracy ... poised to play a key role in the region if it continues its peaceful progress":
Indeed, one of the broader lessons to be drawn from this period is that sectarian divides need not lead to conflict. In Iraq, we see the promise of a multiethnic, multisectarian democracy. The Iraqi people have rejected the perils of political violence in favor of a democratic process, even as they’ve taken full responsibility for their own security. Of course, like all new democracies, they will face setbacks. But Iraq is poised to play a key role in the region if it continues its peaceful progress. And as they do, we will be proud to stand with them as a steadfast partner.
...
President Obama was wrong to disengage from Iraq prematurely. America's protection was needed for the continued progression of Iraq’s pluralistic liberal reform and constructive role in the Middle East and the welfare of the Iraqi people. Instead, the feared danger of Obama's feckless 'lead from behind' approach to the Arab Spring and irresponsible exit from Iraq is being realized."_
Grackle,
"It’s sort of like what Trump did with illegal immigration. Immigration was also debated before Trump entered the race. After Romney lost, according to the eGOP’s own “autopsy,” members of the eGOP in good standing mustn’t offend potential Latino voters with controversial talk about border security. That was the eGOP mantra after Romney tanked. And that’s where the issue stayed until Trump entered the race and blew that meme up."
Well, hold on, that meme is only blown up if Trump wins the general election. If Trump loses in November, the eGOP will say that all Trump demonstrated is that a candidate can win the Republican nomination by "offending potential Latino voters with controversial talk about border security" and then go on to lose the general election, which they will say reinforces their point that the GOP needs to reach out to minority voters and pluck them away from the expanding Democratic Coalition.
Right?
This is not to say that you will then come around to supporting the meme- more likely, you'll say Trump lost because the eGOP didn't support the candidate who fairly won the GOP nomination or that the Democrats stuffed the ballot boxes or something else and that he only got the votes he got because he advocated controversial talk about the border security (and any or all or none of that might very well be true!), but the point is that this particular eGOP meme is not blown up if Trump doesn't win (or at least make a marginally better showing than Romney) in November. On the contrary, I suspect the eGOP would double-down on it.
But perhaps you don't agree with my analysis.
I agree with Bobby above (and also in general, I guess).
@Rusty:
"Iran seeks hegemony over the middle east, it will do whatever it has to do to achieve it."
Even assuming it wanted "hegemony over the middle east," what is the evidence it is achieving anything remotely resembling hegemony? As I've said ad nauseam on this blog, Iran's military capabilities are significantly inferior to Saudi Arabia or the Gulf Arab states. It's reliance on proxies to influence events in Lebanon and Gaza is not the stuff of a hegemony. To say the least, Iran's friendship with Syria isn't worth near what it used to be and is increasingly a cost and a liability. Even if Iran got a nuclear weapon, it would not make its position in the region hegemonic. Seeking something and having eve the remotest chance of achieving it are two quite different things.
"Consider this agreement the iotolas Hitler-Stalin pact."
If the only thing you mean to say by that is that it is opportunistic and self-serving, then you've said a bland truism. Beyond that, I don't see any meaningful comparison to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. That involved a completely different set of issues from the arms control and non-proliferation intention of the nuclear deal.
Well, hold on, that meme is only blown up if Trump wins the general election.
No, I mean that Trump has single-handedly made illegal immigration a major issue in the race. In the time period between Romney’s defeat(and the “autopsy” soon after) and the entry of Trump into the campaign there was an eGOP political consensus that to court the Latino vote that the GOP must embrace Comprehensive Immigration Reform. A Business Insider article explains it:
The report warned that if the party did not back immigration reform, its appeal to minority groups would continue to shrink, particularly among Hispanic voters.
http://tinyurl.com/hqyedwm
As Trump is proving the report was wrongheaded in it’s analysis and recommendations. It completely misunderstands Romney’s loss. The report is in reality a timid blueprint for defeat.
The report was released in early 2013. Senator Rubio pushed for Comprehensive Immigration Reform with the Gang of Six coalition in 2015. Many believe that Rubio’s lack of support in Florida during this current campaign is connected to Rubio’s close, well-known association with Comprehensive Immigration Reform. The hapless Rubio, like any other DC insider, was only following the wishes of the GOP elders and it helped to ruin his prospects.
Farmer. They're using their new found wealth to to purchase as much modern military hardware as they can get their hands on. They have, for years now, sent their agents all over the middle east to cause unrest. Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, etc.
Your assertions and attacks on my intelligence does not make the gun any less loaded.
The Saudi army? Really? They'd have to hire someone to start their tanks and then drive and shoot them.
@Rusty:
"They're using their new found wealth to to purchase as much modern military hardware as they can get their hands on."
No, the "new found wealth" amounts to about $50 billion, which cannot significantly alter the strategic balance in the region.
"The Saudi army? Really? They'd have to hire someone to start their tanks and then drive and shoot them."
Umm...Saudi Arabia has the third largest absolute military budget in the world, after the US and China. In terms of percent of GDP, it's the biggest spending country in the world. Here is an article in Foreign Policy that makes the case pretty effectively.
No, the "new found wealth" amounts to about $50 billion, which cannot significantly alter the strategic balance in the region.
You're entitled to your opinion. I disagree. 50 billion spent in the right way and the will to use it, well, history has shown how well that works.
Umm...Saudi Arabia has the third largest absolute military budget in the world, after the US and China. In terms of percent of GDP, it's the biggest spending country in the world. Here is an article in Foreign Policy that makes the case pretty effectively.
Umm. They don't know how to use it on their own. Just because you own a Lamborghini doesn't mean you know how to drive one.
Your premise seems to be that Iran will be just fine if we just monitor their behavior real close and give them monetary incentives to behave.
Unless some future administration clamps down on Iran real hard on Iran this agreement will end in bloodshed for somebody. It always does.
@Rusty:
"I disagree. 50 billion spent in the right way and the will to use it, well, history has shown how well that works."
Okay, so explain to me how you think Iran can spend $50 billion "the right way" and become the regional hegemon...
"They don't know how to use it on their own."
So the Saudi aircraft that have been carrying out a bombing campaign in Yemen for more than a year are being manned by who, exactly?
"Your premise seems to be that Iran will be just fine if we just monitor their behavior real close and give them monetary incentives to behave."
No, that isn't my premise. My premise is that (a) Iran was not going to give up enrichment (and is entitled to enrichment under the NPT, and (b) an inspections regime and mutually agreed limitations on their nuclear program is the best chance we have of preventing the development of a weapon. The only alternative people like you seem to have is "clamp down" or "crushing sanctions." Well, US sanctions alone against Iran are not enough. We needed multilateral support in order to really make the sanctions effective. And our partners in the negotiation agreed on the deal. If we rejected, we'd be on the opposite side of the table while Iran was on the side of Germany, France, UK, Russia, and Germany.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा