People keep asking me what exactly @realDonaldTrump did to deserve a Nobel Prize. As a public service, I put together a quick list. I'll clean it up and blog it later. #NobelPrizeforTrump pic.twitter.com/ppNr1esbAI
— Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) May 4, 2018
May 4, 2018
"People keep asking me what @realDonaldTrump did to deserve a Nobel Prize..."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
117 comments:
But what about his lies?
If Obama can win a Nobel Prize with the whoppers he told and the international misery he caused from Fast and Furious to Egypt, Libya, Syria, then I don't want to hear on GD word about Trump's lies.
I don't know if Trump deserves a Nobel Prize or not. What did Obama do to deserve his?
I'd give it to Comey.
Yah...but besides that?
Oh...peace? Shut up!
"if Henry Kissinger can win the Nobel Peace Prize, I wouldn't be surprised to wake up one morning and find I'd won the Preakness."
-Conrad Brean
John Henry
Trump cannot win because he is not Left enough.
https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/
Add to Scott's list that Saudi Arabia's prime minister met yesterday with a cardinal and signed a deal to build churches for SA's Christians
http://www.egyptindependent.com/saudi-arabia-build-churches-christian-citizens/
John Henry
Nobel Peace Prizes area giant waste. The outcome of any deal is what will be important, and that remains to be seen. Besides, I wonder if Adams could explain how possibly knows all of this without recourse to hypnotism mumbo jumbo.
Trump deserves The Nobel Prize For Putting Up With A Lot Of Shit.
In the unlikely event that Trump wins the Nobel Peace Prize, and the even unlikelier event that he accepts it, will Al Gore signal his virtue by returning his ?
The MSM has zero chance to win in a verbal communications show down against these Magnificent Three Thinkers: Trump, Adams, and West.
Viva la propaganda.
[J. Farmer:] Besides, I wonder if Adams could explain how possibly knows all of this without recourse to hypnotism mumbo jumbo.
Effect: Sudden, huge change in tone from North Korea.
Adams provides a list of causes as a theory for the effect.
Did he get any of them wrong? Combined, are they persuasive?
No mumbo jumbo needed.
I would be delighted to see Trump go to work on just one ruined, African-American inner city. Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis. Pick one and do your thing, Mr. Trump. Make the fucking Democrats fight you every step of the way.
But, Stormy Daniels!
"But, Stormy Daniels!"
Careful, say her name three times and ARM will appear.
J Farmer:
How do we know Hitler started WWII without hypnotism mambo-jumbo? How do we know LBJ got the Civil Rights Act passed without hypnotism mambo jumbo?
The Swedish academy has announced there will be no Nobel price for literature thus year, because half of them quit over the behavior of the husband of one of the judges. I.e., a #metoo thing. I don't know, it seems to be a convenient excuse.
I think such an out is potentially available to the Nobel Peace prize people.
Kristian Holvoet said...
If Obama can win a Nobel Prize with the whoppers he told and the international misery he caused from Fast and Furious to Egypt, Libya, Syria, then I don't want to hear on GD word about Trump's lies.
Obama won the Peace Prize after being in office barely long enough to clean up the litter from his inauguration for not being George W. Bush. Seriously. He'd done absolutely nothing. He then went on to use drones to kill a lot of people, depose Quadaffi with no regard to what would happen afterwards (ISIS is what happened), and generally make a mess of things.
Predictions are difficult, especially about the future.
- Niels Bohr and Yogi Berra
However, here's a prediction as easy as knowing the sun will rise tomorrow: If the two Koreas sign an armistice and peace actually happens, Moon and Un will share the Nobel. If Trump is mentioned at all, it'll be said that this peace happened in spite of him. Xi of China is more likely to share in the Nobel than Trump.
”Careful, say her name three times and ARM will appear.”
Then I shall say Stormy Daniels no more.
The lady in question in the Nobel Literature committee is, it seems, a retired poetess. In this case it is absolutely true, without a doubt, that one can tell her "you only had one job".
"I would be delighted to see Trump go to work on just one ruined, African-American inner city. Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis." Glenn Loury has already set out a program for Pres. Trump to fix _all_ the inner cities at once.
1) Trillion dollar infrastructure bill
2) Take ten billion dollars from that (1%) and offer to use it for 100,000 inner city young men with no skills.
3) Offer that they can build a life, starting right now. We don't care too much what they were doing before, as long as they can start fresh.
4) They have to go somewhere else, where the infrastructure work is. Somewhere well away, and stay there for two or three years. Or moving around, wherever the work is.
5) We'll pay them way more than they're worth (to start with), $20/hr. $40,000/year. It gets saved for them. If they're successful, they can move up.
6) We teach them skills they can use going forward, including a work ethic.
7) By the end of the time, they have maybe $100,000 saved, and a whole new life.
8) Get Democrats on board passing this through Congress. If they refuse to support it, take the black vote away from them forever.
Adams summarized: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A732Cuuo2tI
I am already fascinated by liberal comments where Korea comes up. "He should get a Nobel Peace Prize in spite of his crazy antics in foreign policy?!" No, what's happening is that you weren't bright enough or even-handed enough to grasp that he was doing effective dealing while you were ranting.
Anyone who uses his brain has to be willing to change his mind when he's proven wrong. It can take a while, but it needs to happen.
Those may all be true, but nothing substantive has happened yet. No Prize yet. After all, Trump is not Obama :)
Just forget it. Donald Trump is NOT, NOT going to get any Nobel prize. Are you crazy?
Just forget it. Donald Trump is NOT, NOT going to get any Nobel prize. Are you crazy?
Stormy Daniels. Hello, ARM!
I think I read that if you can get Stormy Daniels to say her name backwards - she is transported home and cannot return for 90 days..... or maybe that was a different trickster.
So the Noel committee member herself was not accused of misconduct, her husband was. THAT required a mass resignation?
What next, if your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate is accused you are implicated, too?
To fix inner cities Trump would have to take on black leaders the way he did Kim. Lil' rocket man.
That would be great fun but the media would melt down.
It's racism to make fun of a black leader.
Wasn’t Trumps first meeting with Abe? Or Abe the first visit?
Add to Scott's list that Saudi Arabia's prime minister met yesterday with a cardinal and signed a deal to build churches for SA's Christians
http://www.egyptindependent.com/saudi-arabia-build-churches-christian-citizens/
That’s YUGE!!!
The Iranians will have no choice but to let women in to watch soccer.
I wonder if Adams could explain how possibly knows all of this without recourse to hypnotism mumbo jumbo.
He followed the timeline and minutiae?
He followed Rantburg?
Every time there is an urban riot what two items are not stolen? Work gloves and work shoes.
The infrastructure plan is anon starter
Re Rantburg - I concur - if you want to know what is happening (re various conflicts) around the world, Rantburg aggregates a lot of the local press. Pakistani newspapers, Korean newspapers, etc.
Let's wait for the ink to dry on an agreement before giving anyone any awards.
It seems the lady in question re the Nobel Literature committee controversy was (partially, but decisively) responsible for giving last years' prize to Bob Dylan.
What Oso Negro said at 8:31AM.
To fix inner cities Trump would have to take on black leaders the way he did Kim. Lil' rocket man.
Kayne, wave to the man.
Or rather, Kanye.
Do we really need peace/armistice or a paper signed?
Carter and the Accords?
I wouldn't invest much on the tractability and sanity of Kim. You're not counting the chickens before the eggs but betting on the sperm count of a rooster who has never met the hens.......Stiill, it's a possibility. With Obama, peace would have been midwifed after an immaculate conception kind of thing......Obama though, to his credit, never fucked pornstars and wore his tie at the proper length.
The Nobel Peace Prize was long ago devalued by the awardees for having bestowed it on the unworthy (see: Obama). Thus, winning it is meaningless.
-sw
Clinton fucked a lot of women and no one cared then.
I thought we were supposed to be more sophisticated like the French in this topic?
I thought that it’s a personal private family matter and has no reflection on how the president can do his job?
Arafat
There should be no award given for a possibility (e.g. hope, wish) or during transition. Wait for an observable, reproducible outcome.
Well, if Polanski could win an Academy Award after his conviction for raping a twelve year old, it's possible for Trump to win a Nobel after his conviction for fucking a pornstar. There's still the matter of his long ties though.
Obama won the prize for being President while black.
Did he get any of them wrong? Combined, are they persuasive?
How does Adams know what motivates the North Korean regime? How does he even know their stated intentions are sincere? How does he know this isn't an effort to buy time due to internal events in the North? How can Kim thrive after reunification? What about the military and governmental elite centered in Pyongyang? They're going to voluntarily give up power?
But Farmer, you could quibble like that about any "Peace Prize". Or a great number of straight Nobels too.
Lets see if there is some kind of "peace" here, but if there is an actual treaty ...
Richard Fernandez (Wretchard the Cat) commented on Adam's post the old quote, "Quantity has a quality all of its own."
[Farmer:] How does Adams know what motivates the North Korean regime?
Your rhetorical questions, taken to a logical extreme that is just a few steps away from where you are standing, are an ode to nihilism
The Norks aren't Martians, after all.
The considerations that Adams listed, plus two he inexplicably omitted -- the self-destruction of their nuclear weapons test facility, plus placating the regime with dane geld is off the table -- have real world consequences.
To pretend that they don't can't be surmised, and in combination changed the NK's strategic calculations, is to render every bit of strategic thinking with regard to them worthless.
That can't possibly be true: the Norks aren't Martians, after all.
The Nobel Peace Prize is nothing at all except an affirmation of Norwegian Liberal Pieties. No accomplishment required. If I were Trump I would refuse it as a gesture of contempt.
Were Trump to win, he should refuse it because 'there just isn't yet enough peace in this crazy world.'
I would be shocked if Trump was awarded the prize, even more shocked if he accepted. Of all the things in the news to worry about, this isn't one of them.
@Hey Skipper:
The considerations that Adams listed, plus two he inexplicably omitted -- the self-destruction of their nuclear weapons test facility, plus placating the regime with dane geld is off the table -- have real world consequences.
The reason the first was left off the list is because it cannot be attributed to anything Donald Trump did.
To pretend that they don't can't be surmised, and in combination changed the NK's strategic calculations, is to render every bit of strategic thinking with regard to them worthless.
So how do you (or Adams) know that the North Koreans are sincere?
"So how do you (or Adams) know that the North Koreans are sincere?"
We don't. At all. Honestly, I'm taking the whole thing day by day and with a skeptical eye. I like seeing progress towards real peace and an opening of NK to the world at large, but I can't help but thinking this is another ruse.
At the same time, Trump has done some incredible things in the past, so my one ray of hope revolves around the inarguable fact that Trump is a little different from any other president we've ever had.
"There's still the matter of his long ties though."
The Knight of the Long Ties
So how do you (or Adams) know that the North Koreans are sincere?
Who cares?
It’s about the signatures and the pomp.
Let's wait for the ink to dry on an agreement before giving anyone any awards.
If they ever wanted the Peace Prize to mean anything; they would wait 5 years after the ink dried just to make sure.
) They have to go somewhere else, where the infrastructure work is. Somewhere well away, and stay there for two or three years. Or moving around, wherever the work is.
North Dakota and Alaska
The oil fields.
It’s always to buy time Farmer.
That’s the way of the world.
If he Khaddafis its a win.
khadaffi
Ghadaffi
Confefe
Gadaffi
Gaddafi
[Farmer:] So how do you (or Adams) know that the North Koreans are sincere?
Sincerity has heck-all to do with statecraft -- it is only their perception of their regime interests that matters.
Over the last year, the correlation of forces has dramatically changed, and North Korea is reacting to that. Perhaps they decided that their policy of extracting offerings in return for providing grotesquely insincere commitments has reached a dead end, and that to continue pursuing that course would instead result in a slow strangling of the regime.
Trump, despite being a complete buffoon and not at all the genius light bringer Obama was (and, to be fair, Bush and Clinton did nothing more than kick the can down the road), has somehow managed to bring a great many levers into play at the same time.
I know, amazing, huh?
The reason the first was left off the list is because it cannot be attributed to anything Donald Trump did.
True.
Trust, but verify.
I'll apply the same standard as I did to Obama: what has actually happened as a result of negotiations? Negotiations, in and of themselves, are meaningless.
We'll see.
Treaties and other agreements, in and of themselves, are meaningless. What matters is if and how they are carried out.
What? It requires accomplishments?
"If they ever wanted the Peace Prize to mean anything; they would wait 5 years after the ink dried just to make sure."
That would be madness!
Hey Skipper:
Over the last year, the correlation of forces has dramatically changed, and North Korea is reacting to that. Perhaps they decided that their policy of extracting offerings in return for providing grotesquely insincere commitments has reached a dead end, and that to continue pursuing that course would instead result in a slow strangling of the regime.
There has not been any significant aid from the US to North Korea in over a decade.
Trump, despite being a complete buffoon and not at all the genius light bringer Obama was (and, to be fair, Bush and Clinton did nothing more than kick the can down the road), has somehow managed to bring a great many levers into play at the same time.
Well, for one, there is the issue of Moon Jae-in's election, and what role his policies played in all of this. And we cannot fully understand the motives of either the North Koreans or the Chinese.
The talks are certainly a positive event, but nothing substantive has been accomplished yet. If Trump manages to broker a successful deal, I will be the first person to credit him for it. I never liked Obama's foreign policy, but the JCPOA was a great win for the United States. It is a terrible shame that Trump seems intent on destroying a working arms control deal while pursuing another.
@J. Farmer After what has been revealed the last couple of days I find it hard to believe that you think the Iran deal was great for the U.S. Perhaps you trust the Iranians. As I have said many times her I DO NOT TRUST Iran.
I am with all the skeptics here who will believe a NORK peace deal when they see it. Has the NORK tiger suddenly changed his spots? I very much doubt it, but there are a more things going into this stew than any of us can be aware of. The one thing I am sure of is that if Obama were running this show we would be the sucker at the table - as in Iran. With Trump I am confident that we will not be played for a sucker. We might have to walk away, but in a serious negotiation that is always an alternative. Because of that I am hopeful that a satisfactory (note I did not say "good") deal can be had.
I am ecstatic that Trump is prepared to walk away from the Iran deal. It will take some pretty fancy footwork to convince me that Obama and Kerry didn't sell us out for favorable headlines. As one of the folks at Powerline said: vice Obama, at least Neville Chamberlain did not provide the funds for Germany's re-armament and future misbehavior.
Khesanh 0802:
After what has been revealed the last couple of days I find it hard to believe that you think the Iran deal was great for the U.S. Perhaps you trust the Iranians. As I have said many times her I DO NOT TRUST Iran.
Nothing "has been revealed." Netanyahu's "bombshell" was a total snooze fest that disclosed what had already been known for over 10 years. Even Netanyahu conceded that the Iranians had abandoned a nuclear weapons program in 2003.
Further, you are not asked to "trust" Iran. The JCPOA places significant limits on Iran's nuclear capabilities, including inspectors on the ground and 24/7 surveillance.
I am ecstatic that Trump is prepared to walk away from the Iran deal. It will take some pretty fancy footwork to convince me that Obama and Kerry didn't sell us out for favorable headlines.
Pretty fancy footwork? Just read the deal here. Do you have an actual criticism of it beyond not liking some of the people involved in its arrangement?
As one of the folks at Powerline said: vice Obama, at least Neville Chamberlain did not provide the funds for Germany's re-armament and future misbehavior.
If the deal is as patently bad as everyone thinks, then why do the counterarguments always consist of such hyperbolic mistruths. Obama did not "provide the funds." The money Iran received from sanctions relief was Iranian money for oil sells that had been frozen in foreign bank accounts. It was not American money. Had Obama walked away from the table, as many deal opponents were insisting, the sanctions would have broken down and the money would have been unfrozen anyway. And without a deal in place. A double loss.
From Who Benefits from Iran Sanctions Relief?:
"So who would benefit from the post-deal sanctions relief? There is no easy answer to this, as all parties concerned—the Rouhani government, the Iranian people, and the Revolutionary Guards in control of Iran's regional policies—are likely to benefit. Nevertheless, much of the economic boost from sanctions relief is likely to be consumed internally by the Rouhani government, the political-economic elite, and to some extent the Iranian people. Those responsible for Iran's foreign policy, including the Revolutionary Guards, will have more resources, but Iran's regional influence is not as much dependent on money as it is on Tehran's ability to exploit the growing instability around it. And that takes less funding than often assumed."
"Nothing "has been revealed.""
David Albright disagrees: "New info on Iranian R&D sites, sites for possible nuclear tests, individuals involved, previously unknown activities, new info on uranium metallurgy work, # and kilotons of nukes sought, Fordow tied in to WGU production." Also says (in WSJ podcast) that extent of preservation of record etc. requires "fixing" the troublesome sunsets in the deal.
I realize that Farmer is an Iran expert but there are others I think know a bit more.
How's your Farsi, Farmer ?
It was surely Barack Obama’s profound aversion to the use of American military power that so enfeebled his nuclear diplomacy and made his atomic accord with Iran the worst arms-control agreement since the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922. I do not know whether a more forceful president and secretary of state—say a Democratic version of Ronald Reagan and George Schultz—could have gotten a “good deal” with Tehran; it just boggles the mind to believe that a better deal wasn’t possible. A stronger president and secretary of state certainly would have been willing to walk away. Neither captured by Iranian demands nor the mirage of “moderate” mullahs and engagement, more astute, less fearful men would have been more patient, and more willing to let sanctions bite deeper into the economy and political culture of the Islamic Republic.
@Farmer You can argue with me all day about what a great deal the JCPOA is. If I have no fundamental trust in the Iran's then I have no trust in any deal we have with them. The very fact that Obama was not willing to treat this as a treaty and present it to the Senate as such indicates to me that: one, he knew it would never pass; and 2 that he was unwilling to expose the treaty to the vetting it would have had in the Senate.
I encourage you to read the link Michael K gives above ( Link ) by someone who knows a lot more about this than you or I. Just the fact that the inspection regime is faulty is enough to put me off the deal. I will be happy to see us withdraw. Remember "everyone" thought Neville Chamberlain was brilliant until September 1, 1939
@ Farmer I am glad that you could see the future if Obama walked away. I believe that is called a "counterfactual. We have no idea what would have happened. I happen to believe that if the US said the money would stay frozen it would have stayed frozen. I didn't see anything in the Rand piece about how we benefitted from the deal. Did I miss it?
Doesn't something actually have to happen there for any of this to be in any way valid? North Korea is simply making statements - of the same sort that we've heard many times before. How naive is Scott Adams?
@Michael K:
I realize that Farmer is an Iran expert but there are others I think know a bit more.
How's your Farsi, Farmer ?
Let me make an analogy I am sure you will understand. A doctor is an expert in medicine. Does that mean every doctor's medical opinion is unimpeachable?
If I were to quote an "Iran expert," say Vali Nassir, head of John Hopkin's SAIS, or Flynt Leverett of Penn State, who supports the deal, would you change your mind?
@Khesanh 0802:
If I have no fundamental trust in the Iran's then I have no trust in any deal we have with them.
Once again, it does not require "trust." There is an intrusive inspections and monitoring regime. And the fact of the matter is that the Iranians have kept to their obligations under the arrangement. Even the administration concedes that, since they're relying on the lame "spirit of the deal" argument.
I encourage you to read the link Michael K gives above ( Link ) by someone who knows a lot more about this than you or I.
I am very familiar with Gerecht's career and have read him for years. He is an interventionist and a hawk who I think has been wrong about every major US foreign policy decision for the last 20 years.
Remember "everyone" thought Neville Chamberlain was brilliant until September 1, 1939
The cliché that won't die.
We have no idea what would have happened. I happen to believe that if the US said the money would stay frozen it would have stayed frozen.
Also a counterfactual. The reason the sanctions regime worked was because China and Russia were on board. Had the US walked away from a deal supported by the Russians and Chinese (and the British, French, and Germans), what appetite would there be in those countries for continuing the sanctions?
I didn't see anything in the Rand piece about how we benefitted from the deal. Did I miss it?
No, that wasn't the point of the piece.
@Sebastian:
David Albright disagrees.
David Albright interviewed on PBS NewsHour:
Now, the Israelis revealed several pots of information, one of which is the archive itself is of the pre-2003 nuclear weapons program, which included instructions to archive it, write down everything you have learned, and then write down what you didn’t learn and what we need to work on in the future, in a sense, to fill the gaps in.
...
So, you can — and having the nuclear deal in place is good. But, on the other hand, because this archive seems to be kept to use in the future, it actually is a little chilling about the sunsets that we face in the Iran nuclear deal. They look a little more deadly.
>>Take ten billion dollars from that (1%) and offer to use it for 100,000 inner city young men with no skills.
Great idea. Let's reward young men with no skills with a 40K a year job. And all the kids that behave themselves, work hard, and get $10 an hour? I guess it serves them right for having "behave yourself" privilege.
There is one thing that 50 years of entitlement social spending has proven: give the disadvantaged some cash, and they magically transform into productive, law abiding taxpayers.
Pfffffft.
He is an interventionist and a hawk who I think has been wrong about every major US foreign policy decision for the last 20 years.
Was he a"hawk and interventionist" when he had himself smuggled into Iran after he retired from the CIA ?
Farmer, I think anyone who disagrees with your hard line isolationist ideology is someone "wrong about every major US foreign policy for the last 20 years."
I asked how is your Farsi ?
TTR: "Doesn't something actually have to happen there for any of this to be in any way valid?"
LOL
Not in the Age Of "Sort Of A god" "Lightbringer" obama.
Of course, I don't mean to imply that obama did absolutely nothing. He was actually breathing.
@Michael K:
Farmer, I think anyone who disagrees with your hard line isolationist ideology is someone "wrong about every major US foreign policy for the last 20 years."
I don't have a "isolationist ideology," hardline or otherwise. I oppose dumb, counterproductive wars that have nothing to do with vital American interests.
I asked how is your Farsi ?
I don't speak Farsi. Do you? Ali Nassir does. Flynt Leverett does. Juan Cole does. And they all support the JCPOA. So what?
TTR: "Doesn't something actually have to happen there for any of this to be in any way valid?"
LOL
Not in the Age Of..
Translation: "Trump accomplished nothing but we're just defining him through the lens of how we have to look down on and resent others. Trump's effectiveness can't be used as a benchmark because he is not effective and has no benchmark. He exists solely as a symbol for our incoherent rage at presidents that people actually like and agree with."
Boy, if you rely on Juan Cole for your opinions, you are not a conservative.
And, it is no surprise to see you opine: I don't have a "isolationist ideology," hardline or otherwise. I oppose dumb, counterproductive wars that have nothing to do with vital American interests.
We are talking about sanctions with Iran, not "counterproductive war."
"David Albright disagrees."
Of course, the point was that Albright, through "good ISIS," disagrees with Farmer that there is nothing new in the Israeli info.
Now he and we face a dilemma: even if "having the deal in place is good," because it includes inspections, we also realize, due to the greater extent of Iran's program and advances than we knew before, and due to the Iranians' obvious failure to come clean about it, that the sunsets "look a little more deadly." Which itself is a nice gaffe, inadvertently conceding that they were always going to be "deadly," now just a "little more" so.
"he and we": meaning Albright and the rest of us.
>>"Take ten billion dollars from that (1%) and offer to use it for 100,000 inner city young men with no skills."
To do what?
@Michael K:
Boy, if you rely on Juan Cole for your opinions, you are not a conservative.
I do not; you've missed the point. Cole speaks Farsi and is "an Iran expert," the exact credentials you cited to bolster Reuel Marc Gerecht.
We are talking about sanctions with Iran, not "counterproductive war."
So let's review who supports the JCPOA: Britain, France, Germany, the EU, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, India and the United Arab Emirates.
By abandoning a deal that these countries support, how much leverage for sanctions is available? US sanctions alone cannot do much to Iran. A concerted international effort would be required, and there is zero appetite for that. And the reason there is zero appetite is because the agreement is achieving exactly what it is designed to achieve. Iran is further away from a nuclear weapon than at anytime in the last 15 years.
Then there's this;
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/05/iran-nuclear-deal-flawed/559595/
Just what does J. have invested in this that makes him defend it? That's rhetorical J. I know what your answer is going to be.
@Sebastian:
Of course, the point was that Albright, through "good ISIS," disagrees with Farmer that there is nothing new in the Israeli info.
I will concede that point. Saying "nothing" new was obviously overshooting the mark. My point was that while Iran had always officially denied having a nuclear program, it was widely known that it had some clandestine weapons program. While these documents may provide more detail on the exact nature of the program, the larger issue remains unchanged. The program was abandoned in 2003. It is also widely accepted that Iran likely wants to maintain a so called latent capability. But this is inherent in any domestic nuclear energy program. The point is that the safeguards and restrictions put in place by the deal significantly hamper Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon.
Now he and we face a dilemma: even if "having the deal in place is good," because it includes inspections, we also realize, due to the greater extent of Iran's program and advances than we knew before, and due to the Iranians' obvious failure to come clean about it, that the sunsets "look a little more deadly."
On the so called "sunsets," I'll quote Daniel Larison in The American Conservative:
"The restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program expire years from now once Iran has proven that its program has remained peaceful, but the intrusive inspections do not. Once Iran ratifies the Additional Protocol a few years from now (if the deal hasn’t collapsed by then), Iran would be permanently subject to the most rigorous verification measures the IAEA has. The less you trust Iran to honor the agreement, the more you should want to keep the agreement alive. Killing the deal ensures that the restrictions and these inspections will end at once.
@Rusty:
Then there's this;
Already addressed. Gerecht's obsession in with regime change. The US has pursued his preferred policy in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. All three have been spectacular failures.
Just what does J. have invested in this that makes him defend it?
Truth and honesty, I suppose. I've actually read the report. Have you? But as for what I truly "have invested," it is quite simple and has remained unchanged my entire adult life: the desire not to see America dragged into yet another stupid, pointless conflict in the world.
Cole speaks Farsi and is "an Iran expert," the exact credentials you cited to bolster Reuel Marc Gerecht.
Cole is a hard leftist and a Muslim Brotherhood supporter.
I guess that's why you rely on him.
And, of course, you oppose those thousands of Iranian kids who demonstrated and, even if unreported, continue to demonstrate against the regime. You probably don't recall how we got all those Soviet dissidents out without war.
Good to know you are a Hillary voter.
I should add, "the wicked flee when no man pursueth."
Sounds like your foreign policy,
@Michael K:
Cole is a hard leftist and a Muslim Brotherhood supporter.
I guess that's why you rely on him.
I don't "rely on him" and have never cited or linked to any of his work. My point (which you continue to miss) is that speaking Farsi says nothing about the correctness of one's opinion about Iran policy. What does the fact that Cole speaks Farsi have to do with your assessment of his judgment? Nothing. Same with Gerecht. The fact that he knows Farsi means nothing in the argument
And, of course, you oppose those thousands of Iranian kids who demonstrated and, even if unreported, continue to demonstrate against the regime.
Oppose them? I don't say anything about them. In their efforts make Iran a more liberal and open society, I wish them well. There is not much more I can do for them beyond that. And if you're referring to the Green Movement, the protests were motivated by the president election. The Green Movement were supporters of Mir-Hossein Mousavi, who had been the Prime Minister in the 1980s and a major figure in the revolution. Mousavi, while generally recognized as a reformist figure, is still supportive of the Islamic Republic. Further, Iran's domestic nuclear energy policy is broadly supported across Iranian society.
Good to know you are a Hillary voter.
As I am sure you know and as I have said several times, I voted for Trump. I voted for Trump primarily for immigration and trade, and I had some hope that his America First rhetoric would be realized. The fact that I voted for Trump to accomplish a specific agenda does not obligate me to defend everything he does.
I should add, "the wicked flee when no man pursueth."
Sounds like your foreign policy
That is so utterly naïve. Saudi Arabia is a more oppressive society than Iran and is lavished with US diplomatic, military, and economic support.
My preferred foreign policy is the John Quincy Adams approach: "Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
TTR is making up quotes now.
I did not see that coming.
Perhaps auditioning for a position on Mueller's staff?
Sure thing J. whatever you say.
@Rusty:
Sure thing J. whatever you say.
Devastating critique as always, Rusty. Care to point out anything I said that was actually incorrect?
Devastating critique as always, Rusty. Care to point out anything I said that was actually incorrect?
He can't, and neither can Drago and neither can Michael K. They're just doing what they can to push the "no thinking, no reasoning, no interest in facts, pure ideological filter" agenda.
The fact that I voted for Trump to accomplish a specific agenda does not obligate me to defend everything he does.
That makes you a heretic, in their easily duped eyes. If Trump can't be their messiah, then who can? It's almost like you have an interest that goes beyond saving the Republican party through its last best hope, nativist demagoguery. You want results and they want partisan life-support with the same massive lip-service they've always served, whether it went anywhere or not. Both Trump and they just run their mouths and it's like you actually are out for more than just the mouth-running, or something. How heretical!
But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.
Michael Neocon K. and his buddies will only be satisfied once Don Quixote is appointed Secretary of State.
Just what does J. have invested in this that makes him defend it?
Truth and honesty, I suppose.
Oh, now you're prepared to discuss your (honorable) motivations! So, logically, every time you refused, that's because your motivations were dishonorable.
@Bad Lieutenant:
Oh, now you're prepared to discuss your (honorable) motivations!
I have never not been prepared to discuss my motives. I have repeatedly explained my non-interventionism and the reasons behind it.
So, logically, every time you refused, that's because your motivations were dishonorable.
No, actually, that is not "logically" at all, and I have never "refused." What I have said is that people who wish to impugn my motives can just go ahead and assume my motives are impure. I don't care. Because that doesn't actually have anything to do with any argument or point that I make. Do you disagree with that point? It's pretty elementary logic. If someone says water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen, does their motive for saying it have anything to do with the correctness of the statement?
I certainly disagree that you have been willing to disclose when asked.
@Bad Lieutenant:
I certainly disagree that you have been willing to disclose when asked.
If someone inquired in good will about why I hold the positions I hold, I would have no problem explaining it. But it is disingenuous to suggest that I have been unwilling "to disclose when asked." The "asked" invariably takes the form of innuendo or outright accusation (e.g. that I am motivated by affinity for the Iranian regime or some irrational aversion to Jewish people, etc.). Incidentally, when I make the same arguments about Korea or about NATO, it seems I am never accused of harboring anti-Korean or anti-European ethnic sentiments. But when applying the same standard and worldview to the Middle East, suddenly I must be motivated by bizarre ethnic animosities. Do I believe that all ethnic groups are the same? No. Do I believe that tells me anything about the value or worth of any individual human being? No. Every human being is judged according to their individual character. This is basic and fundamental.
That said, my point about "motives" remains unchanged and unchallenged. If you discovered with 100% certainty by "dishonorable" or nefarious motives, that fact would not refute a single argument I have made.
Blogger J. Farmer said...
@Rusty:
Sure thing J. whatever you say.
Devastating critique as always, Rusty. Care to point out anything I said that was actually incorrect?"
Just your ssertion thatthe Iran deal is a good deal. I admit my timeline now for Iran to get the bomb is erroneous, but everything else that I have stated that would go wrong has gone wrong.
Did you help write the thing or something?
But if it helps.
You Win!
There. Feel better?
@Rusty:
Just your ssertion thatthe Iran deal is a good deal.
But I did not merely make an assertion. I gave several reasons for why I believed it. Which of my reasons is incorrect?
I admit my timeline now for Iran to get the bomb is erroneous, but everything else that I have stated that would go wrong has gone wrong.
If you recall, I was willing to make a cash wager on your timeline. You declined. And as far as the deal is concerned, nothing "has gone wrong." The deal is doing exactly what it is intended to do--limit Iran's nuclear program. Iran is no closer to a weapon than they were before the deal.
Did you help write the thing or something?
No, but I seem to be alone here in actually having read it. As I've said, I have made my argument for why I believe it is a good deal.
But if it helps.
You Win!
There. Feel better?
Everything negative you say about my personality is true, Rusty. Okay? Now tell me why my argument is wrong.
If someone inquired in good will
Suddenly, UNEXPECTEDLY, now motivations matter!
@Bad Lieutenant:
Suddenly, UNEXPECTEDLY, now motivations matter!
No. And this demonstrates that either (a) you are clueless; or (b) you are feigning ignorance. Neither speaks well for you.
Let me reiterate. Motivation does not matter, as I have repeatedly said. If you cannot grasp that, then I am sorry to say you are a fucking moron. So let me reiterate, since you seem to be thick as a fucking rock, if someone says two plus two equals four, what the fuck does their motivation have to do with the correctness of that answer?!
Gee, J. Farmer, you seem annoyed about something. That's too bad.
But if motivations don't matter, why be concerned with the good will of your interlocutor?
@Bad Lieutenant:
Gee, J. Farmer, you seem annoyed about something. That's too bad.
Not annoyed, but attempting to communicate with an emptyheaded nudnik like yourself can be taxing.
But if motivations don't matter, why be concerned with the good will of your interlocutor?
I am not concerned; I was just differentiating between good faith efforts to actually understand someone's point of view and slinging insults and innuendos. So let me issue the same challenge to you that I did to Rusty: what factual statement or argument did I make that was incorrect or invalid?
Post a Comment