on the iran deal
 

Not to be missed..

http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...-obama/398450/

Any number of widely applicable life lessons woven into Peter Beinart terrific analysis of the situation and American Foreign Policy in general..

thanks for that article, steve.

“No deal is better than a bad deal,” Boehner replied.

completely disagree. and i don't even think, like he does, that it's a bad deal.

“An unjust peace is better than a just war.”~Cicero.

and a ramp up to war (again with a war, because that's been our only real foreign policy for decades, and what's it gotten us) isn't the only answer, but it's the answer that some rightists just love.

we're in our longest ever in afganistan, with no end in sight. iraq has only gotten worse, and some of these guys want to go into it with iran too? to what end? for what reason? it's ridiculous.


In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign.... Secondly, a just cause.... Thirdly ... a rightful intention.~st thomas aquinas.


To delight in war is a merit in the soldier, a dangerous quality in the captain, and a positive crime in the statesman.
~ ~ ~ George Santayana "The Life of Reason"

So you buy into the "Bad deal vs. WWIII" scenario? Okee Dokie. Bad deal =WWIII is more likely. By the way, RIP del63. Been away a while.

no.
i don't think it's a bad deal.
i do tire of the constant drum beats for war tho.

War is sweet to those who have no experience of it,
but the experienced man trembles exceedingly at heart on its approach.~Pindar

when watching the short series on WW1, and all that occurred in Europe that led up to that war, there was one common refrain...there'd not been war in a while in europe, so everyone had once again developed fanciful notions of a romantic war.
when war came, they just knew it wouldn't take long, that not much blood would be spilt, that it would be over by christmas.
funny, that's the same stuff said when the south seceded in 1861...one fellow waved his handkerchief, saying it would be able to clean up all the blood that would be shed.

you'd think with all our recent fighting, we'd be more apt to say 'no, let's try other strategy'. but some won't learn from mistakes made, they wish to repeat them...with others paying the price of course.
we are still in a war, our longest ever, with no end in sight. we have the single most expensive fighting force the world has ever seen, and can't end things in afganistan. it's a horrible joke.

It's a lousy deal. And it's not just Reps who have sincere, legitimate doubts about it.

Bad deal vs. war? Nonsense. Keep the sanctions in place, even increase them. The only hope for preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and the ability to use them to threaten the US is regime change. This deal certainly doesn't do it. It releases $100+billion to the mullahs on the front end. Asked about that money being spent arming Hezbollah, arming Bashr al-Assad, etc., the President said

which is why we should keep them in place. Perhaps the State Department's time might have been better spent working with allies to maintain sanctions, rather than working with Iran to end them. Instead, Iran's access to these funds enable it to grow stronger, support Hezbollah and wreak more havoc in the region. For what, exactly? Any time, any place verifications, which just three months ago were a non-negotiable part of the deal? No, and now the Administration denies that they ever were part of the deal. Once Iran has this money, it can't be recalled, no matter how Iran cheats on the deal. And once the sanctions relief is deemed sufficient for the mullahs to stay in power, they can simply walk away from the agreement.

Perhaps this is why Reps and many Dems have expressed skepticism about the deal.

Thank you for posting that, Steve- you're right, it's a terrific article and very concisely pokes holes in all the neocon usual arguments- maintain sanctions! Increase sanctions! Threaten with military strength!

I just don't understand, so recently after Iraq, why so many are so willing to make exactly the same mistakes over again.

Maybe if more of the neocon policy makers had actually ever seen combat, rather than having had "other priorities" or staying safely Stateside in the National Guard, they might have been less eager to throw young Americans into the meant grinder overseas.

My husband and I were discussing how the WW2 generation was the last one where virtually all the men had served during a conflict. Both my grandfathers did (my mom's dad earned two Bronze stars in the Pacific) and one of Todd's grandfathers was in the Battle of the Bulge. And none of them would ever talk about the war. Ever. But I remember how upset my dad's dad was when Dubya launched the Iraq invasion. And I remember conversations at the table about how grateful he was that none of his sons were drafted during Vietnam.

Heck, I'm sure it's why GHW Bush pulled strings to get Dubya a safe stateside position during the Vietnam War. Bush Elder actually saw combat and didn't want his son anywhere near it.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower


“I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in.”
― George S. McGovern

You are exactly right. This is a terrible deal on all levels. This deal (which will free up a couple of hundred billion dollars for Iran) will make it far easier for Iran to not only get nuclear weapons, but to wreak havoc in the region. That is why all the countries that fear Iran are against this deal. If this deal truly made it harder for Iran to get nuclear weapons, countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel would be happy about the deal. They are not happy. They are very upset.

Obama has managed to alienate practically all of our allies in the region. And for what? Does this even win us any points with Iran? No, they still hate us. They won't even release the American hostages that they are holding. It is amazing that Obama would give Iran this incredible deal without even demanding that the hostages be released. That should have been an absolute necessity before any concessions were made.

As you said, opposition to this deal is not strictly partisan. There will be plenty of democrats against this deal. I think it will be a close call as to whether Congress can get a 2/3rd majority opposition to this deal to override Obama's veto. I'm not predicting that they will get the 2/3rd majority, but I think it will be close.

This whole thing will end up just like the deal we made with North Korea. Does anyone think you can trust either Iran or North Korea?

When you are dealing with a bad person or a bad country, I'm not saying that you shouldn't try to engage them or that you shouldn't try to improve relations with that person or country. But when you are more powerful and you are coming from a position of strength, you can ask to see actions first. You don't make all these concessions before seeing any change in behavior.

If we had a strong leader, he would demand that Iran release the American hostages, demand that Iran stop supporting terrorism, stop calling for the destruction of Israel, etc. You don't just drop the sanctions when there has not only been no change in behavior, but not even a promise of a change in behavior. We are the ones in the position of strength, not Iran. If Iran doesn't change their behavior, then we shouldn't lift the sanctions. We should make it clear to them that the ball is in their court and we want to work with them, but we need to see a change in behavior. Why would we want to make a deal that will give them hundreds of billions of dollars that they will probably end up using to wreak havoc in the region?

My favorite..

Wars begin when you will, but they do not end when you please. – Niccolò Machiavelli

In no way does this deal avert a war. If anything, this deal makes it more likely that there will be a war in the Middle East. Iran will now have tons of cash to do whatever they want. Even while they have been broke they have been causing plenty of trouble in the region. Now they will have plenty of cash to cause even more problems.

In addition, I think it is extremely unlikely that Iran will even keep their words on the minimal concessions that they made in this deal. I don't really understand why any of you would trust anything that Iran says. I'm not saying that means we shouldn't engage them. I'm just saying that any rewards we give them should be based on their actions. We shouldn't reward them before they have shown any inclination to change their behavior.

Anyway, the arguments that you guys are making are totally phony arguments. You guys are saying that anyone against this deal is in favor of war. You are also claiming that this deal makes a war less likely. Both of those things are completely false. As I said before, I would argue that this deal makes a war more likely.

So True. What's more, now we are guaranteed a Middle East nuclear arms race. And thanks for reminding me about the President's comment about the American hostages being held in Iran.

What? Additional concessions? Someone needs to remind him that WE'RE the ones negotiating from a position of strength. At least, we used to be.

have referred to that one in the past, especially regarding afganistan. there's another that says don't get into a war that you can't win.

President to Congress: "F.U."

"Lead negotiator Wendy Sherman confirmed for journalists yesterday that the Obama administration will, over the next few days, pursue a binding United Nations Security Council resolution (UNSCR) that will lift sanctions on Iran. The resolution was circulated yesterday by the U.S. and a leaked text is already online [1]. When asked how the move could be reconciled with the 60-day Congressional review period mandated by the Corker legislation, Sherman sarcastically responded that you can’t really say “well excuse me, the world, you should wait for the United States Congress” because there has to be some way for “the international community to speak.” [2]. She noted that at least the UNSCR would have a 90 day interim period before its mandatory obligations kick in.

The gambit undermines the Corker bill – to say nothing of American sovereignty – on multiple levels. On a policy level, the UNSCR on its own would compel American action even if Congress rejects the Iran deal. On a political level, the administration intends to take the UNSCR and go to lawmakers while they’re considering the deal and say ‘you can’t reject the agreement because it would put America in violation of international law.’

The pushback from the Hill yesterday was immediate and furious. Corker: “an affront to the American people… an affront to Congress and the House of Representatives” [3]. Cardin: “it would be better not to have action on the U.N. resolution” [4]. Cruz: “our Administration intended all along to circumvent this domestic review by moving the agreement to the UN Security Council before the mandatory 60-day review period ends” [5]. Kirk: “a breathtaking assault on American sovereignty and Congressional prerogative” [6]. McCarthy: “violates the spirit of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, which the President signed into law… inconceivable – yet sadly not surprising” [7].

The Washington Post article [by Karen DeYoung here covers some of those statements and has a bunch of background. The story will develop throughout the day and through the beginning of next week. It’s going to be particularly brutal given that the Corker legislation was created and passed to stop exactly this scenario.

Remember how we got here. The March 9 Cotton letter, signed by 47 Senators, declared that without Congressional buy-in any deal with Iran would not be binding on future presidents [8]. Iranian FM Zarif responded with a temper tantrum in which he revealed that the parties intended to fast-track an UNSCR that would make Congress irrelevant and tie the hands of future presidents: “I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law”[9]. That created a firestorm of criticism from the Hill [10]. Zarif doubled down from the stage at NYU: “within a few days after [an agreement] we will have a resolution in the security council … which will be mandatory for all member states, whether Senator Cotton likes it or not” [11].

And so Congress responded with the Corker legislation. 98 Senators and 400 Representatives passed the bill with the intention of preventing the Obama administration from immediately going to the U.N. after an agreement and making good on Zarif’s boast. President Obama signed the bill. Now the administration is doing exactly what the legislation was designed to prohibit."

[1] http://www.scribd.com/doc/271711382/...y-Press#scribd
[2] http://www.c-span.org/video/?327147-...tment-briefing
[3] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-wo...-nuclear-deal/
[4] http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/2...action-on-iran
[5] http://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/doc...onIranDeal.pdf
[6] http://www.kirk.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1474
[7] http://www.majorityleader.gov/2015/0...deal-congress/
[8] http://www.cotton.senate.gov/content...-republic-iran
[9] http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...ighten-authors
[10] http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...o-the-u-n.html
[11] http://freebeacon.com/national-secur...kes-it-or-not/

As one Tehran resident quoted by the AP puts it, “There are three groups of people in the world who are against the deal: War-mongering Republicans in the U.S., Netanyahu and hard-liners in Iran.”

christ almighty is Dell missed...........

^ ^ ^ Yes

Kind of like how fundamentalist Christians and Muslims attack each other's beliefs, when in fact they have very similar positions on lots of things, like treatment of women and gays.

That is total nonsense. There are plenty of democrats in Congress that are going to vote against it. I don't know exactly how many countries in the Middle East are against it. I know Saudi Arabia is against it.

:tro::tro:

It is laughable for you to compare fundamentalist Christians to Muslims. Your views are actually similar to hate groups. One of the main reasons that hate groups hate certain groups is because of totally false beliefs that they have about these groups. That is similar to you. You have these completely false beliefs about fundamentalist Christians. I guess it might even make sense for you to hate them if you actually believe these things.

It's blasphemous for you to make such a comparison. In Muslim countries, they imprison and kill people for being gay. In many of these Muslim countries, women have to keep their faces covered. They can't drive. They can't vote. They aren't allowed to travel alone, etc. They get stoned to death for alleged adultery. In some of these countries, women aren't even allowed to work. The persecution may slightly vary from one Muslim country to another, but women and gays are treated horribly. I'm not aware of any fundamentalist Christian that is in favor of any type of persecution of women or gays.

For you to try on any level to compare a Christian's view of women and gays to a Muslim's view is disgraceful and offensive. It is completely out of line. There is no comparison on any level.

That is typical of a liberal. Somebody says something that is completely false and you congratulate them. Wishing that a false statement was true doesn't make it true. You guys never let the truth interfere with your phony narrative.

I predict that there will be close to a 2/3rd majority in Congress against this deal. If I am right. it will show that you guys are totally wrong in trying to pretend that it is only partisan republicans who are against this deal.

It really doesn't matter who in congress is against it. And I couldn't care less what Saudi Arabia does.
All congress can do is vote to keep u.s. sanctions in place.
As for Israel, the billion and a half extra in aid will bring them some solace I'm sure....and defense contractors as well.


Here's this, regarding congress
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/16/politi...ess-iran-deal/


Also, note, this isn't a tresaty between us and Iran, thus the voting is different. A simple majority vote to say yes or nay. If nay, Obama would veto...and then congress would have to get 2/3rds

:tro:

Too true. I will always remember the daily show where they talked to some alabamana about them passing a law against using any 'foreign law'. When asked why they didn't want any biblical laws, they were shocked at such a suggestion. No, its against sharia!! Er, Jesus wasn't born in america. Oh, hilarity!

A guy on the streets of Tel Aviv was quoted as saying, "There are three groups of people in the world who are in favor of the deal: Left-wing democrats, the Iranian Mullahs, and President Obama and his family."

As a secularist, I don't believe in blasphemy.

The reason our nation's government does not permit legal murder of homosexuals and (at least obvious) subjugation of women is because our government is SECULAR. The Founding Fathers wisely structured the young United States to try to keep religious zealots as far away from the seats of power as they could.

In your own home state of CA, a Christian lawyer this spring filed a ballot proposal to make it legal to shoot gay men and women in the head. Here is what this Christian lawyer had to say about homosexuality:

"Seeing that it is better that offenders should die rather than that all of us should be killed by God's just wrath against us for the folly of tolerating-wickedness in our midst, the People of California wisely command, in the fear of God, that any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method."

And here's another article from 2015 about Christian pastors who support stoning homosexuals to death, because it's in the Bible, after all:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progres...r-homosexuals/

And here's a lovely article about Christians who have murdered children in the name of disciplining them the way they believe the Bible tells them to:

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/26/a_st...abuse_partner/

And an article by a guy explaining why the Bible says it's okay to "gently" hit your wife:

http://christwire.org/2009/04/is-it-...beat-his-wife/

I should note in this rage-inducing article, he says that were it a few hundred years ago, he would gladly have helped kill a woman who committed adultery.

And the typical response is, "Well, but these people aren't REAL Christians." Yeah, tell that to them. Their response will be that they are the real deal and you're not. And they do believe they're doing a better job of following the Bible than you are.

And I am grateful I live in a nation where religion is not allowed to make the laws. And I pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that his Holy Noodleness continues to keep it that way.

Oh! One more. Reminder of the woman in Ireland who died because doctors refused her an abortion of a dying fetus that would have saved her life:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2128696.html

Highlight from the story:
""Again on Tuesday morning ... the consultant said it was the law, that this is a Catholic country. Savita said: `I am neither Irish nor Catholic' but they said there was nothing they could do," Praveen Halappanavar said."

:tro:

I don't know if any of those people are real Christians, but what percentage of fundamentalist Christians do you think hold those views? We're not talking about 1%. We are talking about .00001%. How can you condemn a group based on what maybe one person out of 100,000 in that group thinks? That is ridiculous.

Did you see this story? These gay activists who aren't too bright were caught on tape saying they'd like to "kick Judge Kennedy's ass, then string him up, and kick his ass again." They said this before the Supreme Court ruling. As I said, they aren't too bright. They had no idea that Judge Kennedy was going to be the deciding vote in their favor.

http://barbwire.com/2015/06/12/hidde...thony-kennedy/

You claim, "The reason our nation's government does not permit legal murder of homosexuals is because our government is SECULAR." What are you smoking? Our government being secular has nothing to do with the murder of any people being illegal. Where do you come up with this stuff? I think most people are against murder, regardless of whether they are religious. I haven't seen any evidence that Christians are more tolerant of murder than atheists.

Just curious. What is your magic number Let's call it the OU perecentage that you use before condeming a group based upon a small minority of them?

http://www.lifewayresearch.com/2015/...-gay-marriage/


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-...b_2229509.html

If the person is Muslim, I believe he works from a sample size of one.

The people hung as witches in Salem would beg to differ, except they're dead. But you know, colonial Massachusetts was run by Christian law back in 1692 and that's how things went then. Were the US gov't run by Christian fundamentalists today, there'd be a heck lot more "crimes" eligible for the death penalty.

And, in the long-ago era of 1994, a man got 18 months for murdering his wife, and the judge was upset he had to give him even that much, because, you know, she cheated on him, therefore her husband killing her was appropriate:

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/199...-cheating-wife

This was in that barbaric nation known as the State of Maryland.

Trophy this thread up, yall.

Nuclear power is brilliant in highly seismic areas.

Thread of the century.

Go Obama.

Those same founding fathers owned slaves and you don't like that at all.

So why use them in support of your lunacy now when it's convenient, you colossal phony?

The Nazis were secular too. Go f.uck yourself, you worthless liberal whore.

If it was in the 10-20% range, I would say that would definitely qualify. If it's in the one out of 100,000 range, that would not come close to qualifying.

I don't see the article saying anything about the Judge in the Maryland case being Christian. If he is Christian, I thought you said that Christians are more likely to give the death penalty. This judge was lenient. He sounds like a liberal to me. I'm surprised he's not your favorite judge.

I have a question for you. If you did a poll right now and asked people what the punishment should be for murdering a cheating spouse, do you think that Christians would be more lenient on the killer than non-Christians? I don't think that would be the case. I think it would actually be the opposite. So I'm not sure what your point was.

Yes, how did you know? Any negative views I have on Islam are based on this one case that I heard about where a Muslim man slapped his wife. That's it. Aside from that, there is nothing to be critical about when it comes to Islam. There is nothing negative aside from that. I can't figure out where the criticism of Islam comes from.

What do you think Muslims throughout the world thought of Osama bin Laden a few years after 9/11? Here is the answer: Osama bin Laden is viewed favorably by large percentages in Pakistan (65%), Jordan (55%) and Morocco (45%).

http://www.people-press.org/2004/03/...fter-iraq-war/