on the iran deal

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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"

My favorite..

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

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by bigrun

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.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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.

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.

I’ve met with the families of some of those folks. Nobody is content, and our diplomats and our teams are working diligently to try to get them out. Now, if the question is why we did not tie the negotiations to their release, think about the logic that that creates.

Suddenly Iran realizes, you know what? Maybe we can get additional concessions out of the Americans by holding these individuals.

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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

My favorite..

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

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.

[OldDog]

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/

[Danzig]

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.”

[alysheba4]

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

[OldDog]

^ ^ ^ Yes

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.”

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.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

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.

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.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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.

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."

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

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.

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!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.”

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.

[Danzig]

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

[Pants II]

Trophy this thread up, yall.

Nuclear power is brilliant in highly seismic areas.

Thread of the century.

Go Obama.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.”

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by bigrun

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.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.”

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."