on the iran deal

[Danzig]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...deal_they.html

[Kasept]

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..

[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"

[SOREHOOF]

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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

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.

[OldDog]

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

I think it is a mistake to — to characterize our belief that they will just spend it on daycare centers and — and — and roads and — and paying down debt. We think that they have to do some of that, because Rouhani was elected specifically on the premise of improving the economic situation inside of Iran. That economy has tanked since we imposed sanctions.

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.

[GenuineRisk]

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.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

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

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by OldDog

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.

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?

[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 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.