Hottest Ticket In Town

About an hour to go before the big show and the High School girl’s penchant for cyber bullying is in full flourish. A packed house, sans the petulant Democrats, awaits the Benjamin Netanyahu address to the full Congress. No one from the Obama Administration will be present, no State folks, no Israeli ambassador, the President can’t even be bothered to watch, butt hurt indeed.

Netanyahu went out of his way yesterday, while addressing the folks at AIPAC, to dispel any rumors of a rift between the two governments, as if. They don’t call it “diplomacy” for nothing. But the folks, both here and in Israel, know better.

How funny, the guy that threw our most valued ME ally under the bus ( or thrown them to the wolves, pick your own metaphor), the guy that started his presidency with the most wild eyed pie in the sky notion of eliminating all nuclear weapons world wide, just guaranteed every kid in the ME block going nuclear themselves.

So now we have a bad deal in the works, with the school yard bully, the same bully that continually bloodys our nose even after taking our lunch money, yet we still think that the biggest sponsor of world wide terrorism can be trusted to honor a treaty, a treaty btw that no one knows the particulars of, and with a party that has never honored treaties in the past, this is the Chicago way.

TBH, I am surprised that the Israeli AF has not taken out the Iranian nuclear factories ala Osirak, long before now. To put your very existence in the hands of Obama and his ability to deal, or in the IAEA and their inability to accurately monitor the cheaters in Tehran? Ridiculous.

Bibi will make a passioned case about the consequences, not only for Israel, but for everyone who fears a terrorists approach to nation building, and the need for real sanctions, the stick, to shape the manners of a nation who has shunned them in the past.

Obama has made this speech more than just historic, a not to be missed affair. Normally it is Boehner who gets manipulated with this type of alacrity.

As an aside, just heard that Boehner is now calling for a House vote on a clean DHS funding bill, he is such a playable light weight.

So, break out the popcorn, Bibi is about ready to rock the house.

Comments are closed.

  1. Iconoclast

    He’s making secret deals with our enemies (Iran), potentially harming an ally (Israel) in the process.  That arguably constitutes treason.  It would be less treasonous if it were more open and transparent, but this is one of the most opaque Administrations in memory, if not history.

    How about a counter-argument instead of name-calling?

    Thumb up 2

  2. Iconoclast

    It seems that every move Obama makes seeks to weaken us as a nation, along with our allies, as well as put American citizens in greater danger.  He took an oath to protect Americans and uphold the Constitution, and seems to be spectacularly failing at both.  Now that the electorate has finally woken up and spoken up, he seems determined to double-down on pushing his agenda via execute order, separation of powers be damned.  By all appearances, we are living in more dangerous times, and he seems quite fine with that.

    Like I said before, I would appreciate an actual counter-argument, rather than invective and ad hominem.

    Thumb up 2

  3. richtaylor365 *

    Icon, I think Obama would counter your comment with ,”Iran is exceptional just like we are exceptional, no difference, and if they want to go nuclear, who are we to get in their way? But don’t worry, my awesomeness will compel them to honor the treaty, compel them to give up their terrorist ways, compel them to play nice with others. If I can slow the rise of oceans and heal our planet, I can certainly broker a deal between Iran and Israel.”

    Thumb up 2

  4. Hal_10000

    Treason is a bit much.  I disagree with a lot of Obama’s foreign policy, but his job is to pursue the interests of our nation as he sees them.  It’s not to pursue Israel’s interest.  Israel had made it clear that they will pursue their interests when they conflict with ours (as they should). The complication here is that we could really use Iran on our side in dealing with ISIL (and, down the road, Saudi Arabia). Bombing Iran, as Netanyahu wants to do, as the neocon architects of the Iraq War want to do, is a good way to make everything in the Middle East a hell of a lot worse.

    I’ve blogged about Iran a few times and I’ll just restate what I’ve said. We’re never going to talk them out of a nuclear program. There is no way the Iranians, no matter who is running the show, will accept a situation where Russia, the US, Israel, Pakistan and India all have nukes and they don’t. I think our efforts should be concentrated on delaying that day as long as tenable (sans bombing) and bringing more moderate leaders to the fore.  Iran could go from being our biggest enemy in the region to our biggest ally in a hurry. Iranians are a much more natural ally for us than, say, the Saudis.

    That’s a delicate line to walk and Obama is not doing a good job of it.  But the situation is a lot more complex than Israel Good, Iran Bad.

    Thumb up 1

  5. Iconoclast

    Treason is a bit much.

    I don’t think so, not when you consider the damage he’s done in toto.  This incident by itself, perhaps not, but when everything else he’s done, the lies and scandals, then yes.

     I disagree with a lot of Obama’s foreign policy, but his job is to pursue the interests of our nation as he sees them.

    But what if “he sees them” as knocking us down a few notches to “even the playing field”, as it were?  It does often seem that he sees a strong USA as a problem rather than an asset.

     Iran could go from being our biggest enemy in the region to our biggest ally in a hurry.

    At what cost?  Are we to potentially sacrifice an existing ally for the sake of gaining one who is, at this stage, quite untrustworthy?  Iran’s leadership has repeated called for Israel’s destruction — are we to proceed under the belief that they didn’t really mean it?

    I’ve said it before:  As long as the sovereign state of Israel exists, there simply will never, ever be peace in that region, period, end 0f discussion, Allah Akbar, Amen.  And as long as the US is Israel’s ally, there is simply no way a Muslim nation will find us trustworthy.

     Russia, the US, Israel, Pakistan and India all have nukes…

    But I don’t recall the leaders of those nations calling for the destruction of a sovereign nation — repeatedly.

    Thumb up 4

  6. Hal_10000

    At what cost?  Are we to potentially sacrifice an existing ally for the sake of gaining one who is, at this stage, quite untrustworthy?  Iran’s leadership has repeated called for Israel’s destruction — are we to proceed under the belief that they didn’t really mean it?

    No. But we can proceed with the belief that they have no such ability. Iran does not have anything approaching a major conventional force. They might be able to build a nuclear weapon at some point … which is opposed by Israel’s 200 nuclear weapons, missile defense system and second strike capability. We can also proceed with the knowledge that the Iranian leadership is unpopular within their own country and only hanging onto power through brute force.

    Netanyahu may be right that the deal is a bad one. We won’t know until we see it.  But this isn’t an either-or situation. We’ve made nice with other ME nations — Saudi Arabia and Egypt, for example — that were formerly dedicated to the destruction of Israel. And I’m not convinced that Iran is any crazier than they are.

    Thumb up 0

  7. Hal_10000

    But I don’t recall the leaders of those nations calling for the destruction of a sovereign nation — repeatedly.

    Most of those calls were from Ahmadinejad, not from the clerics who really control the country.  And Pakistan and India have had a bitter off-and-on war for decades without firing any nuclear weapons.

    Thumb up 0

  8. richtaylor365 *

    Most of those calls were from Ahmadinejad, not from the clerics who really control the country.

     

    Really?

    Google something similar to “How Iran clerics feel about Israel” and watch your computer explode,

    Hal, it appears to me that you are getting your talking points straight from the WH, both you and Obama are strikingly naive as to the Iranian threat to world peace. I’m sure you know how much American blood is on the hands of Iran. Bibi mentioned the growing Iranian influence with the entire ME sphere (Baghdad Damascus, Lebanon, Sana), and it’s influence with Boko Haram. Tell me, are ICBM research and production mentioned in this treaty? Iran already has missile capability to reach all of the ME and Europe, the only reason to have ICBM’s  is to launch on America.

     

    We can also proceed with the knowledge that the Iranian leadership is unpopular within their own country and only hanging onto power through brute force

    .

    The current regime has held power for 35 years, and you think their hold on the people is tenuous?

    As mentioned before, a nuclear Iran will bring about a Nuclear Saudi Arabia, a nuclear Egypt and a nuclear Turkey, and similar dominoes will fall.

    I would have preferred an air strike on their nuclear facilities 2 years ago , baring that I am all for massive financial sanctions, something Obama is hell bent against regardless of Iran’s duplicity in the ongoing negotiations.

    Thumb up 3

  9. Hal_10000

    As mentioned before, a nuclear Iran will bring about a Nuclear Saudi Arabia, a nuclear Egypt and a nuclear Turkey, and similar dominoes will fall.

    Huh?  Because those countries didn’t start a nuclear program when Israel got nukes, but they will when Iran does?

    I would have preferred an air strike on their nuclear facilities 2 years ago , baring that I am all for massive financial sanctions, something Obama is hell bent against regardless of Iran’s duplicity in the ongoing negotiations.

    And what would a strike two years ago have accomplished?  This isn’t like Osirak, where you had one conveniently located facility.  Iran has hundred of facilities spread out all over the country, many of which are underground. So an airstrike wouldn’t have stopped their program.  But it would have precipitated a massive crisis, with a possible shooting war in the Gulf and strengthened the hands of mullahs.

    Thumb up 0

  10. richtaylor365 *

    CM, my link was presented to refute Hal’s unsubstantiated and false claim that the clerics were not calling for the destruction of Israel, clearly they are.

    Huh?  Because those countries didn’t start a nuclear program when Israel got nukes, but they will when Iran does?

    Jesus, Hal, aren’t you paying attention?

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/14/saudi-arabia-may-go-nuclear-because-of-obama-s-iran-deal.html

    http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/03/02/mccain-iran-deal-will-make-other-me-countries-go-nuclear/

    http://www.e-ir.info/2013/08/10/the-defensive-iran-rethinking-realism-in-the-case-of-irans-nuclear-programme/

    and in 2010, the UAE ambassador to the US emphasised the UAE’s support for a US military action to stop Iran’s nuclear programme[75], proclaiming that ‘…out of every country in the region, the UAE is most vulnerable to Iran. Our military, who has existed for the past forty years, wake up, dream, breath, eat sleep the Iranian threat’.[76] The Gulf leaders are also – covertly – moving closer and closer to Israel in security negotiations.[77] Indeed, the Gulf States seem increasingly willing to assist either Israel or the US in a potential attack on Iran.[78]

    And what would a strike two years ago have accomplished?

    2 years ago the facilities were out in the open, above ground, not connected with miles of underground tunnels conveniently built by the North Koreans, and the facilities were not ringed by the latest Russian surface to air missile batteries.

     But it would have precipitated a massive crisis, with a possible shooting war in the Gulf and strengthened the hands of mullahs.

    Maybe, maybe not, Osirak did not precipitate a massive crisis, a shooting war. I would think the Israelis would prefer a conventional shooting war then  have Tel Aviv nuked. And as far strengthening the hands of the mullahs, after 35 years of rule, I’d say they sleep just fine at night, knowing things are well in hand.

    Thumb up 2

  11. CM

    Looks like you guys disagree with the strategy. Doesn’t mean you are right and Obama is wrong. Hal makes perfectly good points but because you disagree it must mean he’s not paying attention? As if Obama wants to weaken America and make Iran more dangerous. Just because you think so, doesn’t come close to making it so.

    Thumb up 0

  12. Xetrov

    As if Obama wants to weaken America and make Iran more dangerous. 

    What matters more, the intentions of someone’s actions or the results of someone’s actions?

    Thumb up 0

  13. Iconoclast

    Your link is inconsistent with Iran bombing anyone. Contrary even.

    Rich already explained that the purpose of the link was to counter HAL’s assertion that  the mullahs were NOT calling for Israel’s destruction, not show that Iran was going to necessarily nuke Israel.  But even at that, Rich’s link doesn’t necessarily preclude Iran nuking Israel.  Or providing a nuke to Hamas, or the Taliban, or what have you.

    Doesn’t mean you are right and Obama is wrong.

    Doesn’t mean the opposite, either.

     Just because you think so, doesn’t come close to making it so.

    Never claimed it did.  You do comprehend words like “appears” and “seems”, don’t you?  When you cut our military and encourage illegal aliens to flood across our border via executive fiat, refuse to support Iranians during a protest/uprising and make deals with the Iranian government instead, knowing that said government does have connections with the Taliban and Hamas, when you veto a pipeline that would provide jobs and lessen our dependence on foreign oil while making the transport of oil across our own land more safe (there was a crude oil train wreck in West Virginia just last month), then yes, it certainly does appear that making America stronger and more safe is not a priority.

    Thumb up 0

  14. Iconoclast

    Crap — the link button doesn’t seem to work.

    Let’s try this…

     <a href="http://www.akdart.com/obama146.html" title="President Obama is weakening America’s defenses”>

    Thumb up 0

  15. Iconoclast

    That didn’t work either…

    <a href="http://www.akdart.com/obama146.html">President Obama is weakening America’s defenses</a>

    Thumb up 0

  16. Iconoclast

    They might be able to build a nuclear weapon at some point … which is opposed by Israel’s 200 nuclear weapons, missile defense system and second strike capability.

    Yes, but what about providing nukes to Hamas, or the Taliban, or some other unsavory group?  And who’s to say that Israel’s 200 nukes will act as a deterrent?  Iran isn’t the former Soviet Union — they are driven by concerns that secularists might have a hard time imagining.  Assuming they think like you and me, or even like Putin, could be a fatal error.

    We can also proceed with the knowledge that the Iranian leadership is unpopular within their own country and only hanging onto power through brute force.

    Well, brute force can be a very effective way to “hang on” to power.  And when they were challenged during the 2009 protests, our President did nothing to help the protestors, sending a clear message in the process.  And now Obama is making deals with them?

    Netanyahu may be right that the deal is a bad one. We won’t know until we see it.

    Well, if we pay attention to past history, we can surmise what the deal might be.  Just think “red lines” and Syria, for example.  I doubt any world leader takes our leadership at all seriously.  Why should they?

    Hell, it could be argued that Netanyahu wouldn’t even be considering addressing our Congress if our leadership could actually, you know, lead.  And no, I don’t mean “lead from behind”, a truly Orwellian turn of phrase if there ever was one.

    Thumb up 0

  17. richtaylor365 *

    See, CM, this is why people here get annoyed with you, the silly game playing. No, let me rephrase, this is why I get annoyed with you, I know you can read and comprehend English but you assert things not presented, not the first time btw and a tired lame tactic that I can only assume is used to dodge the issue.

    My link was presented for one purpose, yet you claim it was presented for something else, why do you do that?  The very first line of the link answered your question. The Supreme Leader-the head cleric (the guy Hal came here and said was not interested in the destruction of Israel) clearly wants Israel destroyed, and that position was gumming up the treaty talks, after all, nobody wants to negotiate with lunatics, and him taking this extreme position presents him as such. When one wants the destruction of something, it is is not a stretch to conclude that he will use any means available  to achieve that goal.

    Hal makes perfectly good points but because you disagree it must mean he’s not paying attention?

    Again, not what I said, but you knew that and still went there, like you enjoy being irritating, obtuse, and difficult. Hal could not connect the dots between Iran getting nukes and other countries in the region feeling threatened and wanting nukes themselves. This fact has been written about many times, and the links I provided show that. But you had to go all smarmy on me and suggest that because he held a different opinion on the whole topic in general (not just this one particular part of the topic) I accused him of “not paying attention”, bad form and provocative beyond what was presented or necessary.

    Thumb up 4

  18. Iconoclast

    From Rich’s link:

    On Monday, Vice President Joe Biden assured Jewish leaders the United States would not sign a bad deal, the Times of Israel reports.

    “Let me say to you clearly in the Bidenesque way: We will not let Iran acquire a nuclear weapon — period,” he told the annual conference of the Jewish Federations of North America, the Times of Israel reports.

    Yeah, well, this same Administration repeatedly told us, “If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan. Period. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period.”

    Just because some bozo from this Administration utters the word “period” after an assertion, it sure as hell doesn’t mean the assertion is true.  In fact, I personally would bet on the diametric opposite being true.

    And that’s a major problem — this Administration simply doesn’t have any credibility.

    Thumb up 2

  19. Iconoclast

    As if Obama wants to weaken America and make Iran more dangerous.

    I’ve already addressed the first point. As for the second, it’s a straw man.  No one is claiming that Obama deliberately wants to “make Iran more dangerous”, and it’s insulting that you would put such words in our mouth, collectively speaking.  It’s just that Obama seems to think he’s so awesome that he can just charm our enemies, but they appear to see him as a weak man-child with no credibility, and act accordingly.  Does anyone really, truly believe Iran will honor whatever agreement is forged if said agreement goes against their interests?  We are to trust our own Administration when they slather on the platitudes of reassurance, in light of the past six years?

    Really?

    Thumb up 2

  20. CM

    What matters more, the intentions of someone’s actions or the results of someone’s actions?

    Both matter. But here people are attempting to make definitive calls about what will happen based on stated intentions (while at the same time taking those stated intentions and changing them to suit).

    Bibi was there not as a politician, but as a guest and a gracious-and grateful-friend and ally. It was very Churchill-like.

    Of course he’s there as a politician – he has an election to win.

     

    When did Churchill address an allies legislative chamber and bag the sitting leader’s foreign policy? It’s not hard to imagine the howls of outrage if the Democrats brought in a foreign leader to bag the sitting Republican Party POTUS.

    Rich already explained that the purpose of the link was to counter HAL’s assertion that  the mullahs were NOT calling for Israel’s destruction, not show that Iran was going to necessarily nuke Israel.

    But then immediately it becomes a direct link between the two. So why bother with the pretense?

    But even at that, Rich’s link doesn’t necessarily preclude Iran nuking Israel.  Or providing a nuke to Hamas, or the Taliban, or what have you.

    Well of course, but let’s base that on reality. How likely is it, and based on what? Some within the Iranian leadership structure don’t want Israel to be as it is now (they want the Zionist aspect ‘destroyed’).  We know that. Nothing new. Beyond that, people appear to just be filling in the gaps with whatever suits. Nothing Iran has done over the last few decades has been irrational. Why would having a nuke (even assuming they got one) suddenly make them irrational?

    Doesn’t mean the opposite, either

    Right, but hang the guy anyway because you disagree and dismiss the rationale beyond the decision-making.

    When you cut our military and encourage illegal aliens to flood across our border via executive fiat, refuse to support Iranians during a protest/uprising and make deals with the Iranian government instead, knowing that said government does have connections with the Taliban and Hamas, when you veto a pipeline that would provide jobs and lessen our dependence on foreign oil while making the transport of oil across our own land more safe (there was a crude oil train wreck in West Virginia just last month), then yes, it certainly does appear that making America stronger and more safe is not a priority.

    Counter-arguments can certainly be made on all those, so it only looks that way to you and others who think like you. Yes you can make the argument, but it’s still only your argument.

    Yes, but what about providing nukes to Hamas, or the Taliban, or some other unsavory group?

    How likely is it, given that it would easily and obviously be known that that’s what happened? How would be a rational thing to do? It would be counter to what Rich provided as evidence of what at least  Khamenei has said. But apparently we must listen to them and also not listen to them at the same time?

    Iran isn’t the former Soviet Union — they are driven by concerns that secularists might have a hard time imagining.  Assuming they think like you and me, or even like Putin, could be a fatal error.

    Where is all the evidence that they operate irrationally though, or act entirely according to scripture (damn the consequences)? I mean beyond (mental-masturbatory) speculation?

    And when they were challenged during the 2009 protests, our President did nothing to help the protestors, sending a clear message in the process.  And now Obama is making dealswith them?

    There we go – that is an extremely biased and deliberately simplistic view of both. There is no attempt to acknowledge intent, only a desire to make everything fit a narrative.

     I doubt any world leader takes our leadership at all seriously.  Why should they?

    Because they’re not on the American hard-right, where the rationale for decisions made is always rejected and dismissed in favour of “it’s because Obama hates America, nothing else makes sense”. When in fact something else DOES make sense, you just don’t like it or agree with it.

    See, CM, this is why people here get annoyed with you, the silly game playing. 

    I’m not playing a game.

    My link was presented for one purpose, yet you claim it was presented for something else, why do you do that?

    Because it matters a great what ‘destruction’ actually means if we’re talking about Iran potentially getting the bomb.

    Hal could not connect the dots between Iran getting nukes and other countries in the region feeling threatened and wanting nukes themselves.

    You’re right – he seems to see this whole issue in far less simplistic terms than the rest of you.

    But you had to go all smarmy on me and suggest that because he held a different opinion on the whole topic in general (not just this one particular part of the topic) I accused him of “not paying attention”, bad form and provocative beyond what was presented or necessary.

    First of all Obama needs to be killed, and then you make derogatory and unnecessary remarks about Hal, and I’m the one being provocative. Brilliant.

    Does anyone really, truly believe Iran will honor whatever agreement is forged if said agreement goes against their interests?

    The point is that it at least it can provide a basis to move forward (and enables the West to do things that make it worthwhile to Iran to keep it’s word). As opposed to alternatives, such as military action or doing something which kicks something off.

    Or you could hang Obama to show them who’s boss.

    Thumb up 0

  21. Iconoclast

    But then immediately it becomes a direct link between the two.

    No, it doesn’t.  At least you haven’t shown that it does.

    So why bother with the pretense?

    What alleged pretense?  Rich was simply countering HALs assertion.  You’re the one fabricating something that isn’t there.

    Well of course, but let’s base that on reality.

    Who’s alleged reality?

    How likely is it, and based on what?

    Irrelevant.  Either you can show that it’s simply not possible, or you can’t.  I’m not pretending that Muslim clerics in charge of a theocratic nation think the same way secular leaders of western nations think.  It appear that you are.  Islam does call for a world-wide caliphate, obtained by force if necessary.

    Some within the Iranian leadership structure don’t want Israel to be as it is now (they want the Zionist aspect ‘destroyed’).

    Nice equivocation, there.  They “don’t want Israel to be as it is now”?  Talk about pretense…they don’t want Israel to exist at all.

    Nothing Iran has done over the last few decades has been irrational.

    Well, there you go.  Repeated calls to remove Israel from the face of the map is not irrational.  Sponsoring terrorism is not irrational.

    Right, but hang the guy anyway because you disagree and dismiss the rationale beyond the decision-making.

    No, hang the guy because he is an enemy of the state who makes the world less safe for the citizens under his charge, and who makes America a weaker nation as a whole.  Again, spectacular equivocation on your part.

    Counter-arguments can certainly be made on all those…

    Then go ahead and make them.

    …so it only looks that way to you and others who think like you.

    Ditto.  The world looks a certain way to you and others who think like you because of your own particular slants and biases.

    Yes you can make the argument, but it’s still only your argument.

    And you and others who think like you can indulge in your hand-wave dismissals while clinging to the pretense that you are the rational ones.

     

     

    Thumb up 2

  22. Iconoclast

    There we go – that is an extremely biased and deliberately simplistic view of both. There is no attempt to acknowledge intent, only a desire to make everything fit a narrative.

    Nope.  It “fits the narrative” already.  It’s up to you to convince me otherwise.  Condescension won’t get you very far in that regard, although it does appear to be your strongest pitch.

    Because they’re not on the American hard-right…

    Yeah, talk about narratives.  “Hard right” doesn’t enter into it, unless you are admitting that not being on the “hard right” is the equivalent to being an absolute patsy.  World leaders don’t take Obama seriously.  That’s a serious problem, and slapping the “hard right” label on people you personally disagree with won’t mitigate that.  It certainly doesn’t mean said world leaders are all on the “hard right”.

    I’m not playing a game.

    Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

    Thumb up 0

  23. Iconoclast

    You’re right – he seems to see this whole issue in far less simplistic terms than the rest of you.

    Yeah, I can easily imagine someone saying similar things about Neville Chamberlain…

    Thumb up 1

  24. Iconoclast

    The point is that it at least it can provide a basis to move forward…

    “Move forward” into what, exactly?  I love all this liberal talk of “moving forward”, as if it’s automatically a good thing.  Sometime “moving forward” can lead you over a cliff.

    Maybe slowing down and making rational assessments would be a better course.  But I guess it depends on who’s agenda would be compromised…

    As opposed to alternatives, such as military action or doing something which kicks something off.

    A simply fact of life is that, sometimes, that “something” you’re so afraid of being “kicked off” is absolutely inevitable.  Sometimes, we do have to see things in “simplistic” terms of good versus evil, and be willing to confront that evil.  But you liberals cannot tolerate such thinking, it seems.  Better to make deals, better to appease, better to put off confrontation.

    At least until it’s someone else’s watch…

    That’s pretty much all this “deal” appears to do, assuming Iran honors it at all.

    Thumb up 1

  25. Iconoclast

    When did Churchill address an allies legislative chamber and bag the sitting leader’s foreign policy?

    If President Roosevelt were making weapons deals with Hitler, I wouldn’t find it at all hard to imagine Churchill doing that very thing.

    Are you even capable of intellectually honest comparisons?

    It’s not hard to imagine the howls of outrage if the Democrats brought in a foreign leader to bag the sitting Republican Party POTUS.

    I’m sure for you it isn’t, but then I personally do find it hard to imagine a conservative, non-RINO President making weapons deals with our sworn enemies.

    Oh, and before you mention things like the SALT treaties, bear in mind that the Soviets already had nukes, and the  purpose of SALT was to provide limitations for both sides.  That’s what the “L” in SALT stands for, limitation.

    Thumb up 0

  26. Iconoclast

    When did Churchill address an allies legislative chamber and bag the sitting leader’s foreign policy?

    Well, I just finished reading a transcript of the speech, and to say that it’s bagging the President’s foreign policy is extremely misleading.  The only thing it “bagged” were the particulars of this deal.  Netanyahu didn’t even “bag” the idea of a deal, per se, only the particulars of this one.

    Criticizing the particulars of a specific deal is not the same thing as criticizing an entire foreign policy.  To imply that they are the same is simply dishonest.

    Thumb up 1

  27. richtaylor365 *

    Rewarding our enemies while ignoring our friends, an all too familiar pattern from this administration;

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/like-israel-u-s-arab-allies-fear-obamas-iran-nuclear-deal-1425504773?KEYWORDS=Yaroslav+Trofimov

    Our Arab allies in the region hate this deal, they distrust Obama but fear Iran and it’s expantion  through out the ME, a nuclear Iran will only tip the balance of power further and they are worried. Worried to the point of either considering going nuclear themselves or partnering up with other players (Russia, China). Does any of this sound like a good idea or will further the pursuit of world peace?

    Thumb up 0

  28. CM

    No, it doesn’t.  At least you haven’t shown that it does.

    Ah ok, so Iran getting the bomb and the threat they pose to Israel aren’t relevant. I see. And yet I’m apparently the one playing games. Awesome.

    Who’s alleged reality?

    Any reality that doesn’t involve a huge amount of cherry-picking and ignoring the ramifications of what the alternative options mean (including do-nothing).

    Irrelevant.  Either you can show that it’s simply not possible, or you can’t.  I’m not pretending that Muslim clerics in charge of a theocratic nation think the same way secular leaders of western nations think.  It appear that you are.  Islam does call for a world-wide caliphate, obtained by force if necessary.

    Of course it’s relevant. Decisions must be based on what is most likely, but yes with consideration certainly given to worst-case scenarios (i.e. they immediately become irrational and start acting accordingly). And anyway, the current course is based on trying to stop Iran getting the bomb (as much as you disagree that it is). By working with them, not against them. What is your alternative plan, and does it not make things worse and hasten their ability to have nukes?

    Nice equivocation, there.

    Except that it isn’t. It’s an accurate reflection. It’s not cherry-picking and then expanding to fit your own pre-existing thoughts and beliefs.

    They “don’t want Israel to be as it is now”?  Talk about pretense…they don’t want Israel to exist at all.

    This is critical. What does this actually mean? Rich’s link certainly isn’t consistent with what we always hear from the right. As I understand it, it means Israel operating as a Zionist state.

    Well, there you go.  Repeated calls to remove Israel from the face of the map is not irrational.  Sponsoring terrorism is not irrational.

    Iran hasn’t been weakened by those two things. So yes, they’ve acting rationally in terms of furthering self-interest in a way that limits danger.

    No, hang the guy because he is an enemy of the state who makes the world less safe for the citizens under his charge, and who makes America a weaker nation as a whole.  Again, spectacular equivocation on your part.

    Hang the guy because that’s your opinion. Plenty of people disagree with you and their arguments are certainly no weaker.

    Then go ahead and make them.

    They could be made and you’d be in the same position: disagreement. You want to put your leader to death based on your opinion of his performance. It’s no better or different to those who said the same about Bush.

    Ditto.  The world looks a certain way to you and others who think like you because of your own particular slants and biases.

    Except I’m not advocating hanging anyone. I’ve certainly never done so on the basis that I disagreed with their actions/policies/strategies.

    And you and others who think like you can indulge in your hand-wave dismissals while clinging to the pretense that you are the rational ones.

    Yes, because hanging the current President is obviously rational. It wouldn’t cause any issues in terms of how America is seen by it’s allies and enemies.

    World leaders don’t take Obama seriously. 

    Again, this is a particular point of view. I’m not convinced it’s actually the case, at least in comparison to former US leaders. I know it’s the point of view of the American hard-right though.

    “Hard right” doesn’t enter into it, unless you are admitting that not being on the “hard right” is the equivalent to being an absolute patsy. 

    Yes, that’s exactly what I mean. It’s all completely black and white. All 1s and 0s.

    Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

    Don’t need to. I know it already.

    “Move forward” into what, exactly?  I love all this liberal talk of “moving forward”, as if it’s automatically a good thing.  Sometime “moving forward” can lead you over a cliff.

    Move forward = what to do about it. Nothing to do with liberalism. But the fact that you just have to see it through political ideological eyes certainly is illuminating. It does explain a lot.

    Maybe slowing down and making rational assessments would be a better course.  But I guess it depends on who’s agenda would be compromised…

    Or, alternatively, the chosen course could be the most rational for all concerned as it neither ignores the issue nor gives Iran an incentive to get nuked up as fast as possible.

    A simply fact of life is that, sometimes, that “something” you’re so afraid of being “kicked off” is absolutely inevitable.

    Sometimes. But there is no indication that this needs to be one of those times. There are other states who don’t want Israel there but have learned to live with them. Things can change, and do, without mass violence.

      Sometimes, we do have to see things in “simplistic” terms of good versus evil, and be willing to confront that evil. 

    Right, but not often, and it certainly shouldn’t be the default position. Otherwise knee-jerk decisions can be made. Or suggestions, such as hanging the POTUS because you disagree with him on a whole load of things.

    But you liberals cannot tolerate such thinking, it seems.  Better to make deals, better to appease, better to put off confrontation.

    Confrontation should always be the last resort yes. Because it often means mass death. That’s traditionally been consistent with conservatism too.

    At least until it’s someone else’s watch…
    That’s pretty much all this “deal” appears to do, assuming Iran honors it at all.

    Again, all that really means is that you disagree, based in part on motives that you’re speculating about.

    Are you even capable of intellectually honest comparisons?

    I think so. In this case you’d need to flesh it out a little. How is the Iranian leadership comparable to Hitler? Hitler in which year? What is Obama doing that would be comparable to making a weapons deal?

    I’m sure for you it isn’t, but then I personally do find it hard to imagine a conservative, non-RINO President making weapons deals with our sworn enemies.

    Based on what you imagine is actually in this thing you’re calling a ‘weapons deal’.

    What do you imagine them doing instead?

    Thumb up 0

  29. Iconoclast

     Ah ok, so Iran getting the bomb and the threat they pose to Israel aren’t relevant.

    Nope, didn’t say that.  Just more equivocation on your part.

    You are the one who insists that Rich’s link, which absolutely disproves HAL’s claim, must somehow automatically link to Iran getting nukes.  Well, that’s just the way you, and those who think like you, must see things through your ideological lens, apparently.  The purpose of Rich’s cite was simply to counter an assertion, but you insist that it absolutely must mean more, yet you have thus far utterly failed to show that it must.  All you can do by way of response, by all appearances, is engage in knee-jerk equivocation.

    I see.

    Apparently not.

    And yet I’m apparently the one playing games.

    Apparently.

    Awesome.

    Ain’t it?

    Any reality that doesn’t involve a huge amount of cherry-picking and ignoring the ramifications of what the alternative options mean (including do-nothing).

    What kills me is that you apparently seem to genuinely believe you fit that category.  Rich has provided links which show how Iran getting a nuke would lead to an arms race in the region, yet you seem quite content to ignore that ramification, or pretend it simply doesn’t exist.

    Of course it’s relevant.

    You forgot the “ir” in front of the “relevant”.

    Decisions must be based on what is most likely, but yes with consideration certainly given to worst-case scenarios (i.e. they immediately become irrational and start acting accordingly).

    “Become” irrational?  Who are you to judge what they consider “rational” in the first place?  Again, you fall into the trap of trying to pretend everyone thinks like you.  Maybe to them, nuking Israel is the most rational thing they could do, if their prophet commands as much.  Maybe all their game-playing and posturing is just rational “ends-justify-the-means” manipulation.  It’s dangerous to pretend you know what motivates the mullahs of Iran, or to think you can accurately assess what constitutes “rational” behaviour” from their perspective.  You are already on record here as implying that sponsoring terrorism is indeed rational behaviour.  Well, maybe to you, and those who think like you, it is.  But to those of us on the “hard right”, it simply isn’t.

    And anyway, the current course is based on trying to stop Iran getting the bomb…

    No, it’s just based on delaying their getting the bomb for ten years, after which time they can pretty much build as many as they want.

    (as much as you disagree that it is)

    My disagreement is irrelevant.  What is relevant are the facts of the matter.  This deal would lift sanctions against Iran, but wouldn’t prevent their getting nukes.  It would only delay it.

    What is your alternative plan…?

    The onus is not on me to have an alternative plan, but I still have the right to recognize the failings of the proposed plan.

    It’s an accurate reflection.

    How do you know it’s “accurate”?  How do you know it isn’t just a ploy?  Again, you pretend to understand what motivates the enemy, when they could just be playing you.  What is known is that we have repeated calls to “remove Israel from the face of the map”.  Such was part of the Hamas Charter at one point.  It is still a goal.  Of course, this is routinely dismissed as “unattainable”, but Iran having nukes would make that goal a lot less unattainable.

    Here is a link showing another Iranian cleric calling for Israel’s destruction, and showing just how much they distrust us.  Sure, there are elements who advocate moderation, for the purpose of lessing tensions and getting the sanctions lifted.  Who’s to say that this isn’t just a short-term tactic to enable a longer-term strategy?  “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” are still official slogans.

    Rich’s link certainly isn’t consistent with what we always hear from the right.

    It certainly isn’t consistent with what we always hear from the left, either, but then Rich’s link isn’t all there is.  He suggested using Google to find out more.  I did, and got the link just above.

    As I understand it, it means Israel operating as a Zionist state.

    And what does that mean, exactly.  What, exactly, would a “non-Zionist” Israel look like?  More importantly, how do our enemies define it?

    Iran hasn’t been weakened by those two things. So yes, they’ve acting rationally in terms of furthering self-interest in a way that limits danger.

    There it is:  Sponsoring terrorism is “rational”.

    But then, CM seems to admitting that anything that weakens a nation is indeed irrational.  Ergo, much of what Obama has done is, per CM, irrational.

    Hang the guy because that’s your opinion.

    Well, as you have just now implicitly admitted, Obama’s actions are irrational.  As far as hanging goes, I do advocate rule of law.  I am not advocating lynching.  Obama would get his trial.  But again, as you have implicitly admitted, his actions have been irrational.  At least some of them.   Further up the thread, I did post a link to substantiate the claim that he has made us weaker.

    He seems hell-bent on advancing his personal agenda, even if it puts Americans at risk.  You appear to simply agree with much of that agenda, which would explain why you argue the way you do.  Just because you agree, it doesn’t automatically make you right, although it appears that you think just that.  Hence the unmitigated condescension and arrogance.

    Plenty of people disagree with you and their arguments are certainly no weaker.

    In your opinion.

    They could be made…

    But you don’t bother to make them.

    You want to put your leader to death based on your opinion of his performance.

    No, based on the results of his performance, but again, he would get his trial.

    Except I’m not advocating hanging anyone

    So?  Doesn’t change the fact that you’re just as biased and slanted as you accuse others of being.  And again, I’m not advocating lynching.

    If it can be shown that a sitting President is an enemy of the state, then the punishment should fit the crime.  But it won’t.  Obama’s Administration is rife with corruption, lies, scandals, and the results have indeed been a weakened nation and citizens at greater risk and danger, both at home and abroad.  This has been an extremely lawless Administration.  But the media will apologize for him until it ceases to exist.

    Yes, because hanging the current President is obviously rational.

    You do seem rather fixated on this, yet you have implicitly admitted that the President’s actions have been irrational.

    Again, this is a particular point of view.

    Based on observation of empirical evidence.  Such as Assad’s use of chemical weapons in spite of Obama’s “red line”.

     

    Thumb up 2

  30. Iconoclast

    Again, this is a particular point of view. I’m not convinced it’s actually the case, at least in comparison to former US leaders. I know it’s the point of view of the American hard-right though.

    It’s also the opinion of a majority of Americans, not just the “hard right”.  But do keep hiding behind this newest label of yours.

    Thumb up 2

  31. Iconoclast

    Yes, that’s exactly what I mean.

    So you mean that not being on the “hard right” is the same thing as being a patsy.  That is what you’re agreeing with, for the record.

    Move forward = what to do about it. Nothing to do with liberalism. But the fact that you just have to see it through political ideological eyes certainly is illuminating. It does explain a lot.

    Meaningless nonsense.  You’re just (mis)interpreting what I said through your own political ideological eyes, which is certainly illuminating.

    Or, alternatively, the chosen course could be the most rational for all concerned as it neither ignores the issue nor gives Iran an incentive to get nuked up as fast as possible.

    Again with this pretense that you could know what incentivizes the enemy, and the pretense that the “chosen course” doesn’t ignore any issues.  The “chosen course” would allow Iran’s economy to revive, which would allow Iran to move full steam ahead with building more centrifuges and more infrastructure so that when that magical Year Ten has ended, they can produce their nukes with impunity, all the while enjoying a strong economy with which to continue sponsoring terrorism around the world.

    Sometimes. But there is no indication that this needs to be one of those times.

    No indication that you’re willing to see, at any rate…

     There are other states who don’t want Israel there but have learned to live with them.

    Which of those have nukes, and are sponsors of terrorism?

    Or suggestions, such as hanging the POTUS because you disagree with him on a whole load of things.

    More equivocation.  It isn’t about mere “disagreement”.  It’s about making American citizens more vulnerable in an increasingly dangerous world, apparently by design.  If that can be shown, then treason has been indicated.

    But keep pretending it’s all about “disagreement”.

     That’s traditionally been consistent with conservatism too.

    Absolute nonsense.  Wilson got us into WWI, Roosevelt WWII, Kennedy/Johnson Vietnam, and none of them were “conservative” by any stretch.

     

     

    Thumb up 3

  32. CM

    For someone who criticises me for ignoring qualifications (” You do comprehend words like “appears” and “seems”, don’t you?”) why do you get to ignore Hal’s qualification? Hal said “most” of those calls were from Ahmadinejad. Therefore providing evidence of one (even if we are to accept that they’ve called for “=the destruction of a sovereign nation” in that example) most certainly doesn’t absolutely disprove HAL’s claim. Either qualifications matter, or they don’t. Which is it?

    In terms of rationality I’m talking about their own survival. No matter what the rhetoric that spews out, they don’t take action to endanger their country. Nothing to do with me pretending to know what motivates the mullahs of Iran. With respect to sponsoring terrorism – everyone is using proxies. They do this to lessen the direct danger and cost to themselves. The extent to which it happens is based on their own best judgement. I’m sorry that you cannot seem to comprehend this (your comments certainly suggest that you don’t).

    Can you point out where in the deal it says it’s just based on delaying their getting the bomb for ten years, after which time they can pretty much build as many as they want? From the reports it appears to be the opposite.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/03/politics/iran-nuclear-talks-deal-explainer/

    Why can’t you provide us with your alternative plan? It might you with some credibility.

    Treason surely requires intent to be proven. If you’re so sure he should be hung, what clear evidence would be presented to show intent? Do you have anything other than an argument? You say “Obama would get his trial” but your words all suggest you’d expect it to be a show-trial. At this point you’re no different to those screaming BUSHITLER at the top of their lungs a decade ago.

    Providing the results of a poll of Americans about whether Obama is respected on the world stage doesn’t show the degree to which he actually is or not. That’s just opinions of Americans on whether he is or not. But if that’s your method, Obama (at his lowest) has increased the degree of respect.

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/22/upshot/100000003008923.mobile.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0

    Did Wilson and Roosevelt launch pre-emptive wars? Were Kennedy and Johnson conservatives?

    I’ll pass on responding to the gap-filling drivel and nonsense.

    Thumb up 0

  33. CM

    Between the 121 countries where data was available in 2008 and 2014, confidence in the U.S. presidency went up dramatically, from an average of 14.8 percent (per country) expressing confidence in Bush to 44.9 percent expressing confidence in Obama.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-17/christie-is-right-america-really-has-lost-respect-in-the-world

    I guess you could say that “confidence” isn’t the same as “respect” but there must be a fair degree of overlap.

    Thumb up 0

  34. Iconoclast

    Hal said “most” of those calls were from Ahmadinejad.

    Yes, he did.

    Either qualifications matter, or they don’t. Which is it?

    They always matter, so that was an epic fail on my part.  However, that being said, this is an admission that not all calls were from Ahmadinejad, some were from others.  And it begs the question, even if most calls were from Ahmadinejad, so what?  I don’t recall the mullahs or clerics ever voicing disagreement with those calls.

    With respect to sponsoring terrorism – everyone is using proxies.

    Ah, there it is, the moral relativism we’ve come to expect from the hard left.

     I’m sorry that you cannot seem to comprehend this (your comments certainly suggest that you don’t).

    “Comprehend” what, exactly?  Your moral relativism?  I comprehend it just fine, your inability/unwillingness to see that notwithstanding.  The bottom line is that they sponsor terrorism, which is the murder of innocent people, and you consider it to be rational behavior.

    Why can’t you provide us with your alternative plan?

    And now you demonstrate that you either don’t listen, or you ignore what is told to you.  I already told you that I am under no obligation to provide an “alternative plan”, so quit pretending I am.

    You say “Obama would get his trial” but your words all suggest you’d expect it to be a show-trial.

    You’re welcome to believe anything you like.  I have provided a link which shows how he has weakened us.  He swore an oath to protect the US and its citizens from foreign and domestic enemies, and to uphold the COTUS.  He has failed at both.

    Providing the results of a poll of Americans about whether Obama is respected on the world stage doesn’t show the degree to which he actually is or not.

    You have a gift for missing the point.  You were trying to tell me that it was a “hard right” opinion that Obama didn’t have respect on the world stage, but my cite pretty much proves you wrong, in that it’s a main stream opinion here in the USA.  In fact, it’s a majority opinion.  Pointing to non-US opinion polls doesn’t mitigate that.

    Did Wilson and Roosevelt launch pre-emptive wars?

    Irrelevant.  You were trying to tell me that “mass death” has “traditionally been consistent with conservatism”.  I pointed to progressive democrat Presidents which simply blew your claim out of the water.  The two world wars and Vietnam all had higher death tolls than Afghanistan or Iraq, and we entered those wars under the watch of non-conservative Presidents.   That is all that matters, anything else you come up with is a dodge.

    I guess you could say that “confidence” isn’t the same as “respect” but there must be a fair degree of overlap.

    And again, you  are pointing to public opinion polls, which is meaningless.  When Assad uses chemical weapons in spite of Obama’s “red line” warnings, that clearly indicates Obama’s warning wasn’t taken seriously.

     

    Thumb up 0

  35. Iconoclast

    You say “Obama would get his trial” but your words all suggest you’d expect it to be a show-trial.

    “My words” include the following (emphasis added):

     It’s about making American citizens more vulnerable in an increasingly dangerous world, apparently by design.  If that can be shown, then treason has been indicated.

    So yeah, I suppose I would be in favor of a “show trial” if what is being “shown” is evidence.  I didn’t say, “if that can be argued” just above.  I said, “if that can be shown“.  Do you comprehend what that  means, CM?  If so, then explain how my words indicate a “show trial”, which suggests a trial not based on evidence?

    Also, since you historically have needed help in connecting dots, what would need to be shown would be the part I emphasized, namely, the “by design” part.  So, the bottom line is that my words up above clearly indicate that what would be needed is to show that Obama deliberately made US citizen more at risk in an increasingly dangerous world.

    If only you could be bothered to comprehend what I actually write…

     

    Thumb up 1

  36. richtaylor365 *

    Icon, you capitulated too soon, here is what Hal said;

    Most of those calls were from Ahmadinejad, not from the clerics who really control the country.

    Yes, qualifications matter, so does context, common usage, and natural drawn inferences. Hal was clearly making a distinction;

    Ahmadinejad believes “A”,  the clerics do not believe “A”, hence the word “not”.

     Sure, you can quibble over “most” but then Hal would have to prove his assertion, or can anyone just say bubkiss here without backing it up? If Ahmadinejad made 10,000 statements calling for the destruction of Israel, and “the clerics” combined only made 9,999 similar statements, then yes, Hal would be right, but no citations were offered towards that end. And even if he is right, a more correct and factual statement would be, “Most of those calls were from Ahmadinejad, not from the clerics who really control the country, although those same clerics are simpatico with him in the belief of the needed destruction of Israel”.

    OK, back to the inanity.

    Thumb up 1

  37. Iconoclast

    Confrontation should always be the last resort yes. Because it often means mass death. That’s traditionally been consistent with conservatism too.

    For the sake of clarity, are you saying that “confrontation should be a last resort” has “traditionally been consistent with conservatism”, or are you saying that “mass death” has “traditionally been consistent with conservatism”?  If it’s the former, then I apologize for misconstruing what you meant.

    Thumb up 0

  38. CM

    However, that being said, this is an admission that not all calls were from Ahmadinejad, some were from others.

    I’m not sure that anyone would disagree with you there. I think the point Hal was making (because it’s an important one that is conveniently avoided constantly) is that calls for the ‘destruction of Israel’ comes from the hardliners. And most often is heard when they want to talk tough in response to something said in the West.

    Ah, there it is, the moral relativism we’ve come to expect from the hard left.

    Judging by their actions Iran is first and foremost about ensuring it’s own survival, that’s what I’m saying. Using a nuclear weapon is obviously substantially different to funding Hamas and Hezbollah as proxies. It doesn’t follow that the first will happen because the second does. I’m not saying that supporting terrorism is moral. Again, you seem to be hell-bent on making it all black and white, as if the world works that way.

    The bottom line is that they sponsor terrorism, which is the murder of innocent people, and you consider it to be rational behavior.

    It’s not rational in that pure sense, but it’s not irrational in terms of ensuring their own long-term survival. I.e. they’re unlikely to get destroyed by funding those groups (which are more than just terrorist groups too). Either you genuinely don’t understand this, or you’re deliberately playing dumb.

    And now you demonstrate that you either don’t listen, or you ignore what is told to you.  I already told you that I am under no obligation to provide an “alternative plan”, so quit pretending I am.

    Of course there is no obligation. To do anything here.

    But why don’t you, when asked? You’ve expressed strong criticism over a possible deal, which you don’t know the details of (and neither does Netanyahu), and so it’s not unreasonable for someone to ask what you’d do instead. Particularly when you make interesting comments about conflict being inevitable. Which is suggestive. When people make suggestive comments, it’s not unreasonable for people to ask for elaboration. Are you in the ‘bomb Iran’ camp, because making deals is delaying the inevitable?

    Trying to turn it around and make it sound unreasonable is just silly.

    You’re welcome to believe anything you like. 

    Non-sequitor.

    You have a gift for missing the point.  You were trying to tell me that it was a “hard right” opinion that Obama didn’t have respect on the world stage, but my cite pretty much proves you wrong, in that it’s a main stream opinion here in the USA.  In fact, it’s a majority opinion.  Pointing to non-US opinion polls doesn’t mitigate that.

    Initially you were telling me about the opinions of world leaders (that you doubt that ANY world leader takes Obama seriously). My response was that if any world leader did take Obama seriously, it would mean that they weren’t on (or equivalent to) the American hard-right. Which is clearly the case, given that the American hard-right absolutely don’t take him seriously. You then added a poll which found that “more Americans think President Barack Obama is not respected by other world leaders than believe he is” to show that’s it’s not JUST the American hard-right. But my point was still about what foreign-leaders actually think, as that’s the comment I was responding to. Anyway, your link shows that he’s still 20% ahead of Bush (41% as opposed to 20%). So he appears to have substantially improved foreign leader’s respect for the POTUS, at least as viewed by Americans anyway.

    For the sake of clarity, are you saying that “confrontation should be a last resort” has “traditionally been consistent with conservatism”, 

    Yes, that’s certainly what I meant.

    If so, then explain how my words indicate a “show trial”, which suggests a trial not based on evidence?

    If it’s based on evidence, he’s not going to be found guilty. What evidence (as opposed to simply argument which can be responded to with counter-argument) would you propose could be submitted/shown to prove his guilt. To you it’s clear (again, the evidence, not the argument) as you said initially “As far as I am concerned, our President is an Enemy of the State, and should be hanged for treason.” Where is all this clear evidence that cannot be reasonably disputed or shown to simply be disagreement/argument?

    Ahmadinejad believes “A”,  the clerics do not believe “A”, hence the word “not”.

    So (in your take on Hal’s opinion) who are the other calls from then (if only most are from Ahmadinejad and none are from the clerics)?

    I think it makes much more sense for “not” to mean “rather than” or “as opposed to”.

    Either way, your link apparently “absolutely disproves HAL’s claim:”, which is clearly not true, which Iconoclast is acknowledging. Iconoclast then specifically used that to launch into ideologically-based abuse:

    Well, that’s just the way you, and those who think like you, must see things through your ideological lens, apparently.  The purpose of Rich’s cite was simply to counter an assertion, but you insist that it absolutely must mean more, yet you have thus far utterly failed to show that it must.  All you can do by way of response, by all appearances, is engage in knee-jerk equivocation.

    Which obviously substantially ramps everything up and puts much more importance on accuracy, and significantly increases the costs of being wrong.

    Thumb up 1

  39. Iconoclast

    Which obviously substantially ramps everything up and puts much more importance on accuracy, and significantly increases the costs of being wrong.

    But I wasn’t wrong, at least not on the main point.  If we were to omit the clause, “absolutely disproves HAL’s claim”, everything else would still follow.  I wasn’t using “absolutely disproves HAL’s claim” to “launch into ideologically-based abuse”, as you put it (funny how you do the same kind of thing to us, but apparently don’t think anything of it).  I was using your own implied claim, that Rich’s link must somehow automatically lead to Iran getting nukes, to “launch into ideologically-based abuse”.

    If it’s based on evidence, he’s not going to be found guilty.

    There is no way you can possibly know that, because there is simply no way you can possibly know that no such evidence exists.  Hell, trading the top 5 al Qaeda terrorists in Gitmo for a deserter could qualify as treason in it own right, as it certainly does provide aid to our enemies.

    Thumb up 2

  40. Iconoclast

    Initially you were telling me about the opinions of world leaders (that you doubt that ANY world leader takes Obama seriously).

    And that was based on the previous observation that Syria’s Assad quite obviously didn’t take Obama’s “red line” warning seriously.  Do we need to rehash the discussion in toto?

    I simply asked why any leader should take him seriously, given the aforementioned example of Assad, who flagrantly dismissed Obama’s warning and suffered no repercussions for doing so.  Your response was,  “because they’re not on the American hard-right”, as if that were the only meaningful qualification.  Assad most certainly is “not on the American hard-right”, so your response is a complete non sequitur. 

    Thumb up 0

  41. CM

    I was using your own implied claim, that Rich’s link must somehow automatically lead to Iran getting nukes

    Ah, no, my query was about the degree of fear of Iran having a nuke and using it on Israel but how in Rich’s link Khamenei’s table actually indicates that the ‘elimination of Israel’ should happen in a non-violent way.

    There is no way you can possibly know that, because there is simply no way you can possibly know that no such evidence exists.

    But you know that it does, because in your opinion he’s guilty and should be put to death.

    And that was based on the previous observation that Syria’s Assad quite obviouslydidn’t take Obama’s “red line” warning seriously.

    It’s a big stretch to suggest that because Assad didn’t take that seriously no world leaders would take Obama seriously. I think at least some world leaders would realise the complexity and difficulties of the Syria situation, and would accept that he made an ill-considered rhetorical statement without consulting his aides.

     Do we need to rehash the discussion in toto?

    No but it appears that we have quite different takes on it.

    Your response was,  “because they’re not on the American hard-right”, as if that were the only meaningful qualification.

    Then immediately after I explained exactly what I meant. But yes, I certainly can acknowledge that it’s possible to genuinely not take Obama seriously. I have no doubt that there are people who are not on the American hard-right who don’t take him seriously. My point that no the American hard-right a strong impression is given that no matter what Obama does it’s wrong – it goes far beyond just a disagreement over policy etc, it even leads to the suggestion that he be put to death.

    Thumb up 0

  42. Iconoclast

    Ah, no, my query…

    We’re not talking about your query.  We’re talking about your claim.  Not the same thing.

    But you know that it does…

    No, I don’t, hence the “as far as I am concerned” qualification.  I was expressing an opinion (I though that much would be obvious), but you made an absolute, unqualified assertion.

    If it’s based on evidence, he’s not going to be found guilty.

    Yes, there is the evidence qualifier, but you are going from the premise that no such evidence can exist.   Your statement isn’t qualified on the same level as mine.  Mine is an expression of opinion.  Yours is an assertion based on an assumed premise.

    It’s a big stretch to suggest that because Assad didn’t take that seriously no world leaders would take Obama seriously

    Well, it isn’t too much of a stretch to suggest adversaries/enemies wouldn’t, given the apparent lack of downside for doing so.  And it isn’t too much of a stretch to question whether they would under such circumstances.  And Assad is just one example.

     I think at least some world leaders would realise the complexity and difficulties of the Syria situation, and would accept that he made an ill-considered rhetorical statement without consulting his aides.

    Which is just begging the question.  Running off at the mouth without knowing what you’re talking about is essentially what you’re describing, and it simply doesn’t say much about one’s leadership skills to do such a thing.  It did severely undermine Obama’s credibility on the world stage.  The “optics” were that Putin bailed him out, and that simply doesn’t lend itself to Obama’s being taken seriously.

    What I am saying is sure, some world leaders may take him seriously, but in my humble assessment, there simply is no reason they should.

    Thumb up 0

  43. CM

    Where did I claim “that Rich’s link must somehow automatically lead to Iran getting nukes”? That claim would make no sense at all.

    Well, it isn’t too much of a stretch to suggest adversaries/enemies wouldn’t, given the apparent lack of downside for doing so.

    Adversaries/enemies aren’t “any world leader”, but I would tend to agree. Although I think taking comfort (i.e. thinking you can get away with something) from an ill-considered rhetorical statement would only extend so far. If it was seen as a gaffe and not actually indicative of a clear inability to back up a threat.

    Running off at the mouth without knowing what you’re talking about is essentially what 

     Running off at the mouth without knowing what you’re talking about is essentially what you’re describing, and it simply doesn’t say much about one’s leadership skills to do such a thing.  It did severely undermine Obama’s credibility on the world stage.  The “optics” were that Putin bailed him out, and that simply doesn’t lend itself to Obama’s being taken seriously.

    Can’t disagree with that.

    So you’re definitely not willing to offer an alternative to trying to reach a deal with Iran over their nuclear future? (again, nobody can force you to do anything, but it’s a reasonable question to be asked, particularly when you’re heavily critical of the specifics of a deal about which we have no specifics.

    Thumb up 0

  44. CM

    “We heard the familiar “apocalyptic mullah” argument. Iran is ruled by religious zealots driven to “fulfill the ideological mission of jihad,” he said. The message here is that, under such a government, Iran is uniquely immune to cost-benefit analysis that underpins conventional theories of deterrence, something I refer to as the “martyr state myth.” Again, this view is at odds with a strong U.S. and Israeli intelligence consensus, which holds that Iran pursues its national interests rationally. It’s precisely Tehran’s rational cost-benefit analysis that the U.S. and its partners in the P5+1 have been attempting to influence through the nuclear negotiations.”

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2015/03/benjamin_netanyahu_did_president_obama_a_big_favor_the_israeli_prime_minister.html

    Thumb up 0

  45. Iconoclast

    One reason why I consider Obama to be a traitor:

    By The Way, ICE Just Released 30,558 More Violent Criminal Illegal Aliens Onto American Streets

    Last month, the Oversight Committee invited family members of those killed by criminal aliens to testify. A man named Michael Ronnebeck testified about the murder of his nephew Grant Ronnebeck, who was working as a Quik Trip clerk when an illegal alien shot him in the face and stole cigarettes from the store. Another man, Jamiel Shaw, testified about the murder of his son Andre Shaw by an illegal alien who had taken advantage of President Obama’s Dreamer program. 

    Like I keep saying, his policies make the world more dangerous for American citizens he swore to protect.

    Thumb up 0