Gyroscopic Investing

Oh. I'm sorry. I didn't realize that I was in the Neville Chamberlain thread.

I think it is more correct to state that this American president has humiliated himself by siding with Chamberlain over Churchill.

Reub wrote: I think it is more correct to state that this American president has humiliated himself by siding with Chamberlain over Churchill.

What are the territorial claims that Iran is making that lead you to conclude that they are the same as Nazi Germany?

Russia and China are lobbying Democrats in Washington in support of this nonsensical contrition so I guess that they are trying to save Obama from his "humiliation".

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/06/p51 ... iran-deal/

Unless there's some fine print I'm missing, and as long as the agreement fulfills its promise, this is one of the best foreign policy developments in decades.

The question here (if there is one) is whether the US should put its own interests ahead of those of Israel.  I should think the answer to that one is obvious, but it's amazing how many people seem to think otherwise.  Ironically, I suspect that this agreement is also good for Israel in the long run as well.

Sorry. It's a recipe for disaster, death, and war. It gives the mullahs billions to use to further suppress their own people and to cause mayhem around the world. At the end of the agreement they will have nuclear weapons attached to sophisticated intercontinental missiles that can threaten us and our allies in the hands of crazy religious zealots. Not good!

For those who oppose the agreement, I wonder what compromise is the minimum that they would accept.  Obviously, some won't want to say for both political convenience and because it would negatively affect their ability to bargain, but I truly am curious.  I think many people simply have NO problem dropping bombs, killing thousands, injuring tens of thousands, and destabilizing hundreds of thousands.

WiseOne wrote: Unless there's some fine print I'm missing, and as long as the agreement fulfills its promise, this is one of the best foreign policy developments in decades.

The question here (if there is one) is whether the US should put its own interests ahead of those of Israel.  I should think the answer to that one is obvious, but it's amazing how many people seem to think otherwise.  Ironically, I suspect that this agreement is also good for Israel in the long run as well.

+1

Can you articulate in what ways the interests of Israel are different from those of the United States?

Xan wrote: Can you articulate in what ways the interests of Israel are different from those of the United States?

I think breaking interests down that way doesn't go far enough.  There are certain people and economic entities who have huge interests in keeping wars in the Middle East going, both due to the direct and indirect consequences of a permanent war-time state in this country. Same with Israel. There are also those whose interests are more aligned with not fighting a perpetual war, and negotiating peace.

And even if our interests could be advanced by continued hostilities with Iran, that doesn't mean it is correct to do so. My interests could be advanced if I could find a way to mug a guy and take his wallet without getting caught, but I don't think that makes it worth entertaining. 

Well, it matters because it's been stated here, and upvoted several times, that the main thing people against the deal are doing wrong is that they're putting the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of the United States.  I'm just trying to figure out what people mean by that.

Wait, so we should ratify the deal just because we negotiated it?  That's not really a reason it's a good deal, is it?

Why would Israel not want a deal that stops Iran from ever getting nukes? They must be real war mongers over there!

Yeah, Obama is like Chamberlain because the Iranians are like the Germans.

Except that Persians are very unlike Germans, and are about as likely to form a strong military and conquer their neighbors as they are to stop running cons and start paying their taxes.

Lowe wrote: Yeah, Obama is like Chamberlain because the Iranians are like the Germans.

Except that Persians are very unlike Germans, and are about as likely to form a strong military and conquer their neighbors as they are to stop running cons and start paying their taxes.

Yes, I think the whole Chamberlain/Appeasement thing should be tabled until a truly suitable replacement for Hitler and the German Nazi's comes to light in the discussion. Iran strikes me as a wannabe at best.  I don't get all the hand-wringing by neocons. They sound like a bunch of terrified school girls and fraidy-cats to me.

Simonjester wrote: correct me if i am wrong but during the Iraq war weren't all the crappy homemade IEDs made in Iraq, and all the properly (most lethal and effective. built to purpose - shaped ones) made in Iran? if true i cant really question why Iraq war vets and the neocons that sent them there, might be a bit hesitant to lift economic sanctions and improve the economy of a country that was a state sponsor of terrorism when they had less money to spend on it...

personally i don't have a final conclusion on this deal yet... i do tend to think deals made from weakness tend to be crappy (they are the kind we seem to prefer now) and that Iran is a country full of good people with crappy political and religious leaders and they (the leaders) are "low" to "not at all" on the trustworthy scale...

We may as well just let them get the bomb.  How can you possibly give them the ability to do their own inspections, for activities they deny they're engaging in? 

You would think this was an Onion piece, but sadly it's true.

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-un-l ... 04071.html

http://www.wsj.com/articles/irans-secre ... 1440026399

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ri ... miliating/

In regards to the AP report, I think it proves Medium Tex's signature line from George Orwell once again.

You would think the talking heads on Fox News would have also learned this lesson by now but apparently a good story like this is a terrible thing to waste whether it is accurate or not.

TennPaGa wrote: The AP's controversial and badly flawed Iran inspections story, explained
-- Max Fisher in Vox

On Wednesday afternoon, the Associated Press published an exclusive report on the Iran nuclear program so shocking that many political pundits declared the nuclear deal dead in the water. But the article turned out to be a lot less damning that it looked — and the AP, which scrubbed many of the most damning details, is now itself part of this increasingly bizarre story.
        ...
The bottom line here is that this is all over a mild and widely anticipated compromise on a single set of inspections to a single, long-dormant site. The AP, deliberately or not, has distorted that into something that sounds much worse, but actually isn't. The whole incident is a fascinating, if disturbing, example of how misleading reporting on technical issues can play into the politics of foreign policy.
        ...
The report was not based not on an actual agreement, but rather on a copy of a draft agreement. The anonymous source who showed AP the document said there was a final version that is similar, but conspicuously refused to show AP the final version or go into specifics.

"The oldest Washington game is being played in Vienna," Lewis said. "And that is leaking what appears to be a prejudicial and one-sided account of a confidential document to a friendly reporter, and using that to advance a particular policy agenda."
        ...
A couple of hours after first publishing, the AP added in a bunch of quotes from Republicans furiously condemning the revelations, but at the same time, the AP removed most of the actual revelations. The information in the article was substantially altered, with some of the most damning details scrubbed entirely. No explanation for this was given.
        ...
Lewis suspects that the point of the leak was to make the IAEA agreement on Parchin sound as bad as possible, and to generate political attention in Washington, with the hopes that political types who do not actually understand normal verification and inspection procedures — much less the Parchin issue — will start making demands.

"Normally people don't care about this kind of thing," Lewis said. "Normally, if the IAEA is satisfied, everyone is satisfied. But now [with this story] the IAEA being satisfied is now no longer good enough; people are going to insist that they personally be satisfied."

I've only excerpted parts of the article that discusses the AP story.  However, the article also discusses technical issues around the AP story, and provides a more balanced, less agenda-driven account.

TennPaGa wrote: The AP's controversial and badly flawed Iran inspections story, explained
-- Max Fisher in Vox

On Wednesday afternoon, the Associated Press published an exclusive report on the Iran nuclear program so shocking that many political pundits declared the nuclear deal dead in the water. But the article turned out to be a lot less damning that it looked — and the AP, which scrubbed many of the most damning details, is now itself part of this increasingly bizarre story.
        ...
The bottom line here is that this is all over a mild and widely anticipated compromise on a single set of inspections to a single, long-dormant site. The AP, deliberately or not, has distorted that into something that sounds much worse, but actually isn't. The whole incident is a fascinating, if disturbing, example of how misleading reporting on technical issues can play into the politics of foreign policy.
        ...
The report was not based not on an actual agreement, but rather on a copy of a draft agreement. The anonymous source who showed AP the document said there was a final version that is similar, but conspicuously refused to show AP the final version or go into specifics.

"The oldest Washington game is being played in Vienna," Lewis said. "And that is leaking what appears to be a prejudicial and one-sided account of a confidential document to a friendly reporter, and using that to advance a particular policy agenda."
        ...
A couple of hours after first publishing, the AP added in a bunch of quotes from Republicans furiously condemning the revelations, but at the same time, the AP removed most of the actual revelations. The information in the article was substantially altered, with some of the most damning details scrubbed entirely. No explanation for this was given.
        ...
Lewis suspects that the point of the leak was to make the IAEA agreement on Parchin sound as bad as possible, and to generate political attention in Washington, with the hopes that political types who do not actually understand normal verification and inspection procedures — much less the Parchin issue — will start making demands.

"Normally people don't care about this kind of thing," Lewis said. "Normally, if the IAEA is satisfied, everyone is satisfied. But now [with this story] the IAEA being satisfied is now no longer good enough; people are going to insist that they personally be satisfied."

I've only excerpted parts of the article that discusses the AP story.  However, the article also discusses technical issues around the AP story, and provides a more balanced, less agenda-driven account.

It's stuff like this that makes me NEVER trust the war mongers. They are so damn manipulative. Sure there are some pacifists who want to play fast and loose with the facts, but they aren't the ones trying to keep us in an utterly toxic perma-war state.

The Iranians probably insist on maintaining some control over the inspection process because they worry that some country might try to manufacture evidence of weapons of mass destruction as a pretense for war. Just goes to show how paranoid they are.

moda0306 wrote:

TennPaGa wrote: The AP's controversial and badly flawed Iran inspections story, explained
-- Max Fisher in Vox

On Wednesday afternoon, the Associated Press published an exclusive report on the Iran nuclear program so shocking that many political pundits declared the nuclear deal dead in the water. But the article turned out to be a lot less damning that it looked — and the AP, which scrubbed many of the most damning details, is now itself part of this increasingly bizarre story.
        ...
The bottom line here is that this is all over a mild and widely anticipated compromise on a single set of inspections to a single, long-dormant site. The AP, deliberately or not, has distorted that into something that sounds much worse, but actually isn't. The whole incident is a fascinating, if disturbing, example of how misleading reporting on technical issues can play into the politics of foreign policy.
        ...
The report was not based not on an actual agreement, but rather on a copy of a draft agreement. The anonymous source who showed AP the document said there was a final version that is similar, but conspicuously refused to show AP the final version or go into specifics.

"The oldest Washington game is being played in Vienna," Lewis said. "And that is leaking what appears to be a prejudicial and one-sided account of a confidential document to a friendly reporter, and using that to advance a particular policy agenda."
        ...
A couple of hours after first publishing, the AP added in a bunch of quotes from Republicans furiously condemning the revelations, but at the same time, the AP removed most of the actual revelations. The information in the article was substantially altered, with some of the most damning details scrubbed entirely. No explanation for this was given.
        ...
Lewis suspects that the point of the leak was to make the IAEA agreement on Parchin sound as bad as possible, and to generate political attention in Washington, with the hopes that political types who do not actually understand normal verification and inspection procedures — much less the Parchin issue — will start making demands.

"Normally people don't care about this kind of thing," Lewis said. "Normally, if the IAEA is satisfied, everyone is satisfied. But now [with this story] the IAEA being satisfied is now no longer good enough; people are going to insist that they personally be satisfied."

I've only excerpted parts of the article that discusses the AP story.  However, the article also discusses technical issues around the AP story, and provides a more balanced, less agenda-driven account.

It's stuff like this that makes me NEVER trust the war mongers. They are so damn manipulative. Sure there are some pacifists who want to play fast and loose with the facts, but they aren't the ones trying to keep us in an utterly toxic perma-war state.

Tenn,

Since many of the "failings" of this negotiation are being rebutted, I'm curious what someone like, say, Rand Paul meant when he said "we should have negotiated from a position of strength."  Does that mean more actively entertaining the idea of a war as a potential result of not coming to agreement, or just simply further sanctions?

I don't pretend to know geopolitics enough to know all the angles on this, but I do know what bullshit smells like, and when it's being used to coax me into throwing my money into the nat'l security state's perma-war.



To that last point, people often talk about the "founding fathers" and their opinions on different topics, especially that of what "limited government" looks like.  I wonder, if they were brought back to life today, would they be more appalled at the "welfare state," or would they be more appalled at the permanent war-time state and the corresponding lack of checks & balances we've allowed ourselves to sink into.

I really think the latter.  For reasons I may or may not agree with, they might hate universal healthcare, but I think they'd be far more disappointed by our military adventurism, and all the direct and indirect damage it does.

Just some food for thought...

moda0306 wrote: Tenn,

Since many of the "failings" of this negotiation are being rebutted, I'm curious what someone like, say, Rand Paul meant when he said "we should have negotiated from a position of strength."  Does that mean more actively entertaining the idea of a war as a potential result of not coming to agreement, or just simply further sanctions?

I'm pretty sure he meant, "I want to be president and Republican primary voters don't like this deal!"

Pointedstick wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Tenn,

Since many of the "failings" of this negotiation are being rebutted, I'm curious what someone like, say, Rand Paul meant when he said "we should have negotiated from a position of strength."  Does that mean more actively entertaining the idea of a war as a potential result of not coming to agreement, or just simply further sanctions?

I'm pretty sure he meant, "I want to be president and Republican primary voters don't like this deal!"

PS,

I guess most of me kind of knew that... hilarious that you actually put it into writing, though.  I just figured that perhaps he actually had some real qualms.

I found it was a pretty big cop out when asked about ISIS that he sort of skipped actually stating whether we should be fighting them into "we shouldn't be arming them."

I mean I almost can't blame him.  If he has even a snowflake's chance of making it through the Republican primaries, he's going to have to disguise half of his opinions.

Yeah, Ron would have, in his traditional shrill, annoyed fashion, lamented the Iran war-mongering on the right and basically said "ISIS wants us to attack them and we need to just stay the hell out of there."

The problem is, if Rand isn't saying these things, not only does he still not have much of a chance in the primaries, but he doesn't even act as the figurative child in the crowd calling out the fact that the emperor doesn't have any clothes on.

It was fun watching him spar with Christie on warrantless NSA surveillance, though.  He stuck to his guns there!  "Get a warrant!  This is what we fought a revolution over!"  Boom.

So what's the bottom line with this treaty now.  We can actually trust Iran not to be the fox that guards the henhouse?

MachineGhost wrote: So what's the bottom line with this treaty now.  We can actually trust Iran not to be the fox that guards the henhouse?

Well if you'd read some of these posts you'd find that the talking point with regards to "Iran doing its own inspections" is full of holes.  Just like the "giving them $150 billion" talking point.  Basically, we're being bull-shat into another war with a country that we should be FAR better allies with in the Middle East than f*cking Saudi Arabia.  That's the bottom line.

Sorry if I sound harsh.  I'm in a good mood but just using a bit of moda flare.