dagblog - Comments for "The P5+1 and Iran Nuclear Talks Alert"

It is about one jerk's jerk

Resistance — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 21:55:43 +0000

In reply to Sure it is flawed, it isn't

It is about one jerk's jerk-off orgasmic embrace of blood lust and his jerk patron who puts that pornography in public

Same mental attitude from those of Iran who decided to become provocative and build the” in your face”, nuclear program.

You telling me they didn’t know how the West would respond….. but they really didn’t care

Didn’t Iran know we're the biggest bad as in the region; or are they challenging us and should we expect a sucker punch?

We will never be able to verify till after the attack.

My Lord! Iran did have a nuclear bomb?

My Lord! Hitler lied,….. Imagine that

Peace in our time The P5+1 and Iran Nuclear Talks Alert

Unrealistic and naïve expectations The P5+1 and Iran Nuclear Talks Alert

Sorry I didn't get back to

Bruce Levine — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 18:01:42 +0000

In reply to Fair warning, reading further

Sorry I didn't get back to you right away on this. My thing is that I don't want the debate to be based on assuming any deal or war are the only two options. If the that were the case, I think I've written that I would favor the deal. But I'm more interested in having that explained to us as best as we can in the mess that is DC politics.

Sure it is flawed, it isn't

A Guy Called LULU — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 17:32:26 +0000

In reply to Except the same rant could be

Sure it is flawed, it isn't intended for what you suggest, it is a rant. And, It isn't about everybody who supports any war for any reason and even if it doesn't make that specific, it makes it obvious. It is about one jerk's jerk-off orgasmic embrace of blood lust and his jerk patron who puts that pornography in public. It is an emotional venting. It is an alternative to slinging your laptop at the wall.

Except the same rant could be

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 16:57:23 +0000

In reply to Fair warning, reading further

Except the same rant could be made against anyone out of draft range who supported fighting in WWII, or thought South Korea could be saved, or thought we should remove Bin Laden's safe haven with the Taliban, or putting tanks against the Fulda Pass to block or slow any attack.

I'm certainly against war with Iran, and think they've made a lot of progress that we intentionally ignore, and think we should encourage them to link up with the European Union. But still, the argument is flawed. The guys who do the fighting are almost never the ones who decide whether to fight. That's partly because of age - 18-21 as the preferred demographic for churned meat - and partly because of power structure - older people own the keys.

Yes, I'm sick of over-optimistic jingoist urgings for war, as if it's ever easy (or if it is easy, that it's not corrupt and manipulative). But war is still sometimes necessary. Yeah, the pasty boy probably won't fight, but I'd still prefer to attack his logic for war rather than his exhuberance for it. Yep, he's immature - but show he's unreasonable as well.

Fair warning, reading further

A Guy Called LULU — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 16:43:15 +0000

In reply to A quickie for now. From the

Fair warning, reading further subjects the reader to the danger of spleen splatter. The opinion expressed is done so in a milder, more diplomatic voice than its target deserves, IMO.

A Reasoned Response to a Washington Post Call for War With Iran

http://www.chris-floyd.com/Articles/2490-a-reasoned-response-to-a-washington-post-call-for-war-with-iran.html

Unrealistic and naïve

Resistance — Sun, 15 Mar 2015 18:30:02 +0000

In reply to Lulu,

Unrealistic and naïve expectations

Iran: 'The Great Satan' Still Our 'Number One Enemy ...

It seems that the White House is also investing in the notion that after a final nuclear deal is struck between Tehran and the P5+1, and after economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic are removed, Iranian leaders will alter their foreign policies and regional hegemonic ambitions.

This argument is anchored in unrealistic and naïve expectations.

If we closely analyze the Islamic Republic’s political and power structures, as well as its major sources of legitimacy, it becomes evident that a major and fundamental change in Iranian leaders’ political calculations is completely unlikely.

SAVE US, UNITED NATIONS ...... and we'll worship you?

Resistance — Sun, 15 Mar 2015 18:29:27 +0000

In reply to Lulu,

Lulu,

Bruce Levine — Sun, 15 Mar 2015 17:30:11 +0000

In reply to There are several ambiguous

Lulu,

Sorry, I've procrastinated too much this morning to give you a more deserved-response. First, you're correct on the standard set by Obama -- thanks for point that out. Second, I very much favor negotiations as an option over war.

There are several ambiguous

A Guy Called LULU — Sun, 15 Mar 2015 17:23:46 +0000

In reply to Thanks, take care of your

There are several ambiguous statements in your comment and I think one obvious mistake. I assume you meant that Obama has said that ' no deal is better than a bad deal' rather than the opposite which is what you wrote. And, there are more things that I would bicker about than what I address below. If we were to meet over drinks for long enough to talk it all out I expect we would both stumble home and both wake up hung over but I also think we would depart on a handshake. That is often much harder on the good ol' internet

Your comment is hard to respond to because I do not see where you come to a conclusion one way or another as to whether the administration should be supported and encouraged in its quest for a deal in this particular case while I think that he definitely should be. If I am understanding you correctly on the couple points of your comment which I think I understand, you object in principle to the procedures being used. This is a time when I feel that the ends justify the means. I believe that the possible deal with Iran would not have a snowball’s chance if not done in the way that it is being done. If the negotiations were more public every single proposal by the Western negotiators which set out a parameter to strive for would be viciously attacked by some prominent pundits and politicians with big voices in our national press. While your complaints about procedure have, arguably, some merit, I have already expressed my opinion that now is not the time to make them an issue in this case if they could have any affect towards killing a deal or even delaying it. I believe for a number of reasons that time is of a critical essence. Right now may well be the last reasonable chance for a diplomatic solution. Later we can start demanding of the president a more integrated procedure, that same president who promised to run the most transparent government ever. We certainly should, at least IMO, demand more open debate and the creation of sufficient agreement of our representatives before the President puts a check by someone’s name on a kill list or negotiates in secret a new international trade alliance or spies on the whole world, or classifies everything secret, or orders the bombing of another country in an act of war that the Congress did not declare, or places sanctions on a country that is ridiculously claimed to be a threat to our national security, or ... ... .

You have a point I think but I also think it just doesn’t apply in this world except as a political blocking dummy. Would anyone really argue that the President has all those unitary powers that he abuses aggressively but doesn’t have nearly the same power to drive an international policy in the direction of peace?

There are many motives among many individuals and groups who would like to kill the deal but the only one I respect is the idea that Iran cannot be trusted and might secretly get a bomb while the deal is in affect. I think there are people who believe that to be a valid and sufficient fear but I think they are wrong. There is of course a chance though that Iran will get a bomb or get much closer to a much shorter breakout time. I know that we cannot be certain that that will not happen, but I firmly believe that in a world of chance that we must decide to embrace some chances and this is one of those times.

The U.S. has been a gorilla on Iran’s back since long before Iran’s possible acquisition of a nuclear weapon was an issue. I think it is very possible that the admission by Wolfowitz that the claim of Iraq having WMD was just an excuse for war that everyone could get behind is an example of what is happening now. It also may well be the case that Iran is playing its cards the way it has just to have a chip to trade away so as to get the big monkey to climb down and go play somewhere else. It seems to me that even a monkey would see the value in doing this. A sociopathic but pragmatic monkey would at least give Iran more time to help deal with the crazies that have been let loose in their neighborhood before we closed the door on any mutually beneficial relationship. At this point they seem to be the only ones doing any good on that front.

I do find it troubling that

barefooted — Sat, 14 Mar 2015 22:05:03 +0000

In reply to A quickie for now. From the

I do find it troubling that Republicans, and some Democrats, seem to be insisting that absolutely no consideration be given to the Iranian position. A strict unwillingness to give even less than an inch on anything - demanding complete acquiescence on their part. That's not negotiating for a peaceful solution, that's just pushing them away from the table altogether.