Nothing Here But Us Targets

A longtime friend of this blog (and a different one than this morning) writes:

How bout an blog post asking Al or Amy why no town halls to discuss the Iran deal?  Just thinking…

While it’s no doubt a fine idea, it’ll take away from their time investigating the death of Cecil the Lion.

I think the only town hall meeting we get on Iran will be when they appear at the State Fair.

73 thoughts on “Nothing Here But Us Targets

  1. Is the Agreement perfect, clearly not; is it a start to a better future, I would argue it is.

    Future were all the Joos are exterminated with Uncle 0bumbler’s money. Yes, we get your point, Herr Goebbels.

  2. Back to repeating senseless (but I repeat myself) things when you do not have a cogent argument and your hate, intolerance and bloodthirst are on display? Don’t you have an oven to design and a blood libel to invent, EmeryTheAntisemiticSoci@list waste of oxygen?

  3. How frequently are you called a Nazi, Emery? You seem to have a stock reply, which is basically to call the person who called you a Nazi a Jewish provocateur.

  4. PB: A Hasbra troll advocates for Israel and it’s policies. Provocateur would not be my choice of noun. Perhaps ‘influencer’ would more appropriate.

  5. To get back to the topic at hand, one way to judge the quality of this Iran agreement is to look at it in the context of past performance. Iran has violated international agreements before. Without a doubt they will push the envelope on this agreement. It’s what countries do. Many experts are confidant that any cheating by the Iranians can be detected. Others are not so sure. They are not permitted to make fissile material, and they can probably be stopped before they do, at least for the next decade. But of course they are soon going to come into a hundred billion dollars or so, and I imagine the North Koreans were interested in that news. The Iranians have a well developed IRBM program. They got the tech from the North Koreans, BTW. They already have launchers with a range of a thousand miles. And their missiles are capable of carrying MIRVs. The existence of the Iranian IRBM program is perhaps the leading indicator of their intention to build nukes. Since WW2 it has been known that ballistic missiles are too expensive and too inaccurate to be useful if they do not carry WMD.
    The sanctions do have a snap-back provision that requires only a single veto from a UNSC member to reimpose sanctions. It is assumed that vote come from the United States. However, the rules for invoking the snapback are complex, and the snapback reimposes all sanctions. It is not a calibrated weapon and so it is difficult to use it to punish Iranian attempts to “push the envelope.” This will be a tricky proposition. Sanctions are difficult to impose because they amount to a market restriction. Reimposing sanctions won’t hurt just the Iranians, it will also hurt the western nations that are doing business with them. They will bring diplomatic pressure to bear on the United States not to “snapback” the sanctions.

  6. ” They will bring diplomatic pressure to bear on the United States not to “snapback” the sanctions.”
    with the rate of influx that Europe is currently experiencing in 3 years there will be possibly 2 EU nations that are Islamified enough to be Iranian allies in 5 years there could be as many as 7 EU nations that have a plurality of Muslims that make snapback impossible

  7. MBerg: You have quite a few laws for a Tea Party–Libertarian. When you pop-up like this it’s like watching messages from Hari Seldon (minus the hologram). Eerie.

  8. Kel-
    The way the agreement is written, if any one of the P5+1 isn’t satisfied that Iran is Keeping up its end of the bargain, it can bring the matter before the security council. Full sanctions — the sanctions now in effect — will be reimposed unless a measure to NOT reimpose sanctions passes the UNSC within a month, and any one of the permanent members has a veto.
    At least that’s my reading of the “snapback.”
    he problem comes when the US decides the Iranians are building more centrifuges or precursor tech than the treaty allows, the US issues notice to the UN that it wants a snapback, and the Germans complain that a snapback will cost them $10 billion. No partial imposition of the sanctions is allowed, the snapback is all or nothing.
    The Iranians seem to have better diplomats than we do. I would guess that, if the agreement takes effect, the Iranians will begin to see just how far they can push the agreement before the US reimposes sanctions.
    The easiest place to start would be in restricting the inspection regime. That’s what Sadam did.

  9. Let me try to be a little more concise in my complaint about the “snapback” provision of the agreement. The Iranians have myriad ways of pushing back against what the agreement requires them to do, but the p5+1 (meaning esp. the US) has only response available — full imposition of all current sanctions.

  10. MBerg’s 5th law: “99% of the invocations of Godwin’s Law are intended to get out of a losing argument.”

    I was referring to Swift’s comment: “Emery channelling Chamberlain!”

    Please try to keep up.

  11. “Please try to keep up.”
    Good gawd.
    Shocked: Commenter uses comment space ‘freely’ given to insult the host of said space.
    Not Shocked: Commenter that uses a movie character based on a Nazi as his avatar holds anti-Semitic views.

  12. Good catch, Emery. I was mocking your losing argument, not getting you out of it.

  13. I’m there for you little buddy.

    This thread has assumed the quality of a cat chasing it’s tail. With that said, I would like to add one final thought. I favor a Baker–Snowcroft foreign policy: realism with a tiny kernel of non–ideological idealism here or there for the long term. That is the way to go.

  14. Hasbara? Is that your answer now to anything Israel related, EmeryTheAntesimitcSoci@list? That’s right, I forgot, in your Joo hating world there is nothing positive to be said about Israel, you insufferable antisemitic shit from a dung beetle.

  15. JPA: Since when does disagreeing with Israel’s position on the Iran Nuclear Agreement make someone antisemitic? Frankly, you are a bully, make ad hominem attacks, and use harsh, negative, dismissive language, that seeks to silence discussion rather than broaden it. You beat on people for expressing opinions. If you want to refute people, do so. Impress us with your learning and experience. But angrily attacking commenters for not expressing themselves in a manner that meets your personal standards does, in fact, make you a bully. You have insufficient collegiality to be a positive participant in a group discussion. My policy is to not reply to the trolls on the site, but your comment was too priceless for me to keep my silence. You may now visit upon me your usual wrath.

  16. You pointed anti-Semitism has been on display a number of times in your comments, not just in regards to the Iran deal. Your deflections and attempt to take the high road does not fool anyone. I would take a bully anytime who exposes the wretch that is the likes if YOU, than attempt to be civil. I ain’t no Neville. Go fuck yourself.

  17. There is no respect and no disagreement. You are an avowed anti-Semite and I am here to highlight that fact.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.