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.
In the meantime, big game hunting has resumed in Zimbabwe. People gotta eat.
I was listening to Hugh Hewitt as I was driving home last night between his interviews with Carly Fiorina and Senator McCain and was surprised when he said that there wasn’t a single question at last week’s “debate” about Iran. I didn’t watch because I knew it was going to be a spectacle (although it’s recorded and I’m being pressured to watch) but how the does that not come up during a presidential debate designed to help choose who will be in the Oval Office when this “deal” is in place?
Any deal with Iran is very easy to demagogue, until the alternatives are considered. That is why no credible alternative is offered, other than the banal and mindless “we need a better deal”.
The opponents of the Iran deal appear to assume that sanctions are sustainable in the face of collapsed negotiations, forgetting perhaps that the Chinese and Europeans would be in Tehran the next day with their checkbook.
The opponents of the Iran deal appear to assume that sanctions are sustainable in the face of collapsed negotiations, forgetting perhaps that the Chinese and Europeans would be in Tehran the next day with their checkbook.
Yet, somehow, for the past three and a half decades the sanctions have held.
The difference is Obama.
The Chinese will be in there with their checkbooks – and their just devalued yuan.
Obama gave the Communist junta in Cuba everything they wanted, and got nothing in return.
Obama gave Russia a free hand to wage a war of conquest.
Obama gave Iran a guaranteed nuclear arsenal, and the cash to build it, and got nothing in return.
The Chinese hacked our government computer database, and Obama did nothing.
Maybe Obama doesn’t want to bring America to its knees, but if he did, what would he do differently?
PB writes: “The difference is Obama.”
That’s an interesting opinion. The fact of the matter is;China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States; plus Germany negotiated this International Agreement with Iran.
Emery, name a former president who would have made this deal. Neither McCain nor Romney would have made the deal, either. Of course the difference is Obama.
In the real world, McCain and Romney lost their opportunity to “make a deal”.
“In the real world, McCain and Romney lost their opportunity to “make a deal”.”
That’s a pretty stupid way to look at things. Your guy lost the election so you must support any treaties the the winner negotiates? Life don’t work that way, champ.
It was approriate considering the hypothetical nonsense posed by Mr. D.
Point of fact: I may be in the 25% club (1st wave) at the American Birkebeiner but I am under no illusion that I’ll ever be champ. ;^)
“In the real world, McCain and Romney lost their opportunity to “make a deal”.”
That wasn’t the question.
“It was approriate considering the hypothetical nonsense posed by Mr. D.”
The entire premise was hypothetical, and there’s nothing nonsensical about it; if they’d been elected, they’d have not made the deal.
“I may be in the 25% club (1st wave) at the American Birkebeiner but I am under no illusion that I’ll ever be champ. ;^”
Which is fine. Not something on which the fates of nations ride, along the lines of “not picking an idiot for president next time”, but certainly a fine thing.
It was approriate [sic] considering the hypothetical nonsense posed by Mr. D.
I’ll try to be more approriate next time.
Don’t waste your breath, D. EmeryTheAntisemiticSoci@list is averse to logic, historical and factual information.
Don’t waste your breath, D. EmeryTheAntisemiticSoci@list is averse to logic, historical and factual information.
Spelling seems to be an issue for him as well, JPA. He does have a surfeit of unearned arrogance, however, especially for a guy whose greatest insights are of the cut-and-paste variety.
Other than that, a fine fellow.
Proper spelling is one cue to find the source Emery cut and pasted a comment from.
Emery is the Plagiarization Champ of SITD.
Other nations went along with the Iran Deal, so therefore it’s a Good Deal for America?
France saw an opportunity to surrender and jumped at it. China wants Iranian oil on the market to weaken Russian oil profits. Russia wants Iran to attack the US so Russian can flatten Iran and have only China to worry about – a one-front World War III. Germany and Britain got secret side deals that Americans can’t see, laundered through the UN, I’d guess price breaks on Iranian oil in return for lifting sanctions.
Obama got the United States taken down a peg.
It’s worth noting that those who signed on to the deal have a lot to gain from it; Europe from cheaper oil, Russia from weapons sales, etc.. They also do not have a lot of Jewish neighbors who visit Israel, or who live there.
Don’t get what our excuse is here. I can excuse, sort of, Europe for abandoning most of the Middle East to the wolves for this deal. It’s “realpolitik” at its worst, but realpolitik nevertheless. I get it.
On the flip side, I can’t excuse our nation, which has lost hundreds (thousands?) of young men and women to Iranian terrorism. We also, AHEM, have a significant population with strong ties to the area, on both sides of the Israeli border. So aiding and abetting terrorism in the Middle East this way is just perplexing to me. We should know better.
Yes, let us always do ‘deals’ that are in the interest of everyone except the United States and Israel. To paraphrase Sonny Corleone – “there’s a lot of money in that supporting terrorism business, Pop.”
PS: Did anyone else notice a shortage of the letter “o” the other day after Sen Chuck Schumer came out against the “deal”? It’s spelled “J-e-w”, Lefty (and “f****n” isn’t a prefix for it either.)
Sen. Schumer who’s decision to not support the Iran deal was probably an imperative to serve Israeli and more importantly militant Jewish-American interests that are a key component to his clout and fund raising.
“Sen. Schumer who’s decision to not support …
Back to your old ant-Semitic nonsense again, eh Emery?
Emery, I would view Schumer as very petty and beholden to his donors, but even I can admit that sometimes even he can understand that standing against the incineration of Tel Aviv is the right thing to do. Honestly, can we lay off the “he’s doing the bidding of the evil Joos” nonsense? Please?
Sometimes even a Democrat can recognize a crap sandwich, no?
Monkey do what monkeys do.
Only after Israel and every Joo is wiped off the plant, bubba. That is the only time the like of EmeryTheAntisemiticSoci@list will lay off… to move to Christians… and then Hindus… and then Shriners and little kids running lemonade stands. Oh, wait…
Hmmm, militant Jewish-American interests I knew I have seen something similar today.
Kaukab Siddique, an associate professor of English at Lincoln University in Oxford, Pennsylvania, has called me and other defenders of free speech “dirty Jewish Zionist thugs” – Pam Geller.
Nice company EmeryTheAntisemiticSoci@list keeps. POD, please make sure to set aside a specially hot spot for EmeryTheAntisemiticSoci@list when he makes his appearance in your domain.
darn tag
JPA: Please consider going back to your hasbara mother ship and getting some new material.
Kel: Ant-Semitic ? Funny how you bots pull that card every time you lose an argument.
Swift: I didn’t think you had the wherewithal to be both a troll and a tosser. Well played little buddy.
BB: What Schumer thinks is that he will get more campaign donations from wealthy pro–Israeli donors if he opposes the deal. Schumer had already made up his mind and was going to vote against it no matter what. My take is that Sen Schumer is betting that Obama will veto a congressional rejection of the Iran deal, and Congress will lack the votes to override him. If he’s right, it’s a win for him: he gets to Kabuki-dance for his Zionist interventionist constituents that he’s tough on Iran, but he won’t suffer the bad political consequences of helping defeat the signature foreign policy initiative of a President of his own party. If he’s wrong, and the vote counting for that override looks dicey, Schumer will find himself with a very tough choice.
Sorry Emery, I’m not the one losing the argument. When you start trolling that anti-Semitic crap you not only lose the argument but you prove yourself just another low-life bottom feeder.
And per your 4:03 you have no idea what Schumer is thinking or what his secret motivations are – all you’re doing is ascribing your own motivations to him – its called projection.
Emery, if it’s just kabuki, then tell me why Obamagruber sicced his attack dogs on Schumer. Honestly….
Four reasons to oppose this “understanding” with Iran:
1) It’s built on secrets. Kerry has admitted that he cannot tell congress about the side deals that Iran has made with the IAEA because he doesn’t know what they are.
2) A president with zero responsibility to the voters is ramming it past the peoples congress.
3) The “snapback” lie. There is no such thing. The US cannot unilaterally reimpose international sanctions on anyone.
4) The Saudis will be incentivized to get their own nukes.
Schumer’s official statement on why he will disapprove of the Iran deal:
https://medium.com/@SenSchumer/my-position-on-the-iran-deal-e976b2f13478
He raises some very good points. He specifically addresses the issues that the president and Kerry would like to gloss over. The Obama-enabling press seems to think Schumer’s disapproval is all about his Jewish donors. They would rather put up a “dual loyalty” smokescreen than discuss the weaknesses in the agreement which Schumer has pointed out.
Schumer’s concluding graf:
In my opinion people who are for the deal are those who have the long vision and intellectual ability to understand that the alternatives are by far worse, that you cannot simply bully your way into what you want and use the threat of war as an axe over the head of nations that do not agree with you, something the government of Israel would like to see the U.S. continue to do till the Middle East is completely fragmented and Israel is the only country standing on its feet. This is the type of peace Israel is seeking, this is what Obama and the rest of the civilized world is unwilling to sign on.
In my opinion people who are for the deal are those who have the long vision and intellectual ability to understand that the alternatives are by far worse, that you cannot simply bully your way into what you want and use the threat of war as an axe over the head of nations that do not agree with you, something the government of Israel would like to see the U.S. continue to do till the Middle East is completely fragmented and Israel is the only country standing on its feet. This is the type of peace Israel is seeking, this is what Obama and the rest of the civilized world is unwilling to sign on.
Lemme fix that for ya, son.
In my opinion people who are against the deal are those who have the long vision and intellectual ability to understand that the alternatives are by far worse, that you cannot simply bully your way into what you want and use the threat of war as an axe over the head of nations that do not agree with you, something the government of Iran would like to see the U.S. do till the Middle East is completely fragmented and Iran is the only country standing on its feet. This is the type of peace Iran is seeking, this is what Obama and the rest of the civilized world is willing to sign on.
“In my opinion people who are for the deal are those who have the long vision and intellectual ability to understand that the alternatives are..”
Emery channelling Chamberlain!
It is very difficult to back an agreement negotiated by a president who called ISIS the “JV” team, turned Libya from a functioning state into failed state, failed to enforce his own chemical “red line” against Syria, failed to negotiate a status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government, and unilaterally ended the US embargo of Cuba in return for NOTHING. The fact that he continually accuses the people who oppose whatever cockamamy schemes he comes up with of arguing in bad faith doesn’t help.
There is no reason to trust Obama on this. Not one.
The Israeli interference notion does not explain Saudi Arabia’s opposition to the deal, but the liberal press is running with it anyhow.
Funny how synchronized the coverage of the issue by the liberal press is. First they said the opponents were warmongers who didn’t know what was in the deal. No evidence presented for the warmongering accusation, and the same papers and news sites had been reporting on the contents of the deal for months. They have never responded to the solid points against the deal raised by Schumer and others. I read most of the liberal columnists, and check out the NYT, Kos, TPM, and Huffpo, and it is eerie how they reflect the administrations talking points on the agreement. Their defense of the deal has the same flaws as Obama’s defense of the deal.
It’s understandable why the Saudis and Israelis aren’t satisfied with the accord. Iran’s nuclear program is a means to inflict sanctions; that’s its key importance. The opinions of Israel and Saudi Arabia are both predictable and irrelevant to the US and Europe.
We should have sanctions against Iran if we feel that hurting Iran is in our best interests. I don’t see why favoring any one of Iran, Israel, or Saudi Arabia is in any outsider’s interest currently. Avoiding major collapse in any one of those three is desirable. Not allow any one of the three to become dominant is desirable. It’s time to have a normal relationship with Iran; not one founded on trust, but I don’t see why we would want to trust, favor, or closely collaborate with any one of the players in the Middle East currently.
The purpose of the sanctions isn’t to hurt Iran. Using emotion-laden words that make the US out to be a bully is not helpful. The purpose of sanctions is to encourage the Iranian government to behave in a way which we think is in the best interests of the US, and, failing that, to keep them weak so they will not be able to further harm US interests. Sanctions are not handed down lightly. Iran is an outlaw nation. It calls itself “The Islamic Republic of Iran”, but in fact it is not a republic. Its constitution is managed by a group of clerics who have extra-constitutional powers.
Emery, at first you argued that the sanction regime was failing, and that the Obama-Kerry deal was the best thing that could be salvaged. Now you are arguing that a stronger Iran is in the US interests. poppycock. Of the three nations you mention, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, Israel is a western-style democracy and a US ally, Saudi Arabia is a US ally, and Iran is a declared enemy of the United States. There is no American interest in making the Iranian regime stronger at the expense of the Israelis and the Saudis.
I’d like to see the American embassy re-open within 5 years.
Quite frankly, you’ve yet to suggest an alternative plan. And while your here, name the countries that will continue enforcing sanctions against Iran. A “coalition of the willing” if I may use a familiar phrase.
“I’d like to see the American embassy re-open within 5 years.”
What an idea Emery! Maybe we could have a bake sale and buy you a one way ticket to Tehran for the opening ceremony. Not to worry, you’ll be perfectly safe.
“I’d like to see the American embassy re-open within 5 years.”
The guys who are in charge in Iran were the guys who invaded the US embassy in 1980. This was an act of war. They also took American embassy personnel hostage, and only released the because they thought Reagan was about to them what the good lord did unto the sodomites.
My alternative is to tear up everything and go back to the drawing board. A blank slate, with no options off the table.
” And while your here, name the countries that will continue enforcing sanctions against Iran.”
That is what diplomacy is for. This president keeps fucking up and then claiming that no one else could have done better. That is what is called an “unprovable assertion.”
Yikes Emery, you got a spot down here right next to every major anti-Semite for the last 2000 years. Anyone who has the balls to actually post ‘militant Jewish-American interests’ might as just well say I hate and blame jooos for everything wrong in America. Do you hate blacks also, because I’m pretty sure only the KKK and other white surpremecy groups use ‘militant’ and ‘Jew’ in the same sentence. I mean they did murder Jesus right? Have fun in the mortal realm because once you get down here your going to be tortured for the rest of time.
I would have liked to have seen Obama support the Green Revolution back in 2009. Pesky Iranians wanting freedom, how dare they get in the way of the Obama agenda.
Heres a plan, leave the sanctions in place, flood the market with more shale oil causing it to go down to $30 a barrel and tell the Iranians to give up their nuke plants if they want the sanctions lifted. I’m sure the people of Iran wouldn’t overthrow the Mullahs if they weren’t able to put food on the table or get a job. I mean its not like they are despised and could be overthrown with some arms smuggling and unfortunate accidents that could happen to the Ayotollah. When you chant death to America, all Geneva conventions about not assisting the overthrow or assassination of foreign leaders is null and void. Let the SEALS and Mossad do it for plausible denialbility though. Mossad has already taken out a few nuclear scientists, I’m sure poisoning the leaders of Iran should be a piece of cake.
“Mossad has already taken out a few nuclear scientists,”
I’m pretty sure they got Gerry Bull, too. If Emery is really Canadian-born, that might explain his dislike of the Israelis.
POD wrote: “flood the market with more shale oil causing it to go down to $30 a barrel” > I don’t believe you understand the economics of fracking. You should read up on the subject prior to posting such nonsense.
POD also wrote: “I’m sure poisoning the leaders of Iran should be a piece of cake.”
The Iran agreement was negotiated amongst the P5+1. I suspect China, Russia, Great Britain, France, and Germany might take exception to that, but hey, why complicate the discussion with reality? Is the Agreement perfect, clearly not; is it a start to a better future, I would argue it is.
PB: Stuxnet was also quite effective while it ran.
I’m not sure you realize the depth of the concessions Kerry has made, emery. Kerry says the Iranians have the right to enrich uranium. Previous Secretaries of State have said only that Iran has the right to peaceful use of nuclear tech. Hence our support for the Iranians to have access to nuclear material produced by the Russians and other nuclear powers. If Iran has the right to enrich uranium, there will be no stuxnet. From what I understand, the deal Kerry negotiated includes provisions for the US to assist Iran in protecting its production facilities from destruction or sabotage by other nations.
If it is a start to a better future, why is Obama so reluctant to submit it to simple majority vote by congress? Congressmen and senators will be around long after Obama is outta here.
The alternative plan is the one Iran signed on to in 1970; it’s called the Non Proliferation Treaty, and as a signatory to that treaty, Iran has the responsibility to open its sites to inspectors. Curiously Dear Leader does not appear to be aware of this option, or would like us to forget it.
To open the floodgates of money to (a) Iranian terrorism that would be (b) a huge bonus to Russian arms-makers with numerous secret provisions is the working of a fool–or rather a group of fools.
And let’s be serious here; Iran is deadly serious about getting nukes, and has repeatedly threatened to nuke Israel while hosting Holocaust denial conferences. While it may be possible to face down Iran without war, the more likely choices are to (a) face them down before they have $100 billion in Russian arms or (b) face them down after they have $100 billion in Russian arms. Which do we choose?
We already know, as others have pointed out, that Mr. Obama has an abyssmal record in assessing threats. Maybe it’s time to work with the grownups who remember history.
“I don’t believe you understand the economics of fracking.”
Right. But spending over a trillion bucks to destroy our health care system makes perfect sense.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2927348/Obamacare-program-costs-50-000-American-gets-health-insurance-says-bombshell-budget-report.html
Emery, you really are dumber than a bag of hammers. I suggest you go back to plagiarizing the thoughts of others; winging it isn’t working for you.