…is worse than Munich.
I remember those quaint good old days, when treaties had to be approved by two thirds of the Senate.
[Update a few minutes later]
Also, from Austin Bay:
It begins with a broken promise. Once upon a time, President Barack Obama vowed to halt Iran’s nuclear weapons quest. Promise made, promise broken.
All of Barack Obama’s pronouncements come with an expiration date.
[Late-evening update]
Clueless reporters question President Pinocchio at press conference:
One could deconstruct his evasions line by line, but that would largely duplicate the content of many posts we have done over the past weeks and months. Instead, I want to focus on a few key issues. But first, this observation: if any of the reporters present had read the agreement, which is only 159 pages long, it was not apparent. Maybe reporters are not accustomed to reading legal documents; maybe they are too lazy to try; maybe they have read and understood the agreement and are just partisan hacks, covering for their president. But I have a full-time job, and nevertheless have read the agreement several times. Why can’t reporters do the same? That would seem to be a prerequisite to participating intelligently in a press conference on the subject.
They were told there would be no reading.
Such a deal!
Mushrooms are gonna bloom… before that mo’ money for terrorism.
So the positive to me is the limited production of the Iran bomb. I don’t think they will build a full arsenal and reach before an Ayatollah decides to show the world their power. At that point, it becomes a question of target, and while I live near a major strategic target, I don’t live quite that close, and while strategic, it has less political importance as other locations like Israel, NYC, Suez Canal, Qatar, etc. DC is fairly protected. Once one is cooked, the response will be overwhelming as it was for 9/11 and Kuwait. It might even be a purely conventional response. But afterwards, silly notions like “fairness doctrine” will once again be relegated to the realm of idiots where it should have remained.
“This deal isn’t contingent on Iran changing its behavior”
Just wow.
JimApproved.
What truly boggles my mind is that Jim, Obama et al. are willing to ignore Iran’s history and its promise to destroy Israel for a peace deal. They actually tell us we can trust Iran. Yes, trust Iran.
Yet these same people insist that Israel is a terrorist organization. (Maybe not Jim, but certainly Obama and his ilk.)
They actually tell us we can trust Iran
Obama and Kerry don’t say that. The whole point of the inspections is that we don’t trust Iran.
Yet these same people insist that Israel is a terrorist organization. (Maybe not Jim, but certainly Obama and his ilk.)
When did Obama “insist” that Israel is a terrorist organization?!?
“The whole point of the inspections is that we don’t trust Iran.”
No, the point of the inspections is to prevent the USA from doing anything for 10 years. Iran is still working on nuclear weapons. They will be doing much of their work in secret, as we know from Stuxnet. The inspections will be a hassle but purely for theatre.
And we all know Obama won’t do anything if they break the agreement because he didn’t do anything when Syria repeatedly broke their agreement or when Russia did the same.
This deal gives Iran 10 years to continue working on nuclear weapons and prevents us from doing anything. Obama couldn’t even get our hostages back with his total capitulation.
the point of the inspections is to prevent the USA from doing anything for 10 years.
That’s ridiculous. The inspections don’t limit the U.S. at all. They add to our information about Iran’s nuclear program, and they let us re-impose sanctions in case of a significant violation of the deal terms.
They will be doing much of their work in secret
It was easy for them to do that when there weren’t inspections, and even then we knew a lot about their programs. It will be much, much harder for them to pursue nuclear weapons with the inspections in place.
This deal gives Iran 10 years to continue working on nuclear weapons
Without a deal they could keep working on weapons without any inspections — how well was that working out?
“That’s ridiculous. The inspections don’t limit the U.S. at all. ”
Well, they do literally limit us in terms of how those inspections are conducted but the inspections, and the deal itself, limit our ability to counter Iran’s quest for nukes. We can’t do new sanctions and there isn’t any punishments spelled out for failure to comply with the deal.
Really all it does is tie our hands for 10 years as Iran continues doing exactly what it is doing today and what it was doing years ago.
“It was easy for them to do that when there weren’t inspections”
Easy for them to do that with inspections, not all sites are open for inspection and time lines are so long that sites that can be inspected, can be altered.
” and even then we knew a lot about their programs”
Yes, this is true due to Stuxnet but in other places in this thread you claim we don’t know anything about their program and that inspections allow us to learn about it, which is wrong.
“It will be much, much harder for them to pursue nuclear weapons with the inspections in place.”
Not really. They have already been working on their nuclear program under a much harder system. Removal of sanctions and unfreezing tens of billions of dollars only make it an easier environment for them to work in.
“Without a deal they could keep working on weapons without any inspections ”
And we would be free to pursue other methods of convincing them to end the program but now they get to continue developing nuclear weapons and we have our hands tied.
You do realize nothing in this deal requires Iran stop its nuclear program right?
“how well was that working out?”
Either way, Iran is working on nuclear weapons only now they have the approval of Obama in doing so. So why was the deal needed if Iran doesn’t change their behavior? The deal had zero impact on getting them to stop their nuclear weapons program.
We can’t do new sanctions
We can if they break the terms of the deal.
and there isn’t any punishments spelled out for failure to comply with the deal.
Of course there are. Read one of the many explainers that have been written, or just read the deal itself.
as Iran continues doing exactly what it is doing today
You really seem to have no idea of what the deal entails. To take just one example, today Iran can enrich uranium to weapons grade and stockpile it at will. Under the deal they can’t.
we would be free to pursue other methods of convincing them to end the program
Like what, bombing? If they break the deal we have every option we have today.
You do realize nothing in this deal requires Iran stop its nuclear program right?
It allows them a civilian nuclear program.
The deal had zero impact on getting them to stop their nuclear weapons program
Of course it does. The sanctions aren’t lifted until they give up 97% of their enriched uranium, and most of their centrifuges. Going forward they can’t enrich uranium past 4%. It has huge impact on any attempt they might make to build nuclear weapons.
You really don’t see Obama’s hatred for Israel? I guess those on the left don’t see their own bias, like fans of MSNBC.
A trust in Iran is implicit in the agreement. Any sane person would never deal with a thug or a bully, because their promises are false. We all know that Iran is lying when they promise to commit to their end of the bargain. That is what I mean by trust.
It didn’t work for North Korea, and it sure as hell will not work for Iran.
The whole idea of inspections is a joke.
This is ridiculous.
And how can you possibly think this will work when it didn’t work for N Korea? I’ve asked you this before. Please answer it.
You really don’t see Obama’s hatred for Israel?
No, I don’t. You said that Obama “insists” that Israel is a terrorist organization. I don’t think he’s ever said any such thing; if he had it would have been widely reported. So do you have evidence for your claim, or is it just something you made up?
Any sane person would never deal with a thug or a bully
Nixon dealt with Mao. Reagan dealt with Breshnev, Andropov and Gorbachev. Kennedy dealt with Krushchev. Roosevelt dealt with Stalin. And you are saying they were all insane?
The whole idea of inspections is a joke.
What’s the joke? How would you enrich weapons-grade uranium without being spotted?
And how can you possibly think this will work when it didn’t work for N Korea?
It’s a different deal, with different terms and different players. By your logic we should never go to war, because the Iraq war didn’t work.
Yah, so we failed in North Korea and we refuse to learn the lessons of dealing with an aspiring nuclear power. There are many apples to compare between the two. I’m sorry you can’t see that.
Nixon dealt with Mao. Reagan dealt with Breshnev, Andropov and Gorbachev. Kennedy dealt with Krushchev. Roosevelt dealt with Stalin. And you are saying they were all insane?
Please don’t even compare these presidents with Obama. They dealt with their thugs differently than Obama is dealing with Iran. For one, they all recognized the need for US military power, something Obama is reducing. Obama is apologizing for US military force.
What’s the joke? 24 days? Seriously?
They dealt with their thugs differently than Obama is dealing with Iran.
Wait a second. You said that it was insane for anyone to deal with a thug or bully. Now you’re saying that it might be sane to deal with a thug, depending on how you do it? That’s a very different claim.
Obama is apologizing for US military force.
Citation needed.
24 days? Seriously?
Seriously. Do you think you could move a centrifuge cascade and clean up any detectible sign of residual radiation in 24 days? The physics and chemistry are on the side of the inspectors.
“By your logic we should never go to war, because the Iraq war didn’t work.”
Rather convenient that Obama f’s up in Iraq and you claim that the war didn’t work. Things were going just fine until Obama abandoned Iraq. That Obama screwed things up doesn’t mean that it was wrong to fight that war.
Things were going just fine until Obama abandoned Iraq.
Utterly amazing. Four thousand dead Americans, tens of thousands of dead Iraqis, millions of Iraqi refugees, a trillion dollars spent, the Iraqi government in the hands of Iranian-allied Shiites, a power vacuum in Sunni tribal areas waiting for ISIS to step in, and to you that’s “just fine”?
“Four thousand dead Americans” sounds awful, but of course it is trivial in the context of historical American wars. Most of the rest of what you’re complaining about is the result of Obama’s precipitate withdrawal, not the invasion itself.
“Four thousand dead Americans” sounds awful, but of course it is trivial in the context of historical American wars.
The war would have been a bad idea without a single U.S. casualty; 4,000 dead (and of course tens of thousands wounded and/or psychologically scarred) just makes it worse.
Most of the rest of what you’re complaining about is the result of Obama’s precipitate withdrawal
Everything I mentioned was the case before Obama took office.
Are you really going to argue that Bush’s decision to invade was vindicated by the state of Iraq as of January 2009?
Are you really going to argue that Bush’s decision to invade was vindicated by the state of Iraq as of January 2009?
It wasn’t the disaster it became after Obama’s withdrawal. That’s what created ISIS (whose predecessor had been soundly defeated in the surge).
In other words, if the IAEA gets a hot tip Iran has more than enough time to clean up before letting in the inspectors. We should recall how well that worked with Iraq.
more than enough time to clean up
You might look into how long it takes to decontaminate a nuclear weapons facility. It takes more than a little Clorox.
We should recall how well that worked with Iraq.
Reality check: Iraq did not hide a nuclear weapons program from inspectors. Nuclear inspections were intended to keep Iraq from developing a bomb, and they were 100% successful.
“and they were 100% successful.”
Not really because Iraq was working on missile systems, which was forbidden under our agreement with them. They also pulled out over 550 tons of yellowcake.
Everything was ready to be started up again once Democrats convinced our country to capitulate to Saddam.
From Politico:
“Key Democrats are so far withholding support for the White House’s Iran deal, worried that the plan would undermine national security, threaten Israel and too easily let Tehran escape punishing economic sanctions. Many of them will be in office beyond the end of Obama’s term, so an affirmative vote means they will effectively own the deal when they face voters again. That means they could pay a dear price politically if the accord fails to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions and proves to be a failure.”
Oh, those Dastardly Democrats . . . take it away, Jim!
Yeah, inspections. Like the ones that were supposed to take place in North Korea after the Clintons gave Kim Il-Sung all that free money and financial aid and helped him with his “peaceful” nuclear program twenty years ago. Like the ones in Iraq. How’d those work out, by the way?
How’d those work out, by the way?
Pretty great — Iraq didn’t develop any nuclear weapons. If only we’d believed what the inspectors reported…
But there were WMD in Iraq.
There were no nuclear weapons. What old chemical weapons they had lying around don’t deserve the label WMD.
No one said they had nuclear weapons why try and claim so now?
We pulled out a lot of chemical precursors, the same stuff Obama claimed was WMD when he got Syria to give up some of their stockpiles.
What old WMD they had around were still WMD and they were the same WMD we were worried about under Clinton and Bush I.
But I guess in 50/50 hindsight you have to say WMD wasn’t good enough but it has to meet some unnamed criteria. Had they found 600 tons of yellowcake you would say only 700 tons would be important.
Also, WMD was just one of the reasons given for war in Iraq. Democrats complained at the time there were too many reasons.
“Barely deserved the label WMD?”
Wow, watch those goalposts fly!
The thing is Obama and Jim are lying to you, so don’t trust them.
I have no idea why Rhodes would claim there would be anytime, anywhere inspections. No sane country would agree to such a thing — we could use such a provision to gather all sorts of intelligence on subjects that have nothing to do with nuclear weapons (as we did in Iraq), or even use it to assassinate Iranian leaders.
“or even use it to assassinate Iranian leaders.”
Does this mean that we are no longer going to be taking out their nuclear scientists? That is quite a gift to Iran.
But on the subject of faulty claims, Obama and the Democrats are claiming this deal stops Iran, it doesn’t. Iran gets to keep its nuclear weapons program.
Iran gets to keep its nuclear weapons program.
Where do you get this stuff? I mean that literally, where is it written in the deal that Iran gets to keep its nuclear weapons program?
Where do you get this stuff that the “deal” is actually going to accomplish what its proponents claim that it will?
“where is it written in the deal that Iran gets to keep its nuclear weapons program?”
Where is it written that they don’t have one.
Centrifuges are allowed to keep spinning but you want us to believe this means that Iran doesn’t get to keep working on nuclear weapons?
FWIW, Neville Chamberlain didn’t make a bad deal at Munich. The UK military wasn’t ready for war in 1938, and the Munich deal bought them time to re-arm.
Um, neither were the Germans, and it gave them time to, like, arm . . .
Well, it is from Slate. That makes it a genuine fact.
The Chamberlain argument has more to do with trusting a bully, or to “establish a dialog” with thugs than with current military strength.
Well, it is from Slate
The fallacy ref throws a flag.
Ah, now I’m responsible for a logical fallacy. You do them all the time, and refuse to apologize.
Um, this is what Slate wrote about the Nov 2013 deal, which was nulled, because it didn’t work as reported by WaPo less than 4 months later. I think it is pretty fair to question Slate’s understanding of foreign affairs. It is not a fallacy, it is simply stating something obvious to anyone willing to look.
So if you disagree with one article in Slate, that means every article in Slate, including articles by other writers on completely unrelated topics, have been discredited? That’s a super-sized ad hominem fallacy.
So if you disagree with one article in Slate, that means every article in Slate
Jim, you argument is ridiculous. There is no disagreement with Slate. They were wrong. There is no need to suffer from Gell-Mann Amnesia, when on the topic at hand, Slate has shown poor analysis in foreign affairs particularly related to dealing with Iran. Jon is right to dismiss their poor analysis, specifically when the topic is Iran.
Slate has shown poor analysis in foreign affairs particularly related to dealing with Iran
So Slate article about WWII military and diplomatic history by one writer is not to be trusted because you didn’t like a Slate article about current day negotiations with Iran by a different writer? Guilt by association?
Again Jim, this isn’t about like. Slate was wrong. Flat wrong. Did you not read the WaPo story? Do you think I’m writing for WaPo? Aren’t you ignorant that the Nov 2013 deal was violated? Is the best argument you have the possibility that Slate was with 20/20 hindsight maybe right about pre WWII despite being proven wrong about dealing with Iran?
Come up with something better Jim. Your argument here is too easy to destroy. Seriously Jim, what’s next? The WaPo is part of the vast right-wing conspiracy! You are being moronic.
The fallacy ref throws a flag.
If that were for real, you’d have been thrown out of the game years ago.
The UK military wasn’t ready for war in 1938, and the Munich deal bought them time to re-arm.
As Paul noted, it made the strategic situation worse for Britain and France rather than better, because Germany rearmed faster. A lot of people died because of this delay. And Chamberlain’s “Peace for our time” speech that followed was sheer delusion.
Really, the optimal time to declare war would have been when Germany remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936 where Britain and France has separately overwhelming military superiority over Germany. A defeat would not only set German military ambitions back years or even decades, it would have fatally crippled Hitler’s government.
Now, Iran is not arming as nightmarishly fast as Nazi Germany did in 1938, but when you give them plenty of time to develop nuclear weapons, that’s going to hurt the long term strategic position of the US. It may be that even with this ready assistance from the Obama administration, they will be unable to develop nuclear weapons. My view on that is relying on the incompetence of your enemies is a very deadly strategic mistake.
Of course, it’s also arguable that Hitler’s real ambitions lay to the East, and the governments of France, the UK, and the US could have done humanity an enormous favor by letting Hitler and Stalin wear one another down until both societies collapsed.
When two enemies of civilization are preparing to make war on one another, one does not aid one in the hopes that the other is worse; rather, one makes popcorn and prepares to sell weapons to both sides. See also, Saddam Hussein and the Ayatollah Khomeni, thirty-five years ago.
Some will object to this idea, and say “what about Poland?” The same Poland that Roosevelt and Churchill let Stalin partition and then subject to a notably brutal occupation almost until the end of the Twentieth Century? That Poland?
Poland could not possibly have fared worse than they did in our history. And a generation of young French, British, and American young men might even possibly have not been conscripted by force and marched into the cannon’s mouth to prop up Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Mao T’se-Tung, Josip Tito, Kim Il-Sung, the Ceaucescus, and a rogue’s gallery of other war criminals, terrorists, dictators, and genocidal maniacs who did not even wait for the shooting to stop to turn on us, if we’re arguing counterfactuals.
Of course, it’s also arguable that Hitler’s real ambitions lay to the East, and the governments of France, the UK, and the US could have done humanity an enormous favor by letting Hitler and Stalin wear one another down until both societies collapsed.
Anything is arguable, even obviously false statements. Hitler’s invasion of France (along with a bunch of other countries such as Denmark, Norway, and Sweden) demonstrated that he had ambitions elsewhere. And what happens when Nazi Germany or Russia become the first country to use nuclear weapons?
France declared war on Germany on September 3, 1939. Germany invaded France on May 10, 1940. Note the sequence of events.
As for the question of what would have happened if the Germans or Soviets had gotten nuclear weapons–well, the Soviets did in fact get nuclear weapons in 1949, and it took decades for the arsenals on both sides to grow to sizes that were truly an existential threat to humanity. The idea of a nuclear-armed Third Reich is no more terrifying or distasteful to me than a nuclear-armed USSR or PRC, and you may note that Stalin ran up a bigger body count than Hitler did, though Mao’s dwarfed them both. Churchill and Roosevelt gave us the worst of all possible worlds, at the cost of six hundred thousand young American men dead to prop up Stalin’s genocidal regime.
For that matter, in 2015 we are being assured that this “deal” will rilly rilly work, for sure, they rilly mean it, to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and even if it doesn’t, Iran is governed by people who are known for their calculating rationality and will be just as deterrable as the USSR, and we certainly don’t have to worry that the Ayatollahs will say “Death to America! Death to the Great Satan! Allah will protect us!” and do something, well, rash. It’s not as if we were talking about a state that holds American hostages right now, or had a history of sponsoring terrorism, right?
That’s dishonest since you gloss over both the imminent danger to France that caused them to declare war in the first place and the invasion of those other countries I mentioned. I don’t buy at all that France would have been left alone.
Well, there is the matter of the previous 75+ years of French belligerence and jingoism where Germany was concerned, also. The French military, for that matter, in 1940 dwarfed the Wehrmacht and was lavishly equipped…
I’m speaking tongue in cheek here. Thirty, forty years ago these were the exact same arguments Western “progressives” used to defend the USSR and minimize its crimes. I actually at one point heard a campus prog blame Napoleon’s invasion of Russia for the Molotov-von Ribbentrop Pact.
This is not to say that it was morally defensible for a Marxist-leaning administration in the US to seek out and provoke foreign wars to which to conscript and send a generation of young American men in order to prop up foreign Marxist dictators with whom Roosevelt sympathized.
Even if Iran never gets nukes it’s still a huge mistake to allow them the cash that sanctions were effectively denying them. To think that makes them no threat to America is pure fantasy.
Not that the Donald would do any better, but his argument that we’re losing on the world stage because we don’t make better negotiations for our advantage rings so true that it may be the more powerful argument although now overshadowed by immigration.
What a sad day this is, when speaking a few un-spun plain truths–all on the same level of “water is wet” and “the Emperor is not only naked but is, furthermore, drunkenly waggling his penis at the news cameras”–is enough to get “conservative” street cred for a Wall Street gangster bankster who donated multi-million-dollar sums to the Obamas and the Clintons and donates more to Democrats than Republicans year in and year out.
Thread Winner!
it made the strategic situation worse for Britain and France rather than better, because Germany rearmed faster.
Citation? It gave Britain time to develop radar and new fighter planes, which were key to their surviving the Battle of Britain. Germany was the aggressor, and delay favors defense. Britain and France would have been even better off if they’d been able to postpone the war into 1940.
the optimal time to declare war would have been when Germany remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936
Knowing what we know now, yes. Knowing what they knew then, such a decision is next-to-inconceivable, not to mention politically impossible in both Britain and France.
The Munich deal, in contrast, looks like the best possible move both from the perspective of 1938, and with the benefit of hindsight.
Britain and France would have been even better off if they’d been able to postpone the war into 1940.
Citation please.
Because they absolutely would not. Germany had made excellent progress with their five-year design-test-prototype-build-build-LOTS plans for submarines, planes, tanks, and small arms of all sorts. I’m not even going to argue about Chamberlin coming home and doing victory-laps of peace-dividend instead of demanding wartime production. One particular aspect of the German military that had lagged was the Bismark and her follow-up sister ships. The Bismark all by itself was a troubling problem for the British. Even one more close enough to completion may have been enough. And one was: The Tirpitz was lagging just a couple months behind. (And there were two more, -larger- models laid down where “Just a year or so” would have put them close enough to service to shift strategies.)
The mission the Bismark was eventually sunk on in May of 41 was originally planned to be -two- Bismark class ships (and the two smaller battleships) to ‘break out and cause havok’. The Bismark and one escort managed the breakout, sank the Hood and damaged the Prince of Wales enough it had to retreat. But the Bismark was injured holding off an amazing slice of the British Navy, and scuttled/sunk after rudder damage because, in part, there was no one else that could drive the British away from them.
None of that seems amazingly relevant, but the Russian Front was opened in June of 41. It was authorized in Dec ’40, but remember: we’re adding “Just one year” in here. The Bismark’s mission had been a sort of ‘last hope’ that Germany could really ‘break out’ and stay out. But without a sufficient surface navy, Germany wasn’t going to be pressing into Britain -> time to pester Russia.
Give Germany -two- Bismark-class for that same mission. Even with the end result being the Tirpitz towing the Bismark back to port, I think I would have classed that as a pretty good show. And there would be the two more more-than-half done, and -four- more a year or two into construction.
Shorter version: Anything that could -delay- the opening of the Russian Front would have finished the British completely, IMNSHO.
Citation? It gave Britain time to develop radar and new fighter planes, which were key to their surviving the Battle of Britain. Germany was the aggressor, and delay favors defense. Britain and France would have been even better off if they’d been able to postpone the war into 1940.
What happened in the real world is my citation, Jim. As I noted earlier, Germany armed faster than Britain and France after Hitler took power going from a non-existent military and secret general staff in partial adherence to the Treaty of Versailles to the dominant military power in Europe inside of eight years.
Second, Germany was picking off neighbors piecemeal. This is classic divide and conquer strategy. Third, if delay was so terrible for Germany, then why did they try so hard to delay those declarations of war? All Hitler had to do was brag “You’re next”, blow up some stuff, and he’d get a declaration of war. Instead, we see many fake placations, such as the Treaty of Munich, whose sole purpose was to keep Britain and France on the sidelines a little while longer.
If the UK and France had so chose, they could have remained not at war with Germany until the point they were annexed by Germany.
Fourth, the UK’s military buildup didn’t really start until they had declared war. The same delusional people who wanted “peace for our time” were the same ones getting in the way of the strategy you propose. It was their removal from power following these failures of diplomacy that led to Britain finally arming itself.
“Now, Iran is not arming as nightmarishly fast as Nazi Germany did in 1938”
Yet they are fighting wars on multiple fronts and expanding their support and use of Islamic militias. Couldn’t believe what Obama said about using Iranian militias in Iraq but then again he is cool with Iran having nukes so…
Should they violate the agreement, sanctions can be reimposed. Alas, Mr. President, money-hungry Moscow and Beijing would have to approve new sanctions
That’s incorrect. In case of a significant violation it takes a Security Council vote to not reimpose sanctions, and of course the U.S. veto is enough to block such a vote. The U.S. and its European allies hold a majority on the body that decides whether a violation is significant.
Jim’s reasoning is flawed. Here is the fallacy. He clams it takes a Security Council vote to not reimpose sanctions, except that it first takes a UN Security Council vote to impose that measure. Russia has stated as recently as last week that it would block any such measure. They may have agreed, but right now, the Russian veto is enough to block the snap-back resolutions.
And by the way, this isn’t the first time Obama/Jim have lied about this issue. Perhaps something has changed, but so far, this deal is only a handshake, and as noted many times previously, the last deal was violated in just 3 months.
“Jim’s reasoning is flawed.” Gee, and it’s usually so Aristotelian on other issues!
When pretty much all you can do is parrot party-lines, the reasoning process, like an unused mucle, gets weak and flabby. In an earlier thread about Il Dufe’s Iran deal, I noted that the same people who are wrong about nearly everything else, support the Iran deal. Not that that automatically makes the deal wrong (although anything that proceeds from an unreconstructed Red Diaper Baby makes one automatically suspicious that it can’t be good for the West); and even a stopped clock, etc., etc.; but it’s clear the deal is popular with people whose grasp of reality, based on their track-record, is, at best, tenuous. So what was Baghdad Jim’s response? “Given that the same people who are against the treaty supported the Iraq invasion . . . .” The Tu Quoque! Pretty weak sauce–as weak as Jim’s grasp of economics! Although I would say that the people who supported the Iraq invasion–assuming that it was a total disaster snd since that seems to be the party line of the Left, one would be wise to be skeptical of it–seem to have a better track record than Jim and similar types.
By the way, when I made the same observation on another general pro-freedom blog, another ideological clone from the Stupid Left (where Saul Alinsky meets the Dumbest Generation) came back with the same thing Jim said–almost word for word! So apparently it’s being issued as to the party-line faithful on what talking-points blog they get their scripts from as the thing to say if anyone points out their overwhelmingly dismal track record of analysis, accuracy and reasoning.
And as for party faithful, those talking points are making the rounds of a particular party faction, because they don’t seem to be making an impression (yet) on many Senate Democrats.
Don’t worry, the Democrats will fall into line. Every single one of them will vote yes.
Oh, I disagree. They’ll make sure they get enough votes to fail veto override, but many Dems up for re-election will be allowed to vote against the White House.
Given that the same people who are against the treaty supported the Iraq invasion
That the Jim’s of the world put forth this argument show just how unserious this Iran Deal is, especially when he remarks about the UN Security Council. Iraq violated a dozen resolutions directly related to its weapons of mass destruction and inspection there of. It wasn’t until a threat of war was imminent that Saddam relented, and even then he failed to be 100% compliant.
By the way, what WMD was Khaddafi developing? Why was war with him acceptable? Was it because his was a weaker country? It certainly is not because Khaddafi supported terrorism and Iran does not.
Iraq violated a dozen resolutions directly related to its weapons of mass destruction and inspection there of.
We should feel good about Iraq because, after all, they were breaking the rules? Seriously?
The invasion of Iraq was an unmitigated strategic, fiscal and humanitarian disaster, the greatest unforced U.S. foreign policy error since Vietnam. And the fact that the Iraq invasion was a catastrophe hasn’t generated any soul-searching or reconsideration from its cheerleaders; instead they are shamelessly recycling the same misguided reasoning that took us into Iraq in favor of new catastrophes in Syria, Iran, and (once more with feeling) Iraq.
We should feel good about Iraq because, after all, they were breaking the rules? Seriously?
Interesting straw man you are burning, where did you get it?
My point is the deal with Iraq didn’t prevent war. I even avoided bringing up how the imposed sanctions on Iraq actually enriched Saddam and the UN regulators set up to oversee the sanctions, because that just an extra aspect of how bad the deal was.
Fact: Iraq violated the deal over and over until war was imminent. North Korea has done the same, and hasn’t stopped because no war is imminent. Hitler did the same, wasn’t stopped until after he started the war.
History shows us what happens when these deals are made. There is nothing about this argument to cheer. It is simply a somber and intelligent reflection of history that suggests these deals don’t work.
In the past, once the deals fell apart in the aftermath suffered, phrases like “Never Forget” and “Never again” were common and not made with cheerful glee. Now we have an President celebrating his ignorance of the past, and complaining when someone notes his contentment with a bad deal. The only cheerleader around here is the President and his supporters.
“We should feel good about Iraq because, after all, they were breaking the rules? Seriously?”
That is the argument you are making in regard to Iran. That we should feel good about the deal even though we all know Iran will cheat and the deal isn’t intended to stop their nuclear weapons program.
But what you should be noticing is that the agreement with Saddam guaranteed conflict. They would scam us and we would respond. This escalates over time and the same will happen with Iran. Each Iranian violation will be a reason to punish them and either we do and retain our credibility or we don’t and have appeasement lead to a nuclear Iran.
If Iraq was so bad, why do you support creating the same conditions with Iran that lead us to war with Iraq?
“And the fact that the Iraq invasion was a catastrophe hasn’t generated any soul-searching or reconsideration from its cheerleaders”
A) it wasn’t a catastrophe. Whatever delusions you have a about the war are incorrect. You bought into the Democrats cheerleading against our country but don’t worry we wont say you hate the USA.
B) Your soul searching should lead you to the conclusion that just because Obama failed doesn’t mean it was wrong for Bush to take us to war. Obama failed, he is a grown man and is the President, treat him like one. Remember the other day when you claimed the President takes the blame for things that go wrong? Well, here ya go.
And don’t forget as I stated earlier, if you really think the Iraq war was wrong, then you shouldn’t be supporting creating the conditions to make a similar war happen with Iran. Introspection should mean you look to understand the events that lead up to that war which involves a lot of stuff that predates the Bush administration.
“History shows us what happens when these deals are made.”
Want to add that these previous deals were explicitly intended to stop weapons programs. This deal with Iran explicitly allows them to continue. Its doubly bad.
And the fact that the Iraq invasion was a catastrophe hasn’t generated any soul-searching or reconsideration from its cheerleaders;
Sure there has been.
Never ever trust the Democrats on a “peacebuilding mission” ever. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Egypt, … heck Kosovo, Rwanda, Korea.
The “Flatten it” part worked fine. Showing up, flattening it and leaving: Strong horse, do not mess with them. Showing up, poking it, propping up some ineffectual puppet, leaving and then hiring our still self-declared mortal enemies to fix the problem = beyond dumb. Beyond weak horse.
The invasion of Iraq was an unmitigated strategic, fiscal and humanitarian disaster, the greatest unforced U.S. foreign policy error since Vietnam.
I disagree. Obama’s steps since he took power is even worse. ISIS exists because of colossal Bush administration mistakes. ISIS in control of so much territory and threatening the stability of the entire region is Obama’s even greater contribution.
Perhaps something has changed
Indeed, that’s how negotiations work: nothing is settled until everything is settled.
Indeed, that’s how negotiations work: nothing is settled until everything is settled.
The part that is always an unexpected shock to the negotiators is: Everything is a moving target in a chaotic world and is thus never settled … by definition.
“Oh, look, peace treaties and strong mutual defense pacts everywhere … what do you mean someone shot the Archduke”
“Well, of course the Germans don’t like the deal. Cheating you say? Snap back the sanctions they’re already under? They should just be bloody happy they aren’t the Austrians, we peace-dealed those folks but good. But maybe we can get peace in our time.”
“What do you mean the Russians failed to block our provocative maneuvers in the Security Council by conveniently simply not showing up that day and we’re actually already committed to ‘policing Korea’?!? And… what do you -mean- now Russia has turned completely around and is blocking absolutely everything actually useful? They can’t play “Let’s you and him fight! That’s not funny!” ”
“Oh, yes, I -do- think its a ‘significant violation’, but gosh, Russia says it isn’t. We have to have a significant violation first. If they declare it significant then we won’t need their vote to proceed!”
Because nothing says “Yeah, we mean our sanctions!” like ignoring 3 existing battleships and seven keels laid to declare “Peace!”
The administration said, “Never again.” They implemented, “As Soon As You Like.”
Hard radiation falling on my head;
Soon I’ll be among the walking dead.
Just like the guy whose lies are too big to ignore;
Nothing seems to fit.
Just did me some talking to the One;
I said I didn’t like the way he got things done.
Sleeping on the job;
Soon bombs will be falling.
Hard radiation falling on my head;
I’m never gonna stop the One by complaining.
Because I’m free;
to suffer all the One will do to me.
Nothings worrying me.
“I don’t read in this agreement anytime, anywhere inspections, for example, which are critical when you have a 20-year history of Iran deceiving the world and having covert facilities to enrich uranium.”
That’s Senator Bob Menendez, (D) NJ
“Without verification, this is a useless agreement,”
That’s Rep Steny Hoyer, (D) MD, also the House’s No. 2 Democrat.
Jim’s delusional notion that the sanctions will snap back are based upon at least 2 fallacies:
1) That the will to snap them back will exist
2) That other parties will not block it even if the will to re-apply them did exist in the US
The snap back option is a sop to the gullible, naive, imbecilic, an/or those who want to see Iran a nuclear power. Choose one or more for Jim.
Anyone who seriously believes that Obama would re-impose sanctions need remember only 2 past events:
1) Syrian Red lines
2) Obama’s initial promises which are now expired and ignored
The sad part is the sanctions are no big deal to Iran. They managed just fine under them. But before they SnapBack, Iran gets frozen assets back, gets all sorts of time plus 24 days to continue bomb development, and in the meantime, the world gets cheap oil to burn while the US Natural Gas production, which has allowed the US to surpass the Kyoto Protocols, will be dismantled. Note, I’m for the free trade, but I would like to point out the Venn Diagram of those who believe in AGW and support this Iran deal.
Even after Obama reached his face saving agreement with Syria, they repeatedly used chemical weapons on civilian populations. Remember back when Jim said that deal was some amazing diplomacy on Obama’s part?
Jim is free to willfully believe the lies he is told by his party but he shouldn’t expect us to.
To me it’s like if you caught a guy with his hand in your pocket, trying to lift your wallet (which of course is essentially “liberal” economics in a nutshell), and he told you, “Hey, did you know the moon is made of green cheese?” And this was a guy who previously told you that black is actually white, white is actually black, and that if you take a dollar bill and fold it in half, you’ve actually doubled your money! You might be charitable and say, “Well, obviously this guy is retarded as well as a pickpocket.” But whether stupid and dishonest, or just one or the other, you’d probably better not listen to him when he asks you to invest in a lunar cheese mine.
We do have one thing to thank Jim for: the nuclear arming of Saudi Arabia. Escalation is inevitable.
And now we are going to help Iran prevent sabotage of its nuclear program as a further stab to Israel.
Yes Jim, it’s from freerepublic.com. You’d better agree with it or you’re committing a fallacy.
Jim said Obama doesn’t hate Israel but it sure looks like Obama is going to help the Iranians prevent Israel from throwing any monkey wrenches in the nuclear gears.
Someone should ask Obama if he supports the Democrat’s anti-semitic BDS program. BDS comes from the militant academic activist class from which Obama hails so it wouldn’t be surprising if he agree with the majority of his party on hating Israel.
Someone should ask Obama if he supports the Democrat’s anti-semitic BDS program.
Which Democrat’s BDS program?
It is the party’s program not a specific Democrat. You are free to google it. It is being enacted all over the country by Democrat politicians, Democrat academics, and Democrat businesses.
But don’t dare say Democrats are not so fond of the Jews!
What is there to agree or disagree with? And what’s wrong with helping Iran secure their nuclear materials? We did something similar with Russia at the end of the Cold War. We only wish we were in a position to improve the security of Pakistan’s nuclear materials.
what’s wrong with helping Iran secure their nuclear materials?
Their chanting of “Death to America” is enough for me, but YMMV depending on your love of America.
“And what’s wrong with helping Iran secure their nuclear materials? ”
Because if some other country were to destroy parts of their program it would actually impede their nuclear weapons work. Are you still denying that this deal not only ties our hands but goes out of the way to prevent other countries from stopping Iran?
Jim may be donning his tutu to celebrate:
http://neoneocon.com/2015/07/14/von-rothbart-and-the-iran-deal/