Iran Nuclear Deal Win For Obama
Senator Barbara Mikulski became the 34th Senate Democrat to indicate she'll stand with President Obama on the Iran nuclear deal, which is significant -- although, in all likelihood, also merely symbolic. The media are reporting it is significant because it assures Obama that his veto won't be overturned, but what they're mostly missing is that a Senate veto-override vote likely wouldn't even have to happen.
The process is rather convoluted, and actually started months ago. President Obama has long held the legal opinion that Congress doesn't even have a say in the deal he (and six other nations) struck with Iran. It's an executive deal, according to Obama, therefore Congress isn't even part of the process. Congress, understandably, didn't much like this and demanded the right to be heard on the deal. So Obama struck a deal with Congress -- and, by doing so, Obama stacked the deck entirely in his own favor. Which Congress fully agreed to, months ago.
The deal Obama struck with Congress controls what is about to happen when they return from their summer vacation. Within a certain time period after the Iran deal was formally struck, Congress can express its disapproval. The bill they'll be voting on essentially says "we don't like the deal," in other words. This bill, like all bills, will have to go through the House and Senate before it arrives on Obama's desk. But if it does reach his desk (more on this uncertainty in a moment), then after Obama uses his veto stamp, the bill returns to the House. This is why Mikulski's 34th vote may be moot -- because if the House does not override Obama's veto by a two-thirds vote, then the bill never gets back to the Senate at all. And while everyone's been obsessing over how many senators will vote with Obama, the House Democrats may have always had the strength to overturn the veto on their own. Granted, it's a lot easier to keep track of 100 senators than 435 representatives, but even so the fact is that 150 of them (more than one-third of the House) signed a letter weeks ago indicating their support of the deal.
The game of counting senators may not be entirely moot, however. There are still a number of senators who have not publicly indicated which way they're going to vote. If seven more of them back Obama's deal, then the bill will be filibustered to death in the Senate and never even reach Obama's desk in the first place. Either way, though, Obama is going to score a political victory. Whether the bill lands on his desk or not, the Republicans can't muster enough votes (likely in either chamber of Congress) to override the expected veto. So the end result is the same: the deal goes through. The only difference is how much political hay gets made during the process.
Republicans have only themselves to blame for this state of affairs, however. They could have tried to derail the deal in other ways (and indeed, they may still do so later). Instead, they agreed to hold a merely-symbolic vote in an effort to show their voters they're "on the record" opposing the deal. That may not be acceptable to the rank-and-file Republican voters, who seem awfully disappointed with the Republican-led Congress right now. "We held a symbolic vote that did nothing" isn't much in the way of red meat to toss to the crowd on the campaign trail, after all.
The Iran nuclear deal marks the second big foreign policy victory for the president this year (opening Cuba was the other). Obama may have less than a year and a half left in office, but nobody's calling him a lame duck yet, because he's still achieving things even with both houses of Congress in Republican hands. Obama continues to add to his presidential legacy, while Republicans can't even agree among themselves what they should do next. In fact, since the midterms of 2014, Republicans don't have much of anything to show for all the time they've held Congress. What big bills have they passed to further their agenda? None spring to mind. What have they forced Obama to veto? Nothing. And, if seven more senators come out in favor of the Iran deal, that won't change. No wonder the Republican base is angry, with that track record.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
If all goes well (as it appears it will) it will be particularly satisfying. Kudos to the President and to John Kerry and to all who have supported this deal.
Kudos to the President and to John Kerry and to all who have supported this deal.
Indeed.
Oh, and let's not forget Secretary Moniz, without whom Kerry and the president would have been quite lost.
This column is a vey tidy account of the political "Governing Dynamics" driving the Kubuki Theater playing out on airwaves, internet and inky press. Deep down, a consensus recognizes this deal is the best lever to pull, by somebody else if at all possible, at least in public. There are special interests to coddle, and scores to settle. Checks will be be written to Bibi and our Saudi BFF. Obama must be made to seem to pay through the nose for Fox Nation. A equal but opposite drama will play out in Iran, which must appear sufficiently dickish to hard liners. Welcome to the sausage factory, hand sanitizer is provided fro your comfort and protection.
Such cynicism, TS ...
Okay, I'm kidding ... sort of.
There just seems to be an awful lot of cynicism around here to the near exclusion of celebrating a great achievement - this time, in the form of a very well crafted and negotiated agreement between Iran and the P3+3 to restrict Iran's nuclear programme.
The familiar sausage factory analogy may be apt but it ignores the fact that the US Congress is playing games with serious international issues at the real expense of its credibility and all facets of its power. And, that is not a good situation and certainly not one to make constant fun of. The global stakes are too high.
It is all very disconcerting to see such a partisan process over US foreign policy and it does not bode well for how America will manage its inevitable decline in the face of other rising powers.
A slight re-phrase of that last comment, if I may ...
Okay, I'm kidding ... sort of.
There just seems to be an awful lot of cynicism around here to the near exclusion of celebrating a great achievement - this time, in the form of a very well crafted and negotiated agreement between Iran and the P3+3 to restrict Iran's nuclear programme.
The familiar sausage factory analogy may be apt but it ignores the fact that the US Congress is playing games with serious international issues at the real expense of America's credibility and of all facets of US power. And, that is not a good situation and certainly not one to make constant fun of. The global stakes are too high.
It is all very disconcerting to see such a partisan process over US foreign policy and it does not bode well for how America will manage its inevitable decline in the face of other rising powers.
Liz 5,6,7
It's not exactly cynicism. It's, more like bitter coating a sweet pill. The agreement is a solid diplomatic achievement that could not be implemented in a transparent manner. We have witnessed political misdirection and it has been obvious for months. For all the drama, the fix was in. I find this disturbing given that representatives are supposed to represent their states and districts. Instead, we get nudge, nudge, wink, wink. This is not atypical, the same sort of thing happened during the '60s with civil rights legislation. This makes it hard to settle entirely reasonable and responsible law and move forward as a nation because the rabble being roused by double dealing con artists feels betrayed, not outvoted. It doesn't bode well for the future and never has. It's a flaw, a limp in the US governing process. We are over 200 years old, and a bit creaky.
I hope ya'all realize that ya'all have just given up ANY moral authority to preach about the rights of gay people...
Because when the rubber met the road, you couldn't help but jump into bed with a country that executes gay people...
All because of Obama's ego...
That's the take away from this debacle
Ya'all won... Obama won.. Iran won..
And all it took was selling your souls...
Congrats... :^/
Michale
It is all very disconcerting to see such a partisan process over US foreign policy and it does not bode well for how America will manage its inevitable decline in the face of other rising powers.
But not disconcerting at all when Democrats went apeshit crazy over Bush's foreign policy endeavors, eh?? :D
Once again, the power of the almighty -X rears it's ugly head..
Michale
Michale,
Bush's foreign policy blunders - and that's putting it mildly - completely overshadow his foreign policy successes.
Actually, Michale, which of President Bush's foreign policy endeavors would you count as successful and as leaving the US in a better position than before the endeavor?
TS,
It's a flaw, a limp in the US governing process. We are over 200 years old, and a bit creaky.
So, you're saying that what has been happening between President Obama and the congress - congressional Republicans, for the most part - is just a matter of being par for the course, given the way your system of government is set up?
I don't buy it. And, I think your description, while valid to a point, fails to take into account the depths that many members of Congress will go to deny President Obama a full success and ignores the very serious consequences their destructive behavior has for America's current and future global leadership role.
Don't you think there is any way to counteract this kind of congressional incompetence?
I hope ya'all realize that ya'all have just given up ANY moral authority to preach about the rights of gay people...
Okay! I think I FINALLY see where you're going with this. I know ... it takes me a while sometimes but, I eventually catch on.
I hope you don't intend to carry on with this completely spurious argument because it is utterly non-serious.
I hope ya'all realize that ya'all have just given up ANY moral authority to preach about the rights of gay people...
Oh, the hysteria!
Your beloved sanctions have failed for 35 years. Have failed in Cuba for 55 years and failed in North Korea for even longer. How long do you have to bang you head against a wall before you realize you are not going any where? Have you thought that you are the one against the rights of gays? You want to keep the status quo. You want to ensure continued deaths and suppression. The left wants to try something that might actually work. Might actually open up the country and get in motion changes. You want the same old failed policies that ensure the suppression of gays. Personally, I think you are the one who has given up ANY moral authority on the subject...
Chris,
So Obama struck a deal with Congress -- and, by doing so, Obama stacked the deck entirely in his own favor. Which Congress fully agreed to, months ago.
I understand that ... I really do!
But, what the US Congress has done here, as they have done on numerous other issues, is seriously damage the credibility inside of the office of the President of the United States and thereby limited the ability of an American president to project global leadership.
In other words, even a win - which is to say averting a congressional override of a presidential veto, no less - leaves the president in a much weaker position vis-à-vis his international relationships and his position as the leader of the free world.
Bush's foreign policy blunders - and that's putting it mildly - completely overshadow his foreign policy successes.
We're nothing discussion foreign policy blunders. Obama has PLENTY of them..
We're talking the "partisan process"...
No answer to that??? :D
Michale
Oh, the hysteria!
The only hysteria I see is from your comment..
Your entire comment fails to address the point I made..
Funny how that always is, eh?? :D
Your beloved sanctions have failed for 35 years.
So, we are in agreement..
Sanctions won't work..
So tell me, oh hysterical one......
What's the consequences if Iran ignores Obama's grand bargain??
Hmmmmmmm????
Hint: This is where you run away... :D
Michale
leaves the president in a much weaker position vis-à-vis his international relationships and his position as the leader of the free world.
Obama has done that all by himself..
By screwing over our friends and allies and by jumping between the sheets with our enemies....
Tell me, how is that "reset" going with Russia??? Let's ask Ukrainians about that, eh??
While we're at it, we can ask the Syrian Rebels how they feel about Obama's "red line"??
You want to blame "Congress" (read in Republicans) for all Obama's problems..
Yet, par for the course, Obama himself is 1000% blameless. It's all someone else's fault..
With the rank and file Weigantians, Obama can do no wrong...
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.. :^/
Michale
I hope you don't intend to carry on with this completely spurious argument because it is utterly non-serious.
Fine..
The next time ya'all get so hysterically bent out of shape because some moronic attention-whoring gay couple can't have their wedding catered with a pizza party....
I'll be here to remind ya'all how "un-serious" ya'all are... I'll be here to remind ya'all how fast you jumped into bed with a regime that EXECUTES gay people, just to save your Dear Leader's ego..
And ya'all will be right there to say, "No.. NOW it's OUR agenda. So NOW it's serious!!!"
For the record...
"Variable" integrity is no integrity at all..
"Situationally Dependent" principles are no principles at all...
Just so'se ya know...
Michale
The PRO-Iran arguments ya'all are making are the EXACT same as the PRO-Hitler arguments that were made at the time..
We know how well THAT worked out..
The PRO-Iran arguments ya'all are making are the EXACT same as the PRO-North Korea arguments that were made at the time..
We know how well THAT worked out..
This will simply be more of the same..
But don't worry... I'll be around to gloat.. :D
Michale
Yawn ... and, I mean that sincerely ...
We're nothing discussion foreign policy blunders. Obama has PLENTY of them..
We're not discussion foreign policy blunders. Obama has PLENTY of them..
:^/
Michale
Yawn ... and, I mean that sincerely ...
I know you do...
And it will be just as sincere coming from me the next time ya'all get yer knickers in a twist over a gay marriage issue.. :D
That's the problem with Left Wingers.. The only issues that matter to them are only the issues that matter to them...
That's why it's so nice to not be enslaved by Party ideology and dogma... :D
Michale
Yawn ... and, I mean that sincerely ...
I accept your concession.. :D
Michale
Michale
You're against gay marriage, but criticize Obama for making a deal with Iran by using LGBT rights as a justification?
Or, you're for gay marriage but you criticize Obama even though he now supports it while Repubs emulate the Iranians?
Or are you singling out Iran even though Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, and a bunch of our other "allies" share their discriminatory ways?
Or are you saying LGBT discrimination is justified but murder is not, and you think the difference translates into a weapon you can use against reasonable people?
You're against gay marriage, but criticize Obama for making a deal with Iran by using LGBT rights as a justification?
Once again, you totally frak up my position...
I am not saying I am against the deal because Iran executes gay people....
Further, I have never stated I was against gay marriage..
*MY* point is that YA'ALL should be against this deal....
The fact that ya'all support this deal proves that you don't really care about gay discrimination..
Or, more accurately, ya'all care about Obama's ego more..
Or are you singling out Iran even though Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, and a bunch of our other "allies" share their discriminatory ways?
If Obama wants to make a deal with SA, Turkey or Egypt to insure they create a nuclear arsenal and fund their world wide terrorism??
Yea, I would be against that..
The question is, would ya'all be??
Of course not..
Or are you saying LGBT discrimination is justified but murder is not,
Actually it's ya'all that are saying that LGBT discrimination is horrendous and should be hysterically opposed, but that murder of LGBT is perfectly acceptable.
THAT is my point...
Michale
TS
You seem to be saying that Repubs agreed to the "fix" because their Big Money backers wanted the deal to go through.
So, the show they've been putting on is just to placate their voters (and certain donors) who they knowingly screwed over, and they wanted a way to screw them over without them realizing it?
Very interesting.
Or did I read too much into your comment?
Oh, I get Michale
Your hypocrisy is totally acceptable, but our realism is not.
Your hypocrisy is totally acceptable, but our realism is not.
Once again, you make completely unsubstantiated statements..
I have no hypocrisy..
Ya'all have no reality... :D
Michale
I have no hypocrisy..
In other words, my position on gay marriage etc etc etc has absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue under discussion..
It's YA'ALL's position on gay issues and the Iran deal that reaks of hypocrisy...
Of course, this is another one of those pesky facts you will ignore...
Michale
Take it easy, Michale ... you're on the verge of ... wait for it ... hysteria with the usual heavy helping of hypocrisy.
It's really funny how you can see that on everyone else but you are blind when it comes to yourself. Actually, funny may not be the word for it ... :)
For the record, I really don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on gay marriage..
But I AM completely and unequivocally against executing people simply because they are part of the gay lifestyle...
Apparently, ya'all feel passionately about gay marriage, but don't seem to care if gay people are executed...
ANOTHER pesky fact that you will ignore...
Michale
Take it easy, Michale ... you're on the verge of ... wait for it ... hysteria with the usual heavy helping of hypocrisy.
For example.....
Ya'all keep making the claim.. Yet you NEVER point to any of the so-called hypocrisy..
Why is that???
It's really funny how you can see that on everyone else but you are blind when it comes to yourself.
Oh, I am the first to acknowledge it..
WHEN it occurs..
Which is very VERY rare... :D
Michale
Ya'all want a perfect example of ya'all's hypocrisy??
Ya'all refuse to advocate any deal with Republicans because they are mean to gay people..
Yet, you are fully on board on a deal with a regime that EXECUTES gay people...
Blatant textbook hypocrisy....
*ANOTHER* pesky fact that will be ignored...
Michale
Also, I am still waiting for anyone to point out what "peril" Iran will face if they renege on the JCPOA...
Since it's universally agreed that "sanctions don't/won't work", what are the consequences to Iran if they ignore the JCPOA??
"Anyone?? Anyone??? Buehler???"
Michale
Also, I am still waiting for anyone to point out what "peril" Iran will face if they renege on the JCPOA...
What!? You still haven't read any part of the deal, more than a month on, now ... I can't believe it.
All the options are and will be on the table, Michale. What exactly do you not understand about this deal?
Sanctions worked, Michale ... what do you think brought Iran to the negotiating table ... happy talk from Obama? Please ...
What!? You still haven't read any part of the deal, more than a month on, now ... I can't believe it.
Actually, I have.. *AND* I have your wonderful analysis as well...
The "consequences" for violating the JCPOA will be "sanctions"..
But you (and everyone else here) are on record as STRENOUSLY pointing out that sanctions DON'T/WON'T work..
So, since "sanctions" are the consequences and it is agreed by ya'all that sanctions don't/won't work...
Ergo, there are no consequences for Iran violating the JCPOA...
Simple logic...
Michale
Michale,
When Republicans come to the table with a deal worth our advocacy, we'll advocate for it .
We're still waiting ...
And, I am still waiting for you to tell me which of GWB's foreign endeavours were successful and left the US in a better place than before the endeavor ... I can wait until H .... well, you know ... :)
Sanctions worked, Michale,
Ahhh.. So NOW... magically, sanctions work...
So, why couldn't we continue the sanctions and force Iran to dismantle their nuclear infrastructure, which was the STATED goal..
Don't tell me, let me guess..
If we did that, then MAGICALLY the sanctions would no longer work..
In other words, when it fits Obama's agenda sanctions work...
When it DOESN'T fit Obama's agenda, the VERY SAME SANCTIONS don't work...
And ya'all say *I* am hypocritical??? :D
Face it.... There is no logic or rationale to the JCPOA..
This entire issue is simply an exercise to obtain a Foreign Policy "win" for Obama, because he has had debacle after debacle after debacle in that area...
The only ones who can't see this are the kool-aid drinkers...
And, while it's a "win" for Obama, it's a major loss for this country, for Israel, for the region and for the world...
"These are the facts..."
Michale
When Republicans come to the table with a deal worth our advocacy, we'll advocate for it .
Yea, I have bought that line before...
Funny how it NEVER seems to happen, even when a Republican gives Democrats a thing they really want..
IE Trump's point on Capital Gains tax..
And, I am still waiting for you to tell me which of GWB's foreign endeavours were successful and left the US in a better place than before the endeavor ... I can wait until H .... well, you know ... :)
Again, we are not talking about FP endeavors..
YOU brought up the "partisan process" issue..
Now you want to ignore it because I have proven it's a hypocritical position to have..
See.. When I throw out accusations of hypocrisy, *I* back them up with facts.... :D
Michale
Since we're back on this topic, I'll bring this comment up...
Have you seen this ...
http://www.vox.com/2015/9/3/9257235/obama-iran-humans-new-york
Obama had his chance to help the Iranian people back in 2009. He stood by and let them be slaughtered...
Fast-Forward to today and Obama jumps into bed with the Mullahs and the Republican Guard... The very people who SLAUGHTERED the people back in 2009...
And you think this is cause for hope???
On what planet??
The philosophy at work here is simple..
"Obama said it. I believe it. That settles it."
If ya'all would just concede what is glaringly obvious, then we can move past this topic..
But as long as ya'all keep arguing that giving Iran free reign to create their nuclear arsenal in a couple decades AND giving Iran hundreds of billions of dollars for their terrorist machine NOW is actually a GOOD thing......
Well, we'll just continue to go round and round..
But keep in mind one FACT...
Ya'all are defending a regime, ya'all are jumping into bed with a regime that is THE world's sponsor of terrorism and executes people for being of the gay lifestyle..
This is the one fact that simply cannot be denied or spun in ANY way...
Michale
Oh, Micha
So what you're claiming is that the LGBT community doesn't support the deal with Iran to limit their nuclear program because it fails to include LGBT rights, and that Obama and the left screwed them over by prioritizing the nuclear deal?
Wait, stop the presses.
YOU don't have a strong opinion on gay marriage?
Did I quote that accurately?
Because railing against the left for having strong opinions on LGBT rights is expressing a strong opinion. And you do so constantly.
And, you think no legislation (deal) has passed in Congress with any Repub votes because of Dem support for LGBT rights?
You're really calling THAT a "fact"?
Al,
Oh, I get Michale
Your hypocrisy is totally acceptable, but our realism is not.
I have to admit, I am surprised to see you chime in..
After I so thoroughly whacked yer wee-wee on the previous BLM issue, I didn't think you would come back for more so quickly.. :D
"Never try to cross brains with Spock. He'll cut you to pieces every time.."
-Hikaru Sulu, STAR TREK, Where No Man Has Gone Before
:D
Michale
So what you're claiming is that the LGBT community doesn't support the deal with Iran to limit their nuclear program because it fails to include LGBT rights, and that Obama and the left screwed them over by prioritizing the nuclear deal?
Uh no...
I have never said that...
Try again...
Wait, stop the presses.
YOU don't have a strong opinion on gay marriage?
Did I quote that accurately?
Because railing against the left for having strong opinions on LGBT rights is expressing a strong opinion. And you do so constantly.
What does pointing out ya'all's hypocrisy on the LGBT issue have to do with whether or not *I* support gay marriage??
And, you think no legislation (deal) has passed in Congress with any Repub votes because of Dem support for LGBT rights? You're really calling THAT a "fact"?
Huh??? No.. I am calling ^^^ that tortured syntax that is completely and utterly meaningless..
Could you clarify???
Michale
McHale
Actually, if you read Trumps quote in CW's post the other day, Trump talked about eliminating carried interest, not equalizing capital gains with income taxes.
They are two different tax loopholes the rich abuse.
His only "commitment" on capital gains was a vague "the rich should pay more".
(which is what my comment that wouldn't post on that article stated Liz... I'll leave it to you if that qualifies as "missing anything good")
In any case, Trump advocating for a policy change we've wanted for a long time does aid our effort, but is sort of like Hillary trying to be anti Wall Street... not really believable.
Altohone - 27
Both Democrats and Republicans were in on the fix, and the big money backers were not monolithic on this particular issue. Jewish American voters/donors are not monolithic on this issue...Israelis are not monolithic on this issue (especially the military and intelligence leadership). Netanyahu is not widely popular with Israeli voters and he knows his coalition is fragile.
Congressional leadership did not really want to lead on this. The old hands (the ones holding the reins) knew that negotiation was the only practical path forward, but it was a tough sell to their own fear driven electorate. They were more than happy to let Obama handle the problem, through executive action, and not mess with a formal treaty. No fingerprints please. Many Democrats felt the same pressures as the Republicans, but Obama had more leverage with them. The problem was solved in committee. The game was rigged...redundantly rigged, House AND Senate.
The US Constitutional system is not inherently agile. When was the last time we adopted an amendment? You make it agile by gaming the system. That is the main job of the leadership. They are not as dumb as they look or sound. Most of the press IS as dumb as they look and sound. Dumber!! "Please don't look at me, I'm hideous." CW.com is a shining star in the ooze!! Thank God he is not alone, there are good journalists out there.
Liz, I know this is upsetting. Canadians are probably thinking, "maybe WE should build a wall...make the US pay for it." I'm not cynical, I'm too happy to be a cynic. I haven't had to put shoes on in three days! I've finishing all my summer projects. I'm transitioning from gin and tonic to beer. My son does not ask me for money. Things don't work like I was taught in High School Civics, but it could work a lot worse, and in most places on the Blue Planet it does work a lot worse. I try to keep that in mind.
Michale
So you're saying that your claims of hypocrisy are valid even though the LGBT community supports the Iran deal?
btw
carried interest and capital gains are two different loopholes
Trump only talked about eliminating the former, not equalizing the latter with income taxes
So you're saying that your claims of hypocrisy are valid even though the LGBT community supports the Iran deal?
Yes, I am saying that supporting the LGBT and supporting a deal with a regime that executes people from the LGBT community is hypocritical... It proves that your "principled" support of the LGBT community is Situationally Dependent...
Situationally Dependent principles are WORSE than no principles at all..
And yes, it's even MORE hypocritical if a gay person supports the deal...
Assuming that the LGBT community actually supports the Iran deal.. You have provided no substantiation..
carried interest and capital gains are two different loopholes
And your point is.....??????
Michale
the post the other day talking about that candidate's quotes read into them too much
Assuming that the LGBT community actually supports the Iran deal.. You have provided no substantiation..
But, we can take a poll of gay people..
"Would you support a deal with a tyrannical regime that executes people for being gay??"
What do you think the response would be??
Michale
the filters keep blocking me from saying more on this thread too?
the post the other day talking about that candidate's quotes read into them too much
Of course you would say that... Because the candidate had a -R after his name... At least now he does. A bit ago, the same candidate had a -D after his name and ya'all would have loved him to death!! :D
Which simply proves my point...
To the ideologically enslaved, nothing matters but the -X after the persons name... :D
Michale
Michale
Go ahead and commission that poll, but make sure you let everybody know it's about the Iran deal to be fair. I know you struggle with that concept.
The LGBT community isn't afraid of speaking up, and they haven't, so I think your hypocrisy is evident.
The LGBT community isn't afraid of speaking up, and they haven't, so I think your hypocrisy is evident.
If it's so "evident" then you shouldn't have ANY problem pointing it out...
To date, *NO ONE* can...
Ergo, I think yer spouting Bovine Feces... :D
Go ahead and commission that poll, but make sure you let everybody know it's about the Iran deal to be fair. I know you struggle with that concept.
You are the one who made the statement.... YOU back it up...
It really wouldn't matter.. Any gay person who supports the Iran deal is just thinking of Obama's ego...
Just like every Weigantian....
Michale
Michale
Per comment 45
You may have figured it out some day, but I'm content with you claiming victory while things go over your head.
Or did you think these comments were for your reading enjoyment?
Michale
Per comment 54
No, I said that because the candidate didn't.
Go back and read it again.
You may have figured it out some day, but I'm content with you claiming victory while things go over your head.
Translation:I have no logical or rational response
I accept yer concession... :D
On the two subjects at hand, I have over two and a half decades of training, personal experience and expertise..
In other words, you think what you think because you read it some place..
I *KNOW* what I know because I have been there, done that and got the T-Shirt....
That's the difference that makes all the difference...
Peace out.. :D
Michale
As I have said before, we can debate this til the cows come home..
You have your "facts" and I have my facts. There is no sense in debating it because ya'all's position is based on ideology and you can't argue with ideological fanatics any more than you can argue with religious fanatics.. See Comment #43...
The only thing that will settle this debate is time...
And as I have pointed out by facts and examples, time won't be kind to ya'all's position that Iran is a trustworthy deal partner...
It's really that simple...
Michale
Go ahead and commission that poll, but make sure you let everybody know it's about the Iran deal to be fair.
You mean, make sure gay people know that it's Obama's ego at stake, right??
Why should it matter otherwise???
You see how utterly flummoxed you are???
Your partisan ideological agenda is crystal clear..... :D
Michale
The title of this commentary is the whole point..
This is a win for Obama. AND for Iran...
Everyone else.... Loses....
Michale
Hay CW,
Can ya check the NNL filters... I think I have a couple that were whisked away... :D
Michale
Your entire comment fails to address the point I made..
I see no points, only leading statements. "get in to bed with" really? So, when is the consulate opening and the tourism starting? They execute lost of people for many reasons. Why only bring up gays? And what is your solution?
Funny how that always is, eh?? :D
No, but it is funny how you always fall back to this tied old meme...
So, we are in agreement..
Sanctions won't work..
Well, they got them to the bargaining table but were not going to magically bring down the regime or stop them from executing people.
What's the consequences if Iran ignores Obama's grand bargain??
Hmmmmmmm????
Hint: This is where you run away... :D
An ad homium already? Yawn...
We go back to your failed policies and try something else.
With the rank and file Weigantians, Obama can do no wrong...
Is there any difference to your Obama can do no right? You embody that to which you accuse. Now just how far down will have to go before you allege no one can prove you hypocrite. Not far I suspect...
The next time ya'all get so hysterically bent out of shape because some moronic attention-whoring gay couple can't have their wedding catered with a pizza party....
Says the person who is always quick to link to such stories. Follow your own advice?
The PRO-Iran arguments ya'all are making are the EXACT same as the PRO-Hitler arguments that were made at the time..
And a Godwin's Law violation already... yawn.
That's why it's so nice to not be enslaved by Party ideology and dogma... :D
But being enslaved by anti-party ideology is any different?
I am not saying I am against the deal because Iran executes gay people....
Then what are you saying? Because this seems to be the only point you bring up...
I have no hypocrisy..
Ah, there it is...
Well, except for all the examples I consistently bring up. We may all be hypocrites, but you are by far the hypocrite in chief around here...
Ya'all keep making the claim.. Yet you NEVER point to any of the so-called hypocrisy..
Why is that???
Lack of reading comprehension on your part?
Of course you would say that... Because the candidate had a -R after his name... At least now he does. A bit ago, the same candidate had a -D after his name and ya'all would have loved him to death!! :D
Which simply proves my point...
Pot. Kettle. Black. Absolutely no difference between that and your criticize the left but never the right...
Fast-Forward to today and Obama jumps into bed with the Mullahs and the Republican Guard... The very people who SLAUGHTERED the people back in 2009...
Like we jumped in to bed with the USSR? China? Exaggerate much?
And you think this is cause for hope???
It has worked in the past...
This is the one fact that simply cannot be denied or spun in ANY way...
Well, certainly not after you have already spun it so tightly. leading statements are not to be confused with facts.
After I so thoroughly whacked yer wee-wee on the previous BLM issue, I didn't think you would come back for more so quickly.. :D
Still a legend in your own mind, eh?
To date, *NO ONE* can...
No one can or you are unwilling to read a post that does?
What is your solution? How will it stop the execution of gays?
I see no points, only leading statements. "get in to bed with" really?
Yes, really...
So, when is the consulate opening and the tourism starting?
Huh??
They execute lost of people for many reasons. Why only bring up gays?
Because you Lefties are so hysterical when a gay couple can't get a catered Wedding Pizza Party..
I would think that when gay people are actually EXECUTED, ya'all might want to say something about that..
Silly me...
And what is your solution?
How about HOLD IRAN RESPONSIBLE??
Oh, but that would require ya'all going against Obama.. And we can't have that, now can we... :^/
Well, they got them to the bargaining table but were not going to magically bring down the regime or stop them from executing people.
Like I said.. Sanctions work when they suit your agenda, but don't work when THAT suits your agenda..
Principles and integrity don't mean sheet when it's dependent on the '-X' after the persons name..
And a Godwin's Law violation already... yawn.
Actually, it's not a Godwin.. But you already knew that.. :D
Is there any difference to your Obama can do no right?
Yes.. It's not factually accurate.. I have praised Obama on many occasions when it was warranted..
Find me a time when someone besides myself or CW condemned Obama in a meaningful way..
You can't because it doesn't happen...
Well, except for all the examples I consistently bring up. We may all be hypocrites, but you are by far the hypocrite in chief around here...
Yer like Big Al.. You say a lot but never substantiate it with anything...
Pot. Kettle. Black. Absolutely no difference between that and your criticize the left but never the right...
We both know that is simply not factually accurate... As anyone here would attest to...
Like we jumped in to bed with the USSR? China? Exaggerate much
For example??? Give me an example that is analogous to Obama leaving the Iranian people to be slaughtered..
About the closest example you could find is when Bush I left the Iraqi resistance to be slaughtered during the first Gulf War..
The difference is, Bush I didn't jump into bed with Saddam Hussein a few years later... As Obama has done with the Iranian Leadership...
Still a legend in your own mind, eh?
I simply point out the facts.. Big Al ran away tuck-tailed after the BLM debate... He *STILL* can't address the facts..
I calls em as I sees em...
What is your solution? How will it stop the execution of gays?
The very first step would be not to legitimize and strengthen the government that is doing the executions...
I have to give you credit.. You at least tried.. :D That's more than I thought you could do.. :D
Michale
Ahhh.. So NOW... magically, sanctions work...So, why couldn't we continue the sanctions and force Iran to dismantle their nuclear infrastructure, which was the STATED goal..Don't tell me, let me guess..
We've gone over this hundreds of times already, Michale and you still don't know when sanctions work to do what ... this isn't, ah, rocket science, you know. :)
If ya'all would just concede what is glaringly obvious, then we can move past this topic..
Newsflash for Michale ... we have officially moved past this topic as you have demonstrated a complete lack of interest in the JCPOA.
Since yer here, Bashi...
What is your opinion on Obama's deal with Iran??
Michale
We've gone over this hundreds of times already, Michale and you still don't know when sanctions work to do what
Of COURSE I know when sanctions work...
They work when it furthers Obama's agenda and they DON'T work when THAT furthers Obama's agenda...
Newsflash for Michale ... we have officially moved past this topic as you have demonstrated a complete lack of interest in the JCPOA.
And yet, here ya'all are.. Still defending the indefensible... :D
Michale
Still a legend in your own mind, eh?
"Of course, I'm arrogant!! I've EARNED it!!"
-Q
:D
Michale
It is all very disconcerting to see such a partisan process over US foreign policy and it does not bode well for how America will manage its inevitable decline in the face of other rising powers.
You see my point??
I point out with VERY specific examples of how ya'all think one way when it's a DEM POTUS and you think the exact opposite way when it's a GOP POTUS...
With a GOP POTUS, it's perfectly acceptable for DEMs in Congress to interfere and impose a "partisan process" over Foreign Policy...
But let GOPs in Congress do the same with a DEM POTUS and, OHMYGODS, it's hysterical damnation!!
It's like with the Domestic Surveillance issue.. OhMyGods, Democrats were screaming POLICE STATE!!! and predicting massive internment camps and stormtroopers and midnight doors being kicked in under Bush's Domestic Surveillance programs...
But Obama takes over and EXPANDS and INCREASES the Domestic Surveillance...
What happens??
Complete and utter silence from ya'all...
Ya'all screamed hysterically because Bush made a few scumbag terrorists uncomfortable... Booo Hooo poor scumbags....
Obama *EXECUTES* American citizens w/o ANY due process whatsoever...
The response from ya'all???
{{chhiirrrrrrrppppppp}} {{chirrrrrrppppppppp}}
Cricket city....
And ya'all have the temerity... the GALL to say that *I* am the hypocrite!!??
I realize that political consistency is likely too much to ask around here... To much enslavement by ideology and political dogma and not any critical thinking whatsoever..
But Jeezus!!
If ya'all can't be consistent at least step up and ADMIT it!!!
I'm just sayin'....
Michale
Can you take a break, Michale, and stop sayin' for a little while ... unless, of course, you have something new to say and then I'm all ears. :)
Can you take a break, Michale, and stop sayin' for a little while ... unless, of course, you have something new to say and then I'm all ears. :)
:D
Like I said, I go with the arguments that work...
To date, these arguments have NEVER been successfully refuted...
Of course, if I am proven wrong, then *I* will be the one who hides tail tucked between my legs and will be around a LOT less frequently... Another option is to concede the point.. :D
But no one can seem to go the distance.. Al had promise but he folded once confronted with the superior intellect...
Now if THAT one can't be slammed outta the park, there is no hope.. :D
Michale
Like I said, right over his head.
It almost makes me cringe.
Almost.
TS
Per comment 47
Thanks for the response.
I should have included the Dems who voted no in my comment as well... too true.
A
Michale
Are you unaware of all the pushback from Dems on Obama's continuation of Bush policies, or are you just claiming to be unaware?
I can understand willful blindness to shield your ideology... I don't agree with it, but I can understand it. But I would worry if you had just stopped paying attention.
Are you unaware of all the pushback from Dems on Obama's continuation of Bush policies, or are you just claiming to be unaware?
A> I wasn't referring to "Dems"... I was referring to everyone here in Weigantia..
and
2> Compared to the "pushback" against Bush from Dems, the alleged "pushback" from Dems against Obama is non-existent..
I can point to ONE person who has been consistent..
Glenn Greenwald...
Out of ALL the Democrats and Left Wingers on the face of the planet, only ONE had the integrity to call a spade a spade and hold a leader responsible, regardless of the '-D' or '-R' behind the name.
ONLY ONE....
I can understand willful blindness to shield your ideology...
That's your problem right there..
I HAVE no ideology...
THAT is exactly my point...
Michale
2> Compared to the "pushback" against Bush from Dems, the alleged "pushback" from Dems against Obama is non-existent..
Or is it your claim that the alleged pushback from Dems against Obama was identical in frequency and aggressiveness as it was against Bush..
Is THAT the bovine feces you are trying to pass off as fact???
Seriously!!???
Michale
How about HOLD IRAN RESPONSIBLE??
How? Invade? Nuke? Go to the UN? What? More of a statement of objectives rather than any sort of solution...
The very first step would be not to legitimize and strengthen the government that is doing the executions...
So, your first step is the status quo policy of failure that hasn't worked for decades. Can't wait for step two...
Of COURSE I know when sanctions work...
They work when it furthers Obama's agenda and they DON'T work when THAT furthers Obama's agenda...
So all those sanctions enacted before Obama was president, some even before he was born, were all to support his agenda? And you accuse us of political bias...
I think the Iran deal is worth a try. Lets see if they really want to become a mature country and join the rest of the world. I think they are more likely to get a nuke sooner without the deal than with it, short of a military invasion. I would also like to see many economic and cultural tendrils between Iran and other players. Should be a stabilizing force that can be hard to break.
That's your problem right there..
I HAVE no ideology...
Oh, please. You are the hysterical anti-left. No left leaning politician is free from your criticism. No right leaning bandwagon is left un-joined...
And of course, claiming not to have an ideology is part of the ideology.
Michale
Per comment 77
Greenwald is the only one?
So, the EFF, ACLU, Wikileaks, Amnesty, all the other groups, the Dem senators and representatives, all the activists, voters and whistleblowers... and let's not forget the whole premise of the Bernie Sanders campaign and all his supporters...
... you've been oblivious to them all?
Including those who commented here no doubt.
Oh wait.
I forgot about the part where you conceded there has been pushback (admitting you were wrong), but then claimed that in comparison to that against Bush it doesn't count.
Because "no pushback" is relative in your ideology... just like the definitions of words like "fact".
Oh, please. You are the hysterical anti-left. No left leaning politician is free from your criticism. No right leaning bandwagon is left un-joined...
That's your opinion and I respect that..
But it's the opinion of one who is enslaved by political ideology, so it means very little..
Michale
So, the EFF, ACLU, Wikileaks, Amnesty, all the other groups, the Dem senators and representatives, all the activists, voters and whistleblowers... and let's not forget the whole premise of the Bernie Sanders campaign and all his supporters...
For example.....???
Find me an example of a Dem who is as anti-Obama as he or she was anti-Bush...
Once you do, you will have a point..
But you can't, so you don't...
Michale
I think the Iran deal is worth a try. Lets see if they really want to become a mature country and join the rest of the world.
No matter how many innocent lives it costs??
I'll be around to ask that question the next time Iran is implicated in in a terrorist attack to remind you..
Michale
That's your opinion and I respect that..
But it's the opinion of one who is enslaved by political ideology, so it means very little..
Not opinion. Observation over almost a decade. (scary thought...)
As for political ideology, you might want to read what you write sometime. You can try to belittle all you wish but the proof is right there in the side bar on the left and it is extensive.
Not opinion. Observation over almost a decade. (scary thought...)
No.. It's your OPINION based on YOUR observation...
And ya'all claim *I* have a problem with facts?!?
As for political ideology, you might want to read what you write sometime. You can try to belittle all you wish but the proof is right there in the side bar on the left and it is extensive.
In YOUR *opinion*...
But as I have pointed out, the opinion comes from someone enslaved by Party ideology and dogma..
Ergo, it means very little to me..
It's kinda like a christian fanatic point to a agnostic person and saying, "What a fanatic!!"..
I am sure the agnostic would say, "Eh... " :D
Michale
"Look, Mom, I drew a picture of me landing on the moon."
"Eh."
"Look, Mom, I made a prototype of a rocket out of macaroni."
"Eh."
"Look, Mom, I built a real rocket based on the macaroni prototype."
"..... Eh."
-Despicable Me
:D
Michale
Observation over almost a decade. (scary thought...)
I know, right!! :D
The fact that I am still here and many MANY others are not should tell you something.. :D
"I want somebody who take their time..
Not come and go in a heated rush.."
-Pointer Sisters
:D
Michale
"The fact that I am still here and many MANY others are not should tell you something"
Yup.
You're bad for business... on top of all the other things.
Heh.
Yup.
You're bad for business... on top of all the other things.
Says the guy who walks in as a JEEP and starts throwing around accusations of RACIST and demanding that commenting policies be changed to silence the most senior member of this community because said senior member is saying things said JEEP doesn't like...
Michale
I mean, honestly Al...
Do you HONESTLY believe that you are qualified to pass judgment on the "business" around here??
Jeezus and people think *I* am the arrogant one... :^/
Michale
Michale
As usual, you reached the wrong conclusion.
Apparently my response to your previous rant didn't appear, so I'll try again.
Editing the comment policy (my suggestion) doesn't necessarily mean extending it to limit your speech (your false conclusion).
I was recommending shortening it actually.
Let that sink in for a while before you comment twelve times.
And, yes, I am qualified to recognize that an individual boasting about chasing away other members of this forum is bad for business.
I am open to any arguments you may offer to counter that obvious conclusion though.
A website with both informative and entertaining content like CW's should have a lot more people participating in the comment section.
And I seriously doubt your donations are just compensation to offset the damage of missing donations from the "many, many" who would otherwise be here.
But like I said before, my comments aren't for your reading enjoyment. I am not trying nor do I have any expectations of convincing you on anything. There's no need to get all worked up about someone expressing an opinion.
Editing the comment policy (my suggestion) doesn't necessarily mean extending it to limit your speech (your false conclusion).
And you see nothing wrong with you being here all of 10 MINUTES and making such suggestions??
And, yes, I am qualified to recognize that an individual boasting about chasing away other members of this forum is bad for business.
Based on what?? Your "vaast" experience here in Weigantia??
The simple fact is, this discussion of limiting my comments has come up in the past.. And it was inevitably and OVERWHELMINGLY defeated by the citizens of Weigantia...
My only point is that maybe you should have a little time here under your belt before you start making suggestions how to run things, eh?? That's all I am saying..
I am open to any arguments you may offer to counter that obvious conclusion though.
You have proven time and time again that you are not open to ANY arguments that are contrary to your mindset and political agenda..
The BLM discussion proved that beyond any doubt...
A website with both informative and entertaining content like CW's should have a lot more people participating in the comment section.
And no one is stopping that participation.. If they can't handle facts and reality, how is that my fault??
You complain about my domination here, yet there is another part of that equation..... There is the dominator and the demonitees.....
In other words, there is absolutely NO WAY I could dominate here without the expressed consent of the citizens of this little community..
I am what I am..
"I have come to the realization that there are many more years behind me than there are in front of me"
-Captain Jean Luc Picard
I am approaching the sunny side of 60 (one more in 22 days :D) and it's doubtful I could change even if I wanted to...
And I seriously doubt your donations are just compensation to offset the damage of missing donations from the "many, many" who would otherwise be here.
And, once again, you are speaking from complete and utter ignorance... My contribution to this site goes way way WAY beyond the monetary, which is, incidentally, A>none of your business and 2>none of your business..
But like I said before, my comments aren't for your reading enjoyment. I am not trying nor do I have any expectations of convincing you on anything. There's no need to get all worked up about someone expressing an opinion.
As I have said time and again, I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with expressed opinions.. Even if I don't agree with them... ESPECIALLY if I don't agree with them.. It's one of the main reasons I am here....
My frustration only comes into play when such opinions are expressed from a position of complete and utter ignorance..
That's why I am more frustrated and curt with some but not others.. :D
When you have a few years here under yer belt, I'll be more than happy to give your opinions about here all the due credence they deserve.. :D
There's no need to get all worked up about someone expressing an opinion.
Ooohhh you haven't even seen me on the SAME PLANET as "all worked up.."!!! Trust me on that one.. :D
"Mr McGee. Don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry."
-Bartleby, DOGMA
:D
A good rule of thumb around here is rule that I myself sometimes forget...
Don't take things too seriously... :D
Peace out... :D
Michale
One of the most interesting aspects of the JCPOA and of the congressional response to it has been to see precisely how members of Congress take their marching orders from a foreign leader and his American surrogates in the furtherance of what is perceived to be in the national security interests of his country, all at the expense of what is in the actual national interests of their own country ... which is to say, the United States of America, in case they have forgotten.
I mean, I have long known that AIPAC is one of the most, if not the most, effective lobby groups in Washington and that the relationship between the US and Israel is understandably very close. But, rarely, I think, are we able to see - so transparently - how some members of the US Congress are so tightly wound around the finger of the prime minister of Israel and so completely amenable to the policy views of his American enablers that these representatives of the American people make spurious political arguments in favour of political decisions based on a misguided perception of what are the national interests of another country to the detriment of their own nation's national security imperatives.
Or, does the congressional response to the JCPOA say more about the relationship between President Obama and some members of Congress who will stop at nothing to deny the first black president any tactical or strategic success because they are unable to see that Obama's achievements are also America's achievements.
In any event, the picture that is to be drawn from all of this is not a pretty one.
Michale
Did you miss the part where I said I wasn't trying to limit your comments?
This is a forum for "reality based political commentary" so you should admit that I did not write what you falsely claimed I wrote. That is the reality after all.
If you want to argue with a straw man, go ahead.
But addressing what I actually wrote would show more courage.
Still waiting for any arguments that having fewer people comment here is good for business.
All your years of experience should make that easy, right?
You like to say "that is your opinion, and I respect it". Tongue in cheek or not, there is a flipside.
I'm not afraid to say that those are your opinions, and I don't respect most of them.
I don't respect the "facts" or justifications you use in reaching those opinions.
And I don't respect the manner in which you present those opinions.
Furthermore, I don't accept your opinion that I should kiss your ring, as if seniority magically makes you right about anything.
Me not accepting your arguments is also quite different than me not being open to them. Proof of yet another false conclusion. Your inability to convince does not make others closed minded.
I am what I am.
I see no sense in lying to you.
Reality requires being real.
But don't take all that too seriously, it's just the opinion of a newbie.
Al,
I think it was our wise David (akadjian) who once said that Michale's prolific contributions here force many of us to up our game and refine our arguments so that we may be more successfully persuasive.
Of course, the art of persuasion can be a very arduous endeavor, indeed. Some may say that the art of persuasion is a dying or even dead art because so many of us are so firmly set in our own ideas and ideals and so close-minded to opposing views that having a serious and intelligent discussion about any complex and complicated subject matter can be a challenging proposition.
In the final analysis, however, and despite the serious nature of most of what we try to discuss here, I think that the challenge of being part of a forum where we are constantly trying to persuade each other is, on balance, quite a lot of fun and that we should never underestimate the power of our sense of humour, especially when it comes to maintaining our own sanity. :)
Did you miss the part where I said I wasn't trying to limit your comments?
Yes, I heard you say that..
But I ALSO heard you say that my posts were appearing to be racist in nature and THEN you said that the comments policies should be changed..
Even in Weigantia 2+2 is 4...
:D
Still waiting for any arguments that having fewer people comment here is good for business.
It's NOT my place to make comments such as that.
THAT'S my point...
I'm not afraid to say that those are your opinions, and I don't respect most of them.
And therein lies the conflict..
You can't have a happy community if you don't have respect..
I vehemently disagree with most everyone here, up to AND INCLUDING CW...
Yet, I respect the HELL out of them and would have no problem sitting down for a beer with ANY of them... Even Paula!! :D
Me not accepting your arguments is also quite different than me not being open to them.
The evidence says differently..
But don't take all that too seriously, it's just the opinion of a newbie.
And, AS THE OPINION OF A NEWBIE, it's worthy of respect... :D
Michale
Al,
Consider how you DID comment and then consider this:
"I know I am new here and probably don't know my arse from a hole in the ground as to whose who and what's what..
But it seems to me........ yada yada yada yada.... blaa blaaa blaaa blaaa"
Had you commented in such a manner, I would have taken your comments as constructive criticism (and accepted them graciously) rather than the personal attacks that they came across as...
I am, in NO WAY, telling you how to comment. Such is not my place...
I am just giving the benefit of some hard earned experience.. I was a JEEP once too... :D
Michale
I think it was our wise David (akadjian)
VERY wise :D
In the final analysis, however, and despite the serious nature of most of what we try to discuss here, I think that the challenge of being part of a forum where we are constantly trying to persuade each other is, on balance, quite a lot of fun and that we should never underestimate the power of our sense of humour, especially when it comes to maintaining our own sanity. :)
Amen to frakin' THAT!! :D
Michale
... heh ...
Had you commented in such a manner, I would have taken your comments as constructive criticism (and accepted them graciously)
OK OK, maybe not "GRACIOUSLY"..... :D
Michale
Indubitably.
Michale
Not respecting your opinions doesn't mean I don't respect your right to say them.
Perhaps you should consider how you have phrased that common understanding, and then consider that the manner in which you respond conveys the opposite.
"But I ALSO heard you say that my posts were appearing to be racist in nature"
I don't believe that's an exact quote, but at least it's better than your false claim above that I called you a racist. See comment 92.
Since I've already tried to explain to you what I actually meant when I suggested an edit to the comment policy, and you continue to refuse to consider that another meaning is even possible, I will just let you argue with your straw man.
I will concede that if the false conclusions you reached were accurate, you would have a point.
But since you, as usual, jump to the wrong conclusion, and then argue as if those conclusions are accurate when they are not, you do not have a point.
2+0 is not 4... and never will be.
Can't accept your claim that it's not your place to discuss whether having fewer people comment here is bad for business, when you boast about chasing them away. Going back to a previous point, I would argue that if you showed those other members of the community actual respect, they would not have left, and if you respected what CW is trying to do here, you would want him to have ever growing participation.
In any case, we are, or would be, talking about generally accepted facts in business, not some issue where you shouldn't tread.
Moving on, your belief that your arguments are so brilliant that anyone that fails to be convinced by them is closed minded can only be described as yet another mistaken conclusion.
I'll pass on that beer.
I'll pass on that beer.
Party-pooper.
Hi Liz
Per comment 98
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I got a laugh out of you back there.
I don't want to repeat myself, so see my response to Michale, and consider that I may actually be attempting persuasion on a topic different than the serious issues debated here... more along the lines of the definition of the word community.
Please don't tell me that doesn't crack you up.
I'm almost afraid to ask, but care to share some examples of such successful persuasions?
I get using him as a foil, but you are talking about practice to persuade others right?
Party pooper?
I just don't party with people who snort lines of Koch.
I just don't party with people who snort lines of Koch.
As opposed to those who snort lines with Soros or Daily Kos.. :D
Actually, I have never snorted or smoked anything in my entire life..
Cop... Remember?? :D
Michale
I just don't party with people who snort lines of Koch.
That's okay ... I'll have your share and raise another in your honour, just for fun. :)
I may actually be attempting persuasion on a topic different than the serious issues debated here... more along the lines of the definition of the word community. Please don't tell me that doesn't crack you up.
Well, we do have a special kind of community here ... no two ways about that. And, your presence here significantly adds to that special atmosphere!
Hi Liz
Well stated.
I always appreciate wording that can be interpreted in more ways than one.
It can cause problems for those who are unfamiliar or thin-skinned, but I see it as diplomatic, even if I'm the one on the short (bus) end of the stick.
Thanks, Big Al!
You can't be happy here AND be thin-skinned. Of course, that applies to most places, in this day and age. :)
Liz,
Colin Powell has joined the ranks of the Iran Fan Club, AKA the JCPOA...
He is as wrong as everyone else is.. :D
Michale
He is as wrong as everyone else is.. :D
And let me tell you why..
ANYONE who thinks that it's a good idea to empower Iran, to enhance Iran's status and abilities and to think that Iran could be a contributing part of modern civilization is as wrong as wrong could be..
To put it in it's proper context, it would be as if Hitler survived WWII and retained control of Germany and Truman made a deal with Hitler...
Who, in their right mind, would think that THAT is a good idea???
As children we are taught that if we alter or change our bad behavior we will then be rewarded..
Obama seems to think that, if we reward the child Iran, that Iran will alter their bad behavior...
Yea... Good luck with that... :^/
Michale
You are the one who is wrong, Michale ... on virtually everything you have said here about the JCPOA and about international sanctions on Iran. And, that includes your wild imaginings which you alone see as valid analogies.
From your many comments on this subject, it is clear that you are unaware of what is in this deal, what it will do, and how and why it was reached in the first place. And, you don't seem to understand that the opposition to the JCPOA is political partisanship or simple ignorance - or, worse still, a combination of both.
It is also clear from your comments that your first option - and only option - for dealing with the Iranian nuclear and non-nuclear challenges is the only option you think you know and understand ... the military option.
I think this is because you equate diplomacy with weakness.
You are the one who is wrong, Michale ... on virtually everything you have said here about the JCPOA and about international sanctions on Iran.
So, you think it's a GOOD thing to "empower Iran, to enhance Iran's status and abilities and to think that Iran could be a contributing part of modern civilization"
Please elaborate...
From your many comments on this subject, it is clear that you are unaware of what is in this deal, what it will do, and how and why it was reached in the first place.
I know all that.. And ALL of that is completely and utterly negated by the fact that we are talking about IRAN...
Would you sanction a deal with Hitler after WWII???
Iran is at least as bad....
It is also clear from your comments that your first option - and only option - for dealing with the Iranian nuclear and non-nuclear challenges is the only option you think you know and understand ... the military option
Not true.. Despite your claims to the contrary, sanctions WERE working.. They drove Iran to the table.. If they had been applied longer, they would have achieved their goal.. Destruction of Iran's nuclear infrastructure..
THAT was the goal.. The JCPOA does not accomplish the goal.. It's a -kick the can down the road- measure at BEST...
I am also constrained to point out that there are MANY forms of warfare.. The US and Israel has successfully wielded the covert forms quite nicely.
Why not continue so that the GOAL can be realized..
I think this is because you equate diplomacy with weakness.
Why would I *EVER* think that???
{{cough}} {{{cough}}} The Munich Agreement {{cough}}
Often times, "diplomacy" is simply PC-Speak for appeasement and cowardice...
This is one of those times...
Michale
I know all that.. And ALL of that is completely and utterly negated by the fact that we are talking about IRAN...
Would you sanction a deal with Hitler after WWII???
Iran is at least as bad....
|
Cry GODWIN if you must, but since we are talking about the world's sponsor of terrorism and a country that executes people for being gay {{DRINK!!}} it's a legitimate comparison..
If it makes you feel better, change "Hitler After WWII" to "Stalin After He Executed 50 Million Soviets"....
Michale
So, you think it's a GOOD thing to "empower Iran, to enhance Iran's status and abilities and to think that Iran could be a contributing part of modern civilization" Please elaborate...
Okay.
Iran was empowered in the terrible wake of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. Which was not surprising, given that Shi'a make up about 60% of Iraq's population and the US must have known beforehand that the Shi'a in Iraq would form and control the Iraqi government, right?
You seem to think that the JCPOA "legitimizes" Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. On the contrary, the JCPOA imposes unprecedented restrictions and inspections regimes on Iran's nuclear program for 10-25 years with some of these restraints being permanent.
And, in addition to the JCPOA, the international community is free to act as it wishes to reign in Iran's non-nuclear nefarious behavior.
The purpose of the JCPOA is decidedly NOT to ensure that Iran is a "contributing part of modern civilization" but, if Iran should evolve in that direction, then engagement with Iran by the international community will have been no small contributor to that positive outcome. Unfortunately, not even you can predict whether or not that circumstance will come to pass. :)
Not true.. Despite your claims to the contrary, sanctions WERE working.. They drove Iran to the table.. If they had been applied longer, they would have achieved their goal.. Destruction of Iran's nuclear infrastructure..
This is where you go terribly wrong, Michale.
It is precisely this kind of thinking that betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the international sanctions regime imposed upon Iran.
First off, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that sanctions would have destroyed Iran's nuclear infrastructure. On the contrary, under the most muscular set of sanctions ever to be imposed on a country in the history of the world, Iran's nuclear program EXPANDED, dramatically. That is a fact, Michale, inconvenient though it is for your false narrative.
Secondly, the Obama administration was only able to persuade the international community to come on board with tough sanctions against Iran in order to coerce Iran to the negotiating table and attempt to reach a diplomatic solution to this problem BEFORE military options would be pursued. And, so, sanctions were indeed a means to an end - with the end being a negotiation with Iran toward a diplomatic settlement of the nuclear issue.
Destruction of Iran's nuclear infrastructure was never part of the bargain. That would have been a complete dictating of terms by the P5+1, not a negotiation where there is give and take and, ultimately, a compromise that all parties must abide by.
Iran was empowered in the terrible wake of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq.
And, according to the Left (and VERY hysterically so) that was a big BIG mistake... Right??
So, why is it a big BIG mistake when a GOP POTUS empowers Iran, but it's NOT a big BIG mistake when a DEM POTUS empowers Iran??
u seem to think that the JCPOA "legitimizes" Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. On the contrary, the JCPOA imposes unprecedented restrictions and inspections regimes on Iran's nuclear program for 10-25 years with some of these restraints being permanent.
But it STILL allows Iran to have a nuclear weapons program..
THAT is how the JCPOA legitimizes Iran's Nuclear Weapons ambition.
By CODIFYING the programs existence..
And, in addition to the JCPOA, the international community is free to act as it wishes to reign in Iran's non-nuclear nefarious behavior.
Based on what agreement??
The purpose of the JCPOA is decidedly NOT to ensure that Iran is a "contributing part of modern civilization" but, if Iran should evolve in that direction, then engagement with Iran by the international community will have been no small contributor to that positive outcome. Unfortunately, not even you can predict whether or not that circumstance will come to pass. :)
Wanna bet???
That circumstance won't come to pass until a new regime takes hold in Iran...
Michale
Often times, "diplomacy" is simply PC-Speak for appeasement and cowardice...
And, other times it is not. One must be wise enough to make the distinction.
Can't you ever let me finish, Michale!!! Geesh.
So, why is it a big BIG mistake when a GOP POTUS empowers Iran, but it's NOT a big BIG mistake when a DEM POTUS empowers Iran??
You be sure to let me know, Michale, when a DEM POTUS empowers Iran because that hasn't happened yet.
But it STILL allows Iran to have a nuclear weapons program..
Not true! Absolutely, positively, unequivocally not true. Where are you getting this stuff from??
Based on what agreement??
The international community, or the US acting alone, does not need an agreement to visit military action upon Iran. An agreement would be nice, of course, but not at all necessary. I thought you knew that.
That circumstance won't come to pass until a new regime takes hold in Iran...
That's probably true. And, it may come sooner than you think!
You be sure to let me know, Michale, when a DEM POTUS empowers Iran because that hasn't happened yet.
Actually it has, as evidenced by all the military hardware Iran has gotten and will get from Russia...
Not true! Absolutely, positively, unequivocally not true. Where are you getting this stuff from??
From the JCPOA...
That's probably true. And, it may come sooner than you think!
If life-force-crushing sanctions didn't force a regime change, why do you think giving the psychotic Iranian leaders hundreds of billions of dollars will??
Often times, "diplomacy" is simply PC-Speak for appeasement and cowardice...
And, other times it is not. One must be wise enough to make the distinction.,/I>
And what happened when Chamberlin was wrong?? Almost 50 million casualties in WWII.
What happens if you and Obama are wrong and Iran becomes a nuclear power??
Apparently ya'all are willing to risk it...
Michale
Sorry, Michale but, that was pretty weak. :)
Long and mostly in italics but, ultimately, weak ...
Sorry, Michale but, that was pretty weak. :)
Not really.. If you and Obama are wrong the threat of a nuclear war in the Middle East is a real possibility...
But have no fear.. I'll be around to say, "TOLD YA SO!!" :D
Michale
Well, that's a pretty big 'IF' Michale, besides which, you see, it is not based on any cogent arguments.
Well, that's a pretty big 'IF' Michale, besides which, you see, it is not based on any cogent arguments.
Yea... Many said the same thing about The Munich Agreement..
50 MILLION casualties later.......
Those who forget history are doomed...
Or something like that...
The JCPOA is nothing but appeasement and cowardice...
Michale
Those who forget history are doomed...
Those who don't know how to apply history are doomed to be forever wrong ... :)
Hey, Michale!
I just now came across this excellent article by a guy who knows his stuff - he wrote a very good book on nuclear terrorism which you may know about - his name is Graham Allison and you will be very interested in this piece he wrote for Defense One, you can trust me on that!
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2015/08/9-reasons-iran-deal-makes-sense/118857/?oref=d-river
Those who don't know how to apply history are doomed to be forever wrong ... :)
As i said, time will tell who is right and who is not..
Considering that we ARE talking about Iran, the odds are definitely in my favor.. :D
Every heinous act that Iran commits in the future will be laid at the feet of Obama and all who supported this deal....
Ya'all just HAVE to know I'll be around to point that out.. :D
What FUN we'll have!!
Michale
What FUN we'll have!!
You have no idea ... :)
But, here's what I'm ready and willing to concede, right off the bat - how about those Blue Jays!!! -
If Iran behaves in a way contrary to its obligations in the JCPOA or if it commits a heinous act, nuclear or non-nuclear related, that will not, in and of itself, prove your point. Because, none of us trust Iran, at this juncture, not to behave in a nefarious way.
What will prove your point, however, is if the US and/or international community fail to respond or fail to respond effectively and proportionately to neutralize that behavior.
But, here's what I'm ready and willing to concede, right off the bat - how about those Blue Jays!!! -
If Iran behaves in a way contrary to its obligations in the JCPOA or if it commits a heinous act, nuclear or non-nuclear related, that will not, in and of itself, prove your point. Because, none of us trust Iran, at this juncture, not to behave in a nefarious way.
What will prove your point, however, is if the US and/or international community fail to respond effectively and proportionately to neutralize that behavior.
But, here's what I'm ready and willing to concede, right off the bat - how about those Blue Jays!!! -
I don't follow basketball too much...
If Iran behaves in a way contrary to its obligations in the JCPOA or if it commits a heinous act, nuclear or non-nuclear related, that will not, in and of itself, prove your point. Because, none of us trust Iran, at this juncture, not to behave in a nefarious way.
The entire JCPOA is built on trust...
What will prove your point, however, is if the US and/or international community fail to respond effectively and proportionately to neutralize that behavior.
I'm a shoe-in to win!!! :D
Michale
The entire JCPOA is built on trust...
The most wrong-headed statement you have made to date ...
What will prove your point, however, is if the US and/or international community fail to respond effectively and proportionately to neutralize that behavior.
Iran has been killing innocent people by the THOUSANDS if not TENS of thousands..
The US and/or international community has failed to respond effectively each and every time..
What makes you think things are going to be different now??
Michale
The most wrong-headed statement you have made to date ...
I know you disagree..
But ya'all have already stated that sanctions won't work...
And sanctions is the ONLY recourse if Iran reneges on it's agreements..
Ergo, the entire JCPOA is based on trust that Iran won't renege... Because it sure is not ineffective sanctions that will keep Iran from reneging...
Michale
What will prove your point, however, is if the US and/or international community fail to respond effectively and proportionately to neutralize that behavior.
I am also constrained to point out that said response, whether it is effective or not, will count very little to those already killed by Iran...
Surely, the more logical course of action is to act BEFORE hundreds or thousands are killed....
Am I wrong??
Michale
Would you sanction a deal with Hitler after WWII???
Yes it is a Godwin. But it is also unintentionally apt on your part. If the war reparations had not been so harsh, keeping the German people economically depressed, Hitler may never have come to power. Shows the danger of economic suppression.
Though I am still waiting for your Iran plan, or can you only complain?
Yes it is a Godwin.
It's still an apt comparison...
If the war reparations had not been so harsh, keeping the German people economically depressed, Hitler may never have come to power. Shows the danger of economic suppression.
Ahhhhh... So it was the Allied powers who were to blame for WWII, eh??
I spose you think that the woman who wears the short skirt DESERVES to be raped, eh???
I would have never figured you for the BLAME AMERICA FIRST crowd, Bashi...
Learn something new every day...
Michale
Though I am still waiting for your Iran plan, or can you only complain?
When I am elected POTUS and have access to ALL the intel that a POTUS would have, you'll have my plan...
And I GUARANTEE it would be a much better plan then Obama's GiveIranEverythingTheyWantAndGetNothingInReturn plan...
Of course it's easy to say.. It's easy because Obama is such an incompetent moron.. Not that I know you would ever concede that. He has the all-powerful '-D' after his name... :D
Michale
Ahhhhh... So it was the Allied powers who were to blame for WWII, eh??
Basic history. What, flunked it in high school?
I spose you think that the woman who wears the short skirt DESERVES to be raped, eh???
What are you blabbing about? A few to many beers on this Labor day?
I would have never figured you for the BLAME AMERICA FIRST crowd, Bashi...
Yawn.
Ahhhhh... So it was the Allied powers who were to blame for WWII, eh??
Basic history. What, flunked it in high school?
I went to a different high school.. A high school that taught the REAL history and not the liberal brain-washing claptrap...
What are you blabbing about?
It's simple.. You are blaming the victim.. Much as a redneck scumbag would blame the girl wearing the short skirt, saying it's her own fault she got raped..
Too many Labor Day beers, Bash?? :D
Michale
"The world was mean to Hitler.. So Hitler had NO CHOICE but to launch a war of aggression and butcher 6 million Jews... It was the world's fault and Hitler was just an innocent victim..."
-Bashi's High School History Lesson...
Glad I didn't go to THAT high school!!! :D
Michale
And I GUARANTEE it would be a much better plan then Obama's GiveIranEverythingTheyWantAndGetNothingInReturn plan...
What, your plan would have Blackjack and Hookers?
Glad I didn't go to THAT high school!!! :D
Yawn.
What, your plan would have Blackjack and Hookers?
Now I *KNOW* you have had too many Labor Day beers..
Fortunately my Labor Day consists of Coconut Rum..
At MY house, the rum is NOT gone!! :D
"This can't be a dream. If it was a dream, there would be rum!!"
-Captain Jack Sparrow
:D
Mcihale
Here is another very interesting article about the plutonium path to a nuclear bomb and what Iran gave up in that regard and why it is so important.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/science/irans-unsung-plutonium-concession-in-nuclear-deal.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Mcihale? Having a fun Labour Day, are we? :)
According to Al, Iran wasn't even GOING for a nuclear bomb..
So, Iran has given up nothing.. :D
Michale
Mcihale? Having a fun Labour Day, are we? :)
Ya caught that, eh?? :D heh
Michale
Michale
"When I am elected POTUS and have access to ALL the intel that a POTUS would have, you'll have my plan"
OK Hillary.
I never thought I'd see you stoop so low as to copy her weak justifications.
But since you brought me up...
Zero evidence of highly enriched uranium, or even attempts to get there, and zero evidence of any other steps necessary for a nuclear weapons program have been discovered.
If you go waaay back to the discussion with Liz you were referencing, we were talking about potential capability... she was arguing that wanting capability was evidence of wanting a bomb, and I conceded that while that may be possible, it wasn't a certainty. Guessing their motivation is different than knowing their motivation.
In other words, capability (and technically it's capability to achieve actual capability) is not proof of intention, so it is false to claim Iran has a nuclear weapons program.
False as in wrong.
An assertion unsubstantiated by the facts.
Going back even further, trying to argue with Mr. "you will never convince me" Michale seems futile, as you suggest that no facts or arguments will dent your ideology, so I will try a different approach.
What metrics are you using when you claim that "Iran is as bad as, if not worse than Hitler's Germany"?
So far, you mentioned a vague reference to the deaths of "hundreds if not thousands of innocents" for which Iran is supposedly responsible.
Yet you also referenced the millions killed in WWII.
So, how does that compare and what kind of math are you using where that's "worse"?
I never thought I'd see you stoop so low as to copy her weak justifications.
Her justification is weak because as a Senator, as a SecState she would HAVE access to the intel that I lack...
In other words, what IS a weak justification for her is not for me..
Granted, I have a lot more access than the average Weigantian, this is true.. But it's still not enough to come up with a successful plan for dealing with Iran..
'Sides, as I have mentioned ad nasuem, I am just a knuckle-dragging ground pounder.. My "plan" would involve a lot of cruise missiles and parking lot construction.. :D
So far, you mentioned a vague reference to the deaths of "hundreds if not thousands of innocents" for which Iran is supposedly responsible.
Yet you also referenced the millions killed in WWII.
So, how does that compare and what kind of math are you using where that's "worse"?
To understand my answer, you would have to know a LOT more about me than you do. Than you would WANT to.. :D
Suffice it to say that, being that Iran is THE world's sponsor of terrorism, in my book, that easily surpasses the evil of Hitler...
For me, Hitler is a history book evil... Terrorism for me is a LOT more personal...
And, if you have had the experience, training and expertise I have had, you would feel the EXACT same way...
Michale
In other words, capability (and technically it's capability to achieve actual capability) is not proof of intention, so it is false to claim Iran has a nuclear weapons program.
And, if you are right, if Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program, then Obama's deal just gave Iran hundreds of billions of dollars and got absolutely NOTHING in return...
Yer right.. That IS a great deal...
For Iran.... :D
Michale
Al,
If you go waaay back to the discussion with Liz you were referencing, we were talking about potential capability... she was arguing that wanting capability was evidence of wanting a bomb, and I conceded that while that may be possible, it wasn't a certainty. Guessing their motivation is different than knowing their motivation.
Liz wasn't arguing that, at all. You had better go back and revisit that little discussion and stop putting words in my mouth!
I said that it was hard to believe that Iran was going to all this trouble putting its economy in dire straits and developing secret nuclear facilities and not being completely forthcoming with the IAEA if it wasn't interested in having a nuclear weapons capability and capacity.
I did not argue that this was evidence that they wanted to have a nuclear arsenal. On the contrary, I believe I said that I think they have gone to all this trouble because they want to be un the cusp of being able to make a decision to go for the bomb when and if they so choose ... of course, I'm paraphrasing myself. :)
Liz wasn't arguing that, at all. You had better go back and revisit that little discussion and stop putting words in my mouth!
To be fair, I don't think Al was putting words in your mouth so much as interpreting what you say filtered thru his own biases and agendas...
In other words, based on his ideology, he came to a wrong conclusion as to what you meant.. :D
Which is rather ironic when ya think about it.. Heh
Michale
Irony knows no bounds, Michale ... because that is precisely what you always do!!! ... so, call me used to it. :)
Michale and Al,
Are you guys watching the refugee crisis unfolding in Europe? This is so hard to watch. I keep trying to imagine how I would handle this if I were one of these people and I keep getting the same answer ... not well, not well at all!
I think the US and Canada need to step up and fast!
Hi Liz
I should have included a disclaimer, for it wasn't my intention to put words in your mouth when I attempted to summarize that conversation.
I would say that your guess about their motivation is still different than knowing their motivation though.
A
The West always talks a good game about "winning hearts and minds". Well, the West now has a huge opportunity to make good on that sound strategy.
Germany will take 500,000 refugees and migrants per year. I'd like to see the GCC countries collectively do the same.
I would say that your guess about their motivation is still different than knowing their motivation though.
Goes without saying.
But, if I recall correctly, I said it, anyway ... :)
Michale
Actually, Hillary's "I'll tell you my position once I'm elected" bull was in response to a question about where she stands on the TPP.
It is the response that you mimicked, and is weak regardless of the topic.
It is the response that you mimicked, and is weak regardless of the topic.
Maybe in your circles, it's considered "strong" to shoot off one's mouth from a position of ignorance..
In my previous line of work, one must know all available facts or people die... I guess I just learned the lessons of my profession quite well...
Michale
Irony knows no bounds, Michale ... because that is precisely what you always do!!! ...
Why do you think I recognized it so fast.. :D
"Oh trust me, Major. Evil knows evil."
-Dr Smith, LOST IN SPACE
:D
Michale
Michale
Quite the non-answer on the Iran/Germany comparison question.
In other words, the metrics you are using can't be shared and we have to trust you?
And, once again your unsubstantiated "worlds biggest sponsor of terrorism" claim is what you fall back on and "nothing we say will change your mind".
Got it.
No Michale
In my circle, taking a position is a prerequisite when arguing against another position and when the facts on hand are being used in that argument.
If your alternative boils down to war, you should be able to justify it.
Quite the non-answer on the Iran/Germany comparison question.
I call 'em as I see 'em... :D
And, once again your unsubstantiated "worlds biggest sponsor of terrorism" claim is what you fall back on and "nothing we say will change your mind".
You don't have the experience, training or expertise to pass judgement on the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism claim. People much more experienced than me (and much MUCH MUCH more experienced than you) have made the same claim..
In my circle, taking a position is a prerequisite when arguing against another position and when the facts on hand are being used in that argument.
Taking a position out of ignorance is a fool's errand...
Case in point. :D
Michale
In other words, the metrics you are using can't be shared and we have to trust you?
I have over two and a half decades experience in military, security and LEO fields. I was a USAF cop, a USA MI EllTee during Desert Storm and an FSO with postings in a dozen different countries throughout Europe and the ME...
Now, if you have anything CLOSE to that metric??
"I am all ears...."
-Ross Perot, 1992 Presidential Debates
:D
Michale
Michale
"And, if you are right, if Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program, then Obama's deal just gave Iran hundreds of billions of dollars and got absolutely NOTHING in return"
I think the word is returned, not gave.
It was their money after all.
If after shoving a pointy stick into someone's eye, you then remove the stick, it is not a reward.
Ending a punishment is quite different than rewarding them.
In any case, what the global community got in return is restrictions on Iran's nuclear energy program that prevent Iran from having the capability to reach nuclear weapons capability for a long time.
Not appreciating that achievement is different than nothing having been achieved.
Michale
The metrics you are using to compare Iran to Nazi Germany was the question.
Your experience does not qualify.
I know better because I know better is not convincing in the least.
The metrics you are using to compare Iran to Nazi Germany was the question.
Your experience does not qualify.
As I said, if you had my experience, you would say the same.
It's a gut call...
You might think that Iran is the greatest thing since frozen pizza..
I KNOW better..
We'll just have to agree to disagree...
Michale
In other words, the metrics you are using can't be shared and we have to trust you?
When it comes to military and terrorism matters, I don't think anyone here has had any trust issues...
But, look at the bright side..
We completely and unequivocally agree on Hillary Clinton!! :D
Michale
Michale
Again, trust me because I know better is a copout.
Trust me because some unnamed people claim the same thing too is also a copout.
You're not engaging in the debate, you're shutting it down.
Again, trust me because I know better is a copout.
I can understand why YOU think that and won't hold it against you..
But I know better...
You're not engaging in the debate, you're shutting it down.
"The science is settled"
'nuff said... :D
Michale
Michale
"When it comes to military and terrorism matters, I don't think anyone here has had any trust issues"?
I seem to recall others challenging your claims in this very thread, among others.
But hey, now you can't say there isn't anybody here with trust issues about you on that topic.
You're not engaging in the debate, you're shutting it down.
Seriously, though.. Yes I am...
Because there is no sense in debating.
I know what I know because I have been there and done that..
You think you know because you read it someplace...
Since I can't transfer my experience to you, this debate is not resolvable...
So, we will just have to agree to disagree...
Michale
Since I can't transfer my experience to you, this debate is not resolvable...
So, we will just have to agree to disagree...
You can't back up your argument so you are trying to weasel out of it with an appeal to authority. The old nudge nudge wink wink is your oldest dodge and least effective...
You can't back up your argument so you are trying to weasel out of it with an appeal to authority. The old nudge nudge wink wink is your oldest dodge and least effective...
If that's what you want to think, I can't stop you..
I know what I know... And I know ya'all are wrong on the Iran deal...
Time will prove me right and will prove ya'all wrong..
Just like I couldn't "prove" to ya'all that the Democrats were going to get Nuclear Shellacked in the 2014 Midterms, but I knew ya'all were wrong when ya'all said Democrats were going to prevail..
Time proved me right and ya'all wrong..
"And so it goes and so it goes..."
-Billy Joel
:D
Michale
Here's another prediction for you..
Within 4-8 years from now, Iran will, either itself or thru proxies, test-detonate a nuclear device or dirty bomb...
You heard it here first...
Michale
"It makes little sense to discuss it, since you're not going to believe me anyways."
-Admiral James T Kirk, STAR TREK III, The Search For Spock
:D
Michale
Liz,
The West always talks a good game about "winning hearts and minds". Well, the West now has a huge opportunity to make good on that sound strategy.
Germany will take 500,000 refugees and migrants per year. I'd like to see the GCC countries collectively do the same.,
I completely agree.. Every country in the region should do their part...
Michale
I completely agree.. Every country in the region should do their part...
Within the confines of what prudence allows, security wise...
Michale
Don't you think your country and mine should do their part, too?
Don't you think your country and mine should do their part, too?
Since my country is a goodly part responsible for the crisis... Absolutely...
Within the confines of what prudence allows, security wise..
Your country shares none of the responsibility, so it would be optional...
Michale
How does my country share none of the responsibility to protect?
Because they didn't have a hand in making the problem...
So, beyond normal christian values, Canada is under no moral obligation to step up...
Michale
You think we didn't have a hand in making the problem. How do you come to that conclusion?
You think we didn't have a hand in making the problem. How do you come to that conclusion?
Why would you think Canada had a hand in the Syrian Civil War??
Michale
Like many countries, Canada spent 12 years in Afghanistan and more time involved in the war on terror, not always in a military role; we had military in Iraq as part of the US invasion, though officially we were not part of that mission.
While our efforts may not been on the same level as the US, we do share responsibility as Canada's actions in the region have certainly contributed to the growing refugee and migrant crisis we see in the Middle East and Europe today.
Perhaps.. But the vast majority of refugees are Syrians from the civil war there..
Canada doesn't really share any moral responsibility for the Syrian Refugee problem...
We were also one of the top players in the humanitarian military intervention in Libya and so we have a big hand in creating that mess and stream of refugees fleeing it.
Give me a break, Michale and, don't step on my national pride!
Did you know that Canadian relatives of the little Syrian boy who washed ashore on a beach in Turkey were desperately trying to sponsor his family to come to Canada but were unable to obtain the needed documents from the Canadian government?
That alone gives us all the responsibility we need to accommodate as many Syrian refugees as is humanly possible.
Your country shares none of the responsibility, so it would be optional...
Optional ... If that wasn't a virtual slap across the face, I don't know what would be. :(
Optional ... If that wasn't a virtual slap across the face, I don't know what would be. :(
It wasn't meant that way...
NO country should be forced to be the World's Welfare Agency...
If Canada wants to help that's great...
But keep in mind that it's the citizens of Canada that will pay the price...
There is absolutely NOTHING morally wrong with a government who takes the needs and safety of their OWN citizens into account...
Michale
Obviously, you are completely ignorant of Canadian history and of the international role we have played and continue to play in the world.
Can't say that I'm surprised ...
Obviously, you are completely ignorant of Canadian history and of the international role we have played and continue to play in the world.
Can't say that I'm surprised ...
History was never my strong point, even about my own country... :D
But... Speaking of History.. :D
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2015/09/04/ftp360/#comment-63892
:D
Michale
Saw it ... very nice!
Not so much right now, though.. :)
http://sjfm.us/temp/GEDC0099.JPG
Although, I love the rain...
It's funny..
Excepting deployments, I was in the Pacific Northwest, which is famous for it's rainy weather, for about a decade... Mostly Salem, OR but also Whidbey Island, WA
But I had NEVER seen such violent storms as I did when we moved to FL... In the west, lightning was something you saw up in the clouds diffused so much all you saw was a fluorescent effect...
I had never seen real lightning until we moved here to St Augustine.. I love the storms.. Had a blast during Hurricane Floyd in 1999, even though our backyard was trashed an a tree took out our pool...
The Hurricane Parties of 2005 were stuff of legends!!! :D
Michale
Something else we have in common, Michale ... I've always loved storms. Of course, I've never been anywhere near a truly destructive storm. I'm sure I wouldn't much like those.
We get some pretty good light shows here in sunny southern Ontario but, I think we may have THE least extreme weather patterns on the planet where I am ... situated equidistant between two Great Lakes, Huron and Ontario, which seems to have a moderating effect, most of the time.
Michale
With your vast experience, you should certainly know that people with vastly more experience than you have also been proven wrong many times in the not too distant past.
It is knowledge of that reality that makes it impossible for me to accept the position you have put forward...
... not to mention the knowledge that it was Sunni Muslims of various nationalities, not the least of which were Saudis, who have been responsible for the vast majority of the terror incidents attributed to Islamic militants. Not Shiite Iranians.
Currently, our government has the Islamic State listed as the number one threat, with al Qaida as number two... and both are Sunni Muslim groups... not Shiite Iranians.
Another fact, US military statistics from the 2003 war in Iraq show that Saudi Arabia was the leading source of foreign fighters captured or killed in attacks on US forces. Not Iranians.
I don't believe these are classified as terror attacks, but it is still a telling fact that raises doubts about your assertion.
But I know you know these facts, so you must have others in mind in your secret stash of metrics.
And what country is "Sunni Muslim"?? Never heard of that country and I have traveled extensively in the region..
My position stands. IRAN is the number 1 state sponsor of terrorism..
Don't take my word for it..
US STATE DEPARTMENT
Number 1 State Sponsor of Terrorism IRAN
WIKIPEDIA
Number 1 State Sponsor of Terrorism IRAN
You are entitled to your own opinion...
But you are not entitled to your own facts..
And the fact is, Iran is the Number 1 State Sponsor Of Terrorism..
Michale
We get some pretty good light shows here in sunny southern Ontario but, I think we may have THE least extreme weather patterns on the planet where I am ... situated equidistant between two Great Lakes, Huron and Ontario, which seems to have a moderating effect, most of the time.
Hurricane strikes are actually quite rare in this part of FL... Floyd was actually a brush, not a direct strike.. Even though it prompted the largest peace-time evacuation in the history of the US. Took our kids 13 hours to go about 60 miles inland...
Before Floyd, you have to go back to 1964 for a strike.. Hurricane Dora...
Then came the 2005 season and all bets were off.. :D
We haven't had a Cat 3 strike on the CONUS in almost a decade.. I won't even get out of bed for anything less than a Cat 2.. :D
Michale
WASHINGTON—The State Department said Iran’s support for terrorism was “undiminished” in 2014, and the U.S. remains very concerned about the activities of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and its proxies in the Middle East.
The U.S. worries about Iran’s activities were included in an annual report of global terrorism between 2013 and 2014, released Friday.
Of particular concern, the report said, was Iran’s continued support of the powerful Hezbollah militia and political party in Lebanon; and its assistance to fighters supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Iran also hasn’t identified or initiated judicial proceedings against senior al Qaeda leaders it has in custody.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-report-finds-35-rise-in-global-terror-attacks-in-2014-1434720328
Liz and Michale
As for the "civil war" in Syria-
It rarely gets mentioned in the MSM, but the first shots fired in that "civil war" were by foreign militants and their targets were Syrian policemen.
(Michale- "You're into justice, this argument should appeal to you"- Steve Martin in My Blue Heaven)
Also ignored, the $400 million annual budget for the covert CIA regime change effort to topple Assad that joined the ongoing multi-billion dollar Saudi and Gulf state effort which started the "civil war" two years before the Islamic State emerged, and three years before our overt effort to train "moderate" Syrians was publicly acknowledged.
The covert effort includes logistics, funding, and the arming and training of Sunni militants... ALL of whom have either now joined IS or al Qaida, or are fighting alongside them in Syria.
US responsibility for the Syrian refugee problem is far larger than our "leaders" will admit.
Liz- I haven't found any information on any Canadian participation in the regime change effort in Syria, but given that only a third of the refugees entering Europe are Syrian, I think you mentioning Libya is very relevant. Our joint destruction of the formerly richest nation in Africa, and the unleashing of all its' weapons can't be ignored.
Other war of terror efforts in Africa are also responsible for instability and misery contributing to the refugee crisis.
Al,
Yes, US actions in the Middle East, covert and otherwise, have greatly contributed to what is happening throughout the region.
But, let's not forget the role played by the Assad regime and the Iraqi government, not to mention Saudi Arabia, Israel and the list goes on. These governments are not without the lion's share of responsibility for what is happening in their respective countries and throughout the Middle East and North Africa, as a whole, with respect to mass migrations, in particular, and quality of life, in general.
By the way, Al, I was very much a supporter of the Libyan intervention and I understood that Gaddafi was at the very root of the problems and challenges facing his country.
Had the international community not acted in Libya, there may very well had been another kind of tragedy. The Libyan leader made no bones about that.
It was very disappointing, however, that, once again, the military option was used without paying equal attention and giving equal resources to the diplomatic and political part that might have made this intervention successful and, perhaps, even a model for similar interventions in a serious effort to give real meaning to the Responsibility to Protect.
US responsibility for the Syrian refugee problem is far larger than our "leaders" will admit.
Which is what I have been saying..
Glad we agree, Al :D
Michale
Michale
Iranian support for their ally Syria is not terrorism.
Likewise, if we are going to talk about terror by "proxies" (note the quotes as Hezbollah gets support but doesn't take orders from Iran), then US proxies must be included as well... but then US statistics don't count anything we do as terrorism do they?
Then of course, we would need to discuss that Saudi Arabia funding madrassas that breed militants using government profits funneled through NGOs, and pretending not to notice the outflow of billions and countless citizens to terror groups, and the US not even counting the billions being spent on the regime change effort in Syria are all relevant to the #1 state sponsor of terror claim.
It seems that all of our "allies" are exempt.
But, you know all that too.
Hi Liz
Per comment 211
Yeah, I was working on a second comment that included some of that.
As far as Assad goes, given that he was a rendition partner for the US, and that the exodus from Syria didn't start until after foreign militants attacked Syria, I would say that the Saudi and US role and responsibility is greater.
After 9/11, I have trouble blaming him for defending his country from attacks by al Qaida and their ilk, but there's no doubt that some of the tactics he has used to fend off the attackers have been brutal.
I made a vague reference to Israel... what with the one persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter angle, not to mention the right to self defense on both sides... but I think the Saudis are still tops in both funding and damage caused... assuming US actions don't count.
The sales job for the war in Libya was pretty slick, but I hope the results speak for themselves and no future "humanitarian wars" are pursued.
Michale
Per comment 213
Uh, yeah.
But you've been arguing that we are to blame because we didn't effect regime change in Syria using our military.
A rather different cause and effect.
And it's one that ignores what we have been doing.
So, yes, we agree BUT...
Likewise, if we are going to talk about terror by "proxies" (note the quotes as Hezbollah gets support but doesn't take orders from Iran), then US proxies must be included as well... but then US statistics don't count anything we do as terrorism do they?
For example.....?????
So, yes, we agree
Yes.. We agree....
Michale
. what with the one persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter angle,
NOW you have just pushed a button..
THAT is *THE* biggest piles of crap of ALL the piles of crap that exists in the universe..
A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist..
No perspective required....
Michale
Al,
The sales job for the war in Libya was pretty slick, but I hope the results speak for themselves and no future "humanitarian wars" are pursued.
I think there may be times when that is the wrong conclusion to be drawn.
And, if you recall, the primary salesman for the intervention in Libya was none other than Gaddafi, himself.
And, if you recall, the primary salesman for the intervention in Libya was none other than Gaddafi, himself.
Which SHOULD have been Clinton's FIRST clue that it was a bad idea... :D
And Democrats want her to be POTUS!!???
Michale
After 9/11, I have trouble blaming him for defending his country from attacks by al Qaida and their ilk, but there's no doubt that some of the tactics he has used to fend off the attackers have been brutal.
Yea... Chemical weapons.. "Brutal"... :^/
Michale
Yea... Chemical weapons.. "Brutal"... :^/
And Katrina was just a spring shower... :^/
Michale
Hi Liz
Um, not sure I agree about Libya.
Hard to say for certain, but what Gaddafi would have done probably wouldn't even have ranked with what Sisi has done in Egypt.
And it certainly wouldn't have ranked with what has been happening in Libya since our intervention... and that is even excluding all the casualties from our bombing.
Michale
Our illegal war of aggression in Iraq certainly terrorized millions. (Bush)
Our indiscriminate drone warfare has certainly terrorized and targeted many innocents. (Bush and Obama)
Our covert regime change effort in Syria using groups actually on our own list of terrorists has certainly terrorized millions. (Obama)
Michale
"A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist..
No perspective required...."
So, the victims of our, Saudi, or Israeli terrorism fit in where?
Michale
Chemical weapons?
Really.
In case you didn't notice, IS is using them, and the people we are supporting in Syria are the likely culprits of every incidence of their use in Syria.
The evidence against Assad was about as convincing as the lies the Bushies used to start their illegal war in Iraq.
I was referring to the aerial bombings... y'know... like our specialty.
Al,
Um, not sure I agree about Libya.
Really? I'm guessing you have forgotten then, about Gaddafi's bloodcurdling rant warning what he was about to do to his fellow citizens in Benghazi - the televised address that directly led to the humanitarian intervention.
Al,
The evidence against Assad was about as convincing as the lies the Bushies used to start their illegal war in Iraq.
You have made similar comments about the innocence of Iran with respect to its strictly "nuclear energy" program and that sanctions currently against Iran are essentially unjust.
Why is it that you seem to be acting as apologist for both the Iranian and Assad regimes? I find the direction you seem to be taking to be more than a little disturbing in its dismissiveness towards the nefarious actions of these two regimes.
Al,
I think it is possible to be very critical of the Bush and Obama administrations vis-à-vis their Middle East strategies and policies and still be equally critical of repressive regimes in Libya, Syria, Iran and beyond.
I mean, it's not an either/or proposition ...
Michale,
And Katrina was just a spring shower... :^/
Actually ... well, let's save that discussion for another day. :)
Al,
Our illegal war of aggression in Iraq certainly terrorized millions. (Bush)
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Wrong...
But, before I lay into you and tell you how wrong you are, we have to settle a point..
What is your definition of terrorism..
Michale
And Katrina was just a spring shower... :^/
Actually ... well, let's save that discussion for another day. :)
As always... I look forward to it... :D
Michale
The evidence against Assad was about as convincing as the lies the Bushies used to start their illegal war in Iraq.
Jeezus, Al..
Do you belong to the TERRORIST/SCUMBAG FANBOI CLUB???
You seem to go out of your way to defend the scum of the universe...
Michale
Why is it that you seem to be acting as apologist for both the Iranian and Assad regimes? I find the direction you seem to be taking to be more than a little disturbing in its dismissiveness towards the nefarious actions of these two regimes.
Amen to frakin' that!!!
Michale
So, the victims of our, Saudi, or Israeli terrorism fit in where?
There has been no Israeli or Saudi terrorism.. Not now, not ever...
Michale
There has been no Israeli or Saudi terrorism.. Not now, not ever...
At least, not in the sense that you imply...
Michale
I think we lost Big Al... :^(
Michale
How do you figure that?
I hope it wasn't something I said ...
Hi Liz
Per comment 228
Good to see you using the neolibcon standard attack for whenever their twisted worldview gets challenged.
I am not an apologist, I am a realist.
Nefarious actions?
Are you referring to exercising rights guaranteed by treaty? Or, defending your country against al Qaida? I can see how these radically nefarious actions might be upsetting.
Illegal aggression?
Torture?
Neither comes close to our actions.
I know you've seen the pictures and video.
Neolibcon propaganda paints their demons quite effectively, but their pattern of lies and deception has by now been exposed often enough that those who fail to challenge their claims come across as naïve.
I know it's difficult to believe that the coordinated effort to misinform could possibly deceive educated, reasonable people such as ourselves. But how many times do we need to reach into the fire before we learn we will get burned?
Millions have died and tens of millions more are suffering because of the neolibcon policies to remake the world... and they don't care one bit. They don't accept responsibility. It doesn't slow down their efforts. They violate the principles our country was founded upon and the religious teachings the majority in this country claim to value... not to mention logic, reason and common sense. A pattern of failure is brushed under the rug.
Obama has bombed seven different countries and used that "record" to defend diplomacy with Iran... who gave up a lot to get that pointy stick removed from their eye.
They've got the right screaming about Obama while the left screams about Bush, and yet we keep getting the same ol same ol.
Even though he says it's for all the wrong reasons, I'm getting praise from a right wing Trumpeteer for challenging the status quo Wall Street Liberal Warmongering "Left".
That's how rare it is.
The "other side" recognizes it too.
It jumps out at you, and you reflexively attack using their carefully crafted tactic... because you think I'm challenging you when I'm actually challenging them.
All of us have been spun by their spinners more than once. Yes, including me.
This isn't about who you are, or who Michale is.
You'd still be you if you got yourself a little more unspun.
I also know that the Iranians and Syrians aren't angels.
They've sinned.
But we are living in a glass house, and our "leaders" have a stone throwing addiction.
Al,
Do you believe that the Holocaust happened??
Do you believe that the US or Israel had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks??
Do you believe that astronauts from the US actually walked on the moon??
I am just trying to see where you are coming from??
Michale
I know it's difficult to believe that the coordinated effort to misinform could possibly deceive educated, reasonable people such as ourselves. But how many times do we need to reach into the fire before we learn we will get burned?
So, there is a VAST world-wide conspiracy, eh?? :D
I think someone has been watching too many James Bond movies.. :D
Michale
Al,
It jumps out at you, and you reflexively attack using their carefully crafted tactic... because you think I'm challenging you when I'm actually challenging them.
You've lost me.
I also know that the Iranians and Syrians aren't angels.
They've sinned.
But we are living in a glass house, and our "leaders" have a stone throwing addiction.
No one is claiming that the US is perfect...
But we are not a terrorist state..
Iran is the Number 1 Terrorist state on the planet...
Syria is the Number 2 Terrorist state on the planet...
This is the fact you always overlook....
Michale
altohone,
Just for the record and to be clear that I was not attacking nor accusing you of anything, here is what I asked of you:
"Why is it that you seem to be acting as apologist for both the Iranian and Assad regimes? I find the direction you seem to be taking to be more than a little disturbing in its dismissiveness towards the nefarious actions of these two regimes.
To which you replied,
"Good to see you using the neolibcon standard attack for whenever their twisted worldview gets challenged. I am not an apologist, I am a realist.
To reiterate, I am not here to verbally attack anyone and I have never done so, not once in the many years I have been involved in making political comments on the internet(s).
So, rather than accuse me of attacking you, why don't you try to help me understand where you are coming from as you dismiss the nefarious behavior demonstrated by the Iranian and Syrian regimes.
Let me say again, it is entirely possible to be critical of US foreign policy while at the same time understanding what the international community must do to reign in bad behavior by many of the regional players in the Middle East.
If we are not starting from that position, then it's going to be extremely difficult and frustrating for us to have an intelligent and enlightening discussion about any of these issues. And, that would be unfortunate, because I really welcome your presence here.
Hi Liz
Neoliberals aren't liberals.
Neocons aren't conservative.
The neolibcons... the Wall Street coddling warmongers in both parties who pursue the same foreign policies and economic policies... do not want the current status quo challenged.
They put on a good show about quibbling along the margins to make it appear that voters have a choice.
But when Tea Partiers protested against the possible war in Syria and when Occupy protested against Wall Street, the neolibcons came together and both efforts were crushed.
The neolibcons trot out the "apologist" attack (among other attacks) against anybody that points out that we and/or our "allies" are just as bad if not worse than our "enemies".
It is reinforced by the establishment in both parties, and by the corporate media that does their bidding. It is reinforced by the curriculum in our schools, using books that go through THEIR approval process.
Look at what The Stig wrote about in his comments on the vote counts for the Iran deal.
A perfect example on display.
It's not a vast secret conspiracy, it's done openly with "conventional wisdom" leading the way. It's an ideology shared by most of those with power and those in powerful positions.
And CW explained very well on the "About Chris" page why he didn't want to call this website conventional wisdom.
It isn't serving us well.
Al,
You bring up the BLM, argue it's not a racist hate group, which it clearly is.. I give you the FACTS that prove that and then you go silent on the issue..
‘Black Lives Matter’—but Reality, Not So Much
The movement was founded on a falsehood. Scapegoating the police ignores the true threats to the urban poor.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/black-lives-matterbut-reality-not-so-much-1441755075
Then you try to take me on on the terrorism issue, on how the US and Israel are terrorist nations and when you are called on it and asked to define terrorism, you bail once again...
Don't get me wrong. A concession is a concession whether it is verbalized or not...
I just would have thought someone who appears to be so sure of themselves would man up and concede the point, rather than just slink away and do the blogosphere equivalent of sticking one's fingers in their ears and saying, "Nyaaa Nyaaaa I'm ignoring you!!"
'S ok, though.. I am used to it.. As I said, a concession is a concession either by commission or omission... :D
Peace Out.. :D
Michale
Al[246]
That helps me understand where you are coming from. Thanks.
In future, if I happen to use one of your code words (such as apologist), know that it is not coming from any sort of ideological bent because I don't have one. My analysis is based solely on what makes sense to me after gathering as much info as I can from all sides of an issue.
In future, if I happen to use one of your code words (such as apologist), know that it is not coming from any sort of ideological bent because I don't have one. My analysis is based solely on what makes sense to me after gathering as much info as I can from all sides of an issue.
Hay now! That's MY argument!!! :D
"I'm fatter....er.. flattered..."
-Eddie Murphy, THE NUTTY PROFESSOR
:D
Michale
Hi again Liz
Just saw your follow-up
I think I addressed most of it in my previous comment... but here's a bit more.
I don't feel that you attacked me.
They did.
No worries on my end, if you can recognize that I wasn't holding you responsible for doing their bidding. Like I admitted, none of us are free from their influence. In other words, I'm not attacking you either.
Conventional wisdom permeates every aspect of our lives... and even I can't be perpetually skeptical and cynical...
... yes, I'm making fun of myself but I'm also being serious.
But to clarify my previous post, it's not a coincidence that the Five Eyes NSA program exists. It's not a coincidence that the Global Community is heavily skewed to the same ideology espoused by this conventional wisdom... yes, even Canada, which you seem to be well aware of going by your back and forth with Michale.
I am not blind that other governments in the world do horrible things sometimes.
I am not disagreeing that "it is entirely possible to be critical of US foreign policy while at the same time understanding what the international community must do to reign in bad behavior by many of the regional players in the Middle East"
But, the context of the CIA coup in Iran, the false accusation against Assad in the Hariri case, the general double standards about nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, wars of aggression, support for oppressive dictators and monarchs and proxies...
... that context deserves a seat at the table in all discussions about the regional players in the ME.
It's just putting ourselves into their shoes.
So yes, we should criticize and reign in bad behavior. In Iran, in Syria, and in Libya... but also in Saudi Arabia, in Israel, in Egypt and of course our own.
And if our own bad behavior doesn't merit a death sentence, and the bad behavior of our "allies" doesn't merit a death sentence, then we should reconsider if Syria, Iraq, Iran and Libya merit or merited a death sentence.
Because we've been pretty quick to reach those death sentence verdicts, and again, in context, the evidence hasn't been very convincing... and that's quite an understatement in some cases.
It's just putting ourselves into their shoes.
That's like putting Dr MLK into Ted Bundy's shoes...
It's completely and utterly ridiculous...
Until you can come up with a SINGLE instance of US State Sanctioned terrorism and how you DEFINE terrorism, your arguments are completely and utterly without merit...
"These are the facts.. And they are undisputed..."
-Captain 'Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN
Michale
Michale
If I'm busy answering Liz and walking my dog, you really shouldn't jump to the false conclusion that I am conceding.
I'm about to go do some other things too, so go ahead and plan your victory parade, just know that I think, and I would guess most everybody else would agree, that you are operating in an alternate universe that doesn't quite match our reality.
If I'm busy answering Liz and walking my dog, you really shouldn't jump to the false conclusion that I am conceding.
But if you have a habit of starting a debate and then bailing when the facts are obvious, then the conclusion is painfully obvious.. :D
If you could take the time to throw out red herrings, you could take the time to post what you THINK terrorism is.
The fact that you don't simply proves my conclusion is accurate....
Michale
Example:
I make the claim that Iran is THE Number 1 State Sponsor of Terrorism and I back it up with US State Department and Wikipedia Links..
I make the claim that Syria is THE Number 2 State Sponsor of Terrorism and I back it up with US State Department and Wikipedia Links..
You make the claim that the US and Israel are state sponsors of terrorism.
NO SUBSTANTIATION whatsoever..
I ask you to define what terrorism is...
NO RESPONSE whatsoever..
So, the ONLY logical conclusion is that you are talking out your ass....
"I don't understand your hostility. I merely point out that the facts show you to be a liar."
-Commander Spock, STAR TREK, The Alternative Factor...
Michale
"Don't ever cross brains with Spock. He'll cut you to pieces every time.."
-Sulu, STAR TREK, Where No Man Has Gone Before
:D
Michale
Al,
No worries on my end, if you can recognize that I wasn't holding you responsible for doing their bidding. Like I admitted, none of us are free from their influence...
So, in other words, though I am doing their bidding, I am not responsible for it because, like everyone else, I am not free from their influence??
Is that what you're saying about my take on what we are discussing here? Please, say it ain't so, otherwise my feathers will be very seriously ruffled! :)
Heh
I almost feel sorry for Al... :D
Michale
And so it begins....
Exclusive: Russian troops join combat in Syria - sources
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/09/us-mideast-crisis-syria-exclusive-idUSKCN0R91H720150909
The Obama's "reset" with Russia is complete....
Completely DOA....
Michale
Al,
OK, let's take what you have already said and examine what your possible definition of terrorism could be..
First, let me give you the definition of terrorism as defined by operators in the field..
"Terrorism is defined as ongoing and systematic attacks of violence specifically targeted against innocent civilian/non-combatant persons or property for the purpose of furthering a political, economical or ideological agenda."
Note that the definition is completely objective and doesn't get into semantics and subjective terminology like "illegal", "unlawful" and other such subjective terminology. It also doesn't rely on emotionalism like "horrible" and "terrifying" etc etc...
Also, keep in mind that, while INTENT plays a big part in what is and is not terrorism, there are other factors as well..
Using this definition, an argument can be made that the 9/11 attacks on the Pentagon was not an act of terrorism because the target was a legitimate military target.. However, in this case, the choice of delivery indicates that it was a terrorist act.. If a terrorist had flown a plane into the pentagon where he was the only one in the plane, that would have clearly been a legitimate attack against a legitimate military target...
Another prime example of mis-labeling of terrorism was the Fort Hood shooting.. Being that the target was soldiers, it was clearly not a terrorist attack...
Now, the only example you gave of YOUR definition of terrorism was the Second Gulf War... Your phrasing would indicate that, because Iraqis were terrorized, THAT made it terrorism..
So, in your definition, all that is needed is that someone is terrorized...
So, by YOUR (apparent) definition, Hurricane Katrina was an act of terrorism, because certainly the people of the Gulf Coast were scared shitless...
Taking your (apparent) definition a step further, anyone who wants or intends to terrify people is a terrorist..
So that means all the actors and producers and directors of BLAIR WITCH PROJECT are, obviously, terrorists because that movie scared the hell out of a lot of people. Myself included..
And, since the INTENT was to terrorize, then that means all the people associated with the movie were terrorists..
Of course, in real life, Desert Storm II was not a terrorist attack but a legitimate military operation.. The advisability of the war is debatable to be sure...
But terrorism??
Not even close..
Let's turn to Israel..
Another common mis-labeling of a terrorist attack is the King David Hotel attack of 1946. Israel Bashers just *LOVE* to throw this one out as proof positive that Israel was borne of terrorism..
Of course, the facts say different...The Irgun tried everything possible to minimize innocent casualties...
But the main reason that the KDH was not a terrorist attack is because, at the time, it was the British Regional Military Headquarters...
That made ANY attack on the KDH a legitimate attack because an enemy HQ is a legitimate military target...
I could go on and on about this subject (and often do!! :D) because I lived, slept, ate, drank and breathed CT for over 2 decades...
You want to go shot for shot on what is and is not terrorism, I will be HAPPY to oblige you... But you'll find that, if you come armed with hysterical emotionalism rather than cold hard objective facts, you will lose... Every time...
Class dismissed...
Professor Michale
Hi Liz
Yeah, my wording conveyed an association that unintentionally ruffled your feathers...
I am sure that you independently came up with the non-attack use of "apologist" and that its' frequent usage by others did not have any effect on your language whatsoever.
I don't think that sounds sincere, or that it will smooth your feathers. So, what can I say?
I think very highly of you.
A little incident of infiltration via osmosis doesn't change that.
There is a saying... some may even call it a rule-
Only a fool would fail to adopt a good idea simply because it was not their own.
Infiltration by osmosis, eh?
Now, I know you're just trying to push my buttons. :)
Hi Michale
Just finished up the things that needed doing and I am now ready to prioritize your needs.
Well, you may have noticed, I prioritized a response to Liz first.
But don't read that the wrong way.
I just like her better.
It's nothing business, it's just personal.
Wait.
Hold on.
I have a little piece of lint on my shirt.
Got it.
So now I am ready to prioritize your needs.
Where to begin.
I guess you're retired and have all day to spend here, so I understand how somebody checking in during a short break after lunch may lead you to jump to another wrong conclusion.
I hope your victory parade was loads of fun.
Send me some pictures.
OK.
Since you just went ahead and created a straw man to argue with, and since definitions aren't exactly one of your strong points, and since you generally just ignore what I say anyway, I'll just touch base on the "terrorism" thing.
The war in Iraq was an illegal war of aggression.
The legal justifications for it were fabricated lies, thus the war qualifies as a war crime.
A war crime that terrorized millions.
Hurricane Katrina was none of those things.
The Blair Witch Project was one of the lamest "horror" movies ever, and you are the first "scared the hell out of" person I've come across.
But your point still doesn't make any sense.
Your "interpretation" of the definition of terror you helpfully provided that exempts our actions and those of our allies is amusing.
Very clever.
"How's that working out for you... being clever?"- Fight Club
And very original too.
Oh so very original.
You think our war in Iraq was unintentional?
You think the lies were fabricated unintentionally?
You think our war in Iraq was apolitical?
You think the war in Iraq was free of ideological influence?
You think Iraqis victimized by an illegal war of aggression are combatants that can be legally targeted?
Very, very, very, very, very unconvincing.
Ditto Israel.
Ditto Saudi Arabia.
Ditto our regime change effort in Syria using proxies on our own list of terror organizations.
Just out of curiosity, do you know where to look up the lists of terror orgs that other countries compile?
Or is there only one?
Moving on.
I am oh so pleased that you found a voice in the echo chamber to validate your BLM beliefs.
I am flabbergasted that someone at such a respected liberal media outlet like the WSJ would independently reach the same conclusions as you... oh, wait.
I actually mean miss the point just like you.
What was I thinking?
You may want to deny that how law enforcement treats the black community isn't a problem.
Not sure why you want to deny it.
But you do.
I've read more than enough reports, seen more than enough video, and noticed more large financial settlements getting paid out by taxpayers as compensation for unjustified police violence than I want.
It is a problem.
The fact that other problems also exist doesn't change that reality.
Did I miss anything?
Because I promise to prioritize you needs just as... oh... never mind.
Heh.
I just knew you would like it here. :)
But, you're wrong about The Blair Witch Project ... that was THE lamest "horror" movie ever. Of course, it didn't pass my 15-minute test so I didn't see most of it.
Hi Liz
Unfortunately, I've seen a few others that rank up there in the lame category.
A
Do you have a favourite horror flick, Al - I mean, one that scares the you know what out of ya?
I've been reading Chris's work for years.
And I'll say this. I don't comment here because of Michale and his innane ravings and his blatant trolling of people who disagree with his poorly sourced arguments.
I'll just say this. The reason "liberals" are more offended by gays being denied rights in the US than they are gays being executed in Iran is because they live in the US, and they have the ability to actually affect US policy. Beyond that, the US is supposed to be better than that; we hold ourselves up to a higher moral code.
There was nothing that could be done in these negotiations about their religious fundamentalism.
After reading all of these comments, you never gave a solid response for what you think SHOULD be done. All I saw was a single negative response about not legitimizing Iran.
That's not a policy.
I'll not be commenting again, but Chris, if you read these, Michale is toxic and drives off many people who might otherwise become active on this site.
The war in Iraq was an illegal war of aggression.
The legal justifications for it were fabricated lies, thus the war qualifies as a war crime.
A war crime that terrorized millions.
Wrong... Wrong... Irrelevant...
The war in Iraq was duly authorised by Congress... Ergo, it was not illegal..
The legal justification (there, you said it yourself.. LEGAL) for it was mistaken intel... 3 BiPartisan Commissions (2 in the US, one in the UK) determined that there was no intentional lies, just faulty intelligence.. Being wrong does not a lie make. I mean, it's not as if Bush said, "If you like your health plan, you can KEEP your health plan" knowing full well that this was not true... THAT was a lie..
War is terrorising?? Ya don't say?? Of course it is. Once again, you say that because you read it some where.. I KNOW it because I have been there and done that..
But how is that common knowledge relevant to the issue of terrorism??
Hurricane Katrina was none of those things.
Hurricane Katrina wasn't terrorizing?? Ahhh the ignorance... :D
Did I miss anything?
Because I promise to prioritize you needs just as... oh... never mind.
Yea.. you missed EVERYTHING...
Define terrorism...
Name ONE terrorist act committed by the government of the US..
Name ONE terrorist act committed by the government of Israel..
Name ONE terrorist act committed by the government of Saudi Arabia...
Or, you can do what is par for your course and do a Brave Sir Robin impression... :D
Yer dismissed.. :D
Michale
Your "interpretation" of the definition of terror you helpfully provided that exempts our actions and those of our allies is amusing.
Very clever.
Actually, that is the accepted definition of counter-terrorism professionals the world over..
But, of course, you can't be expected to know that.... :D
I noticed that YOUR definition is absent.. Why is that?? Cowardice?? ;D
Afraid to go on the record because you know how wrong you are??
What was I thinking?
You actually THINK??
Who knew.... :D
Michale
The legal justifications for it were fabricated lies, thus the war qualifies as a war crime.
I would LOVE to see the legal justification for this hysterical piece of BS spewage...
Jeeze, look who I am asking for substantiation.. :^/
Michale
I am oh so pleased that you found a voice in the echo chamber to validate your BLM beliefs.
Not "beliefs", son... FACTS.
Do you know the NUMBER 1 killer of black people between the ages of 15 and 34??
Black people...
When accounting for population density, upwards of 70% of abortions are of black babies...
A black man, Sam Duboes, a scumbag who tried to kill a cop in Cincinnati and got shot in the head for his troubles, left behind 34 kids by 14 different women...
Apparently, black lives don't matter a crap to the racist hate group BLM... They only want to attack white people...
The very definition of a racist hate group, no different than the Democrat Party's KKK....
"These are the facts.... And they are undisputed."
-Kevin Bacon, A FEW GOOD MEN
Michale
http://sjfm.us/temp/cw-commentary4.jpg
Read 'em and weep, sonny... :D
Michale
Barely 20% of Americans support Obama's Iran giveaway...
What IS it about the Demcorat Party that they ALWAYS do the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the American people want??
Michale
Despite the lack of evidence that there is an increase in cops shooting blacks, let alone shooting blacks unlawfully, a few recent killings of blacks by cops has spawned the so-called Black Lives Matter movement. But over the past 45 years, per the Centers for Disease Control, police killings of blacks are down 75 percent. What are on the increase, year-to-year, are cop killings.
The No. 1 preventable cause of death of young black males is homicide -- usually at the hands of other blacks. The primary cause of preventable death among young white males is auto accidents.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/09/10/black_lives_matter_getting_blacks_killed_128039.html
The facts are mounting....
Michale
Michale
Your reading comprehension really is awful.
Go back and examine comment 270.
Or is it intentional?
Votes by Congress do not override treaties we have ratified... so a war of aggression is not legal due to authorization by Congress. Very sloppy Micha.
The "faulty intelligence" claim is just pathetic since the "intelligence" was produced by the war criminals who ignored the actual intelligence created by intelligence professionals... you know, the people the war criminals and you are using as scapegoats.
And, you really don't see the parallel with cops investigating (and clearing) guilty cops?
Still waiting for that link to the lists of state sponsors of terrorism that other countries compile.
You don't get to decide what BLM is about.
Get over that reality.
Your opinion of what it should be about is meaningless.
And, as you seem incapable of retaining this fact, I will repeat it once again... BLM is not just about cops killing black people.
In fact, their proposals would increase the professionalism of law enforcement to the benefit of everyone.
But that requires acknowledging there's a problem, and you would rather stick your head in the sand... or rather, attack people trying to address the problem...
... and why is that again?
Hi Liz
Sorry I missed your comment earlier.
You asked a tough question.
Because it really only applies to the first time you see a horror movie.
So, thinking back, here's my top five that got me good... scariest first
The Thing
Jaws
Re-animator
The Brood (that one's a bit obscure)
Rabid (a Canadian film eh)
The classics (by that I mean the old ones not cult classics) never got my blood pumping.
The Shining, The Exorcist, The Omen, Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street and a few others could have made the list, but the top five just lingered longer... days, weeks, months... I still can't swim in the ocean at night without thinking of Jaws, so it could be number one, but it was also more predictable than The Thing.
Votes by Congress do not override treaties we have ratified... so a war of aggression is not legal due to authorization by Congress.
Uhh.. Yes it is... Congress has the power to declare war..
War was declared...
Still waiting for that link to the lists of state sponsors of terrorism that other countries compile.
Still waiting for you to define terrorism and point to terrorist acts committed by the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia governments..
You don't get to decide what BLM is about.
Of course, I "get" what BLM is about. It's a racist hate group, no different than the Democrat Party's KKK..
These are the facts... And the only ones who dispute the facts are BLM racists themselves and you..
BLM is not just about cops killing black people.
In fact, their proposals would increase the professionalism of law enforcement to the benefit of everyone.
So, it IS just about cops...
Why doesn't BLM address the black on black homicides which is THE number one killer of black people??
Answer. Because BLM is a racist hate group..
Michale
The Thing
Which one?? The original or the prequel??
But it really wasn't THAT scary... BWP was much worse..
The Brood (that one's a bit obscure)
The only really scary part of BROOD was when that guy walked out his front door and was grabbed from the side by a friend.. Other than that, it was pretty lame.. : D
Michale
Lemme lay a little reality on ya, Big Al... :D
IF BLM was a legitimate activist group, then it's focus would be on the de-valuation of black lives... IE "Black Lives MATTER"....
If this were the case, blacks being killed by cops is way way way WAY WAY WAY down on the priority list... less than 1% way down on the priority list..
Black on black violence is THE number one killer of blacks age 15 to 34... Black abortions are in the tens, if not hundreds of thousands.....
By comparison, cops killing blacks (which has gone DOWN 75% in the last 10 years) is non-existent...
The simple fact that the BLM group concentrates on this obscure and meaningless stat PROVES that it is a racist hate group...
Class dismissed...
Michale
By the by... Are you ever going to concede you were wrong about Iran being the NUMBER 1 State Sponsor of terrorism??
Michale
You don't get to decide what BLM is about.
As far as getting to decide, I don't have to... Many MANY in the black community have already decided what BLM is all about..
They are a detriment to the black community and are actually PART of the problem, not part of the solution...
Michale
But that requires acknowledging there's a problem, and you would rather stick your head in the sand...
That's actually funny, because it's the BLM racist hate group that is sticking their heads in the sand, as you are..
Let me lay some numbers on you...
Say 10,000 black people are killed by homicide in a year... The number is actually closer to 8000-9000 but let's go with 10,000...
Of those 10,000 black people killed by homicide every year, EIGHTY are killed by cops..
FRAKIN' EIGHTY!!!! POINT ZERO EIGHT PERCENT..
Now, out of those 10,000 black people killed by homicide every year, NINE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED are killed by other black people..
NINE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED
And the BLM racist hate group IGNORES the 9,600 and goes with the 80...
And you accuse *ME* of "sticking my head in the sand"?? I have never asked this of any Weigantian, but I am forced to ask this now..
Are you frakin' INSANE!!!?????
On WHAT planet in WHAT universe is it logical and rational to IGNORE almost 10,000 deaths and concentrate on 80 deaths??
These death stats don't even account for all the black abortions done in the US, upwards of 70% when accounting for racial density.. In Mississippi, black people make up only 34% of the population, yet they account for 64% of the abortions...
If black lives TRULY mattered to the racist morons of the BLM, then the black on black homicide rate and the rate of black babies aborted would be THE only discussion to have...
But you can't attack white people over THOSE factors, so the racist hate group ignores them...
These are the facts that you continue to ignore...
Michale
http://sjfm.us/temp/cw-commentary5.jpg
Do you know how I know that I am dead on ballz accurate about the BLM being a racist hate group??
Because not a SINGLE Weigantian has ever questioned it..
As has adequately been proven, if I am off the reservation on statements, I am called on it.. Usually by more than one Weigantian...
The simple fact that no one here questions the facts or the conclusions is nearly proof-positive of the accuracy...
Michale
Still waiting for that link to the lists of state sponsors of terrorism that other countries compile.
Why should I care what other countries compile?? What relevance does it have??
Still waiting for you to address these questions...
Do you believe that the Holocaust happened??
Do you believe that the US or Israel had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks??
Do you believe that astronauts from the US actually walked on the moon??
Michale
So, apparently your reading comprehension, or lack thereof, is intentional.
That's not a straightforward approach to debate or life. Some would call it dishonest.
I see you are attempting the "conspiracy theorist" attack once again... also pathetic.
But, no.
An illegal war of aggression remains an illegal war of aggression despite a declaration of war by Congress.
The US remains bound by the Geneva Conventions.
I'm not surprised you believe US law is supreme, since you dive into the shallow end of that pool regularly.
My previous comments on BLM answer your delusional rants... no need to retype them.
There's a little arrow to scroll up if your memory is failing too.
Oops, forgot.
You are definitely "off the reservation"... among other things... on just about every position you take.
I wouldn't assume that a failure to respond means anything more or less than not being taken seriously.
You should definitely keep assuming that though.
An illegal war of aggression remains an illegal war of aggression despite a declaration of war by Congress.
Yea, you keep saying that..
Yet it's as much bullshit now as the first time you said it..
PROVE it..
The US remains bound by the Geneva Conventions.
So???
My previous comments on BLM answer your delusional rants... no need to retype them.
Your only comments on BLM is that it is not a racist hate group.. I have already PROVEN that false...
You have absolutely NO FACTS to support your bullshit claim...
I wouldn't assume that a failure to respond means anything more or less than not being taken seriously.
Yea, I know you ASSUME that... You know what happens when you make an assumption??
You make an ASS out of YOU and UMPTION...
Silence gives assent, son.. :D
But, thanks for playing... You are WAY out of your league here..
Michale
Votes by Congress do not override treaties we have ratified...
Yer kidding, right??
So, what you are saying is that, once Congress ratifies a treaty, that treaty is in effect in perpetuity.. That it could NEVER be rescinded or changed or altered in ANY way..
Is THAT the load of bovine feces you are trying to shovel???
Get over it, Al.. The First Iraq War was a bi-partisan war that was fully legal and fully authorized in a bi-partisan manner by the United States Congress..
I get it.. You are one of those Blame America First And Always type activists..
But that's not going to fly around here.. Not while *I* am around, at any rate.. :D
You are WAY outclassed here, son... :D
Michale
But, you're wrong about The Blair Witch Project ... that was THE lamest "horror" movie ever. Of course, it didn't pass my 15-minute test so I didn't see most of it.
Then you definitely missed out..
The last 5 minutes were BRUTAL....
I guarantee you that, if you watched it, you would not sleep good for a week...
Michale
BLM is not just about cops killing black people.
In fact, their proposals would increase the professionalism of law enforcement to the benefit of everyone.,
Really???
CopCams benefit EVERYONE???
You DO realize that, once a video is taken, it becomes PUBLIC record and ANYONE can ask and receive ANY video footage??
So, if you get arrested and there is video footage of that arrest, I can get that footage and see you in all your glory..
I know, I know.. No biggie...
Suppose some sick pervert who get's off on seeing rape victims decides he want's to build a library of rape victim interviews...
You really need to THINK before you strike, Al..
You make things WAY too easy...
Michale
Right over your head as usual Micha.
Funny how on most issues you never seem to convince anyone and yet you claim to dominate.
What thought process allows such behavior?
Funny how on most issues you never seem to convince anyone and yet you claim to dominate.
Funny how you totally ignore the facts and try to make everything about me..
What thought process, besides ignorance, allows such behavior??
Like I said.. Too easy... :D
Michale
Speaking of skipping things..
I noticed how you skipped over the fact that police body cams are NOT good for "everyone" even though you claimed that they were..
You were wrong and you just can't admit it..
Michale