At least on THAT subject! :D

Michale

When are you people going to understand...

It's the BLACK community that is suffering DIRECTLY due to the actions of racist hate groups like BLM...

The facts about the BlackLivesMatter racist hate group..

The facts about the BlackLivesMatter racist hate group..

It's actually contributing to the deaths of innocent black people...

Michale

The facts about the BlackLivesMatter racist hate group..

It's actually contributing to the deaths of innocent black people...

"These are the facts. And they are undisputed.."
-Kevin Bacon, A FEW GOOD MEN

Michale

Me too.. I'll let you get in the last word...

"Just for that, I'll let you get in the last word."
"THANK YOU!"
"Your welcome"
-M*A*S*H

:D

Michale

Your OpEd was 3 years ago...

Put it another way...

Postulate a scenario where Britian or France gave Russia or China high technology totally stealth ICBMs..

And then said, "There is no daylight between us and the security of the United States..."

Their words say one thing but their actions say the exact opposite..

So it is with Obama.. He CLAIMS to support Israeli security... But he guarantees that Israel's mortal enemy will have a nuclear arsenal in less than 2 decades...

Actions speak louder than words...

Michale

And if the New York Times or any other source says there is no daylight between Obama and Israel's security than they would be wrong..

It's uncanny how, more often than not, it works both ways! :D

Michale

If FoxNews, or any other source, says that the military/intel support that Israel has received from the US under the Obama administration isn't the most it has received under any previous administration, then they would be wrong.

I am also constrained to point out that THAT was from 2012..

Before Obama screwed over Israel in favor of his newest BFF, Iran...

Be interesting to hear that Haim Saban's opinion now...

Michale

Not even close.. :D heh

Michale

And I could quote FoxNews that will say just the opposite.. :D

But, but, but ... you're the one that said our little discussion is over!! :)

And yet, here we are.. :D

The debate IS over.. You have your "facts" and I have reality.. And neither is going to budge so we have only what the future holds to show who was right and who was wrong...

Kinda like the 2014 Mid Terms.. :D

I am content to wait and be proven right.. :D

Michale

That wasn't both barrels, was it? :)

Read it and weep, Michale ... but, not for Israel! For your own weak arguments that are not factually based.

Prove it.. Show me Israel's receipt of the new F-35 AWTF.... :D

Kerry has SAID that Obama will do it...

It has yet to be done.. And, my guess is, when BiBi goes it alone in taking on Iran, Obama will renege on what Kerry has said...

Well, that's typical, coming from the side of losing arguments. :)

No... What's typical is that the losing side just runs away and hides, licking their wounds...

THAT is what is typical of the losing side around here.. :D

And you DON'T see me, nor will you EVER see me run and hide, let alone have any wounds to lick.. :D

Michale

Well, that's typical, coming from the side of losing arguments. :)

In reality, he has actually done it!

It legitimizes Iran...

It COMPLETELY ignores everything that makes Iran a scumbag fanatical despotic state and welcomes them onto the world stage with open arms...

It would be as if Hitler survived WWII and the US ignored everything that the Reich leadership had done and made a deal with that leadership..

THAT is your JCPOA.

And that is why I will never EVER think it's a good deal...

And I am certain that the future will prove me right..

The only uncertainty is how many innocent lives Obama's ego and the Left's preservation of same is going to cost..

Michale

And Obama can say whatever he wants about arming Israel..

Doesn't mean he will actually do it..

Which proves me right about Obama throwing Israel and the region under the bus..

It works both ways..

Do you have ANY evidence to support the claim that SA *won't* pursue a nuclear arsenal???

No you do not..

Ergo, their stated position stands as factual..

Only the experts who make sense are worth listening to, Michale.

In other words, only the experts that say what you already agree with...

Which proves my point...

:D

Look, it's a moot point..

You won.. Obama won..

This country, Israel, the Middle East and the world have lost..

That's the end of it...

Michale

Unfortunately, not all of us have the ability to make that distinction.

Saudi Arabia can say whatever it wants to say, it doesn't make it so, as I fully explained in [239].

Wait a second ... 239!!!

Yea... I can see that. :D

I just have an ability to judge what makes sense and what doesn't. The report you cite is simply not persuasive.

But... But.... But...

It's by "EXPERTS!!!" It HAS to make sense!!

Ahhhh.. Only the experts that agree with ya are "really" experts... :D

Michale

So, we are in agreement.. The JCPOA is setting off an arms race... In THE most volatile area of the planet..

And how is that a good thing??

These kinds of assurances that the US is providing to Israel and to the GCC and its member states is precisely what the US should be doing, among other things, and what you have always said the Obama administration would not do.

The fact that Obama *HAS* to do such things to counter Iran PROVES how bad the JCPOA deal actually is..

Guess I was proven right.. :D

And, I am also constrained to point out that Saudi Arabia has "said" they will pursue a nuclear arsenal..

So, if you stick with what Obama has "said" about importing more arms into the region, then you HAVE to concede what SA "said" about pursuing a nuclear arsenal is also valid..

And THERE is your nuclear proliferation...

Michale

Actually, I don't have an ideology. Seriously!

I just have an ability to judge what makes sense and what doesn't. The report you cite is simply not persuasive.

Well, I hope you're not saying that the NK situation is just like the Iran situation because, there are important differences.

Most critically, lessons were in fact learned by the NK situation and that is why we have the Additional Protocol and strengthening of the NPT.

You can't say that the JCPOA is anything like the NK agreement ... no way, no how!

When you are talking about the annihilation of an ENTIRE country, the 'what if's and the 'could be's take on special significance..

Maybe it would be more important to the Left if Israel was full of gay people or illegal immigrants.. :^/

So, the warnings that the authors of this report give about a cascade of nuclear weapons acquistions in the Middle East do not strike me as being particularly reality-based.

Of course they don't... That's because they are saying something your ideology doesn't want to hear....

But, given the violent nature of the fanatical Iranian regime, isn't it better to err on the side of caution???

I mean, if I am wrong, Iran gets slapped around some more..

If you are wrong, Tel Aviv goes up in a nuclear cloud...

Of the two possibilities, which is worse?? :^/

What it all boils down to is that the Left chose Obama's ego over the safety of Israel and the region..

That's the entire debate in a nutshell...

Michale

Of course, there is an arms race in the Middle East as a result of the JCPOA. I told you about this when we first started discussing the Iran nuclear deal.

These kinds of assurances that the US is providing to Israel and to the GCC and its member states is precisely what the US should be doing, among other things, and what you have always said the Obama administration would not do. I guess this means that you have been proven wrong, my friend!

Police said an employee at an Arby’s located at 11755 Pines Blvd denied the uniformed officer service on Monday night. According to police, the officer was denied service because she was a police officer.
The manager allegedly laughed about it and said the clerk was allowed to refuse to serve the officer.
That’s when the officer said she was unsure about the condition of her food, decided not to eat there and asked for a refund, the report states.
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2015/09/02/pd-pines-officer-denied-service-at-arbys/

The officer should have said she was a lesbian... Then these scumbags would have fallen all over themselves to serve her...

Isn't it funny how it's the Left Wingers who say, "We have the right to refuse service to anyone", but the Right get threatened and condemned when they use the same reasoning..

Pure unadulterated hypocrisy....

Michale

This report, by the way, is a product of the Iran Security Council, part of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) though there is a disclaimer that the opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the opinions of JINSA.

The report says,

"The United States’ regional allies have already voiced serious concerns about the strategic implications of the JCPOA for their own security and what it says about the perceived willingness of the United States to abandon the decades-old balance of power and its leadership in the region. Most importantly, Saudi Arabian officials, despite accepting the deal, have explicitly threatened – and other regional allies have suggested – they would pursue their own nuclear arsenals in response to Iran attaining nuclear weapons. Many of us have served in the region, and we take those remarks very seriously. Unlike in the Cold War, when the spread of nuclear weapons among U.S. allies reinforced deterrence, a proliferation cascade in the Middle East would undermine it, with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Israel and potentially others trapped in an inherently unstable multilateral nuclear imbalance. "

The authors of this report base their assessment on what ifs and could be's and essentially ignore the political and technical challenges that would very likely prevent a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

No middle eastern nation currently has the technical ability to develop a nuclear weapon on its own. And, countries like Saudi Arabia that threaten to acquire a nuclear weapons capability if Iran does are so heavily dependent on the United States and others for their security that any hint of behavior in this regard will be met with a very strong disincetive coming from the West.

Of course, there are things that the West can do to reduce and eliminate any chance that Middle Eastern regimes would act to acquire nuclear weapons, including continuing to provide help to these regimes in terms of their civil nuclear energy programs and in developing an international fuel bank for nuclear energy programs.

So, the warnings that the authors of this report give about a cascade of nuclear weapons acquistions in the Middle East do not strike me as being particularly reality-based.

Kerry Promises Israel, Saudis Money In Wake of Iran Nuclear Deal
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/kerry-promises-israel-saudis-money-in-wake-of-iran-nuclear-deal/

Shirley you jest... :D

Michale

There are no consequences...

No incentive to adhere to the agreement...

Israel, the region and the world will simply have to trust the good intentions of the fanatical Iranian leadership...

Yea... Great deal... :^/

Michale

Yea... That's what Clinton said about North Korea...

Guess what??

It didn't work....

Why anyone thinks that fanatical regimes will actually FOLLOW agreements is beyond me...

Michale

http://sjfm.us/temp/cw-commentary2.jpg

Michale

That depends on what you consider "threshold"...

By some accounting, Iran could be considered a "threshold" state as soon as it decided to build a nuclear arsenal..

The JCPOA rolls back the Iranian nuclear program and increases the break out time (the time it would take Iran to compile enough fissile material for one nuclear weapon) to more than a year, much longer yet to actually weaponize that material, for at least 15 years,

For ONLY 15 years..

At the end of the 15 year span, all things being equal, Iran would be weeks away from a nuclear arsenal..

Iran's behavior in the region has not decreased under the most muscular sanctions regime ever placed on a country and the funds that will be available to Iran under the sanctions relief of the JCPOA will not inordinately change this equation,

Not according to Obama. Obama and his administration has already stated that the funds Iran garner from the JCPOA will go into their terrorism activities...

Meanwhile, the US along with its regional and international partners will not be sitting idly by with their collective hands tied behind their backs by the JCPOA with regard to stopping and preventing Iran's non-nuclear destabilizing actions in the region.

Prove it....

Give me ONE statement from Obama that indicates what the US will do POST-JCPOA...

You can't because no such statement exists...

Obama HAS no AFTER-JCPOA plan...

The ONLY thing that Obama (and ya'all incidentally) have is "HOPE"...

And we know how well HOPE has worked out in the past...

The JCPOA was meant to deal solely with Iran's nuclear programme and that is what it does.

And, by ignoring the terrorism and other activities, Obama has given tacit approval to those activities...

Iran can state, with utter accuracy, that ALL their activities are US Approved.. Because, if the US didn't approve, they would have made it part of the deal...

De-facto approval...

Proof positive that Obama just cared about his legacy...

Michale

Over the next little while, I'd like to focus on a few exerpts from the Executive Summary of the report that your Washington Times article was based on:

"By allowing Iran to become a nuclear threshold state and enabling it to become more powerful and expand its influence and destabilizing activities – across the Middle East and possibly directly threatening the U.S. homeland – the JCPOA will place the United States in far worse position to prevent a nuclear Iran."

In reality, Iran is already a nuclear threshold state and has over the last several years substantially advanced its nuclear program.

The JCPOA rolls back the Iranian nuclear program and increases the break out time (the time it would take Iran to compile enough fissile material for one nuclear weapon) to more than a year, much longer yet to actually weaponize that material, for at least 15 years, with further restrictions on its nuclear program for 20 - 25 years with an improved NPT regime, indefinitely.

Iran's behavior in the region has not decreased under the most muscular sanctions regime ever placed on a country and the funds that will be available to Iran under the sanctions relief of the JCPOA will not inordinately change this equation, given the circumstances that the Iranian regime must operate in, domestically and internationally.

Meanwhile, the US along with its regional and international partners will not be sitting idly by with their collective hands tied behind their backs by the JCPOA with regard to stopping and preventing Iran's non-nuclear destabilizing actions in the region. The JCPOA was meant to deal solely with Iran's nuclear programme and that is what it does.

You like to listen to and quote the quotes of experts..

"The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) will enable Iran to increase support for terrorist and insurgent proxies, aggravate sectarian conflict and trigger both nuclear and conventional proliferation cascades."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/2/nuclear-deal-will-make-war-with-iran-more-likely-f/

You see, there are experts that don't agree with your experts..

One has to rely on common sense..

And common sense CLEARLY dictates that giving a country that is THE world's sponsor of terrorism hundreds of billions of dollars and a clear field in 15 years is the STOOPEDIST course of action possible..

Michale

#BlueLivesMatter

At least, to SOME people... :^/

Michale

Obama will have his Foreign Policy legacy...

A nuclear armed Iran...

Obama just guaranteed a war and a nuclear arms race in the Middle East

Congrats.... :^/

Michale

I see...

The US can't dictate to enemy regimes like Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. They Left gets all twitter-pated when the US tries that..

But the Left wants the US to dictate to our friends and allies??

You see what I mean by it's all nothing more than partisan ideology at work here...??

Michale

The above link provides a boatload of facts about how the House of Saud has sponsored terrorism

**PASSIVE** sponsorship....

As opposed to ACTIVE sponsorship.. Like Iran engages in..

Granted, PASSIVE sponsorship is still not a good thing..

But to compare it to IRAN's *ACTIVE* sponsorship??

You are comparing apples and orangutans...

To put it into context, you are comparing a person that goes out and murders people (IRAN) with the person who doesn't call 911 when they see someone being murdered...

You say what you say because you THINK it.. Because you read it somewhere..

I say what I say because I have been there and done that....

Personal experience is the difference that makes ALL the difference..

Now, I'll be the first to concede that my training, experience and expertise MAY be somewhat dated...

I have been out of the field for quite a number of years...

"But things in this life change very slowly if they ever change at all.."
-THE EAGLES, The Sad Cafe

Michale

What does ROMNEY have to do with any of this??

Jeezus, one too meenie martoonies???

Michale

That's your opinion and I respect that.. Even though it is borne of ideology and not fact... I know this from personal experience

Iran is a terrorist regime...

This is fact..

Iran was born out of a terrorist act...

This is also fact...

Obama's cuddling with and coddling of Iran won't change these basic facts..

Now, if you want to obfuscate the issue by claim OTHER regimes are terrorist regimes, fine... Factually, I know different, but I won't begrudge you for your ideology...

But it doesn't change the FACT that

A> Iran is a terrorist regime...

and

2> Iran was born from a terrorist act....

"These are the facts. And they are undisputed..."
-Captain 'Smilin' Jack Ross

Michale

I second you call for CW to cover the topic.

We'll see.

Keep trying, but I think it may be pointless.

It never ceases to amaze me how Mittens got it so wrong about who is actually in the entitled "give me" crowd that expects others to do the work and receive things for nothing.

I also think it's willful blindness, not tunnel vision.

I second you call for CW to cover the topic.

Michale,

The above link provides a boatload of facts about how the House of Saud has sponsored terrorism and is responsible for the spread of anti-American and anti-Jewish ideologies throughout the Middle East and beyond.

Iran is not the only or even the biggest cause for concern in the Middle East.

Actual time feet-dry was about a year as I was TDY a lot...

Michale

Does having served there for a couple years as a liaison to their intelligence services count??

I think the problem we have here is that there is no common frame of reference when it comes to the definition of terrorism..

Michale

So???

How is that evidence of SA *GOVERNMENT* involvement??

Answer: It's not...

It's like saying that some Americans go overseas to fight with (Oh Mighty) ISIS and because of that, the US is THE world's sponsor of terrorism..

It's taking a disparate fact and coming to a conclusion that is so far from reality as to be on a different planet in a different galaxy....

Iran's GOVERNMENT is a terrorist government.. It was formed by a terrorist act....

These are the facts that are indisputable...

Michale

Once you have educated yourself on the Saudi Arabia regime, then I would love to have an extended discussion with you on the subject of who are the sponsors of terrorism throughout the Middle East and beyond and what the US and international community are doing about it and what they should be doing about it.

In other words, you'll have to arm yourself with the basic facts on Saudi Arabia and its support for terrorism in the region and beyond before we can have a productive discussion about it.

I never knew that asking for facts is a "game"...

Color me surprised.. :D

I am not here to waste my time providing information that you should be putting the effort in to finding for yourself.

You made a claim that SA is a bigger world sponsor of terrorism against our friends than Iran is...

All I ask is that you substantiate the claim with some facts...

What could be simpler??

Michale

I don't see why...

Al mentioned substantiation above...

When I substantiated my facts and opinions, Al bailed from the debate and conceded by default..

Now, I am asking you to substantiate...

I am sure you KNOW that I won't run tail-tucked and hide when you do.. :D

Michale

Those "forces" are the Supreme Leader and the Republican Guard...

Obama had a chance to "sideline" those forces in 2009...

He blew it then....

What makes you think any moderate forces within the Iranian people will Obama has changed his support of the Fanatical Theological regime??

And, make no mistake, Obama DOES support the Fanatical Theological regime of Iran...

The JCPOA proves that beyond any doubt...

Obama opted for the Chamberlain/Hitler method rather than the Reagan/Gorbachev method....

Michale

By the way, that's hilarious, coming from you, Michale.

I don't play that game, Michale. Never have, never will, not when wholly spurious claims are made that betray a fundamental misunderstanding of what the reality is.

I am not here to waste my time providing information that you should be putting the effort in to finding for yourself.

I am here to discuss issues but I'll be damned if I'm going to start from the very beginning of any issue by providing the basic facts that we should all be armed with in the first place.

There are many *IN THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAN, UP TO **AND** INCLUDING IT'S SUPREME LEADER* who chant "death to Israel, death to America"....

There.. Fixed it for you....

The JCPOA can, potentially, go a long toward sidelining those forces in Iran, over the long term, if the US and the rest of the international community plays its cards right.

Wishful thinking. Nothing more...

The Friedman link does not say what you understand it to say. But, if this link is the sole source for your information on Saudi Arabia, you need to seriously reach out for more before you go around here claiming that Iran the THE world's sponsor of terrorism because that claim is not valid.

You, like Al above, continue to make claims..

Yet, like Al above, none are substantiated...

Give me FACTS that I can look at and evaluate....

Michale

As you know, I believe Iran is a destabilizing influence in the region.

To claim that Saudi Arabia is not is outrageously wrong-headed and really needs to be addressed by Chris as this is his blog, after all, and your false claims should not go unanswered by him.

So, Iran is the "good guys" and SA is the "bad guy"....Sorry, you will never convince me of that..
Address the fact that Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map and then we can talk about the other allegedly "valid" arguments..

Yes, there are many in Iran who chant "death to Israel, death to America" and there are still signs in that regard hanging from buildings in Iran.

The JCPOA can, potentially, go a long toward sidelining those forces in Iran, over the long term, if the US and the rest of the international community plays its cards right.

The Friedman link does not say what you understand it to say. But, if this link is the sole source for your information on Saudi Arabia, you need to seriously reach out for more before you go around here claiming that Iran the THE world's sponsor of terrorism because that claim is not valid.

Oh, it has been documented, alright ... go look it up! I'm not here to provide all of the information for you. I'm here to discuss it once you have it under your belt ...

That is the difference that makes ALL the difference...

Michale

Saudi Arabia is not...

Simple fact...

Michale

Then it shouldn't be too hard to document this, right? :D

Now, this is just another example, Michale, of your EXTREME tunnel vision and how you get stuck on one argument to the exclusion of all other valid arguments.

Address the fact that Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map and then we can talk about the other allegedly "valid" arguments..

You really should read that Friedman link. But, obviously, you shouldn't stop there!

So, Iran is the "good guys" and SA is the "bad guy"....

Sorry, you will never convince me of that..

Michale

You really should read that Friedman link. But, obviously, you shouldn't stop there!

Now, this is just another example, Michale, of your EXTREME tunnel vision and how you get stuck on one argument to the exclusion of all other valid arguments.

By the way, Israel can take care of itself with the unending and ever increasing help of the US and that is as it should be.

How do I break this to you gently other than to just come right out and say that the House of Saud aka the government of Saudi Arabia has the Iranian regime beat on this score by much more than a country mile, and then some ...

Please tell me you're joking.

Michale

That's because there is no rational challenge possible..

Where does Saudi Arabia fit on the odious ladder of support for terrorism and extremist ideology throughout the Middle East and, indeed, beyond?

For example....???

Here's a piece worth reading ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/opinion/thomas-friedman-our-radical-islamic-bff-saudi-arabia.html?ribbon-ad-idx=5&rref=opinion&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=article
... and then we'll discuss!

I really don't like to read links.. :D

Yes, many Saudi Arabians have become terrorists..

But that is a FAR FAR cry from the material, financial and military **GOVERNMENT** support Iran has given to the world's terrorists..

In other words, is Saudi Arabia the world's sponsor of terrorism because some Saudis have become terrorists??

No...

Is Iran a world's sponsor of terrorism because they give material, money and man power to a plethora of the world's terrorist groups??

Yes...

The Anti-Semitic Left can't argue the point with facts, so they argue with hysterical emotionalism that the point doesn't exist...

Just like the above issue with the racist hate group, BLM....

Present (some) company excepted, of course.. :D

Michale

Iran is THE world's sponsor of terrorism..

You keep repeating this mantra and none of us has really challenged you on its veracity.

Where does Saudi Arabia fit on the odious ladder of support for terrorism and extremist ideology throughout the Middle East and, indeed, beyond?

Why do you never call out the worldwide support for terrorism that Saudi Arabia provides in far greater magnitude than Iran ever has?

Here's a piece worth reading ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/opinion/thomas-friedman-our-radical-islamic-bff-saudi-arabia.html?ribbon-ad-idx=5&rref=opinion&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=article
... and then we'll discuss!

And, that's why I always add the bit about Rumsfeld living in the world of unknown unknowns whenever I quote the most profound statement he has ever made. :)

I don't think I've ever heard Nicholas Burns be so presumptuous as in that piece.

While I agree with the general gist of what he is saying and I believe we'll hear quite a lot about that from Obama in a major speech following the congressional votes on the JCPOA, it sounds like Burns is trying to appease the know-nothings in congress and, in so doing, simply setting up another scenario for a Middle East war.

I am usually more in sync with what Burns has to say about these matters but there is something in the tone of his piece in the NYTimes that just doesn't sit right with me.

Do you agree with EVERYTHING he's saying here?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/opinion/what-should-obama-do-next-on-iran.html?ref=opinion&_r=1

Once again, a good sober realistic plan that President Obama SHOULD follow vis a vis Iran..

A million quatloos says Obama won't...

He'll just rest on his "laurels" and let Iran kill as many innocent people as they want...

Michale

Victory by default...

Times Two :D

What the hell, I'll take it. :D

Michale

Oops on the misquote... close enough I guess.
And thanks.

Leave it to Rummy to ruin what would otherwise be something I could quote without puking.

And thanks for the link... read it when it was published. Didn't notice it at the time, but after rereading it, I got the impression that the article didn't quite include the whole story. Don't know if you picked up on that?

In point of fact, I did! Mostly because I don't think anyone - not even Karim Sadjadpour! - knows what the whole story is when it comes to Iran's known nuclear program, let alone its clandestine history. Thanks to the JCPOA, however, that particular situation should improve, substantially.

There are known knowns - things that we know that we know. There are known unknowns - things that we know that we don't know. And, there are unknown unknowns - things that we don't know that we don't know ... I can never resist that particular urge, whenever the opportunity presents. Heh. It was the most profound utterance ever made by Secretary Rumsfeld. Of course, he inhabited the world of the latter, most of the time. :)

Heh.

Actually, I believe the apt phrase was "a rationally thinking person". But, your positions have always seemed pretty reasonable to me. :)

I'm not sure I'd equate Iran with the US in the bad behavior department. As for the 2003 Iraq invasion, well, I believe Iran is still thanking the US for that one.

There is no hypocrisy or double standard..

Iran is a fanatical religious state who has stated on more than one occasion it's goal to wipe Israel from existence...

THAT is the reality...

What COMPLETE MORON would even think about allowing such a fanatical terrorist supporting state to create a nuclear arsenal??

Michale

Iran is THE world's sponsor of terrorism.. The US is not even in the club..

Iran executes people for the gay lifestyle...

(GT: {{DRINK}})

Yea.. The US is much worse than Iran.. :^/

Michale

For example.....??????

"You can PROVE that, right?? Oh yea, that's right.. I forgot. You were absent the day they taught LAW at Law School.."
-Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

:D

Michale

Per comment 177

Being opposed to nuclear weapons and nuclear energy, I believe every (ethical) effort should be made to prevent any new nuclear weapons powers from emerging and every effort made to convince everyone against using nuclear energy.

The threat of potential proliferation risks from nuclear energy programs seems like a pretty good reason for an anti-nuclear policy overall (on top of the other reasons), yet US policy is to not just pursue it, but to encourage it... selling reactors and fuel for profit.

As long as that remains the reality, I will rail against the hypocrisy and double standards.

The "Iran is a special case" argument is shoddy.
If you compare the "bad actions" of Iran against those of the US, we see further hypocrisy exposed. We've got them beat by a mile. Likewise with a comparison to our "allies" in the region.

If we were leading by example, I think your position would not only be enhanced, but the right position.

But we aren't.
Not on the nuclear issue.
Not on the instigators of violence to advance our interests issue.

Like you said, we are where we are.
We both support the deal.
I would hope that you can see my position also qualifies as "reasonable"... ouch btw!
Do unto others and practice what we preach aren't exactly foreign concepts.

And thanks for the link... read it when it was published. Didn't notice it at the time, but after rereading it, I got the impression that the article didn't quite include the whole story. Don't know if you picked up on that?

In comment #164 I postulated a scenario of 10,000 black lives taken in a given year and BLM was successful with their Anti-Cop agenda and saved 100 black lives..

The actual number of lives saved would be 10... Not 100...

The actual statistic is .08% of black deaths are caused by white cops but I rounded up..

So, in a year with 10,000 black deaths, the BLM racist morons saved TEN....

Of course, if BLM actually CARED about black lives and applied their activism where it was REALLY needed then they could have saved 9,990 black lives..

But I guess their political agenda is more important to them and black lives don't really matter to them at all...

Michale

Michale

Obama has made it clear he won't work with Congress..

So Congress doesn't factor into anything..

You might consider spending some of your time and effort persuading your own representatives that it would be far more productive to work with the JCPOA instead of trying to kill it.

It's a matter of trust..

Obama has so poisoned the well, even if Congress WANTED to work with Obama, Obama has made it clear that he would just as soon give Congress the finger as to compromise on anything...

Michale

What about the responsibility of Congress on these issues? In fact, as I have written before, the US Congress has a very critical role to play in this and there is no reason why they shouldn't get started on it today and work with President Obama and future presidents, throughout the term of the JCPOA.

You might consider spending some of your time and effort persuading your own representatives that it would be far more productive to work with the JCPOA instead of trying to kill it.

I am glad you asked that..

THE most dangerous place for a black person to be is not driving in a car, not in the ghetto, not roaming the streets..

The most dangerous place for a black person to be is in the womb...

Less than 40% of the residents of Mississippi are black. Yet black people account for OVER SEVENTY PERCENT of the abortions..

In New York, black abortions are ALMOST that high at 64%..

Now, my feelings on the abortion issue are well known..

While I don't subscribe to the Right Wing idea that life begins at, "Geee, yer hot...", I ALSO don't subscribe to the Left Wing idea that life begins at the first tax deduction...

But my point in bringing up this little factoid is this...

If the BLM group was a legitimate activist group rather than a racist hate group, then their cause would be the de-valuation of black lives in American society...

THAT is a true representation of what BLACK LIVES MATTER should be all about..

Under THAT legitimate activist mantra, blacks being killed by white cops is way way way WAY down on the priority scale..

Between black on black homicides (upwards of 96%!!) and the tens of thousands of black babies aborted, the percentage of blacks being killed by white cops is infinitesimally small to the point of non-existence..

So, if BLM HONESTLY and TRULY believed that black lives DO matter.... Well, there are causes out there that would address the de-valuation of black lives MUCH more appropriately..

Sadly, the BLM of the here and now don't give a rat's ass about black lives... They are only interested in pushing their racist hate agenda and the expense of tens of thousands of black deaths every year by other causes...

To put it in the vernacular of LEO training, BLM sees a hazy outline of a possible (but unlikely) threat far off in the distance..

And they are responding to THAT possible (but unlikely) threat while ignoring the dozens of armed perpetrators pointing M-16s right at their faces....

It makes absolutely NO SENSE whatsoever until one considers the racist hate agenda of the KILL THE PIGS!! BLM movement..

And then it makes perfect sense...

Class dismissed

Michale

If Obama showed *ANY* interest in those ideas, I would be much more inclined to see things your way..

But he hasn't so I don't....

Obama doesn't CARE what happens after the JCPOA is signed, sealed and delivered.. His FP legacy is in the history books...

That's where Obama's concern begins and ends...

Michale...

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2015/08/28-making-the-iran-deal-better-einhorn?utm_campaign=Brookings+Brief&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=21704294&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9kRvZCePWLV5DrK1PjxerT8SIJqvGZWe3Eh_Sfv7gXwFcv-_eRzgyLop8c7JAzUu_fnpwD88HOjgO4tSTmOTAhaheuUg&_hsmi=21704294

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/25/iran-nuclear-uranium-enrichment-intelligence

Iran's behavior over the years on the nuclear file and their willingness to sacrifice so much for it, particularly with regard to their economy, would all tend to lead a rationally thinking person that Iran's intentions go beyond a purely peaceful civilian nuclear program.

Certainly the assessment of the international community, including the IAEA, has been that Iran has not been forthcoming on its nuclear program. Which is why the international community agreed to a very muscular sanctions regime as the way to bring Iran to the negotiating table to hammer out a compromise that is the JCPOA.

The confidential safeguards agreement between Iran and the IAEA over Parchin and possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear programme (and, ah ... no, I'm not privy to any of that ... heh) is likely quite a lot about Iran saving face after the supreme leader put out a fatwa against nuclear weapons and then hypocritically working towards having a nuclear weapons capability.

That is just my opinion, you understand.

In any event, we are where we are, as they say. Now, I'm just hoping that the JCPOA will be fully implemented to the satisfaction of all parties involved and demonstrate how effective diplomacy can actually be when the prerequisite effort and resources are put into it.

Per comment 173

I hope you don't think I was including you in that category. I wasn't.

If you are privy to such secrets, please do share.
I've already shared my feelings on such assertions.

And it seems just as likely the side agreement is about protecting Iran from another IAEA pocket swipe mess like in Syria.

Not sure I buy the "need" argument either.
The NPT gives them the right to nuclear energy, and the new deal allows them to keep using nuclear energy, so the assessment of the international community seems to be that there is a need.

Do you know THE most dangerous place for a black person to be???

I'll give you a hint... It's NOT behind the wheel of a car...

Michale