Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Iran Deal
#41
Fred,

I assumed the carrot for Iran was releasing the embargoed cash and removing sanctions.

Yak,

No, it's not the finest moment. The deal might suck in fact, I do not know details, you at some point have to trust all the various actors to eyeball and approve these things. I feel we're exhausted with war and I am not confident we know as much about Iran as is assumed.

What's the alternative here?

Semi permanent sanctions which I think Iran has worked around to an extent and they were not stopping their program. Or war.

I don't have the article, but, the last Mossad director says war is a very bad option for everyone in the region, including Israel.

If the deal sucks, it should not be sanctioned by the senate, if it is a reasonable deal, it should be given a chance to avoid war.
Reply
#42
(07-17-2015, 08:52 PM)Palladin Wrote: Yak,

No, it's not the finest moment. The deal might suck in fact, I do not know details, you at some point have to trust all the various actors to eyeball and approve these things. I feel we're exhausted with war and I am not confident we know as much about Iran as is assumed.

What's the alternative here?
......
.... Or war.

Trust the various actors? Obama, Kerry and Mullahs? ... no thank you. They are all liars. And there is no "or war" opton ... at least not for the U.S..

1. Under the current circumstances with the current administration, war is not an option. We're stuck here for the next year and a half. And even then, it's unlikely we would attack.

2. With regards to 'alternatives', we no longer maintain any influence in the ME with regards to "or war" or not. Our enemies want to kill us and our allies do not trust us. They will do as they will. We are no longer a major lever in the ME. We are becoming largely irrelevant in that sphere ... essentially by design. Again, the best alternative would have been to "DO NOTHING" ... but we abandoned that.

Our Congress will hopefully have it say. But I'm still not certain they will have the capacity to fully review what they are asked to approve. This is insane and asinine. Can you provide any reason why this 'deal' shouldn't be be fully released in detail to the public? If you have the actual text of the agreement we signed please share.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#43
(07-16-2015, 10:30 PM)John L Wrote: ...had to turn him off or I would probably go postal.

His subconscious drive to placate his dead daddy, by using his daddy's language is more than I can take sometimes. He's a psychologically myopic dupe. America's Truth Detector my ass! He should be ashamed of himself, but he's not. And all over placating his late father, so he won't be thought a failure in life. If his father had left him a letter, directing him to jump off a tall cliff come his next birthday, he'd probably do it. Gah

I think you are projecting onto Rush. You have constantly mentioned how you choose to use the word "Classic Liberal" in order to describe yourself, and hate it when "Liberal" is used to denigrate the Leftists. However - you are wrong on this. Yes "Classic Liberal" denotes the good guys - but not in common usage. You are not so elitist as to demand everyone mirror your thoughts' usage, when to them, it means something else. I had to swallow a lot of umbrage when I first learned having a larger vocabulary than someone else does not give you an argumentative advantage. Most times, using proper terminology reduces your statements to the level of the whaa-whaa adults in Charley Brown-world. IOW, twenty-five cent words when nickel words suffice places you at a negative footing with your audience.

From your link: "...Look at voter identification. Forty percent of the American people call themselves conservative. Twenty percent of the American people call themselves liberals. Progressive is their way of disguising who they are. Progressive and liberal... What is progressive mean? Forward, advanced, looking forward. "We're smarter than you. We're more advanced. We're ahead of the game." They're not progressives. These people are the furthest thing from progressives. I'm not going to let them get away with redefining their own terms."

What Rush means is not euphemistic flim-flamming for his Father - it is simple communication, and he is truly great at that. When anyone uses the term "Liberal" we must use it as demeaning, because that is the definition of what some people call themselves secretly and use the nice-sounding term "Progressive" only as protective coloration.

If you want to steal back the term to use in a more correct-usage for yourself, you are fighting a war you cannot win. You can't erase "ain't" from the dictionary. You can pronounce "harrassment" correctly - but no one will understand you. Our common tongue is exactly that, a system that advances and changes with usage. You actually use more keystrokes defining yourself as "real liberal," than conversing with most people who believe the founders were conservative, by using acceptable words. The trick is, to use their acceptable words, but with your meaning. Getting that across is one of the things that Limbaugh is very good at. Pretending he does that to placate his Father's ghost may rationalize the uphill struggle to "get it right," but doesn't do so.

If you listen to what Rush says, you follow his logic. If you disagree with that, them it should be easy to refute him with facts. I've never heard anyone get the better of him with mere rhetoric.

What we all have discovered is that the media can take nonfactual, disinformational rhetoric that is spun for political impact and spread it. The only recourse is to make the rebuttal simple and understandable and spread it in spite of the media.
Reply
#44
(07-18-2015, 02:31 PM)WmLambert Wrote: I think you are projecting onto Rush. You have constantly mentioned how you choose to use the word "Classic Liberal" in order to describe yourself, and hate it when "Liberal" is used to denigrate the Leftists. However - you are wrong on this. Yes "Classic Liberal" denotes the good guys - but not in common usage. You are not so elitist as to demand everyone mirror your thoughts' usage, when to them, it means something else. I had to swallow a lot of umbrage when I first learned having a larger vocabulary than someone else does not give you an argumentative advantage. Most times, using proper terminology reduces your statements to the level of the whaa-whaa adults in Charley Brown-world. IOW, twenty-five cent words when nickel words suffice places you at a negative footing with your audience.

Whatever. How long have you been regularly listening to him? I have been, since early 1990. He used to always talk about his father, and how his father was convinced that of all the Limbaugh extended family, Rush was the professional odd man out, or "ne'er do well". in spite of the fact that he had actually made the Big Time. Beach

And this has always bothered him. Within the year I began listening, his father passed away, and there was a subtle change in him. It wasn't much, but he became fixated on his dad, constantly talking about how his dad turned 'git-togethers' into informal classes for both friends and relatives, who came over to the house. That's part of the reason why he used to use his father's revelation one night, suddenly realizing that he was a chip off the old block, by asking his wife, "Where did he learn all of that?" And his wife answered, "He learned it from you dear." Doh

And I'm not wrong. If you want to use the British designation of "conservative", that's your business. And I also have explained, by detailed research as to how this all came about. Obviously you didn't bother to read any of it. You must have been practicing the fine art of skimming. Aww

And the push is on, in a big way, to reclaim the unfairly tarnished name and reputation of the ideology. You just haven't been paying attention. Why do you think he sometimes has to add other more correct words, along with his 'so called' Liberal tirade? Well, its because more and more people are on his ass to stop bastardizing the word. In other words, he knows better, and is defensive about it. Why do you think he had that nice little rant, which incidentally I heard live, and I linked to above. He was trying to head Beck off at the pass, because Beck had finally "Gotten It Right", and he threatened to chip away a brick in his Daddy's wall of invincibility.

As for the "reduces your statements to the level of the whaa-whaa adults in Charley Brown-world", perhaps the real projection is being practiced by someone other than me? Spiteful

And believe me, I don't use 25 cent words, when nickel words suffice. I was born and raised in the military, and didn't become a civilian until the age of thirty. I'm as direct as a framers hammer to the forehead, and I'm not full of vague and flowery innuendos either.

But I am also a stickler for accuracy, and if someone is ignorant about something, I will not hesitate to correct his/her thinking, and try to back it up with facts. And the fact is that FDR is the culprit here. He is the one who hid his Progressive soul in another suit, in order to get elected. And the opposition acquiesced and went along with it all. FDR was a typical Leftist Progressive, and even back then, the GOP were acting like the Dumbasses they are still.

I seem to remember from some time back, where you made remarks about the Left hiding their agenda behind sweet sounding words and platitudes, and to you it was not something with which to be proud. Well if so, why are you willing to let them get away with such as this? Shock

(07-18-2015, 02:31 PM)WmLambert Wrote: If you listen to what Rush says, you follow his logic. If you disagree with that, them it should be easy to refute him with facts. I've never heard anyone get the better of him with mere rhetoric.

That's an easy explanation. The answer is one James Golden, better known as "Snerdley". It is his job to screen callers, and to pick only those who will make him look good. If he has said that once, he has said it a thousand times. The reason why none of these people are allowed on is because of that one thing.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#45
(07-18-2015, 04:10 PM)John L Wrote: ...If you want to use the British designation of "conservative", that's your business. And I also have explained, by detailed research as to how this all came about. Obviously you didn't bother to read any of it. You must have been practicing the fine art of skimming. Aww

And the push is on, in a big way, to reclaim the unfairly tarnished name and reputation of the ideology. You just haven't been paying attention.

On the contrary, your detailed research is commendable, but entirely misses the point. Trying to reclaim the name of the ideology is not penultimate. It does not matter what a word meant at an earlier time which no longer applies. What is important is understanding what the name means contemporaneously by most of the people. It is imperative to change incorrect understanding - but that does not mean reorienting on the words used. Changing the new meaning back to the old one is a long process, and will fix it, but demanding the new meaning be ignored will not work.

IOW: you shouldn't say "a liberal doesn't mean wanting big government." You should say "Big government is bad." If you call yourself a liberal or a conservative, you should not endorse the discredited ideology of big government. If a big-government person claims to be a liberal, so what? Let him - but stick him with being big-government and stick him with the facts that big government doesn't work. The more he calls himself anything, it is what is attached to the descriptor that counts.

Rush Limbaugh is more concerned that he went into a reputable direction than that his father thought him a failure. His books and newsletters explain that. Instead of being driven by his father's ghost, he tries very hard to be the best he can be, regardless of any perceived personal shortcomings through his father's eyes. He is actually more concerned with his grandfather's opinions.

Remember always that Limbaugh is not proactive, but reactive. He comments on what is broadcast or printed. He responds to what someone else says. The terminology is usually defined by the original report - not by the issue, itself. Realize that it takes far longer to restate the original question more correctly, than to answer it succinctly and get it right - in the process expanding the logic that proves things.
Reply
#46
Palladin, before this deal, the carrot was always not rising sanctions. Exactely what made the Iranians and the US agree, I don't know.

Yak Wrote:1/ it's unlikely we would attack
If the US didn't attack when it was time to attack, then you will never attack. I agree.
At some point, the USAF had bases in Afghanistan, Turkey and Iraq and had a record high support among the population of these countries of almost 20%.
Today?

Tak Wrote:2. With regards to 'alternatives', we no longer maintain any influence in the ME with regards to "or war" or not.
I also agree.
That's why the deal has more chance of succeeding. It's so much easy to get a deal when you are disengaged.
In fact the US doesn't ask anything for themselves. Only that IAIE inspectors have access to their facilities.
Like "We'v got a deal... for the details please ask the UN". And of course the nations who are the targets of Iran nukes are not involved. I don't know... me too I could say that I'v got a deal with Iran...
Reply
#47
(07-18-2015, 06:25 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: That's why the deal has more chance of succeeding. It's so much easy to get a deal when you are disengaged.
In fact the US doesn't ask anything for themselves. Only that IAIE inspectors have access to their facilities.
Like "We'v got a deal... for the details please ask the UN". And of course the nations who are the targets of Iran nukes are not involved. I don't know... me too I could say that I'v got a deal with Iran...

Our President just dismissed the chants of "Death to America" and the Ayatollah's commitment to continue to support Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists as 'spin'.

I'd amend your statement. It's easy to get a deal when all you really want is "a deal". It still has to get through our Congress. The U.N might have greased the skids by waiting until we provided Legislative approval until it began relaxing the sanctions ... but it hasn't and the process has already started. This has infuriated some in our Congress. Which will make it more difficult to get the deal officially approved. But I expect they will cave anyway. AFIK, no one has seen or read the actual text of the agreement ... but that hasn't stopped our legislature in the past.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#48
Jack, that's what I first thought, but it seems this is not a treaty, but an agreement. Only congress can stop it with a veto proof majority. I could be wrong though.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#49
(07-18-2015, 08:16 PM)John L Wrote: Jack, that's what I first thought, but it seems this is not a treaty, but an agreement. Only congress can stop it with a veto proof majority. I could be wrong though.

I think a 'treaty', thankfully, is essentially impossible. But there are enough jellyfish available to get Congressional 'approval' for the 'agreement'. I believe Congress already passed legislation to make that a requisite. Ordinarily it would be the Senate, but there's money involved. So I would assume this one will require both chamber's approval. No one has said anything, but I don't think that the details have been published for Congress or the public. Presumably they have 60 days rather than 30 as the earlier 'deadlines' (I think the first was in March) have long been blown. Obama may wait until day 59 to make the text of the agreement available for review. There are current ad campaigns against approval. Expect a flood of ads demanding capitulation sometime in late August. It would be interesting to review the earlier legislation. It's possible that the deal may be dead if it isn't brought up for a vote let alone rejected, but that would require some degree of guile from Boehner and McConnell ... so I'm not optimistic. S4
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#50
(07-18-2015, 08:16 PM)John L Wrote: Jack, that's what I first thought, but it seems this is not a treaty, but an agreement. Only congress can stop it with a veto proof majority. I could be wrong though.


Congress has been euchred by Obama again, perhaps it is time it consider cutting off all funds to the United Nations.
Reply
#51
(07-19-2015, 04:27 PM)WarBicycle Wrote:
(07-18-2015, 08:16 PM)John L Wrote: Jack, that's what I first thought, but it seems this is not a treaty, but an agreement. Only congress can stop it with a veto proof majority. I could be wrong though.


Congress has been euchred by Obama again, perhaps it is time it consider cutting off all funds to the United Nations.

Unless Tehran blows up another Marine Barracks or takes down another plane, it's unlikely that there will be a popular revolt ... but we can always hope. Technically, all the Billion$ that we are going to "turn over" to the Mullahs has to come from somewhere within the U.S. government or at least it has to approve the release of the funds. As the House controls the "purse strings", I'm not certain how this can technically occur without it's consent. The money has to flow from legislation. Unless the Administration has some deep slush fund tucked around somewhere, I have difficulty seeing how the Iranians will get their money. The Executive can pursue foreign policy deals, but if that cash is locked down by legislation, it will take legislation to unlock it. I'm sure there is an end around, I just can't figure out what that might be ... other than simply ignoring the legal process ... which isn't exactly breaking new ground for this Administration.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#52
Not to worry. Both wings of the Big Government Party will come up with a way to appease each other, with only the minimal amount of political posturing.

Business as usual anyone?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#53
(07-19-2015, 06:33 PM)John L Wrote: Not to worry. Both wings of the Big Government Party will come up with a way to appease each other, with only the minimal amount of political posturing.

Business as usual anyone?

I suppose. But this is angering a number of Senators in Obama's own party. These are politicians who feel their opinion should matter when it comes to national decision making. Don't forget that Obama has already burned many of them on the ObamaTrade deal. Regardless of what Boehner and McConnell may want, at some point there is critical mass. Business as usual only works when you have people who aren't soured on doing business as usual. Congress has a raft of 'business' between now and the end of the year. A congressional peasant mutiny by members of both caucuses are the last thing that the party chiefs want. But take away virtually all of their decision making power ... and a resentment revolt could well be on the table. These guys have ego's John, their overseers can only squash them so much before they become non-compliant ... and then the fun begins. Partisan gridlock is to be expected ... bipartisan gridlock is something that should scare the crap out of the the party jefes.

Here's my guess ... a slim no vote in the House.
McConnell blocks it from the floor of the Senate.
Fully ratified by the U.N..
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#54
Kerry: It Would Be 'Presumptuous' to Go to Congress Before Going to UN

Reply
#55
The Europeans and Chinese are drooling over new deals with Iran. China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and Germany have already cut "the deal". I doubt they could care less about what Congress does. The $150 Billion was frozen by Carter via Executive Order ... so my argument about "purse strings" doesn't hold any water. The only positive outcome here is that Congress (both parties) will come out of "the dea"l peeved at being shat on again by their President ... and possibly their own party leadership. It's possible that that the sour taste might preclude additional damage and mischief and any further support for a lame duck President whose allegiance apparently leans toward the U.N over his own government. Not a very shiny silver lining ... best I can muster at the moment.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#56
If this is an agreement only, then the next POTUS can ignore it.
Reply
#57
UN just unanimously voted for it. I heard it on the car radio on the way to a job at 2PM today. Everyone is dancing a jig, and all is going to be right with the world. S18

It will now require courage to go against the UN and the Grain. Is there anybody willing to bet that the Clueless and Gutless Repubs will have the "whatever" to take this on? Shock

How about you Bill? Wanna bet? And if so, how much? Beach

Incidentally, here is what the Iranians really think about the treaty and the US.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#58
(07-20-2015, 06:05 PM)John L Wrote: UN just unanimously voted for it. I heard it on the car radio on the way to a job at 2PM today. Everyone is dancing a jig, and all is going to be right with the world. S18

It will now require courage to go against the UN and the Grain. Is there anybody willing to bet that the Clueless and Gutless Repubs will have the "whatever" to take this on? Shock

How about you Bill? Wanna bet? And if so, how much? Beach

Incidentally, here is what the Iranians really think about the treaty and the US.

Do you mean giving it an 'official' seal of approval that Obama can sign off on? ... or simply letting it come to pass by failing to pass legislation? The U.N. vote effectively cuts Congress out of "the deal". They don't like getting cut out of deals. It's possible their spines are flimsy enough to go with the former ... but I'm thinking they will go with the latter.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#59
(07-20-2015, 08:51 PM)mr_yak Wrote: Do you mean giving it an 'official' seal of approval that Obama can sign off on? ... or simply letting it come to pass by failing to pass legislation? The U.N. vote effectively cuts Congress out of "the deal". They don't like getting cut out of deals. It's possible their spines are flimsy enough to go with the former ... but I'm thinking they will go with the latter.

Actually, what I am talking about it whether or not they will have the guts to actually take serious action against the president, or whatever you want to call him, and his underhanded doings.

And I have no doubt that both Jackasses and Dumbasses alike will not like having their congressional powers usurped. I'm almost positive of this. But I am almost equally certain they will not have the "moral courage", "moxie" "guts", or whatever necessary to put a stop to it.

I guess I'm just a lone wolf howling in the wilderness. But sooner or later, enough voters are going to finally say "Enough".



___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#60
Interesting words of wisdom from Saudi prince Bandar.

Quote:Bandar says Obama is smart enough to understand this but that he is ideologically willing to accept collateral damage because he believes he is right.

(..)The Saudi prince says the new Iran deal and other developments in the region have led him to conclude that a phrase first used by Henry Kissinger – “America’s enemies should fear America, but America’s friends should fear America more" – is correct.

Bandar is one smart fellow, I believe.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Woolsey Advice on How to Deal With Iran And Russia John L 4 973 07-22-2014, 12:35 PM
Last Post: Palladin
  Iran sanctions 'will not affect' Russia missile deal Kamil 25 4,341 09-25-2010, 08:20 AM
Last Post: John L
  What's The Deal in Iran? Palladin 0 492 05-14-2006, 07:33 PM
Last Post: Palladin
  Pakistan and Israel deal Iran a blow Kamil 3 1,028 09-07-2005, 11:45 AM
Last Post: ag

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)