Iran: P5+1 Overcomes American Enemies, Achieves Nuclear Pact

Need a link; oh, and a description of how this fits your pigeon-hole. The world doesn't turn on iceaura's say-so.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, I don't. You troll, you scroll.

And I don't turn on yours.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So you are refusing to support your statements? That's trolling.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I already supported them - quote, link, argument, the whole shot. More than once, iirc.
Done and done.

Repeating demands for what you have already been provided is trolling.

 

No such links have been provided. No explanation of your assertions has been provided. That is trolling; and claiming you have done so is simply deceptive.

 

Yes, they have.

If the extensive spew of insult, deflection, slander, and repeated irrelevancy with which you greeted them has ended up obscuring the matter at issue from yourself, so that you have forgotten altogether what I actually posted, that's a personal problem I have no interest in solving for you. You troll, you scroll.

 

Rubio Would Abandon P5+1 Accord

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

Recalling, as we have, that the #GOP47 has threatened that a future president can undo the American end of the P5+1 bargain, well ... look, I'm no prophet. Really. Nor should we be surprised that it just didn't take that long.

Bradford Richardson↱ explains for The Hill:

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) said in an interview broadcast Sunday that, if elected president, he would bring the nuclear weapons agreement with Iran to an end and reestablish current economic sanctions.

“Well, that agreement would come to an end,” Rubio said of the accord on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“The American sanctions are the most important sanctions of all,” the junior senator from Florida continued. “And I would give a choice to the Deutsche Bank or any other institution around the world. You can have access to the American economy or to the Iranian economy. I’m confident they will choose the American economy.”

In addition, Rubio said that, if president, he would hold the Iranian regime accountable through an increased threat of the use of military force.

“If, in fact, the evidence is there that they have moved forward on enrichment capabilities that exceed the amount they need for a program and that we see the weaponization process as moving forward, there will be the use of military force against Iran,” he said. “That’s their choice, not ours.”​

Warmongering, to be certain, but hardly at its finest. Rather, it's Marco Rubio's vision for a New American Century.
____________________

Notes:

Richardson, Bradford. "Rubio vows to end Iran agreement if elected". The Hill. 9 August 2015. TheHill.com. 9 August 2015. http://bit.ly/1f2NaME

 

The guy who coined the slogan "Speak softly and carry a big stick" was a Republican - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt (and a Progressive).

Sic transit gloria

 

I commend your fresh new absurdities: I won't ask you to demonstrate them because I suspect this would start some kind of exponentially expanding denial of the initial argument.

This said, if we simply return to that initial argument, all you need do now to demonstrate I was backing Joe is simply explain how doubting Iranian intentions = CITAI. Go on. Or will you refuse this also? I suppose you could just use obfuscatory language as previous.

 

Wellll, regarding Rubio:

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) said in an interview broadcast Sunday that, if elected president, he would bring the nuclear weapons agreement with Iran to an end and reestablish current economic sanctions.

“Well, that agreement would come to an end,” Rubio said of the accord on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“The American sanctions are the most important sanctions of all,” the junior senator from Florida continued. “And I would give a choice to the Deutsche Bank or any other institution around the world. You can have access to the American economy or to the Iranian economy. I’m confident they will choose the American economy.”

In addition, Rubio said that, if president, he would hold the Iranian regime accountable through an increased threat of the use of military force.

“If, in fact, the evidence is there that they have moved forward on enrichment capabilities that exceed the amount they need for a program and that we see the weaponization process as moving forward, there will be the use of military force against Iran,” he said. “That’s their choice, not ours.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...7-rubio-vows-to-end-iran-agreement-if-elected​

So the difference between him and Obama regarding the use of violence consists in essence of what each side would call 'evidence'. I don't know that based on what's been reported that he's necessarily warmongering any more than the WH, but then again I certainly don't doubt that his trigger breaks at much less pressure and I expect he's an idiot to boot. And he would kill the deal, which isn't precisely warmongering, but which is very likely unwise and could well lead to it or to some kind of skirmishing, probably aerial. For a thing which we're not sure they were doing anyway, although it was probable at the time. Anyway, the threat of violence is not dissimilar to the WH's, although their was to the hardline language. Both talk about using violence as they feel 'appropriate'. The GOP are probably more likely to use it, of course.

Now, aside from all that, I think the little twit is what the GOP want, kind of: young, energetic and easily controlled, so Tiassa's nightmare scenario is looking a bit more likely. Christ, the joy of the polarized two party system: look, a charismatic young candidate! Surely he couldn't be a product of the soul-numblingly amoral political process, poised to screw over the nation while getting rich and his own library! Ru-bi-o! Ru-bi-o! And, without looking, and because I don't want to know - and, please, feel no compulsion to tell me - I imagine they chanted that when he walked up there. I think I'll invest in brass manufacturers.

 

Maybe. The wife - an ardent conservative - suggests that Trump is a floater meant to help the others look good, then drop out. To borrow from your nation's impending legal mechanisms, I think we should make political contests a little more like Thunderdome: two men enter, one man leaves. Perhaps there'd be fewer such games, assuming that's what's happening.

But it's the not knowning, isn't it? People ridiculed Rumsfeld, but he was right: there are known knowns, unknown unkwowns and known unknowns. It couldn't be simpler. After the brief Soviet Counter-Revolution back in '91, I suggested to a history prof that it might all have been a kind of maskirovka. After all, where had the instigators gone? Did we know? None of the newspapers seemed to. Perhaps they were in little dachas down on the Ukranian coast, bouncing healthy young Ukranian women on their knees and sipping Muscat. And we'll never know most of this stuff. It's essentially why I think I'm the only person in the world that should run things. All the world is mad but thee and me.

I noticed this bit from Tiassa's article:

“I’ll support any legislation that reduces the number of abortions,” Rubio said. “And there are those that have that exception [for rape or incest]. What I’ve never done is said I require that it must have or not have exceptions.”​

A laughably classic bit of political speak. He finishes thusly, however, putting himself firmly in opposition-mainstream:

“I recognize that in order to have consensus on laws that limit the number of abortions, a lot of people want to see those exceptions. And that’s why I’ve supported those laws in the past, as has every pro-life group in America.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...7-rubio-vows-to-end-iran-agreement-if-elected​

I suspect he may end up being the arse to beat. That could be bad.

 

I would remind specifically of two points reinforcing warmongering:

(1) The way Sen. Rubio describes it is a warmongering setup: If we abrogate, Iran has every reason to go back to actively seeking a nuclear weapon, at which point "President Rubio" would deploy military force; the whole point of walking away is to start a war.

(2) Something about evidence goes here. Something about evidence, quality of evidence, Iraq, and to what degree it would actually matter. If a president really wants a war, there will be a war.​

The thing with Rumsfeld was twofold. One was the effort to which he went in order to avoid answering questions, leading to the jokes about his poetry. The other is to remind that he and his warmongering cohort had been around since President Nixon, trying to start wars. That is to say, he put a lot of known knowns and unknowns in to the world that became unknown unknowns described by unknown knowns.

I couldn't avoid it either. I happen to be caught up on what seems to be an obvious question↗, which in turn is how Mr. Rubio, personally, would use an IUD but for the religious faith that governs him, personally, in such issues.

Then again, the Florida junior is something of a gaffe machine↱, much like another (ahem!) "Junior" we might recall. Honestly, I need something better than "rubism", "rubout", or "rubnastics".

As to madness, sir, I can only murmur strangely of trout, flatulence, and the day humanity could have saved itself from extinction, but then some dude went and lit a cigarette.

 

How many times now have you tried that exact gambit? Ten? Eleven? It's futile, Geoff.

Nobody is ever going to join you in pretending that "doubting Iranian intentions" was ever a problem with your posting here. Nobody here has ever objected to anyone "doubting Iranian intentions". And you know that.

As far as Trump making the others look good - that doesn't appear to be happening. They are looking rather the worse for both association and the lameness of attempted dissociation. That doesn't mean that wasn't the plan, now going awry (fuckup, thy Party is Republican), but it is a limit on the mastermindedness of any evildoers involved.

 

Laughing Into the Abyss: Abysmal Humor?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

Perhaps the first note is that the years have not tempered my general loathing for "LOL".

Never mind.

Josh Marshall↱, editor and publisher of Talking Points Memo, offers a keen observation:

... Joe Lieberman, storied Middle East hawk, has joined United Against Nuclear Iran as its new Chairman. UANI is one of several pressure groups now rolling out massive ad campaigns against the deal bankrolled by assorted billionaires.

This is not terribly surprising given the rising hysteria over the deal and Lieberman's role as one of Washington's arch Middle East. "UANI has led the effort to economically isolate the Iranian regime, and its bipartisan and international expertise makes it a highly respected voice on the merits of the Iran agreement. I am honored to assume this new leadership role at this important time."

But why exactly does UANI need a new chairman?

After all, they just hired Dr. Gary Samore as chairman back in 2013. Well, Samore had to leave because he supports the deal! Yes, he supports the deal. The deal is such a Chamberlainesque catastrophe that one of the main anti-deal pressure groups had to part ways with its leader because he supports the deal.​

I mean, I get why the "LOL", but that doesn't help. It's still really annoying in a headline.
____________________

Notes:

Marshall, Josh. "LOL. Anti-Iran Deal Farce Hits Crescendo". Talking Points Memo. 10 August 2015. TalkingPointsMemo.com. 10 August 2015. http://bit.ly/1f4Pl2a

 

I know! It's not a gambit, but it's obvious that you're not going to support your statements. I don't know what the misdirection does for you. I would recommend deciding what it is you're pretending to be angry about, but it's true that that would limit your defenses.

 

Yes, it is . And it's not going to work.

You don't want to talk about your backing of Joe's agitprop, and so you demand that other people talk about subsequent aspects of your posting you can frame as reasonable, and in the terms of that framing. Walking it back, is what that is called. Pages of that attempt, now. Not a word of it posted without slander and insult and projection unto others of your rhetorical approaches.

Nobody is ever going to join you in pretending that your "doubting Iranian intentions" was ever an issue or conflict with your posting here.

 

Well you don't want to prove Joe has actually but forth agitprop and you don't want to talk about that. You just want to make stuff up and endlessly repeat it in the hope it will eventually pass as truthful.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You have been repeated asked to prove your assertion Joe put forth agitprop and you have repeatedly failed to prove your case, but you don't want to discuss that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The Latest Open Letter

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

This seems worth mentioning:

Three dozen retired generals and admirals released an open letter Tuesday supporting the Iran nuclear deal and urging Congress to do the same.

Calling the agreement "the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons," the letter said that gaining international support for military action against Iran, should that ever become necessary, "would only be possible if we have first given the diplomatic path a chance."

(DeYoung↱)​

The letter itself↱ is pretty straightforward:

On July 14, 2015, after two years of intense international negotiations, an agreement was announced by the United Stats, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, China and Russia to contain Iran's nuclear program. We, the undersigned retired military officers, support the agreement as the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

The international deal blocks the potential pathways to a nuclear bomb, provides for intrusive verification, and strengthens American national security. America and our allies, in the Middle East and around the world, will be safer when this agreement is fully implemented. It is not based on trust; the deal requires verification and tough sanctions for failure to comply.

There is no better option to prevent an iranian nuclear weapon. Military action would be less effective than the deal, assuming it is fully implemented. If the iranians cheat, our advanced technology, intelligence and the inspections will reveal it, and U.S. military options remain on the table. And if the deal is rejected by America, the Iranians could ahve a nuclear weapon within a year. The choice is that stark.

We agree with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, who said on July 29, 2015, "relieving the risk of a nuclear conflict with Iran diplomatically is superior than trying to do that militarily."

If at some point it becomes necessary to consider military action against Iran, gathering sufficient international support for such an effort would only be possible if we have first given the diplomatic path a chance. We must exhaust diplomatic options before moving to military ones.

For these reaons, for the security of our Nation, we call upon Congress and the American people to support this agreement.​

One other note from Karen DeYoung↱, because it will come up again at some point in the discussion about the P5+1 nonproliferation accord:

Retired Navy Rear Adm. Harold L. Robinson, a rabbi and former naval chaplain who chairs the National Conference on Ministry to the Armed Forces, also signed.

"As a lifelong Zionist, devoted to Israel, and a retired general officer and a rabbi for over 40 years, and operating without institutional encumbrances, I have a unique perspective," Robinson said in an interview.

He said he spoke out to demonstrate that "those of us who love Israel in the United States are not of one mind and one voice on this matter. I thought it was important to represent some of the diversity within the American Jewish community."​

Anyway, yeah. That part, too.

I think part of the interesting way in which the American discourse is resolving is that our need to "question everything", as such, is that we have as a society become somewhat cynical about certain dynamic realities that seem ossified or concretized. To wit, why war as a dualistic opposite? Perhaps it seems strange to more recent eyes, but we might note that there really isn't much for ambiguity; the retired brass postures their support against the looming possibility of military engagement, even citing Chairman Dempsey, that "relieving the risk of a nuclear conflict with Iran diplomatically is superior than trying to do that militarily". Cynicism shown toward the dualism very nearly presumes a paradox, that there is some middle road. The decision has been made that the Islamic Republic of Iran cannot be permitted to have nuclear weapons; what, then, is the alternative? A better deal? What better deal? And can the U.S. get one without its international partners? And what will we do if we can't?

Why the polar juxtaposition? Because it is the circumstance that presents itself according to our own American presuppositions. Hell or high water, no bomb for Iran. Which is why the dualism is diplomatic and military.

Which is why the professional warriors don't bother with any such naïve pretenses posing as wise cynicism.
____________________

Notes:

DeYoung, Karen. "Dozens of retired generals, admirals back Iran nuclear deal". The Washington Post. 11 August 2015. WashingtonPost.com. 13 August 2015. http://wapo.st/1L9HZpN

Cartwright, James et al. "The Iran Deal Benefits U.S. National Security: An Open Letter from Retired Generals and Admirals". 11 August 2015. bdThisis.Files.WordPress.com. 13 August 2015. http://bit.ly/1NtOMLg