Derbyshire: We’re Too Hard on Slavery »« Christian ‘Patriot’ Says He Has Right to Kill Obama

Deal Reached Over Iranian Nuclear Power

In a very big breakthrough, the Obama administration has brokered a deal between Iran, France, Germany, Britain, China and Russia to curb Iran’s nuclear weapons program while partially lifting the sanctions that have caused such damage to that country.

Iran and six world powers reached a breakthrough deal early on Sunday to curb Tehran’s nuclear program in exchange for limited sanctions relief, in what could be the first sign of an emerging rapprochement between the Islamic state and the West…

Halting Iran’s most sensitive nuclear work, it was designed as a package of confidence-building steps to ease decades of tensions and confrontation and banish the specter of a Middle East war over Tehran’s nuclear aspirations.

But Iran’s arch foe Israel denounced it as a “bad deal” and said it would not be bound by it.

EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, who has been coordinating talks with Iran on behalf of the major powers, said it created time and space for talks aimed at reaching a comprehensive solution to the dispute.

“This is only a first step,” Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told a news conference. “We need to start moving in the direction of restoring confidence, a direction in which we have managed to move against in the past.”…

U.S. President Barack Obama said that if Iran did not meet its commitments during a six-month period, the United States would turn off sanctions relief and “ratchet up the pressure”.

Israel hates it, of course, but that’s probably a point in its favor. And the neo-conservatives will throw their usual tantrum over it and claim that Obama is selling out the country, is now a Neville Chamberlain appeaser, blah blah blah. You know the drill and probably have the script memorized because this is what those people has said about every diplomatic agreement the country has signed in the last few decades. They said it about the SALT talks under Reagan, the START talks under the first President Bush and every other negotiated settlement to a conflict. For neo-conservatives, the only possible solution to every problem is to bomb and invade any country that fails to do our bidding. The fact that they will scream bloody murder over this agreement should be viewed as evidence that it’s a good idea.

Comments

  1. Donnie says

    Because he loves to call out Prof. Heddle, I am sure SLC (or whatever his nom-de-blah-blah-blah is today) is upset that his masturbatory fantasies of nuking Iran are upsetting his biorhythms.

  2. Chiroptera says

    Well, remember, the point has never really been that Iran may be able to construct nuclear weapons. The whole point has always been that Iran tries to have economic and foreign policies independent of the narrow material interests of the West and must be punished for that.

    That this deal may derail punishing Iran for standing up to the West (and, horrors, may even encourage other nations to do so) is the thing that makes this “dangerous.”

  3. says

    You’re wrong, Ed. I’m with the neocons and Bibi on this one. We need a new war. The old ones are all dented and tarnished. We’re better off to forget they ever happened. In fact, we have to, or this new war will look pretty craven and idiotic.

  4. says

    @4 Modusoperandi,

    I know we need a new war, but isn’t there someone in the else we can invade. I know the US army just is in love with central asia and the middle east. But come on, variety is the spice of life. Let’s go invade someplace warm, and sunny. You know who needs a good invading — the French Rivera.

  5. daved says

    Has Bill Kristol come out against this deal yet? That’s my infallible indicator that it’s a good idea.

  6. says

    Ed,

    Israel hates it, of course…

    I must quibble: The Israeli neocons hate it, which does make it a very good development. I’m sure the more reasonable among them find the developments desirable, because their sons and daughters won’t have to go to a needless war in the name of Israeli “security.”

  7. says

    Modusoperandi:

    The old ones are all dented and tarnished.

    What’s the trade-in value? Can we get the new one upgraded to heated leather seats, passenger-side air bags, and 24/7/356 coverage of smart-bomb video and bunker-buster explosions on CNN?

    They just don’t make ‘em like that anymore.

  8. colnago80 says

    Despite the unanimous support of the comments so far, this is a sellout by Obama worthy of Neville Chamberlain. Obama will declare “peace in our time” but when Iran sets off a nuke, he will be shown for the appeaser he is. It would seem that, as Santayana said, “Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them”. We never learn that appeasement doesn’t pay. The road company Frankenbergers in Tehran will see to it that we learn the hard way.

  9. says

    “People who fall asleep at night dreaming of bombs falling are not particularly reliable commenters on the efforts of those seeking peaceful solutions.” ~ Ed Kilgore

  10. Jordan Genso says

    @11 colnago80, you do understand that MO could’ve written that exact same comment, right?

  11. marcus says

    I too am upset at the sorry state of our current conflicts. They are way past WARranty and are just no fun any more. I mean where is that ol’ joie de guerre that I miss so much?

  12. zenlike says

    Ah colnago80, in the proud company of the neo-cons. Congratulations.

    I think a solution that is opposed by a genocidal maniac seems to be a good solution. A ringing endorsement so to speak.

  13. sawells says

    Can we arrange it that any colnago comment containing the term “Frankenberger” gets autodeleted? It might help him get over that incredibly irritating habit. Then he’ll just have to get over the “To avoid another Hitler, we must murder millions of people as soon as possible” thing.

  14. meg says

    Oh please. This is nothing like Chamberlain. Iran hasn’t actually taken over any other countries yet. (yes, that was sarcasm)

    More to the point, Chamberlain didn’t really have much to bargain with at the time. England was in no state to go back to war in 1938 – they’d been slow to rebuild their military after WW1. More than anything else, they needed time.

    Perhaps more importantly, Chamberlain underestimated Hitler, not realising that he had no intention of keeping the peace. If there’s an actual lesson from Munich, it’s not that ‘appeasement’ (which I don’t think this new agreement is) doesn’t work. It’s that you need to know your opponent better, and know what exactly they are after.

  15. M can help you with that. says

    slc1 is just upset that this agreement doesn’t involve an annual tribute by Iran in the form of two dozen children who can be slowly bled to death for slc1′s satisfaction.

    (This is, after all, the dude who has been so willing to publicly salivate at the thought of slaughtering Iranian civilians as long as doing so has the blessing of the only arbiters of morality, i.e. the right wing of Israeli politics.)

  16. colnago80 says

    Re meg @ #17

    More to the point, Chamberlain didn’t really have much to bargain with at the time. England was in no state to go back to war in 1938 – they’d been slow to rebuild their military after WW1. More than anything else, they needed time.

    Britain and France got another year and a half, as did Germany. Who made better use of the time? What happened to France in 1940? I think the answer is obvious.

    Now for the usual apologies for Chamberlain, repeated here by meg. The fact is that Germany was also in no state to launch a European war in 1938. This was appreciated by the German General Staff, who were so terrified by Frankenberger’s recklessness that some of them were planning a coup to remove him from power. Unlike the appeasers in London and Paris, they were well aware of Germany’s shortcomings in the military sphere. Of course, their coup died aborning when Chamberlain caved at Munich.

    However, there are other aspects to this aside from the readiness of Britain and France for war. In particular, this claim ignores the fact the Czechoslovakia, in 1938, had the most modern army in the world. Unlike Germany, it was fully mechanized with the most modern tanks at the time, superior to anything elsewhere. In addition, the mountainous terrain in Czechoslovakia was far better suited for defense then the open plains of Poland. Poland, by contrast, in 1939 was totally unmechanized, depending on horse cavalry for mobility, totally useless against mechanized armed forces. This in addition to Czechoslovakia having the most modern arms manufacturing facility in the Skoda Works. By selling Czechoslovakia down he river, Chamberlain handed the Skoda Works over to Frankenberger without the latter’s having to fire a shot. A goodly percentage of the tanks in the Panzer divisions that defeated France in 1940 were either manufactured in the Skoda Works or in Germany using Czech designs.

    Another factor that Chamberlain’s apologists neglect to mention is that the Molotov/von Ribbentrop treaty had not yet been signed at the time of Munich, meaning that Frankenberger could not assume that Stalin would stay out of a conflict if it degenerated into a stalemate, a not unlikely outcome. As a matter of fact, Chamberlain’s capitulation at Munich almost certainly convinced Stalin that Britain and France were not serious about containing Germany and thus to agree to the aforementioned treaty.

    Given the state of British, French, German, and Czech militaries in the Spring of 1938, Britain and France would have been much better off fighting alongside Czechoslovakia in 1938 then alongside Poland in 1939.

  17. meg says

    Of course Germany made use of the time – why the hell wouldn’t they? Hitler always intended to invade Russia. Doesn’t mean that Germany and France didn’t need it as well. Hell, if anyone should have learnt from history it was France. What exactly should they have done to help the Czechs? How could they have gotten troops etc there to help them?

    However, I was suggesting that your analogy between Iran and Nazi Germany is a poor one:
    1 – Iran is NOT Nazi Germany. What actions have they taken that are similar?
    2 – The first rule of negotiation is know as much as you can about the other side. I am sure that those involved in the recent Iran negotiations know a hell of a lot more about Iran’s leadership than they let on. They know about the internal situation and probably a lot more about Iran’s nuclear capabilities than are letting on. And wouldn’t make the mistake Chamberlain (and Stalin) did in underestimating Hitler – hell, if he’d taken Mein Kampf seriously, I’m sure it would have been a very different situation.

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Applying it to an unknown future is problematic.

  18. colnago80 says

    Re meg @ #21

    If the Wehrmacht got bogged down in the mountainous terrain in Czechoslovakia and suffered heavy losses due to the superiority of the latter’s equipment, Britain and France could have moved out from the Maginot line and engaged the German forces facing it. Given a stalemate in Czechoslovakia, the Germans would have been forced to divert forces away from he Czech front to confront the Anglo/French forces in the West. There is also the possibility that Stalin, sensing an opportunity that the stalemate provided, could have attacked in the East.

    Iran is NOT Nazi Germany. What actions have they taken that are similar?

    The are supporting the Assad Government in Syria, Hizbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. They have also pledged to remove the State of Israel from the map. Given what happened in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s, it should come as no surprise that the Government of Israel considers a nuclear armed Iran to be an existential threat. The appeasers in the West didn’t take Frankenberger seriously vis his statements in Mein Kampf. Bibi and his supporters are determined not to make the same mistake with the mad mullahs in Tehran.

    IMHO, Frankenberger was bluffing, depending on German propaganda to convince Chamberlain of the non-existent invincibility of the German armed forces in 1938. Had Chamberlain said no dice at Munich, IMHO, Frankenberger would have backed down and waited for a more propitious opportunity after the German armed forces had completely rearmed. In particular he would have moved heaven and earth to take the former Soviet Union out of the equation by signing a non-aggression pact, albeit, he would have had to pay a higher price then he did in the Molotov/von Ribbentrop that was eventually negotiated.

  19. daved says

    Just love that “mad mullahs in Tehran.” Typical neo-con blather — your opponents are insane, they are demons, they are totally irrational, so trying to negotiate with them is futile.

    The mullahs are not mad. They are hard-headed realists who know what they want and are prepared to play the long game to get it.
    They got kicked out by the shah after the US put him in, and they are determined that that not happen again. They’re running the show and they like it that way.

    Do they want nukes? Probably, as a deterrent to the US, but if they can get what they want some other way, they may well go for it.

  20. unnullifier says

    [...] but when Iran sets off a nuke, [...]

    You are deluded. Even if Iran had the capability of fielding a nuclear weapon, using it would be their death sentence. Intertwined their government and religion is, stupid it is not. Not even North Korea is deluded enough to actually use a nuclear weapon. Iran knows that using a nuke would basically force every other country to wipe them off the map. It would be horrible, but we would do it.

  21. Rentseeker says

    In fairness to the neo-cons, they think there is another option: crippling sanctions that would only be lifted if Iran gives up all of its nuclear capabilities. Not that this is likely to happen, since either the sanctions regime would collapse first, or Iran would build their nukes as soon as possible and then get the sanctions lifted from a position of relative strength.

  22. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    Insanity famously, is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

    With that in mind, what does this say about the Islamists – incl. Iran the world’s biggest state sponsor of Jihadist terrorism? Lets’ look at the evidence on the question of attacking Israel, something Iran has done and supported endlessly, post Shah :

    948 War of (Israeli) Independence,
    Suez Crisis 1956,
    1967 Six Day War,
    1973 Yom Kippur War,
    First Intifada in the 1980′s,
    Saddam Hussein firing scud missiles at Israel in the Kuwait war 1991,
    Second Intifada in the 2000′s,
    Hezbollah launching the (2nd) Lebanon war in 2006,
    (Short break somewhere there for the Palestinian Civil War Hams versus ex-PLO Fatah then the)
    Gaza War of 2008-9~ish and the second
    Gaza War (Operation Pillar of Defence) in 2012 caused by Hamas firing rockets into Israel yet again.

    All these wars started by the Arab side, all these wars lost by the Arab side. Go figure.

    For pity’s sake Arabs and Muslims more generally – take a flippin’ hint!

    You can’t and won’t win so stop it. Israel is here to stay, get used to it. learn to live with it – preferably in peace.

    You’d have to be really stupid – crazy colloquially or even in reality – to attack Israel again.

    Unfortunately the Arab side historically have shown they are indeed very stupid and /or insanely motivated by their fanatical religious hatred against a legitimate sovereign nation that has actually been remarkably restrained in its defensive responses considering the constant attacks and provocations against it.

    Problem is, the Mullahs don’t listen to anyone but “Allah” and he’s the imagined delusional voice in their heads that messes them all up so very horribly badly.

    Ultimately the full moral responsibility for all the casualties inflicted in all these wars lies on the heads of the Islamists who caused these wars to happen.

    Don’t want the consequences of attacking Israel?

    Then DON’T ATTACK IT!

    Leave it be in peace and move on.

    Can Iran do that? I wish it would but history suggests otherwise.

    The precedent of the talks and agreements with -and violated constantly by – North Korea also seems to argue against this agreement being worth that much.

  23. dingojack says

    No Nigel don’t do it!! What’s the betting that your war will something really cool on the 9.2422 days you’re not getting coverage! *

    Stevo –
    a) Who knew Israel existed in the late 10th century?
    b) Stop sucking down the piss. You’re ranting and rambling again (and NO, I won’t ‘git orf ya lawn’).

    Dingo
    ——–
    * Note your: ”24/7/356′ coverage. ;)

  24. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    @ ^ dingojack :

    a) is obviously a typo for 1948.

    b) an ad hominem attack – even if I was drinking so what? Doesn’t make anything I’ve said any less valid.

    Care to address the actual substance of what I’ve argued rather than just insult the messenger? Clearly not.

  25. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    As for the Iranian deal, I don’t know – time will tell.

    But I do know that Iran has been secretive and duplicitous before; building nuclear reactors secretly and that it cannot be trusted so I hope the rest of the world is very serious indeed about verifying and checking and monitoring and willing to tear this up if Iran breaks its side of it.

    Just why does a nation with so much oil seem so keen to build nuclear reactors anyhow I wonder? If they want to shift to renewables, good on’em but then why not focus on, say, solar or thorium if it must be nuclear?

    I’ve got a lot of questions, a lot of doubts and, sadly, not much time to spare.

    I hope this works out but there are serious question marks here which we shouldn’t overlook because the consequences of failure are horrific for everyone.

    It seems Iran is following North Koreas’ example with using talks to stall whilst continuing building their Bombs and basically treating the rest of the world like chumps.

    At bare minimum any deal with them allowing sanctions to be eased should have had as precondition that Iran give up supporting Jihadist terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas – ideally that it aid the world in destroying such groups. This bad deal didn’t do that and that speaks volumes for itself.

    Appeasement.

    Yeah, we all know* where that leads and it ain’t good.

    * Though some staggeringly stupid and ignorant convenient fools on the political Left seem to still be in reality denial on that score.

  26. dingojack says

    b) Insult and ad homiem are not the same thing. Also I should point out, I’m simply going on a previous pattern of (self-admitted) behaviour.*

    All you said was true, in the sense that WWI was started by German troops crossing the Belgian border.

    Dingo
    ——–
    * Truth is a positive defence

  27. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    @25. unnullifier :

    Even if Iran had the capability of fielding a nuclear weapon, using it would be their death sentence.

    This sentence works only if you think Iran’s Ayatollahs are sane enough to care and wish to avoid that.

    We’re talking religious fanatics here that are famous for homicide-suicide bombings. That believe in ushering in the end of the world and their version of the stupid “Rapture” only with some bullshit “hidden Imam” crap.

    These are not reasonable people and to treat them as if they are is a potentially catastrophically deadly error.

    Intertwined their government and religion is, stupid it is not.

    See the evidence presented by history in comment # 27 above. Yes, they are stupid. Fact.

    Not even North Korea is deluded enough to actually use a nuclear weapon.

    Iran is worse than North Korea. Less rational anyhow. Iran is Islamist, North Korea is,well, freaky and messed up but not quite *that* much.

    Iran knows that using a nuke would basically force every other country to wipe them off the map. It would be horrible, but we would do it.

    Would we?

    You think that but does Iran?

    Especially after seeing us weaken and appease and pull out of conflicts so often.

    To convince Iran we’re strong and able to do as you suggest maybe we have to, oh I dunno, demonstrate some strength and stand up to them and other nasty dictatorships a bit more? If we let them wriggle out without serious changes such as ending terrorism and support for Hezbollah and Hamas, what do you think that tells them about us?

    I suspect it says to them that we’re weak suckers who aren’t willing to fight and we can be pushed over like that by a little bluffing and bullying on their part.

    Which, ironically, makes war and millions of dead civilians incl. Iranian ones far more likely than us taking a stronger firmer anti-Iranian stance does. Guillibility kills.

    If we don’t show Iran we’re willing to be tough on them why would they ever believe it?

    Also, note what I said in my first paragraph here – the Iranian ayatollahs may well not care or even actively desire a nuclear armageddon that wipes out their land along with others. Religion – esp. Islam which is a particularly bad death cult – fucks you up.

  28. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    @31. Dingojack : Still not addresing the substance of the argument only trying to attack the messenger I see.

  29. laurentweppe says

    There’s no substance coming from you: you’re a little wanker with genocidal fantasies pretending that the targets of your bloodlust are as murderous as you. You are neither capable of offering anything substantial concerning this subject nor cunning enough to disguise your own depravity.

  30. says

    Not sure why there’s a long list of Arab aggressions against Israel in this thread. Last time I looked, Iranians were not Arabs.

    Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons is all about realpolitik, not ideology. They want the regional power and prestige that comes with having nuclear weapons. They can see what it’s done for Israel, India, and Pakistan (which, by the way, is a far less stable Muslim-majority nation than Iran). No doubt there is plenty of “screw you, America” about it too, which given the history of US meddling in Iranian domestic affairs over most of the last century, should be no surprise.

    Am I afraid of an Iranian nuclear bomb? Only if the Iranian regime comes under attack from the US or Israel first, and they have their backs against the wall. Otherwise, possession of nukes is far too good a bargaining chip to waste on using them.

  31. says

    Once again, sociopaths like slc aka lumbago and stever pollute the discussion with their genocidal desires.

    “Godwin’s Law” needs a corollary. Just as the first person to mention Hitler automatically loses the argument, so does the first one to mention Neville Chamberlain.

  32. dingojack says

    Homicide bombing? So all other kinds of bombings (by anyone who is non-brown I presume you mean) is aimed a delivering what? Kittens and rainbows?
    Idiot.
    Dingo
    ——–
    * Like blaming concentration camps on the Nazis, you’re trying to blame the swarthy for inventing suicide bombing (In the current form of car bombs and suicide vests guess who did)

  33. Dunc says

    Just how deluded do you have to be to list the Suez Crisis as an instance of Arab aggression against Israel?

  34. colnago80 says

    Re dingo @ #28

    The chihuahua barks and says nothing, per usual. Who knew Australia existed in the 10th century. Europeans were unaware of the existence of such a place. And by the way, before criticizing Israel for displacing Palestinians, first consider European settlers displacing Aborigines in Australia. When pointing a finger at someone, remember that the other three fingers are pointing in the opposite direction.

    Re laurentweppe @ #34

    Is the frog referring to me or StevoR with this substanceless comment.

    Re left)ver1under @#36

    The Vancouver vampire is cordially invited to deposit his head where the sun don’t shine.

  35. colnago80 says

    Re Dunc @ #38

    I would remind Dunc that the Egyptians were using the Sinai Desert as the launching place for Fedayeen terrorist attacks against Israel prior to 1956. The Israeli attack in that year was amply justified to wipe out the terrorist camps.

  36. Dunc says

    Re colnago80 @40:

    I didn’t ask if you thought it was justified, I asked if it was “an instance of Arab aggression against Israel”. Since you refer to “[t]he Israeli attack”, rather than “the Egyptian attack”, I can only conclude that your actual answer is “no”.

  37. says

    The threat of a nuclear Iran is minimal to nonexistent — there’s no scenario where they get to nuke anyone without uncontrollable bad consequences. Why, for example, would they nuke Israel? To liberate it for the Palestinians? All the Palestinians would get out of that would be an uninhabitable homeland/wasteland. Then the fallout would blow into Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc., and Iran would have more enemies, not less.

    The greatest danger we face from that region is the chronic instability in the Muslim world, recently exacerbated by Soviet invasion, religious extremism, political-economic failure, and incompetent US wars. And any sort of preemptive attack on Iran will only make that instability worse, in addition to making them MORE likely, not less, to develop and use nuclear weapons.

    Yes, a negotiated solution runs the risk of failure. But so does war. If it takes you more than two seconds to decide which sort of failure you’re most willing to live with, then you’re a fucking idiot and you shouldn’t be talking about grownup stuff.

  38. says

    “And wouldn’t make the mistake Chamberlain (and Stalin) did in underestimating Hitler – hell, if he’d taken Mein Kampf seriously, I’m sure it would have been a very different situation.”

    Without going into the whole Neville Chamberlain/Munich thing–the U.S. has amply demonstrated since around 1803 that it is completely able to compartmentalize a series of conflicts with other nations (including the campaigns against the original inhabitants of the U.S. and the War of Southern Treachery) without gaining any appreciable advantage of applying lessons learned in the next conflict. The U.S. is not an outlier in that behavior.

    “b) Insult and ad homiem are not the same thing.”

    Very true. Example of Insult:

    Rush Limbaugh is a pusgutted fuckbag and a lying sack-o-shit AND his political positions are bullshit.

    Example of ad hominem:

    Rush Limbaugh is a pusgutted fuckbag and a lying sack-o-shit, SO his political positions are bullshit.
    .
    “All you said was true, in the sense that WWI was started by German troops crossing the Belgian border.”

    I think that most historians look to the crossing of Poland’s border as that incident that precipitated the war in Europe. Realists would subscribe to the notion that the Treaty of Versailles guaranteed another round of “The War to End All Wars”.

  39. colnago80 says

    Re Dunc @ #41

    Since the Egyptian Government was encouraging the Fadeyeen to launch terrorists attacks inside Israel and supporting their efforts, I would consider it an aggression by Egypt against Israel. Apparently ole Dunc thinks otherwise.

  40. says

    Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons is all about realpolitik, not ideology.

    Bullshit. It’s nothing but a pointless, vainglorius waste of money for weapons that simply won’t do them any good in any realistic military scenario. If they want “realpolitik,” they should build up their air force instead.

    They want the regional power and prestige that comes with having nuclear weapons. They can see what it’s done for Israel, India, and Pakistan…

    What HAS it done for those countries, or any other countries for that matter? Show me ONE instance where the posession of a nuclear arsenal did either of those countries any fucking good. I don’t see any of Israel’s enemies backing down on any front.

  41. colnago80 says

    Re Raging Bee @ #43

    The mad mullahs who run Iran couldn’t care less about the Palestinians, much less Egyptians or Jordanians. They’re mostly Sunni Muslims, heretics to the Shiite Persians. It’s all very well for the Fairfax flunky to sit quietly in his Fairfax Co. domicile and pontificate on the intentions of the mad mullahs. It’s another thing for the folks in the region, and not only the inhabitants of Israel, to assume that the mad mullahs are just blowing smoke.

  42. dingojack says

    So SLC you think Israel existed in the 10th century do you? And as pointed out earlier Persians (that is Iranians)and Arabs are very different groups of people. Conflating the two is yet another example of your seemingly wilful ignorance.
    I’m amused by your knee-jerk know-nothing attitude. Not shocked merely amused.

    Dingo
    ——–
    Don’t have some place filled with brown people to commit (fortunately imaginary) nuclear genocide on whist you masturbate furiously? @@

  43. says

    We’re talking religious fanatics here that are famous for homicide-suicide bombings.

    Actually, the Iranian government hasn’t had jcak shit to do with the most “famous” suicide-bombings — they came from Sunni fanatics, not Shiite ones.

    And when you look at the most horrific acts of violence and fanaticism in the Muslim world, the Iranian government comes off as the most stable and sensible regime in the region. It’s firmly in control of its people and territory, and it has some democratic institutions that actually have a chance of taking root without being undermined by senseless nihilistic insrugency. What other regime in the Muslim world can say that?

  44. says

    The mad mullahs who run Iran…

    The Likudnik chickenhawk who fantasizes about “settlements forever” and nuking Iran with super-bombs that don’t even exist, is raving about “mad mullahs?” That’s just fucking hilarious. Go back to your room and watch “Battleship” and let the grownups talk, okay?

  45. colnago80 says

    Re dingo @ #49

    Did the USA exist in the 10th century? Did Canada exist in the 10th century? Did Australia exist in the 10th century. The barking chihuahua once again provides a non sequitur.

  46. laurentweppe says

    #54: Roger Cukierman is a fucking liar despised by most of his coreligionists who turned the Crif into yet another toothless lackey of the upper-class.

  47. mx89 says

    Copied from elsewhere, but the commenters on the Economist didn’t quibble with it so it’s probably at least largely correct.

    Predictions on Iran and the Bomb.

    1. 1984. Jane’s Defense Weekly: Iran will have the bomb by 1986.
    2. 1984. Senator Alan Cranston: Iran will have the bomb by 1991.
    3. 1987. Washingtom Post: Iran will have the bomb very soon.
    4. 1991. CIA: Iran has everything it needs to make two or three bombs.
    5. 1992. Republican Researchers: Iran has enough materials to make 3 bombs.
    6. 1992. The “Jerusalem Report: Iran will have the bomb by 2000.
    7. 1992. The “European” magazine: Iran already has two bombs.
    8. 1992. Isreali General Herzl Budinger: Iran will have the bomb by 2000.
    9. 1992. Israeli Minister Simon Peres: Iran will have the bomb by 1999.
    10. 1993. Israeli UN Envoy Gad Yaacobi: Iran will have the bomb by 2001
    11. 1994. CIA Director Woolsey: Iran will have the bomb by 2002
    12. 1995. US Defense Secretary William Perry: Iran will have the by 2000
    13. 1995. Benjamin Netanyahu: Iran will have the bomb by 1998
    14. 1996. Israeli Foreign Minister Ehud Barak: Iran will have the bomb by 2004.
    15. 1996. Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres: Iran will have the bomb by 2005
    16. 1997. Senior Israeli Intelligence Officials: Iran will have the bomb by 2005
    17. 1998. US Head Cent Com, General Zinny: Iran will have the bomb by 2003
    18. 1999. Senior Israeli Military Official: Iran will have the bomb by 2004
    19. 2001. Israeli Def Min Binyamin Ben-Elieze: Iran will have the bomb by 2005
    20. 2002. CIA Dir George Tennet: Iran will have the bomb by 2010.
    21. 2003. Israeli Lawmaker Ephraim Sneh: Iran will have the bomb by 2006
    22. 2003. Israeli Dir Intel Gen Aharon Ze’evi: Iran will have the bomb by 2004
    23. 2004. Israeli Intelligence: Iran will have the bomb by 2007
    24. 2005. Mossad chief Meir Dagan: Iran will have the bomb by 2008
    25. 2005. Dir. Def. Intell Admiral Lowell Jacoby: Iran will have the bomb by 2015
    26. 2005. Israeli Mil chief Gen Aharon Zeevi: Iran will have the bomb by 2008
    27. 2006. Israeli intelligence: Iran will have the bomb by 2008
    28. 2006. IDF Chief of Staff Moshe Ya’alon: Iran will have the bomb by 2011
    29. 2007. CBS News: Iran will have the bomb by 2010
    30. 2007. Ha’aretz reported: Iran will have the bomb by 2009
    31. 2008. IDF Brigadier General Ephraim Sneh: Iran will have the bomb by 2009
    32. 2009. Benjamin Netanyahu: Iran will have the bomb by 2010
    33. 2009. Mossad chief Meir Dagan: Iran will have the bomb by 2014.
    34. 2010. Israel National News: Iran will have the bomb by 2011
    35. 2011. US Intelligence: Iran will have the bomb by 2014
    36. 2011. Rep Sen Jim Inhofe: Iran will have the bomb and ICBM by 2015
    37. 2012. Sen Lindsey Graham/Joe Lieberman: Iran will the bomb in 2012

  48. bryanfeir says

    Modusoperandi @ #4:

    The old ones are all dented and tarnished.

    … Scarred and unvarnished; In old Portebello they’re bought and they’re sold.

    My lord, am I dating myself now that this was the first thing that came into my head on reading those three words.

  49. says

    mx89 (#60) –

    Their predictions of (read: predilections for) nuclear war have all the accuracy of Sylvia Browne. Unlike them, at least Browne finally shut up.

    Meanwhile, the CIA, other US government agencies, and members of the Israeli military have all admitted that Iran isn’t trying to build a bomb.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9225641/Israel-army-chief-says-Iran-not-building-nuclear-bomb.html

    Why let facts get in the way of pre-emptive warfare and genocide?

  50. says

    bryanfeir “My lord, am I dating myself now that this was the first thing that came into my head on reading those three words.”
    Pah! Back in my day all we had was Bedknobs! Only the rich kids in the box on the nice side of the alley could afford them hoity toity Broomsticks!

  51. Ichthyic says

    Did the USA exist in the 10th century? Did Canada exist in the 10th century? Did Australia exist in the 10th century. The barking chihuahua once again provides a non sequitur.

    uh, irony much? yours is the nonsequitor.

    unless your point was that Canadians are really Persians.

    OTOH, given it’s you, I can’t rule out that IS your point.

  52. Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :) says

    Despite the unanimous support of the comments so far, this is a sellout by Obama worthy of Neville Chamberlain. Obama will declare “peace in our time” but when Iran sets off a nuke, he will be shown for the appeaser he is. It would seem that, as Santayana said, “Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them”. We never learn that appeasement doesn’t pay. The road company Frankenbergers in Tehran will see to it that we learn the hard way.

    When all you have is being dumb as a sack of hammers, everything looks like a nail.

    Now go away before I replace you with a very small shell script.

  53. says

    Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :) (#66) -

    When all you have is being dumb as a sack of hammers, everything looks like a nail.

    Now go away before I replace you with a very small shell script.

    How about site wide, not just for yourself? Slc is as disturbed as Dennis Markuze, and should be treated the same way.

    One poster accounting for 25-35% of the posts in one thread is borderline obsession. But when it’s 25-35% in every thread he posts which mentions one word – in this case, Israel – there’s clearly a need for psychiatric evaluation. The only threads he doesn’t post that much are the ones he doesn’t post anything, and only because he didn’t see it.

  54. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    @ ^ Dingojack : Give it time. You’ll know it it when it happens. Won’t be able to miss it in fact. *

    And if it doesn’t happen, you’ll probably have to thank the Israelis for taking action to save your backside along with everyone else’s.

    Just like with Iraq and Syria being prevented from gaining nukes by Israeli action too.

    ——–

    * Given the choice (which neither of us really are – the decisions lie with others) I’d gladly pass on the schadenfrede when / if it happens. If you are wrong the consequences are quite literally apocalyptic. If I am wrong, not so-much. I’d rather I was wrong than you are – but, I don’t think I am. Sadly.

  55. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    @50. Raging Bee

    “We’re talking religious fanatics here that are famous for homicide-suicide bombings.”

    Actually, the Iranian government hasn’t had jcak [sic] shit to do with the most “famous” suicide-bombings — they came from Sunni fanatics, not Shiite ones.

    You reveal your complete ignorance of reality here Raging Bee :

    Iran is the world’s leading sponsor of Jihadist terorism. It sponsors and supports in all ways Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and many other such murderous terrorist groups. It sent weapons to the PLO when Arafat was in charge and helped him destroy the Oslo accords. It helped Al Quaida in Iraq (the group and the country.)

    In that one line there Raging Bee conclusively proved xe don’t have a clue what xe’s talking about.

    And when you look at the most horrific acts of violence and fanaticism in the Muslim world, the Iranian government comes off as the most stable and sensible regime in the region. It’s firmly in control of its people and territory, and it has some democratic institutions that actually have a chance of taking root without being undermined by senseless nihilistic insrugency. What other regime in the Muslim world can say that?

    Malaysia, Turkey, Morocco. That’s just to name three.

    Also, please tell me you’re joking? You are right?

    “Most stable and democratic after killing its own citizens in that brutal revolt a few years ago? After constantly spreading terror and war and being detested secretly (sometimes not so secretly) by even other Islamic regimes nearby like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states?

    What planet you on?

  56. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    @34 laurentweppe : I provided historical evidence and logic for my case, you responded with more spittle-flecked baseless insults and an utterly false strawmonster cricature of me that exists only in your head – your substance-less comment speaks for itself and disproves everything you say.

    @36. left0ver1under :

    “Once again, sociopaths like slc aka lumbago and stever pollute the discussion with their genocidal desires.”

    Fuck mate, how delusional are you? Not a single person with any of those usernames is commenting on this thread! People can look and see.

    Wow. And to think people accuse me of posting drunk here.

    Also, no wish for genocide on *my* part – I hope we manage to avoid it by stopping Iran which is the group that openly talks of wiping Israel off the map along with y’know denying the Holocaust, denying gays exist and so on.

    @37. dingojack

    Homicide bombing?

    Homicide-suicide bombings is what I said and is the particularly disgusting tactic I meant.

    So all other kinds of bombings (by anyone who is non-brown I presume you mean) ..

    Your presumption is completely wrong. As ever. Maybe you should stop making such utterly ridiculous and unsupported assumptions and read what I actually write for a change?

    If, as seems usual, you fail to understand what I’m saying maybe need to just ask me dingojack?

    (But try to read it a few times through first, aloud if that helps you.)

    .. aimed a delivering what? Kittens and rainbows?
    Idiot.

    Look who’s talking!

    Bombs are aimed at delivering destruction to their assigned targets. Bombs come in a wide range from missiles that are precise, laser guided and target specific terrorists and military infrastructure to, well, idiots who are brain-washed into committing the mass murder of innocent civilians on buses, marketplaces, and everywhere.

    Nothing to do with skin colour or the horrible fiction that is “race” and everything to do with *who* is being attacked and *how*.

    What part of this do some of the fools here fail to comprehend exactly?

  57. says

    Iran is the world’s leading sponsor of Jihadist terorism. It sponsors and supports in all ways Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and many other such murderous terrorist groups.

    Does Iran sponsor any of the various al Qaeda chapters? Al Shabbab? The various extremist groups makin glife miserable for women (and pretty much everyone else) in norther and central Africa and Syria?

    Most stable and democratic after killing its own citizens in that brutal revolt a few years ago?

    Actually, yes — more stable and democratic than the current governments (or mis-governments) of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, for starters. I know that’s not saying much, but it’s very important in a region where chronic instability is undermining all of the most basic institutions necessary for any kind of modern civil society, let alone full-blown democracy.

    Also, no wish for genocide on *my* part – I hope we manage to avoid it by stopping Iran which is the group that openly talks of wiping Israel off the map along with y’know denying the Holocaust, denying gays exist and so on.

    Um…you do realize that the Iranian president who said all that stupid shit has since been replaced by someone less asinine? And I hope you also realize that said replacement was accomplished without plunging the whole country into chaos? Your hysteria needs a bit of updating.

Leave a Reply