Skip to main content

View Diary: MSNBC AM is the newest FOX NEWS. (Iran rant) (129 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Your fundemental premise that Iran is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tortmaster, mkor7

    developing nuclear weapons is utterly unsupported.

    "I read New republic and Nation/I've learned to take every view.." P. Ochs

    by JesseCW on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 06:41:27 AM PST

    •  Please don't be naive, Jesse. (6+ / 0-)

      Every country is at some stage working to develop or purchase nuclear weapons.  It is the "USA will leave you alone" card and the whole world knows it.

      Listening to the NRA on school safety is like listening to the tobacco companies on cigarette safety. (h/t nightsweat)

      by PsychoSavannah on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 06:46:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  naive or not, the fact remains that (8+ / 0-)

        1. there are no Iranian nuclear bombs.  None.  Zip.  Zero.  Zilch.  Not a one.

        and

        2. Iran has now agreed not to make any.

        What seems to be the problem with this . . . . ?  I'm just not seeing it.

        If ANYBODY is a little soft in the head, it's the paranoids who are waving their arms and screeching that "the Iranians won't follow the deal!!!"--even before the damn thing has been signed yet.

        In the end, reality always wins.

        by Lenny Flank on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 07:46:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Iran long ago agreed not to make (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tortmaster

          any.

          If Iran wanted to make some anytime in the next decade or so, they wouldn't be converting their refined uranium to fuel regularly.

          This diary reads like it's a Clinton era State Department release.

          More faith in Israeli intelligence than our own.

          "I read New republic and Nation/I've learned to take every view.." P. Ochs

          by JesseCW on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 07:53:57 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I would point out that since 1973 it has been (9+ / 0-)

            Israel doing all the invading and attacking instead of the other way around. . . but if I point that out a lot of very ideological people will set their hair on fire and yell incoherently at me, so I won't point it out . . . .

            PS--when does Israel plan on giving up its nukes . . . . ?  And why is Israel allowed to have them but not anyone else . . . ?

            In the end, reality always wins.

            by Lenny Flank on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 08:00:40 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  When has Israel invaded or attacked Iran? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tortmaster
            •  And a most if not all those invasions and attacks (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tortmaster

              were completely justified.

              Like the Osirak nuclear reactor -- Iraq remains in a state of "hot war" with Israel and it was a legitimate target.

              Like Lebanon in the early 1980s -- terrorists were staging cross-border attacks with impunity as order in that country collapsed with the civil war. (Occupying Beirut was wrong, but Israel absolutely had the right to protect itself.)

              Like Lebanon again in 2006 when Hezbollah killed several Israeli soldiers near the border for no reason.

              Like Gaza in 2008 after wave after wave of rocket attacks.

              •  well by golly the Soviet Union thought all of ITS (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JesseCW, Tortmaster

                invasions and attacks were completely justified too.

                Heck, I can't think of any nation that EVER thought any of its invasions and attacks were not entirely justified. From Rome right up to the US of A.

                It has always amused me how every aggressor in history has ALWAYS managed to convince itself that it was acting totally in self-defense. Funny how it always works out that way, huh.

                In the end, reality always wins.

                by Lenny Flank on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 01:49:50 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  It agreed not to make any, but was (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tortmaster

            out of compliance with that agreement in many ways. And there is NO need to enrich that much uranium past 5% if you aren't building a bomb. That, plus the regime's "wipe out" Israel rhetoric, should give us pause. And that is why we need this deal!

            •  Yes, there is. To fuel a research reactor. (1+ / 1-)
              Recommended by:
              Tortmaster
              Hidden by:
              charliehall2

              But you don't ever get to be taken seriously if you pretend to oppose nuclear proliferation.

              You have made clear your belief that people of the "right" ethnicities are entitled to all the nukes they can build.

              "I read New republic and Nation/I've learned to take every view.." P. Ochs

              by JesseCW on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 03:59:45 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Have a Chanukah donut (0+ / 0-)

                for an accusation of racism.

                •  Your position is overtly racist. (0+ / 0-)

                  I have absolutely no problem calling your belief that Europeans and people of Jewish ethnicity have a right to produce nuclear weapons and threaten the destruction of entire peoples, while a broad range of central and south central Asian peoples have no such right, racist.

                  Whether you are at your core a racist is beyond my knowledge, but the argument you are currently making is racist.

                  "I read New republic and Nation/I've learned to take every view.." P. Ochs

                  by JesseCW on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 01:16:25 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Have I ever objected to India or Pakistan (0+ / 0-)

                    having nuclear weapons?

                    I object to Iran having nuclear weapons because it is a part of the NPT and promised not to develop them. It also has been active through surrogates at fomenting terrorism directed towards a country with which it has no beef. And it is also the kind of theocracy that we all are supposed to hate here at dailykos, with a human rights record that makes the Republican Theocrats look like Progressive Democrats.

                    Your willingness to accept any level of oppression as long as they are anti-Israel is reminiscent of the US Cold War policy of support for any country that said it was anti-Communist -- even when its human rights abuses were comparable to the countries of the Soviet bloc, and even when they carried out terrorist attacks in other countries including the US.

                    This is not the kind of attitude that I expect to see on a Progressive web site.

        •  If no plans for nuclear weapons, why then? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          charliehall2, Tortmaster

          Why has Iran been producing multistage missiles with a range of about 2,000 KM?  Israel is in range.  In one parade over 30 missiles were on display.  Developing this type of capability at great cost does not have much military sense to it for delivering 1 ton conventional warheads, but nuclear warheads do make sense.

          Why are they producing large quantities of uranium enriched to 20%, when less than 5% is needed for nuclear reactors, and only small amounts are needed for "medical" purposes?

          Why do they have tens of thousands of uranium enrichment centrifuges, sited deep underground in multiple facilities?

          Why were they building a heavy water reactor to produce large quantities of plutonium? This is the alternative to making nuclear weapons with enriched uranium.

          Why do top Iranian government officials make repeated threats and allusions to Israel being eliminated, as well as fund and provide arms for terrorism against Israel?  If Iran behaved to other countries as Canada does, there would be far less concern about the prospects of Iran developing nuclear weapons.

          What the US should do in this situation, if anything, is a topic for debate, but it is just ignoring public facts to say Iran is not developing the capability to make and deliver nuclear missiles.

          The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

          by nextstep on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 09:52:29 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  lets just repeat once more for the hard of hearing (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mkor7, Tortmaster

            Iran has zero nuclear weapons.  None.  Not a one.  Zip.  Zero.  Zilch.

            And it has just agreed not to make any.

            Which part of that is difficult to grasp?

            In the end, reality always wins.

            by Lenny Flank on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 09:58:33 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Every country with nuclear weapons today, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              charliehall2, Tortmaster

              at one time had none as well.

              Unless one buys nuclear weapons a country must develop the capability to make the before they have them.

              Blocking a country from developing nuclear weapons is far, far easier than forcing a country to give them up or remove them.

              Saying Iran does not currently have nuclear weapons, says nothing about their developing that capability and actually making them for the first time.

              The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

              by nextstep on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 10:21:48 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  (sigh) one more time . . . (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mkor7, Tortmaster

                They have no nuclear weapons.  They have agreed not to make any.

                Who the fuck cares what they wanted to do or not do BEFORE.  That game is now over. They have no weapons; they have agreed not to make any.

                What exactly is it you are peeing your pants over?

                In the end, reality always wins.

                by Lenny Flank on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 10:29:10 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Lenny Flank, you do realize that if Iran were to (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  charliehall2, Tortmaster

                  go back on their word, they would not be the first country to do so?

                  Fortunately, Pres Obama and Sec Kerry are not as gullible as some people.

                  The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

                  by nextstep on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 10:57:57 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I realize that the paranoids have lost their (0+ / 0-)

                    goddamn minds. Now they're bitching and bombing not about what someone HAS done, but about what they MIGHT do MAYBE in the FUTURE.  (sigh)

                    Iran hasn't violated anything, anywhere.  They have no nukes.  They have agreed not to make nukes.

                    So quit peeing your pants until you actually have something to pee them over.

                    Geeeez.

                    Pres Obama and Sec Kerry are not as gullible as some people.
                    Um, President Obama and Secretary Kerry made the goddamn agreement, remember?  

                    Holy H Cow, some people are paranoid loons.

                    In the end, reality always wins.

                    by Lenny Flank on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 11:06:59 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Maybe instead of talking about (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PsychoSavannah, Tortmaster

            what the Iran will do, we should talk about which Iranians we're referring to...

            I agree with you - there's little serious dispute that hardliners in Iran are interested in acquiring nuclear weapons, or at least the capacity to create them relatively quickly, and that deterence against the US is a motive. Moderates, on the other hand, want a way out. They don't want nukes in the hands of the conservatives in Iran anymore than we do. It's probably inaccurate to speak about what "the Iranians" will do, or want, without referring to which Iranians.  

            The moderates have to appear strong in negotiations with the US in order to shore up their support at home. They needed a figleaf, and Kerry/Obama gave them one.

            What is underreported and under-appreciated is the fact that this successful round of negotiations strengthened the moderates against the conservatives.  It also achieved a number of concrete results, including daily inspections and limits on the production of enriched uranium and plutonium.  It freezes any progress toward breakout capacity for nuclear weapons for the next six months. It is a very good deal, which leaves the moderates stronger and the conservatives even more discredited.

            And it cost us $6 billion? Of Iran's own money?  

            Any Republican who stands up and say this was a bad deal is either: (a) an idiot, (b) deliberately using foreign policy to undermine the Administration, (c) answers to Benjamin Netanyahu  and APIAC more than the voters... or some combination of all three.

            “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

            by ivorybill on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 10:12:20 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The real issue depends upon where we are in 6 mo. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              charliehall2, Tortmaster

              If Iran removes the ability to build nuclear weapons we have a great success.

              However, if the other countries that participated in the sanctions are unwilling to put them back into force, then the US loses that negotiation power -- potentially to the degree of its options being reduced to military action or do nothing.

              If a good agreement is not reached in 6 months, going another 6 months is likely - for Pres Obama, it pushes Iran past the 2014 elections, for Iran it makes bringing back sanctions from other countries less likely, as well or more important purchases of imported goods can be made to strengthen their economy.

              The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

              by nextstep on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 10:50:14 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  nextstep, I think this is highly unlikely: (0+ / 0-)
                However, if the other countries that participated in the sanctions are unwilling to put them back into force, then the US loses that negotiation power -- potentially to the degree of its options being reduced to military action or do nothing.
                Iran is now in a situation in which, if they violate the agreement, the international community will react even more strongly against them.

                Rand Paul is to civil liberties as the Disney Channel is to subtle and nuanced acting. On biblical prophesy: If you play the bible backwards, it says, "Paul is dead."

                by Tortmaster on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 01:48:59 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Well said, ivorybill! (0+ / 0-)

              It is way too reflexive an action to hate on the Government and especially this President. It is beyond time to call out dumb arguments as dumb arguments.

              And these GOP arguments are painfully, obviously dumb, which was the sine qua non for the rant.

              Not mentioned in the diary, but I'm sure the Tea Party GOP always sees an opportunity to cause fear in their base whenever President Obama deals with an Arabic nation.

              Rand Paul is to civil liberties as the Disney Channel is to subtle and nuanced acting. On biblical prophesy: If you play the bible backwards, it says, "Paul is dead."

              by Tortmaster on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 01:43:05 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  There is no problem with it at all (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tortmaster

          It's a good thing.  But to categorically state that Iran hasn't/isn't thinking about it, working toward it is just silly.  Propaganda works from all sides.  Now, if we can lock the John Boltons, John McCains, Lindey Grahams and other warmongers in the attic for a while, we'd be good :-)

          Listening to the NRA on school safety is like listening to the tobacco companies on cigarette safety. (h/t nightsweat)

          by PsychoSavannah on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 09:52:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  The CIA does not agree with you. When you're (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tortmaster

        to their right, it's wise to check assumptions.

        "You're naive" isn't an argument. It's a right wing trope.

        "I read New republic and Nation/I've learned to take every view.." P. Ochs

        by JesseCW on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 07:52:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  So daily inspections is leaving them alone? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tortmaster, charliehall2

        Diluting their enriched uranium and shutting down their advanced centrifuges is leaving them alone? Maintaining crippling sanctions until the treaty is completed, signed, ratified, and functioning for many months is leaving them alone?

        You make me laugh.

        Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

        by Mokurai on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 09:31:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site