Skip to main content

View Diary: The new warmongering wing of the Democratic Party (458 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  it sure ain't peacemongering. (16+ / 0-)

    if the deal blows up, we can safely assume Iran will continue to develop it's nuclear program, and then what do you think happens?  Iran needs the deal to be rid of sanctions, we need it to constrain our nutjobs.

    Besides, we imposed sanctions like the ones we have now, let alone new ones, on some random country like Guatemala, it'd be seen as an act of war.

    Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

    by Loge on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 09:58:41 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Guatemala (0+ / 0-)

      isn't in violation of the NPT. Imposing sanctions on Iran is far from random.

      •  thank you, captain obvious (6+ / 0-)

        i'm not saying sanctions on Iran are illegal or should be unilaterally repealed, i'm saying the come at great human cost and our policy should be to seek mutually acceptable ways to lessen them.  A choice between deaths for lack of medicine and deaths from bombing is not a choice we should accept for Iran policy, and the sense in which we're not at war is one that misses a deeper truth.

        Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

        by Loge on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 10:21:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Iran can avoid all of the costs (0+ / 0-)

          associated with the sanctions by complying with the NPT.

          •  under the deal (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            native

            they'd declare their enrichment capability and have inspections.  Whether or not civilian nuclear energy programs are in or out of compliance is a subject to debate, I suppose, but if you were Iran, would you unilaterally give up civilian energy programs (meaning you'd have to use more oil and gas to meet domestic needs), and hope that the West agrees it's good enough?  Not after the failure to find WMD in Iraq, post-invasion.

            Clearly the sanctions served their purposes to now if Iran is coming to the table, finding the cost of sanctions outweighing the economic benefits of civilian energy developments and the potential but uncertain military gains a weapon "might" give them (assuming for instance Israel or Israel through the United States doesn't have or exercise second strike capability), but your framing of the issue is the height of fatuousness.

            There's also an internal political angle (for both countries), but perhaps the only thing worse than the Ayatollahs' getting nukes is Iran getting nukes just when the Ayotollahs are falling, from a "proliferation" standpoint, but the sanctions that weaken the government and perhaps inhibit but do not prevent further development, creating even graver risk.  As such, a negotiated solution is better for all parties, except for the fearmongers in both U.S. and Iran who are fond of demonizing the other for political gain.  You and the clerics deserve each other, and the Iranian people deserve Obama and Kerry.  

            Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

            by Loge on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 10:40:57 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Rouhani IS a cleric (0+ / 0-)

              There's not a lot of evidence that the clerics are falling. Iran is talking about coming to the table, but actions speak louder than words. I'm willing to give the interim deal a chance, but in reality, there's very little chance (close to zero, in my opinion) that it will in fact work. Then what? If we go the sanctiosn route, the we get the predicatble screams of "wan mongering"  and the chants of "give diplomacy a chance" when in fact sanctions are an essential part of diplomacy in this case.  What happens when the interim deal fails? I don't support the new bill at this time, but I don't agree that sanctions are war mongering, nor do I believe that there is much appetite in the US for war with Iran, especially consideering how poorly Iraq has turned out thus far.

              •  I possess that information, thank you. (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                native, CenPhx, Notreadytobenice, DSPS owl

                So is Pope Francis.  That doesn't make him Benedict or Innocent III or L. Ron Hubbard.

                If you're willing to give the interim deal a chance, then we can wait a few months for new sanctions bills.  Seems like we have exactly enough sanctions in the short run, and of course the more cut off Iran is from the outside world, the better a nuclear program looks.  More pressure could easily be counterproductive.

                I suppose there's a possible world in which these Senators are acting based on considered positions, but they are after all politicians not thinkers, and the elegant explanation is they are demagoging the issue, so warmonger is entirely a fair thing to say about them.  Whether that's an electorally good idea is another question, but it's not like we should give them a pass in the hope that wishy-washy soccer moms might ultimately nix war.

                Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                by Loge on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 10:57:11 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  If you've got that info (0+ / 0-)

                  Then why aren't you using it correctly?

                  •  he serves a different role from (0+ / 0-)

                    the Supreme Leader and represents a reformist impulse.  He's also a Mujtahadi, not an Ayatollah.  When I said Ayatollahs, I meant Ayatollahs.  Rouhani's clerical role wasn't terribly significant to the argument to what happens to the nukes if the Islamic Republic as we know it falls versus evolving into something more moderate.  

                    Troll.

                    Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                    by Loge on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 11:14:57 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  you posted this (0+ / 0-)
                      You and the clerics deserve each other, and the Iranian people deserve Obama and Kerry.
                      As if Rouhani was not a cleric.

                      Troll indeed.

                      •  yes, nitpickeration (0+ / 0-)

                        and trolling are different.  He is a cleric, but not "the clerics," as in the hardliners.  It's like when the kremlinologists made abig show of pointing out Gorbachev was in fact a communist and a member of the politburo as if that proved anything.

                        Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                        by Loge on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 11:32:06 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I don't know if he is a hardliner or not (0+ / 0-)

                          He hasn't been talking like one recently, but I've heard that tune before from Iran. I've been hearing about So called moderate Iranian leaders since the days of Bani-Sadr, but there hasn't been any real change. We keep hearing about how Iran is young and chaning, Iranian kids like to wear baggy clothing so they can sneak out of the house out night wearing Levis and Gap T shirts and  listen to the Rolling Stones, but in the end, no substantive change  happense.

                •  "$enator$ acting ba$ed on con$idered po$ition$"n/t (0+ / 0-)
        •  Want to know who profits from "sanctions"? (0+ / 0-)

          any other country who refuses to go along: While we are busy refusing to export products in Iran, Communist China is doing just that ... and they are getting richer, much richer.

      •  When do we sanction Israel? (7+ / 0-)

        They've got nukes, don't allow inspections, hell they lock up their own scientists for even acknowledging the existence of their nukes.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site