The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

[Polish_Silver]

Cairo as a great City

I have been to all and every one is a wonderful, fascinating, often openly chaotic place. As I have written elsewhere on iTulip, Cairo is among the world's truly great cities. I do not think one can claim to have experienced the world if one has not, at a minimum, explored Egypt. But one has to completely set aside the stuff on CNN and form your own opinion.

. . . .

I have visited Egypt, but only to see the magnificent Coral Reefs and unsurpassed ancient places. What are some traits that make Cairo a great city? As dysfunctional as Egypt is, I dare say many of the nations in the region could not even manage a sizable tourist industry the way Egypt does.

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Iranian nukes--not comfy at all!

1)irrational non state actors acquiring just 1 or several nuclear weapons

Do irrational non-state actors have possession of chemical weapons etc?

[vt]

Re: Iranian nukes--not comfy at all!

Not non state, but Iraq has used then in the Iraq-Iran war. Syria is using them now.

They could easily be captured and used by non state actors.

[Polish_Silver]

Chemical weapons: No comparison!

Do irrational non-state actors have possession of chemical weapons etc?

The lethality of chemical and germ weapons has never been demonstrated to exceed traditional fire arms and explosives.

For one thing, the wind may blow them back on your own troops.

Nuclear weapons, on the other hand, have been proven devastating. A suitcase sized plutonium bomb could obliterate a city. Nuclear weapons are one of the very few well founded worries that deserve more, not less attention.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Iranian nukes--not comfy at all!

Do irrational non-state actors have possession of chemical weapons etc?

Chemical and nerve agents have been recovered and used as IEDs.

NY Times covered it recently.

I know someone(acquaintance) who was hit by a chemical/nerve agent IED in Iraq and was reached by NY Times, but did not contribute to the story as he is still serving. According to him, the official handling of the small number of chemical/nerve agent IED attacks that occurred in Iraq was quite poor and the near opposite response from what he was expecting(i.e. "Where's the WMD?").

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/05/wo...iraq.html?_r=0

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Iranian nukes--not comfy at all!

Chemical and nerve agents have been recovered and used as IEDs.

NY Times covered it recently.

I know someone(acquaintance) who was hit by a chemical/nerve agent IED in Iraq and was reached by NY Times, but did not contribute to the story as he is still serving. According to him, the official handling of the small number of chemical/nerve agent IED attacks that occurred in Iraq was quite poor and the near opposite response from what he was expecting(i.e. "Where's the WMD?").

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/05/wo...iraq.html?_r=0

IEDs in their countries against foreign troops in their land. We have yet to experience a chemical attack on western soil, right?

Let me ask, how many of the hijackers were from Afghanistan? In fact in the past 100 years do we know of anyone who is Afghani that has attacked a foreign target not on their land?

Most of these people are angry that foreign troops are in their land as would any American be.

What did the British call the Colonists who rebelled against the Monarchy? Terrorists.

What did the American Colonists call the soldiers who fought the British? Revolutionaries, or if you prefer in modern parlance, Freedom Fighters.

I don't agree with individuals strapping bombs to their chests and walking into public markets or any place for that matter and blowing themselves up but Afghani's pulling together to fight the American troops on "their" land, you bet that is fair game. Just like the Afghani's did vs. the Russians who invaded them in the 80's.

How can you fault these people for continuing to fight in their country?

And then we like to say but but but they are going to come here and blow us up!

A little perspective is warranted. There has been occasional terror attacks against (insert country here) for thousands of years. The bombing of 23 Wall Street in 1920 by anarchists/terrorists for example.

We will never stop these events, they have occurred throughout history in every major country.

Pakistan is just as militant maybe even more so than Iran but they have not allowed their nuclear tech to reach the arms of some lone terrorists who would detonate a nuclear bomb in an American city.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Iranian nukes--not comfy at all!

Chemical and nerve agents have been recovered and used as IEDs.

NY Times covered it recently.

I know someone(acquaintance) who was hit by a chemical/nerve agent IED in Iraq and was reached by NY Times, but did not contribute to the story as he is still serving. According to him, the official handling of the small number of chemical/nerve agent IED attacks that occurred in Iraq was quite poor and the near opposite response from what he was expecting(i.e. "Where's the WMD?").

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/05/wo...iraq.html?_r=0

The military brass is driven by political expedience: find WMD to justify the war in the first place. The reality on the ground is IED.

The priorities of the brass are out of sync with the needs of the enlisted men. Not exactly the first time that happened. I liked Kubrick's film "Paths of Glory".

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Iranian nukes--not comfy at all!

IEDs in their countries against foreign troops in their land. We have yet to experience a chemical attack on western soil, right?

Let me ask, how many of the hijackers were from Afghanistan? In fact in the past 100 years do we know of anyone who is Afghani that has attacked a foreign target not on their land?
.

POZ,

I totally agree that the fear of terrorists is massively exaggerated. And we sacrifice not only the constitution, but human lives, to it with all these wars. However, terrorists have used (or tried to use) chemical and bio weapons outsider their country. There was even an attack in Tokyo some years ago. Most of these are quickly forgotten (and rightly so) because they do little damage. Lots of "experts" are worried about Pakistan's nukes, for various reasons: the country has a huge underclass, history of political instability, myriad terrorist groups, etc.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...m-hell/308730/

[Woodsman]

Re: Iranian nukes--not comfy at all!

A little perspective is warranted...

It's a feature, not a bug, this permanent war economy of ours. Charles Wilson, CEO of GE, called for it in 1944 and warned that the US must not return to a civilian economy, but must keep to a "permanent war economy" of the kind that was so successful during the war: a semi-command economy, run mostly by corporate executives, geared to military production.

After World War II, most economists and business leaders expected that the economy would sink back to depression without massive government intervention of the kind that, during the war years, finally overcame the Great Depression. The New Deal had softened the edges, but not much more. Business understood that social spending could overcome market catastrophes as well as military spending, but social spending has a downside: it has a democratizing and redistributive effect while military spending is a gift to the corporate manager, a steady cushion.

And the public is not involved. People care about hospitals and schools, but if you can "scare the hell out of them," as Senator Vandenberg recommended, they will huddle under the umbrella of power and trust their leaders when it comes to jet planes, missiles, tanks, etc. Furthermore, business was well aware that high-tech industry could not survive in a competitive free enterprise economy, and "government must be the savior," as the business press explained. Such considerations converged on the decision to focus on military rather than social spending.

Cf. Oakes, J. Walter. Towards a Permanent War Economy? (pp. 11-17)

Melman, Seymour. The Permanent War Economy: American Capitalism in Decline

[shiny!]

Re: Iranian nukes--not comfy at all!

It's a feature, not a bug, this permanent war economy of ours. Charles Wilson, CEO of GE, called for it in 1944 and warned that the US must not return to a civilian economy, but must keep to a "permanent war economy" of the kind that was so successful during the war: a semi-command economy, run mostly by corporate executives, geared to military production.

After World War II, most economists and business leaders expected that the economy would sink back to depression without massive government intervention of the kind that, during the war years, finally overcame the Great Depression. The New Deal had softened the edges, but not much more. Business understood that social spending could overcome market catastrophes as well as military spending, but social spending has a downside: it has a democratizing and redistributive effect while military spending is a gift to the corporate manager, a steady cushion.

And the public is not involved. People care about hospitals and schools, but if you can "scare the hell out of them," as Senator Vandenberg recommended, they will huddle under the umbrella of power and trust their leaders when it comes to jet planes, missiles, tanks, etc. Furthermore, business was well aware that high-tech industry could not survive in a competitive free enterprise economy, and "government must be the savior," as the business press explained. Such considerations converged on the decision to focus on military rather than social spending.

Cf. Oakes, J. Walter. Towards a Permanent War Economy? (pp. 11-17)

Melman, Seymour. The Permanent War Economy: American Capitalism in Decline

You speak the truth. It's no accident that we must always be fighting some enemy or another. We always get what we intend.

[verdo]

Re: The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

Lets not forget how many Americans were in favour of invading Iraq before they weren't. We elect leaders to make the calls the people can't. This isn't a damn motion to go to war with Iran...its an attempt to find some semblance of peace and a fair deal. I just made a thread about this (without seeing this one already made), but now you have people in the GOP sending open memos to a de facto enemy of the USA in order to undermine negotiations? i mean what kind of absolute bullcrap is that? Can you imagine what these guys would be saying if the roles were reversed and it was the democrats doing this to Bush in the middle of negotiations. There isn't a chance in hell they would not be outraged, and they would be right to be outraged because that kind of thing does NOTHING to help your opponents position or yours. It makes your country look like its being led by a pack of rabid dogs fighting over the same single piece of meat, gnashing and falling over each other for supremacy. On top of that, it does nothing to smooth relations between the two countries whatsoever. It's not like the Iranian leaders will read the memo and be like "oh golly gee, the republicans don't want anything to do with us...so i guess we'll turn down negotiations with Obama now because we don't want to offend Ted Cruz". Come on...What's more likely to happen is that the moment a GOP president seems like he might actually come to power, the Iranians will frontrun his appointment and make things difficult before the turmoil has even begun in the middle east, as they can now soundly assume that there will be zero talks whatsoever with a republican president. How stupid are these people?

[Woodsman]

Re: The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

Lets not forget how many Americans were in favor of invading Iraq before they weren't...

That's due to the enormous success of domestic information operations, or what grandpa used to call propaganda.

Review the run-up to Bush's invasion of Iraq for a refresher. Cheney and the neocons dusted off a plan created by Feith, Wolfowitz and Perle for Israel and handed it to Bush for implementation once the pretext was in place.

Recall the perspective of then-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill who reported that the invasion of Iraq was the primary agenda item for Bush's very first NSC meeting. That day's debate was not "should we attack Iraq?" but rather "how do we go about attacking Iraq?"

Remember that it was Bush's "most trusted" advisor - Colin Powell - who was selected to present the tissue of justifying lies at the UN that gave the neocons the fig leaf they needed to go ahead with their planned invasion. Within a year of his presentation, nearly all of the "slam dunk" intelligence delivered for UNSC consumption was shown to be false.

With the neocon propaganda machine in full overdrive and aided by a passive and lazy corporate media we quickly saw polls showing a majority of Americans believed Iraq was responsible for 911 despite all evidence to the contrary. Mission accomplished.

...It makes your country look like its being led by a pack of rabid dogs fighting over the same single piece of meat, gnashing and falling over each other for supremacy.

A statement of fact masquerading as a colorful metaphor.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

Have to agree with that.

Americans were not hungry for war, but all the talk of WMD and terrorism got them going.

[lektrode]

Re: The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

That's due to the enormous success of domestic information operations, or what grandpa used to call propaganda.....
................
A statement of fact masquerading as a colorful metaphor.

too bad tho that NONE OF WHAT HAPPENED - esp since 1999

WOULD'VE HAPPENED

had wildbill&co not been more concerned with a certain stain on certain little blue dress
rather than taking out obama... uhhhh... i mean OSAMA back in the mid 90's WHEN THEY HAD THE CHANCE!!!

now, it's all about this little dress:
Hillary Clinton Holds Press Conference To Address Email Scandal - Live Webcast

Hillary Clinton’s Goldman Sachs Problem

and that 'vast right-wing conspiracy' (that they created, all by themselves and the machinations of their buddies in lwr manhattan)

Golden Hillary.

and here's the BIGGEST MACHINATION OF THEM ALL ('brought to you by' the lamerstream media - and it AINT ON FOX, baybee)
http://www.cbs.com/shows/madam-secretary/video/

'propaganda' woody?

the LAMERSTREAM MEDIA IS FIRMLY IN CONTROL

[Woodsman]

Re: The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

..too bad tho that NONE OF WHAT HAPPENED ... had wildbill&co not been more concerned with a certain stain on certain little blue dress...

Okay, but by the same logic we could apply similar culpability to Carter for approving Operation Cyclone, Reagan for doubling down on it, and Bush the First for placing American troops in Saudi Arabia at the invitation of the Saudi royals.

We can play the game all the way back to Roosevelt, if you'd like.