ADVERTISEMENT

Republicans wrapping themselves in the wrong flag

But not inaccurate.

Best I can tell, Iran got everything they wanted.

If Obama struck a similar deal with Republicans on some policy disagreement they had, they'd be furious with Obama -- accusing him of bringing covered dishes to gunfights and such.
 
About Israel's right to exist

Some Israelis insist on Israel existing as a "Jewish State". However, to date Israelis really haven't decided among themselves just what a Jewish State means.

The Palestinians and its supporter Iran along with Arab countries want this "Jewish State" to be defined as part of an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. In other words, the question is in what form will Israel exist after an agreement is reached rather than whether it will exist.
 
I think

That Republicans would continue to confuse a Likudnic view of Israel's interests with our interests. The existence of the Netanyahu government is just a happy bonus. But once again, if fealty to Israel doesn't account for Republican incoherence, what does?
 
But, the poll does suggest that they favor Israel's interests over our own

The question plainly asks it and you seem to be going to great lengths to avoid it. If the question had said "American policy" instead of "American interests", you might have a leg to stand on. But, it didn't and you don't. Heck, MTIOF is above insisting that the questions had nothing to do with Iran.
 
"Iran got everything they wanted"

That's absurd. Iran wanted to have no restrictions on its nuclear program and have all sanctions lifted immediately. Instead they're getting serious limitations on their nuclear program, intrusive inspections, and gradual relief from sanctions as they establish compliance.
 
Childish AND inacccurate...

And totally lame. I generally expect better than you.
 
We're Not Incoherent - And We Are Not Over-reading Polls Either

You cannot get to your conclusion based on those 3 poll questions.

Period.

You either negligently or intentionally misstated what the poll meant.

Perhaps you could explain why you think we shouldn't be concerned about the issues I listed vis-a-vis a nuclear Iran.

Do you know what US allies not-named-Israel think about this deal?
Do their views matter?
Should their views matter?
India?
Turkey?
France?
Germany?

Or was the whole point of your post only that "Republicans and Israel are bad bad bad very bad" (which at least is different from the usual "Republicans are bad bad bad very bad"), and the poll which you didn't understand just gave you an opening to drive the lane and slam the ball off the back of the rim, fall on your ass and watch it get dunked on the other end?
 
Now you're back pedaling.

So Republicans tend to favor a muscular approach towards hostile nations to an accommodative approach. Wow, that's a startling discovery you've made there. You should seek to get it published.
 
I doubt that's the driving factor

It may be a component at the margins for a few, but I suspect that the love and support for Israel currently has more to do with Israel being a useful pawn for their current foreign policy approach.
 
Sometimes...

...the failure of a diplomatic approach can leave us in a far worse position than if we'd acted sooner.

Obviously, the classic example of this is Munich. That effort didn't prevent war. It did, however, make the inevitable war a whole lot bloodier than it could've or should've been. It gave the Germans that much more time and capability to arm up -- as well as to fortify and expand their territorial control.

It's certainly understandable that European leaders wanted to do whatever they could to avoid another war on their continent. But, as Churchill told Chamberlain when he arrived back from Munich: you were give a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you shall have war. And, of course, he turned out to be entirely correct.

I think Iran is determined to acquire a nuclear arsenal. And I think the longer we allow their nuclear program to continue, the more dangerous and deadly a future military conflict will be.

You can call that idiosyncratic. I call it depressingly realistic.
 
So you agree with Super?

If I was interested in beckoning the end of the world, I'd be supporting policies which enable Iran to nuke up. As it is, I think we should probably just accept that's where they're going, ask ourselves if we will or won't abide that, and, if we won't, start considering what actions we ought to take to thwart them.

The notion that people are sympathetic to Israel because they long for apocalypse is as loopy as loopy gets.
 
Wow did you miss the point.

Republicans are twice as likely as democrats to say that the US should support Israel even when it is against US interests. Disagree with Rock's interpretation of Iran all you want; the real main point is that Repubs are twice as likely as Dems to be shameless traitors.
 
No one would ever accuse you of over-reading

It isn't a question of whether we should be "concerned" about the issues you listed. The point is that you guys have no alternative to a negotiated resolution, as this thread once again illustrates. It's all just hand-waving and loud noises.

As for US allies, I know what the P5+1 countries think. They think we should negotiate a deal with Iran. If we kill this deal, support for the existing sanctions regime will fall apart, and we'll be left with two alternatives: (1) Iran gets the bomb; or (2) war with Iran. "NEVER AGAIN" and other lame slogans are no response to this reality.
 
Oh good grief

We're talking about Munich again. Too bad we can't talk about the questions I keep asking.
 
Huh?

No, I'm not saying that "Republicans tend to favor a muscular approach" -- whatever that means. I'm saying that Republican opposition to a negotiated resolution is incoherent. I'm not just saying that Republicans are wrong as a policy matter, I'm saying they're behaving in an objectively irrational manner -- at least from the perspective of America's interests.

This post was edited on 4/16 3:11 PM by Rockfish1
 
That may be so, despite what they say . . .

But what accounts for their incoherent foreign policy approach?
 
The liklihood of one or the other parties voting in a way is Not the Point


The point was and remains that the original poster made up a conclusion out of whole cloth..unsupported by the link.

Your juvenile gabble about shameless traitors notwithstanding.
 
Not to worry Crazed....


It's heartwarming to see a couple of mental deficients find each other.
 
Are you a simpleton?

I linked to a poll that says most Republicans elevate Israel's interests over our own. I argued that this would explain why Republican opposition to a negotiated settlement is so incoherent. No, the poll didn't say that. I said that. What ensued was loud noises and hand-waving -- all of which underscores my point about Republican incoherence.
 
For good reason.

Santayana was onto something when he said "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

So I don't know why you'd scoff at reminders of the past.

This is not to say that the present situation is an analog, much less a perfect one, to that one. It's simply to point out that there can be perils inherent in even trying to avert war with an intractable enemy. If it turns out I'm right that Iran is every bit as committed to gaining a nuclear arsenal today as they were prior to the Lausanne framework, then we probably haven't averted a military conflict here. Like Chamberlain, we may have delayed it -- but, in so doing, we might also have raised the future tolls.

As I said last week, if it's true (a big "if") that this deal puts Iran's breakout time to a year, then it probably does allow sufficient time for military action. That's certainly a good thing. My qualms about it are mostly rooted in the expectation that we'll eventually find ourselves at that juncture and, by then, it will be evident that sooner would've been better than later.
 
Have you ever....

...asked any of these people if they support policies they believe, rightly or wrongly, would hasten the apocalypse?

There's a difference -- and a huge one, at that -- between somebody believing in the prophecy of apocalypse and somebody not only anxiously awaiting it, but doing whatever they can to bring it about.

If you think the latter describes anything but a tiny fringe element of evangelical Christians, then you need to get out more.
 
There's never a good reason

Anytime someone starts making Nazi analogies I stop listening. Iran isn't Nazi Germany, Khamenei isn't Hitler, and neither a world war nor a holocaust would result from a negotiated resolution of the nuclear issue. It's just another thing that the opponents of negotiation prefer to talk about instead of the incoherence of their own position.

And insofar as war is concerned, sooner is absolutely not better than later -- because later often turns out to be never.

Reductio ad Hitlerum
 
Er...

...how do you explain going from "Republicans are in fealty to Israel" to "(In the event of a Herzog-Obama alliance) Republicans would continue to confuse a Likudnic view of Israel's interests with our interests"?

So are they in fealty to Israel, or are they in fealty to "a Likudnic view"?

Republicans do favor the Likudnic view on Iran. And that's hardly surprising. That's why I'm mocking you about making a publish-worthy revelation. Given that Israel currently has a Likud government, I suppose I can see why somebody might confuse support for Israel's policy towards Iran with "fealty to Israel."

I guess I just didn't expect you to be the one confused.
 
That's incidental to the historical lesson.

And it's hardly justification for just brushing it aside. The lesson the world learned (or, at least, should've learned) from Munich has little to do with Hitler and Nazis. Rather, it's about mistaking our own desire for peace with dangerous naiveté in the face of an intractable enemy.

We could just as easily apply the same lesson to North Korea. It wasn't long ago that we negotiated a deal that was said to preclude them from acquiring nukes. It didn't exactly work out that way. Saying "Well, Kim isn't Hitler" is true -- but it doesn't change the fact that NoKo is, now, a nuclear power. I happen to think that NoKo has only ever desired nukes as a means of extortion. And, thus far, that's held true.

But there's a reason that virtually every nation in the ME region, Israel of course included, is scared stiff at the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran. And that's because they suspect that Iran isn't simply interested in extorting foreign aid money.

Anyway, it's fine if you want to disregard the past. Just don't be surprised when you find out that Santayana was right and you're condemned to repeat it.
This post was edited on 4/16 4:17 PM by crazed_hoosier2
 
Out of curiosity

Let's say, a few years down the road, intelligence indicates that Iran has entered breakout for a nuclear weapon, complete with delivery systems and the whole bit.

What, at that point, would you suggest be done about it?
 
Oh, and...


"sooner is absolutely not better than later -- because later often turns out to be never."

This is precisely the reason why we need to remember Munich. Later did not turn out to be never. But it very much did turn out to claim tens of millions of lives and cause untold amounts of destruction. We can only guess how different the war would've been had Germany been engaged sooner than it was. But I've never come across too many people who guess that it would've been just as bad, let alone less bad.

If war is inevitable, as it was in 1938, sooner is better than later. Of course never is better than sooner or later. It's just that, sometimes, that's not one of the options.

Here....I don't think it'll prove to be one of the options. The only way it would is if (a) Iran gives up its ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons, or (b) its neighbors (not to mention nations elsewhere, including us) relent and demonstrate the whole "we'll never allow a nuclear Iran" thing to be a ruse.

And, frankly, I wonder if (b) might actually be the most dangerous scenario of all.
 
I am not connecting the dots

Where do you go from a regime collapsing b/c of economic sanctions to either Iran obtaining the bomb or going to war with Iran? You seem to be viewing this in black and white.

How would the former be any more negative to Israel than the deal on the table? Israeli beliefs are not aligned with American beliefs regarding Iran for a variety of reasons, most notably, proximity.

That being said, I personally think their beliefs are overblown in regards to Iran's possession of Nukes. But, then again, I'm not living within range of Iranian missiles, nor have I lived through rocket attacks, scud missile attacks, etc.
 
(Sounding As Much Like Ronald Reagan As I Can) "Well, There You Go Again"

You say "you guys have no alternative to a negotiated resolution."

That is not accurate (anywhere but your fevered imagination).

"Republicans" (to paint with your broad brush) are not against "negotiating" with Iran.

BOTH of my senators are on the record as OK'ing negotiations.
BOTH are Republicans.
One runs the Senate (and has already allowed more bi-partisan debate and consideration of legislation in 3 months than Reichsmarshall Reid did in 3 YEARS).

Rand Paul rejected conditioning a return to the table on even a prior Iranian recognition that sanctions come off AFTER verification, and McConnell has cobbled together a bi-partisan bill that supports Congressional review - NOT rejects negotiations.

So shove that Rockfish-made-up-story about how "republicans are against negotiating" up the Rockfish-hole where the sun don't shine.

"Republicans" are against a deal that is a very bad horrible deal, that does not allow proper verification, that the lying, cheating, America-hating Mullahs who unfortunately run Iran are on the verge of getting from the absolute worst American President ever. Same dumbass who loved on Putin enough to lift our missile defense over eastern Europe, right before Putin took Ukraine, and the same Putin who is now on the verge of giving Iran an S-300 ground-to-air MISSILE DEFENSE system, all while Obama and his sycophants foam at the mouth to get a deal - ANY DEAL - that does not allow us to truly verify compliance. And even while the mullahs are already the counting the billions they expect/demand/claim they will get as soon as the ink is dry.

ANY time ANY issue is raised contrary to your half-cocked conclusions, you dodge it in favor of some inane falsehood like "Republicans don't want to negotiate."

A "good" deal is fine.
A "bad" deal is not.
You intentionally ignore the difference for political reasons.

WTF is wrong with you?
 
I'm Thinking Not

First, not even the article linked by Rockfish posited his conclusion that Republicans views on the Iran deal are driven by the reported views on "divergent" US/Israeli interests.

But I'm not even sure the poll supports the article's claim that "Republicans by a ratio of more than 2-to-1 say the U.S. should support Israel even when its stances diverge with American interests."

First, it is not clear to me that the relevant poll question:


"When it comes to relations between the U.S. and Israel, which of the following do you agree with more?
(Read options. Rotate.)
45 Israel is an important ally, the only democracy in the region, and we should support it even if our interests diverge
47 Israel is an ally but we should pursue America's interests when we disagree with them
8 Not sure"

was asked only of Republicans. The notations after the questions do not make that clear. There are questions followed by the comment "(Asked only of those identifying as [party] or independents; n=xxx.)," but it is not clear that EVERY question thereafter was asked only of 1 party, and the comment "(Read options. Rotate.)" does not make that clear either.

But let's assume the question WAS only asked of Republicans and independents. Does it NOT say that 45% said the horrible and 47% did not and 8% were knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers with no opinion? 47% versus 45% is not 2:1.

And if that question was only asked of Republicans - why?
Where are the Democrat poll numbers on the same question?
What if 60% of Democrats said "stand with Israel no matter what"?
What then?
 
I don't know why you asked the question when you already know. . .

The answer. And you know damn good and well no neocon on this forum is going to give you that answer.

The answer doesn't just apply to Israel.

The answer is simply this. . .republicans elevate the interest of anyone and anything that is in opposition to whatever President Obama has any interest in. This isn't just an Israeli policy issue.
 
Dude.

Of course they asked the question of both Republicans and Democrats. How else do you think they got the numbers for both? The 45-47 split represents the entire sample.

goat
 
That's the Alzheimers Reagan talking

You offer no alternative. The deal now being worked out is the best deal the P5+1 could achieve. The alternative to this deal isn't ponies and starbursts. The alternative to this deal -- notwithstanding the claims of Bibi Netanyahu (R-Israel) -- is no deal, which by the way is exactly what Bibi wants

If this deal craters, the hardliners in Iran will have proven out, people like Rouhani who actually want to talk to us will be purged in disgrace, and the rest of the Western world will conclude that we're nuts. The sanctions regime will fall apart, and our options will be (1) Iran gets the bomb; or (2) war with Iran. That's the Republican "alternative", and the word salad you've posted doesn't address any of that.

You say that Republicans are in favor of a "good" deal, but not this deal. But leaving aside the realities I explained above, Republicans define a "good" deal only as the sort of deal Iran would never accept. Operationally, then, it's irrelevant that Republicans claim they aren't opposed to any deal, because they're opposed to any deal we could get. Do you really not get this? How do you imagine we'll get the ponies and starbursts deal you guys would accept?

Maybe the problem isn't fealty to Israel or hatred of Obama. Maybe you guys really are as stupid as you sound.
This post was edited on 4/16 7:02 PM by Rockfish1
 
Did You Look at The Poll Itself - Not Just The Article?

Yer making my point for me - there are no numbers there to support the claim of "2 to 1" and there are no separate numbers for R's and D's regarding the question at issue.

The only given is "47-45 with 8 undecided".

But from that, we are told (by the article) that Republicans will pursue Israeli interests over US interests "2 to 1" and (by Rockfish) its because of that that irrational view that Republicans oppose not just "the deal" with Iran, but even negotiating.

THAT is what passes for journalism, polling and debate.
 
If you're going to lead a Nazi parade of horribles . . .

You actually need a parade of horribles. All you've offered is yourself as drum major waving a "Nazis = bad" baton, with no horribles in tow. The worst specific outcomes you've offered are that Iran gets the bomb anyway and we have to go to war with Iran later instead of sooner. Don't expect much enthusiasm when that parade crosses the grandstand.

And please don't talk to me about North Korea. I'll dredge out all the references for the eleventieth time if I have to, but the short story is (1) the Clinton administration got an agreement that effectively locked down NK's plutonium program; (2) NK later started a secret uranium enrichment program that would have taken many years to produce sufficient fissionable material; (3) the Bush administration responded by repudiating the plutonium agreement; and (4) NK threw out the plutonium inspectors, broke the seals on the plutonium fuel rods, and promptly tested plutonium bombs, long before it could ever have had a uranium bomb.

Now you perversely offer this misadventure as a case study in favor of a more "muscular" approach.

The question isn't whether countries like NK and Iran are bad actors. Obviously they are. The question is what is the least bad way to deal with these bad actors. Or at least that's the question if you care about outcomes, and I'm frankly not convinced you guys do care about outcomes.

Republicans can only comprehend policy analysis on a strong-weak axis. I wish they could also imagine policy analysis on a smart-stupid axis.




This post was edited on 4/16 9:52 PM by Rockfish1
 
That's a poll summary.

I don't know why they didn't include some crosstabs in the summary, but obviously that data is available. They clearly asked for party identification, and they clearly asked for an answer to the Israeli question. They could also figure out what percentage of people who have a favorable opinion of Hillary answered a certain way. That's how polls work. I'm not sure what it is you think is missing.
 
The guy who's apparently never heard of Tim LaHaye's best-selling novels

Thinks I need to get out more. This speaks for itself.

There's lots of loopiness out there. You just have no idea what it is.
This post was edited on 4/16 10:08 PM by Rockfish1
 
See below

For an entire thread of incoherent responses that illustrate, better than I ever could, that Republican opposition to a negotiated resolution is irrational. The irrationals will learn nothing from this exercise -- or any other exercise -- but it should be a bright shining beacon to the non-Dunning-Krugers: Advance as far as you can in non-stupid directions, knowing that you will always be opposed by village idiots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hoopsdoc1978

Make your choice.

Replies
39
Views
962
The Water Cooler
IUCrazy2
I
D

U.S. GOP Republican Rep. George Santos Lie Tracker

Replies
101
Views
3K
The Water Cooler
Bulk VanderHuge
Bulk VanderHuge
A

Are the Russians engaged in genocide?

Replies
19
Views
599
The Water Cooler
DANC
D
A

The Great Replacement Theory

Replies
119
Views
3K
The Water Cooler
hoosboot
H
S

For those who asked about what Trump did.

Replies
125
Views
6K
The Water Cooler
jet812
J
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back