France Alarmed at Obama's Iranian Capitulation

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
521

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
This is an interesting analysis by a Saudi A-rab…

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/20/opinions/barack-obama-mideast-sager/index.html
[/quote]

You can dismiss this guy with a mere roll of the eyes and a casual “He probably hasn’t even read the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” line.[/quote]

Clearly he failed advanced PolySci 5010[/quote]

No, but you can dismiss him because he is a “privately-funded” shill for Saudi interests who writes things like “I have been fortunate enough to gauge the intentions of those in [the Saudi Arabian] government with regards to their human rights obligations and can confidently say that this process is being taken more seriously the [sic] ever” (Huffpost). This about one of the planet’s unqualifiedly worst human rights abusers.

Which is why he spent much of that editorial whining about how Obama isn’t saying nice enough things about the Arab Gulf states. Most tellingly, this: “the fear is that as long as Iran abides by any agreement that might come into force later this year, the U.S. will negate, downplay, or simply ignore those Iranian actions that the Arab world considers as direct threats.” In other words, his fear is that the Iranians will comply with the deal, which is bad for him because he doesn’t want the United States warming to a regional competitor. This is perfectly legitimate – from a Saudi perspective. What we want is for Iran to give up its nuclear program.

Edited.[/quote]

So you don’t like that he might not be completely subjective? Who is? [/quote]

That’s called a false dichotomy – we don’t have to choose between “impartial robot” and “Saudi shill.” I didn’t criticize him because “he might not be completely subjective,” I criticized him for being a propagandist willing to say fantastically stupid shit about Saudi Arabia in typo-riddled Huffpost blogs, and for openly admitting that his co-ideologues’ fear is that Iran will comply with the deal.

The kind that includes complicity in Nixon’s treason (for which multiple people should have hanged in public) and support for genocidaires. Not rough guys, not unsavory characters – genocidaires. But that isn’t really the point. I didn’t see the link, but I’ll go back and respond to it tomorrow.[/quote]

It’s gratifying, SMH, to see you at last coming out of your shell and calling 'em as you see 'em. :wink:

522

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
after an economic collapse.[/quote]

And again, I say, “Why is that not what WE are waiting for?”

Why negotiate while your adversary still has some room to fall? If the sanctions are what brought the Iranians to the table, why not wait till they RUN there rather than act like they can take it or leave it?

[/quote]

Because what you quoted was one of two options, and the other was war – paid for and died in by us, not the Saudis. We could wait and see if the regime can eke its way past breakout, but, if it were to do so, we would bear the vast bulk of the mess and cleanup. Wouldn’t it be fun to fight ISIS away from our propped-up cardboard government in Tehran?

Or, alternatively, we drop some bombs and nothing more. In which case the sanctions dissolve and the whole thing begins again, with much more Iranian will (and, maybe, a bunch of remnant contraband).

Thing is, we don’t need to take any risks (and continuing to do nothing is by far the greater risk). We aren’t worried about what the Saudis are worried about. I don’t care if the Saudis sweat when they picture a thaw in U.S.-Iran relations. Again, the observer in question is worried that the deal will work. I say let him worry.

523

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
It’s gratifying, SMH, to see you at last coming out of your shell and calling 'em as you see 'em. ;)[/quote]

524

[quote]pushharder wrote:

“Treason?”[/quote]

Yes, treason.

Sabotage of peace talks behind the back of the President of the United States, in order to win an election, to the tune of the collapse of the talks, the resumption of hostilities, and the deaths of more than 20,000 American soldiers. A series of betrayals for which all involved should have been hanged on live television, and the purest example of statist tyranny in American history – the common man tossed into the gaping maw of war in service of one man’s political ambition to the throne.

Edit: But if you don’t want to call it treason, that’s fine. It was Johnson’s coinage, but I don’t want to get into a semantic argument, and I’m not making a legal argument (I’m using the term, as I suspect Johnson was, as a synonym for “betrayal,” which is apt in every possible sense). Call it whatever you’d like – those involved will always have deserved to die for it.

525

[quote]pat wrote:
So we are fighting on the same side, though not together in Iraq against ISIS. We are fighting against Iran in Yemen, and we are trying diplomacy to put together a good faith nuclear treaty with Iran. And we are supposed to trust a treaty with Iran?[/quote]

Oh, they are most assuredly wondering the same thing about us, for the same reasons.

526

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
This is an interesting analysis by a Saudi A-rab…

[/quote]

You can dismiss this guy with a mere roll of the eyes and a casual “He probably hasn’t even read the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” line.[/quote]

Clearly he failed advanced PolySci 5010[/quote]

No, but you can dismiss him because he is a “privately-funded” shill for Saudi interests who writes things like “I have been fortunate enough to gauge the intentions of those in [the Saudi Arabian] government with regards to their human rights obligations and can confidently say that this process is being taken more seriously the [sic] ever” (Huffpost). This about one of the planet’s unqualifiedly worst human rights abusers.

Which is why he spent much of that editorial whining about how Obama isn’t saying nice enough things about the Arab Gulf states. Most tellingly, this: “the fear is that as long as Iran abides by any agreement that might come into force later this year, the U.S. will negate, downplay, or simply ignore those Iranian actions that the Arab world considers as direct threats.” In other words, his fear is that the Iranians will comply with the deal, which is bad for him because he doesn’t want the United States warming to a regional competitor. This is perfectly legitimate – from a Saudi perspective. What we want is for Iran to give up its nuclear program.

Edited.[/quote]

Oh I realize that the Saudis are some of the worst offenders in the Gulf, no doubt. I just think that this is the general feeling of the majority of them and their neighbors. You know, the ones that let us operate out if their countries.

They probably feel like they are getting the shaft after we used them.

527

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
So we are fighting on the same side, though not together in Iraq against ISIS. We are fighting against Iran in Yemen, and we are trying diplomacy to put together a good faith nuclear treaty with Iran. And we are supposed to trust a treaty with Iran?[/quote]

Oh, they are most assuredly wondering the same thing about us, for the same reasons.
[/quote]

Actually, I was questioning us, more so than them…

528

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
So we are fighting on the same side, though not together in Iraq against ISIS. We are fighting against Iran in Yemen, and we are trying diplomacy to put together a good faith nuclear treaty with Iran. And we are supposed to trust a treaty with Iran?[/quote]

Oh, they are most assuredly wondering the same thing about us, for the same reasons.
[/quote]

Actually, I was questioning us, more so than them…[/quote]

What will really make things interesting is when the Houthis and ISIS actually start fighting each other. Maybe our planes supporting the anti-Houthi forces and our planes supporting the anti-ISIS forces will start shooting at each other.

What was the regime that’s stupid and insane again?

530

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
So we are fighting on the same side, though not together in Iraq against ISIS. We are fighting against Iran in Yemen, and we are trying diplomacy to put together a good faith nuclear treaty with Iran. And we are supposed to trust a treaty with Iran?[/quote]

Oh, they are most assuredly wondering the same thing about us, for the same reasons.
[/quote]

Actually, I was questioning us, more so than them…[/quote]

What will really make things interesting is when the Houthis and ISIS actually start fighting each other. Maybe our planes supporting the anti-Houthi forces will start exchanging fire with our planes supporting the anti-ISIS forces. What was the regime that’s stupid and insane again?
[/quote]

Who knows, Yemen is one fucked up situation.

This guy tries to explain it, I think he does a pretty good job.

I think it’s needless to say that the much lauded drone anti-terror program in Yemen was in fact, not a success.

531

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

“Treason?”[/quote]

Yes, treason.

Sabotage of peace talks behind the back of the President of the United States, in order to win an election, to the tune of the collapse of the talks, the resumption of hostilities, and the deaths of more than 20,000 American soldiers. A series of betrayals for which all involved should have been hanged on live television, and the purest example of statist tyranny in American history – the common man tossed into the gaping maw of war in service of one man’s political ambition to the throne.

Edit: But if you don’t want to call it treason, that’s fine. It was Johnson’s coinage, but I don’t want to get into a semantic argument, and I’m not making a legal argument (I’m using the term, as I suspect Johnson was, as a synonym for “betrayal,” which is apt in every possible sense). Call it whatever you’d like – those involved will always have deserved to die for it.[/quote]

Grave error: citing Johnson to disparage Nixon. Yikes, that’s some tricky stuff right there.[/quote]

I’m not citing Johnson to disparage Nixon. I’m citing a historical fact, on which Johnson happened to remark.

[quote]
And to mention 20,000 deaths (presumably under Nixon?) without mentioning the 35,000 under warmonger Johnson? Sheesh.[/quote]

I don’t have any good things to say about Johnson, but getting us into a stupid war because of bad intelligence or ideology – Johnson, W. Bush, etc. – is not remotely comparable to what Nixon did, which was to sabotage peace talks because their successful completion would have undermined his bid for the presidency. After the talks collapsed, more than 20,000 Americans died. In a just world, Nixon would have been executed for it, along with everyone who helped him. You were aware of this, yes? Because you don’t seem to have been.

[quote]
I’m not sure you understand Vietnam politics as well as you think you do.[/quote]

Be sure.

533

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
You were aware of this, yes? Because you don’t seem to have been.

[/quote]

Very aware.

Also aware of the fact that there is another side to that story
[/quote]

Which side is that?

Keep in mind that this “other side” will have to account for evidence that has been accumulating for years, including up to last summer.

535

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
You were aware of this, yes? Because you don’t seem to have been.

[/quote]

Very aware.

Also aware of the fact that there is another side to that story
[/quote]

Which side is that?

Keep in mind that this “other side” will have to account for evidence that has been accumulating for years, including up to last summer. [/quote]

Not aware of any revelations from last summer. Fill me in.

I looked into this years ago. Nothing lately.
[/quote]

Most importantly, Nixon’s man – who wrote a report on Johnson’s having bugged Nixon’s people – confirmed last summer; a page from the FBI wiretap, leaked years ago, included Chennault’s “hold on” message; the audio of Johnson discussing his surveillance of Nixon’s people, including Chennault, was released in 2008:

http://millercenter.org/presidentialclassroom/exhibits/this-is-treason

Edit: Before 1999-ish, there was much less evidence. After 2008 – and, even more, after 2014 – the evidence is very strong.

536

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
This is an interesting analysis by a Saudi A-rab…

[/quote]

You can dismiss this guy with a mere roll of the eyes and a casual “He probably hasn’t even read the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” line.[/quote]

Clearly he failed advanced PolySci 5010[/quote]

No, but you can dismiss him because he is a “privately-funded” shill for Saudi interests who writes things like “I have been fortunate enough to gauge the intentions of those in [the Saudi Arabian] government with regards to their human rights obligations and can confidently say that this process is being taken more seriously the [sic] ever” (Huffpost). This about one of the planet’s unqualifiedly worst human rights abusers.

Which is why he spent much of that editorial whining about how Obama isn’t saying nice enough things about the Arab Gulf states. Most tellingly, this: “the fear is that as long as Iran abides by any agreement that might come into force later this year, the U.S. will negate, downplay, or simply ignore those Iranian actions that the Arab world considers as direct threats.” In other words, his fear is that the Iranians will comply with the deal, which is bad for him because he doesn’t want the United States warming to a regional competitor. This is perfectly legitimate – from a Saudi perspective. What we want is for Iran to give up its nuclear program.

Edited.[/quote]

Oh I realize that the Saudis are some of the worst offenders in the Gulf, no doubt. I just think that this is the general feeling of the majority of them and their neighbors. You know, the ones that let us operate out if their countries.

They probably feel like they are getting the shaft after we used them.[/quote]

Umm…the shaft? Saudis? It’s the other way around. The Saudis are trying to use the economic and military might of the US of A to fight a proxy war against their perennial enemy. Yes, using the US Armed Forces as your proxy. Talk about hubris.

They’ve been lobbying hard for the last couple of decades, almost came close on several occasions.

Expect an increased flurry of similar op-ed pieces as the lobbying efforts increase. Don’t forget, in their medieval minds the hatred towards the shia heretic comes slightly before the hatred towards the “infidel”.

All of the Gulf medieval fiefdoms (don’t let the glitzy skyscrapers of Doha and Dubai fool you) are desperately short on manpower willing to fight. Since they’re practically slave-owning societies, think antebellum South but without any martial traits in the governing strata of the population.

So despite the occasional fighter pilot, someone has to provide boots on the ground in their fight against the shia. Since they cannot use North Korean, Nepalese, Indian or Pakistani slave laborers like they do in construction for example, US soldiers and private contractors will have to suffice.

537

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Oh I realize that the Saudis are some of the worst offenders in the Gulf, no doubt. I just think that this is the general feeling of the majority of them and their neighbors. You know, the ones that let us operate out if their countries.

They probably feel like they are getting the shaft after we used them.[/quote]

We should get those 28 pages from the Joint Inquiry report and calculate just how much more shaft they deserve.

538

John Dolan aka Gary Brecher aka War Nerd is basically required reading for making sense of the Gulf. Some might find his bitterness towards life in general irritating, but the observations and conclusion are spot on.

Due to many poor life choices he had to take a string of shitty jobs teaching English in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Kurdistan.

Nevertheless, or perhaps exactly for that reason his writings are brilliant.

Here’s a primer, well worth a read.

https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/holiday-inn-surrection/

http://pando.com/2013/12/19/the-war-nerd-saudis-syria-and-blowback/

https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/saudi-dirty-dozen/

http://pando.com/2015/03/28/the-war-nerd-a-brief-history-of-the-yemen-clusterfck/

539

[quote]loppar wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
This is an interesting analysis by a Saudi A-rab…

[/quote]

You can dismiss this guy with a mere roll of the eyes and a casual “He probably hasn’t even read the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” line.[/quote]

Clearly he failed advanced PolySci 5010[/quote]

No, but you can dismiss him because he is a “privately-funded” shill for Saudi interests who writes things like “I have been fortunate enough to gauge the intentions of those in [the Saudi Arabian] government with regards to their human rights obligations and can confidently say that this process is being taken more seriously the [sic] ever” (Huffpost). This about one of the planet’s unqualifiedly worst human rights abusers.

Which is why he spent much of that editorial whining about how Obama isn’t saying nice enough things about the Arab Gulf states. Most tellingly, this: “the fear is that as long as Iran abides by any agreement that might come into force later this year, the U.S. will negate, downplay, or simply ignore those Iranian actions that the Arab world considers as direct threats.” In other words, his fear is that the Iranians will comply with the deal, which is bad for him because he doesn’t want the United States warming to a regional competitor. This is perfectly legitimate – from a Saudi perspective. What we want is for Iran to give up its nuclear program.

Edited.[/quote]

Oh I realize that the Saudis are some of the worst offenders in the Gulf, no doubt. I just think that this is the general feeling of the majority of them and their neighbors. You know, the ones that let us operate out if their countries.

They probably feel like they are getting the shaft after we used them.[/quote]

Umm…the shaft? Saudis? It’s the other way around. The Saudis are trying to use the economic and military might of the US of A to fight a proxy war against their perennial enemy. Yes, using the US Armed Forces as your proxy. Talk about hubris.

They’ve been lobbying hard for the last couple of decades, almost came close on several occasions.

Expect an increased flurry of similar op-ed pieces as the lobbying efforts increase. Don’t forget, in their medieval minds the hatred towards the shia heretic comes slightly before the hatred towards the “infidel”.

All of the Gulf medieval fiefdoms (don’t let the glitzy skyscrapers of Doha and Dubai fool you) are desperately short on manpower willing to fight. Since they’re practically slave-owning societies, think antebellum South but without any martial traits in the governing strata of the population.

So despite the occasional fighter pilot, someone has to provide boots on the ground in their fight against the shia. Since they cannot use North Korean, Nepalese, Indian or Pakistani slave laborers like they do in construction for example, US soldiers and private contractors will have to suffice.

[/quote]

Oh believe me, I agree with you, one oil to rule them all so to speak.

I was only pointing out that they were all gonna feel shafted, not if they deserved it or not.