The Republicans' letter to Iran

[NobleSavage]

When President Reagan chose to confront the Soviet Union, calling it the evil empire that it was, Sen. Edward Kennedy chose to offer aid and comfort to General Secretary Andropov. On the Cold War, the greatest issue of his lifetime, Kennedy got it wrong.

Reagan was Obama is a dangerous moron. We are lucky we survived his stupidity.

That's the teapublican justification. I think I've seen 20 Munich Agreement analogies on FB. ( I'm just pointing this out, so don't waste your time on an argument.)

 

[NobleSavage]

Makes me think of law, but yeah, that works if you say, "bad precedent."

The lawyers use the word more than most; but they do not own it.

F M Cornford's Principle of the Dangerous Precedent is that "You should not now do an admittedly right action, for fear that you, or your equally timid successors, should not have the courage to do right in some future case, which, ex hypothesi, is essentially different, but superficially resembles the present one. Every public action which is not customary, either is wrong, or, if it is right, is a dangerous precedent. It follows that nothing should ever be done for the first time". (From Microcosmographia Academica _[PDF])

I'm gonna have to start a bibly file or folder on my computer. Not to stalk you, just to save all the interesting things you bring up.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm not sure what it will take.

- - - Updated - - -

They're trying to drag out the efforts to stop their bomb program until they have a bomb.

So Loren are you going to sign up for this latest war that you are cheer leading?

Fighting the fire is risky so you favor letting the city burn?

What on earth are you talking about.

He's saying that if we don't do something now about Iraq's Iran's weapons of mass destruction, the result could be a mushroom cloud in New York Tel Aviv.

While Tel Aviv is no doubt target #1 it won't stop there.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Maybe he is Bush in disguise. It sounds like Loren wants war. Maybe he can clarify how to STOP THEM can mean anything but military intervention. It is strange because even the CIA says the Iranians are not doing the things necessary to make a bomb, yet here we have the same chorus of characters beating the drum for war...another war over nothing at all.

The goal still should be to not have any more nations with nuclear weapons.

But threats and attacks will just make the Iranians seek a nuclear weapon harder.

Engagement, stopping the constant threats from the US and Israel, and helping Iran with nuclear power will make them seek one less.

They weren't under any threat from Israel until they started their bomb program.

The bombs are because they fear being Afghanistaned for their support of terrorism. Since they want to continue the terrorism the friendly approach just shows we are naive, it does nothing to stop the problem.

 

[Ford]

They weren't under any threat from Israel until they started their bomb program.

Yeah, because Israel doesn't have any nuclear weapons.

 

[untermensche]

Reagan was Obama is a dangerous moron. We are lucky we survived his stupidity.

That's the teapublican justification. I think I've seen 20 Munich Agreement analogies on FB. ( I'm just pointing this out, so don't waste your time on an argument.)

Obama may be dangerous but he isn't a moron like Reagan mired in delusion and fantasy.

 

[ksen]

The bombs are because they fear being Afghanistaned for their support of terrorism. Since they want to continue the terrorism the friendly approach just shows we are naive, it does nothing to stop the problem.

Except for bringing them to the negotiations table you mean.

 

[untermensche]

The goal still should be to not have any more nations with nuclear weapons.

But threats and attacks will just make the Iranians seek a nuclear weapon harder.

Engagement, stopping the constant threats from the US and Israel, and helping Iran with nuclear power will make them seek one less.

They weren't under any threat from Israel until they started their bomb program.

The bombs are because they fear being Afghanistaned for their support of terrorism. Since they want to continue the terrorism the friendly approach just shows we are naive, it does nothing to stop the problem.

There wasn't any bomb program until Israel had bombs.

 

[NobleSavage]

Is there any evidence that Iran is an irrational actor? My limited understanding of history is that anything "irrational" is better explained by "blowback". Give me some reasons why they wouldn't make a good member of the mutual destruction club.

 

[jonatha]

Is there any evidence that Iran is an irrational actor? My limited understanding of history is that anything "irrational" is better explained by "blowback". Give me some reasons why they wouldn't make a good member of the mutual destruction club.

Certainly better than Pakistan.

North Korea would be more of a worry if it had more extensive trade ties with the rest of the universe. It's probably not that terribly difficult to track anything of any size that comes out of there...

 

[Ford]

Is there any evidence that Iran is an irrational actor? My limited understanding of history is that anything "irrational" is better explained by "blowback". Give me some reasons why they wouldn't make a good member of the mutual destruction club.

All things considered I'd say Iran is a pretty rational actor. Conservative, pragmatic, and interested in preserving their regime above all else. The ayatollahs are religious fanatics, but they're not suicidal. With regards to the nuclear power issue, they are signed to the NPT and have in the past allowed inspectors at their facilities. Between inspections and intelligence gathering, it has been pretty convincingly determined that they're not working on a bomb, but are looking to move forward on power generation.

Despite all the apocalyptic rhetoric from Israel and some really stupid American Senators, they're still willing to sit down at the negotiating table and engage in give and take over what for most other countries would be a non-issue: Nuclear power generation.

As for the oft-repeated claim that they're just stalling in order to advance their nefarious plans to build a bomb and nuke Israel out of existence? That's a charge that has been made against Iran since Disco was still a thing. Either they're really, really, really good at putting things off, or they're not actually that dedicated to building a nuclear weapon.

Now, this doesn't mean everything is unicorns and rainbows. The Iranian regime is still repressive, still supports Hezbollah and Hamas, and the Iranian people would be much better off if the Ayatollahs sailed off into the sunset but that's not going to happen anytime soon. 35 years of sanctions haven't dislodged them, so maybe it is time for a new approach.

 

[dismal]

They also have a metric fuckton of natural gas which would make it highly irrational for them to pursue nuclear enrichment, endure sanctions, etc for peaceful purposes.

Their behavior suggests they want a bomb pretty bad.

 

[NobleSavage]

Is there any evidence that Iran is an irrational actor? My limited understanding of history is that anything "irrational" is better explained by "blowback". Give me some reasons why they wouldn't make a good member of the mutual destruction club.

Certainly better than Pakistan.

North Korea would be more of a worry if it had more extensive trade ties with the rest of the universe. It's probably not that terribly difficult to track anything of any size that comes out of there...

Saying better than Pakistan and NK isn't going to persuade me.

 

[Sarpedon]

And why should you saying they won't be better persuade us?

I have a few points:

1. Iran is a nation with a long history and is very concious of that. Its continuity over millenia will weaken apocalytic views, and encourage the long view. Pakistan is a country that was mushed together by being those parts of india that were majority muslim, with no regard to the unity of those muslims, and North korea is more of a bizarre personality cult than a country.

2. Iran has skillfully manipulated events to their own advantage, showing signs of rational long ranged plans. North Korea behaves in a bewildering way, suggestive of factional infighting spilling out into policy, while Pakistan's tumultous politics are right out into the open.

3. Any change to the Iranian government will likely be a MORE moderate government form. It is already as extreme as it is likely to get.

4. If anything, I think Israel is more likely to be taken over by apocalyptic forces. After all, if Israel fails, what then? And Israel looks like it is failing. Not because of external threats, but internal problems. Not only does israel have considerable tension between different jewish sects, but its economic inequality resembles Russia's more than the United States, with twenty families controlling 50% of the wealth. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/16/opinion/paul-krugman-israels-gilded-age.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region

 

[untermensche]

They also have a metric fuckton of natural gas which would make it highly irrational for them to pursue nuclear enrichment, endure sanctions, etc for peaceful purposes.

Their behavior suggests they want a bomb pretty bad.

It is rational to want your natural resources to last as long as possible.

It is irrational to use them up as fast as possible.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They weren't under any threat from Israel until they started their bomb program.

Yeah, because Israel doesn't have any nuclear weapons.

Israel would have had no reason to throw them at Iran. Israel's nukes were for the purpose of deterring nations like Egypt from invading again.

- - - Updated - - -

The bombs are because they fear being Afghanistaned for their support of terrorism. Since they want to continue the terrorism the friendly approach just shows we are naive, it does nothing to stop the problem.

Except for bringing them to the negotiations table you mean.

Bringing them to the negotiating table is of no value.

- - - Updated - - -

They weren't under any threat from Israel until they started their bomb program.

The bombs are because they fear being Afghanistaned for their support of terrorism. Since they want to continue the terrorism the friendly approach just shows we are naive, it does nothing to stop the problem.

There wasn't any bomb program until Israel had bombs.

Israel had bombs before the current government took power in Iran.

- - - Updated - - -

Is there any evidence that Iran is an irrational actor? My limited understanding of history is that anything "irrational" is better explained by "blowback". Give me some reasons why they wouldn't make a good member of the mutual destruction club.

Religious fundamentalists tend to be irrational actors.

Furthermore, even if they are good members of the MAD club that doesn't make for a good situation--consider the millions that died because of MAD with Russia giving them immunity for all the brushfire wars they stirred up.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Is there any evidence that Iran is an irrational actor? My limited understanding of history is that anything "irrational" is better explained by "blowback". Give me some reasons why they wouldn't make a good member of the mutual destruction club.

All things considered I'd say Iran is a pretty rational actor. Conservative, pragmatic, and interested in preserving their regime above all else. The ayatollahs are religious fanatics, but they're not suicidal. With regards to the nuclear power issue, they are signed to the NPT and have in the past allowed inspectors at their facilities. Between inspections and intelligence gathering, it has been pretty convincingly determined that they're not working on a bomb, but are looking to move forward on power generation.

Despite all the apocalyptic rhetoric from Israel and some really stupid American Senators, they're still willing to sit down at the negotiating table and engage in give and take over what for most other countries would be a non-issue: Nuclear power generation.

As for the oft-repeated claim that they're just stalling in order to advance their nefarious plans to build a bomb and nuke Israel out of existence? That's a charge that has been made against Iran since Disco was still a thing. Either they're really, really, really good at putting things off, or they're not actually that dedicated to building a nuclear weapon.

Now, this doesn't mean everything is unicorns and rainbows. The Iranian regime is still repressive, still supports Hezbollah and Hamas, and the Iranian people would be much better off if the Ayatollahs sailed off into the sunset but that's not going to happen anytime soon. 35 years of sanctions haven't dislodged them, so maybe it is time for a new approach.

Allowed the inspectors into the facilities they admitted to.

Furthermore, their actions make little sense if power is the objective. Last I knew it was about one enrichment plant per twenty reactors. If you don't have a bunch of reactors it makes more sense to buy the fuel rather than make your own. (And reactor-grade uranium isn't a big deal, they could buy it.) Furthermore, you don't need a high enrichment level for reactor fuel except for portable reactors that have to be small. (Spacecraft, ships.) They don't have a meaningful space program (and there's little you put into space that needs a reactor anyway) and they don't have a blue-water navy anyway, shipboard reactors make little sense.

- - - Updated - - -

They also have a metric fuckton of natural gas which would make it highly irrational for them to pursue nuclear enrichment, endure sanctions, etc for peaceful purposes.

Their behavior suggests they want a bomb pretty bad.

I disagree here. If nuke is cheaper then it makes sense to go that way and sell the gas.

The issue is not nuke per se, the issue is enrichment. What they are doing with enrichment is for bombs.

 

[Ford]

Bringing them to the negotiating table is of no value.

So war is the only solution. Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran.

 

[ksen]

Bringing them to the negotiating table is of no value.

It's only of no value if you don't want to negotiate anything.

This administration wants to negotiate. The P5+1 group of nations wants to negotiate.

The Republicans want to go to war again.

We get it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Last I knew it was about one enrichment plant per twenty reactors. If you don't have a bunch of reactors it makes more sense to buy the fuel rather than make your own.

Unless you're worried about sanctions, then you'd want your industry to be self-sustaining, rather than depend on people letting you import what you need....So, use up the rods, recharge them, use up the rods, does make sense. Esp. if you can't trust any of the bastards around you.