A Thought on the Iran Nuclear Deal

[Ford]

Since the agreement was announced, much ink has been spilled comparing the US to Britain going into Munich. Iran to Nazi Germany. Obama to Neville Chamberlain.


"Peace for our time," the mocking headlines proclaim. Appeasement is the accusation.



But if you look at the balance of power...the military might of the US poised to be unleashed vs the military might of Iran, the comparison takes a somersault.


We're not appeasing a great power to avoid war. We ARE the great power...forcing a lesser power to submit.



We're not Chamberlain. We're Hitler.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You know who else was Hitler?

Adolf Hitler, that's who.

 

[untermensche]

Hitler had invaded and taken land. He had re-militarized in violation of treaties.

Iran has invaded nobody. And there is no evidence it is building a nuclear weapon.

The US is not Hitler. It does what it does for greed, to exploit people and resources, not because of mad ideas of racial superiority and for lebensraum.

 

[Jayjay]

Sometimes the Hitler analogy works, sometimes it doesn't. Iran has a lot more in common with Soviet Union than Nazi Germany, I think.

 

[SimpleDon]

Conservatives always oppose treaties that disarm countries that in their mind are enemies of the US, that is countries that aren't Israel or Anglo. This is how they are able to oppose a treaty as weak and unverifiable without reading it or even before the negotiations start.

They are still playing out of the failed neoclassical book that gave us the axis of evil and the disastrous invasion of Iraq to prevent the use of the non-existent weapons of mass destruction because negotiations would have produced a weak and unverifiable treaty trying to prevent the manufacturing and use of the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq didn't have to use and weren't manufacturing.

Failure is not a reason for conservatives to question themselves. They are use to failure. Their worldview is based on faith in a non-existent god, tradition and moral principles, not effectiveness. War is always better than negotiations, it is better to have ten failed wars than one failed negotiation, especially a negotiation like the Munich Agreement negotiated by a conservative when conservatives were foolishly anti-war and isolationist.

 

[thebeave]

Wow. Fastest example of Godwin's Law I've ever seen. In the OP! There must be some kind of medal or reward for this.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Since the agreement was announced, much ink has been spilled comparing the US to Britain going into Munich. Iran to Nazi Germany. Obama to Neville Chamberlain.


"Peace for our time," the mocking headlines proclaim. Appeasement is the accusation.



But if you look at the balance of power...the military might of the US poised to be unleashed vs the military might of Iran, the comparison takes a somersault.


We're not appeasing a great power to avoid war. We ARE the great power...forcing a lesser power to submit.



We're not Chamberlain. We're Hitler.

We were the greater power in WWII.

- - - Updated - - -

Iran has invaded nobody. And there is no evidence it is building a nuclear weapon.

Iran just does it's invasions by more subtle means. I consider Lebanon to be partially under Iranian occupation.

And if they're not after the bomb what's their obsession with enriching beyond reactor grade? And why this obsession with the fuel when they don't have a powerplant to put it in?

 

[untermensche]

Iran has invaded nobody. And there is no evidence it is building a nuclear weapon.

Iran just does it's invasions by more subtle means. I consider Lebanon to be partially under Iranian occupation.

And if they're not after the bomb what's their obsession with enriching beyond reactor grade? And why this obsession with the fuel when they don't have a powerplant to put it in?

Lebanon?

You are deluded.

Lebanon is the place Israel has invaded many times and a place under periods of Syrian control.

If Israel were not behaving so badly Iran would not have even it's meager influence which consists mainly in helping people defend themselves from the constant Israeli aggression in the region.

 

[Ford]

We were the greater power in WWII.

I'll admit my analogy is imperfect, but at the outset of WWII, the fact that Germany steam rolled over most of Western Europe sort of puts the lie to the notion that "we" were the "greater power."

We (and by "we" I assume you mean the US) eventually built up enough capacity to take on Germany's western front (with lots of help from the UK, Canada, etc.) and "we" prevailed in no small part due to a rather large Russian bear tearing up the eastern front.


Iran isn't in a position to steam roll over anybody. The last shooting war they had was with Iraq, and at the height of their military power Iran was only able - after 8 years - to fight a draw with a nation "we" (the US and coalition allies) defeated in a matter of days. Twice.


So painting Iran as nascent Nazi Germany with Kerry as Chamberlain clutching a weak agreement that only staved off the inevitable is absurd. We're the ones negotiating from a position of strength. We're the 800 lb gorilla in the region. Iran is appeasing US.

 

[bilby]

We were the greater power in WWII.

You weren't even present in the European theatre until the result was a foregone conclusion.

In 1938/9, Germany was the 'greater power'; in 1942, the Soviet Union was the 'greater power'. The USA might have been a 'greater power' in the European theatre by VE Day, but probably not (and ultimately you decided not to try your luck). You didn't become more powerful than the USSR until you developed nuclear weapons.

 

[arkirk]

Since the agreement was announced, much ink has been spilled comparing the US to Britain going into Munich. Iran to Nazi Germany. Obama to Neville Chamberlain.


"Peace for our time," the mocking headlines proclaim. Appeasement is the accusation.



But if you look at the balance of power...the military might of the US poised to be unleashed vs the military might of Iran, the comparison takes a somersault.


We're not appeasing a great power to avoid war. We ARE the great power...forcing a lesser power to submit.



We're not Chamberlain. We're Hitler.

That is so obvious it almost goes without saying.

 

[arkirk]

We were the greater power in WWII.

- - - Updated - - -

Iran has invaded nobody. And there is no evidence it is building a nuclear weapon.

Iran just does it's invasions by more subtle means. I consider Lebanon to be partially under Iranian occupation.

And if they're not after the bomb what's their obsession with enriching beyond reactor grade? And why this obsession with the fuel when they don't have a powerplant to put it in?

These are paranoid thoughts in your head. Iran is doing nothing that the U.S. doesn't do in spades. Hell, we even murdered their Prime Minister in 1953. Our CIA and Kermit Roosevelt set the whole thing up...very subtle. Wake up, Loren! You are missing the significant realities in this world and instead are focusing on the evilness you assume is in the heart of all Muslims. There is no proof it is like that. The words all and most are what is important... We have to stop killing each other. Wake up to this, Loren and quit being a agitator for war.

 

[Derec]

Hitler had invaded and taken land. He had re-militarized in violation of treaties.

And Iran is supporting terrorist groups. Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis can all be seen as extensions of the Waffen SS Revolutionary Guard.

Iran has invaded nobody.

Except that Revolutionary Guard officers are on the ground in places like Syria leading the Hezbollah. An Iranian general was killed recently in an Israeli air strike in the Golan. Are you suggesting (a la Putin) that he was on "vacation" there?

And there is no evidence it is building a nuclear weapon.

I guess they were building and operating all those centrifuges for their health?

The US is not Hitler.

As much as I hate to agree with you, you are right on this one.

 

[Derec]

Conservatives always oppose treaties that disarm countries that in their mind are enemies of the US, that is countries that aren't Israel or Anglo. This is how they are able to oppose a treaty as weak and unverifiable without reading it or even before the negotiations start.

This agreement is a bad one. It gives Iran unfettered ability to make a bomb after 10-15 years and ends the sanctions right away, which means Iran will be able to arm their terrorist buddies much more effectively. I.e. Iran gets everything it wants. It's George Costanza kind of negotiating.

 

[Derec]

These are paranoid thoughts in your head. Iran is doing nothing that the U.S. doesn't do in spades.

Funding and arming terrorist groups like Hezbollah? Executing gays and adulterers? Forcing women to wear headscarves?

Hell, we even murdered their Prime Minister in 1953.

Really? News to me. Which prime minister would that be arkirk?

Our CIA and Kermit Roosevelt set the whole thing up...very subtle.

So subtle indeed that nobody knows about it, except presumably arkirk.

Wake up, Loren! You are missing the significant realities in this world and instead are focusing on the evilness you assume is in the heart of all Muslims. There is no proof it is like that. The words all and most are what is important... We have to stop killing each other. Wake up to this, Loren and quit being a agitator for war.

The U.S. Is Still Iran’s Great Satan
Who is really agitating for war here?

 

[barbos]

Funding and arming terrorist groups like Hezbollah? Executing gays and adulterers? Forcing women to wear headscarves?

Are you talking about Saudi Arabia or still Iran?

 

[Derec]

Funding and arming terrorist groups like Hezbollah? Executing gays and adulterers? Forcing women to wear headscarves?

Are you talking about Saudi Arabia or still Iran?

Still Iran, although a lot of it applies to KSA as well.

 

[Frikki]

You know who else was Hitler?

Adolf Hitler, that's who.

But then he killed Hitler so Hitler was not all bad.

 

[ksen]

Conservatives always oppose treaties that disarm countries that in their mind are enemies of the US, that is countries that aren't Israel or Anglo. This is how they are able to oppose a treaty as weak and unverifiable without reading it or even before the negotiations start.

This agreement is a bad one. It gives Iran unfettered ability to make a bomb after 10-15 years and ends the sanctions right away, which means Iran will be able to arm their terrorist buddies much more effectively. I.e. Iran gets everything it wants. It's George Costanza kind of negotiating.

most foreign policy experts disagree with you

 

[Derec]

most foreign policy experts disagree with you

Classic argument from authority. Can you tell me why you think my reasons for thinking the deal is bad are wrong?

Also, if Bush had pulled the trick of pushing an agreement of this magnitude with approval of only 1/3 of Congress there would be cries of outrage on here. It's ok if you are a Democrat I guess.