Originally Posted by '58 Flat

I will say this - and say it without hesitation: The neoconservatives and their counterparts in Israel are clandestinely rooting for Iran to get a nuclear weapon - since in that case they will be able to justify the full-scale war against Iran they have been spoiling for for 36 years.

This is Rags and I approve of this message. I can shorten it a bit for you. Neocons have a fetish for sucking Israel's dick.

Similarly, these same people are clandestinely rooting for the Muslim Brotherhood to take power in Egypt - since in that case they will be justified in going to war against them, and re-taking the Sinai. Hasn't "defensible borders" for Israel been their goal all along - and what could be more "defensible" than the Suez Canal as well as the Jordan River? Not only that, but a Swinemunde/Swinoujscie-style beachhead on the west side of the Suez is likely on their agenda too - so that future Arab revanchists cannot sabotage the canal.

Yes again. I suppose Israel's manjuice must be rally tasty for them. Why can't the press get the likes of Billy Kristol or for that matter one of our Presidential candidates [Jeb Shrub] in front of a mike and ask them point blank why they like to be whores for Israel? I think what counts as the press nowadays are either hopelessly lazy, bought off, or incompetent idiots for ignoring their proper role in society by exposing "inconvenient truths" about this that, and the other.

Now here's an inconvenient truth for Israel. Palestinians in particular and Arabs in general are winning the war of the crib. Here's the reality. The future belongs to the youth.

Originally Posted by playwrite

... On this one issue alone, I no longer believe Schumer should represent my family and friends in the Senate let alone be next in-line for leadership; we're pulling our decades-long campaign support of him.

I agree 100%. Schumer should be toast.

http://nypost.com/2015/08/18/my-prop...ter-iran-deal/

President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have repeatedly said that the choice is between this Iran nuclear agreement and war. I reject that proposition.

If the P5+1 had not achieved an agreement, would we be at war with Iran? I don’t believe that...

The Obamanation was punishing Menendez for merely questioning the deal. Now he's come out against it. This should be good. But you do see signs of caving (allowing Iranian oil sales, etc.), so maybe the stick is having some effect on him. Interesting...

Originally Posted by playwrite

And Fareed Zakaria takes apart Schumer's argument in an open letter ...

-Zakaria does not. FZ does not cover the amount of time that inspectors can get in (if ever), nor does he explain why we should trust the IRI, which breaks any treaty at will.

I wonder what the Obamanation has on Chucky? I have a feeeling we're about to find out. Well, it might take a few months...

Originally Posted by playwrite

...If Dems help Republicans kill the Iran deal, they, too, will own the consequences...

...which is a lot better than owning the consequences of accepting a sure loser of a treaty.

Originally Posted by playwrite

...Those numbers come from an extrapolation of the consequences from the Iraq invasion...

...huh. What happened to just putting the sanctions on? That talking point changerd fast.

...and what's this stuff about INVADING?!

Originally Posted by playwrite

...On this one issue alone, I no longer believe Schumer should represent my family and friends in the Senate let alone be next in-line for leadership; we're pulling our decades-long campaign support of him...

-Ha ha ha ha ha! Playdude votes for an Elephant.

Finally:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/irans-se...ons-1440026399

Three more Senators have declared against President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal in recent days, and don’t be surprised if more follow after Wednesday’s bombshell from the Associated Press. The news service reports that Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors at the secret Parchin nuclear site under its secret side agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)...

Secretary of State John Kerry has said he hasn’t read the side deal, though his negotiating deputy Wendy Sherman told MSNBC that she “saw the pieces of paper” but couldn’t keep them. IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano has told Members of the U.S. Congress that he’s bound by secrecy and can’t show them the side deals...

...bipartisan opposition continues to build in Congress...


"It's a great deal!"

Whatever.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

...Why can't the press get the likes of Billy Kristol or for that matter one of our Presidential candidates [Jeb Shrub] in front of a mike and ask them point blank why they like to be whores for Israel? ....

-Yeah. If only those damn Israelis would march to the gas chambers like good little Jews.

"They're not making Jews like Jesus anymore..."

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

...Now here's an inconvenient truth for Israel. Palestinians in particular and Arabs in general are winning the war of the crib. Here's the reality. The future belongs to the youth.

-The Israelis were outnumbered by about a gazillion to one in 1948, 1967, and 1973. The won anyway. So take your fantasies of genocide elsewhere.

Next!

Originally Posted by JDG 66

...

...and what's this stuff about INVADING?!

I'd be interested in a detailed description of what you think military action against Iran WOULD look like. What would be your strategic approach to militarily bringing down the Iranian nuclear bomb program? Then, what would be the tactical approach?

Originally Posted by TnT

I'd be interested in a detailed description of what you think military action against Iran WOULD look like...

-I doubt it.

First, I think the Israelis would largely have it covered. Sort of the way the Indians have Pakistan.

But...

1) Hit the nuke sites as well as they can. Duh [It doesn't have to destroy every single thing. Just damage it to start off].

2) Blockade, particulalry oil [No oil, no money, no resources for nukes, terrorism, or much of anything else].

3) Knock out Iran's one (1) oil refinery [see above, just to make sure].

4) Pick off Iranian military assets, one by one [simple attrition that they'll either a) have to waste resources replacing or b) watch those assets disappear].

Again, except for the blockade, I'll bet Israel can do this. They might even be able to handle the blockade themselves.

3)

Originally Posted by JDG 66

<snip>


-Yeah. If only those damn Israelis would march to the gas chambers like good little Jews.

Nope. I'm sure Israel is a big boy now and can take care of itself. I'm just stating that we have no business sucking Israel's cock or anyone else's cock either. I'd apply the same rule to say Saudi Arabia and do an immediate base shutdown there as well. Like I don't give a shit if Israel turns Tehran into an ashtray or vice versa. I have no dog in any Mideast clusterfucks' fight.

"They're not making Jews like Jesus anymore..."

Yup. I'm sure there's a nuclear arsenal around someplace with Bibi baby's finger near by.

-The Israelis were outnumbered by about a gazillion to one in 1948, 1967, and 1973. The won anyway. So take your fantasies of genocide elsewhere.

Statement of fact != genocide, idiot. I'm sure Israel could possibly deploy asymmetric warfare if desired with say a neutron bomb. Oh, wait, if they did that then that would be genocide.

Next

It's just the same with a hypothetical US vs. China war. A cobalt bomb would be a form of asymmetric warfare to counter the huge size of the Red Army. It's that simple man. If the Red Army ever became a existential threat , I'd deploy cobalt bombs. This also has a historical precedent. Truman of the Roosevelt cusp used nukes so I'd expect if anyone did this again, it would be someone within the Joneser cohorts now. Remember I didn't come up with this. S&H did in an indirect manner, man. I'm thinking of China because they're doing some weird shit. They've recently tested a MIRV , built some bases out of sand in the S China Sea, and are making a larger navy. Dunno about you, but I suggest some preparations for that kind of stuff.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Nope. I'm sure Israel is a big boy now and can take care of itself.

Indeed so. We get ourselves into lots of trouble by being their big brother.

It's just the same with a hypothetical US vs. China war. A cobalt bomb would be a form of asymmetric warfare to counter the huge size of the Red Army. It's that simple man. If the Red Army ever became a existential threat , I'd deploy cobalt bombs. This also has a historical precedent. Truman of the Roosevelt cusp used nukes so I'd expect if anyone did this again, it would be someone within the Joneser cohorts now. Remember I didn't come up with this. S&H did in an indirect manner, man. I'm thinking of China because they're doing some weird shit. They've recently tested a MIRV , built some bases out of sand in the S China Sea, and are making a larger navy. Dunno about you, but I suggest some preparations for that kind of stuff.

Woa, wha happan to "mind our own fucking business?"

China is a peaceful country; don't worry about them.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

I will say this - and say it without hesitation: The neoconservatives and their counterparts in Israel are clandestinely rooting for Iran to get a nuclear weapon - since in that case they will be able to justify the full-scale war against Iran they have been spoiling for for 36 years.

Similarly, these same people are clandestinely rooting for the Muslim Brotherhood to take power in Egypt - since in that case they will be justified in going to war against them, and re-taking the Sinai...

When did you start making so much sense?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Indeed so. We get ourselves into lots of trouble by being their big brother.

Woa, wha happan to "mind our own fucking business?"

You're silly. I'll try again. I made the key word big and green for Eric the Green.

Originally Posted by rags

It's just the same with a hypothetical US vs. China war. A cobalt bomb would be a form of asymmetric warfare to counter the huge size of the Red Army. It's that simple man. If the Red Army ever became a existential threat , I'd deploy cobalt bombs. This also has a historical precedent. Truman of the Roosevelt cusp used nukes so I'd expect if anyone did this again, it would be someone within the Joneser cohorts now. Remember I didn't come up with this. S&H did in an indirect manner, man. I'm thinking of China because they're doing some weird shit. They've recently tested a MIRV , built some bases out of sand in the S China Sea, and are making a larger navy. Dunno about you, but I suggest some preparations for that kind of stuff.

China is a peaceful country; don't worry about them.

I'd rephrase it as China is carving out its own sphere of influence.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/15/asia/c...icy/index.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yan-xu...b_4679425.html

Well, that means something changed since the 2 historical events of WWII and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Actually, I'd prefer ditching outdated treaties like ASEAN. I'd also chuck NATO for sure. There's no use for NATO. As for ASEAN, we'd probably have to accept that Japan and perhaps Australia would go nuclear. So here, for the record, I'd take the nuclear option for Japan over keeping ASEAN around. Feel free to file that under the "mind our own fucking business" folder. It's that simple, Eric my friend, I certainly accept the fact that Ukraine rightfully belongs in Russia's sphere of influence and our meddling there was a clusterfuck.

One thing to keep in mind is that not all Israelis or American Jews oppose the Iran deal. Many take the pragmatic view that an imperfect deal is better than no deal. For one, I support Israel's right to be a State but have no use for Netanyahu or his like.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

One thing to keep in mind is that not all Israelis or American Jews oppose the Iran deal. Many take the pragmatic view that an imperfect deal is better than no deal. For one, I support Israel's right to be a State but have no use for Netanyahu or his like.

I agree all around, but the comment about the current Israeli government is particularly important. There has been an ongoing attempt to shift the body politic of Israel to the right, even the extreme right, for the last few decades. Some of that was the mass immigration of Russian Jews after that became less onerous, but some is due to a collaboration of RW political movements - much of it financed by people like Sheldon Adelson.

I guess the question becomes, will the US continue to support an Israeli polity that is moving toward the fringe. When Chuck Schumer came out in support of killing the Iran deal, I go a lot more concerned.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

...I'm just stating that we have no business sucking Israel's cock or anyone else's cock either...

-Preventing the IRI from getting nukes constitutes does not constitute "sucking Israel's [or anyone else's] cock."

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

...I'm sure Israel could possibly deploy asymmetric warfare if desired with say a neutron bomb. Oh, wait, if they did that then that would be genocide...

-A few nukes do not necessarily constitute genocide.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

...Some of that was the mass immigration of Russian Jews after that became less onerous, but some is due to a collaboration of RW political movements - much of it financed by people like Sheldon Adelson...

-Yeah. Those damn, Rich Jews ruin everything, don't they?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

...There has been an ongoing attempt to shift the body politic of Israel to the right, even the extreme right, for the last few decades...

-You know what did that? Reality.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

One thing to keep in mind is that not all Israelis or American Jews oppose the Iran deal...

...most Israelis are very against it:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel/.premium-1.670835

...A day after the agreement was signed, a poll conducted by Israel's Channel 10 found that an overwhelming 69 percent of Israelis opposed it, while only 10 percent were in favor, with 21 percent undecided...

Maybe you can find a more recent poll?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

...Many take the pragmatic view that an imperfect deal is better than no deal...

-This "deal's" verification process is a joke. No deal beats a stupid deal every time.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel/.premium-1.670835

...To be sure, among Israeli leftists, there are many whose knee-jerk reaction is to find out where Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stands on an issue and take the opposing view. They need know nothing more than the fact that Netanyahu rejects the deal for them to be in favor...

Maybe you need to get over your Netanyahu Derangement Syndrome, Jenny?

WASHINGTON — Emboldened by growing Senate support for the Iran nuclear agreement, supporters of the deal are pushing to get 41 Democrats on board to prevent the Senate from voting on a resolution disapproving of the pact.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...deal/71571682/

The action would prevent President Obama from having to veto the resolution Republican leaders are pushing.

As of Wednesday, Obama had secured the 34 votes needed to prevent the Senate from overriding his veto of a disapproval resolution. Supporters would like to avoid a veto battle altogether.

There are 10 Democratic senators who have not announced whether they will support or oppose the pact with Iran. If at least seven of them join the 34 who have announced their support of the agreement, Republicans would fall short of the 60 votes they need to bring the resolution to the Senate floor.

The House is likely to pass the resolution of disapproval, so the Senate is key to the outcome.

"Republicans want to force the Iran deal to go through a lengthy, messy veto override process," said Eden James, political director of Democracy for America, one of the liberal groups lobbying for approval of the Iran deal. "By dragging this fight out, they're hoping they can embarrass the president and diminish his credibility overseas — all the while continuing their fear-mongering with the public at home."

James said activists would press the undecided Democratic senators to support Obama and "put a stop to the circus that pro-war Republicans are hoping to create around the Iran deal."

Jamal Abdi, executive director of the National Iranian American Council, which supports the nuclear agreement, said passage of a resolution of disapproval by the Senate could undermine the deal.

"Nearly the entire Republican presidential field has pledged to nullify the agreement if they take the White House," he said. "The opposition is now hoping to set the stage for further efforts to undermine and eventually unravel the deal, and passage of a disapproval resolution could provide that opening."

A spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which opposes the Iran deal, said Democrats should not block a vote on such an important issue.

"On an issue of this significance to the national security of the United States, the American people deserve a direct up or down vote on the agreement," spokesman Marshall Wittmann said. "Preventing that vote would be contrary to the spirit of the Corker-Cardin legislation that was passed by a near unanimous margin by the Senate."

The legislation by Sens. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Ben Cardin, D-Md., gave Congress the power to review the nuclear agreement with Iran. It passed the Senate 98-1 in May.

Patrick Dorton, a spokesman for Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran, which opposes the deal, said a vote on the agreement is "a once-in-a-generation vote" for pro-Israel activists. Israel has urged the United States to reject the pact.

"If you believe the deal is good, then you shouldn't fear an up or down vote," he said. "It deserves fair consideration in the U.S. Senate."

Republican senators pushed back hard against the deal Wednesday while acknowledging that the Senate will not be able to override a presidential veto now that Obama has secured the votes of 34 Democratic senators. Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., was the 34th senator to come out in support of the pact. She announced her decision Wednesday.

"Vote number 34 represents a very good day for the Iranian regime," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a presidential candidate who opposes the Iran deal. "The Iranians have now secured enough votes in the Senate to ensure they have a pathway to a bomb, the missile to deliver it and the money to pay for it. The only reason the ayatollah and his henchmen aren't dancing in the streets of Tehran is they don't believe in dancing."

Another GOP presidential candidate, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, vowed to overturn the agreement if he is elected.

"If I’m the president of the United States, in my first day in office, we will lift what the president is doing," Rubio said Wednesday on Fox News. "We will reimpose sanctions and, in fact, I will ask Congress to increase sanctions, and we will back it up with a credible threat of military force."

Republicans say Iran cannot be trusted to comply with the deal, which calls for the United States to lift economic sanctions against Iran in return for Iran's agreement not to develop nuclear weapons.

Secretary of State John Kerry said Wednesday that the agreement would prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.

"Without this agreement, the Iranians would have several potential pathways to a bomb," Kerry said. "With it, they won't have any."

In a statement, Mikulski, who will retire after the 2016 elections, said, "“No deal is perfect, especially one negotiated with the Iranian regime. I have concluded that this Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is the best option available to block Iran from having a nuclear bomb."

Tuesday, two other Democrats, Sens. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Chris Coons of Delaware, endorsed the agreement.

The 10 Democratic senators who remained undecided as of Wednesday were: Michael Bennet of Colorado, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Maria Cantwell of Washington, Ben Cardin of Maryland, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Gary Peters of Michigan, Mark Warner of Virginia and Ron Wyden of Oregon.

Here is an interesting article from a couple of years back detailing the rise of Azeri nationalism in Iran since the 90s. I think the events and attitudes detailed here demonstrate a clear path from the end of the Crisis (which ended in 1989 for the Iranians), through the Recovery, and into the beginnings of an Awakening. As belief in theocracy fades, expect issues like this to rise to the fore.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Here is an interesting article from a couple of years back detailing the rise of Azeri nationalism in Iran since the 90s. I think the events and attitudes detailed here demonstrate a clear path from the end of the Crisis (which ended in 1989 for the Iranians), through the Recovery, and into the beginnings of an Awakening. As belief in theocracy fades, expect issues like this to rise to the fore.

Although it seems possible, could you please explain how Western culture can be in a Crisis but Iran can be in an Awakening? How would the difference in turnings for the two societies coincide? If the United States goes to war with Iran, would it be considered an Awakening war for them, similar to Vietnam?

Simple. Iran is not a Western country. Instead, like the most of the rest of the Middle east and Russia, it underwent Crisis in the 80s, just as they had previously done so during the time around WWI and not WWII, and is presently in a period of rising inflation, a generation gap, and a weakening of the consensus forged in the previous Crisis as the older generations die off.

When you think about it, why would all of the world be on the same cultural timeline?

As for what a war with them would *feel* like for them, consider this. There are substantial currents in Iranian society that like the US and wish to become more integrated with the rest of the world, especially the US. Many of these people are young, but not all. Many others have grown up chanting "Death to Israel! Death to America" and still support the ideals of the Islamist Revolution. So imagine a war where we conquer and occupy them, and then some of them collaborate, some join insurgent movement. So far, pretty normal, that happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in Nazi occupied Europe. So eventually, we leave, and the conservatives retake power, and delegitimize their liberal opponents as traitors to their country, and all of their proposed reforms as irrevocably tainted. But the reform ideas are still popular, particularly with younger generations who have less and less connection to the Revolution of 79. So the issue doesn't go away, and you have this period where they try and reinstitute the 1T social order, but it's no longer the same, and the rising generation of politicians are divided on the basis of what side they were on during the protests/occupation (the way Boomers divided between those who went to Vietnam and those who did not, those who joined the counterculture and those who remained Okies from Muskogee).

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Simple. Iran is not a Western country. Instead, like the most of the rest of the Middle east and Russia, it underwent Crisis in the 80s, just as they had previously done so during the time around WWI and not WWII, and is presently in a period of rising inflation, a generation gap, and a weakening of the consensus forged in the previous Crisis as the older generations die off.

When you think about it, why would all of the world be on the same cultural timeline?

Come to think of it, the Arab Spring would be like an Awakening for them.

Originally Posted by millst98

Come to think of it, the Arab Spring would be like an Awakening for them.

And the ensuing violence bears a striking resemblance to Europe's 30 Year's War, which S & H tells us was also an Awakening. It makes much more sense this way.

Wow it's been a while since I've been on this website. I don't think I ever introduced myself last time I was here so I'd like to do so now. I've been interested in this theory for a few years now but completely forgot about it this past year and it just kind of stayed in the back of my head. But for some reason something reminded me of this website today. Anyway, this thread did make me think of the recent elections with women voting in Saudi Arabia. It also reminded me of this article from last year:

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/12/athe...legal_partner/

Is the entire muslim world on a different timeline?

Originally Posted by hkq999

Wow it's been a while since I've been on this website. I don't think I ever introduced myself last time I was here so I'd like to do so now. I've been interested in this theory for a few years now but completely forgot about it this past year and it just kind of stayed in the back of my head. But for some reason something reminded me of this website today. Anyway, this thread did make me think of the recent elections with women voting in Saudi Arabia. It also reminded me of this article from last year:

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/12/athe...legal_partner/

Is the entire muslim world on a different timeline?

Welcome back. :

The Moslem world? Yes many of us believe that much of the Islamic world is in a 2T right now. For example Iran ha d a 4T style change in 1979. But despite the unhappiness many have with the system it survived the recent attempt to change it. Perhaps others will elaborate a bit on this.

I'm not sure about other countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt but Iran does not seem to be in a crisis period. The new nuclear deal and lifting of sanctions could be a signal of a start of a 3T. This would be interesting since most of the rest of the world is clearly in a 4T.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Welcome back. :

The Moslem world? Yes many of us believe that much of the Islamic world is in a 2T right now. For example Iran ha d a 4T style change in 1979. But despite the unhappiness many have with the system it survived the recent attempt to change it. Perhaps others will elaborate a bit on this.

I would think the Iranian Revolution was typical 2T. Not only were the people rising up against the Shah, but the revolution was religion-based. The Islamic fundamentalist revival is just a mirror image of the Christian fundamentalist revival in the USA happening on the same timetable.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I would think the Iranian Revolution was typical 2T. Not only were the people rising up against the Shah, but the revolution was religion-based. The Islamic fundamentalist revival is just a mirror image of the Christian fundamentalist revival in the USA happening on the same timetable.

The issue is with Islamic extremists who cut off heads and destroy historical sites.

Originally Posted by radind

The issue is with Islamic extremists who cut off heads and destroy historical sites.

By contrast to the Infernal State, Iran is a place of religious tolerance and political pluralism... and much respect for historical sites.

Of course I doubt that Iran will ever show any tolerance for the Infernal State.