As debate looms, Rand Paul sees a chance to be the GOP dove

[homersapien 11,386]

It's a bad deal.....PERIOD.

"PERIOD" is no substitute for argument. In fact, it's just the opposite. :-\

[TitanTiger 20,499]

To put it another way, the mere possibility of a logical reason to reject the agreement means nothing unless one can produce it.

While true in a practical sense (especially for a political candidate), that's not true when you make blanket statements that one cannot even "possibly" be a dove and oppose this particular agreement. You simply cannot make such a claim that you either support this or wish to do nothing and keep the status quo.

I have yet to hear a logical or rational reason why reverting to the status quo ante would be preferable for avoiding war.

Probably because no one is claiming that. I think most people are saying that the agreement we got isn't sufficient...that it didn't require enough of Iran, they didn't concede on more important matters, the verification process wasn't robust enough, etc. I haven't heard anyone saying we should have just sat on our hands and maintained the status quo.

And I certainly can claim that a "dove" would logically have to accept the existing agreement. There are many compelling reasons to support that; I have yet to see a single logical or rational reason to disprove it.

You can claim anything, so long as it you don't mind logical holes one could drive a semi through.

That's because there aren't any.

You're just being obtuse now.

[homersapien 11,386]

I have yet to hear a logical or rational reason why reverting to the status quo ante would be preferable for avoiding war.

Probably because no one is claiming that. I think most people are saying that the agreement we got isn't sufficient...that it didn't require enough of Iran, they didn't concede on more important matters, the verification process wasn't robust enough, etc. I haven't heard anyone saying we should have just sat on our hands and maintained the status quo.

Well the issue on the table concerns support or rejection of the current agreement. Rejection takes us back to status quo ante by definition.

[homersapien 11,386]

And I certainly can claim that a "dove" would logically have to accept the existing agreement. There are many compelling reasons to support that; I have yet to see a single logical or rational reason to disprove it.

You can claim anything, so long as it you don't mind logical holes one could drive a semi through.

Name just one.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I have yet to hear a logical or rational reason why reverting to the status quo ante would be preferable for avoiding war.

Probably because no one is claiming that. I think most people are saying that the agreement we got isn't sufficient...that it didn't require enough of Iran, they didn't concede on more important matters, the verification process wasn't robust enough, etc. I haven't heard anyone saying we should have just sat on our hands and maintained the status quo.

Well the issue on the table concerns support or rejection of the current agreement. Rejection takes us back to status quo ante by definition.

You are definitely confused.

Criticizing this agreement and saying it is a bad one is not the same thing as going back to the status quo.

Are you feeling ok?

[homersapien 11,386]

That's because there aren't any.

You're just being obtuse now.

Obtuse? Because I am asking for a single reason that justifies rejecting the agreement for the purpose of promoting peace?

You're the one who keeps making the argument for rejecting the agreement without stating just how that would help the cause of peace.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

And I certainly can claim that a "dove" would logically have to accept the existing agreement. There are many compelling reasons to support that; I have yet to see a single logical or rational reason to disprove it.

You can claim anything, so long as it you don't mind logical holes one could drive a semi through.

Name just one.

The main one: That you cannot get out of this binary thinking pattern of believing that if you think this agreement is a stinker and should have been negotiated better, than you automatically want to go back to no agreement of any sort.

Forget a semi. You could drive 5 freight trains through it.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

That's because there aren't any.

You're just being obtuse now.

Obtuse? Because I am asking for a single reason that justifies rejecting the agreement for the purpose of promoting peace?

You're the one who keeps making the argument for rejecting the agreement without stating just how that would help the cause of peace.

I gave you general examples. I told you I'm not the person to get into the details on this. But one can say that don't support this agreement and think that we did a sorry job of negotiating with Iran, should have gotten more concessions from them, etc. Those are all good reasons to not support the agreement. And it doesn't require thinking we have to scrap it completely and go back to the status quo.

[homersapien 11,386]

I have yet to hear a logical or rational reason why reverting to the status quo ante would be preferable for avoiding war.

Probably because no one is claiming that. I think most people are saying that the agreement we got isn't sufficient...that it didn't require enough of Iran, they didn't concede on more important matters, the verification process wasn't robust enough, etc. I haven't heard anyone saying we should have just sat on our hands and maintained the status quo.

Well the issue on the table concerns support or rejection of the current agreement. Rejection takes us back to status quo ante by definition.

You are definitely confused.

Criticizing this agreement and saying it is a bad one is not the same thing as going back to the status quo.

Are you feeling ok?

No, I am not confused, I think you are.

I never said the treaty is perfect or above criticism.

The question at issue is one of (Rand's) support or opposition.

If he considers himself a "dove" on the ME, then he must logically support the agreement regardless of it's weaknesses. If he opposes the agreement, he can't call himself a "dove" unless he can explain how rejection of the treaty furthers the cause of peace.

He can criticize it all he wants, but in the end, he has to vote for or against it.

[homersapien 11,386]

And I certainly can claim that a "dove" would logically have to accept the existing agreement. There are many compelling reasons to support that; I have yet to see a single logical or rational reason to disprove it.

You can claim anything, so long as it you don't mind logical holes one could drive a semi through.

Name just one.

The main one: That you cannot get out of this binary thinking pattern of believing that if you think this agreement is a stinker and should have been negotiated better, than you automatically want to go back to no agreement of any sort.

Forget a semi. You could drive 5 freight trains through it.

Again, you can either vote for the agreement or against it.

If you vote against it, then you revert back to status quo ante by definition. (Actually, it would be a little worse than status quo ante since we will have sacrificed the high ground of being at least willing to negotiate.)

If this is so logically flawed, you should be able to point out the illogic.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I did. You're so twisted up in the illogic you won't see it.

I'm tired of talking about this though.

[WarTim 3,456]

Opposed. One of those contortions I mentioned. Paul the Elder supported it, so who knows if he's playing politics?

Well, that's all I need to know about his sincerity.

You can't possibly be a "dove" on the ME and oppose this agreement. It's totally illogical.

If you don't think the agreement is strong enough or that Iran is a trustworthy bargaining partner, I'd think you could oppose it while still being a dove on the ME.

How so? What's a practical alternative?

I don't know. But I think one could believe this is a bad agreement without being labeled a warmonger.

Agreed!!!

Of course you can call this agreement a bad one and oppose it without being in favor of war. It's not an either/or situation with this.

Agree

[autigeremt 6,643]

Logic says this "deal" means nothing....signed or not. Iran will do as Iran wants.

https://www.facebook...20225584686965/

No, that would be opinion.

And writing off the value of the Iranian agreement based on the concept of Iran's evilness is logical enough, it's just irrational.

Not in my eyes. They have a track record to go with their evil ways.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to oppose Iran deal.

One of the Senate's most powerful Democrats has come out against the President's Iran deal, making a statement that, despite some kind words for the President and the Secretary of State, the White House won't like. Sen. Schumer (D-NY), the presumptive next Democratic Senate Minority or Majority Leader, wrote earlier tonight:

Using the proponents' overall standard - which is not whether the agreement is ideal, but whether we are better with or without it - it seems to me, when it comes to the nuclear aspects of the agreement within ten years, we might be slightly better off with it. However, when it comes to the nuclear aspects after ten years and the non-nuclear aspects, we would be better off without it.

Sen. Schumer's conclusion undermines one of the Administration's main talking points, that the only choices are this deal or war...

[MDM4AU 332]

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to oppose Iran deal.

One of the Senate's most powerful Democrats has come out against the President's Iran deal, making a statement that, despite some kind words for the President and the Secretary of State, the White House won't like. Sen. Schumer (D-NY), the presumptive next Democratic Senate Minority or Majority Leader, wrote earlier tonight:

Using the proponents' overall standard - which is not whether the agreement is ideal, but whether we are better with or without it - it seems to me, when it comes to the nuclear aspects of the agreement within ten years, we might be slightly better off with it. However, when it comes to the nuclear aspects after ten years and the non-nuclear aspects, we would be better off without it.

Sen. Schumer's conclusion undermines one of the Administration's main talking points, that the only choices are this deal or war...

Schumer is just another loser repub...wait, huh?

[homersapien 11,386]

How about someone explaining how we would be better off 10 years without the agreement?

That makes no sense, unless you propose an alternative to the agreement that would accomplish that.

Schumer is succumbing to the Israeli lobby. He's probably thinks his vote is not needed to override a veto and is therefore trying to play both sides of the fence. I think far less of him as a result.

[autigeremt 6,643]

How about someone explaining how we would be better off 10 years without the agreement?

That makes no sense, unless you propose an alternative to the agreement that would accomplish that.

Schumer is succumbing to the Israeli lobby. He's probably thinks his vote is not needed to override a veto and is therefore trying to play both sides of the fence. I think far less of him as a result.

Such the appeaser. How would we be worse off leaving the sanctions in place? If you don't have surprise inspections built in you are a fool.

[homersapien 11,386]

How about someone explaining how we would be better off 10 years without the agreement?

That makes no sense, unless you propose an alternative to the agreement that would accomplish that.

Schumer is succumbing to the Israeli lobby. He's probably thinks his vote is not needed to override a veto and is therefore trying to play both sides of the fence. I think far less of him as a result.

Such the appeaser. How would we be worse off leaving the sanctions in place? If you don't have surprise inspections built in you are a fool.

Leaving the sanctions in place was not, and is not an option. The purpose of the sanctions was to produce an agreement.

And I say you are way over-weighting the importance of surprise inspections.

I don't think they will be able to create a nuclear weapon - and deploy it - within the terms of the current agreement without it being detected.

And even if they did (which they can't) we are still better off than we would be by rejecting this agreement.

[Strychnine 1,802]

How about someone explaining how we would be better off 10 years without the agreement?

That makes no sense, unless you propose an alternative to the agreement that would accomplish that.

Schumer is succumbing to the Israeli lobby. He's probably thinks his vote is not needed to override a veto and is therefore trying to play both sides of the fence. I think far less of him as a result.

Such the appeaser. How would we be worse off leaving the sanctions in place? If you don't have surprise inspections built in you are a fool.

Leaving the sanctions in place was not, and is not an option. The purpose of the sanctions was to produce an agreement.

And I say you are way over-weighting the importance of surprise inspections.

I don't think they will be able to create a nuclear weapon - and deploy it - within the terms of the current agreement without it being detected.

And even if they did (which they can't) we are still better off than we would be by rejecting this agreement.

All of their declared facilities (which is everything we know of) do not require surprise inspections, as they will be monitored continuously. The missing surprise inspections would be of any undeclared facilities, which would obviously include military bases. Such access must be requested, and a reason provided. The concept of being able to perform surprise inspections at a country's military facilities is unreasonable. None of the countries at those negotiations would agree to such a condition if they were in Iran's position. For example, we would never agree to anyone having surprise inspections of a DARPA facility. I agree with you; people are making the lack of surprise inspections out to be a bigger deal than it really is.

I do not think Iran was ever interested in seriously pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. They have had enough time to have developed them if that was their real goal. The success of this agreement is important to moderates in Iran, and it is certainly more important than anything that would be accomplished by developing nuclear weapons. Iran has absolutely nothing to gain by violating it, and plenty to lose.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

How about someone explaining how we would be better off 10 years without the agreement?

That makes no sense, unless you propose an alternative to the agreement that would accomplish that.

Schumer is succumbing to the Israeli lobby. He's probably thinks his vote is not needed to override a veto and is therefore trying to play both sides of the fence. I think far less of him as a result.

Such the appeaser. How would we be worse off leaving the sanctions in place? If you don't have surprise inspections built in you are a fool.

Leaving the sanctions in place was not, and is not an option. The purpose of the sanctions was to produce an agreement.

And I say you are way over-weighting the importance of surprise inspections.

I don't think they will be able to create a nuclear weapon - and deploy it - within the terms of the current agreement without it being detected.

And even if they did (which they can't) we are still better off than we would be by rejecting this agreement.

When you consider the satellite imagery available, I tend to agree.

[homersapien 11,386]

Obama was right, Iran capitulated

By Efraim Halevy

The document approved in Lausanne is full of loopholes and lacks numerous details. There's a great deal of exhausting work to be done before the talks are completed, and we can expect some tough battles over the coming months before the formulation of a final agreement.

Nevertheless, US President Barack Obama was right in labeling the document a "historic" one – and for the following reasons:

1. For decades, Iran rejected the international community's demand to hold talks of any kind with respect to its nuclear program. The interim agreement reached in Lausanne proves that Tehran capitulated, by agreeing to conduct negotiations about its plans and the nuclear infrastructure it has built up for years, primarily in secret.

2. Iran was forced to agree to the curtailment of its programs, the destruction of valuable equipment at some of its facilities, and a drastic reduction in the number of centrifuges that will remain in operation. The vast majority of the centrifuges will be removed from the production sites and stored in known locations under international supervision. The new centrifuges will be removed from the existing facilities and stored under international supervision.

3. The Fordow facility will be left with just 1,000 of its more than 6,000 centrifuges, and these will be used for research and development for civilian purposes only, under international supervision. No fissile material will remain in Fordow, and uranium-enrichment operations will not take place there for a period of 15 years.

4. Iran was forced to agree to an unprecedented regime of international supervision and monitoring of its nuclear facilities and the dismantling of critical systems. The facility in Natanz will be left with approximately 5,000 old-model centrifuges, and 1,000 new ones will be removed from the site and stored under supervision. The Arak reactor will cease production of plutonium, the original core of the reactor will be destroyed or removed from the country, and the facility will be used for research and development programs only with the approval of the superpowers.

5. Iran has agreed to not enrich uranium over 3.67 percent for at least 15 years. It has also agreed to reduce its current stockpile of about 10,000 kilograms of low-enriched uranium to just 300 kilograms. The surplus quantities will be removed from the country or handled in a different manner, but will not remain under Iranian control.

6. Iran has agreed to implement measures, the details of which have yet to be finalized, to meet the demands for clarification with respect to trials it has carried out in the field of nuclear weapons systems.

7. Obama's speech following the signing of the framework agreement was broadcast live on Iranian state television without any censorship or breaks in the middle. Never before, since the Islamic Revolution, has an American president been afforded such a stage, and on such a sensitive subject to boot.

And thus President Obama could say there is a historical dimension to the agreement that was reached. Anyone who has followed events in Iran in recent decades or has studied the matter has to admit truthfully that he never believed Iran would ever agree to discuss these issues, let alone agree to each of the clauses I have mentioned.

According to the introduction to the understandings reached, "Important implementation details are still subject to negotiation, and nothing is agreed until everything is agreed."

This statement, along with Obama's open invitation to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to enter into an intensive dialogue, affords the Israeli government the opportunity to improve the agreement in its final version. However, Israel's hasty response – its total rejection of the memorandum of understanding – seems to herald the beginning of an Israeli campaign designed to thwart the deal. Scrapping the deal would of course mean scrapping all the understandings already achieved.

You can't have your cake and eat it too; you can't conduct an all-out war against the president to thwart his historic achievement and, in the same breath, hold talks with him to improve the product. Moreover, taking the fight to Congress would require deeper Israeli intervention in the approaching elections in the United States.

One of the arguments being voiced against the continuation of the talks is that Iran has a history of lies and cunning, and can thus be expected to breach the agreement and deceive the world. True, the Iranians have a tendency to deceive, but they could do so even if they agreed to zero centrifuges, the closure of all their nuclear facilities, and supervision on the part of the Mossad itself.

Loopholes can always be found, so there is no such thing as a "good agreement." The Iranians will uphold an agreement only if it is worth their while.

Netanyahu has raised a new demand – that the framework agreement should include Iran's recognition of Israel's right to exist. Clearly, Iran is not going to change its spots; therefore, anyone who voices such a demand is signaling that he doesn't want the agreement and has his eyes on an aggressive solution.

Efraim Halevy is a former Mossad chief.

[homersapien 11,386]

Why Israel’s Security Experts Support the Iran Deal—and Iran’s Hard-Liners Don’t

By Joe Conason

As Congressional Republicans seek to undermine the nuclear agreement between Iran and the international powers, they assert that hardline Islamists in the Islamic Republic are delighted with the deal while Israelis concerned over their country’s security are appalled. The same theme is now repeated constantly on Fox News Channel and throughout right-wing media.

But that message is largely false—and in very important respects, the opposite is true.

In arguing for the agreement at American University last Wednesday, President Obama noted that the most hostile factions in the Tehran regime aren’t celebrating this agreement—as the cover of The New York Post suggested. “In fact, it’s those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo,” he said. “It’s those hardliners chanting ‘Death to America’ who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican caucus.”

Indeed, while vast throngs of Iranians greeted their government’s negotiators in a joyous welcome, the fanatical reactionaries in the Revolutionary Guard and the paramilitary Basij movement—which have violently repressed democratic currents in Iran—could barely control their outrage. Upon reading the terms, a Basij spokesman said last month, “We quickly realized that what we feared ... had become a reality. If Iran agrees with this, our nuclear industry will be handcuffed for many years to come.”

Hoping and perhaps praying for a veto by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, their supreme leader, the Basijis, the right-wing media in Tehran, and their regime sponsors pointed to “red lines” that the agreement allegedly crossed.

“We will never accept it,” said Mohammed Ali Jafari, a high-ranking Revolutionary Guard commander.

Such shrill expressions of frustration should encourage everyone who understands the agreement’s real value. Iran’s “Death to America, Death to Israel” cohort hates this deal—not only because of its highly restrictive provisions, but because over the long term, it strengthens their democratic opponents and threatens their corrupt control of Iranian society.

In Israel, meanwhile, the alarmist criticism of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—a sage whose confident predictions about Iran, Iraq, and almost everything else are reliably, totally wrong—has obscured support from actual military and intelligence leaders. Like experts in this country and around the world, the best-informed Israelis understand the deal’s imperfections very well—and support it nevertheless.

“There are no ideal agreements,” declared Ami Ayalon, a military veteran who headed the Israeli Navy and later oversaw the Jewish state’s security service, the Shin Bet. But as Ayalon explained to J.J. Goldberg of the Forward, this agreement is “the best possible alternative from Israel’s point of view, given the other available alternatives”—including the most likely alternative which is, as Obama explained, another extremely dangerous Mideast war.

Efraim Halevy, who formerly ran the Mossad, Israel’s foreign intelligence service, and later headed its National Security Council, concurs with Ayalon (and Obama). Writing in Yedioth Aharonoth, the national daily published in Tel Aviv, Halevy points out a profound contradiction in Netanyahu’s blustering complaints. Having warned that an Iranian nuclear weapon would pose a unique existential threat to Israel, how can Bibi logically reject the agreement that forestalls any bomb development for at least 15 years and increases the “breakout time” from one month to a year—even if Iran ultimately violates its commitments?

Such a deal is far preferable to no deal, the ex-Mossad chief insists, although it won’t necessarily dissuade Tehran from making trouble elsewhere. Halevy also emphasizes that no mythical “better” deal would ever win support from Russia and China, Iran’s main weapons suppliers, whose leaders have endorsed this agreement.

In short, both of these top former officials believe the agreement with Iran will enhance their nation’s security—and contrary to what Fox News Channel’s sages might claim, they represent mainstream opinion in Israel’s military and intelligence circles.

So perhaps we can safely discount the partisan demagogues and feckless opportunists who claim to be protecting the Jewish state from Barack Obama. And when someone like Mike Huckabee—who memorably escaped military service because of his “flat feet”—denounces the president for “marching Israelis to the oven door,” let’s remember the sane and serious response of Israel’s most experienced defenders.