Why Conservatives Reject the Iran Deal

There are many reasons that conservatives are losing their minds over the newly announced negotiated deal with Iran over their nuclear program. Part of it is pure politics — one of their primary narratives is that Democrats, especially Obama, are “weak” on defending the country. But I want to argue that they are losing their minds because of the nature of their minds, which is to say their brains and their basic psychological makeup.

There is a reason why that has been the constant narrative from the right for decades and it’s more than just an attempt to gain a political advantage. It goes back to some of the core psychological differences between liberals and conservatives. There’s a lot of research on this subject that shows several psychological traits of conservatives that contribute to this knee-jerk reaction to not just this deal, but to any act of constructive diplomacy.

1. A tendency to see the world in absolute black and white, us vs them.

2. A tendency to react most strongly to external threats.

3. A tendency to resort to force to get their way.

4. A tendency to see military as a first option rather than the last.

5. A very strong in-group identification and distrust of anyone in an out-group.

All of these things mean that they tend to value this highly toxic form of masculinity that feels the need to constantly posture and intimidate with threats of violence, especially in response to perceived external threats. So the idea that a problem could be solved without those things, with thoughtful diplomacy rather than false machismo, is anathema to them. And if it works, it shows just how juvenile and absurd their whole approach to the world is.

"The hate mongering son of a bitch has spent 2000 years hating gays. I wouldn't ..."

Wiles: Gays Would Rape Angels if ..."
"Well, some people have to move there."

Moore’s Nutty Lawyer

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://www.thelosersleague.com theschwa

    Is that just American conservatives? I thought the hyper religious conservatives controlled Iran, and by extension, the negotiating process? How did liberals in Iran get to make a deal? How did this deal even happen? OMG. I am dreaming all this!

  • Jared James

    In the States, we picture conservative religion as this brand of immature, terrified machismo, constantly on the defensive against imagined (even occasionally real) threats. When these men (with a few exceptions, they are men) get elected, they remain fearful, strutting, immature jackasses.

    In Iran, conservative religion is in the driver’s seat; while it remains immature, terrified of imaginary (and sometimes real) threats, it is much less insecure about its place in politics, and thus can be (and is) far more pragmatic and deliberate with respect to both real and imagined threats than the very similar minds here in the States. Also remember, this is a much older culture, whose politics of male domination go back somewhere around 2200-2300 years, ten times as long as the US has existed. There’s a certain sense of continuity that we as a whole, and especially the apocalyptic cult members among us, lack.

  • raven

    Poll: Majority backs nuclear deal with Iran | TheHill

    thehill. com/blogs/…/237852-poll-majority-back-nuclear-deal-with-iran

    April 03, 2015, 01:15 pm. Poll: Majority backs nuclear deal with Iran. By Jesse Byrnes. Getty Images. A clear majority of Americans support a nuclear deal with Iran, according to a …

    I thought to see what the American people thought. Polling data. It’s early yet but there is some.

    A majority support the deal with Iran. I’d guess that most people haven’t yet made firm decisions.

    I’d like to see a poll of how many Americans want to go to war with Iran though.

  • raven

    HUFFPOLLSTER: Polls Find Varying Support For Iran …

    www. huffingtonpost. com/2015/…/iran-nuclear-deal-polls_n_6999034.ht…

    4 days ago – This is HuffPollster for Friday, April 3, 2015. … just 22 percent of Americans saying the U.S. should “go to war with Iran if that ….

    Here it is. 22% of Americans want to got to war with Iran.

    I do hope the GOP clowns run on a War With Iran platform. To raise your taxes and kill your kids to accomplish probably nothing much and nothing permanent.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    If you want to honestly account for why conservatives are freaking out about this deal, you need to also discuss the vested economic-political interests that are threatened by this radical change in US posture. Our total inability to talk to Iran — pretty much set in concrete by the hostage crisis and Carter’s self-humiliating failure to deal with it — has led to a longstanding status-quo where countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia became the only “friends” we had in that region. That was hugely profitable to those states, and to whoever in the US supported our wonky two-faced “friendships” with them. The fact that we’ve suddenly started talking to Iran again is a HUGE threat to that status-quo, independent of the specifics of this particular deal; so a considerable amount of freaking-out is to be expected for that reason alone.

    Also, there’s the price of oil to think about, which will take a bit of a dip if certain sanctions against Iran are suspended. That could cause problems for the North American fracking biz, and its “drill-baby-drill” cheerleaders.

  • Hercules Grytpype-Thynne

    To raise your taxes and kill your kids

    You haven’t been listening to conservatives very much lately, have you? Raising taxes is of the devil. It’s much more likely to be “To cut your basic social safety net and kill your kids . . . “

  • DaveL

    I think it’s even simpler than that. It’s point #1 that’s controlling. Since Obama is not one of them, he must be all things bad, and nothing that he does may be acknowledged as a good idea or a success. We’ve seen concrete examples of how Obama cannot even order a deli sandwich and have conservatives agree that it was a good choice.

  • D. C. Sessions

    It’s much more likely to be “To cut your basic social safety net and kill your kids . . . “

    This. No downside: spend lots of money on sponsors, dial up the anxiety of the populace (always good for the right wing), and increase the national debt [1] to generate more pressure for cutting taxes and spending on social programs.

    [1] Which pays interest to other sponsors.

  • raven

    It’s much more likely to be “To cut your basic social safety net and kill your kids . . . “

    What social safety net.

    I’m estimating a war with Iran will cost $4 trillion. Big country, mountains, 79 million people. It’s at least two Iraq Wars worth and likely to be a low estimate.

    The GOP will have to”

    1. Raise taxes a lot.

    2. Put it on the already $18 trillion National debt like Bush did with Iraq.

    3. Cut other parts of the federal budget. There isn’t much room here. Social Security and Medicare are 40% and self funded. The military is 20% or so. So that leaves cuts in social safety net, education, science, infrastructure and so on. These are the programs that make the USA worth fighting for.

    It’s going to take a lot of food stamps to make up $4 trillion.

    Oh well, we are leaving our kids a broken climate system. Might as well leave them a multi-tens of trillions debt to pay off.

  • scienceavenger

    The GOP will just leave it to Democrats to raise the taxes, and then start the “tax and spend” rhetoric. We’ve ben down this road before.

  • mistertwo

    1. Pre-millennialism

    2. Pre-millennialism

    3. Pre-millennialism

    4. Pre-millennialism

    5. Pre-millennialism

    Maybe not all conservatives, but most of the ones I know are Evangelicals who believe that Jesus is coming back really, really soon to establish an earthly kingdom beginning in Israel, and that the United States had better be on Israel’s side or we’ll get destroyed in the war to set up that kingdom. The politicians seldom say this out loud, but Louie Gohmert isn’t afraid to get up in Congress and make speeches about it. From his House web page:

    http://gohmert.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=388054

    “The existence and safety of the nation of Israel is critical to the safety and existence of the United States and those who love true freedom. Israel’s support for human rights is more consistent with the position of the United States than any other nation in the middle east. Most Americans believe that if we as a nation bless Israel, we will be blessed. Therefore, any enemy of Israel is an enemy of the United States. As the first nation to recognize Israel as an independent state when it was re-established in 1948, the United States has known Israel as one of its closest allies.”

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Another reason conservatives are freaking out is the “democracy” issue. One of Israel’s central, long-standing selling-points is that they’re “the only democracy in the Middle East.” Now our negotiations with Iran are highlighting the fact that Iran is becoming more democratic, and thus more of a threat to one of Israel’s few claims to legitimacy. And the threat is made even worse by the fact that Iran is starting to move AWAY from fundamentalist theocracy, while Israel is moving TOWARD it.

  • dingojack

    RB – have you been following the oil prices over the last year-or-so? Overproduction has driven the price to levels not seen since before the oil-shocks of the 70’s*. Part of that drive downward is due to fracking in the US (perhaps driven by a need for ‘energy security?).

    A deal with Iran, if it drives the price of oil down, will hurt the Iranian economy at a fundamental level** far more than the US economy. It’s the difference between consumers and producers.

    Dingo

    ———

    * however, it has rebounded somewhat since the bottom.

    ** in the short-term a lifting of the crippling sanctions will buoy the economy, but the longer-term loss of revenue in oil receipts will tighten growth, choking-off progress.

    (Not what I was looking for, exactly — but Ouch!)

  • gshelley

    I think much of it is also “Israel first”

    If Israel (or in this case Netanyahu) doesn’t want a deal, they will opppose it. It may be that if he had somehow come out and said “this deal prevents them being able to develop weapons grade uranium or plutonium and the extensive checks in place ensure they won’t be able to somehow get round it”, I’m not sure there would be much opposition

  • raven

    while Israel is moving TOWARD it.

    True.

    For Liberal Israelis, Netanyahu’s Win Is A Reality Check

    www. huffingtonpost. com/2015/…/liberal-israelis-netanyahu_n_6915238…

    TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — Israeli liberals woke up after national elections with a … Posted: 03/21/2015 9:05 am EDT Updated: 03/21/2015 9:59 am EDT … money being pumped to West Bank Jewish settlements and ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities. …

    Israel is like us only worse.

    A sharply divided society between religious kooks and educated progressives. Their fundies, who are like our fundies, have taken over.

    The middle class, educated European derived Jews are starting to think they don’t have a voice or a place in Israel. They might be right.

  • colnago80

    Given the rhetoric coming from the ayatollahs, the Government of Israel has good reason to be concerned about Iran’s intentions for their country. Right now, the most that Iran can do is to rattle Bibi’s cage by supporting terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hizbollah. However, should they acquire nuclear weapons, they would be in a position to carry out their nefarious designs. The folks in Israel remember all to well what happened in Germany in 1933, where Frankenberger’s/Schicklgruber’s/Heidler’s/Hister’s/Hitler’s designs were carried out.

    Actually, I don’t think that Iran would actually use the weapons, knowing that Israel has a multifaceted system for retaliation. IMHO, what Iran really wants is to scare most of the Israeli populous into leaving for North America, Australia, and New Zealand by the possession of an existential threat. Now, I suspect that the Raging Bees of the world probably think that such an exodus would be a good thing.

  • matty1

    @4

    Here it is. 22% of Americans want to got to war with Iran.

    My first reaction was horror that the number is that high but on reading the link it seems 22% was the number who would have supported war if the deal had failed. There is no figure on how many still want a war despite the agreement.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    However, should they acquire nuclear weapons, they would be in a position to carry out their nefarious designs.

    Why haven’t they carried out such designs using their pre-existing conventional air force? If they’re not willing to use their air force, or rockets with chemical bombs, what makes you think they’d be willing to use nukes?

    Actually, I don’t think that Iran would actually use the weapons…

    Make up your mind, chickenhawk — Is Iran willing to use nukes, or is it not? You’re clearly not giving much thought to what you say.

    The folks in Israel remember all to well what happened in Germany in 1933, where Frankenberger’s/Schicklgruber’s/Heidler’s/Hister’s/Hitler’s designs were carried out.

    The same tired, childish, unthinking, reflexive talking-point, over and over, about a completely different set of circumstances. Like most advocates of indiscriminate genocide, colnago has the mentality of a child, repeating the words he just learned over and over before he even gets a handle on what they mean. And he STILL can’t get Hitler’s name straight. What a fucking tired old joke.

    The best argument for this US-Iran deal, is the mental caliber of its opponents.

  • colnago80

    Re Raging Bee @ #18

    They haven’t attacked with conventional weapons because of Israel’s deterrent capability. However, the effectiveness of that deterrent capability fades away if Iran acquires nukes.

    Iran would be perfectly willing to use nukes if the effort to scare Israelis into leaving turned out to be ineffective.

    Iran’s rhetoric is worse then that used by the Nazis in 1933. In fact, the ayatollahs have borrowed much of it from the latter, distributing copies of Mein Kampf and the Protocols of Zion, very popular publications in the Muslim world.

  • dingojack

    “In fact, the ayatollahs have borrowed much of it from the latter, distributing copies of Mein Kampf and the Protocols of Zion, very popular publications in the Muslim world.”

    And the source for this ‘fact’ — not the Israeli version of WhirledNutsDaily by any chance?

    Dingo

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    They haven’t attacked with conventional weapons because of Israel’s deterrent capability. However, the effectiveness of that deterrent capability fades away if Iran acquires nukes.

    No, it really doesn’t, because more factors come into play to deter their use of nukes. This has been repeatedly pointed out to you, and you keep on proving yourself too stupid, hysterical, shortsighted and simpleminded to understand any of it.

    Iran’s rhetoric is worse then that used by the Nazis in 1933. In fact, the ayatollahs have borrowed much of it from the latter, distributing copies of Mein Kampf and the Protocols of Zion, very popular publications in the Muslim world.

    So fucking what? It’s not “Iran’s” rhetoric, it’s the rhetoric of different key players in the Iranian government, and they’re not all reading from the same page, and you’re just not smart enough to get them all straight. All you’re good for is babbling incessantly about “Frankenberger” and “Tsar bombes” like a hyperactive little boy, without having any idea how any of it fits into the larger picture. Seriously, shut the fuck up and let the grownups talk about grownup stuff.

  • abb3w

    I’m thinking more particularly of “social dominance orientation” than conservatism generally.

    Contrariwise, the black-and-white aspect seems more high-RWA than high-SDO, although it’s more directly associated still to “need for closure”.

  • colnago80
  • colnago80

    Re Raging Bee @ #21

    So fucking what? It’s not “Iran’s” rhetoric, it’s the rhetoric of different key players in the Iranian government, and they’re not all reading from the same page, and you’re just not smart enough to get them all straight

    That was the party line on the rhetoric and publications coming from the Nazis in Germany. Ah, Frankenberger aka Schicklgruber aka Heidler aka Hister aka Hitler was just mouthing off to hear the sound of his own voice said his defenders. Not.

  • dingojack

    Hmm …. and so? Any actual facts from any actually creditable sources to back your bald assertions? Or do they come (surprise!) from the Department of SLC’s rectum, as usual?

    No I didn’t think so – I second RB’s motion.

    Dingo

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    And once again, you prove your inability to grasp Iranian affairs by talking about a completely different place and time.

    Fuck off, colnago, we have Kaveh and dozens of other sources far more informed and reliable than you. You have nothing to offer in this debate, and you know it.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Holy shit, I just had a look at colnago’s cite @23 — it’s nothing but an imitation of Wikipedia, same layout and all. It’s phoniness all the way down with this racist twit.

  • JustaTech

    Now, most of my understanding of the Cold war comes from James Bond movies and Tom Leherer’s “Who’s Next”, but I am under the impression that *many* countries that hate each other *very* much have nukes and aside from the US, have not used said nukes. If Pakistan and India have held off bombing each other, and the USA and the USSR never got around to bombing each other, why do we honestly think that Iran would nuke anyone, even Israel?

    I mean, on some level saying (or not saying) that you have nuclear weapons sounds a lot like pre-WWI saber-rattling.

    What am I missing?

  • Who Cares

    @Colnago80:

    I guess we should execute you right now since you could get a gun and you could go out and you could shoot people with it. Better to be sure that you don’t do that by giving you a lethal injection.

    See how fucking illogical your reasoning is?

    But then again you keep claiming that Iran wants nuclear weapons while even the collective U.S. intelligence community has published this little report called the N.I.E in 2007 that they stopped at the latest in 2003 with this. Even the Iranian Directorate (the follow up of the Office of Special Plans that cooked the books with regards to intelligence information on Iraq) couldn’t find anything to twist into they might be sneakily doing something. Bush didn’t like that, in his memoir he laments that it stopped him from bombing Iran.

    That is aside from the fact that during the Iraq-Iran war there was placed an absolute ban on not just the use of chemical weapons (Even though the military really thought they’d need them to be able to prevail against Saddam) but also on nuclear weapons.

    What nefarious designs? And don’t bother trotting out that lie that they want to wipe Israel of the map. That was an ‘accidental’ mistranslation by MEMRI. What they said was that the current regime, you know the one that demands that Iran is to be wiped of the map by the U.S., should be removed and preferable completely forgotten about.

    And yes the Jews remember what happened in Europe controlled by Hitler. What does that have to do with the current day situation eludes me though seeing that they are not comparable at all.

    oh and now Iran won’t use their nuclear bombs like you’ve been yelling on the top of your lungs for several years now. But they still can’t have them since it would result in Jews leaving Israel. I’ve got news for you. Emigration out of Israel has been greater then immigration for years now. People are leaving due to fundamentalist religion. Jewish fundamentalist religion. They rather go to places like Russia (which has a pretty big antisemitic streak in it’s society) then stick around to suffer because their religious nutjobs are slowly strangling the viability of the nation.

    The reason that Iran hasn’t attacked is that its leadership thinks on a rational level with regards to diplomacy (as compared to 20 years of crying wolf by Israel), there is no benefit to them for attacking Israel, they don’t have the means to drop an army in Israel and airstrikes would only be symbolic while they would be propagandized into “Gulf War III: Real men go to Teheran”.

    Which is why Israel has been screaming for decades that Iran will get the bomb in a year maybe 2 years, since it’s the only way to paint Iran as a threat to Israel.

    And there you are again with the scaring the Jews to emigrate. Guess you are one of those pre-millenialists who need all the Jews to be in Israel so that they can be destroyed or forcibly converted to Christianity otherwise Jesus won’t come back. You better start criticizing the Israeli government since it’s policies (due to the religious fundamentalists being the kingmakers & coalition breakers there) are driving away more people then verified news that Iran would have a nuke does.

  • dmcclean

    “They haven’t attacked with conventional weapons because of Israel’s deterrent capability. However, the effectiveness of that deterrent capability fades away if Iran acquires nukes.”

    Oh bullshit. Total and complete bullshit. And you know it, since technology related bullshit seems to be one of the few kinds you can smell even if you try.

    Please explain to me how the deterrent capability of hundreds of Tridents on more than a dozen missile submarines (which the Iranians haven’t a prayer of attacking or defending against), and hundreds more land based missiles (which the Iranians also haven’t a prayer of attacking or defending against), is LESS than the deterrent capability of the Israeli F15s?

    Fades away?!!?! The deterrent capability that an Iranian first strike would bring into play is almost indescribably enormous, devastating, certain, and swift.

  • jaybee

    In the provided link about the psychological differences between liberals and conservatives, this one stood out:

    There is nothing wrong in getting back at someone who has hurt you.

    Conservatives were far more likely to agree with that statement. No doubt they would also state that Jesus is the main source of their morality.

  • colnago80

    Re dmcclean @ #30

    Israel doesn’t have any Trident submarines. Their submarine force consists of 5 Dolphin class conventional submarines which they have modified to fire cruise missiles.

  • dmcclean

    You cannot possibly be so dense as to not have understood whose submarined-based Trident missiles I meant. In fact, the non-Israel-ness of that party was MY ENTIRE FUCKING POINT and the reason why the deterrent from that party would not “fade away” if Israel were to be hit by an Iranian first strike.

    But since there may not be a limit to the depth of your willingness to play dumb in the desperate hope that it will magically win you points, THE UNITED FUCKING STATES OF FUCKING AMERICA, located thousands of fucking miles away on a whole other fucking continent, and with missile subs scattered around the world’s oceans, would be able to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike.

  • Nick Gotts

    And there you are again with the scaring the Jews to emigrate. Guess you are one of those pre-millenialists who need all the Jews to be in Israel so that they can be destroyed or forcibly converted to Christianity otherwise Jesus won’t come back. – Who Cares@29

    The alternative hypothesis is that colnago80 is in fact a deep-cover againt of Iran/Hamas/Hezbollah/anti-Zionist-libruls, aiming to scare Israeli Jews into emigrating. After all, what better way of doing that than summoning up the bogey of a genocidal, nuclear-armed Iran launching a suicidal attack, obviously ludicrous though that may be to anyone rational?

  • colnago80

    Re dmcclean

    I strongly suspect that the Government of Israel is less then convinced that the US military would take such action, therefore they believe that Israel must have its own credible deterrent. Given the failure of the West to do anything about the Holocaust during WW2, one could hardly blame them.

    Re Nick Gotts

    That’s about as funny as AIDS.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Another alternative hypothesis is that colnago is a Nazi or Nazi sympathizer, who supports Israel as a means of getting Jews out of his own country. That would explain, at the very least, his infantile obsessive fascination with the “Frankenburger” story, which another Nazi made up to try to shift some of the blame for the Holocaust onto its victims.

  • dmcclean

    That’s ridiculous.

  • marcus

    warmonger80 They haven’t attacked with conventional weapons because of Israel’s deterrent capability. However, the effectiveness of that deterrent capability fades away if Iran acquires nukes.

    Oh, if only if some other country possessed a “deterrent capability” that might come in to play if Iran were to preemptively launch nuclear weapons at Israel.

    Seriously. How many hours do you think Iran would continue to exist after nuking Israel. Exactly how long does it take a flight of ICBMs to reach Iran from the continental U S? I doubt if western Europe would sit on its hands for very long either.

  • colnago80

    Re marcus @ #38

    See my comment @ #35.

    Re Raging Bee @ #36

    Prove that Leopold Frankenberger was not Hister’s biological grandfather.

  • colnago80

    Re Raging Bee @ #39

    Ole Bee is Don Black in drag.

  • Who Cares

    Given the failure of the West to do anything about the Holocaust during WW2

    Then what should the west have done, except funneling arms, equipment and other materials to Stalin so he could fight more effectively on the east front. Or fighting a war (you know the reason that period is called world war 2) to take down the Nazis?

     

    The Wiesenthal Center has several things that could have been done.

     1) Make public the information about the concentration camps.

      Problem: not even the Jews in the ghettos of occupied Europe believed the stories that sometimes escaped those camps so that would probably have been seen as more war propaganda.

     2) Bomb those camps.

      Problem: Massive propaganda victory for the Nazis about the Allies bombing refugee camps.

     3) Let refugees in Allied nations

      Problem: Doesn’t do anything about the holocaust since these people already managed to get out of Nazi occupied territories

  • Who Cares

    @colnago80(#39):

    For someone to be a grandfather they need to exist. Aside from that you are the one making the extraordinary claim so you are the one that has to provide proof.

  • dmcclean

    “Prove that Leopold Frankenberger was not Hister’s biological grandfather.”

    Here’s the thing, about this. Please, for the love of humanity, will you please tell us why the fuck it matters? It’s not like the multiple names were an attempt to cover something up, or aliases adopted for criminal enterprises, and so forth. So who gives a rats ass that his father was born “illegitimate” and was later “legitimized”? Tell us why the fuck this “controversy” matters at all, before expecting us to run off proving negatives for you.

  • Who Cares

    dmcclean(#43):

    Better there were no Frankenbergers in Graz at the time Alois was born. And that kind of clashes with the claim that Leopold Frankenberger impregnated her there.

  • velociraptor

    To the surprise of no one, Colnago80/slc1 is masturbating thinking about a war how will avoid participating in.

  • colnago80

    Re Who Cares @ #44

    There is no evidence of a Frankenberger family in Graz because Hister had the records destroyed after the Anschluss.

  • colnago80

    Re dmcclean @ #43

    It actually doesn’t matter whether Alois’ biological father was Leopold Frankenberger, Johann Heidler, or Yodar Critch. Ole Maria Schicklgruber wasn’t married, making Hister’s father a bastard. Hister went to great lengths to cover this up to the extent of having the records in Graz destroyed after the Anschluss so, apparently, he was concerned about it.

  • colnago80

    Re Who Cares @ #42

    The identity of Alois’ biological father is unknown. Maybe it was Johann Heidler, his brother, Leopold Frankenberger, or some unknown person. Since Hister had the records in Graz destroyed after the Anschluss, and nobody who was alive at the time is currently extant, it’s impossible to prove one way or the other. All we know is that no father is identified on Alois’ birth certificate and he was baptized Alois Schicklgruber, which was his mother’s maiden name.

  • marcus

    warmonger80 @ 39 Sorry, that opinion is not credible.

    Practically half the country (and a majority of Congress) is looking for an excuse to gin up a war with Iran already. (Iraq anyone?)

    If Iran were to attack Israel with nuclear weapons (or directly with conventional weapons for that matter) it would be game over for Iran. Any other conclusion is utterly ridiculous.

  • colnago80

    Re marcus @ #49

    Well, the powers that be in Israel take issue with this position. In the absence of a mutual defense treaty or membership in NATO, they can’t rely on it.

  • Who Cares

    @Colnago80(#46):

    Cut the sovereign citizen crap with the names. Just calling the guy Hitler isn’t going to trigger some magic.

    Prove it. Prove that they were destroyed on his orders. Then prove that Jews were openly living in Graz in a time that there were no Jews. It is well documented that the first Frankenberger only started to live in Graz when Alois was 30. Whoops for some reason there a documents indicating who was living there and when. Strange if those documents were destroyed.

    That said you have ignored everything except this on the Iran case. Lets go back there.

    I take that as you conceding the following:

    1) Iran doesn’t want to wipe Israel from the map, just replace the current type of government that has been rabidly anti-Iran and used Iran as a bogeyman to both excuse and distract from Israels behavior towards it neighbors and the Palestinians.

    2) Iran is essentially a rational player when it comes down to diplomacy

    3) Iran has a ban on the development of nuclear weapons that predates the 2003 date in the N.I.E. from which point on not even the Iranian Directorate (meant to massage and stove pipe intelligence on Iran for the benefit of Bush & Co., Bush who complained in his memoir that this prevented him from bombing Iran) could spin events as Iran having a nuclear weapons program

    4) That Iran has no plans that will result in the destruction of Israel

    5) That the situation today is not comparable to the rise of Hitler and his subsequent treatment of the Jews.

    6) That scaring the Jews out of Israel is something your feverish mind cooked up to have an excuse to call for the destruction of Iran.

    7) The reason that Jews are emigrating from Israel is the capture of the government by the religious nutjobs.

    8) Chamberlain did what he had to do based on the information he had.

    9) That your proposed solution to the problem is fucking idiotic since it is the same as the following:

    I guess we should execute you right now since you could get a gun and you could go out and you could shoot people with it. Better to be sure that you don’t do that by giving you a lethal injection.

  • Who Cares

    colnago80(#50):

    Wrong, they know they can rely on that but the moment they admit that then they can’t use Iran to distract the rest of the world from what Israel is doing. Iran must remain the ultimate bogeyman that poor little Israel can’t defend against and not rely on others to be defended against. And that is the reason that Iran in the fantasy of the Israeli governing parties (and their amen corner in the U.S.) is feverishly working on a nuclear weapon since there is no other way that Iran can threaten Israel.

  • Jen
  • Crudely Wrott

    One trick pony is still one trick pony.

    The trick isn’t very good. It isn’t even original.

    SLC, you lose several points for laziness alone and a handful more for transparent obfuscation. Not that you can see that. /eye roll/

  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man

    Why Conservatives Reject the Iran Deal

    They’ve opposed every deal with every potential adversary since WW2. They opposed Nixon going to China, the non-proliferation treaty, the SALT treaties, Reagan’s summit meetings with Gorbachev, you name it. It’s hard to come up with a better record of wrongness. But at least they’re predictable.

  • colnago80

    Re Who Cares @ #51

    I agree with none of your statements. All total wishful thinking.

    Re Who Cares @ #52

    They can no more rely on the promises of President Osama or the European nations then they could rely on Chamberlain in 1938.

  • colnago80

    Re Who Cares

    It is well documented that the first Frankenberger only started to live in Graz when Alois was 30.

    Citation needed.

  • colnago80
  • dmcclean

    So, if I have this straight:

    You admit that it doesn’t matter at all.

    You say it mattered to Hitler, but don’t attempt to make a case for why that means it should matter to us.

    You don’t even bother making a case for why the “Heidler/Hister/Hitler” alternative/non-standard spellings issue that you are always on about should matter to anyone.

    You claim that your best evidence for the Frankenberger thing is the lack of evidence.

    Real convincing. I am definitely going to move this to the top of my list of concerns.

  • dingojack

    SLC – George Shultz and Henry Kissinger?!?

    Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

    You’re so batting a thousand on creditable sources*.

    @@

    Dingo

    ———

    * What’s next? Israeli WhirledNutsDaily again? Or will you go for that terrible Wiki that is informed by that paragon of sources on Islamic knowledge — The Daily Telegraph?

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Prove that Leopold Frankenberger was not Hister’s biological grandfather.

    …and…

    Ole Bee is Don Black in drag.

    I’ll just leave this up as proof of how weak, stupid, infantile and small-minded the Likudnik chickenhawk really is. There’s really no point in wasting any more time arguing with someone this childish.

    In fact, I really think it’s time for Ed to consider banning this little shit altogether. He’s proven himself to be an abysmally undisciplined bloodthirsty bigot, with an unhinged and downright childlike mindset, and has made quite a few false and inflammatory accusations against people who don’t agree with him. Among which, he has accused me of “celebrating” the murder of three Israeli teenagers, and has never either backed up the accusation nor admitted it was false. He’s imply not capable of engaging in grownup argument, refuses to take any responsibility for his own words, and serves only to dumb down any argument he gets into.

  • thebookofdave

    Colnago said Hitler (#16 & #24). Did I miss something, or is this a breakthrough moment?

  • gshelley

    I got curious, so I looked up the Hitler/Hister/Heidler/Shcicklegruber/Frankenberger etc

    I could find most of it (though not why anyone who isn’t some sort of conspiracy nut would care), but didn’t see what the “Hister” was all about

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    gshelley: I saw “Hister” in connection with that “Bible Code” bullshit that was all the rage a few years back. Whoever was pushing that “theory” (that we’re supposed to find important prophetic words in the properly arranged blocks of Bible text, like one of those “find the hidden words in this rectangular array of letters” puzzles, except that the letters are Bible text, not random) managed to find “Hister,” but not “Hitler,” so they ran with “Hister” as their proof that the Bible predicted WW-II.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    @JustaTech

    I do not intend to defend colnago. However, the cited history doesn’t bode well for the future. IIRC, several times the US and the USSR were mere moments away from full nuclear war. We were lucky that a few calm reasonable people happened to be in the right places at the right times. I’m less knowledgeable about the nuclear history of India and Pakistan.

    @marcus

    Seriously. How many hours do you think Iran would continue to exist after nuking Israel. Exactly how long does it take a flight of ICBMs to reach Iran from the continental U S? I doubt if western Europe would sit on its hands for very long either.

    Goodness I hope not. I hope better people than you are in charge. I assume if Iran openly delivers a bomb by ICBM, it represents the total capacity of Iran to deliver a nuclear bomb by missile, or close to it. A much more sane, reasonable, and responsible response is a massive unprecedented conventional bombing campaign by basically everyone on Iran’s military (and maybe economy?) followed by an equally unprecedented immediate land invasion.

    I also consider it possible that any bomb from Iran to Israel would be delivered clandestinely. I don’t know how long it will take for the experts to analyze the fallout and determine the likely origin of the bomb, and it seems premature to take any action before that. Even then, if it turned out to be Iran, the proper response again would be the massive unprecedented conventional bombing campaign and land invasion.

    I do feel that the world need to come down and should come down incredibly hard a hypothetical Iranian nuclear first strike. It should be all of the world’s militaries descending in unison to completely and utterly destroy the Iranian capacity to fight, and to occupy the nation for a very long time. All of the Iranians actually responsible should be tried in The Hague for crimes against humanity. All of this in order to send a message that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated and one will never benefit from this course of action.

    However, nuking Iran after a hypothetical Iranian nuclear first strike does absolutely nothing except kill millions, perhaps tens of millions, of innocent human beings.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    However, the cited history doesn’t bode well for the future.

    Fortunately there’s plenty of history that has not been cited here; and taken together, it bodes a good bit better than the hysterics and neocons admit.

    IIRC, several times the US and the USSR were mere moments away from full nuclear war.

    Like when? Maybe during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but given all the exaggeration and emotion I heard about nuclear weapons in general, I’m inclined to consider such claims as your to be exaggerations as well.

    However, nuking Iran after a hypothetical Iranian nuclear first strike does absolutely nothing except kill millions, perhaps tens of millions, of innocent human beings.

    Here I agree. We could say Iran “deserved” it if they nuke someone else first; but that doesn’t make a nuclear response more sensible from any other practical standpoint. If you kill my mother, than you would deserve to die — but that doesn’t mean that killing you would actually make anything better, either for me or for anyone else.

  • Who Cares

    @colnago80(#57):

    Well that one is just too easy. Jews weren’t allowed to be in Styria (the province/county containing Graz) until that time.

    @colnago80(#56):

    Re Who Cares @ #51

    I agree with none of your statements. All total wishful thinking.

    Oh please read what I write before dismissing it all. By rejecting point 9 you have to accept point 1 to 8. Or you reject point 1 to 8 and accept that what you want is point 9.

    Re Who Cares @ #52

    They can no more rely on the promises of President Osama or the European nations then they could rely on Chamberlain in 1938.

    Different situations again. Chamberlain didn’t go to Munich to protect the Jews, he went there to buy time for Great Britain. And like I said the only way that Iran can even be painted as a threat is by it’s political class being suicidal madmen that want the nuclear bomb to detonate it on Tel Aviv. And the rest of the world needs to wipe Iran of the face of the planet but since they don’t do that Israel is standing all alone bravely facing that hallucination.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    If Pakistan and India have held off bombing each other, and the USA and the USSR never got around to bombing each other, why do we honestly think that Iran would nuke anyone, even Israel?

    That’s a good question. Iran is more of a status-quo power these days: a big country, relatively cohesive and unified, already influential in its region, and already getting away with certain things because of the power they already have; whose biggest real threats come from regional chaos, not from outright military invasion. And no matter how many nukes they get, those won’t help them against said regional chaos; so the chances of Iran nuking anyone are pretty slim. Also, as Kaveh already pointed out, the Persians’ biggest historical geopolitical adversary is Arabs, not Jews; and they’re not likely to be nuking Turkey, Pakistan, Iraq or Saudi Arabia anytime soon.

  • Who Cares

    @colnago80(#57):

    you demanded a citation from me. I’m still waiting for you to provide me one about Hitler sending teams to Graz to destroy records about his family.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Did colnago actually refer to “President Osama?” What a racist asshole.

  • dingojack

    RB – “Like when? Maybe during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but given all the exaggeration and emotion I heard about nuclear weapons in general, I’m inclined to consider such claims as your to be exaggerations as well”.

    Like in 1983. Just as a single example.

    Dingo

  • colnago80

    Re Raging Bee @ #64

    Attached is a link to Wiki talking about Hister. This was based on a quatrain of Nostradamus. Note that the translation of the French into English is not correct. In the French, it says Plus part du camp encontre Hister. The English translation reads Most of the fighting shall be close by the Hister. Note the article the in the English. There is no article in the French (if the translation was correct, the French would read l’Hister. The presence or lack thereof of the article changes the entire meaning of the sentence. With the article, Hister implies a place (e.g. the Danube). Sans the article, Hister implies a person (e.g. Hitler).

  • colnago80

    Re Who Cares @ #67

    You are making the assumption that the Frankenberger family was Jewish. I never made such an assumption or implied that they were. It is quite possible that Frankenberger pere was a convert to Catholicism or the result of a mixed marriage (much like the physicist Wolfgang Pauli who married a goy and converted to Catholicism). By the Nuremberg laws, if Frankenberger pere had a Jewish parent, he would have been considered Jewish by the Hister regime, as would his children.

  • colnago80
  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    @Raging Bee

    I agree that the neocon concerns seem overblown. However, I do consider the existence of any nuclear weapons to be a terrible danger to humanity no matter who has them, and I don’t want that downplayed. It would be nice if the US and USSR fulfilled their existing treaty obligations to further reduce their stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

  • gshelley

    So Colnago80 is using Hister instead of Hitler because Nostrodamus?

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    @Raging Bee

    One other thing.

    Here I agree. We could say Iran “deserved” it if they nuke someone else first; but that doesn’t make a nuclear response more sensible from any other practical standpoint. If you kill my mother, than you would deserve to die — but that doesn’t mean that killing you would actually make anything better, either for me or for anyone else.

    You’re missing the point. Even if we decide that we should apply execution as a penalty after a lawful conviction of crimes against humanity, that applies only to the leaders, officers, and others directly responsible for the hypothetical nuclear first strike against a civilian population. Regardless, nuking Iran in response is not morally equatable to capital punishment. Rather, it’s collective punishment. The people of Iran would not be responsible for the nuclear first strike, and a retaliatory nuclear strike would do nothing to preserve our safety, and it would almost exclusively harm innocents rather than the people responsible for the hypothetical Iranian nuclear first strike.

    Against a country like Iran which – as I understand it – has little to no real capability to put lots of nuclear missiles in the air, there is no morally justifiable reason at all ever to nuke them, even in response to being nuked. It would not improve our safety. IMHO it would not increase deterrence (and even if it did that’s not a price that morally can be paid IMAO). It would not even qualify as retributive punishment because it wouldn’t harm the people responsible. Instead, it would be collective punishment and death against tens of millions of completely innocent people, a scale of crimes against humanity that the world has never seen. Stalin comes close IIRC, maybe Mao too, but IIRC both took years or decades to kill as many that would die in hours from this insane plan. It’s genocide.

  • dmcclean

    On the theory that he wasn’t Jewish, I have even less understanding of why the fuck you feel we should care if he was Hitler’s grandfather.

    And don’t reply with “It mattered to Hitler, because speculative record destruction.” I don’t care if it mattered to Hitler. Why do you feel it should matter to us?

  • colnago80

    Re dmcclean @ #78

    He may have been considered Jewish according to the Nuremberg laws, even if he was a practicing Catholic. See French Cardinal Lustiger who was a Catholic Priest but came from a Jewish family and spent time during WW2 in a concentration camp.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    I agree that the neocon concerns seem overblown. However, I do consider the existence of any nuclear weapons to be a terrible danger to humanity no matter who has them…

    I agree — but in many cases, the danger is most effectively diminished by wise diplomacy and long-term relationships based on strength; not by force, threats of force, or the kind of military intervention that destabilizes whole regions and makes wars of any sort more likely or inevitable, and gives states more incentive to actually use the nukes they get.

    Besides, we can’t really stop a nation from getting a new technology (not by reasonable means that don’t blow back anyway, and never permanently); but we can give them fewer opportunities or excuses to use them.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    So Colnago80 is using Hister instead of Hitler because Nostrodamus?

    No, he’s using “Hister” because it’s how he pretends he’s got some really cool secret bit of knowledge the rest of us don’t have. Like I said, he’s like a little kid getting excited over random bits of information whose meaning he really doesn’t understand.

  • colnago80

    Re Raging Bee @ #81

    A little projection Bee?

  • Who Cares

    colnago80(#73):

    I’m not making that assumption. It is a matter of public record. Records you claim to be destroyed. An assertion you haven’t given evidence for other then that you claim it is so.

    So when are you going to give us the evidence that those records were destroyed?

  • Nick Gotts

    The very existence of “Frankenberger” is completely unevidenced, other than by post-war statements from a leading Nazi, Hans Frank, Hitler’s personal lawyer and Governor-General of the parts of Poland not legally annexed to the Reich. Colnago80 has never, as far as I recall, provided any reason why these statements should be credited – but then as we all know, colnago80 is really above such considerations as providing evidence for his claims.