Keyes: Iran Deal Paves Way for Obama Third Term

Alan Keyes has a shiny new conspiracy theory to play with. The first premise is the absurd notion that the Iran deal, which is an incredibly good one, is going to help them get nuclear weapons rather than hinder them. Then he tacks on the conclusion that Obama will use this to declare martial law to stay in office after 2016.

What if Obama isn’t looking to his “legacy”? What if the threat of nuclear devastation he helps to arm with this agreement (an America-hating Iran with nuclear bombs) is to be brandished, along with a related threat from ongoing terrorist uprisings on U.S. soil, to create the exigent circumstances needed to justify imposing martial law throughout the United States and a plausible excuse for demanding that Obama remain in office until the emergency passes?

There it is. The unthinkable scenario predicated upon the thought that Barack Obama and those who lifted him to power are precisely what they appear to be – the enemies of America’s power, its prosperity, its constitutional liberty, its moral strength, indeed of everything about America except their own boundless ambition. Why is it at all inconceivable that people willing to collude with and arm our boldest enemies may be doing so for the sake of their own power? Why should we be unwilling to ponder the possibility that the Obama faction has agreed to help Iran achieve hegemony in the Middle East in order to help themselves to dictatorial control over the United States? What certainty do we have that, in some secret, back-channel codicil, this agreement is not already in place?

We have no certainty about that. Just as we have no certainty that Obama is in contact with aliens who are plotting to attack the earth as part of his fiendish plot to destroy not only America but the entire human species (except him, of course). And we have no certainty that Alan Keyes isn’t really a lizard person or secretly a Scientologist. Isn’t it fun when you play the “we can’t be certain this ridiculous hypothetical isn’t true” game?

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • colnago80

    Things aren’t looking good for the deal. The ayatollah says, all sanctions must be removed immediately if not sooner and that there will be no inspections of military sites. Depends on how he defines military sites.

    Now, in fairness, this could be worked out in the final agreement, recognizing that what we have now is only a framework for an agreement. I don’t see any way that even Neville Obama could accept either of these two demands. If he did, I think that even the Democrats in the Senate would throw him under the bus.

  • Al Dente

    colnago80 @1

    Hey shiferbrains, Obama’s first name isn’t Neville. And your pretense that the tentative agreement with Iran is appeasement is due only to your love for Netanyahu and the orthodox fascists running the Israeli government.

  • colnago80

    Re Al Dente @ #2

    I will refrain from responding to Dente’s opening remark. However, if Obama agrees to the ayatollah’s demands, that would constitute appeasement. An agreement that doesn’t absolutely require inspections everywhere and at any time and that removes all sanctions immediately, instead of in stages as Iran’s compliance is verified (remember, trust but verify) ain’t worth the paper it’s written on.

  • Pingback: Keyes: Iran Deal Paves Way for Obama Third Term | Fast News()

  • blf

    Of course Obama’s going to use his (non-existent, as far as I know) authority to impose martial law! There’s no other way, short of electing one of the probable major party candidates in 2016, to preserve the tight Israeli hold on the USA government!!

  • StevoR

    Another conspiracy theory? Yawn. I know they can be tasty sometimes but, jeez, haven’t we been chewing on these since 2008 or so and had enough already?

    Come on! Lets have a curry or roast beef sandwhich or vegan risotto with fetta and olive and anchovies or something for a culinary change eh? (Delete and alternate as suits dietary preference and habit.)

  • StevoR

    @ blf : Er just how familiar are you with the Israeli-Obama relationship ‘zactly again?

  • Michael Heath

    Alan Keyes states:

    Why is it at all inconceivable that people willing to collude with and arm our boldest enemies may be doing so for the sake of their own power?

    Consider the delusion necessary to make this statement in reference to the Obama Administration.

  • StevoR

    Obama is in contact with aliens who are plotting to attack the earth as part of his fiendish plot to destroy not only America but the entire human species (except him, of course).

    Yeah, I think we all know how those sorta deals generally end.

    (Hint : not well – especially for the arsewipes wot make ’em. Who usually don’t make it outta the plot though humanity and Earth usually do)

  • colnago80

    Re Michael Heath

    Ronnie the rat selling missiles to Iran (Iran-Contra). I guess that ole Alan is assuming that nobody remembers that.

  • StevoR

    @blf : You sure that;’s not the illuminati or reptilians or Zeta Reticulan aliens and really is teh Jooozz!!!!! Also sure ya got ya tinfoil hat securley fittede. Y’might wanta check.

  • colnago80

    Re StevoR @ #5

    Reminds one of the conspiracy theories that a heave hoed commenter used to post here. Hint for those who are new, his initials are D. W.)

  • StevoR

    @ ^ colnago80 : A commenter got kicked off Ed Brayton’s blog? Whoah! Yikes, they must have really earnt and strived hard for that one.

    Isn’t it fun when you play the “we can’t be certain this ridiculous hypothetical isn’t true” game?

    Nah , not really.

  • StevoR

    ^ well maybe sometimes. With enough imagination and drinks in hand ..

  • StevoR

    Don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone banned here. Anyone else recall any examples?

  • colnago80

    Re StevoR @ #14

    Larry Fafarman and Colin Brendemuehl from the Scienceblogs days. Last year, Don Williams. I don’t know if John Kwok has been banned, He’s been banned everywhere else.

  • StevoR

    Ok. Did not know that. Or recall those commenters – must’ve been before my time Something new I’ve learnt today. Thanks.

  • StevoR

    @ ^ colnago80.

  • Hoosier X

    I appreciate it very much when people compare Obama to Neville Chamberlain. It lets people know that the speaker has no idea what he or she is talking about in a very quick and efficient manner.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    I think that Obama, as head of the organizations Al Qaeda, ISIS, ISIL, Benghazi and Iran, is uniting all the Muslins under one banner. His. Why do you think he flies the black flag with a crescent shaped “O” on it?

  • StevoR

    @ ^ Modusoperandi : Maybe he’s a pirate who really sucks at drawing?

  • StevoR

    Or maybe he’s fucking our Moon?

  • Nick Gotts

    I could have told Alan Keyes it was a bad idea to take colnago80 seriously.

  • StevoR

    But its just a phase he’s going though?

  • Artor

    Yes, Colnago, we all know you are a paranoid, warmongering idiot. You don’t need to go out of your way to prove it over & over.

  • colnago80

    A lot of name calling going on but no substantive rebuttals to my comment @ #1. I didn’t post any links but this has been reported by the Washington Post, the New York Times, several TV network blogs, The Guardian, etc. In fact, Obama held a news conference and stated that the demands of the ayatollah are inoperative.

    There may some posturing by the ayatollah going on but this brouhaha over what was actually agreed to points up the requirement that it be made totally clear so that there be no misunderstanding that the two sides on on the same page before anybody signs the final agreement.

  • Al Dente

    colnago80 @25

    A lot of name calling going on but no substantive rebuttals to my comment @ #1.

    I did respond to you, shitferbrains. I said that getting a deal with Iran wasn’t appeasement. As a Netanyahu bootlicker you disagree but normal people think the deal is the best we’re likely to get.

  • Hoosier X

    I still haven’t seen a coherent reply about how this agreement is like the Munich agreement of 1938.

    Let’s see: The 1938 agreement was called appeasement because Hitler’s aggression was rewarded when he was allowed to keep the Sudentenland.

    In the current situation, the Iran government is being appeased because – remind me – what country did they invade to annex half the territory and we’re letting them get away with it?

    No, that’s not it. They’re being appeased because the agreement will stop them from developing nuclear weapons. That makes no sense.

    Maybe they’re being appeased because the agreement didn’t end with the U.S. declaring a proxy war for Israel.

    The comparison with Neville Chamberlain is ridiculous for just about every reason imaginable.

    (I’m going to make some popcorn for the lame rationalizations that will follow.)

  • matty1

    Personally I am indeed certain that Alan Keyes is one of the lizard people.

  • Hoosier X

    What’s up with Alan Keyes anyway? Why isn’t he speaking out against the hateful RFRA laws that will be allowing discrimination against his own daughter?

    I guess his hateful religion means more to him.

  • colnago80

    Re Hoosier X@ #27

    Well, what is the deal? Obama and the ayatollah seem to disagree as to what the deal is.

    Re Al Dente @ #26

    It is certainly appeasement if we agree to the ayatollah’s version.

  • colnago80

    Re Nick Gotts @ #22

    I would bet big money that Alan Keyes has not the slightest idea who I am. I doubt that he reads any of the blogs I comment on.

  • Hoosier X

    You still haven’t attempted to explain how Obama is like Chamberlain.

    (Honestly, I don’t blame you a bit for acting like you never made the comparison.)

  • busterggi

    The best example of appeasing terrorists and the horrible results of doing so is the present clusterfuck that is Midde-East – had the Zionist terrorists in the ’40’s not been rewarded with a country of their own based on bronze-age mythology we wouldn’t have this mess.

  • dogmeat

    Now, in fairness, this could be worked out in the final agreement, recognizing that what we have now is only a framework for an agreement. I don’t see any way that even Neville Obama could accept either of these two demands. If he did, I think that even the Democrats in the Senate would throw him under the bus.

    Most aren’t responding to your comments with anything but derision because they are idiotic. Your constant comparison of Obama to Chamerlain are really tedious and getting quite boring; I could have any number of former students explain to you why the comparison is idiotic, but given that I don’t feel like working right now, I’ll go ahead and do so.

    First, Iran, unlike Germany in the 1930s, has limited capability to project force and is not a major world power. In fact it hasn’t been a major world power in centuries. Germany was an established industrial and global military power recovering from a setback caused by the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles. Iran is none of these things. The entire Iranian military budget is 1/100th of what the US spends in combined defense. Also, as a part of their GDP, Iranian military spending has been going down for a decade and is one of the lowest in the region. For example, Saudi Arabia spends 5x what Iran does on its military. The Iran-Iraq war showed that one stable Middle Eastern power was able to fight Iran to a standstill. Saudi Arabia and Israel would be able to do the same, likely without US help, but they would (of course) have that aid.

    England and France were in a position where they could do little about what Germany was doing either economically or militarily. For right or wrong, the Brits used the time after Munich to build up their military capabilities and one reason they survived the Battle of Britain was because of the time they gained. The reality was, Germany wasn’t very prepared for war in 1938, but France and England were even less prepared. Today, the US is leaps and bounds beyond Iran’s wildest dreams of military capability. The US Army alone has more people than the entire Iranian military; the entire US military is nearly 3x the size of Iran’s, add in the reserves and the comparison is ludicrous. Sheer size isn’t the only issue, even though the Iranians were able to fight Iraq to a standstill through mass wave, nearly suicidal attacks (IE the size of their military is the only thing that really kept them in the war). The capability isn’t even remotely on a par. One of our carrier battlegroups could destroy the entire Iranian Navy without breaking a sweat, we have 2-3 in the region at any given time. Their air force is mostly composed of designs from the 60s and 70s, minus a handful of MIG 29s, it is a joke. When considering their military, remember yet again that Iraq fought Iran to a standstill. The US was able to crush the Iraqi military twice with minimal casualties. Iran wouldn’t stand a chance in hell.

    German technology was on a par with the other first-rate powers, actually ahead of them in some areas. Iran lags behind in virtually every technological area, a low second-rate to high third-rate power. Even IF Iran developed a successful nuclear program, even IF they were able to convert that program into a weapons program, they still don’t have the technological capability to attack the US. Even the most alarmist chicken hawks, probably close and dear friends of yours, still only have Iran developing the capability to hit Eastern and Southern Europe in three years and then only with substantial foreign aid. Who, amongst the powers that actually can accomplish ICBMs would be stupid enough to do so?

    Your bloodthirsty desire for a war with Iran is really getting old and tedious. Your justifications are laughable, and your willingness to send other people to die (and kill) in your paranoid fantasies is really disgusting. Yes, the Iranian government has postured and made aggressive statements, much like the Iraqi government did prior to the idiotic invasion of Iraq. In the last few years, each of their claims have been found to be false, just as the grandiose claims of the Iraqi military were found to be at best sabre rattling, at worst delusional. Why would they do this? Really, you have to ask that? Each nation has the world’s most powerful nation threatening them. We’ve shown, in recent history, a willingness to bomb and invade countries often with little justification. At the same time both countries had and have neighbors who are legitimate threats and internal threats that make it only logical that they strike a posture of power and confidence.

    Iran is a regional threat, but a relatively isolated one with limited capabilities for any real impact beyond that region. Its nuclear program is substantial enough to justify the sanctions and negotiations, but not enough to warrant a war; not at this time or in the near future. On the other hand, the war you desire would prove catastrophic to the region, cause further destabilization to the region, and likely have a very negative impact upon the global economy. These negotiations are close to something real and meaningful, which will likely help to stabilize the region.

  • Hoosier X

    To reassure Iran that the U.S. isn’t the aggressor here, we should remind them that it’s been more than sixty years since we last overthrew their government and more than twenty-five years since we shot down an Iranian passenger jet for no reason.

  • sugarfrosted

    @33

    The best example of appeasing terrorists and the horrible results of doing so is the present clusterfuck that is Midde-East – had the Zionist terrorists in the ’40’s not been rewarded with a country of their own based on bronze-age mythology we wouldn’t have this mess.

    The fuck are you going on about? Just because colnago is saying stupid shit about a situation he doesn’t understand doesn’t mean you should. This is fractally wrong. I thought about writing an actual rebuttal to this, but I’m not going to waste my time. (TIL Terrorist == Genocide victim, hey that’s not far off from what colnago thinks. Maybe you were talking about their later actions, but those really have nothing to do with the founding of Israel at all.)

  • colnago80

    Re dogmeat, Hoosier, sugarfrosted, et al

    Okay, here’s a simple question that requires a yes or a no. Would you advise Obama to accept the ayatollahs demands, namely that sanctions end immediately and that Iran’s military installations be off limits to the inspectors?

  • http://timgueguen.blogspot.com timgueguen

    sugarfrosted, busterggi is probably referring to the Irgun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun

  • Hoosier X

    I don’t get what that has to do with how ignorant you are about your Neville Chamberlain comparison.

  • Michael Heath

    Al Dente quotes the commenter @ 1:

    A lot of name calling going on but no substantive rebuttals to my comment @ #1.

    This wrongly presumes that commenters here either read all the commenters’ respective posts or think all comment posts are worthy of a response. Both are wildly incorrect presumptions.

  • colnago80

    Re dogmeat @ #34

    I have expounded on Neville Chamberlain’s missteps in a comment on an earlier thread on this blog and comments on this blog and others earlier on so I don’t think it will be productive to take up more space which would just be repeating myself. However, the following statement by you requires a response:

    The Iran-Iraq war showed that one stable Middle Eastern power was able to fight Iran to a standstill.

    The problem here is that the state of Iran’s military in the early 1980s was much weaker then it is today some 30 years later. Iraq attacked Iran because Saddam perceived that, in the aftermath of the overthrow of the Shah, the Iranian military was weak with it’s senior commanders, having been appointed by the Shah, being uncertain as to their futures. In fact, if the Shah had still been in power, it is doubtful that Saddam would have ever attacked Iran. The Iranian armed forces are now better armed and far more formidable they they were in 1981.

    Where dogmeat makes his mistake is in comparing the Iranian military with the US military. That comparison is hardly relevant. What is relevant is the comparison with its neighbors. The Iraqi military, as seen by their actions in Mosul last spring, is no match. Neither is Saudi Arabia, despite heavy spending on its military forces. That leaves Israel, which despite formidable advantages in terms of armaments, including a 200+ arsenal of nuclear weapons, is in no condition to invade Iran or conduct an extended military campaign.

    Iran’s big advantage is the ability to close the Straits of Hormuz and prevent the shipment of oil to Europe and North America, which action would soon bring the West to it’s economic knees. That’s their ace in the hole.

  • dmcclean

    Okay, here’s a simple question that requires a yes or a no. Would you advise Obama to accept the ayatollahs demands, namely that sanctions end immediately and that Iran’s military installations be off limits to the inspectors?

    Military installations that aren’t nuclear and can be verified by some other means (satellite surveillance) not to have nuclear-related activities going on there, sure I can see how that could be off limits in a reasonable deal.

    Lifting sanctions “immediately”, meaning immediately after a good final agreement is signed, could be something I would be willing to do as long as the deadlines for the first deliverables were soon. In a way that would actually be good, because they would know that they would have to comply or the international community would certainly have the will to reimpose the sanctions (since only a week or two would have gone by, and no one can afford to lose face that badly).

    So, both of those “simple” questions depend on many, many, many not simple details.

    Here’s a simpler question for you: shouldn’t you save the Obama/Chamberlain comparisons for after Obama “appeases” the Iranians, and not just throw them around on the basis of your wild, totally unsubstantiated, belief that he will make a bad deal? As it stands, there isn’t even a comparison to be made, just a hypothetical that there might one day be a comparison, but you have already codified it into a snappy nickname that you are willing to employ preemptively, repeatedly, and as if it were some kind of fact. What the fuck is that about?

  • dmcclean

    Expanding a bit on the “immediately” thing: It’s a show of good faith. It’s basically free, because you can un-lift the sanctions just as “immediately” as you lifted them. And it will probably help the Iranians sell the deal to their internal political stakeholders. So that makes it a very good bargaining chip to plan to “spend”, as long as you use it to “buy” something.

  • lorn

    Alan Keyes plays the clown but he is quite effective as part of an effort to re-frame the context of Obama and people who set themselves up as resisting his base and efforts. The claim is ridiculous on its face but few people in the middle or right are going to drill down enough to see this as discrediting their news sources or their cause. Instead this story will be added to the array of stories and will tend to further move the Overton window to the right as people reflexively seek the safe middle ground.

    This sort of story works to shift the perceived middle to the right because makes it into the media and is not counterbalanced by any such stories on the left. Of course, the right is happy to lie to gain their ends and know that the left, with its emphasis on fairness and facts, cannot as easily shift perceptions with empty stories.

    Another reason the left is getting its ass kicked and “why we can’t have nice things”.

  • Hoosier X

    I have expounded on Neville Chamberlain’s missteps in a comment on an earlier thread on this blog and comments on this blog and others earlier on so I don’t think it will be productive to take up more space which would just be repeating myself.

    So … you don’t mind repeating yourself when you use that Obama/Chamberlain comparison, but you do have objections to repeating yourself when asked to defend it.

    Hey, I don’t blame you a bit for your evasion on this issue. But don’t expect anybody to respect you for it.

  • dogmeat

    Sorry SLC, because you made your normally nonsensical comments on an earlier thread doesn’t mean you don’t have to defend your idiotic comments on this thread. YOU asked for someone to point out how your statements were incorrect, I did so, if you wont or can’t respond, then shut the fuck up with the ultimatums. Your comparison is idiotic, the circumstances have little to do with one another beyond countries negotiating, which they do every day of the week. Beyond that, the comparison is simplistic and down right stupid.

    Okay, here’s a simple question that requires a yes or a no. Would you advise Obama to accept the ayatollahs demands, namely that sanctions end immediately and that Iran’s military installations be off limits to the inspectors?

    Another idiotic question that has nothing to do with your comparison or the validity of the negotiations. I already explained why Iran would make the statements that they have, they’d be fools not to. That doesn’t mean they are viable expectations or demands we should meet. Of course not. But disagreeing with the Ayatollah’s demands doesn’t make any of your other arguments valid or any less idiotic.

    The problem here is that the state of Iran’s military in the early 1980s was much weaker then it is today some 30 years later.

    This is utterly laughable. The Iranian military is less capable than it was in the early 80s. The majority of the aircraft that their air force has are *still* from that era, but thirty years older (and out of date). The rest of its military hardware is equally out of date and in questionable condition. Their tank force is so out of date the equipment was antiquated when I was a kid, left over M60s & M48s, a few T-72s (which did horribly against US M-1s) and their home grown Zulfiqar which likely has similar out of date targeting systems that the Iraqis were utilizing when our tanks cut through them like a knife through butter. You make the same mistake most people who know little or nothing about the military make, you assume numbers equals strength, when quality is as inferior as their equipment is, the numbers don’t make much of a difference.

    Where dogmeat makes his mistake is in comparing the Iranian military with the US military. That comparison is hardly relevant.

    Actually it is entirely relevant, another reason why your arguments are so laughable. We have a well established record of intervening when our allies in the region come under attack. We’ve done so with Israel indirectly and directly (air strikes) for decades, we did so with Saudi Arabia in 91 and continue to be involved in the region ever since. To pretend that Iran would be able to project conventional force in the region without the US (and other allies) becoming involved ignores not just history, but anything one could consider reality.

    Seriously, you call for US military strikes against Iran but then claim considering US military capabilities in the region isn’t relevant? Are you delusional?

  • whheydt

    Somebody needs to remind Keyes that elections took place normally, and on schedule during WW2.

  • colnago80

    Re dogmeat @ #@ #46

    As usual, dogmeat is full of shit. Back in the 1980s in the war against Iraq, the Iranian military was in such dire straits that it had to force young children to walk through mine fields. In fact, the Ayatollah Khomeini was forced to agree to a truce with Iraq, despite his earlier insistence that he would negotiate only when Iraq surrendered. It is estimated that more then 1.5 million Iranians, a large fraction of them children, were killed in the war. Most of the equipment that Iran had in 1981 and beyond had been purchased by the Shah from the US and much of it was inoperative because we refused to sell them spare parts. As the war stretched on, more and more of the equipment became inoperative, either through lack of maintenance or battle damage. This is in addition to the fact that the Iranian military was in complete disarray when Iraq attacked, due to uncertainty as to the chain of command. That’s’ why Saddam attack as his intelligence kept him well aware of that disarray.

    Apparently, you haven’t been paying attention as Russia has sold billions of dollars worth of military equipment to Iran, including an advanced antiaircraft system, considered as good as anything in the US arsenal. They sold the same system to Syria, which Iran paid for. In addition, the chain of command has resolved itself as those officers appointed by the Shah have been eliminated. The folks there now are stalwart regime supporters.

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

    A lot of name calling going on but no substantive rebuttals to my comment @ #1.

    First, your comment #1 was not substantive, to you have no right to expect a “substantive rebuttal” to it.

    And second, colnago, you’re nothing but a simpleminded bigoted tone-troll who habitually makes false accusations, and who has explicitly refused to explain, support, or apologize for any of his insulting lies. You don’t argue in good faith, so you have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to demand the same of anyone else. Fuck off and die, you lying bloodthirsty racist little shit.

    You falsely accused me of “celebrating” the murder of three Israeli teenagers. Until you either back up the accusation, or admit it was false and beg forgiveness for it, you have no credibility, and no standing to participate in adult conversation.

  • colnago80

    Here’s another take on the Iran agreement from Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post. I hadn’t thought of these objections previously but it would seem that, even if Iran keeps every commitment to which they agree to, we are just kicking the ball down the road for the next 13 years. Kaveh’s assumption is that somehow the regime there will reform itself and Iran will be a more reasonable player at the end of that period. Of course, Obama will be long gone by that time, as will his successor.

    http://goo.gl/ainQII

  • colnago80

    Re Raging Bee @ #49

    I beg to differ with my neighbor; there were two substantive issues raised in my comment that have been the subject of considerable discussion on various blogs and in the lamestream media. Un-substantive indeed.

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

    Kaveh’s assumption is that somehow the regime there will reform itself and Iran will be a more reasonable player at the end of that period.

    That’s not an “assumption,” you stupid shit, it’s a conclusion based on observation of actual behavior of real Iranians: they really are pushing, for, and at least starting to get, a more democratic and more reasonable regime.

  • colnago80

    Re Raging Bee @ #52

    I certainly hope that his conclusion isn’t just whistling Dixie. Hard headed realists, however, must hope for the best and plan for the worst.

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

    Oh yeah, the person who repeatedly shows himself most ignorant, most simpleminded, and least supported by ANY reliable information sources, is the one pretending to be the “hard-headed realist.” What a fucking joke.

  • dmcclean

    And preventing war for 13 years by “kicking the can” would be a terrible outcome because not enough people would die soon enough?

    The thing about kicking a can is that once you walk a bit more you can kick it again. Or pick it up. Plenty of options open to you after you kick a can.

  • scienceavenger

    The unthinkable scenario predicated upon the thought that Barack Obama and those who lifted him to power are precisely what they appear to be.

    “They” is a forbidden word in political discussions in my house. Name them, or STFU.

  • Hoosier X

    You falsely accused me of “celebrating” the murder of three Israeli teenagers. Until you either back up the accusation, or admit it was false and beg forgiveness for it, you have no credibility, and no standing to participate in adult conversation.

    I don’t blame colnago a bit for evading discussion of his Neville Chamberlain comparison. But this issue of accusing another commenter of “celebrating” is a bit different. He really should apologize and admit he was out of line. The former makes him look cowardly and ignorant, The latter just makes him look so much worse.

    Especially considering his cheerleading for a war that will kill hundreds of thousands.

  • colnago80

    Re Hoosier X @ #57

    Especially considering his cheerleading for a war that will kill hundreds of thousands.

    Hey, if you want to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggshells.

  • Chris J

    @colnago80:

    The eggshells are people, and you should probably think about why you want an omelet of their insides in the first place, before you talk about unavoidable costs.

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

    Yeah, war as an omelet — that’s the standard analogy for just about every militaristic halfwit who wants to pretend he’s a “hard-headed realist.”

  • colnago80

    Re dmcclean @ #55

    The thing about kicking a can is that once you walk a bit more you can kick it again. Or pick it up. Plenty of options open to you after you kick a can.

    Of course, that’s what Chamberlain’s apologists say he was doing when he sold Czechoslovakia down the river, blithely ignoring his return to England waving his umbrella and declaring peace in our time. How did that work out?

  • dmcclean

    What in fuck are you talking about? Who do we have to “sell out” to do this deal? No one. We aren’t giving them a bunch of land, or a pony, or a cake, or anything else. We are taking away a punishment in exchange for them stopping doing the thing we were punishing them for.

    Can you please try a little bit harder to make sense? Right now you are just putting words next to each other.

    If you want to complain about the deal because you think it won’t work, do so. But to complain about the deal because it will only work for the first 13 years and then we will have to renegotiate? Absolute gibberish. Ludicrous. Equivalent to complaining that the deal doesn’t solve world hunger, eliminate malaria, and give every child a free pony.