Stockman Accuses Obama of Treason for Iran Deal

Rep. Steve Stockman, who has been working hard to stake his claim to a place among the dumbest and most buffoonish members of Congress (we’ll give him Michele Bachmann’s empty seat) ranted on his Facebook page that President Obama is now guilty of treason because he reached an agreement with Iran.

Our Constitution is very clear on the definition of treason. Iran has and continues with every chant of “death to America” to be our sworn enemy. The unenforceable nuclear deal, the release of billions of dollars to the regime, and the removal of effective sanctions each offer valuable aid and comfort to our enemy. Therefore, President Obama has, by signing the nuclear agreement with Iran, committed treason against the United States. Article 3: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

Since when does reaching an agreement that prevents them from making nuclear weapons constitute giving them aid and comfort? And no, Iran is not our sworn enemy. We have never gone to war against Iran. We have often been at odds politically, but they are not our enemy. They are a nation with a set of interests, just like us. And when those interests are at odds, you can sit down and negotiate a deal that serves both countries, like we just did. To call this treason is light-years beyond being merely stupid.

And as I so often do, let’s contrast this with St. Ronald the Magnificent. Sorry, that person doesn’t actually exist. Let’s contrast this with the real Ronald Reagan, the one that conservatives love to worship in his most imaginary form. The real Ronald Reagan negotiated a nuclear arms agreement with the Evil Empire itself, the Soviet Union. And the far right of that day lost their minds over it too.

While most Republicans in Congress did not freak out over the START treaty when Reagan was negotiating it (it was signed under the first President Bush), the John Birch Society far right fringe did. But the far right fringe of that day is now the mainstream Republican party. And let us not forget that Reagan also sold weapons directly to Iran, thousands of TOW missiles.

This is just another example of how the far right, the John Birch Society wing of conservatism, has been revived and mainstreamed by the Republican party today. No rhetoric is too ridiculous for them.

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

    No rhetoric is too ridiculous for them.

    Well, almost ..

    It would be ridiculous to expect them to agree with Obama or Hilllary Clinton or support atheist rhetoric among afew other things I can vaguely and most implausibly imagine.

    /Pedant.

    Also Regan Iran-Contra yeah. That.

  • StevoR

    We have never gone to war against Iran.

    Even when they seized the US embassy and Crater sent in that failed rescue mission that cost US soldiers lives?

    Even when the USA proxy backed Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran in the long running now so forgotten and obscure but costly in life Iran-Iraq war?

    Even though Iranians have been holding “Death to America!” rallies since their bloody revolution in the 1970’s?

    Even though Iran has funded Jihadist terrorism and Hezbollah and Hamas and other Islamist terrorists since, well Persia lost its Shah, mate?

    Think you may technically de jure be correct here but de facto be wrong Ed Brayton.

  • Mr Ed

    Conservatives, much like Reagan, have seen one too many war films and think that a plucky platoon of Americans with a can do attitude can win any war, bloodlessly. If were able to beat Iran into submission how long would we have to occupy it, 50 years, 70, 100?

  • raven

    Let’s contrast this with the real Ronald Reagan, the one that conservatives love to worship in his most imaginary form.

    1. Ronald Reagan cut and run in Lebanon. After the Shiite Moslems killed 241 US Marines with a truck bomb. They then took over Lebanon from the…xians. If this isn’t treason, nothing is.

    2. It was however, the right thing to do. We really hadn’t thought out what we were doing in Lebanon and why in the first place.

    3. He also raised taxes 11 times after the magic of supply side economics failed as usual.

  • StevoR

    The unenforceable nuclear deal ..

    – Senator Stockman

    Unenforceble? Is it? Oh I fucking well hope not!

    Therefore, President Obama has, by signing the nuclear agreement with Iran, committed treason ..

    Nup.

    Try learning what words mean Stockman. Signing agreements with enemies does NOT equal treason otherwise you’d never see Americans accept surrenders now would ya? Or any sort of treaty really.

  • raven

    They are all rather stupid.

    If we push Iran hard enough, we make developing nuclear weapons, not an option but a necessity*.

    What would you do if the largest war machine on the planet by a lot, started staggering towards you with a brain the size of a walnut, a loon like David Stockman at the controls, and a pile of pointless dead bodies and rivers of blood behind it?

    * This is what Israel did. The Jews had finally gotten fed up with xian massacres after 2,000 years.

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

    He’s right. By definition, a Democrat party “president” can only commit treason.

  • StevoR

    I’m glad there’s an agreement here btw. It sure beats war and bombings and innocent people being killed. I don’t want that. Nor do I want capitulation by the USA either. I’m just a bit worried that the Iranian dictatorship is so very happy about it.

  • raven

    I thought I’d see what the polling data said about the deal. It’s not like David Stockman speaks for most Americans. He’s a lunatic fringer who might look OK to Texans but…

    Americans narrowly back diplomatic relations with Iran

    Associated Press July 15, 2015 | 3:26 a.m. EDT + More

    By EMILY SWANSON, Associated Press

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Most Americans think of Iran as an enemy of the United States, but a narrow majority still supported a diplomatic relationship in a poll conducted on the eve of the nuclear deal between Tehran and world powers.

    It’s still early so I wouldn’t take this too seriously.

  • raven

    Every time the neocon and christofascist war mongers crawl out of their holes, I get nervous.

    1. Seems like the US has been at war for most of my life. I started grade school during the Fallout shelter duck and cover drills when we were all going to die in a Soviet nuclear attack.

    2. Grew up watching people I knew die in Vietnam for nothing.

    3. Had two friends die in Iraq. For nothing.

    In between there were the usual placeholders, Grenada, Panama, Iraq I, Somalia, Bosnia, Libya, Lebanon, etc..

    Given past history and my projected lifespan, I will see a few more wars before the Long Dark. And there isn’t too much I can do about it.

  • colnago80

    Re Mr. Ed @ #3

    Conservatives, much like Reagan, have seen one too many war films and think that a plucky platoon of Americans with a can do attitude can win any war, bloodlessly.

    Any conservative (or liberal for that matter) who proposes using ground troops to invade Iran is seriously deranged. The problem with Iran can be solved by the use of a half dozen well targeted 5 megaton bombs to take out their nuclear facilities. General MacArthur once was quoted as advising against engaging in a ground war in Asia. The same sentiment applies to the Middle East.

  • Jared James

    Stevo@8: They should be freakin’ ecstatic.

    Think about it from the Iranian perspective: they got some of what they wanted (a nuclear power program that lets them export oil instead of burning it to keep the lights on) at a table with six great powers, none of which they could hope to defeat by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. (note the qualifier “reasonable”)

    By any measure, that is a diplomatic feat of titanic proportions, on par with the Continental Congress, broke and barely in charge of anything, facing the world’s most massive sea power, and arguably the greatest army of the day, in the War for Independence…and getting the Treaty of Paris.

  • daved

    @raven: It’s Steve Stockman, not David Stockman, OK?

    @StevoR: He’s a congressman, not a senator.

  • daved

    genocide@11

    The problem with Iran can be solved by the use of a half dozen well targeted 5 megaton bombs to take out their nuclear facilities.

    Because, of course, the Iranians couldn’t possibly have any facilities we don’t know about, and there couldn’t possibly be any consequences from dropping 30 MT in a sneak attack on a country with which we are not at war.

  • Synfandel

    @11 colnago80 opined:

    The problem with Iran can be solved by the use of a half dozen well targeted 5 megaton bombs to take out their nuclear facilities.

    Or by negotiating a peaceful agreement. Which of these two options you prefer speaks volumes about your character.

  • colnago80

    Re Jared James @ #12

    By any measure, that is a diplomatic feat of titanic proportions, on par with the Continental Congress, broke and barely in charge of anything, facing the world’s most massive sea power, and arguably the greatest army of the day,

    Actually, Britain did not amount to much as a land power. The only reason that Wellington was so successful in the Peninsula was because most of Napoleon’s forces were engaged elsewhere in Europe against the Russians, the Prussians, and the Austrians. Napoleon never took Wellington seriously as an opponent and paid for underestimating him at Waterloo. As Germany found out in WW1 and WW2, fighting two front wars is a recipe for losing.

  • colnago80

    Re Synfandel @ #15

    It is my contention that the agreement reached between Iran and it’s opponents is as phoney as was Chamberlain’s agreement at Munich with Hister. At least at first, it’s the people left in Syria who will pay the price for Neville Obama’s appeasement.

  • eamick

    Stockman is now an ex-Congressman, BTW. He decided to run for the Senate in the last election but lost the primary.

  • colnago80

    Re eamick @ #18

    That’s okay, Louis Gohmert is dumb enough for both of them.

  • jaybee

    Let’s pick another Reagan example. He actually sold weapons to Iraq and used the proceeds to fund south American terrorism. That is OK. But Obama, by reducing the number of crippling economic sanctions on Iran and opening their nuclear program to inspections, has just given the green light to Iran to wipe out Israel. Got it.

  • macallan

    I’m just a bit worried that the Iranian dictatorship is so very happy about it.

    I guess they’re drowning in all sorts of problems caused by the sanctions.

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

    Synfandel “Which of these two options you prefer speaks volumes about your character.”

    Now you’re just being ridiculous. Colnago80 has no character.

  • colnago80

    Re Modus @#22

    Actually, I am a character.

  • Pierce R. Butler

    colnago80 @ # 11: General MacArthur once was quoted as advising against engaging in a ground war in Asia. The same sentiment applies to the Middle East.

    Look at a map. Tell us which continent includes both Iraq and Afghanistan.

  • colnago80

    Re Jaybee @ #20

    Actually, he sold, via Israel, Hawk and TOW missiles to Iran. Israel was supposed to sell the weapons to Iran and the US would replace them. The money accrued from the sale was supposed to be used to fund the Contras in Nicaragua.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair

  • colnago80

    Re Butler @ #24

    Given the lack of success of both of those endeavors, it would seem that MacArthur was on the money.

  • colnago80

    Re Butler @ #24

    Actually, it is my information that MacArthur had in mind East Asia, particularly China.

  • abb3w

    Hm. Was there a clear analog of the Birchers in the 1870-1920 era?

  • busterggi

    “Since when does reaching an agreement that prevents them from making nuclear weapons constitute giving them aid and comfort?”

    When it doen’t show profits for the MIC and Israel doesn’t like it, that’s when.

  • k_machine

    Even when they seized the US embassy and Crater sent in that failed rescue mission that cost US soldiers lives?

    Even when the USA proxy backed Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran in the long running now so forgotten and obscure but costly in life Iran-Iraq war?

    Even though Iranians have been holding “Death to America!” rallies since their bloody revolution in the 1970’s?

    Even though Iran has funded Jihadist terrorism and Hezbollah and Hamas and other Islamist terrorists since, well Persia lost its Shah, mate?

    Gee, why weren’t Iranians grateful for the US support of the Shah dictatorship? Look at all the crocodile tears shed over “embassy” workers (i.e. torturers). You know the Iranians pieced together all documents that the embassy in Tehran shredded? You know that we therefore have evidence that the US doesn’t mind any crime of the post-revolution Iran? You do know that the Iraqis attacked the USS Stark (apology accepted) and when another US warship got hit by a mine, the US attacked Iran? Destroying oil platforms, Iranian navy ships and shooting down a civilian airliner (no one got sentenced for that one, the captain got a medal, so all US talk about how reprehensible it is to target civilians is bullshit). Iranians have many, many good reasons to hate the US. The mess in the Middle East is wholly a US affair, going back to US support for Islamism in general and Saudi Arabia in particular (theocratic dictatorship! supports terrorists! but boy howdy can we never accept a theocracy in Iran, that is 10x more democratic).

  • jaybee

    Cologno @25, yes, I typed “Iraq” out of muscle memory the first time, but the other occurrences I used “Iran” as I intended.

  • velociraptor

    @11

    There is another option, slc: We can parachute you into Iran so you can take out their nuke sites. Surely a patriot like you is chomping at the bit for such a glorious mission.

    Right?

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

    @8:

    I’m just a bit worried that the Iranian dictatorship is so very happy about it.

    That’s a rather odd criterion to use. By definition, any agreement that Iran signs on to is one that they prefer to the status quo, hence they are necessarily happier than they were before. If the agreement made them have a sad, they wouldn’t have signed it.

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

    Area Man “If the agreement made them have a sad, they wouldn’t have signed it.”

    Exactly. If “our” “president” Obama had been thinking rightly, he’d have done what the Republicans wanted him to do in the first place and offer them a treaty they wouldn’t sign. And maybe say “You want a deal?”, throw the treaty in their face, and say “Deal with it.” while putting on shades. Better, he could’ve walked away right before the start.

    Heck, if he’d burned his bridges properly, he could already be walking in slo-mo away from our firey explosions. Talk about a missed opportunity!

  • Holms

    War Crimes Apologist colnago80

    Any conservative (or liberal for that matter) who proposes using ground troops to invade Iran is seriously deranged. The problem with Iran can be solved by the use of a half dozen well targeted 5 megaton bombs to take out their nuclear facilities.

    Oh look, back to advocating for preemptive genocide. A war crime by the way.

    A big one.

  • Michael Heath

    Mr. Ed writes:

    Conservatives, much like Reagan, have seen one too many war films and think that a plucky platoon of Americans with a can do attitude can win any war, bloodlessly.

    Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the Reagan Administration knows his position was the very opposite.

    Why does merely mentioning Ronald Reagan almost always cause a knee-jerk reaction amongst some liberals that has them arguing just as cogently as conservative Christians? That’s a rhetorical question since the science that explains this behavior is consistent among both groups’ strident partisans.

  • colnago80
  • Doc Bill

    Who gives a flying fuck what Stockman thinks or says? He’s a FORMER congressman, read that, a big nobody, and is under investigation for campaign finance irregularities. Surprise, surprise.

    With any luck he’ll get to be a TA for D’Sousa.

  • sigurd jorsalfar

    And not only Reagan. By this logic Nixon and Ford were also traitors for signing the SALT treaties, right? That’s a lot of Republican traitors, going all the way back to Lincoln.

  • StevoR

    @11. colnago80 : Deja vu. Not a nice sort. Didn’t we have this discussion before? I thought you’d changed your mind and agreed that old stuff about nuking Iran wasn’t what you believed in anymore after all the problems with it were pointed out multiple times?

  • StevoR

    @daved : “He’s a congressman, not a senator.” Okay I stand corrected – my first thought was that he was someone looking after cattle in the outback!

    @12. Jared James :

    They should be freakin’ ecstatic. Think about it from the Iranian perspective: they got some of what they wanted ..

    Indeed -and have they also given up enough and made significant enough concessions that we should be ecstatic as well? There’s an old adga eabout a good bargain being one each side is equally unhappy about or somethinglike taht. When isee Iran’s leaedrs being jubilant and Obama defensive and muchless happy, it make sme wonder if our side of thsi issue just got done and gave up too much for too little. That’s all -a feeling really. I don’t like seeing people who lead regular hate sessions chanting “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” rejoicing. I don’t mind them being a bit relieved that they won’t be bombed but something here just makes me uncomfortable and worried.

    Seeing things Iran’s way, well, yeah, not easy to do when their views are so hostile and different to ours and okay, fair enough from their side I guess. But also think that most Iranians don’t want their current dictatorship and want to westernise too maybe – that revolution a few years ago where so many Iranians died trying unsuccessfully to topple Ahmadineajacket. When Iran’s leaders are jumping for joy, not sure its really in their people’s or nations broader interest.

    So, yeah, very mixed ambivalent feelings from me about this but it probably is a good thing but we don’t really know and won’t for probably a couple of decades and a lot depends on how well enforced it is in practice and how much the Iranians shift away from extremism and funding terrorism. Would been really good if we could’ve had that – abandoning terrorism and recognising Israel – as part of the deal too.

  • StevoR

    @ 21. macallan :

    “I’m just a bit worried that the Iranian dictatorship is so very happy about it.”- StevoR

    I guess they’re drowning in all sorts of problems caused by the sanctions.

    True. So the sanctions were working, were hurting them and now these sanctions are gone and they can advance and do , well, what? Grow more powerful, become a bigger threat, push against other nations more effectively and harder and worse?

    Or perhaps move into a friendlier relationship with the rest of the world, become more democratic, less tyrannical and oppressive, start rebuilding reasonable relations, become less an enemy and more an ally?

    I know which one I’d like to see happen and think would benefit the planet most and which I also think is more likely to happen. Those are two different things. I really hope my misgivings on this turn out to be unwarranted.

  • StevoR

    Its good that there’s a deal but is the deal that good?

  • StevoR

    @30. k_machine :

    “Gee, why weren’t Iranians grateful for the US support of the Shah dictatorship?”

    Some Iranians I know were fans of the Shah – I had Iranians neighbours who fled when the Ayatollah’s took over and thought the Shah and his policies were wonderful. I think a lot of Iranians probably now feel the same way even insuide Iran although they cannot say so because of the consequences as happened when the Iranian people last rose up against their regime. Its obviously too hard to get a n accurate poll but I think the answer is possibly that Iranians like Americans and others now realise that the removal of the Shah and the replacement of the Pahlavi’s with the Islamist dictatorship was a huge historic disaster and one that really shouldn’t have been allowed to happen.

    How different and much better would history be if the Iranian revolution had failed miserably and the Shah continued to reign? No oil crisis, no Iran -Iraq war, no Hezbollah and Hamas or at least very much weaker if they could exist at all, a powerful friendly Western nation in the region. So many lives would probably still be around, the world would be so much better if the Shah hadn’t fallen and the Islamists not plunged their country and region into religious extremist darkness, oppression and terror.

    (Also how much better now in retrospect if Mubarack had stayed in charge of Egypt and avoided all the Morsi Muslim Brotherhood and then Al-Sisi dictatorship mess that happened following Anwar Sadat’s successors overthrow too.)

    Look at all the crocodile tears shed over “embassy” workers (i.e. torturers).

    Wow that’s a huge and nasty extraordinary claim to make about people you (presumably) never met and don’t know! Citations?

    In fact, the US ambassador there William Sullivan ” …surrendered the Embassy to save lives, and with the assistance of Iranian Foreign Minister Ebrahim Yazdi, secured the embassy back in U.S. hands within three hours.[29] (captured US marine embassy guard) Kraus was injured in the attack, kidnapped by the militants, tortured, and was tried and convicted of murder. He was to be put to death by his accusers, but President Carter and Sullivan secured his release within six days.” (Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis )

    Also Sullivan made a grave mistake in not supporting the Shah more strongly and wrote in his autobiography: “I had recommended that we accept the fact that a revolution was in progress and seek to use our not inconsiderable influence to steer its success toward its more moderate protagonists.” (Source : William H. Sullivan’s wikipedia page.)

    These and others are really the people in this episode of history who you want to badmouth and accuse of being awful human individuals based on what evidence eh, K?

    You know the Iranians pieced together all documents that the embassy in Tehran shredded? (1)You know that we therefore have evidence that the US doesn’t mind any crime of the post-revolution Iran? (2)

    (Numbers added for ref.)

    Ah, the evidence being because the Iranian Ayatollah’s and extremist said so. I see. That’s good enough for you and you believe them?

    (1) No and not sure you do either. It may be what the embassy attackers claimed and they clearly have a motive to lie and say so even if they didn’t actually manage this. Do you really consider the Iranian terrorists to be reliable sources? I do not.

    (2) Er, don’t you mean pre-revolutionary Iran in this context? Or did these supposedly de-shredded reconstructed documents come from the future as well?

    You do know that the Iraqis attacked the USS Stark (apology accepted) (A) and when another US warship got hit by a mine, the US attacked Iran? (B) Destroying oil platforms, Iranian navy ships and shooting down a civilian airliner (C) (no one got sentenced for that one, the captain got a medal, (D )so all US talk about how reprehensible it is to target civilians is bullshit). Iranians have many, many good reasons to hate the US.” (E)

    (Letters added for reference.)

    A. Yes, I know about that. Also happened recently in Russia /Ukraine witha fhjet airliner last years shot down by Russians. Awful historic incident but not that relevant here IMHON.

    B. No, don’t recall that one. Citation? More specific info please.

    C. Do vaguely recall hearing about the Iranian airliner shot down.

    D. No, hadn’t heard that and find it hard to believe, doubt very much the Captain there got a medal specifically for shooting down a passenger jet and disagree that that permanently renders “bullshit” US claims that targetingcibilians is reprehensible.

    E. I’m sure they think they do and some of these reasons may be justified. Also same is true for Americans and their feelings and hostility to Iran as well as many other nations that Iran has also done terrible things to.

    The mess in the Middle East is wholly a US affair, ..

    Seriously? All of it? Every last thing wrong with the Middle East is Americas fault? Are you for real? It doesn’t occur to you that the various and conflicting with each other too other sides and parties have done a lot wrong and deserve their fair shares of the blame too? Anti-American prejudice much?

    ..going back to US support for Islamism in general and Saudi Arabia in particular (theocratic dictatorship! supports terrorists! but boy howdy can we never accept a theocracy in Iran, that is 10x more democratic).

    But Iran is still an oppressive theocratic tyranny. It isn’t democratic really or fair and free. Saudi Arabia is awful oppressive and horrible in many ways but at least its govt is friendly and constructive in the region in many aspects and issues. So yes, both bad and problematic and not ideal because reality – but saying Arabia’s badness excuses Iran somehow is not a concept I buy at all.

  • colnago80

    Re StevoR @ #44

    Kaveh Mousavi admitted to me on his blog, that the ayatollahs are worse then the Shah, in response to a question I posed to him.

    It’s de regeur for the leftists in the West to bad mouth the Shah, who was not a nice man. Of course, Saddam Hussein was worse, as was Morsi in Egypt and Hafaz Assad in Syria, as are the ayatollahs. Not many nice men in leadership positions in the Middle East.

  • colnago80

    Re StevoR

    Unfortunately, in the immediate future, it’s the population of Syria that’s going to pay the price for dropping the sanctions and allowing billions of dollars to flow into the coffers of the ayatollahs. The increase in revenues will enable Iran to ramp up their activities in Syria. Before Hizbollah and ISIL get through, there may be nobody left in Syria.

  • colnago80

    Re StevoR @ #44

    As for our getting in bed with the theocrats who run Saudi Arabia, I would harken back to a comment that President Franklin D. Roosevelt made about the then dictator Trujillo of the Dominion Republic: He’s an SOB but he’s our SOB.

  • Holms

    #45 War Crimes Apologist colnago80

    Kaveh Mousavi admitted to me on his blog, that the ayatollahs are worse then the Shah, in response to a question I posed to him.

    Given the state of your credibility after your gleeful derail in the previous thread, maybe you should produce a link of that?

  • freehand

    Shouldn’t the point about the Shah be that he was set up as a king after the CIA manipulated the overthrow of their government?

    .

    The consideration should be, not whether the Shah was better than the ayatollahs, but whether our setting up a king was better than the elected government they had before.(1) Of course Prime Minister Mosaddegh had nationalized the oil companies, which is bad for business and an extremely bad example for the peasants, so we restructured their government for them.

    .

    1. And for folks with radical values, we might consider whether or not we actually had the right to do that.

  • colnago80

    Re freeand @ #49

    I would put it that the ayatollahs are worse then the Shah, not that he was better.

  • colnago80

    Re Holms @ #48

    Kaveh did make such an admission to me but I was unable to find the thread on Pathoes. Google search was no help. So I guess we will have to leave it there.

  • Holms

    Yes, as yet another unverified colnago80 claim and therefore dismissed.

  • StevoR

    Still no response or citations backing up k_machine’s claims @ #30 either I note.

    @45. colnago80 : The Iranian family – literally neighbours for several years – I knew were very much fans of the Shah and thought life in Iran was far better under him and became refugees afterwards . Of course, they were biased (as are we all) but its hard to disagree with them on that.

    @49. freehand : Maybe. You make some good points but it doesn’t change the realities noted in my #44. Once the Shah was there, he was far preferable to the Ayatollahs that followed him just as Mubarack was preferable to Morsi in Egypt.

  • StevoR

    PS. Colnago80 : I too would love to see a link to kavehs views here. Would be great if you could find that please.

  • colnago80

    Re StevoR @ #54

    I went beyond a Google search, actually bringing up a number of threads on Kaveh’s blog and searching through the comments. No luck. It would take a search through all the threads, including comments, on his blog to find it and I don’t feel strongly enough about the issue to spend any more time on the subject. If Holms continues to doubt the claim, nuts to him.

  • StevoR

    @ ^ colnago80 : Fair enough. I know what its like to recall seeing /saying something somewhere and then being unable to find it – very exasperating. Pity though. I’ve asked Kaveh on his blog to see if he can recall it too.

  • StevoR

    But what s with your going back to your “nuke Iran & omelettes” rhetoric?

  • colnago80

    Re StevoR @ #57

    But you should notice that I am advocating bombs 1/3 the yield of what I was advocating previously.

  • Anri

    colnago80:

    But you should notice that I am advocating bombs 1/3 the yield of what I was advocating previously.

    But why?

    You’ve already said explicitly you don’t care about any casualties.

    Why not use the biggest bombs possible, if there’s nothing there worth saving?

  • colnago80

    Re Anri @ #59

    I guess I’m getting soft in my dotage.

  • Anri

    colnago80 @ 60:

    Ok, never mind, then.

    If you’re not going to bother taking what you say seriously, I can’t see any reason why I or anyone else should, either.

  • colnago80

    Re Anri @ #61

    Actually, I would only favor the use of nuclear weapons as a last resort if bunker buster bombs failed to to the job. It is my understanding that the US military has developed a super bunker buster which weighs nearly three times as much as the tallboy bombs the British used in WW2 to sink the Tirpitz.

  • StevoR

    Kaveh Mousavi has confirmed the conversation with Colnago80 occured somewhere but doesn’t have a link to it either here :

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/marginoferr/2015/07/15/iranian-nuclear-deal-what-will-it-mean-for-iran/

    @ Colnago80 – last resort is certainly that, hopefully any war can be avoided. Including Iran attacking Israel as well as vice-versa.