The Momentous Nuclear Deal With Iran

After years of delicate negotiations, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, along with several other countries, have finalized an agreement that will ensure that Iran’s nuclear program remains for peaceful, domestic energy production only and makes it virtually impossible for them to turn it into a weapons program. That is done in exchange for a lifting of the international sanctions against that country.

Strictly as a factual matter, it’s quite a remarkable agreement. The inspection and verification regime it sets up is extraordinarily strong, with the International Atomic Energy Agency having 24/7 access not only to Iran’s nuclear facilities but to their uranium mines, processing facilities and every other step along the chain that could possibly lead to enriching uranium for weapons purposes. It limits their enrichment to less than 4%, far below the point where it would even be hypothetically possible to build a bomb.

But all the fighting over the agreement is really about domestic political battles, both in this country and in Iran. Ironically, the right wing hardliners in both countries agree completely that it’s a terrible, horrible deal — in this country because it will allegedly allow them to continue to build nuclear weapons (it won’t) and in Iran because it will not allow that. The right wings in both countries have no interest in peaceful negotiations and diplomatic resolutions, they’re too busy beating the war drums.

Kaveh Mousavi, who lives in Iran, has written at some length about how important this agreement is for reformists in Iran. The Iranian people are overjoyed at this because it means the sanctions will be lifted, which will increase their standard of living dramatically. It also means that the position of reformers like President Rouhani is strengthened. He writes:

What this means for the international community is that Iran’s way towards nuclear weapons is effectively blocked. It means much more for Iranian people. It means that sanctions which have crippled Iranian economy will be removed, it means the shadow of war is lifted, it means that there is potential for reformists to gain even more power…

The nuclear talks began 13 years ago with Hassan Rouhani as the chief negotiator and ended today with him as the President.

Javad Zarif was his deputy then and his Foreign Minister now. He always represented the pragmatist wing of the regime, advocating diplomacy and reconciliation with the world. He was the one who decided to suspend Iran’s nuclear program and drafted a deal with the troika of European countries (UK, France, and Germany). This deal was vetoed by the United States, under the Bush administration. Ironically, that deal was much less to Iran’s favor and Iran’s nuclear program would have been much smaller if it were upheld.

It is no surprise that he is mainly associated with the same issue, his nickname being the Diplomat Sheikh. But I know that today Rouhani’s legacy has not been shaped – today is the beginning of his legacy.

Rouhani will be considered a very powerful and influential man from this day, he will be extremely popular. He will be a political force comparable to the most powerful people in Iranian history. He won’t need the support of the former reformist president Mohammad Khatami or Hashemi Rafsanjani from now on. He might transcend both figures.

This is the beginning of a new era for Iran.

The hardliners in Iran will be increasingly marginalized, which cannot possibly be anything but a very good thing. The hardliners in this country, those who have practically salivated for the possibility of launching yet another war in the Middle East, will continue to throw a fit, but their position is simply absurd. What was the point of putting sanctions on Iran in the first place? To force them to end their nuclear weapons program. So what happens when we reach an agreement with very strong verification in it does exactly that? Now they want even more sanctions.

The fact is that for the American right wing, like the Iranian right wing, this was never actually about fixing the problem. It’s all about political posturing. It’s all about fear-mongering and saber-rattling, the only foreign policy language they speak. It didn’t matter what the agreement said, they were going to oppose it. They still live in their John Wayne fantasy world where loud talk and macho posturing is not a means to an end but the end in and of itself.

But the world today is a safer place. Iran is on the path to being less dangerous to its neighbors and less oppressive toward its own people. The chances of a war with Iran that would inevitably lead to a region-wide, perhaps even global, conflagration has been significantly decreased. Reasonable people will cheer this on; those who want the nation on a perpetual war footing will throw a tantrum about it.

"Plus they want your email address. What's up with that? They claim it's so associated ..."

Wiles: Christians in America Just Like ..."
"Ah gee, England's version of the National Enquirer."

Christian Right Still Oblivious to Their ..."
"Very simple solution. Free will on Mon Wed Fri, divine intervention on Tue Thu Sat, ..."

Christian Right Still Oblivious to Their ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • busterggi

    i’M SORRY BUT AS AN aMURKIN i HAVE TO WAIT FOR iSRAEL TO TELL ME WHAT TO THINK ABOUT THIS.

  • StevoR

    I hope this works. It’s too early to tell but gioven theoptions probably theleats bad one. Obama is smart, the Iranians are worryingly overjoyed and I can reason for cautious optimism but also concerns about where this’ll leave the world in a few decades time.

    Good interview here :

    http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2015/s4274535.htm

    with Martin Indyk I think.

    My gut tells me me that something that Iran’s leaders are this happy about can’t be that good for good people (or Isrealis or the rest of the world generally – that’s you and me folks) but, well .. Obama hopefully knows what he’s doing and something that has the Republicans that mad can’t be that bad either .. so .. Dunno.

    That verification durn well better be there and be as tough as Obama promised it would be!

    Short version – my view not Indyk’s : I dunno, hope this works and is as good as Obama says it is.

  • StevoR

    Typograpichals fix for clarity :

    It’s too early to tell but given the options probably the least bad one. Obama is smart, the Iranians are worryingly overjoyed and I can see reason for cautious optimism ..

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

    But the world today is a safer place.

    Hardly. A treaty makes us unsafer. Mark my words: this treaty will lead to the war that I’m for starting now while they most expect it.

    Iran’s Hitler once again bests Obama’s Chambermaid.

  • StevoR

    @1. busterggi : Which Israel?

    Put two Jews – or Israelis – in a room and you’ll get three opinions – if you’re lucky or maybe ten if not.

    Old joke / saying but not without kernal of truth.

  • Georgia Sam

    Here’s what Republican politicians would say about the agreement if they were honest: “We oppose this agreement for three reasons: (1) Barack Obama is a black man, (2) his name sounds suspiciously foreign to us, and (3) he’s a Democrat. Same reasons we’ve opposed everything he has done or proposed, and will continue to do so.”

  • StevoR

    The hardliners in Iran will be increasingly marginalized, ..

    Will they be?

    I really hope so.

    But .. unsure if that is true. (Obama speaking on my telly ’bout this now as I type. Well, not just my telly obvs.)

  • http://twitter.com/#!/TabbyLavalamp Tabby Lavalamp

    the Iranians are worryingly overjoyed

    Yes. When your country is about to see the end of crippling sanctions, the correct response is a sober “And so it ends.”

  • colnago80

    This is a thoroughly terrible agreement with Neville Obama playing Chamberlain role and the ayatollah playing the Schicklgruber role. As happened in Munich, the Ayatollah snookered us, just as Frankenberger out bluffed Chamberlain. The worst part is that the inspection regime is a joke. The Iranians are allowed 24 days notice before allowing an inspection. Equally bad, by lifting the sanctions, the terrorist mullahs that run Iran will be given hundreds of billions of dollars to buy conventional arms and foment even more instability in their neighborhood. Neville Obama will join his pal Neville Chamberlain in the dustbin of history.

    Having said that, it matters not a jot or a tittle whether the Congress goes along. Even it Congress kills the deal as far as the US is concerned, the other signatories will take the position that they agreed and the US will be isolated and alone. The sanctions regime will be history as nobody except us will be enforcing it.

    The democracies never learn that appeasement doesn’t pay, and appeasement is what this agreement is. Neville Obama is only praying that the Ayatollahs will not be caught cheating before he leaves office.

    http://theweek.com/articles/566434/why-iran-deal-disaster

  • Chris J

    God forbid the group of Iranians NOT explicitly trying to build a bomb be happy. They’re Iranians! That means they’re the bad guys! Unless they’re our allies… unless they’re our enemies… unless they’re our allies…

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

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

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

    This isn’t the right page for that! Thanks, Obama!

  • Chris J

    @colnago80:

    It’s bad enough that you obstinately refuse to use the one recognizable name Adolf Hitler has, but do you really have to swap back and forth between two completely different names for the same person? What, do you spin a roulette wheel to determine what to call he-who-must-not-be-named next?

  • Abby Normal

    @1 busterggi

    Netanyahu was on NPR this morning voicing opposition to the agreement. He contends that the deal gives Iran a path to nuclear weapons. Assuming they don’t try to circumvent the inspections they need only wait 10 years and they can enrich uranium as much as they’d like. Moreover, it gives one of the world’s largest sponsors of terror hundreds of billions of dollars up front.

    I have no idea how valid his concerns are.

  • colnago80

    As for Kevah, as I commented on his site, IMHO, there is little chance that the hoi polloi in Iran will see any significant benefit in their living situation as the ayatollahs will blow the extra cash accruing from the lifting of sanctions on stirring up more trouble in the Middle east, particularly in Syria. If he thinks otherwise, he is just whistling Dixie.

    Eventually, when it becomes obvious that this deal is a crock of shit, we will have to launch attacks against Iran’s nuclear sites. We can only hope that nuclear weapons will not be required and that bunker buster bombs can do the job.

  • colnago80

    Re Chris J. @ #13

    I take the position that vomit by any other name will smell as bad.

  • Pingback: The Momentous Nuclear Deal With Iran | NA Institute()

  • colnago80

    Re Abby Normal @ #14

    The folks who are really going to get it when the bucks start rolling into the Ayatollah’s coffers are the poor slobs in Syria, who will probably see their situation greatly worsen as Iran will have hundreds of billions to blow there. When Hizbollah and ISIL get through, there may be nobody left in that country.

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

    colnago80 “I take the position that vomit by any other name will smell as bad.”

    Then why did you change your name, SLC?

  • colnago80

    Re Modus @ #18

    Because I changed the Email address I am using.

  • zenlike

    Funny how colnago/SLC suddenly quotes rightwingers when it comes to Iran. Yes, SLC, I’m sure the Rubio-fanboy has a firm grasp on Middle-eastern politics.

  • http://twitter.com/#!/TabbyLavalamp Tabby Lavalamp

    The deal has sent Colnago off the deep(er?) end, so it has to be a good one.

  • colnago80

    Re Tabby Lavalamp @ #21

    Well, Harper is also dubious about the deal.

  • http://www.thelosersleague.com theschwa

    @9:

    As happened in Munich, the Ayatollah snookered us, just as Frankenberger out bluffed Chamberlain.

    I had to google “Frankenberger” – since this was clearly not Hitler he was discussing, since a normal person would just say “Hitler” – and got Andy Frankenberger, professional poker player. No wonder he was able to out-bluff that Chamberlain guy!!

  • Synfandel

    As soon as I encounter “Schiklgruber” or “Frankenberger” I skip to the next comment.

  • Synfandel

    colnago80 @22:

    Well, Harper is also dubious about the deal.

    Stephen Harper is another right-wing idiot who thinks the sun shines out of Benjamin Netanyahu’s ass. We’ll be delighted to see his back this October.

  • colnago80

    Re theschwa @ #23

    Try Leopold Frankenberger.

  • colnago80

    Re theschwa @ #23

    Try Leopold Frankenberger.

  • colnago80

    Re Synfandel @ #25

    Don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched.

  • colnago80

    Re Synfandel @ #25

    Don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched.

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

    colnago80 “Don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched.”

    They can’t. Harper muzzled the government scientists who count chickens, because their numbers insist on conflicting with his ideology.

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

    colnago80 “Don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched.”

    They can’t. Harper muzzled the government scientists who count chickens, because their numbers insist on conflicting with his ideology.

  • http://twitter.com/#!/TabbyLavalamp Tabby Lavalamp

    Well, Harper is also dubious about the deal.

    Now I can’t tell if you’re pro or con. This is another point in favour of the deal.

  • Chris J

    @colnago80:

    I take the position that vomit by any other name will smell as bad.

    I take the position that names enable communication, and using a different name for no good reason just makes communication harder. Fleeblegrups will smell just as sweet, but nobody will know what the hell you’re talking about.

    I also hold the position that when talking about a person, you should use their given name.

  • Chris J

    @colnago80:

    I take the position that vomit by any other name will smell as bad.

    I take the position that names enable communication, and using a different name for no good reason just makes communication harder. Fleeblegrups will smell just as sweet, but nobody will know what the hell you’re talking about.

    I also hold the position that when talking about a person, you should use their given name.

  • k_machine

    America has never signed a treaty they didn’t wipe their backsides with.

  • k_machine

    America has never signed a treaty they didn’t wipe their backsides with.

  • Chris J

    And after the briefest of wikipedia researches, I now also hold the opinion that it is beyond stupid to contest the given name of a child when it’s the father who’s baptismal name was at one point (far before the birth of the child) inconsistent. Especially so when one of the names offered is a product of an unproven and likely untrue claim about the father’s parentage.

    I mean really…

  • Chris J

    And after the briefest of wikipedia researches, I now also hold the opinion that it is beyond stupid to contest the given name of a child when it’s the father who’s baptismal name was at one point (far before the birth of the child) inconsistent. Especially so when one of the names offered is a product of an unproven and likely untrue claim about the father’s parentage.

    I mean really…

  • colnago80

    Re Chris J @ #30

    Hister’s father was christened Alois Schicklgruber and there are allegations that Alois’ biological father was one Leopold Frankenberger. Grandmother Maria married Johann Heidler, so Heidler would also be legitimate. Hister was a name proposed by Nostradamus as the leader of a nation in Central Europe in the 20th century.

  • Synfandel

    colnago80 @33:

    And none of the above was Adolf Hitler’s name. You what his name was? Adolf Hitler. Go figure.

  • Synfandel

    colnago80 @33:

    And none of the above was Adolf Hitler’s name. You what his name was? Adolf Hitler. Go figure.

  • colnago80

    Re Chris J @ #32

    Nobody knows who Alois biological father was as there was no father’s name on his birth certificate. It could have been Leopold Frankenberger, it could have been Johann Heidler, It could have been Johann’s brother, it could have been Sam Schlepperman.

  • colnago80

    Re Chris J @ #32

    Nobody knows who Alois biological father was as there was no father’s name on his birth certificate. It could have been Leopold Frankenberger, it could have been Johann Heidler, It could have been Johann’s brother, it could have been Sam Schlepperman.

  • colnago80

    Re Chris J @ #32

    What we do know is that ole Adolf went to great lengths to destroy any information as to Alois’ antecedents after the Anschluss.

  • colnago80

    Re Chris J @ #32

    What we do know is that ole Adolf went to great lengths to destroy any information as to Alois’ antecedents after the Anschluss.

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

    Chris J ” Fleeblegrups will smell just as sweet, but nobody will know what the hell you’re talking about.”

    On the other hand, “Sweet Fleeblgrups” sounds like something Grandma would say when she’s trying not to swear.

  • Chris J

    @colnago:

    33: Nostradamus? Really? You’re going to appeal to a quack “prophet” to determine what a person’s name is? At best, you’re saying that something has to be true because that would fulfill a prophet’s claims, not because the thing is actually true.

    35: Alois’s father could be Pol Pot for all I care. His child’s name was “Hitler.” Why does it matter what his lineage was anyway?

    36: So what? A person’s name has nothing to do with the the grandparents were called. Alois was the illigitimate child of somebody… Doesn’t change the fact that Alois’s son was called “Adolf Hitler.” Call Alois “Schicklgruber” or whatever, that would at least make slightly more sense that using that name to refer to Adolf.

  • Chris J

    @colnago:

    33: Nostradamus? Really? You’re going to appeal to a quack “prophet” to determine what a person’s name is? At best, you’re saying that something has to be true because that would fulfill a prophet’s claims, not because the thing is actually true.

    35: Alois’s father could be Pol Pot for all I care. His child’s name was “Hitler.” Why does it matter what his lineage was anyway?

    36: So what? A person’s name has nothing to do with the the grandparents were called. Alois was the illigitimate child of somebody… Doesn’t change the fact that Alois’s son was called “Adolf Hitler.” Call Alois “Schicklgruber” or whatever, that would at least make slightly more sense that using that name to refer to Adolf.

  • colnago80

    Re Chkris J @ #38

    Actually, Nostradamus’ quatrain relative to Hister was pretty good, probably one of his best prognostications. He correctly predicted a European war in Central Europe in the 20th Century and that one of the nations would be led by somebody named Hister. Not too shabby.

  • colnago80

    Re Chkris J @ #38

    Actually, Nostradamus’ quatrain relative to Hister was pretty good, probably one of his best prognostications. He correctly predicted a European war in Central Europe in the 20th Century and that one of the nations would be led by somebody named Hister. Not too shabby.

  • colnago80

    Re Chris J @ #38

    Alois’s father could be Pol Pot for all I care. His child’s name was “Hitler.” Why does it matter what his lineage was anyway?

    Well ole Adolf though it mattered because he went to great lengths to cover it up.

  • colnago80

    Re Chris J @ #38

    Alois’s father could be Pol Pot for all I care. His child’s name was “Hitler.” Why does it matter what his lineage was anyway?

    Well ole Adolf though it mattered because he went to great lengths to cover it up.

  • naturalcynic

    colnago80 Bibi’s Boy, you have surpassed yourself. Are you wishing and hoping for a position in Pres. Graham’s State Dept?

  • Chris J

    @colnago80:

    If I wrote over 1000 verses intending to be prophetic, I could probably get a couple good ones out of them too. Especially with people that desperately try to shoe-horn those vague statements into reality.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hister

    This is often interpreted to be a prediction of the war against Adolf Hitler’s Nazi state in the twentieth century. However, none of the reputable sources listed support this view. In fact all of them point out that the name ‘Hister’ (as Nostradamus himself explains in his Almanac for 1554[2]) in fact refers in his writings to the Danube, being mentioned (as elsewhere[3]) alongside ‘R[h]in’ (Rhine) — two rivers that formed the north-eastern frontier of the ancient Roman Empire.

  • Chris J

    @colnago80:

    If I wrote over 1000 verses intending to be prophetic, I could probably get a couple good ones out of them too. Especially with people that desperately try to shoe-horn those vague statements into reality.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hister

    This is often interpreted to be a prediction of the war against Adolf Hitler’s Nazi state in the twentieth century. However, none of the reputable sources listed support this view. In fact all of them point out that the name ‘Hister’ (as Nostradamus himself explains in his Almanac for 1554[2]) in fact refers in his writings to the Danube, being mentioned (as elsewhere[3]) alongside ‘R[h]in’ (Rhine) — two rivers that formed the north-eastern frontier of the ancient Roman Empire.

  • Chris J

    @colnago80:

    Well ole Adolf though it mattered because he went to great lengths to cover it up.

    I meant “why does it matter for the purposes of his name.” I’d imagine Adolf didn’t like the idea that his father was a bastard. Doesn’t take much imagination, really. Hell, he might even want to avoid being considered Jewish if that was his ancestry.

    Not one of these reasons mean anything to Adolf Hitler’s name “Hitler.” At all.

  • Chris J

    @colnago80:

    Well ole Adolf though it mattered because he went to great lengths to cover it up.

    I meant “why does it matter for the purposes of his name.” I’d imagine Adolf didn’t like the idea that his father was a bastard. Doesn’t take much imagination, really. Hell, he might even want to avoid being considered Jewish if that was his ancestry.

    Not one of these reasons mean anything to Adolf Hitler’s name “Hitler.” At all.

  • Donnie

    Remember what happened when that Commie Nixon went into China?

  • Donnie

    Remember what happened when that Commie Nixon went into China?

  • Donnie

    I loved the Iran agreement simply because I knew it would put SLC into a panty bending titter. Awesome Job President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry, and the other P5 nations of China, Russia, France, Germany and the UK.

    I can imagine (not that I want to) that SLC was at Congress listening to his man-love-boy Netanyahu’s speech while masturbating himself in Congressional closet chanting,

    Yes, Nukes! Yes. Nukes!

    Nuke Iran.

    Yes. Kill the infidels!

    Go Benji-boy!

    Tell those Republicans lick-spittles what to do!

    Nuke them. Nuke them all.

    Yes!!!!!!

    and at SLC’s climax I am sure he yelled out

    Frankenberger!!!!

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    >colnago80

    >[Nostradamus] correctly predicted

    What?

    Seriously?

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    >colnago80

    >[Nostradamus] correctly predicted

    What?

    Seriously?

  • Chris J

    @EnlightenmentLiberal:

    Oh yeah, Nostradamus is famous for all of his true and accurate predictions. Just take a look at the set that are supposed to come true in 2015! http://predictionsofnostradamus.com/

    Can’t wait to be able to live up to 200 years old, telepathically communicate with animals (through science), resurrect the dead, and abolish all taxes.

  • Chris J

    @EnlightenmentLiberal:

    Oh yeah, Nostradamus is famous for all of his true and accurate predictions. Just take a look at the set that are supposed to come true in 2015! http://predictionsofnostradamus.com/

    Can’t wait to be able to live up to 200 years old, telepathically communicate with animals (through science), resurrect the dead, and abolish all taxes.

  • http://www.thelosersleague.com theschwa

    @35:

    Nobody knows who Alois biological father was as there was no father’s name on his birth certificate. It could have been Leopold Frankenberger, it could have been Johann Heidler, It could have been Johann’s brother, it could have been Sam Schlepperman.

    It could have been Annakin Skywalker. It could have been Tywin Lannister. It could have been Phillip J. Fry!

  • http://www.thelosersleague.com theschwa

    @35:

    Nobody knows who Alois biological father was as there was no father’s name on his birth certificate. It could have been Leopold Frankenberger, it could have been Johann Heidler, It could have been Johann’s brother, it could have been Sam Schlepperman.

    It could have been Annakin Skywalker. It could have been Tywin Lannister. It could have been Phillip J. Fry!

  • http://helives.blogspot.com heddle

    #5,

    Put two Jews – or Israelis – in a room and you’ll get three opinions – if you’re lucky or maybe ten if not.

    That’s the lamest joke I’ve heard in years. It doesn’t even have the virtue of being funny by being offensive. It’s just dumb.

  • colnago80

    Re Chris J @ #42

    The Wiki article shows what Nostradamus wrote in French and a translation into English. The thing to note is that, in the English translation, there is an article, namely the, inserted before Hister. In the French, there is no article in front of Hister, e.g. the English translation is incorrect. If there was supposed to be an article in front of Hister, the French would have read l’Hister.

    Now you might ask, what’s the difference. Placing an article in front of Hister implies that the reference is to a place (e.g. the Danube). Without the article, the implication is that the reference is to a person (e.g. somebody named Hister). Big difference, context is everything.

  • colnago80

    Re Chris J @ #42

    The Wiki article shows what Nostradamus wrote in French and a translation into English. The thing to note is that, in the English translation, there is an article, namely the, inserted before Hister. In the French, there is no article in front of Hister, e.g. the English translation is incorrect. If there was supposed to be an article in front of Hister, the French would have read l’Hister.

    Now you might ask, what’s the difference. Placing an article in front of Hister implies that the reference is to a place (e.g. the Danube). Without the article, the implication is that the reference is to a person (e.g. somebody named Hister). Big difference, context is everything.

  • colnago80

    Re Heddle @ #49

    That’s a rather standard joke, most often said by one of the Jewish persuasion. As to whether it’s funny, to each his/her own.

  • colnago80

    Re Heddle @ #49

    That’s a rather standard joke, most often said by one of the Jewish persuasion. As to whether it’s funny, to each his/her own.

  • Chris J

    @colnago80:

    I don’t really care much for an article here or there in a poem, or what you interpret the lack thereof as signifying in a language I don’t speak, when the wiki article talks about external reputable sources and Nostradamus himself as being against your interpretation.

    But hey, let’s pretend that Nostradamus indeed did predict that a guy named Hister would take part in a war in Germany. Still doesn’t make Adolf Hitler’s name “Hister.” Or “Shicklgruber” or “Frankenburger” or whatever other name appears on your roulette wheel for the day. It just makes the name in the prediction wrong.

  • Chris J

    @colnago80:

    I don’t really care much for an article here or there in a poem, or what you interpret the lack thereof as signifying in a language I don’t speak, when the wiki article talks about external reputable sources and Nostradamus himself as being against your interpretation.

    But hey, let’s pretend that Nostradamus indeed did predict that a guy named Hister would take part in a war in Germany. Still doesn’t make Adolf Hitler’s name “Hister.” Or “Shicklgruber” or “Frankenburger” or whatever other name appears on your roulette wheel for the day. It just makes the name in the prediction wrong.

  • colnago80

    Re theschwa @ #49

    Hey, Darth Vader aka Annakin Skywalker sounds most appropriate, being from the dark side.

  • colnago80

    Re Chris J @ #52

    Well, I took 2 years of French in high school and a year and a half in college so I know something about the language. I would say that somebody predicting that there would be a war in Central Europe 400 years hence in which nations would unite against someone named Hister ain’t too shabby. Two of those nations didn’t even exist in the 16th Century. Of course, stopped clocks and all that. And I maintain that the lack of an article in front of Hister strongly suggests a person, not a place.

  • colnago80

    Re Chris J @ #52

    Well, I took 2 years of French in high school and a year and a half in college so I know something about the language. I would say that somebody predicting that there would be a war in Central Europe 400 years hence in which nations would unite against someone named Hister ain’t too shabby. Two of those nations didn’t even exist in the 16th Century. Of course, stopped clocks and all that. And I maintain that the lack of an article in front of Hister strongly suggests a person, not a place.

  • Chris J

    @colnago80:

    And I maintain that the lack of an article in front of Hister strongly suggests a person, not a place.

    Or a personification of a place. Happens in English too, all the time, especially in poetry. Imagine the phrase “encountering Hister’s shores,” or some other phrase. And again, Nostradamus himself used the name “Hister” to describe the Danube river in other writings. He was referring to a river. You are so fixated on the name being close to “Hitler” that you can’t accept that they are two completely different names, no more similar than “duck” is to “walrus.”

    And still; a poem written 400 years before a person was born is not what determines that person’s name.

  • Chris J

    @colnago80:

    And I maintain that the lack of an article in front of Hister strongly suggests a person, not a place.

    Or a personification of a place. Happens in English too, all the time, especially in poetry. Imagine the phrase “encountering Hister’s shores,” or some other phrase. And again, Nostradamus himself used the name “Hister” to describe the Danube river in other writings. He was referring to a river. You are so fixated on the name being close to “Hitler” that you can’t accept that they are two completely different names, no more similar than “duck” is to “walrus.”

    And still; a poem written 400 years before a person was born is not what determines that person’s name.

  • Chris J

    Dang, messed up the quoting. First line is colnago, the rest is me.

  • Chris J

    Dang, messed up the quoting. First line is colnago, the rest is me.

  • Chris J

    “no more similar than ‘duck’ is to ‘walrus’ in referential meaning.” Clarification

  • Doug Little

    Can someone please fill me in on the physics of predicting the future. It seems as if someone here actually believes it is possible.

  • Doug Little

    Can someone please fill me in on the physics of predicting the future. It seems as if someone here actually believes it is possible.

  • Hoosier X

    Despite all this talk about Hitler and all his different names, I still don’t see what any of this has to do with Neville Chamberlain. I’ve asked this before and I would really like to see a coherent answer.

    How is Obama like Chamberlain? How is an unnamed ayatollah like Hitler? What country has Iran been allowed to invade that would be the equivalent of Czechoslovakia?

  • Hoosier X

    Despite all this talk about Hitler and all his different names, I still don’t see what any of this has to do with Neville Chamberlain. I’ve asked this before and I would really like to see a coherent answer.

    How is Obama like Chamberlain? How is an unnamed ayatollah like Hitler? What country has Iran been allowed to invade that would be the equivalent of Czechoslovakia?

  • Chris J

    By the by, colnago, maybe you should read the actual verse that you believe “predicts that there would be a war in Central Europe 400 years hence.”

    Bestes farouches de faim fluves tranner:

    Plus part du camp encontre Hister sera,

    En caige de fer le grand fera treisner,

    Quand Rin enfant Germain observera.

    or:

    Beasts wild with hunger shall cross the rivers:

    Most of the fighting shall be close by Hister,

    It shall result in the great one being dragged in an iron cage,

    While the German shall be watching over the infant Rhine.

    Even took out the “the” for you, chum. See anything about a world war specifically rather than general “fighting?” Or multiple nations specifically? Or about “400 years?” How much do you have to twist these four lines to claim that they are an accurate prediction of anything?

  • Chris J

    By the by, colnago, maybe you should read the actual verse that you believe “predicts that there would be a war in Central Europe 400 years hence.”

    Bestes farouches de faim fluves tranner:

    Plus part du camp encontre Hister sera,

    En caige de fer le grand fera treisner,

    Quand Rin enfant Germain observera.

    or:

    Beasts wild with hunger shall cross the rivers:

    Most of the fighting shall be close by Hister,

    It shall result in the great one being dragged in an iron cage,

    While the German shall be watching over the infant Rhine.

    Even took out the “the” for you, chum. See anything about a world war specifically rather than general “fighting?” Or multiple nations specifically? Or about “400 years?” How much do you have to twist these four lines to claim that they are an accurate prediction of anything?

  • Holms

    #9 War Crimes Apologist colnago80

    This is a thoroughly terrible agreement with Neville Obama playing Chamberlain role and the ayatollah playing the Schicklgruber role. As happened in Munich, the Ayatollah snookered us, just as Frankenberger out bluffed Chamberlain. The worst part is that the inspection regime is a joke. The Iranians are allowed 24 days notice before allowing an inspection.

    Are you trying to imply that 24 days is enough time to refit a nuclear enrichment plant into something more innocuous?

    ___

    #35

    Nobody knows who Alois biological father was as there was no father’s name on his birth certificate. It could have been Leopold Frankenberger, it could have been Johann Heidler, It could have been Johann’s brother, it could have been Sam Schlepperman.

    All of whom are irrelevant, because their names are not the one being discussed. Regardless of who Adolf Hitler had as his true grandfather (even if we pretend that these theories are actually strong), those theories do not cast doubt on Adolf Hitler’s name. (Hint: his name is definitely Adolf Hitler.) This is because mixups in parentage – let along grandparentage – do not change the child’s name from whatever is on the birth certificate. This means that Adolf Hitler’s name remains Adolf Hitler regardless of the grandparent.

    ___

    #39

    Actually, Nostradamus’ quatrain relative to Hister was pretty good, probably one of his best prognostications. He correctly predicted a European war in Central Europe in the 20th Century and that one of the nations would be led by somebody named Hister. Not too shabby.

    Pretty shabby actually, given that none of your idiotic theories even propose Hister as a name, so even if all your theorising was somehow true (it isn’t), his name still does not include Hister anywhere, but rather Heidler, Frankenburger, Schleppermann or Schickelgruber. So I guess you’ve just debunked your own Hister bullshit, not that you’ll admit it, because you are one of the most shamelessly dishonest cretins here. I think you even beat Egnor.

  • colnago80

    Re Hoosier X @ #59

    Excuse me, Iran has invaded Syria, Yemen, and Iraq and, via its wholly owned subsidiary Hizbollah, Lebanon.

  • colnago80

    Re Hoosier X @ #59

    Excuse me, Iran has invaded Syria, Yemen, and Iraq and, via its wholly owned subsidiary Hizbollah, Lebanon.

  • colnago80

    Re Holms @ #61

    Yawn.

  • colnago80

    Re Holms @ #61

    Yawn.

  • Chris J

    Look at it this way. If you blanked out the word “Hister” in the passage, would you be able to find *anything* to link it specifically to WWII, as opposed to any other fighting, large or small, somewhere in the vicinity of Germany? If not, than your only connection is a word that is the Latin word for a river, and is used by Nostradamus himself as a word for a river.

  • Chris J

    Look at it this way. If you blanked out the word “Hister” in the passage, would you be able to find *anything* to link it specifically to WWII, as opposed to any other fighting, large or small, somewhere in the vicinity of Germany? If not, than your only connection is a word that is the Latin word for a river, and is used by Nostradamus himself as a word for a river.

  • Holms

    #54

    Well, I took 2 years of French in high school and a year and a half in college so I know something about the language. […] And I maintain that the lack of an article in front of Hister strongly suggests a person, not a place.

    Saying “My French is pretty good” does not overturn vastly more reputable analysts of Nostradamus’ works, especially when one of their sources of information is Nostradamus himself.

    … I would say that somebody predicting that there would be a war in Central Europe 400 years hence in which nations would unite against someone named Hister ain’t too shabby. …

    It would be much more impressive if the war had involved a leader actually named Hister. But it didn’t, so I guess that makes Nostradamus wrong.

    …Two of those nations didn’t even exist in the 16th Century. …

    That would also be impressive, if Nostradamus had mentioned either of their names. Hell, it would be pretty good if he had named even a single nation in his supposed WW2 prediction… but he didn’t.

    …Of course, stopped clocks and all that.

    In which you implicitly admit that Nostradamus is not a credible source of information by referring to him as the proverbial stopped clock.

    ___

    #63

    Re Holms @ #61

    Yawn.

    You didn’t even bother addressing any of my points, so I guess you accepted them. Namely:

    – A 24 day warning won’t allow them to conceal shit, rendering your scaremongering empty;

    – Uncertainty in pinning down Adolf Hitler’s true grandparents doesn’t change Adolf Hitler’s name from Adolf Hitler at all;

    – Nostradamus’ shitty ramblings don’t match Adolf Hitler’s name because it is Adolf Hitler rather than Hister.

    Thanks.

  • Damien McLeod

    I support the treaty, but it worries me, people who believe in mythological sky-fairies mostly seem to believe that their particular sky-fairy authorizes them (perhaps “orders” them is a better way to put it) to lie, cheat, and sneak when dealing with people who don’t believe in their particular brand of religious superstition. Which, Iranians being religious folk, seems to indicate that they will lie, cheat, and sneak, when dealing with non-muslim westerners. This scares me because most people willingly believe what they want to believe, not what is supported by the evidence, and most western liberals (of which I am one), want to believe the Iranians are telling the truth about their motives and the the way they will follow the treaty. I am not convinced that this “desire to believe” will not lead us astray.

  • Damien McLeod

    I support the treaty, but it worries me, people who believe in mythological sky-fairies mostly seem to believe that their particular sky-fairy authorizes them (perhaps “orders” them is a better way to put it) to lie, cheat, and sneak when dealing with people who don’t believe in their particular brand of religious superstition. Which, Iranians being religious folk, seems to indicate that they will lie, cheat, and sneak, when dealing with non-muslim westerners. This scares me because most people willingly believe what they want to believe, not what is supported by the evidence, and most western liberals (of which I am one), want to believe the Iranians are telling the truth about their motives and the the way they will follow the treaty. I am not convinced that this “desire to believe” will not lead us astray.

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

    @14:

    He contends that the deal gives Iran a path to nuclear weapons. Assuming they don’t try to circumvent the inspections they need only wait 10 years and they can enrich uranium as much as they’d like.

    Without a deal they can enrich uranium as much as they’d like, and they’d have far more incentive to do so. It takes a fair bit of delusion, or dishonesty, to argue that a 10-year heavy-handed inspections regime makes it more likely that they’re going to get a bomb. If Bibi thinks it doesn’t go far enough that’s one thing, but to claim that it’s more dangerous than the status quo is absurd.

    Moreover, it gives one of the world’s largest sponsors of terror hundreds of billions of dollars up front.

    Yes, it unfreezes some of their assets, although why they would use it for “terror” is unclear, especially since they’re under such scrutiny. But to assume you can keep their assets or oil income under wraps forever, you have to assume that the sanctions regime can last forever. The sanctions are actually quite costly to Europe, China, and Russia, since they do (or did) a lot of trading with Iran. They only agreed to the sanctions in order to force Iran to the table for a deal. If there had not been a deal, or no prospect of a deal as Bibi and his Republican toadies wanted, then the sanctions were destined to end.

    The bottom line is this: Our options were 1) do nothing, 2) start a war, or 3) negotiate a deal. If critics think that 1 or 2 are better options, they should explain why. If they think that Iran would have agreed to a deal in which they gave us everything and got nothing, then they’re effectively arguing for 1 or 2.

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

    @14:

    He contends that the deal gives Iran a path to nuclear weapons. Assuming they don’t try to circumvent the inspections they need only wait 10 years and they can enrich uranium as much as they’d like.

    Without a deal they can enrich uranium as much as they’d like, and they’d have far more incentive to do so. It takes a fair bit of delusion, or dishonesty, to argue that a 10-year heavy-handed inspections regime makes it more likely that they’re going to get a bomb. If Bibi thinks it doesn’t go far enough that’s one thing, but to claim that it’s more dangerous than the status quo is absurd.

    Moreover, it gives one of the world’s largest sponsors of terror hundreds of billions of dollars up front.

    Yes, it unfreezes some of their assets, although why they would use it for “terror” is unclear, especially since they’re under such scrutiny. But to assume you can keep their assets or oil income under wraps forever, you have to assume that the sanctions regime can last forever. The sanctions are actually quite costly to Europe, China, and Russia, since they do (or did) a lot of trading with Iran. They only agreed to the sanctions in order to force Iran to the table for a deal. If there had not been a deal, or no prospect of a deal as Bibi and his Republican toadies wanted, then the sanctions were destined to end.

    The bottom line is this: Our options were 1) do nothing, 2) start a war, or 3) negotiate a deal. If critics think that 1 or 2 are better options, they should explain why. If they think that Iran would have agreed to a deal in which they gave us everything and got nothing, then they’re effectively arguing for 1 or 2.

  • Synfandel

    colnago80 @63 gaped:

    Yawn.

    I bow to your superior intellectual prowess.

  • Synfandel

    colnago80 @63 gaped:

    Yawn.

    I bow to your superior intellectual prowess.

  • Al Dente

    colnago80, aka SLC, has received his marching orders from Netanyahu, has shrieked “Jahowl, mein Bibi,” and is furiously denouncing Obama for making the best deal possible for the entire fucking world. Reality and colnago80 have little if any interaction, as evidenced by his refusal to admit that Hitler’s name was actually Hitler.

  • colnago80

    Re Al Dente @ #69

    I am hardly a fan of Bibi who I consider to be a liar of vast proportions. As former French President Sarkozy said, “I can’t stand him (Bibi), he’s such a liar”. As former Israeli Prime Minister Sharon said, “You (Bibi) were born a liar”.

  • colnago80

    Re Al Dente @ #69

    I am hardly a fan of Bibi who I consider to be a liar of vast proportions. As former French President Sarkozy said, “I can’t stand him (Bibi), he’s such a liar”. As former Israeli Prime Minister Sharon said, “You (Bibi) were born a liar”.

  • sugarfrosted

    @69 Hilariously the name he started with was from white supremacists trying to blame Jews for the holocaust by claiming Hitler was a Jew.

  • sugarfrosted

    @69 Hilariously the name he started with was from white supremacists trying to blame Jews for the holocaust by claiming Hitler was a Jew.

  • Al Dente

    colnago80 @70

    I see. You don’t like Netanyahu. We should ignore the fact that if he said “shit” you’d squat and make grunting noises. Look, nobody will think the less of you for having your nose firmly up Bibi’s ass. It would be hard to think the less of you.

  • busterggi

    “Most of the fighting shall be close by the Hister [Danube],

    It shall result in the great one being dragged in an iron cage,”

    So where do I have to go to see Hitler in his iron cage?

  • busterggi

    “Most of the fighting shall be close by the Hister [Danube],

    It shall result in the great one being dragged in an iron cage,”

    So where do I have to go to see Hitler in his iron cage?

  • http://drx.typepad.com Dr X

    People who rely on faulty analogies are doomed to repeat themselves.

  • http://drx.typepad.com Dr X

    People who rely on faulty analogies are doomed to repeat themselves.

  • Chris J

    @busterggi:

    Well, you know… A bunker is sort of like an iron cage. With walls instead of bars. And underground instead of in view of everyone. And not really “dragged” per se… more like “escaped to.” But it is made of iron! Well, an alloy of iron. And concrete. And dirt.

    Kinda missed that whole suicide thing too. Maybe that was another one of Nostradamus’s cheeky little obfuscations. Like using the french “sept” to refer to the English “September” instead of the 7th month. And using the year “1999” as the number-inverted 9/11/1 to refer to 9/11. And using the historical name of a river to sneakily misspell a name colnago80 doesn’t even accept as the real name.

  • Chris J

    @busterggi:

    Well, you know… A bunker is sort of like an iron cage. With walls instead of bars. And underground instead of in view of everyone. And not really “dragged” per se… more like “escaped to.” But it is made of iron! Well, an alloy of iron. And concrete. And dirt.

    Kinda missed that whole suicide thing too. Maybe that was another one of Nostradamus’s cheeky little obfuscations. Like using the french “sept” to refer to the English “September” instead of the 7th month. And using the year “1999” as the number-inverted 9/11/1 to refer to 9/11. And using the historical name of a river to sneakily misspell a name colnago80 doesn’t even accept as the real name.

  • Rick Pikul

    @Holms #61:

    The 24 days doesn’t apply to things like enrichment plants. The enrichment plants will be under constant monitoring, the 24 days is a delay Iran could get for inspections of facilities that supposedly aren’t related to their nuclear program.

  • D. C. Sessions

    That’s the lamest joke I’ve heard in years. It doesn’t even have the virtue of being funny by being offensive. It’s just dumb.

    Some people just don’t get Yiddish humor.

  • D. C. Sessions

    That’s the lamest joke I’ve heard in years. It doesn’t even have the virtue of being funny by being offensive. It’s just dumb.

    Some people just don’t get Yiddish humor.

  • https://plus.google.com/107095827599382907783 NS Alito

    I must recommend The Mask of Nostradamus: The Prophecies of the World’s Most Famous Seer, by James Randi. It gives a biographical context for Nostradamus, along with plausible interpretations with respect to his personal local and contemporary situation, followed by the evolution of re-interpretations of his “prophecies” over various political and cultural regimes.

    Nostradamus’ prophecies, like Revelation and the I Ching, are a rich source of pareidolia among True Believers.

  • https://plus.google.com/107095827599382907783 NS Alito

    I must recommend The Mask of Nostradamus: The Prophecies of the World’s Most Famous Seer, by James Randi. It gives a biographical context for Nostradamus, along with plausible interpretations with respect to his personal local and contemporary situation, followed by the evolution of re-interpretations of his “prophecies” over various political and cultural regimes.

    Nostradamus’ prophecies, like Revelation and the I Ching, are a rich source of pareidolia among True Believers.

  • mudskipper

    Nobody knows who Alois biological father was as there was no father’s name on his birth certificate. It could have been Leopold Frankenberger, it could have been Johann Heidler, It could have been Johann’s brother, it could have been Sam Schlepperman.

    C’mon now. The father’s last name was obviously Obama.

    Connect the dots, folks. Connect the dots….

  • mudskipper

    Nobody knows who Alois biological father was as there was no father’s name on his birth certificate. It could have been Leopold Frankenberger, it could have been Johann Heidler, It could have been Johann’s brother, it could have been Sam Schlepperman.

    C’mon now. The father’s last name was obviously Obama.

    Connect the dots, folks. Connect the dots….

  • sigurd jorsalfar

    What was the point of putting sanctions on Iran in the first place? To force them to end their nuclear weapons program.

    No, Ed. The point of the sanctions, in the opinion of American hardliners (love that term btw, we need to start using it more), was to force Iran to re-install the Shah.

  • Hoosier X

    Everybody has their own opinion but only colnago gets his own facts.

    Must be nice.

  • Hoosier X

    Everybody has their own opinion but only colnago gets his own facts.

    Must be nice.

  • militantagnostic

    Well, Harper is also dubious about the deal.

    That is definitely a point in favour of the deal if mister ignore the evidence and then suppress it is against it. I assume Harper is only dubious at this point because Neten-yahoo hasn’t told him what to think. I can see why Colnago is a Harper fan though as both he and Harper feel entitled to their own facts.

  • militantagnostic

    Well, Harper is also dubious about the deal.

    That is definitely a point in favour of the deal if mister ignore the evidence and then suppress it is against it. I assume Harper is only dubious at this point because Neten-yahoo hasn’t told him what to think. I can see why Colnago is a Harper fan though as both he and Harper feel entitled to their own facts.

  • iangould

    It’s been Aves since I read the comments here.

    Can someone refresh my memory, please?

    Are we SURE Colnago isn’t a Poe?

  • iangould

    It’s been Aves since I read the comments here.

    Can someone refresh my memory, please?

    Are we SURE Colnago isn’t a Poe?

  • Holms

    If you are asking “are colnago’s opinions actually just elaborate trolling” then I would suggest to simply take them as his real opinions unless there is some evidence that they are not. If you are asking “are colnago’s opinions so fucking stupid that they greatly resemble trolling” then yes, because they are indeed fucking stupid on this topic.

  • Nick Gotts

    It’s really rather helpful that colnago80 has these weird obsessions about Hitler and Nostradamus. It ensures that no-one with an ounce more sense than a cuckoo clock will take seriously his frothings about the Iranian nuclear agreement, or for that matter anything he says on any subject whatever.

  • Nick Gotts

    It’s really rather helpful that colnago80 has these weird obsessions about Hitler and Nostradamus. It ensures that no-one with an ounce more sense than a cuckoo clock will take seriously his frothings about the Iranian nuclear agreement, or for that matter anything he says on any subject whatever.

  • Nick Gotts

    An interesting point about the agreement is that it’s come at a point where Iran (and allies) and the USA (and western allies – but not Israel) are in a de facto military alliance against Daesh/IS. The squeals of rage and alarm from Netanyahu have nothing to do with real fears of an Iranian nuclear weapon; rather, it’s the mere fact the USA is now also formally mending relations with the biggest obstacle to Israel’s regional dominance that the Israeli right* and its allies find alarming.

    *Which includes a large chunk of the Israeli population, or Netanyahu would not be leading the government.

  • Nick Gotts

    An interesting point about the agreement is that it’s come at a point where Iran (and allies) and the USA (and western allies – but not Israel) are in a de facto military alliance against Daesh/IS. The squeals of rage and alarm from Netanyahu have nothing to do with real fears of an Iranian nuclear weapon; rather, it’s the mere fact the USA is now also formally mending relations with the biggest obstacle to Israel’s regional dominance that the Israeli right* and its allies find alarming.

    *Which includes a large chunk of the Israeli population, or Netanyahu would not be leading the government.

  • jws1

    In addition, I’d like to see Israel pay for its own belligerent terrorist force, the IDF, rather than mooch off of my taxes. Let those Israeli hardliners pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

  • jws1

    In addition, I’d like to see Israel pay for its own belligerent terrorist force, the IDF, rather than mooch off of my taxes. Let those Israeli hardliners pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

  • eric

    @32:

    And after the briefest of wikipedia researches, I now also hold the opinion that it is beyond stupid to contest the given name of a child when it’s the father who’s baptismal name was at one point (far before the birth of the child) inconsistent

    Oh no, Colnago’s quite right. Take me for instance. My birth certificate says my name is Eric Doe. My parent’s last name is Doe. All my other legal documentation (passport, drivers’ license, marriage license, etc.) says my name is Eric Doe. But there is some evidence that my grandfather’s last name was originally SLCisadumbass, so I am more properly referred to as Eric SLCisadumbass.

    As for the Iran deal, I haven’t looked at the details but it sounds pretty good. As Area Man says, inspection of LEU-based power facilities seems like a significant improvement over the status quo (economic sanctions that hurt multiple countries + an underground, uninspected program).

  • colnago80

    Much of this thread has been taken up with a discussion as to what the dictator of Germany from 1933 to 1945 should be called. I fail to see the relevance to the matter at hand, namely the agreement with Iran. Whether he is referred to as Frankenberger, Schicklgruber, Heidler, Hitler, or Hister, he was a bad actor and a very dangerous man, just like the Ayatollah Khamenei is. iMHO, Khamenei and the former German dictator are/were equally untrustworthy, as Chamberlain found out and Obama and/or his successor will find out.

  • colnago80

    Much of this thread has been taken up with a discussion as to what the dictator of Germany from 1933 to 1945 should be called. I fail to see the relevance to the matter at hand, namely the agreement with Iran. Whether he is referred to as Frankenberger, Schicklgruber, Heidler, Hitler, or Hister, he was a bad actor and a very dangerous man, just like the Ayatollah Khamenei is. iMHO, Khamenei and the former German dictator are/were equally untrustworthy, as Chamberlain found out and Obama and/or his successor will find out.

  • dingojack

    SLC (#9) – “the terrorist mullahs that run Iran will be given hundreds of billions of dollars to buy conventional arms and foment even more instability in their neighborhood.”

    Oh oh, demarcation dispute! That’s the US’s job – it helps fund her dirty little wars and keep them off the official accounts. (And how else is the US supposed to prevent the development of democratic regimes that might have policies of their own? Arrange a coup d’état?). Oh wait now…

    SLC (#16) – and yet you return to gobble it up again and again

    @@ Dingo

    —————-

    Naturalcynic (#41) – Wasn’t Bibi’s Boy the less successful (and far more racist) follow-up to Jesse’s Girl? 😉

  • dingojack

    SLC (#9) – “the terrorist mullahs that run Iran will be given hundreds of billions of dollars to buy conventional arms and foment even more instability in their neighborhood.”

    Oh oh, demarcation dispute! That’s the US’s job – it helps fund her dirty little wars and keep them off the official accounts. (And how else is the US supposed to prevent the development of democratic regimes that might have policies of their own? Arrange a coup d’état?). Oh wait now…

    SLC (#16) – and yet you return to gobble it up again and again

    @@ Dingo

    —————-

    Naturalcynic (#41) – Wasn’t Bibi’s Boy the less successful (and far more racist) follow-up to Jesse’s Girl? 😉

  • colnago80

    Re dingojack @ #90

    The Hizbollah shock troops, which are bought and paid for by Iran, are responsible for the current situation in Syria. Without their support, the Assad kleptocracy would have been overthrown long ago and the ISIL would never have obtained a foothold in the country. The situation will now deteriorate even further as the ayatollahs who run Iran will now have billions more to support Hizbollah, thanks to the lifting of sanctions. Thanks Neville Obama.

  • colnago80

    Re dingojack @ #90

    The Hizbollah shock troops, which are bought and paid for by Iran, are responsible for the current situation in Syria. Without their support, the Assad kleptocracy would have been overthrown long ago and the ISIL would never have obtained a foothold in the country. The situation will now deteriorate even further as the ayatollahs who run Iran will now have billions more to support Hizbollah, thanks to the lifting of sanctions. Thanks Neville Obama.

  • Chris J

    colango80@89:

    Oh, I don’t know. You seemed perfectly willing to go off topic when you thought you had even a modicum of ability to defend your asinine beliefs, and when said beliefs were still somewhat hidden.

    Luckily, Iran isn’t headed by a dictator hell-bent on invading everyone around them with the power to do so, and the Iran deal takes nearly unprecedented measures to provide safeguards against any potential nuclear-related bad behavior. We already don’t trust them, hence the massive amounts of inspections and access built in to the deal. There’s no comparison to Hitler and Chamberlain, unless you ignore all the details of both the deal and the situation to say “bad man being negotiate with.”

  • eric

    Much of this thread has been taken up with a discussion as to what the dictator of Germany from 1933 to 1945 should be called. I fail to see the relevance to the matter at hand, namely the agreement with Iran.

    So do I. In fact I fail to see the relevance every frakking time you bring it up. So here’s an idea: stop bringing it up, because your comments on the matter are utterly irrelevant to 21st century political decisions.

    Dude seriously, do you know how laughable it is to hear YOU complaining about people discussing Hitler’s name?

  • eric

    Much of this thread has been taken up with a discussion as to what the dictator of Germany from 1933 to 1945 should be called. I fail to see the relevance to the matter at hand, namely the agreement with Iran.

    So do I. In fact I fail to see the relevance every frakking time you bring it up. So here’s an idea: stop bringing it up, because your comments on the matter are utterly irrelevant to 21st century political decisions.

    Dude seriously, do you know how laughable it is to hear YOU complaining about people discussing Hitler’s name?

  • colnago80

    Re Chris J @ #92

    Hey Chris, you are the one who went off topic in your comment @ #13 by making a big deal about my alternate names for the dictator of Nazi Germany.

    By the way, so far, the dictator of Iran has invaded Yemen, Iraq, and Syria and is attempting to extend his aggression to the Gaza Strip by allying with the Hamas terrorists. The fact that he is using proxies to do this, at least in Yemen and Syria, is reminiscent of the dictator of Nazi Germany using proxies in Austria and Czechoslovakia to foment phoney crises in those countries to justify later German aggression.

    You are making the same mistake that many in the Western democracies made relative to the dictator of Nazi Germany by whitewashing the Ayatollah Khamenei who is just as evil as the former.

  • colnago80

    Re Chris J @ #92

    Hey Chris, you are the one who went off topic in your comment @ #13 by making a big deal about my alternate names for the dictator of Nazi Germany.

    By the way, so far, the dictator of Iran has invaded Yemen, Iraq, and Syria and is attempting to extend his aggression to the Gaza Strip by allying with the Hamas terrorists. The fact that he is using proxies to do this, at least in Yemen and Syria, is reminiscent of the dictator of Nazi Germany using proxies in Austria and Czechoslovakia to foment phoney crises in those countries to justify later German aggression.

    You are making the same mistake that many in the Western democracies made relative to the dictator of Nazi Germany by whitewashing the Ayatollah Khamenei who is just as evil as the former.

  • eric

    The Hizbollah shock troops, which are bought and paid for by Iran, are responsible for the current situation in Syria. Without their support, the Assad kleptocracy would have been overthrown long ago and the ISIL would never have obtained a foothold in the country. The situation will now deteriorate even further as the ayatollahs who run Iran will now have billions more to support Hizbollah, thanks to the lifting of sanctions.

    Let me get this straight. You’re claiming that with this deal, we can expect Iran to provide more military support to the Assad regime, which he will in turn use to better fight ISIS…and you see this as a terrible outcome. Is that correct?

  • eric

    The Hizbollah shock troops, which are bought and paid for by Iran, are responsible for the current situation in Syria. Without their support, the Assad kleptocracy would have been overthrown long ago and the ISIL would never have obtained a foothold in the country. The situation will now deteriorate even further as the ayatollahs who run Iran will now have billions more to support Hizbollah, thanks to the lifting of sanctions.

    Let me get this straight. You’re claiming that with this deal, we can expect Iran to provide more military support to the Assad regime, which he will in turn use to better fight ISIS…and you see this as a terrible outcome. Is that correct?

  • colnago80

    Re eric @ #93

    As I pointed out in comment #94, it was ole Chris J who went off topic in his comment #13. The the fact that I referred to the dictator of Nazi Germany by several different names, which, by the way given his questionable ancestry, are just as legitimate as the name under which he is known to history.

  • colnago80

    Re eric @ #95

    It’s the support of the Assad kleptocracy by Hizbollah at the behest of Iran that is responsible for the rise of ISIL in the first place. Just for your information, I consider that Hizbollah and ISIL are equally evil organizations and the takeover of Syria by either of them would not be to the advantage of the population of that country. Had Iran stayed out of it, the minority Alawite Assad regime would have been overthrown and possibly been replaced by a better regime, although in the Middle East you never know. The FSA, which was initially the instigator of the uprising against Assad, ain’t angels but I think their achieving power would be an improvement.

  • colnago80

    Re eric @ #95

    It’s the support of the Assad kleptocracy by Hizbollah at the behest of Iran that is responsible for the rise of ISIL in the first place. Just for your information, I consider that Hizbollah and ISIL are equally evil organizations and the takeover of Syria by either of them would not be to the advantage of the population of that country. Had Iran stayed out of it, the minority Alawite Assad regime would have been overthrown and possibly been replaced by a better regime, although in the Middle East you never know. The FSA, which was initially the instigator of the uprising against Assad, ain’t angels but I think their achieving power would be an improvement.

  • Donnie

    colnago80 says

    July 16, 2015 at 11:18 am

    Re eric @ #93

    As I pointed out in comment #94, it was ole Chris J who went off topic in his comment #13. The the fact that I referred to the dictator of Nazi Germany by several different names, which, by the way given his questionable ancestry, are just as legitimate as the name under which he is known to history.

    Dude, his name is fucking Hilter . Shut the fuck up about it. The only person who comments here that does not use Hitler’s name is you. Every time you go off on your pet obsession you derail the thread because we all point-laugh-and-mock your incredibly stupid viewpoints.

    Anyone who even remotely uses Nostradamus supporting their views on FtB deserve all mockery.

    Do you want people to stop comment on the OP then stop derailing the conversation by calling Hitler by other names in your comments. If you continue, we will continue to point-mock-and-laugh at your moronic stupidity and obsession. Besides, stop Godwining the thread by ravings on Hitler and god dam Chamberlin as well. Are you stuck in the 1940s with your obsessions.

  • Donnie

    colnago80 says

    July 16, 2015 at 11:18 am

    Re eric @ #93

    As I pointed out in comment #94, it was ole Chris J who went off topic in his comment #13. The the fact that I referred to the dictator of Nazi Germany by several different names, which, by the way given his questionable ancestry, are just as legitimate as the name under which he is known to history.

    Dude, his name is fucking Hilter . Shut the fuck up about it. The only person who comments here that does not use Hitler’s name is you. Every time you go off on your pet obsession you derail the thread because we all point-laugh-and-mock your incredibly stupid viewpoints.

    Anyone who even remotely uses Nostradamus supporting their views on FtB deserve all mockery.

    Do you want people to stop comment on the OP then stop derailing the conversation by calling Hitler by other names in your comments. If you continue, we will continue to point-mock-and-laugh at your moronic stupidity and obsession. Besides, stop Godwining the thread by ravings on Hitler and god dam Chamberlin as well. Are you stuck in the 1940s with your obsessions.

  • colnago80

    Re donnie @ #98

    Dude, his name is fucking Hilter

    Hilter who he?

  • colnago80

    Re donnie @ #98

    Dude, his name is fucking Hilter

    Hilter who he?

  • colnago80

    By the way, is it okay to refer to the dictator of Nazi Germany?

  • Holms

    #94 War Crimes Apologist colnago80

    Hey Chris, you are the one who went off topic in your comment @ #13 by making a big deal about my alternate names for the dictator of Nazi Germany.

    #96

    As I pointed out in comment #94, it was ole Chris J who went off topic in his comment #13.

    And comment #13 was in reply to your #9 in which you introduced Hitler’s (debunked) alternate names. Oh and your “just as legitimate as [Hitler]” line is a deliberate lie.

  • Holms

    #94 War Crimes Apologist colnago80

    Hey Chris, you are the one who went off topic in your comment @ #13 by making a big deal about my alternate names for the dictator of Nazi Germany.

    #96

    As I pointed out in comment #94, it was ole Chris J who went off topic in his comment #13.

    And comment #13 was in reply to your #9 in which you introduced Hitler’s (debunked) alternate names. Oh and your “just as legitimate as [Hitler]” line is a deliberate lie.

  • colnago80

    Re Holms @ #101

    The use of alternate names for the German Nazi dictator had nothing to do with the issue of the agreement with Iran. It was Chris who derailed this thread.

    Oh and your “just as legitimate as [Hitler]” line is a deliberate lie.

    Well, I am afraid we will have to disagree on this point, hopefully not disagreeably.

  • colnago80

    Re Holms @ #101

    The use of alternate names for the German Nazi dictator had nothing to do with the issue of the agreement with Iran. It was Chris who derailed this thread.

    Oh and your “just as legitimate as [Hitler]” line is a deliberate lie.

    Well, I am afraid we will have to disagree on this point, hopefully not disagreeably.

  • Holms

    The use of alternate names for the German Nazi dictator had nothing to do with the issue of the agreement with Iran.

    Note that you implicitly agree with the fact that you introduced the topic, and he merely replied to correct your silliness. Key point: you introduced the topic.

    Well, I am afraid we will have to disagree on this point, hopefully not disagreeably.

    It has been investigated and debunked not just by commenters in this thread, but by historians. So no.

  • Holms

    The use of alternate names for the German Nazi dictator had nothing to do with the issue of the agreement with Iran.

    Note that you implicitly agree with the fact that you introduced the topic, and he merely replied to correct your silliness. Key point: you introduced the topic.

    Well, I am afraid we will have to disagree on this point, hopefully not disagreeably.

    It has been investigated and debunked not just by commenters in this thread, but by historians. So no.

  • StevoR

    @65. Holms

    – Nostradamus’ shitty ramblings don’t match Adolf Hitler’s name because it is Adolf Hitler rather than Hister.

    In grudging fairness here I think ya gotta admit that one letter out form the actual name is pretty damn close. Not a fan of Nostradamus at all and pretty sure it’s just a co-incidence but it is very close.

  • StevoR

    @49.heddle :

    #5, Put two Jews – or Israelis – in a room and you’ll get three opinions – if you’re lucky or maybe ten if not.

    That’s the lamest joke I’ve heard in years. It doesn’t even have the virtue of being funny by being offensive. It’s just dumb.

    Meh, I don’t find you very funny or amusing either heddle.

    Also really? Making a point that Israelis and Jewish people more broadly aren’t monolithic and indeed hold multiple hotly contested opinions even between just a couple of them is “dumb” is it? How much dumber then is it to just lump all Israelis and Jews together and imply as #1. busterggi does that Israel is all single entity speaking and indeed ordering others precisely what to do and think?

  • StevoR

    @49.heddle :

    #5, Put two Jews – or Israelis – in a room and you’ll get three opinions – if you’re lucky or maybe ten if not.

    That’s the lamest joke I’ve heard in years. It doesn’t even have the virtue of being funny by being offensive. It’s just dumb.

    Meh, I don’t find you very funny or amusing either heddle.

    Also really? Making a point that Israelis and Jewish people more broadly aren’t monolithic and indeed hold multiple hotly contested opinions even between just a couple of them is “dumb” is it? How much dumber then is it to just lump all Israelis and Jews together and imply as #1. busterggi does that Israel is all single entity speaking and indeed ordering others precisely what to do and think?