Klayman Files Suit to Stop Iran Agreement

Add another lawsuit to the record of Larry Klayman, the dumbest lawyer in America not named Mat Staver. Now he’s filed a suit against President Obama, Sen. Marco Rubio, Sen. Ben Nelson and Rep. Patrick Murphy to stop the Iran deal from being implemented.

A lawsuit by Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch seeks to block Barack Obama’s dangerous treaty with Iran from being unconstitutionally ratified through a Congressional law that surrendered power to Obama. The lawsuit by Florida citizen Klayman names his U.S. Senators Marco Rubio and Bill Nelson and Congressman Patrick Murphy, who all voted for the bill, and Obama who signed it into law. “These representatives acted in disregard of their obligations to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Rubio is even raising money opposing the treaty although he voted for the bill that makes it possible,” Klayman said.

The lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 9:15-cv-81023) is posted at http://www.FreedomWatchUSA.org/. Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution empowers a president to make a treaty only if two-thirds of the U.S. Senate votes to ratify it. A president is delegated no other power in the Constitution, outside that procedure, to make any other form of international agreement.

But the “Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act” (“INARA”) signed on May 22, 2015, violates the Constitution by changing the method for ratifying treaties, who ratifies treaties, and the minimum vote required. INARA automatically ratifies Obama’s Iran treaty if Congress does not act and creates new timetables. INARA requires both houses to agree on a “joint resolution of disapproval” rather than two-thirds of the Senate to ratify. INARA, though unclear, appears to give the President veto power over a “joint resolution,” thereby requiring three-quarters of both houses to over-ride Obama’s veto.

Here’s why he’s wrong: The Iran deal is not a treaty, it’s an executive agreement.

But recent precedent is squarely on McCain’s side, notwithstanding the Webster’s definition of a treaty as “an official agreement that is made between two or more countries or groups.”

And the vast majority of international agreements in recent decades haven’t been submitted to the Senate for approval.

Presidents determine what kind of arrangement they are negotiating — a power that’s evolved over the years. The difference is in both how the arrangement operates and how binding it is.

“First of all, a treaty is something that lives beyond existing presidents. … The next president can come in and undo an executive action like this,” Corker said.

In this instance, Obama is temporarily waiving existing sanctions pending certain conditions, and Congress will vote to either approve or disapprove. When the sanctions were levied, mostly in 2010, Congress gave him the authority to waive them.

“When these people are writing about it, they are missing something, and that is what we’ve done with this resolution of approval or disapproval is we’ve taken back authority that Congress had already granted to him,” said Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

So Klayman is wrong again. How shocking. He’s also wrong about the effect of the deal:

This agreement will existentially endanger not only Israel but Europe and the United States. Moreover, only a few years ago, the Iranian people almost overthrew Iran’s totalitarian government. Removing the economic pressures of sanctions frustrates the hopes of the Iranian people for freedom and democracy.

All nonsense. The entire point of the sanctions was to force Iran to the negotiating table and pressure them to drop their nuclear weapons program. This is the deal that resulted from that very pressure. And the Iranian people seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of it and view it as an important step in reforming Iran to be more progressive and less controlled by religious extremists.

"And still the justifications roll in...First, although Franken is acting like a 7th grader in ..."

How to Think Critically About the ..."
"If you’re wondering why Trump has remained silent on the allegations against Roy Moore but ..."

Trump Admitted to Peeping at Teen ..."
"If told, Trump supporters would probably take one of three positions on this:1) fake news!11!1!!1or,2) ..."

Trump Admitted to Peeping at Teen ..."
"Slow enough to give him time to come up with a witty remark."

How to Think Critically About the ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • D. C. Sessions

    Not to push one of Ed’s buttons but … what’s his claim to standing? I don’t even see that addressed.

    Somehow I kind of doubt that this one makes it past the Court’s clerks. Dismissed, sua sponte.

  • sugarfrosted

    @1, that’s what I suspect Klayman would like. It’s grandstanding: the faster it’s smacked down, the faster he can grandstand some more.

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

    This is the deal that resulted from that very pressure.

    Yes, but now that we have this deal we have to bring the pressure back. And also tear up the deal.

  • colnago80

    Laugh it up, more people now oppose the agreement with Iran then support it.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/28/politics/obama-approval-iran-economy/

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

    colnago80, CCN is the most anti-Semitic of all the networks. Plus, Glenn Greenwald is linked to them somehow.

  • Chris J

    It wouldn’t be surprising that more people oppose the agreement when Republicans have spent every waking moment since the deal was passed criticizing it on national media. Even ignoring petty details like “not having read it” and “not knowing what it contains.”

  • colnago80

    Re Modus @ #5

    CCN is the most anti-Semitic of all the networks.

    Although this is a typical Modus snark, it’s actually true as regards US media. At least it is the most anti Israel major US media. Of course, compared to the Guardian and the BBC, it’s pretty tepid in that regard.

  • Pierce R. Butler

    Ben Nelson ≠ Bill Nelson.

  • dingojack

    SLC – And a sizable majority initially opposed Loving vs. Virginia, the point being?

    [Here‘s another poll. ‘Lies, damned lies and statistics’, eh?]

    Dingo

  • colnago80

    Re Chris Jm @ #6

    One thing we know it contains is a pass for Iran to self inspect the Parchin nuclear military base. According to the questioning of Kerry at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he declined to discuss the claim by one senator that the inspectors will not be allowed to inspect Parchin but will have access to soil samples to be collect by Iran unaccompanied by inspectors allegedly from the neighborhood of the base. Ho, ho, ho, and need I say ha, ha, ha. For anybody who would take the word of Iran as to where the soil samples came from, I have a nice bridge, only 3 years old, over the Potomac between Prince

    Georges Co. Maryland and Alexandria, Va. I would be most happy to sell them.

    http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/07/iran-deal-kerry-senate-menendez-face-off-moniz.html

  • colnago80

    Re dingo @ #9

    Ah gee, a report from an outfit headed by Grant Smith, the left wing equivalent of Don Black. Dingo, you ought to be ashamed of yourself citing a report from an outfit headed by Mr. Smith, a one man Israel smear machine. I previously thought better of you.

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

    Colnago80 “One thing we know it contains is a pass for Iran to self inspect the Parchin nuclear military base.”

    Obviously. We know this is true because it’s contained withiin the separate IAEA agreement that the person who knows this doesn’t have.

     

    “http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/07/iran-deal-kerry-senate-menendez-face-off-moniz.html”

    colnago80, Al-Network? Come on! Everybody knows that Al-Network is the most anti-Semitic of all the networks. Plus, Glenn Greenwald is linked to them somehow. Etc.

  • Nick Gotts

    colnago80’s definition of “antisemitic”: sometimes criticises the actions of the Israeli government or military.

  • colnago80

    Re Modus @ #12

    Apparently, the Senator who raised the question had access to the addendum. What should give the supporters of this agreement pause is Kerry’s refusal to even discuss it, let alone deny it. Now it is, of course possible, that we have other means to determine if the agreement is being violated at this particular site. However, I follow former President Reagan, trust but verify and Kerry has done nothing to verify that these other means exist.

  • Chris J

    @colnago80:

    One thing we know it contains is a pass for Iran to self inspect the Parchin nuclear military base. According to the questioning of Kerry at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he declined to discuss the claim by one senator that the inspectors will not be allowed to inspect Parchin but will have access to soil samples to be collect by Iran unaccompanied by inspectors allegedly from the neighborhood of the base.

    Adding a bit of a tangent to Modus’s mentioning of the separate IAEA agreement concerning Parchin, there’s this article by linked to by Mano Singham a while back. Read it.

    When assessing this deal, you have to look at it from either side, and you have to keep in mind that Iran is not an ally willing to do anything for the US, and the US does not hold unlimited power over Iran. In that context, and in the context of the US’s history in the middle east, it’s kind of mind-blowing that the deal that was made even got as far as it did.

    Also worth reading this interview linked to by Ed Brayton a little while back, giving the view of an actual expert on the deal.

  • John Hinkle

    Removing the economic pressures of sanctions frustrates the hopes of the Iranian people for freedom and democracy.

    I know. After the Agreement was signed, I saw the Iranians take to the streets in angry protest. You could tell they were angry by all the smiling and chanting and horn honking.

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

    colnago80 “Apparently, the Senator who raised the question had access to the addendum. What should give the supporters of this agreement pause is Kerry’s refusal to even discuss it, let alone deny it…”

    Exactly. Ignore the troubling Sen Risch happily chatting about what might or might not be the contents of a classified document (and on top of that, whether that is itself is based on a good or poor reading, and on top of that whether it`s a good or bad faith argument) in public, where Kerry can`t discuss it.

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

    Chris J Also “Also worth reading this interview linked to by Ed Brayton….”

    Ed Brayton`s blog is the most anti-Semitic of all the blogs. Plus he favoringly quotes Glenn Greenwald.

     

    “…giving the view of an actual expert on the deal.”

    Everybody knows that actual experts on the deal are the most anti-Semitic experts. Etc.

  • colnago80

    Re Chris J @ #15

    I no longer visit Prof. Singham’s site but, given that he is on record as stating that if Israel has nuclear weapons, then Iran is entitled to have nuclear weapons, I would be extremely wary of anything he links to or says.

    The problem with the kind of thinking implied by the some of the supporters of the agreement is the assumption that Iran holds all the cards. Thus, we entered this negotiation from a position of weakness, which is not conducive to reaching an agreement acceptable to us. Actually, contrary to the position of the administration, we hold the biggest card of all, namely the threat of using military force. If we had to, we could bomb Iran off the face of the earth and we should have let them know that we were prepared to do so if they didn’t say uncle. What is required is inspections anywhere, any time. It’s that simple and it should have been our bottom line.

  • colnago80

    Re Modus @ #17

    My position would be, if I were in the Senate, he he is not prepared to discuss it, then we should not be prepared to approve it.

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

    I no longer visit Prof. Singham’s site but, given that he is on record as stating that if Israel has nuclear weapons, then Iran is entitled to have nuclear weapons, I would be extremely wary of anything he links to or says.

    I don’t remember Singham saying that, but a) he’s said far more intelligent things than that, and you’re being dishonest by pretending that one statement is at all representative of the caliber of his commentary; and b) that one (alleged) statement of his is a hell of a lot more credible than most of the shit you’ve said.

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

    colnago80`s right. We should’ve started the “negotiations” by threatening them, threatened them throughout the “negotiations”, then punched each and every Iranian square in the face after getting everything we wanted. We hold all the cards. And those cards are fists. And Iran`s hand is the Dead Man`s hand. And our hand is also a fist.

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

    colnago80 “My position would be, if I were in the Senate, he he is not prepared to discuss it, then we should not be prepared to approve it.”

    Obviously. I mean, if Kerry isn`t willing to discuss a classified document in public…

  • colnago80

    Re Raging Bee @ #21

    I distinctly remember him writing that because he wrote it in response to a comment I made on his blog. However, that was far from the only evidence he provides as to his bias against the State of Israel. As an advocate of free speech, IMHO, he is entitled to his views about the State of Israel, and I am entitled to eschew reading his blog.

  • colnago80

    Re Modus @ #23

    Then I would have asked him why the document was classified when the main agreement was not.

  • Chris J

    @colnago80:

    The problem with the kind of thinking implied by the some of the supporters of the agreement is the assumption that Iran holds all the cards. Thus, we entered this negotiation from a position of weakness, which is not conducive to reaching an agreement acceptable to us.

    No. The problem is thinking that we entered the negotiation from a position of absolute strength. The problem is in thinking that Iran held no “cards” at all. The problem is in thinking the negotiation really should have been a command.

    You will not find a supporter of the deal who thought that the US entered negotiations “from a position of weakness,” that’s ridiculous. Seriously, read the links I gave you, particularly the one about the arms proliferation expert.

    What you will find, however, is opponents of the deal who think that the actual “deal” part (where the US doesn’t get 100% of what it could ever want) is a sign of weakness.

    Actually, contrary to the position of the administration, we hold the biggest card of all, namely the threat of using military force. If we had to, we could bomb Iran off the face of the earth and we should have let them know that we were prepared to do so if they didn’t say uncle.

    One word. Iraq.

    We could never “bomb Iran off the face of the earth.” Technically we have the firepower, but such an act would be political suicide and would mark the US as a rabid dog to the rest of the world. Even limited to normal war with Iran, that wouldn’t fly either abroad or at home.

    But seriously, are you truly suggesting that we bomb Iran simply because they wouldn’t agree to a deal that imposes extreme measures in order to prevent access to nuclear weapons they don’t even have yet? I’ve never heard of a flimsier excuse to attack a sovereign nation before in my life. It’s worse than the excuse given to attack Iraq.

    What is required is inspections anywhere, any time. It’s that simple and it should have been our bottom line.

    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/15/irans-refusal-allow-notice-inspections-legit-u-s-history-iraq/

    It never would have flown, and Iran would not have agreed. Then, in your hypothetical better plan, the US would be forced to carry through with its threat to “bomb Iran off the face of the earth.” I’m sure that would turn out just fine.

  • colnago80

    Re Modus @ #23

    Another approach we could take relative to Parchin is that we consider that site, along with any other site that we wish to have inspected to be subject to such inspections. If they refuse, we should inform them that the site will be destroyed by bombing unless they knuckle under.

  • Chris J

    Why don’t we just annex Iran as part of the US? It’d be much easier than having to do all this hard “negotiation” stuff. Then we could make them do whatever we want them to do. Threaten to blow up anyone who tries to stop us, maybe take some of the surrounding territory as well. Bonus, we get the oil we so desperately want!

    Then, at last, the comparisons to the third Reich will be appropriate.

  • colnago80

    Re Chris J @ #26

    Ole Chris is 100% wrong. We entered from a position of weakness because our position was that destroying Iran’s nuclear sites by bombing was off the table. We claimed that a military option was not off the table but Iran knew we were bluffing.

    As for Iraq, our purpose was to remove Saddam from power. It was obvious that he had no nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, or bacterial weapons as they have not been found and that, contrary to the lies put out by the Cheney administration, the inspectors had done their job.

  • colnago80

    Re Chris J @ #28

    The reason this is infeasible is the we would have to occupy the country. How did that work out in Iraq?

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

    colnago80 “eschew”

    Gesundheit.

     

    “Then I would have asked him why the document was classified when the main agreement was not.”

    Exactly. It should all be out in the open. Even classified agreements between the IAEA, Iran and not the USA.

     

    Chris J “But seriously, are you truly suggesting that we bomb Iran simply because they wouldn’t agree to a deal that imposes extreme measures in order to prevent access to nuclear weapons they don’t even have yet?”

    But how can we know they don’t have them if, via this agreement, we’re allowed to look? The only way we can know for sure is to close our eyes. That’s common sense.

  • Chris J

    Psh, if I’m “old” compared to you, colnago80, then I weep for anyone who takes you remotely seriously.

    We entered from a position of weakness because our position was that destroying Iran’s nuclear sites by bombing was off the table.

    Some would call that reasonable. Do the sanctions mean nothing to you in terms of the US’s relative “strength?” Seriously, we imposed sanctions, then struck a deal that traded lifting those sanctions for incapacitating Iran’s nuclear program and implementing an incredible amount of access and oversight. How in the world could the US have come to the table “in a position of weakness?”

    Oh yeah, rhetorical question. It’s a “position of weakness” to fools who can only think in terms of threats of violence.

  • Chris J

    colnago80@30:

    The reason this is infeasible is the we would have to occupy the country. How did that work out in Iraq?

    Sorry, perhaps I should have put massive sarcasm tags around that post. It’s purpose was to point out how absurd your tactic of “make a demand and blow shit up if they don’t comply” is, and how it necessarily leads to escalation.

  • colnago80

    Re Chris J @ #33

    You could also place an End snark or /snark after the statement indicating that it is not a serious proposal.

  • Die Anyway

    I think I understand Colnago80. We should use The Bomb on Iran to prevent them from getting The Bomb because they are not trustworthy enough not to actually use The Bomb whereas we can have it because we would never use… umm… errr… maybe I don’t understand Colnago80 after all.

  • Chris J

    @colnago80:

    True, true. I mean, saying that the US would finally become Nazi Germany is just a bit too subtle.

    @Die Anyway

    colnago80 is like quantum physics. Anyone who says they understand colnago80 doesn’t understand colnago80. Unlike quantum physics, however, they are not the best description of reality we currently have.

  • kenn

    #14

    I follow former President Reagan

    Obviously.

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

    colnago80 “You could also place an End snark or /snark after the statement indicating that it is not a serious proposal.”

    And some here would say yours should have some kind of “/belligerent boob” or “/john bolton” tag, but you’ve already got your name at the beginning.

  • colnago80

    Re Chris J @ #36

    Despite having a PhD in elementary particle physics, I freely admit to not understanding quantum mechanics, just like Richard Feynman and Lawrence Krauss.

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

    colnago80, I served with Richard Feynman and Lawrence Krauss. I knew Richard Feynman and Lawrence Krauss. Richard Feynman and Lawrence Krauss was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Richard Feynman and Lawrence Krauss.*

     

    * And also you’re no Senator.

  • Chris J

    I’m starting to get quantum mechanics, bit by bit, despite not having a PhD in anything. Luckily, access to the internet means access to hundreds of different explanations, both good and bad, of the state of the art. My personal biggest hurdle is my lack of intuition with calculus, which is great when everything is described by wave equations.

    On the plus side, I think I finally understand the Bell Inequality and why it was such a big deal when it was broken.

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

    Chris J “Luckily, access to the internet means access to hundreds of different explanations, both good and bad…”

    Every explanation of quantum physics is both good and bad. Simultaneously.

  • Chris J

    @Modusoperandi:

    Every explanation of quantum physics is both good and bad. Simultaneously.

    You aren’t wrong.

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

    We entered from a position of weakness because our position was that destroying Iran’s nuclear sites by bombing was off the table. We claimed that a military option was not off the table but Iran knew we were bluffing.

    We entered from that position because that was the only position available to us. Our inability to attack Iran, without causing unacceptable damage to ourselves and our legitimate interests, is a FACT, plain and simple, and everyone knew it from day one. Grow the fuck up and face the facts already.

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

    If they refuse, we should inform them that the site will be destroyed by bombing unless they knuckle under.

    Step 1: look at a map of Iran and the surrounding region. Step 2: notice a much larger country not far to Iran’s north. Step 3: remember what a huge military force (including nukes) that country has. Step 4: ask yourself how that very large and well-armed country might respond to an unprovoked US attack on one of its nearby neighbors.

  • colnago80

    Re Raging Bee @ #45

    Russia, which is an economic basket case, is in no position to do anything about an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

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

    colnago80 “Russia, which is an economic basket case, is in no position to do anything about an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.”

    And what could they do, anyway? We’re America! (/runs outside, starts throwing punches)

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

    Russia, which is an economic basket case, is in no position to do anything about an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

    Laziest, stupidest, most complacent and wishful-thinking-laden answer ever. You really think countries with shitty economies are never a threat to their neighbors or to regional stability? Iran’s economy isn’t doing all that great either, and you seem to think they’re gonna destroy civilization as we know it any day now. Your “reasoning” is clearly dominated by your bigotry and blood-lust.

    Go to bed, you stupid sack of shit.

  • colnago80

    Re Raging Bee @ #48

    Oh ye of little faith.

  • whheydt

    Re: colnago80 @ #19.

    See: Tom Lehrer on nuclear proliferation.

  • sceptinurse

    @ 50

    I don’t think I can remain serene and calm if Alabama gets the bomb. Especially not these days.

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

    Laugh it up, more people now oppose the agreement with Iran then support it.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/28/politics/obama-approval-iran-economy/

    Goodness, the polling on the issue is all over the place. More polls show majority approval than disapproval. As usual, it depends on the wording of the question. If you just say “Iran deal” and don’t explain what that means, most people reject it, which is hardly surprising because most people don’t know what that means, only that Iran is bad. If you explain what the deal actually is, most people approve of it. This is not evidence that it’s a bad deal; it’s evidence that it’s a good deal that opponents must keep the public ignorant about.

    Also, this bit from the CNN poll is quite amusing:

    There is also an education divide on the deal, with 53% of college graduates saying the deal should be approved, while just 37% of those with a high school degree or less formal education saying they think it should be approved.

    Are you under attack from the intelligent, educated segment of the population again?

  • Al Dente

    In 2013 Russia commissioned the first Borei class missile submarine (SSBN), also called the Dolgorukiy class after the lead vessel. By 2015 two others had entered service. This class will replace the aging Delta class, and carries 16 solid-fuel RSM-56 Bulava missiles, with a reported range of 10,000 kilometres (5,400 nmi) and six MIRV warheads.

    The Russians think they have a credible nuclear missile force.

  • Holms

    #4 colnago80

    Laugh it up, more people now oppose the agreement with Iran then support it.

    More americans oppose the agreement, you mean. What about the other signatory nations’ polulations? I think you will find the pro-Israel lobby is much weaker elsewhere in the world; I think you will find the opposition in the minority.

    And even then, since when is foreign diplomacy up for polular vote? Oh right, it isn’t. Imagine the zany shit nations would get up to if it was the case, and you will quickly see why it cannot be so.

    ___

    #7 colnago80

    Although this is a typical Modus snark, it’s actually true as regards US media. At least it is the most anti Israel major US media. Of course, compared to the Guardian and the BBC, it’s pretty tepid in that regard.

    Funny how you’re fine with using supposedly anti-semitic channels when it suits you, where you would normally dismiss them any time someone uses them as a source critical of Israel. Hmm, it’s almost as if they actually aren’t anti-semitic, you just dismiss them as such whenever they are inconvenient to your Israel boner. You know, like in comment #11. Oh and dismissing everything said by Mano Singham specifically due to his criticisms of Israel.

    ___

    #19

    The problem with the kind of thinking implied by the some of the supporters of the agreement is the assumption that Iran holds all the cards. Thus, we entered this negotiation from a position of weakness, which is not conducive to reaching an agreement acceptable to us.

    Flatly untrue, or have you (conveniently) forgotten that Iran was bargaining with an internation trade sanction held to the throat of their economy?

    If we had to, we could bomb Iran off the face of the earth and we should have let them know that we were prepared to do so if they didn’t say uncle. What is required is inspections anywhere, any time. It’s that simple and it should have been our bottom line.

    a) Fuck off.

    b) It’s been clear for a long time already, but this comment absolutely exemplifies the utter paucity of your political thought.

    ___

    #35 Die Anyway

    I think I understand Colnago80. We should use The Bomb on Iran to prevent them from getting The Bomb because they are not trustworthy enough not to actually use The Bomb whereas we can have it because we would never use… umm… errr… maybe I don’t understand Colnago80 after all.

    His thought process is laughably simplistic: Iran has a giant “BADDIES” label on them, whereas Israel (and the people that fawningly agree to their wishes) has the reverse. Thus, the possibility that Iran might have nukes at some hazy point in the future makes them a worldwide existential threat, but Israel already having nukes is not. Similarly, acts of violence by a designated Bad Team (such as the sporadic, ineffective rocket fire from the Gaza strip aimed at Israel) are acts of terrorism, whereas Israel doing the same things but much much more effectively and in reverse direction are acts of justice, praised for their ‘unprecedented restraint’ among other ludicrous shit.

    Or in other words, colnago’s thought on foreign policy has all the nuance of a children’s cartoon. Not the artistic or funny ones, but the sort that has lots of explosions, screams, and heroes spouting corny lines against card carrying villains.

    Or, all the nuance of a typical neocon.

    (Sorry #36 Chris, I really can’t agree that there is any depth to this fucking warmonger.)

  • Synfandel

    What Holms said.

  • dingojack

    One day SLC went it the faculty kitchen only to discover that someone had drunk the last of the milk and placed the carton back into the fridge

    After some pant-wetting, whining and tantrums, he cited an sooper-secret addendum (that nobody else had so much as heard of, let alone sighted) that some unnamed senator claimed to have read purporting to authorise all milk inspections in this fridge to be conducted only by SLC!

    Having broken this sacred oath, SLC had no other option even vaguely available to him – he ordered a surgical strike of 1170Mt of nuke destruction on the kitchen from space (it’s the only way to be sure) because you just can’t trust insane academics to act in their own best interests (such as not ordering nuclear strikes) even if you can, because of – reasons.

    Sure the nuclear fallout affected a huge area, sure there was decades of drought, freezing temperatures and the deaths of billions of people, but nobody would put a empty milk-carton back into that fridge ever again, would they!?!

    And anyone one who disagrees (or even has the temerity to vaguely criticise the action) is

    the biggest, mostest, meanest anti-Semite in the whole universe throughout all of time and space and a total poop-head to boot! No repeatsies, my ad hom beats all arguments always — so nyarrr!

    [Shorter SLC]

    Having settled this ridiculous position let’s get back to having an adult conversation about the real issues…

    Dingo

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

    dingojack “Having settled this ridiculous position let’s get back to having an adult conversation about the real issues…”

    Are you new to the internet? They’re still arguing over who was the best Star Trek captain.*

     

    * For the record, it’s Tom Baker.

  • colnago80

    The long arm of the IAF.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/29/us-mideast-crisis-syria-attack-idUSKCN0Q311T20150729

    Re Holms @ #54

    Shorter Holms: The ayatollahs are a bunch of sweethearts who only wish the best for the USA.

  • jblackfyre

    @colnago80 #19:

    Actually, contrary to the position of the administration, we hold the biggest card of all, namely the threat of using military force. If we had to, we could bomb Iran off the face of the earth and we should have let them know that we were prepared to do so if they didn’t say uncle. What is required is inspections anywhere, any time. It’s that simple and it should have been our bottom line.

    Then, when the Iranis declined, you would bomb and kill their entire population for the threat of them having a bomb? It’s really people like you that makes them want to have a bomb in the first place.

    You’re not only a despicable person, but also counterproductive.

  • freehand

    Me: “Pick a number of cards between zero and seven”.

    Colnago80: “Seven.”

    Me: “OK, that was a little ambiguous, sorry. Pick a number of cards higher than zero and less than seven.”

    Colnago80: “Seven.”

    Me: “No, less than seven and greater than zero.”

    Colnago80: “Sev… no, zero!”

    Me, slowly: “Less than seven and greater than zero.”

    Colnago80: “I don’t understand what you mean.”

    .

    Seriously, do you not understand that “not all” does not equal “none”?

  • freehand

    Hmmm. That kid across the street is dressed like a gangster. Maybe I should kill him – after all, he may become a gangster some day. It’s the right thing to do, right? And what possible repercussions could there be?