Iran

Obama Praises New Iran Nuclear Deal, Netanyahu Not a Fan

|

Credit: Pete Souza/wikimedia

Last night, it was reported that the P5+1 countries (the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany) had reached a deal with Iran over its nuclear program after meetings in Geneva.

Some of the requirements in the deal include Iran halting uranium beyond 5 percent and allowing inspectors daily access to the Natanz and Fordo nuclear sites in exchange for economic assistance in the form of sanctions relief. For a full outline of the conditions of the deal click here.  

In a brief statement last night President Obama called the deal "an important first step," adding that, "Since I took office, I've made clear my determination to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

Although a commitment from the P5+1 countries to not impose any new nuclear-related sanctions on Iran for six months is part of the economic assistance included in the deal, the "overwhelming majority of the sanctions regime, including the key oil, banking, and financial sanctions architecture, remains in place."

According to the Associated Press, the deal comes after a series of secret meetings between the U.S. and Iran over the past year, which helped pave the way for the deal announced yesterday.

Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu has said that the deal is "a historic mistake," and that "this agreement has made the world a much more dangerous place."

Watch Netanyahu's comments below:

Read Reason's Ed Krayewski's case against new sanctions on Iran here.

NEXT: Screw Sunday Yak Shows: Watch Wired Co-Founder Louis Rossetto Talk About Digital Revolution!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Fuck Netanyahu – that warmongering piece of shit. Israel can’t use Obama like they used Bush.

    1. Sure they can. They are too smart not to adjust their tatics accordingly.

      The Syrian WMD incident proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Obama is in over his head when trying to play geopolitics.

      1. I totally took this move to be ‘Sign *something* with Iran so we can push the news cycle off of Obamacare.’

        F*ck our allies and F*ck domestic policy, just do what it takes to keep the party faithful from being ousted. Obama is in over his head trying to govern, not so much when playing politics.

        Guess he has to do something to earn that peace prize at some point.

    2. Better the US get used by Israel than by Iran. Though I doubt Valerie Jarrett, Obama, and you see it that way.

    3. The only reason they didn’t use Obama to attack Syria is because Americans didn’t want that war.

      1. If they didn’t use Obama to attack Syria it’s because they didn’t want Obama to attack Syria.

        I can’t imagine “they” caring what Americans want ahead of what “they” want.

        1. The last thing that Israel wants is to have Assad overthrown.

          1. Yes, as bad as Assad is for the Syrians, he was not a problem for Israel. If he leaves, one of Israel’s border states will be run by a radical Islamic group. Much more chance of war with Israel.

    4. Now Obama’s selling out the Jews? Not gonna help that “secret Muslim” nonsense to stop.

      1. People that believe that wont stop believing it no matter what Obama does.

      2. That he was raised Muslim is no secret. It was during his stay in Indonesia. You can’t look it up if you don’t want to.

    5. Ha, ha. Syria and Egypt exposed Obama is not all that cool.

    6. Israel can’t use Obama like they used Bush.

      Nevermind the years of Hilary telling us that Iran was weeks away from constructing THE BOMB.

      It will be fun in 2 years when Shrike is telling us that Hilary is the clear libertarian choice.

  2. “Israel doesn’t have legitimacy right now … to conduct an independent military option against Iranian installations,” said Yoel Guzansky, a former Israeli National Security Council staffer who was responsible for monitoring the Iranian nuclear program.

    “How can Israel, after the entire international community sat with Iran, shook hands with Iran and signed an agreement, operate independently?” he said. “It will be seen as someone who sabotages 10 years of trying to get Iran to the table and trying to get a deal.” AP

    Fuck you, Netanyahu. Sheldon Adelson could not buy you your war with your fellow GOP warmongers.

    1. Peace in our time!

      1. Israel has an enormous nuclear arsenal.

        1. And leaders in Iran have said they’d be willing to sacrifice their country if it meant the destruction of Israel. Do not assume Iran will act rationally.

          1. And our leaders have said if you like your healthcare plan you can keep it.

          2. Yes. They say that protecting Islam, the religion of peace, is why they want to destroy Israel.

            Not the ground area that is Iran.

        2. “Israel has an enormous nuclear arsenal.”

          Rumors.

          They don’t need an enormous one. Just a handful or so. An enormous one would be harder to hide and expensive to maintain.

  3. Israel just wants to stay our best friend and gets jealous any time we’re nice to anyone else.

  4. The less support we give to the Israeli war machine, the safer the whole world will be.

    1. What’s the three-“r” Warrren doing around here? Do you know who this fellow is?

      1. I’m the OG Warren. Not affiliated with the three r’s guy.

        1. Don’t forget Jugwine Warren.

    2. The world is safer with support to the Iranian war machine…?

      1. In peacenazi world, all war is because of IsraeliMerica.

      2. Lifting a few sanctions is supporting a war machine?

        1. Yes, because the money Iran will now get will support their war machine (and their terror machine).

          1. It’s the US’s business to play World Cop?

            Sanctions are an awesome way to entrench an extremist regime, case-in-point Castro, Myanmar, NK, etc.

            1. Iran’s terror has affected and killed Americans see Khobar Towers.

              Sanctions don’t always keep regimes in place. Apartheid for instance. There’s no way to know.

              1. Ha ha Apartheid, I can’t believe you brought up Apartheid. SA sanctions sorta worked because the regime wasn’t even close to a murderous regime, they were pretty moderate despite all the hype. The same can be said for Ghandi type non-violent protest. Works against the British who were going to leave anyway, not so well in the Democratic Republic of Congo. There’s no way to know how well SA sanctions worked I agree with that. Please name another example where sanctions appeared to work?

                Sanctions have a very long and clear track record of entrenching extremist regimes. I think history has made that very clear. This is above and beyond the libertarian point that it’s none of the US government’s business in the first place.

                1. Please name another example where sanctions appeared to work?

                  Sanctions enacted against Italy following their invasion of Ethopia critically weakened Italy’s military capability with serious positive consequences on the outcome of WWII.

                  1. Italy was so pathetically weak they took forever to beat up the Ethiopians. They also screwed over Hitler with their shenanigans and would have been much more useful if they had stayed neutral like Spain did.

                    To claim sanctions weakened Italy is bizarre.

                    1. Scarecrow, Italy didn’t ‘screw over Hitler.’ The Germans were doing their own bits of screwing over. I suggest you reread that part of history as it was a tad more complex than you suggest.

                    2. They also had a moral crisis – including Mussolini- when they saw what the psycho Germans were up to. The fact remains the people of Italy never felt themselves Axis and this was problematic from the get go.

                    3. If Italy had remained neutral, the allies could never have tied up so many German resources. The allies might not have gotten any experience in North Africa or Italy and been much easier to fight when the continental invasion finally took place.

                      If Italy hadn’t invaded the Balkans and Hitler hadn’t rescued them, they would have remained neutral too, and Hitler would have have a six week earlier start in its Russian invasion, which might not have helped in the long run, but wouldn’t have hurt.

                      You even admit the Italians were a counterproductive ally in your next comment.

                      History? Maybe you’ve heard of it, but not much.

                    4. Hisory ?

                      If this and if that then this if wouldn’t have happened if that if hadn’t iffed.

                      You call your post “history” ?

                      I call it ifftory.

                    5. If, if, if.

                      I’m suggesting you read your argument from Italy’s perspective. I understand the position is to think Italy ‘backstabbed’ those psychopaths but there’s an another side to this argument.

                      Is all.

                    6. He’s right though. The lack of tungsten absolutely crippled their ability to produce tanks. They also had a hard time getting decent steel.

                2. That’s some interesting arguments. If sanction are that bad why are they doing it? Stupidity?

            2. It’s the US’s business to play World Cop?

              Generally, no. But it’s foolish to ignore the real and serious threat of nukes in the hands of an irrational, US-hating, Jew-hating, apocalyptic, terror-supporting regime.

              1. Generally, no. But it’s foolish to ignore the real and serious threat of nukes in the hands of an irrational, US-hating, Jew-hating, apocalyptic, terror-supporting regime.

                It would be like 911 time a billion.

  5. You all are making the assumption that Obama and the rest of the International community did not get played. Considering North Korea and it’s quest for nuclear weapons, I don’t think we can assume that.

    For the record this is not stating a position on whether Iran should or should not have nuclear weapons.

    1. Daily plant inspections and no uranium above 5% while keeping the sanctions pressure on them.

      Not played.

      See 2002-03 with Curveball conveniently lying to Bush/Cheney to see “getting played”. Of course, WE got played. They got their useless expensive war.

      1. I remember TOP men assuring us North Korea would not get nuclear weapons after another such agreement. A year or two later, North Korea detonated a nuclear bomb.

        So sue me if I don’t take Obama’s (and other TOP men’s) word for it.

      2. Inspections of which plants? The ones they acknowledge?

        1. Hey! Look over there!

      3. “Not played.”

        It’s cute that you still beleive that, it means their con was better than average.

        1. “Can we talk about something, no matter how horrible it may be, other than Obamacare” – Prez Obama

      4. But Booosh Booosh !

      5. inspections of the “declared” sites – so only where Iran will allow them to go.

  6. At his press conference, Obama waived the signed agreement around while proclaim peace in our time.

    1. He finally did something to deserve his peace prize.

      About time I say.

      1. It seems to me that you might be giving Barack Obama credit for something the Europeans did.

        Check out this piece from over a year ago:

        https://reason.com/blog/2012/10…..io#comment

        Not everything that happens in the world is a direct result of Barack Obama–although some people seem to think so.

        You can see where I stated–over a year ago–that if the sanctions work, the Europeans should be given the Nobel Peace Prize at this link here:

        https://reason.com/blog/2012/10…..nt_3315006

        None of this is definite yet, but, Shrike, if you ever get around to scoring a point for Barack Obama the Europeans, make sure you score one for Ken Shultz,too.

      2. Oh shut up Palin. That’s not an act that deserves that prize FIVE YEARS later.

        Get bent.

  7. Badly played, as are any negotiations with the people who aren’t actually in power. He’s as incompetent at foreign policy as he is at domestic policy. Afghanistan likewise.

    Thank the FSM that Russia prevented him from badly screwing the pooch on Syria as well. Everything Obama touches turns to shit. I didn’t think we could have a worse president than Bush, but Obama continually proves me wrong.

    1. Because you’re an idiot. Just on foreign policy the Iraq War remains the biggest fuckup since Vietnam. There is nothing close to it.

      1. We’ll have to see what precedent launching Stuxnet will set. Your precious banks might not be ready for the responses.

      2. This is the sound someone makes when Obama’s dick is halfway down their throat.

        1. Thinking the Iraq War was the biggest disaster since Vietnam is equivalent to performing fellatio on Barak Obama?

          It is hard for me to think of which objection, from a libertarian perspective, to offer up first to that.

          1. “It is hard for me to think of which objection, from a libertarian perspective, to offer up first to that.”

            It’s hard for any of us to pretend we care wht you think after months of trolling us.

          2. “Thinking the Iraq War was the biggest disaster since Vietnam is equivalent to performing fellatio on Barak Obama?”

            No Bo it’s not. But continually defending and praising “He Who Is Beyond Reproach Or You Are A Racist” is, and that’s what the Butt Plug does.

            1. Fair enough, but even a broken clock, or an incompetent vainglorious President as the case may be, is correct sometimes.

              1. That is a trueism.

                But when is one to know the difference ?

              2. Not this time, no. In aggregate, Obama has inflicted much more damage on the world.

          3. Sorry, Bo, couldn’t hear you with Obama’s cock so far down your throat, say again?

          4. How is Iraq as bad as Vietnam? Just the body count alone and the aftershocks don’t even compare.

            1. To be fair, he did say since Vietnam.

      3. Please explain how the Iraq conflict is any worse than Afghanistan. While I agree that we went into Iraq based on bad intelligence which even if true posed no immediate threat to the United States, at least we no longer have a substantial troop presence there. There is no end in sight to our involvement in Afghanistan which, even if you agree that we should have invaded, would seem to have nothing to recommend our continued presence.

        While I’m at it, while I’m fine with Israel existing and think they have every right to defend themselves, I fail to see why it’s our responsibility to put our lives and treasure on the line to insure their continued security. Its been fifty years since Israel was created, when do they get to stand on their own feet? Also, how is Iran with a nuclear bomb worse than North Korea with one, or even more so Pakistan, which the last time I checked is much less stable than Iran is?

        1. From a strictly geopolitical point of view, Israel offered the West a ready made beachhead if the Soviets invaded the Middle East oil fields during the Cold War.

          I guess things have just continued on from there. It doesn’t seem that Israel is really OUR friend when you think about that ship of ours they attacked.

          And a lot of our continued support for Israel through the years has been Biblical based, right or wrong.

        2. The jihadis are obsessed with Israel because that place used to belong to a good muslim sharia country/territory. They can’t allow infidels to invade their lands.
          Once they get rid of Israel it’ll be something else they’ll try to “take back” through terrorism & political maneuvering from the infidel, like Moorish Spain or southern France. Israel acts as a bulwark against this. Since Israel is quite Jewy it also keeps the anti-christian sentiment down in the House of Peace, but it’s meant that anti-semitism is rampant.

    2. That’s a very strong point Candy Man.

      The Ayatollahs rule Iran and the West is negotiating with the politicians who take orders from the theocratics who rule the politicians..

  8. How a nutcase conservative community views the deal (Bratfart):


    Deal with the Devil: Iran Buys Time to Develop Nukes

    In a negotiated deal that apparently allows Iran off the hook with regard to nuclear development and goes soft on verification protocols with regard to nuclear disarmament, the United States, along with France, Germany, China, Russia, Great Britain, and the European Union, has now endorsed an easing of sanctions on the Shiite theocracy. by Ben Shapiro

  9. Given that it’s a plan that involved input from Barack Obama, I assume this is going to be a catastrophe.

    1. Irish|11.24.13 @ 10:54AM|#
      “Given that it’s a plan that involved input from Barack Obama, I assume this is going to be a catastrophe.”

      And it’ll be amusing watching shreek spin the disaster after his victory laps.

      1. He’ll just do like Tony did with O’care.

        He’ll suddenly find himself too busy to come to Reason and comment.

        Pressing issues, you know.

        1. Hey, now. Trying to enroll for Obamacare is a full-time job!

  10. This is a re-run of the 94 negotiations when the Clinton Regime announced that they had ensured there would be no nukes on the Korean Peninsula. That worked out well and so will this.

    Anything to distract from OCare, the economy, and the rest of this scandal-plagued criminal banana republic regime.

    1. “Anything to distract from OCare,…”

      And here’s your morning dose of, well, something:
      “More say doctors should try to save lives – always”
      […]
      despite concerns over the costs and consequences of such intensive care.”

      No, it’s not ‘despite’, it’s ’cause they all think O’care will cover it on someone else’s dime
      http://www.sfgate.com/health/a…..006405.php

  11. “President Obama called the deal “an important first step,” adding that, “Since I took office, I’ve made clear my determination to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

    If it wasn’t for Barack Obama, we wouldn’t even know that we didn’t want Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

    1. Yeah, that’s what I thought. This will probably end up with Obama’s DOD sending plutonium to Iran through the mail and Obama will be totally suprised when he reads about it in the morning papers.

      Maybe the Israelis and Saudis think the same thing. Their anti-Iranian alliance should be entertaining at least.

  12. You’ll have to forgive my owner for being a little agitated this morning; he’s got the blue balls going and is feeling a little down.

  13. “economic assistance in the form of sanctions relief. ”

    That’s not assistance, that’s backing off on the interference.

    -jcr

  14. Did anyone else see John Kerry yesterday say that he disagrees with those who think ‘war is a first resort.’

    Two thoughts:

    1. Nice strawman.

    2. Aren’t you the one who tried to bumblefuck our way into Syria?

    1. That was before the government shutdown, so doesn’t count. Democrats get a restart button on the purity of their essence when that happens.

    2. Well said on your point 2, but regarding your part one I think Kerry and Obama have, for once, ‘done good’ in resisting the steady drumbeat from some on the right to escalate tensions into conflict with Iran. If this deal is part of that, then I think it is great.

      1. I think that you can be opposed to this particular deal without believing war is the first option. I didn’t see many conservatives arguing that we should go to war with Iran.

        1. Er, ‘bomb, bomb Iran?’

          1. That was years ago. The point is that he was specifically talking about this deal. There is no current desire among any major political group in America for war with Iran.

            If he’d said this in 2006 in regards to the warmongering psychotics raving about Iran in those days, his point would be valid. He’s not though. He’s talking about it in a time when no one has any desire for another Middle East war.

            1. Are you kidding, or do you not read The Weekly Standard or, say, Commentary? There is significant pressure from the right to keep the military option via Iran at the forefront.

              1. The Weekly Standard and Commentary? What’s the circulation of those two magazines?

                According to the internet:

                Commentary Magazine: 25,000

                Weekly Standard: A little over 60,000, according to their advertising page.

                Assuming there is no one in the country who gets both the Weekly Standard and Commentary, which is unlikely since they sell to identical demographics, that’s 85,000 people in a country of 315 million who receive one of these magazines.

                More importantly, saying ‘we should keep the military OPTION open’ is not saying that we should go to war with Iran. Saying we should keep the option on the table is therefore different than saying war should be our ‘first resort.’

                1. I do not know what to tell you if you think Weekly Standard and Commentary do not have an influence among conservatives and their pols that goes beyond their print subscriptions.

                  And they go beyond simply wanting the military option to be on the table, they have called for strikes.

                  http://www.weeklystandard.com/…..50284.html

                  http://www.weeklystandard.com/…..tml?page=3

                  1. They were also applauding the prospect of war with Syria. Given that most Republicans ended up being opposed to that intervention, the idea that the Weekly Standard continues to have the same pull among Republicans aw in the early decade strikes me as absurd and an example of 2005 thinking.

                    1. -Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said on Saturday he will ask Congress to provide President Barack Obama with authorization to use military force against Iran to destroy their nuclear program.

                      http://www.theblaze.com/storie…..st-resort/

                      -Congressman Trent Franks (AZ-08) announced his intention to introduce a resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iran. Franks, who chairs the RSC’s National Security Working Group and the Congressional Israel Allies Caucus, is currently circulating a dear colleague in support of the resolution.

                      http://franks.house.gov/press-…..force-iran

                    2. Was there any legitimate push for such a war?

                      Here’s a Gallup poll.

                      It finds that a grand total of 9% of Americans favor a military intervention right now, with eight-six percent favoring either a diplomatic solution or no action.

                      Are you really telling me that these warmongers Kerry is telling us to fear would have found any support for a conflict that 90% of Americans oppose? You can hardly get 90% of Americans to agree that the sky is blue.

                    3. Irish, what percent of people polled before 9/11 would have said they wanted to go to war with Iraq?

                    4. -A resolution that would authorize the use of military force against Iran is gaining traction in the conservative wing of the House of Representatives, with over a dozen new co-sponsors signing on in the last two days as the administration presses Congress to lay off new Iran sanctions.

                      The “United States-Iran Nuclear Negotiations Act,” introduced earlier this month by Arizona Rep. Trent Franks, would green-light the president’s ability to use the U.S. military against Iran if nuclear negotiations fail and Iran develops a nuclear weapon.

                      Thirteen new members of Congress signed on as co-sponsors to the bill this week, upping the total to 28 co-sponsors, including Tea Party stalwarts like Rep. Steve King and Rep. Louie Gohmert.

                      http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosieg…..conservati

                    5. -Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said on Saturday he will ask Congress to provide President Barack Obama with authorization to use military force against Iran to destroy their nuclear program.

                      Which is nothing more than another attempt by Lindthy to cut the legs off of his primary opponents.

                    6. Irish, let me conclude with this.

                      I did not say that conservatives en masse were beating the war drums. Clearly the conservative movement has been stung by their lemur-like support for what has widely been acknowledged as a disaster/waste in Iraq, and many of them are reluctant to make explicit statements pushing for outright war. They do consistently talk about ‘taking a harder stand’ Iraq, criticize efforts to end this diplomatically, and loudly call for the military option to be ‘put on the table’ instead of these efforts. Given their past support for war forgive me if you think I am reading too much into that. But apart from that there are the usual suspects pushing for outright authorization to use military force. Perhaps they have not won over most of the right yet, but all I said was that there was a ‘steady drumbeat from some on the right to escalate tensions into conflict with Iran.’ And there certainly is such a drumbeat from some (including, as you can see, some high ranking national security conservative pols). I will close by noting that that ‘some’ includes people who seem to often end up convincing Republican administrations to take their advice, so, for once, I am glad Obama has declined them on this.

                    7. Obama seems to be more willing to bomb Syria and Assad, who’s opponent is Al Queda linked, than Iran, who is Al Queda sympathetic.

                      Is that not so ?

            2. You don’t understand the peacenazis Irish. To them, we are forever on the brink of every war ever all because of the ever-powerful NEOCONS, which is their version of Koch. Nevermind that Iran is the actual warmonger here.

  15. You can’t do that!

    The Association of Flight Attendants, the world’s largest union of flight attendants, came out against the idea on Thursday, citing safety and security concerns.

    “In far too many operational scenarios, passengers making phone calls could extend beyond a mere nuisance, creating negative effects on aviation safety and security that are great and far too risky,” the AFA said in a statement.

    Airlines should be run expressly for the convenience of the employees.

    Sit down and shut up, you worthless cattle.

    1. (CNN) — Commercial air travel is already filled with annoyances like shrinking personal space, overpriced meals and frequent delays. For many people, there’s one bright spot to flying: A forced break from making, receiving and hearing phone calls.

      I take buses frequently. I also ride the train from my town into Chicago at least once a week.

      In both of those places there is no rule against using cell phones, and yet very rarely is there a problem. Most people are conscientious of everyone around them when they’re making a call.

      This is yet another example of a puritan assuming everyone else is a moron that must be controlled.

      1. “In both of those places there is no rule against using cell phones, and yet very rarely is there a problem. Most people are conscientious of everyone around them when they’re making a call.”

        I guess you should feel lucky that you don’t live in the NYC area. I hate to admit this, but I wish they banned cells on public transportation. Nothing like listening to someone screech nothingness into their cell at 7AM.

      2. “In both of those places there is no rule against using cell phones, and yet very rarely is there a problem. Most people are conscientious of everyone around them when they’re making a call.”

        I guess you should feel lucky that you don’t live in the NYC area. I hate to admit this, but I wish they banned cells on public transportation. Nothing like listening to someone screech nothingness into their cell at 7AM.

        1. I guess I should have adjusted for regional differences.

          1. the formula for NYC is x cubed, where x = average asshole factor

    2. Didn’t those bastards do the same thing when they (as in whoever is in charge of such things) decided to let us plebs again carry pocket knives on airplanes?

      I really hate buying a pocket knife when I go somewhere via air travel.

    3. Not to mention that on board calling will be priced out of reach for most individuals flying coach to begin with.

  16. The world inside Frank Bruni’s head is a strange and terrifying place.

    The Common Core, a laudable set of guidelines that emphasize analytical thinking over rote memorization, has been adopted in more than 40 states. In instances its implementation has been flawed, and its accompanying emphasis on testing certainly warrants debate.

    What’s not warranted is the welling hysteria: from right-wing alarmists, who hallucinate a federal takeover of education and the indoctrination of a next generation of government-loving liberals; from left-wing paranoiacs, who imagine some conspiracy to ultimately privatize education and create a new frontier of profits for money-mad plutocrats.

    INCONCEIVABLE!
    That whole “federal takeover” thing is a fiction. A FICTION, I tell you.

    1. Promoting analytical thinking over rote memorization is good, but if that’s the goal, shouldn’t CC include writing in cursive, too? It currently does not.

      1. There’s nothing wrong with learning basics by memorization in the primary grades. Why do so many students get to post high school and lack basic math and English skills, I’d say it’s a good possibilty they weren’t taught the basics in their early years i elementary school.

  17. I really hate buying a pocket knife when I go somewhere via air travel.

    “Psssst. Hey buddy, I saw you coming in from the jetway. Wanna buy a pocket knife?”

  18. Netanyahu is upset because Obama didn’t promise the mullahs that if they liked their nuclear research program they can keep it.

  19. You never here reason actually take a position on issues like the peace with the Palestinians, the settlements, or Israel’s immigration policy.(People of a specific ethnic group are allowed guaranteed immigration, doesn’t sound libertarian to me) You only ever hear “America should not get involved.” It’ not because Israel is a foreign country, Reason tells foreign countries what to do all the time. Rather cowardly IMO.

    1. Yeah, those darn jooooze, right?

  20. A teacher on Long Island did more than wonder, speaking out at a forum two weeks ago about what she called the Common Core Syndrome, a darkly blooming anxiety among students that’s “directly related to work that they do in the classroom.”

    “If that’s not child abuse, I don’t know what is,” she thundered, to wild applause. Then she endorsed the idea of parents’ exempting kids from Common Core-related tests. “The mommies in New York,” she concluded, “don’t abuse their children.”

    Something tells me this person is much more worried about teacher abuse.

    “I have been using this lesson plan for twenty years. You can’t expect me to just throw it in the trash and start over! That’s nuts.”

    1. “I have been using this lesson plan for twenty years. You can’t expect me to just throw it in the trash and start over! That’s nuts.”

      For Christmas, I want every public school teacher, to spend one week in a private sector job.
      It’s bad enough they have almost 100% job security, get guaranteed pensions, 4 months vacation a year, and a full day of work is maybe 7 hours, but on top of that we have to hear them bitch and moan about how tough they have it.
      A big fuck you to you all.

      1. In fairness, teachers have a tough job. I doubt throwing them into most private sector occupations would demonstrate anything other than how adaptive individuals can be given varying learning curves.

        It’s where compensation and benefits meet performance, as you note, and that’s a lesson learned over years of employment. We shouldn’t denigrate the validity of the job, just the disunion between incentives and reward.

        (Mom’s a teacher, one who spent years butting heads with her administration before finally throwing in the towel in disgust ahead of Common Core this past summer. She was easily among the best in her district, if for no better reason than unflinching standards and pitiless grading, but makes a mistake in thinking what’s necessary is a more accomodating administration rather than radically adjusting the incentive structure.)

  21. If you like your nuclear enrichment program you can keep it.

  22. Doing the People’s business!

    The president is scheduled to arrive at 4:25 p.m. Sunday at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport and will depart at 8:50 a.m. Monday, also from Sea-Tac.

    An airport spokeswoman said air traffic will be halted a little before Air Force One arrives and remain stopped while Obama is at the airport, but she didn’t expect major delays.

    A bigger problem might be getting to or from the airport Sunday or Monday, or driving anywhere in that area, since roads often are shut down for a presidential motorcade. The Washington State Department of Transportation is warning travelers to expect delays on “major highways,” but gives no details.

    Obama is scheduled to attend two fundraisers during his stay ? one in North Seattle on Sunday afternoon, and a second in the evening in Medina on the Eastside.

    1. Yeah, the Bay Area gets it come Monday; his Presence screwing up traffic to tap the local brain-deads for more money.

    2. since roads often are shut down for a presidential motorcade. The Washington State Department of Transportation is warning travelers to expect delays on “major highways,” but gives no details.

      Good thing we got rid of kings to rule over us.

  23. Well, the message for Israel is crystal clear now: if they want to destroy those reactors, they’re going to have to do it themselves.

    1. With Saudi help. Oh man wouldn’t that be awesome? I can think of no better follow-up to Obamacus’s ‘peace in our time’ deal than a headline announcing that Israel is bombing the reactors to bits. I can feel my warboner rising.

      1. While this may yet occur, I believe it more likely they will follow the Stuxnet route and employ cyber warfare to cripple to enrichment plants, or driving truck bomb into an underground facility.

        In the wake of this deal, it might not take long for the Saudis, Egyptians and Turks acquire nukes in response.

  24. So Mr. Buttplug has found something to trumpet as an Obama victory. Wow, congrats! Those have been hard to find of late.

    Of course, odds are that it’s all bullshit. Obama’s current weaknesses (foreign and domestic) would not be unnoticed in Iran. If they are agreeing to anything, it’s because they think they got the better of the deal, and for Iran that does not include abandoning nuclear weapons. Obama, on the other hand, will do pretty much anything for his own short-term political gain, so chances are slim that this in the the US’s interest.

    And it certainly isn’t in Israel’s interest. It should lead to some interesting conversations on Obama’s West Coast fundraising tour.

    1. I think Europeans did more to broker this deal than anyone else, Obama and Kerry probably jumped on the sled once it started down hill, so I would not give them much credit or condemn the plan as another example of his incompetence.

      1. Signing on to someone else’s bad plan is just as much incompetence as coming up with your own bad plan.

        1. Of course. My comment was not to defend Obama, but the plan as an alternative to continued sanctions or, worse, yet, military intervention. What I was attempting to say is that the plan should not be condemned because Obama, whose general incompetence I acknowledge, jumped on it at the last minute.

          1. You know Bo, I’m not smart enough to know geopolitics. I am smart enough to know that there is a lot that goes on behind the scenes that would sometimes make us, those that try to be aware and comment, look foolish if we knew all the truth.

            But I do know that when you have your opponent in a headlock and he is about to pass out, don’t turn loose. Allowing him to get a few breaths of fresh air and resume the struggle is not in your best interest.

  25. “…Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu…”

    When did Bibi get a promotion? Last I checked he was Prime Minister.

  26. Some good news…

    Ohio legislature lets down Obama’s Son one last time: Passes stand your ground law

  27. So this UN Security Council thingy has the authority to tell a sovereign nation what weapons it can produce, how?

    The arrogance is astounding. Why do third world countries hate us?

    1. So this UN Security Council thingy has the authority to tell a sovereign nation what weapons it can produce, how?

      Answer: It really doesn’t. It technically can, but what do you think will happen if a government ignores them? The UN is not going to be invading anyone just because they build weapons the Security Council says they shouldn’t.

      Syria actually used chemical weapons and the UN didn’t do anything.

      1. I think Iran is more worried about sanctions from Europe than any UN invasion.

    2. Well, Iran is a party to the NPT, so there is a bit of an entry point there. Though the US is also so there are clearly some issues with even-handedness of enforcement.

    3. There’s actually an international treaty banning nuclear weapon development and proliferation. Not too surprisingly, it’s called the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Of course, these treaties mean jack shit in real life.

      1. Iran signed the NPT in 1968 (ratified in 70. THEN they had that little revolution thingy in 1979…

    4. Hey Francisco, Guess What?

        1. Yep! Passed my checkride the other day!

          1. Congratulations! It’s a good feeling isn’t it? Enjoy!

            You planning on getting an instrument rating?

            1. Thanks very much. It feels great. My face is still hurting from smling. I do intend to go for the instrument rating. I need a few more cross country hours, obviously. But I hope to start on it in the spring. The weather around here is probably not good enough to get the solo XC hours over the winter but I’ll have plenty of hard IMC to work with. Icing will be the big obstacle, I think.

              1. Congrats man. The Private Pilot ride I think is the worst as far as nerves go. I wasn’t nearly as nervous for Instrument or Commercial. It helps knowing what to expect.

  28. Obama Praises New Iran Nuclear Deal, Netanyahu Not a Fan

    This is like seeing your mother-in-law going over a cliff in your new Mercedes. You hate to lose the car, but still…

  29. Two things:

    1) Whatever Iran promised, they’re lying. We’ve seen this movie before during ’94 and NK ended up with nukes. Same ‘deal’ different tyranny.

    2) Israel MUST peace-bomb the shit right out of Iran. Reactors, refineries, whatever. They’ve also got to re-activate and arm the PJAK Kurdish separatists and PMOI and whoever. All withh Gulf help. With both Iran and Hezbollah up to their elbows in the Syrian grinder I think their capacity for retaliation is limited. If the military victory is great enough, it could even precipitate regime change ex Serbia, Argentina

    1. Yup, Irish, nobody on the right arguing for war. Not a soul…

      1. Yeah, warmongering Canadians like Cytotoxic are well known for having massive pull inside the Beltway.

        1. How long ago was it that those type of warmongers had conservatives and Republicans committing us to two major invasions, which conservatives are now admitting were probably wasteful efforts? I would say we dismiss them at our peril.

          1. How long ago was it that those type of warmongers had conservatives and Republicans committing us to two major invasions, which conservatives are now admitting were probably wasteful efforts?

            You’re absolutely obsessed with fighting the last battle. We must be afraid of SoCons even though their political power is at its lowest ebb in 50 years. We must worry about the warmongers because they used 9/11 hysteria to get us into wars 10 years ago.

            The Republican party has many people currently in office who are less pro-war than the average Democrat. The party simply is not what it was 10 years ago. The Weekly Standard does not wield the clout it did in 2003 and the Neo-Con class of Republican is quickly vanishing.

            1. -The Republican party has many people currently in office who are less pro-war than the average Democrat.

              That is , with respect, a remarkably na?ve comment. That more Republicans are reluctant to push as explicitly for war as they did with Iraq because they have been burned by the obviousness of the debacle there does not mean they have changed their stripes.

              While highly ranking GOPers introduce AUMF’s aimed at Iran, even Tea Partiers such as Cruz and Lee have pushed the ‘we need to be tougher on Iran’ talk when they run.

      2. Ooh I must have missed the part where I argued for America to get involved. Oh wait I didn’t you just like to bullshit.

        1. I must have missed where I accused you of that. I only accused you of warmongering regarding Iran, and it is obvious you want to see that happen regardless of who you want to ‘peace-bomb the sh*t right out of them.’

          1. What relevance does that have to Obama and Kerry ‘resisting an escalation of tension’? Nothing. You just bob and weave and split hairs and forget your own posts.

    2. Hence, Iran has a bona fide need for nukes. As the NK example shows, having a handful of nukes is the best medicine for preventing hysterical Americans from bombing you.

      1. Well said.

      2. So what? All the more reason to bomb them. Iran is a dictatorship, it has no rights. It routinely violates the rights of other free nations like Israel.

        As the NK example shows, failure to bomb away the nukes lets insane people get a hold of them.

        1. Iran is a dictatorship, it has no rights.

          What about the people who would actually, you know, die in these attacks?

          Considering that they aren’t just projections of the Iranian hivemind, don’t they have rights?

          1. If they aid the regime, they are not innocent and get what they deserve. If they are actually innocent, then that’s on the aggressor state which has been Iran for 3 decades now.

            1. Going to war with Iran is not in America’s self-interest.

              1. Not overtly. I am talking about Israel’s best interest.

                1. Why is one supremacist regime better than any other?

                  1. Israel flatly is not nearly as evil as Muslim-based governance. Islam is, generally speaking, animalistic and barbaric.

                  2. Why is one supremacist regime better than any other?

                    You can’t seriously believe that Israel’s government is as bad as Iran.

                    I’m against war with Iran, but the idea that the Israelis are as bad as fundamentalist Islam is ludicrous.

                    1. Tell that to someone in an Israeli mixed marriage.

                      If this country were to actually commit to its stated values, and announce that we’ll no longer support any regime or movement based on ethnic or sectarian supremacy, we’d save a lot of money and credibility. Instead, we’ve multiplied the number of Islamic republics in the last 20 years, in the wake of our foreign adventurism.

                      Where were the protests in the last Iranian presidential election? Could it be that the people were happy with the results?

            2. If they aid the regime, they are not innocent and get what they deserve.

              Bin Laden used the same reasoning to justify killing innocents in the Twin Towers.

            3. somewhat off-topic: ever seen the movie Persepolis?

    3. Cyto

      Why do you care if Iran has nukes? As someone pointed out up thread, NK has nukes. The bloodshed and loss of life has been apocalyptic. Oh, wait…

      Does anyone find it amusing that conservatives use the same argument concerning nukes that the liberals use to justify gun control?

      1. Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor terrorism and has targetted Americans and other citizens of free nations. Nukes give them even more impunity in their terror drive.

        Does anyone find it amusing that conservatives use the same argument concerning nukes that the liberals use to justify gun control?

        I’m in awe at your abilities of false equivalence.

        1. Nukes give them a feeling of security and mean they don’t have to put up with the US poking a finger in their chest (from their perspective).

          False equivalence? How is “guns cause murders” and “nukes cause nuclear annihilation” a false equivalence? It’s the exact same argument. An inanimate object CAUSES something bad to happen…which is, of course, nonsense in both scenarios.

          Israel MUST peace-bomb the shit right out of Iran.

          That’s the most immoral thing I’ve read this month.

        2. Ha .. where did you get that talking point? Did the Saudis or Pakistanis give it to you?

          Perhaps one day neocon dipshits will realize that the US has far more common interests with Iran than with Saudi Arabia, Pakistand.. and yes Israel too.

          1. A caliphate. A Shia caliphate. A common interest of the US and Iran.

      2. The gun control analogy is inapt. Even 2nd Amendment absolutists don’t have a problem with keeping guns out of the hands of insane murderers, and on a geopolitical level, Iran is run by insane murderers.

        1. And after two completely worthless wars, one COMPLETELY preemptive, that accomplished the square root of jack shit, how do they see us?

          You and your nuclear weapons are of no concern to me until you use them. If you do, I will obliterate you.

          Until then, hows about you and me trade value for value? I’ve got some good shit over here and you got some shit we want…let’s get interdependent based upon peaceful commerce rather than military alliances.

          Call me crazy!

  30. Fuck those disgusting kikes. It’s about time someone burned them off the face of the earth, and the filthy hook nosed ratfuckers who support them too.

    1. For crying out loud, Buttwipe, tells us what you really think!

      1. It’s a fake.

  31. Israel MUST peace-bomb the shit right out of Iran.

    Good grief.

    1. At this point I just think he’s trolling. That’s too ridiculous to believe otherwise.

      That and calling Bo a ‘peace Nazi.’

      1. I’m not trolling and I am 100% right. The Israeli government has a moral duty to protect the rights of its citizens from annihalation or further terrorization by Iran.

        1. When you use phrases like ‘peace bomb’ and ‘peace Nazi’ it’s hard to take your arguments seriously.

          1. ‘Peace bomb’ is just used to irk the griefers who use it sarcastically. Peacenazis is an absolute spot-on description of the AntiWar.com types.

            1. I find it kind of amazing that 9/11 turned what was a relatively peaceful philosophy into a warmongering one. Ayn Rand was opposed to U.S. involvement in WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. She generally opposed the world police model of foreign affairs and recognized that nothing America did (and, I contend, is doing today) has our own self-interest in mind.

              1. I’m confused: What philosophy became warmongering after 9-11? Neocons have always been that way, as has Israel.

              2. Pax American must end. The Chinese and Russians can have the job. They will be MUCH better at it.

  32. I would say we dismiss them at our peril.

    Greasy screeching bums masturbating on street corners are generally not in control of foreign policy.

  33. “Peace Nazi” is a phrase so pregnant and turgid with shrikean incompetence that it’s futility in convincing is only surpassed by its idiocy.

    Jesus.

    1. “Peace Fairy” is more appropriate.

  34. Bush invaded Iraq to stop the spread of nuclear weapons not there, while this President will dither around getting suckered into enabling the spread of nuclear weapons. Got it.

    1. Iran has nuclear weapons?

      1. They will by 2016, barring physical intervention by a third power(s) a’la Israel using Saudi airspace.

        The Iranians see their window of opportunity with this President. Whole world sized the clown up regarding Syria; the incompetent cat is out of the bag so-to-speak.

  35. This guy is such a bullshitter. He can’t stop misleading people. He described this “agreement” as having accomplished restricting their nuclear capacity . . .
    They haven’t even signed it yet and he says they’ve accomplished the goals of the agreement.
    And people believe him. Stoopid peeple.

  36. Google is paying 75$/hour! Just work for few hours & spend more time with friends and family. On sunday I bought themselves a Alfa Romeo from having made $5637 this month. its the best-job Ive ever had.It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out http://www.Buzz95.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.