War

Senate Republicans Push for War With Iran

If anything can persuade Iran's rulers to go for a nuke, it's these hardliners' lust for war.

|

Iran has its hardliners on the United States, and the United States has its hardliners on Iran. It's understandable if you think they are working together to thwart detente between the two countries. Neither side wants its government to negotiate a nuclear deal and thaw the cold war that's existed since 1979.

This week hardliners in the U.S. Senate took another step toward thwarting detente by writing to Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei that if he and President Obama negotiate a "mere executive agreement" on Iran's (civilian) nuclear program that is not approved by Congress, it will bind neither Obama's successor nor a future Congress. The letter comes on the heels of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's bellicose speech about Iran before Congress. Like that speech, the senators' letter is intended to sabotage the P5+1 talks now in progress.

The condescending letter, signed by 47 of 54 Republican senators, must have Iran's Revolutionary Guard celebrating. With enemies like these who needs friends?

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), the lead senator on the letter, says he merely wants to teach the Iranian leader about America's constitutional system by pointing out that unlike a treaty, which must be consented to by two-thirds of the Senate before it can be ratified, an executive agreement binds only the administration that signs it.

However, Cotton's letter clearly is meant to be more than a helpful civics lesson. The senators hate that Obama is negotiating an agreement that reportedly would let Iran—under severe constraints and intrusive inspections—enrich uranium not for bombs but for electricity and medical treatments. Like Netanyahu, Cotton claims that a tougher U.S. position in the negotiations could fully deprive Iran of the means to produce a nuclear weapon. But this argument has been debunked. In the past, when the U.S. government derailed promising attempts at negotiations and imposed harsh economic sanctions, Iran did not cave; it expanded its (peaceful) nuclear infrastructure.

So the hawks and hardliners are demonstrably wrong about the alternative to the current talks, but that does not matter to them. Why not? Because they don't really want a "better deal" with Iran. What they, like Netanyahu and other Israeli hawks, want is war and nothing less than regime change. (Remember when John McCain sang "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"?) Thus they'd be delighted if Iran stormed out of the negotiations and added centrifuges to its nuclear program. The hawks would have their casus belli at last.

What they overlook is that everyone else will know that Iran was not the party that scuttled the negotiations. The cruel sanctions regime will then crumble, leaving the United States and Israel as the only countries trying to throttle Iran. At that point, Israel may well attack the Islamic Republic, expecting the United States to finish the job that Israel would be unable to finish. Catastrophe would follow.

To fully appreciate the Senate Republicans' perfidy, keep these things in mind:

First, Iran has not sought a nuclear weapon, as Gareth Porter documents overwhelmingly in Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare. As has been reported many times, the Israeli Mossad and the dozen and a half American intelligence agencies have detected no Iranian move to build a bomb. Iran has indeed enriched uranium—for energy and medical purposes—as it is free to do as a signer of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). As such, it is inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which keeps track of the uranium stockpile. It is especially vicious for the American and Israeli hardliners to condemn Iran's insistence on an enrichment capability, considering that when Iran agreed to forgo enrichment and swap uranium with Turkey and Brazil in 2010, Obama blocked the deal and pushed for more sanctions. Get it? Iran was demonized no matter what it did.

Second, Israel, which has not signed the NPT, is the only nuclear power in the Middle East and thus would face no threat even if Iran obtained the warhead it does not seek.

If anything can persuade Iran's rulers to go for a nuke, it's the hardliners' lust for war. What does that tell you?

This piece originally appeared at Sheldon Richman's "Free Association" blog.

NEXT: Obama's Tepid Response to the Clinton Email Scandal

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. Richman spouting progressive talking points yet again….

    1. Sheldon is the Reason staff resident crank. He behaves more like a troll than anything else and probably deserves what our other trolls deserve.

    2. Nope. These are opinions (talking points if you will) of the antiwar.com crowd.

      And nothing in this article is inaccurate.

      The Republican letter was asinine.

      1. “Israel, which has not signed the NPT, is the only nuclear power in the Middle East and thus would face no threat even if Iran obtained the warhead it does not seek”

        That is asinine. Even a couple of nukes could wipe out Israel. It would take many more to glass Iran.

        1. Iran has a huge percentage of their population in a few urban centers. Given the likely sophistication of the Israeli arsenal, their second-strike capability would effectively end Iran.

        2. what is comical is to hear people talk about nuking Israel or anyone for that matter. Just what do you think would happen to Iran if it nuked Israel? Iran would be gone. How many Arabs would be dead by nuking Israel? Where would all the fallout go? Israel would be uninhabitable for decades if not longer by _anyone_. Holy sites would be destroyed.

          Again, this is comical to say such stupid things.

          1. It is t. Stop acting like the Iranian government is run by rational people. It’s not. So there is no equivalency between things Israel does or has and Iran.

        3. You clearly know nothing about nuclear weapons. Please go do some research before spouting shit off like that.

      2. And nothing in this article is inaccurate.

        Richman wrote it, and it’s antiwar.com talking points. Therefore, the chances of it being accurate are 0%.

    3. War being the health of the state there’s a strong anti war strain in most libertarian thought. Progressives may act anti war since the Vietnam debacle, but they’re not traditionally or inherently opposed.

    4. you mean spouting reality?

    5. you mean spouting reality?

    6. The Republicans are wrong on this one.

      1. Not mutually exclusive…

    7. I, for one, might support Obama’s treaty if a simple clause were added to it:

      “This agreement shall grant henceforth Iranian-flagged cargo vessels and warships docking rights in New York Harbor without requiring inspection.”

      Just like we do for the Europeans, Japan, et al. Anybody who actually believes that the Iranians are ready to become members in good standing of ‘the international community’ should have no problem with this. On the other hand, Lurch’s acknowledged that any agreement not approved by the Senate could be rescinded unilaterally by subsequent presidents. You don’t have to agree with Cotton’s approach to realize that Obama’s is even worse. The right approach is to reinstate the sanctions and let the mullahs decide whether nuclear weapons are worth the economic cost…or whether they could retain power if their country slips back into deeper economic woe.

      1. “The right approach is to reinstate the sanctions and let the mullahs decide whether nuclear weapons are worth the economic cost”

        Winner.

        1. And not to cock block the Israelis if they decide they are threatened enough to warrant a surgical strike. If they want to fo bomb their nuke program back to square one it won’t break my heart.

  2. So if you don’t want Obama to give Iran everything it wants, it means you want war and nation building in Iran? Were exactly does this idiotic false choice come from? And the strangest part is, I don’t even see progs brazen enough to make that claim. I only see it here in Richman articles, and from Bo of course.

    1. Were exactly does this idiotic false choice come from?

      Probably Chomsky. Richman is just an enstupidated version.

    2. While I think some Republicans absolutely would like to crush the government in Iran, I’m not so sure the majority of them actually want war. They just want to waive the big stick and not make any real concessions to the Iranians. As long as we’re playing World Cop, I tend to think that makes some sense, as Iran isn’t exactly a well-behaved player in the region. God knows that the Obama administration is to foreign policy as Baldrick is to cunning plans that are actually cunning.

      1. as Iran isn’t exactly a well-behaved player in the region.

        And what is our vital national security stake in the region?

        1. I address this below–I’m actually all for no longer intervening in the region. However, as long as we are, we don’t have to be idiots about it.

          1. We don’t need to intervene, but we should allow Israel to do as it wishes, ie allow overflights of Iraq.

            1. I recall that some time ago, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia basically said-but-didn’t-say that if Israel decided to use their airspace as a way to get somewhere north and east of the Kingdom, the Kingdom wouldn’t stop them (and they probably couldn’t anyway).

        2. The anti-American terrorist entities Iran sponsors.

      2. Baldrick, you wouldn’t see a cunning plan if it painted itself purple and danced naked on top of a harpsichord, singing “Cunning plans are here again!”

      3. Iran isn’t exactly a well-behaved player in the region.

        Let’s examine that a little more. By “well-behaved” do you mean Iran’s saber-rattling against Israel and the US? Of which nothing has developed?

        Iran has fought once the same country that the US fought twice (while the US was providing covert military aid to Iraq). They are also fighting the Kurds off and on, our occasional allies. They also fighting AGAINST al-Nusra and ISIS/ISIL/IS/shamalamadingdong in Syria and Iraq.

        The Iranians are not our buddies, but they aren’t the font of evil that the Neocon saber-rattlers would like us to believe they are.

        1. Of which nothing has developed?

          Aside from the Americans and Israelies murdered by Iranian terror proxies.

      4. Most republicans want the people of Iran to overthrow their nutcase leaders. Ths has almost happened at least once in the last decade. Iran had an advanced society before these batshit mullahs came to power. A lot of Iranians would like to have that back. Just not under someone like the Shah.

    3. Bo is Richman? Richman is Bo? Finkle is Einhorn?

      1. “I know all there is to know about the crying game…”

      2. THE LACES GO OUT!!!!!!!!!!

    4. So if you don’t want Obama to give Iran everything it wants

      What makes you think this is happening? And what if “everything Iran wants” is legal under the NPT?

      1. What makes me think Obama is doing something stupid that could make the situation worse? Because I’ve never seen him do anything else.

      2. Faux News

        1. Study the history of these ‘negotiations.’ They began with Iran having to abandon enrichment, their plutonium reactor, and with a limit of 160 centrifuges. The Iranians have worn down the other side of the table and the agreement now states that they can go nuclear in ten years.

          Iran doesn’t get everything it wants–because what it really wants is everything right NOW. But it does get what it ultimately wants in ten years. And that’s good enough for them. By then Baracky and Lurch will be long gone and the Saudis and Egypt will have nukes, too. Should make for exciting times.

          1. and why can’t Iran have nuclear power? and why can Israel have nukes but no one else in the middle east?

        2. What a cliched bullshit thing to say. Unless you’re just being facetious.

    5. Republicans have not been shy that military action is going to be the next step.

      1. Obama’s truce would stand in the way of their beloved war. Sheldon Adelson has decreed that he wants war and he has no issue bankrolling the entire 2016 GOP campaign.

        1. Welcome to Retardation: A Celebration. Now, hopefully with this book, I’m gonna dispel a few myths, a few rumors. First off, the retarded don’t rule the night. They don’t rule it. Nobody does. And they don’t run in packs. And while they may not be as strong as apes, don’t lock eyes with ’em, don’t do it. Puts ’em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

          1. It’s a retard party. Of course there’s gonna be cake.

      2. Republicans have not been shy that military action is going to be the next step.

        I think you’ve confused a message of “not taking a military action off the table” with specifically stating that it will be Plan A. So, do you have a link for us? One will do. I mean, since they have not been shy about it this should be pretty easy for you to serve up.

        Barry doesn’t believe in the peace through strength thing, so I guess we’ll all get to see how the peace through “We don’t give a fuck what happens in your little shithole part of the world. We have health care and mass illegal immigration to occupy us”–thingee works out.

  3. I never saw this coming.

    1. You’re the same as Adam Lanza.

      1. I’m even worse. Jew and all that.

  4. And here we go….

  5. My issue with the Iran doves is their constant insistence that Iran wants nuclear reactors for power generation. This is ludicrous. Iran wants nukes so that they can use them to defend their country. Or more cynically, the Iranian regime wants nukes to preserve their hold on power.

    When you claim that the Iranian government has no intention of building nuclear weapons, you look like an idiot. Actually, scratch that, you are an idiot.

    1. What about the Iran doves who don’t give a shit if Iran wants to build a bomb?

      1. +1 Ron Paul

    2. My take is different. It has nothing to do with defending their country but instead has everything to do with Iran wanting to be the hegemon in the region.

      I imagine Iran views itself as the natural leading power in the region given historical precedents. Iran can’t counter the Saudi’s wealth and ability to buy influence and power. So in order to emerge as the leading power in the region it needs a trump card to counter the Saudis. The only way to do that cheaply is to build a bomb.

      1. This is pretty close to what it really is.

    3. My issue with the Iran doves is their constant insistence that Iran wants nuclear reactors for power generation. This is ludicrous.

      Then why has all their enrichment been to reactor grade and never once approached weapons grade?

      1. And you know this how?

        1. They said so, so it must be trur.

        2. maybe from all the inspections going on since they signed the NPT? I know, facts be damned….

          1. IRAN signed the NPT? When was that?

            1. The Shah signed it, but the Ayatollahs said back in the day that Iran was indeed subject to its terms.

              1. Is that in writing somewhere, or did the US find two Ayatollahs to say so, so there is justification for starting future wars over it. What does the current regime say about it?

            2. DISQUALIFIED. Please return to your cave. Ratified in 1970. Still in force. WTF do you think the IAEA inspectors are there? Because Iran wants some new friends? What they have signed (2003) and not implemented is the “Additional Protocols”. Wonder if that “Axis of evil” stuff might have influenced that.

          2. maybe from all the inspections going on since they signed the NPT?

            And there’s never any bait-and-switch with the inspectors… or undeclared, uninspected facilities…

            Nah.

          3. Check your facts again. The inspections were far from comprehensive, and the Iranian government has a piss poor track record of keeping their promises. The smart money is to use North Korea as a model of what it’s like to. Egotists with these vile wackadoos.

        3. The IAEA has repeatedly confirmed the nondiversion of all enriched uranium.

          1. Well, that settles it then!

            1. It doesn’t settle it. It’s just that there’s no evidence that Iran is working on a bomb. The IAEA should keep doing their job, but to say “it’s ludicrous” that Iran is not working on a bomb is ludicrous.

              1. Metaludicrous

              2. It’s just that there’s no evidence that Iran is working on a bomb.

                Black swan fallacy. A lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack.

                1. It’s not even a black swan. Let’s not pretend the IAEA, as an arm of the UN, is completely free of bias here.

                2. So just to be sure we need to conduct a preemptive strike.

              3. Yeah, they used to say the same kind of shit about N Korea. And look where that got us. Better that Pyongyang was a smoking hole in the ground than what we have now.

      2. Demonstrating a fundamental lack of understanding of enrichment. Once you have enrichment facilities, it’s only a question of how long it takes to separate sufficient mass to make a warhead. They have already refined to 20% which can rapidly be further refined to weapons grade purity. You don’t need 20% for power generation. You only need it if you want to build specialized research reactors. The best argument you can make in favor of that would be for medical isotopes, but even that’s quite the stretch.

        You can debate whether Iran should have access to civilian nuclear power, but, given that a literal handful of countries actually enrich fuel versus many more who use it, your argument about their levels of enrichment so far are irrelevant.

    4. I’m an Iran dove and I claim Iran wants a nuke to ensure they aren’t preemptively invaded by an openly imperial United States.

      You can’t actually DO something and then expect to not get a rep for DOING it. I’m SHOCKED that Iran would consider the benevolent United States a threat…SHOCKED I say!

      1. It’s almost as though Iran has the audacity to question the United States’ God-given moral authority to do whatever the fuck it wants.

        1. It’s almost as though Iran has the audacity to question the United States’ God-given moral authority to do whatever the fuck it wants.

          Which, apparently, no one in this country bothers to question any more either. In fact, the notion that the US shouldn’t involve itself in the affairs of others, never even crosses their minds. US involvement is a given…because…things and stuff. The arrogance is breathtaking. AND it’s not even remotely libertarian.

          1. What? You mean us parking an entire fleet across the salty lagoon from them isn’t totally innocent?

    5. Agreed 100%. Nations don’t want nuclear weapons to actually deploy them; they want nukes to the US from dropping bombs on their heads. Nuclear weapons have the strange power of keeping America respectful of other nations’ sovereignty.

      1. How’s that working out for Pakistan?

        1. Pakistan is like a bitchy ex-girlfriend who will let you f*** her every once in a while. There will be a lot of drama, screaming, crying, manipulating, and some f***ing. You know you won’t marry her, and so does she. But you still f*** on-and-off anyway.

      2. IT’S ALL AMERICA’S FAULT!

        Sing it with Sheldon!

      3. So viciously, we don’t want anyone else to have them. Unless you’re some kind of anti American moron.

    6. “Iran wants nukes so that they can use them to defend their country.”

      why wouldn’t they? The US invades countries that don’t. If they get nukes, they are safe from the US government and all its regime change bullshit. Perhaps, just perhaps, if the US would stop invading nations all around Iran, they would not be so driven to getting nukes, as you neo-cons insist they are?

      1. You really are completely naive about these kind of people aren’t you? If you were around in the thirties you would have said the same kind of bullshit about Hitler at Munich.

        Quit making excuses for these vicious assholes. If they had the power, they would kill you along with the rest of us.

    7. “Iran wants nukes so that they can use them to defend their country.”

      why wouldn’t they? The US invades countries that don’t. If they get nukes, they are safe from the US government and all its regime change bullshit. Perhaps, just perhaps, if the US would stop invading nations all around Iran, they would not be so driven to getting nukes, as you neo-cons insist they are?

  6. Interesting.

    Here is Sheldon’s headline for the article…
    Senate Republicans Push for War With Iran

    …and here is Hit & Run’s headline for the article.
    Sheldon Richman on Republicans’ Iran Plans

    As if to say, yeah, we know he’s an idiot but we have to publish his drivel…

    1. The two faced bastards!!!

  7. Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran…

    1. Yes, of course GOP senators don’t want war with Iran, McCain was just covering a classic.

  8. Best to always consider what a true Libertarian says, Paul.

    No, not the phony Libertarian Rand Paul, who complains about military interventions and then signs a letter attempting to negate negotiations that would avoid another military intervention (by the way, how hilarious his explanation for signing the letter, that he wanted to “strengthen the President’s hand”).

    Instead, Ron Paul, who wrote this on the whole subject of negotiating with Iran:

    “Why have the interventionists, the neocons, and the special interest groups claimed for so long that negotiation and diplomacy was tantamount to surrender; that countries such as Iran and Syria “only understand force”? It is because these groups are afraid of diplomacy. They do not want a peaceful resolution to these conflicts. They see US foreign relations only in the starkest terms: do what we say and we will give you aid, disobey us and we will bomb you. Now the warmongers who call themselves “foreign policy experts” have been exposed.”

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfro…..id/629160/

    That is most of the commenters here, as well as the excuse makers at Reason, who he is outing and referring to…nothing but interventionists, and really neocons rather than Libertarians.

    1. You don’t know what neo-cons are and, like all idiots who don’t know what neo-cons are, simply declare that a neo-con is ‘anyone who disagrees with me on foreign policy.’

      Also, this negotiation isn’t going to make or break the decision to go to war with Iran. If the negotiation fails, there’s no way we’re going to war with Iran. It’s just not happening. The idea that the letter is going to lead to war is nonsensical, particularly given that we’ve got two more years of an Obama presidency and there’s no way Obama decides to invade Iran.

      1. Bull.

        What you have no idea of is what is on the table at the present. Israel says that Iran is intent on building a nuclear weapon, even with the sanctions. And we said we will never let them build a bomb. Israel WILL start bombing and we will be forced to support them. And you have no idea who that conflagration will build from there. These negotiations are an attempt to stop that.

        By the way, I don’t know what a neo-con is? I just quoted Ron Paul…tell him.

        1. By the way, I don’t know what a neo-con is? I just quoted Ron Paul…tell him.

          A lot of people around here think Ron Paul has gone off the rails lately. You might have noticed this if you did something other than troll all the time. Also, it’s a fallacious appeal to authority regardless of how high Ron Paul is held in regard by the person you’re arguing with; it doesn’t matter what Ron Paul thinks if you’re not arguing with Ron Paul or about Ron Paul.

          1. Thanks for proving my point.

            1. I am always glad to prove you are a moron, but I do prefer engaging in sincere debate. Apparently, you do not.

          2. The above statement is classic Ron Paul. There’s nothing new about what he said above.

            1. I did not say otherwise.

          3. Reading this particular thread, I would say that the Trolls appear to the interventionists, who sadly, rarely get called out for their constant drum beat for war…. on a libertarian site.

            1. This sites had a conservative infestation for a while it seems. People curious as to what libertarians think should best look to the actual Reason writers, not commenters.

            2. Yep. Kudos to both Richardson and Paul fro making an attempt.

            3. You, Bo, and JackAss are fucking retarded if that’s what you think.

              1. Good reply Nate. Logical, thoughtful, and witty too. I guess you really just showed us trolls the what-for.

                1. Actually Eric, You’re the one that showed your ass. DN just pointed it out.

            4. its all the Republicans who pretend to be “Libertarian”. they are clueless low IQ drones.

            5. its all the Republicans who pretend to be “Libertarian”. they are clueless low IQ drones.

        2. Ron Paul doesn’t know what a neo-con is either. Given that Paul’s foundation publishes some…uh…suspect foreign policy articles, I don’t think Paul would be my go-to for accurate assessments of different schools of foreign policy.

          “What you have no idea of is what is on the table at the present. Israel says that Iran is intent on building a nuclear weapon, even with the sanctions. And we said we will never let them build a bomb. Israel WILL start bombing and we will be forced to support them. And you have no idea who that conflagration will build from there. These negotiations are an attempt to stop that.”

          Your own statements contradict your argument. If Israel says Iran will build the bomb regardless and Israel could drag us into a war by bombing Iran, then the negotiations are fundamentally meaningless since the Israelis are not required to abide by them. The Israelis (or at least Likud and Netanyahu) are not going to like Obama’s deal no matter what, so if you’re claiming Israel is going to bomb Iran and drag us into war, that’s going to happen no matter what the negotiations decide.

          These negotiations are meaningless, particularly given that the Republicans in Congress are never going to ratify Obama’s treaty so it’s not going to have any force of law anyway.

          1. Israel is not about to buck a negotiated deal arrived at by not only major countries in the UN, but also the US.

            If the negotiations are meaningless, what was the purpose of sanctions to begin with? The only purpose was to in fact start negotiations. Or did you think Iran was going to surrender on their knees? If so, re-read exactly Ron Paul’s point.

            From your comment, there is absolutely no reason to hold back bombing Iran right now…you say they are building a nuclear weapon, the sanctions haven’t worked, and any negotiation is futile.

            Ron Paul certainly knew what he was speaking about.

            1. You are the dumbest human being on this website. I’m looking vainly through my posts and can’t find where I said anything regarding sanctions or Iran being guaranteed to get a nuke.

              Also, I was not making the argument that Israel is guaranteed to bomb Iran, I was pointing out that that’s the argument you were making. Right here:

              “Israel says that Iran is intent on building a nuclear weapon, even with the sanctions. And we said we will never let them build a bomb. Israel WILL start bombing and we will be forced to support them.”

              According to you ISRAEL SAYS Iran will build the bomb no matter what and ISRAEL will start bombing and we will be forced to support them. If that’s what Israel believes, then our alliance with Israel will drag us into war no matter what.

              I’m not saying that’s what I believe and I’m not saying Israel believes what you claim – I’m just pointing out the logical conclusion of your own argument. The fact that you respond by shrieking, whining, wetting yourself and yowling about the dread specter of neocons tells me you’re not very bright.

              1. No shrieking from me, re-read. And consider your attempt at name calling…there is whining and shrieking…its from you.

                Do you remember the famous drawing of the bomb that Netanyahu presented? With the red line at 90%? All of this moving in that direction has occurred while sanctions were in place. And what is the quote from Netanyahu?

                “It’s not a question of whether Iran will get the bomb. The question is at what stage can we stop Iran from getting the bomb,”

                So, no negotiations to proceed, according to you and Netanyahu. What’s left to “STOP” them from getting a bomb? Hmmm?

                1. You can’t read. I specifically said I don’t agree with Netanyahu’s read on things but that if your claims about Netanyahu is correct, then we’re guaranteed to be dragged to war by his bellicosity.

                  You’re trying to put Netanyahu’s words in my mouth when I never said I agreed with him, just like you pretended I should agree with Ron Paul’s definition of neo-con even though he’s wrong.

                  Also, re: name calling:

                  “That is most of the commenters here, as well as the excuse makers at Reason, who he is outing and referring to…nothing but interventionists, and really neocons rather than Libertarians.”

                  It’s laughable that you start by calling us ‘excuse making neo-cons’ and then attack me for name calling. I do so love it when trolls start off by name calling and then whine about ad hominems when name calling is directed back at them.

                  1. What a joke. Calling someone a neocon or a Libertarian is name calling to you? Its a political label. A Libertarian doesn’t think that is name calling. Here is name calling…and shrieking….”not very bright, dumb,” etc. That is you.

                    You asked what is the guarantee that Israel will bomb…Netanyahu just told you that is their intent, because they know in their minds that Iran is right now building a bomb, and must be stopped at 90%.

                    So, outside of abject surrender by Iran and a closing of negotiations to stop them, do tell what Israel intends to do?

                    1. Laughable. Neo-conservative is not a ‘political label’ it’s an active slur used to declare a particular argument or person unacceptable. Calling someone a neo-con when they aren’t is like calling someone a fascist or a communist. It’s a term meant to tell everyone This Person is Beyond The Pale And Ought To Be Ignored. Don’t pretend it’s ‘just a political label.’

                      “You asked what is the guarantee that Israel will bomb…Netanyahu just told you that is their intent, because they know in their minds that Iran is right now building a bomb, and must be stopped at 90%.”

                      Exactly. That’s my point. If you know Israel will bomb, why would our negotiations have any impact on that? If Israel views this as an existential threat, and you believe they will bomb no matter what, then how are Obama’s negotiations going to stop that? You yourself are arguing the bombing will occur, but for some reason you’re claiming Obama’s Magic Negotiation will present what you’re saying is inevitable.

                    2. I am amazed, Irish (hopefully you don’t think that is name calling).

                      neoconservatism, variant of the political ideology of conservatism that combines features of traditional conservatism with political individualism and a qualified endorsement of free markets.

                      http://www.britannica.com/EBch…..nservatism

                      Neo con is short for neoconservative, and using it is no less name calling than prog or dem. Get it? I hope so.

                      I’m not arguing bombing will occur, but you are relegating all of us to that.
                      I am saying that we have a chance at verifiable deterrence of Iran building a nuclear bomb. Period. You, on the other hand, have given up on that and just willing to let the bombs drop.

                  2. You are the dumbest human being on this website.

                    Let’s not get crazy now, remember there are still shreek and ‘Tony” to consider.

                    1. WTF – you’re the idiot who can only copy and paste movie quotes.

                    2. Sure you wanna keep playing, shreek? The game’s always between you and getting called a cunt. That dropped eye of yours looks like the hood on a cunt to me, shreek. When you talk, your mouth looks like a cunt moving.

                    3. WTF|3.12.15 @ 11:37AM|#
                      “Let’s not get crazy now, remember there are still shreek and ‘Tony” to consider.”

                      It’s true, but when Jack shows up, he pegs the meter quite quickly, so it’s hard to keep in mind some of the other contenders.

            2. “Israel is not about to buck a negotiated deal”

              I missed the part where “never again” only applies if all the Right Folks approve.

          2. Israel WILL start bombing and we will be forced to support them.

            Why?

            Simply tell them we won’t.

            I do not understand why the US gives a flying fuck about Israel? Can someone please tell me how the existence or non existence of Israel affects the US in the slightest? Put it this way; if Israel disappeared tomorrow, what horrible fate would befall the United States?

            Okay, we have signed security pacts with them…I don’t think we should be doing that with anyone, but we have. We’ve signed up to defend this nation on our dime….

            Defend, being the key word. We don’t need to support them when THEY start the war.

            1. Can someone please tell me how the existence or non existence of Israel affects the US in the slightest?

              In the same way the existence or non existence of the Islamic Republic of Iran affects the US in the slightest.

              And when you unravel that koan, you will have achieved enlightenment.

              Mu.

              1. Neither nice nor not nice. Or is it both nice and not nice?

                Almost had it for a minute ….

            2. Here is why…we have an alliance with them. If Iran retaliates (and who thinks they wouldn’t), what do you think we will do, even if Rand Paul is President? Even if you don’t think we don’t jump in militarily, do you think we will have provided some of the weapons used by Israel? How about intelligence.

              We will NOT be sitting on the sidelines, particularly if another country enters in and engulfs the region, which would be a very real possibility. Are you sure Russia wouldn’t do something? I’m not.

              1. @ Jackand Ace

                I’m sorry. I didn’t specify. My questions were for the adults in the room.

                1. Forget F d’A. It’s joe from Lowell-town.

                  Hey joe! Long time. Still looking for blogs where you haven’t been banned yet?

                2. Not only did you not specify, Francisco, you quoted me and asked the question directly of me.

                  Adults can work a comment page…leaves you out.

                  1. I replied to Irish. Go ahead and trace it up…

                    Irish @ 11:01

                    Had I realized he was quoting a retard, I wouldn’t have bothered.

                    1. The rest of my question stands, however. And, Jackand Ace, please don’t reply…ever.

          3. OK, Irish, what is a neocon? If nobody knows but you, enlighten the rest of us.

            1. It’s not that ‘nobody knows but me’ it’s that the term has been corrupted to mean ‘literally anyone other than the strictest non-interventionist.’ Or, in the case of many libertarians, ‘anyone who disagrees with me on any subject related to foreign policy.’

              A neo-conservative is a hardcore interventionist who generally supports a small welfare state but opposes the Great Society programs. More often than not they’re former leftists who have transferred their love of state from domestic policy to foreign policy and who believe in the toppling of dictators, nation-building, and the institution of American backed democratic governments.

              No one here is arguing that we should engage in Iranian nation building, hence no one here is making a neo-conservative argument.

              1. Well said, Irish.

              2. Right.

                The most common misuse of neocon that I see is as ultra-conservative when neocons are usually former liberals. Jackand Ace didn’t read enough of the encyclopedia article he pointed to, or he might’ve caught his mistake.

        3. “Israel WILL start bombing and we will be forced to support them.”

          Without USAF IFFs that ain’t happening. We should have a hands off Israel policy.

          1. Whatsis about USAF IFFs (and no, please don’t lecture me that IFF = Identification Friend or Foe, because I know that)?

          2. Well, it will also not happen because such a scenario is merely a fever dream of a delusional Richman. The Knesset is currently even more divided than the Congress, and its partisan politics even more vicious. It’s quite likely Netanyahu will lose his Prime Minister-ship this weekend.

          3. “Israel WILL start bombing and we will be forced to support them.

            What does “support” mean? Not shoot them down? Probably? Provide military support? We never have, never will, and Israel has never asked for it.

            1. Provide military support? We never have, never will, and Israel has never asked for it.

              Yeah, no.

      2. You clearly have no idea what a neo-con. Hint, look at the word: “con”. All they want is war. History proves this.

        1. You know, I’d take the ALWAYS NON-INTERVENTION! arguments more seriously if the people advancing these arguments didn’t just repeat the same thing over and over again while showing a total lack of reading comprehension.

          I don’t even know what your post is supposed to mean. He called us neo-cons, no one here is advocating war, therefore his definition is wrong.

        2. You might want to rethink that Jim.

          Up until the 1950’s the conservative position was non interventionism and it was the progressive Democrats that were always beating the drums of war. Typically over some humanitarian cause or some version of the white mans burden.

          It was a cultural shift that took place in the 1960’s that lead to the foreign interventionists to abandon the progressive movement and join the conservative movement and hence the creation of the NeoCons. They were Neo conservatives because they abandoned the conservative principal of non intervention

          1. What exactly was Cheney?

    2. “signs a letter attempting to negate negotiations that would avoid another military intervention”

      Derp derp derp

  9. I don’t know why people are criticizing Richman in this instance. Many Republicans DO want war with Iran. Tom Cotton wants war with Iran. Many of Cotton’s defenders in the right wing media (Kurt Schlichter, Powerline, etc.) want war with Iran. Bill Kristol wants war with Iran.

    They are definitely a minority even within the Republican party, but there is a vocal subset of Republicans who want to invade Iran and replace its government.

    He’s wrong to criticize everyone who signed the letter since many of them just think the Obama deal with Iran is bad. However, you can’t deny that many Republicans want an Iranian war.

    1. I think the false statement is that “Republicans want a war with Iran” or even “Most Republicans want a war with Iran.” The true statement is that “Some fucking crazy Republicans want a war with Iran or anyone else who pisses them off.”

      1. How about:

        Some very prominent crazy Republicans want a war with Iran.

        ??

        1. You can go ahead and say “Cotton, Graham and McCain” and hit the main names right there.

        2. Are they prominent? I’d never heard of Cotton until now.

    2. I don’t know why people are criticizing Richman in this instance.

      Oh, I don’t know:

      The condescending letter, signed by 47 of 54 Republican senators, must have Iran’s Revolutionary Guard celebrating. With enemies like these who needs friends?

      Also, bonus irony points for linking to the Wikipedia article about the Revolutionary Guard in a sentence describing others as “condescending”.

  10. Yo, Firefly cast members Nathan Fillion and Alan Tudyk are crowdfunding a new show called Con Man. Funnel your outrage at Richman and Republicans into something positive.

      1. If not, I WANT NO PART OF IT!

        *sobs over Firefly disc*

        1. It’s all shiny, Cap’n.

  11. Stupid article.

    While it is undoubtedly true that some of those 47 DO want a war with Iran, it is overwhelmingly likely that the majority of them just do not want Obama cutting a deal with them on his own because if he does then it will either be a good deal for America which is bad for Republicans or a bad deal for America that the administration will sell as a good deal and put those 47 as having to go on record voting against “peace and a nuclear free Iran”.

    If the deal were bipartisan on this side then they wouldn’t care but as antagonistic as the relationship between the 2 parties is right now there simply is no good outcome for the Republicans if Obama agrees to a deal with Iran on his own and that is why they sent the letter.

    1. Bullshit. Inspections would disarm the GOP/Bibi the Rat’s main campaign theme – that Iran is a danger to the world and that only they can prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons.

      1. “Should the enemy dare to invade our country, annihilate them to the last man so that none of them will survive to sign the instrument of surrender!”

      2. ???

        Ok I know you are mentally retarded and all but you didn’t actually address or refute anything I said.

        In fact it pretty much agrees with it and only differs in that it provides one reason why a good deal would be bad for Republicans

        Basically you are inherently assuming that any deal made will be a good one (possible if unlikely), which given the amount of Obama cock you suck is not surprising and ignoring what happens if it ended up being a bad deal and how that would still be bad for Republicans.

        The only good outcome for Republicans is for Obama to try and fail to reach a deal.

        Either way however this is all about our internal political squabbles much more so than it is the entire Republican establishment itching for a war which stupid and sloppy as what passes for reasoning in your brain is you agreed with me and disagreed with Richman on but you are too dumb to actually recognize that.

        1. I intended to reply to ‘Restoras’. Your first comment is fine. My reply should have been to another.

      3. … Bibi the Rat …

        Nazi Approved Art:

        Nazi filmmakers also turned their cameras on their
        victims, methodically reducing the popular perception of Jews to
        that of vermin, fit only for extermination. The Nazi propaganda
        film, Der ewige Jude (The Eternal Jew), followed maps showing the
        migrations of Jews with scenes of teaming rats. The film’s
        narration drives home the association:

        “[The Jews] followed the culture-bearing and creative waves of
        German colonization of the East, until finally they found a
        gigantic new untapped reservoir of space in Poland and Eastern
        Europe . . . they spread from Eastern Europe like an irresistible
        tide, flooding the towns and nations. . . . Wherever rats appear
        they bring ruin, by destroying mankind’s goods and foodstuffs. They
        are cunning, cowardly, and cruel, and are found mostly in large
        packs. Among the animals, they represent the rudiment of an
        insidious and underground destruction–just like the Jews among
        human beings.”

  12. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), the lead senator on the letter, says he merely wants to teach the Iranian leader about America’s constitutional system

    Same senator Cotton who wrote this on libertarianism:

    To reject all rights of the community, one must reject all influence of the community. To do this implies a very specific, a very Hobbesian, view of human nature. One must think that men are naturally isolated, individual spirits frolicking only with their families and closest friends; we only assent to government to seek peace and stability of life. This outlook considers human society and sociability as purely conventional creations based on utility.

    […]
    There are many reasons to be a libertarian. One is vanity. It is nice to think that you are responsible for all the good fortune and success you achieve. Another is naivete, for you are surely naive if you believe the immediately preceding proposition. Still another reason is selfishness: since you are fortunate and successful, you are likely to want to hoard that fortune and success. Each of these reason, and others, point to the central fact of libertarianism, which is that practically all of its adherents belong to a self-regarding and sanctimonious elite. Little surprise, then, that it is popular at Harvard. [Emphasis mine]

    1. Little surprise, then, that it is popular at Harvard.

      WTF

      Cotton likes the big words like Hobbesian, but he obviously doesn’t understand them.

      1. It was a clear-cut case of misusing the concept. You can also read the question-begging behind the collectivist undertones in his argumentation. We’re Borg, so you’re both naive and vain if you think you’re not Borg. What an idiot.

        1. His argumentation is horrible. Outside of equating libertarianism with anarchism, he is essentially denying that society can exist within a libertarian society, that society requires the firm hand of the state to exist at all.

          1. denying that society can exist within a libertarian society, that society requires the firm hand of the state to exist at all

            Well, Tony would certainly agree. That’s rather telling.

            1. “Order is freedom.” – Tony, ripping off the mask.

        2. If we are Borg, can I haz 7 of 9?

          1. Dibs on her hotass cube-mate, 6 of 9.

    2. “To reject all rights of the community, one must reject all influence of the community. To do this implies a very specific, a very Hobbesian, view of human nature. One must think that men are naturally isolated, individual spirits frolicking only with their families and closest friends; we only assent to government to seek peace and stability of life.”

      He doesn’t know what Hobbesian means. Believing that less government would result in us ‘frolicking with our families and close friends’ is the opposite of Hobbesian since Hobbes believed a strong state was necessary to ward off chaos.

      Cotton is the worst pseudointellectual there is. If this is the best the hawk Republicans can do from a philosophical standpoint, they’re dumber than even I suspected.

      1. I think the only alternatives are either Graham or McCain.

      2. That passage could have been written by Barry or Warren. So what exactly differentiates him from them, that he simply wants to spend even more money on the military?

    3. This guy might displace Graham and McCain from the top of my most despised Republicans list.

      1. There’s a strong current of glee in the bldg. regarding the influx of veteran blood in congress. If this is what we get, I fail to see the advantage they bring. Plus, being younger than me, I wonder if the moisture behind his ears even dried yet. And how can a rookie congresscritter become “prominent” anyways.

    4. In all honesty, I hadn’t particularly heard of Tom Cotton before he sent this letter to Iran — but he is rapidly becoming one of the top 5 most loathsome Senators in Congress. Not an easy task when you’re competing with the likes of McCain and Lindsey Graham, certainly.

    5. Final possibility: you are a libertarian because you don’t want the government involved in your private life and don’t want Christian zealots telling you who to have sex with, or when to have an abortion. Maybe Tom cotton thinks that fighting in Iraq guarantees his right to a senate seat. I say it’s not something to brag about. You have to be an idiot or a zealot to have to brag about fighting in that war.

      1. And my private life extends to my job and my earnings which is why you’re no libertarian.

    6. To do this implies a very specific, a very Hobbesian, view of human nature. One must think that men are naturally isolated, individual spirits frolicking only with their families and closest friends.

      Wow, that’s not what Hobbes wrote at all, so here’s a refresher of Hobbes in Leviathan on the natural state of man sans government:

      In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short

      Libertarianism is popular at Harvard? I’m surprised the Harvard boys haven’t gone into New Hampshire to find a few Free Staters to lynch.

  13. Another thing with Richman: he falls for the “hardliner boogeyman” myth of foreign policy. Every US President throughout the Cold War, save Reagan, fell for this trick when sitting down with the Soviets. The Soviet negotiator would be polished, urbane, sophisticated. He’d speak good English. Then some brutish Red Army general in full dress uniform would enter the room and scowl endlessly at everybody.

    Then Mr. Urbane Negotiator would lean in close to whatever Ivy League socialist twit was supposed to be representing the US, and say “Listen Mr. Van Pewter-Schmidt….wait, I can call you Tad can’t I? Good. Listen, Tad, I want to bend farther here, really make some real progress on rapprochement, but these hardliners *gesture at general*…well, look, this is as far as I can go. If you can get your government to come meet me here, then next year the hardliners will be weakened and we can get some real progress.”

    Because the foreign policy of the United States is run by Ivy League twits, this always works. They are always willing to bend over backwards, because to them the hardliners are the real enemy, not the Soviets. They trust a member of the Politburo over a member of the Republican Party.

    1. Yeah, it wouldd terrible if our negotiations with Iran led to the same result our cold war negotiations with the Soviet Union led to.

      1. The ones that prolonged the Soviet Unions terrible existence, in which millions of innocent lives were extinguished on the altar of Marx?

        It wasn’t negotiation that brought down the USSR.

      2. You mean negotiations that actually extended the USSR’s existence through things like the American agricultural aid program?

  14. Good article, Sheldon.

    Boy, there sure are a lot of libertarians that make excuses for people that want to start [another] war against a country that doesn’t threaten us or hasn’t attacked us. Paging andrew Neapolitano, I need to figure out the difference between negotiate and advise and consent. Help a bother out, would you

    1. Boy, there sure are a lot of libertarians that make excuses for people that want to start [another] war against a country that doesn’t threaten us or hasn’t attacked us.

      Are there really libertarians doing this?

    2. Re: American Stolid,

      there sure are a lot of libertarians that make excuses for people that want to start [another] war against a country that doesn’t threaten us or hasn’t attacked us.

      Your sudden preoccupation with the consequences of war making is so touching. I expected you to be in favor of military adventurism considering a) it increases the size of the State and b) increases the level of despoliation of productive citizens which little red Marxians tend to favor. Like your imbecilic colleague Tony said yesterday: Without taxes, there is no civilization. But who said little red Marxians are principled?

    3. Don’t take all posters here as libertarians

      1. They’re not…at least according to Ron Paul, who suddenly, I guess, is not worthy of membership in the Libertarian club.

    4. Hasn’t attacked us?

      Holy crap, you believe Iran hasn’t attacked us?

      They were at war with us in Iraq throughout the US occupation. Iranian fighters, proxies, and supplies were one of the main sources of opposition. They attacked and killed US troops.

      That doesn’t mean we have to go to full-scale war with them, of course. But lets not be stupidly na?ve.

      Speaking of stupidly na?ve, if Iran only wants peaceful nuclear power, why are they spending billions to develop enrichment capacity that is only needed if you are making bombs?

      1. You must be in Colorado.

        “why are they spending billions to develop enrichment capacity that is only needed if you are making bombs”

        they aren’t.

        1. “You must be in Colorado” is the absolute stupidest version of the “I want some of what he’s smoking” ad hominem I’ve seen yet. Congratulations, Jim, you’re at the top of a very long list.

          1. “I want some of what he’s smoking” ad hominem

            Yes…but one must note that when applied to Agile Cyborg, it’s never an ad hominem, but rather a YEAH! hominem.

            1. I think in Agile Cyborg’s case, it goes well beyond “what he’s smoking.” I am not unfamiliar with the effects of smoked herbs, yet I cannot recall ever flying to that sort of hallucinatory (yet oddly poetic) universe.

            2. “a YEAH! hominem”

              Gold. Made me smile and anticipate Agile’s next….outpouring o’ words.

          2. comical you are calling me out for a stupid comment when that is exactly what i was doing to the idiot poster above me. Perhaps you should learn to read before you make more of a fool out of yourself, drone.

        2. Yes they are that’s exactly what they are doing. Peacenazis are as delusional as ever.

      2. We attacked them first without good reason. Call it the Persian version of the Monroe Doctrine.

        1. What you’ve just said… is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever seen. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having seen it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul…

      3. Re: Col. R C Dean,

        Holy crap, you believe Iran hasn’t attacked us?

        They haven’t. The most they did was capture a few hostages from the US Embassy in Tehran back when the US decided to let the Shah stay in the States. The same Shah that ruled Iran with an iron fist (his secret police was exceptionally brutal.) The same Shah that the CIA imposed on the Iranians back in 1956.

        Speaking of stupidly na?ve, if Iran only wants peaceful nuclear power, why are they spending billions to develop enrichment capacity that is only needed if you are making bombs?

        They’re just 2 months away from having a bomb! Since 1993!

        1. I seem to remember quite a few prisoners taken by the IA 14th DIV [I was advising them in the Spring and Summer of 2008] that spoke Farsi…and were retreating toward the Iranian border when the ol’ “Charge of The Knights” was ongoing. Had a few fairly large rockets land around me that were IRGC supplied and/or fired (depending on if they were 240mm or 122mm – the Brits said only the biggies were Iranian, the Iraqis said they all were).
          The IRGC was active in the south and some of center-south parts of Iraq up until the end of 2008 at least – now, anywhere they want.

        2. The most they did was capture a few hostages from the US Embassy

          They captured the embassy, which is sovereign US territory. They captured 66 diplomats and employees. 52 of them were held for a year and a half, beaten and tortured.

          I think that the term for this is “act of war.”

          1. “act of war”. Where do you idiots come from?

        3. The same Shah that the CIA imposed on the Iranians back in 1956.

          Correction, it was Churchill and Stalin who imposed the Shah in 1941.

        4. he same Shah that the CIA imposed on the Iranians back in 1956.

          That’s a lie, and the Shah was a relatively enlightened ruler.

    5. Help a bother out, would you

      Freudian?

      1. “A Freudian slip is when you say one thing and mean a mother.”

        1. *narrows gaze, once again, at Rich*

    6. See, what american socialist’s post is lacking is more apologia for totalitarian regimes. If the Soviet Union was pushing to invade Iran and install a government he’d be merrily supporting it. Remember, american socialist is unprincipled scum; he views things purely through who is doing it.

      1. They did in 1941, with Britain’s help, and imposed the Shah on Iran.

  15. Like Netanyahu, Cotton claims that a tougher U.S. position in the negotiations could fully deprive Iran of the means to produce a nuclear weapon.

    Remember that the Iranians have been on the verge of having enough fissible material to make a bomb in two months for the past… 25 years.

    Israel, which has not signed the NPT, is the only nuclear power in the Middle East and thus would face no threat even if Iran obtained the warhead it does not seek.

    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”

    H.L. Mencken.

    Nothing has changed.

  16. More commenters taking the GOP line over a Reason contributor and Paul. It’s like adverse possession around here from Weekly Standard’s regulars

    1. Or Townhall regulars. I got banned from that site long ago, by the way.

    2. Yet the same pro-war posters will deny that they are Team Red shills.

      1. No one in this comment section has advocated for war. Your and Bo’s petulant strawmen don’t negate the actual arguments being made.

        1. Disagreeing with Shelly or with any of the Reason Staff as well as the resident trolls and Arbiters automatically makes one a member of Teem Red and other assorted Groups of Closet Reactionaries. They are just to obtuse and one-dimensional to see the world any other way. Best to ignore.

          1. It is not just the fact many here ignore the NAP. The same posters frequently are Team Red on other libertarian issues – immigration, reproductive freedom, marriage rights, and then openly support GOP candidates instead of the Gary Johnson in the race.

            They are like Glenn Beck – a cafeteria freedom supporter.

            1. “Let us turn the whole country into a socialist fairyland by the joint operation of the army and people!”

            2. Palin’s Buttplug|3.12.15 @ 11:40AM|#
              “It is not just the fact many here ignore the NAP.”

              Turd just never learned to read, so whatever blather floats out can be safely ignored.

            3. It is not just the fact many here ignore the NAP.

              Hey look, the sycophantic liar who spent months defending ACA is trying to lecture us on the NAP. ‘Cafeteria freedom supporter’? Look in the mirror you sad fool.

        2. Easy enough to check. Please respond to this comment if you think the U.S. should go to war with Iran.

          1. Should I respond if I believe that we shouldn’t go to war, but at the same time shouldn’t do anything whatsoever that contributes to the stability of their regime?

            1. This position is unpossible. You either must support Iran or support full out war.

              1. I guess that’s how these things work. It’s all so confusing.

              2. Also, if you have any issue at all with Richman’s presentation of the situation, you are neo-con with a war boner. It’s obvious.

      2. Bo, shriek, if you’re going to rub each other off, go do it in a bathroom stall like civilized people.

    3. Yes Bo, we’re aware you want a hugbox to confirm your narrowminded and limited understanding of the situation. Why don’t you scurry off to Bleeding Heart Libertarians, where the Offended White Guys Brigade can’t hurt you?

    4. What a load of ridiculousness. Please enlighten us as to who in this comment section has advocated for naked war with Iran.

      1. Has to be me – I know NOTHING of war and gleefully advocate for it!!!!!

        Bah.

  17. Mutually Assured Destruction got us thru the Cold War. I am certain Iran is aware of the principles involved.

    1. Iran most certainly is, which is why it doesn’t want a bomb to bomb anyone with. It wants the bomb to exert greater influence in the region.

      1. I mostly agree with you but from a technical point MAD makes a lot more sense when your opponents ICBM’s are 30 minutes away and they had Ballistic Missile subs that made it impossible for you to prevent a retalitory strike

        The idea of wiping out your enemy with an overwhelming first strike becomes a lot more attractive when your enemy is only 11 minutes away and they lack a 2nd strike capacity.

        Sure they’d be gambling that the US would not be that second strike provider but is it really so far fetched that some future President would look at an Israel that has been nuked off the face of the map and conclude that risking a spread of the nuke exchange was not worth revenge for a troublesome at best ally?

        1. Fair points Rasilio. There is certainly room for more nuance than my generalization implies. If I were Iran I might want a nuclear program just for ‘peaceful’ purposes in order to preserve limited natural resources for a later time and/or other purposes, as well as to develop expertise that could be turned to a military program in a short period of time (if that’s possible, I don’t know). If that is the case then why wouldn’t you accept regular inspections as a condition of allowance? And by not allowing inspections you are just raising the suspicions of those that like to meddle in the region – hence where we appear to be right now.

          Of course, from a sovereign nation viewpoint there is no reason in hell they should allow anyone into their country to tell them what to do with their nuclear program. Even if they are only building a ‘peaceful’ nuclear program whose business is it except their own?

          Personally, I don’t think there is a lot we can do from stopping them building a bomb if that is their intent. I also don’t think we should be meddling in the region to the extent we are. The nations in the region need to figure out how to live peaceably as neighbors, or not, and then duke it out until they are ready to live peacefully.

          1. Actually the entire argument against Iran could be neutralized if they just gave up enrichment. There are far more users of LEU than refiners. And if they don’t build graphite or heavy water reactors, then there’s really no good way for them to secure material to build a bomb.

            Yes, they’re giving up the ability to enrich, but if your only goal is power, and you can secure supplies more cost effectively from somewhere else (true), then it’s really just a pride thing keeping you pursuing enrichment.

            1. you fail to address why they should give up anything

            2. TMSR FTW!

              I assume the power is intended in large part for desalinization plants, nicht wahr?

      2. So how about…

        Iran gives up its nuclear aspirations if Israel gets rid of their nukes?

        Detente, gentlemen.

        1. “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong.

          – Thomas Paine

    2. Re: Scruffy Nerfherder,

      Mutually Assured Destruction got us thru the Cold War. I am certain Iran is aware of the principles involved.

      Unfortunately whereas the U.S. government and NATO allies conceded the existence of rationality behind the Iron Curtain (implied in the policy of Mutually-Assured Destruction), the warhawks in Congress and Israel are not willing to do the same when it comes to Iranian political leaders. You see, it is easy to boast and thump your chest when the other guy is disarmed. It is no different when Rome started horrible rumors about the Carthaginians just before they set up to destroy them.

      1. They may be fundamentalist, but they are not fools.

  18. Speaking of Hillary:

    The last word on her asinine press conference. A complete demolition:

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/…..onference/

    1. From the link:
      “Quick clarification: Would emails from foreign governments regarding Clinton foundation donations be considered work or personal?”

      There’s a question I’d sure like to see answered.

    2. Congratulations on your title, RC!

  19. If I were president, I’d start phasing us out of most of our World Cop role, especially in the Middle East, where we lack a direct interest anymore. But that’s not on the table. Accepting that we’re going to stay involved as a practical matter, there are smart things we can do and dumb things. To date, this administration has been very solidly in the dumb camp. Even if I don’t agree with the Republicans’ view, it doesn’t mean I don’t think a vocal opposition isn’t in order, because the administration is creating a very big foreign policy mess.

    It is a little scary when rogue states have nukes, so I can sympathize with wanting to stop that. But as technology and science continue to advance, weapons of similar destructive capability will become increasingly available. Long term, a more affluent and peaceful world is the best defense to mass destruction. And the only way we know to get there is liberal government and free markets.

  20. I’ve noticed the non-interventionists who call everyone else neo-cons are really just angry when facts are presented that make countries other than America look bad. Saying ‘Hey, Iran is certainly trying to get nuclear weapons and the argument about them wanting peaceful nuclear plants is nonsense’ is interpreted by non-interventionists as ‘LET’S KILL ALL THE IRANIANS.’

    It doesn’t matter that this is a fact and that the fact does not make any particular argument about how we should respond – pointing out evidence the non-interventionist has chosen to ignore means you’re a Team Red Shill.

    Again, I’d take the Eternal Non-Interventionists more seriously if they’d actually bother arguing about facts, rather than calling everyone neo-cons for having the audacity to present them.

    1. Not only that, but during the 2009 Iranian presidential election protests we had a chance to support the moderates wishing to take back their country from the mullahs without using any US Military options. But since Obama decided that any support for the moderates against the mullahs would force him to actually stand for something he did what he always does, lead from behind and ignore the problem.

      Now if you support the Iranian people who want to get rid of their oppressive regime you get labeled a war monger.

      1. US intervention in those protests would have given the Mullahs a better reason to punish the protest movement right before their elections.

        Again – you are advocating intervention when Obama is not. You are politically craven like Team Red is.

        1. It’s a good thing The French government did not intervene by helping American colonials take back their government from a repressive regime.

        2. You are so fucking stupid.

          The Mullahs already had enough reasons to punish the movement and they did, brutally. Obama could have at the very LEAST made a statement supporting the protestors, instead he said there was no difference between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad.

          http://web.archive.org/web/200…..us_us_iran

          I realize it’s hard to read with your head stuck so far up Obamas ass, but you should try it sometime.

        3. Classic Buttplug, he’s a ‘secularist’ until supporting any kind of secular candidate requires him to reject his Presidential God. Then his position suddenly turns into bowing to theocrats.

        4. Sit down and shut the fuck up about things you know fuckall about demfag.

    2. When those same posters openly support inspections as a check like Obama wants then I will concede that you have a point.

      Instead they just parrot Team Red talking points about how we need hardliners in charge.

      1. Were you born a fat, slimy, scumbag puke piece o’ shit, or did you have to work on it?

      2. Shockingly, no one really cares what scum like you thinks. You’re a minor amusement, an ugly puppy peeing in its own face to your betters.

    3. There are a few on here who do realize Iran wants to build a bomb but maintain that its not our business. But generally you’re correct. I’ve never understood the libertarians who somehow believe that only the US government is deceitful and maniacal.

  21. I’m sorry Mr. Richmond, but I just can’t swallow the idea that the Iranian government does not want an explosive nuclear device. However I am against going to war with the Iranian government, and economic sanctions. Trade sanctions I can understand. Sell the Iranians everything but items that have to do with nuclear power. The idea is to pit the Iranians citizens against their government. War, nation building, and appeasement all have been proven not to work.

    1. Sorry, the only position that is allowed is to have a full on war boner or be a peacenazi .There is no middle ground. There is no position that allows you to have an opinion that war with Iran is bad and that Iran having the bomb is bad. If you think Iran has the or will get the bomb then you must be for war at all costs. HERPY, DERPY DERP HERP

      1. No, you can’t have any kind of nuance! You’re an evil Team Red warmonger shill if you don’t do anything but accept everything the Iranian government and Obama says as fact!

  22. Wildly OT:

    Terry Pratchett has died.

    1. NOOOOOOOOO !!!!!

    2. There goes my reading enjoyment

    3. Terry Pratchett is always on topic.

      I’m going to go read The Colour of Magic again this weekend.

      *pours out a 40 oz. for Terry Pratchett*

    4. That sucks. Guess I should finish Raising Steam

      Not sure about his daughter taking over. The series had already become kinda formulaic and preachy but still fun.

  23. At that point, Israel may well attack the Islamic Republic, expecting the United States to finish the job that Israel would be unable to finish. Catastrophe would follow.

    Does this mean he thinks Iran could take Israel? Because if so, he’s really overestimated Iran or underestimated Israel.

  24. Iran has seen the US invade two of it’s neighbors who don’t have nukes, while not invading one that does, and it wants nukes?

    Golly, I wonder why…

    1. Yeah sorry this line of reasoning is just stupid.

      One of those neighbors was pretty directly responsible for a direct attack on the United States and the other was invaded on the theory that they were trying to get WMD’s.

      That would send a pretty clear message of “don’t attack the US and don’t push for WMD’s and America won’t invade you”, a message reinforced by the fact that we didn’t invade Syria, or Lybia, or even Iran when he had plenty of excuse to do so.

      If Iran wants Nukes (and I am not certain they have made up their minds on that front yet, I think they want to be at the we can have nukes in 30 days anytime we want them stage for now) they want them to threaten Israel and to show that they are the big stick in the region. Not becuase they are afraid of an American Invasion.

      1. Has the US ever invaded a country with nuclear capabilities?

        1. Has anyone ever invaded a country with nuclear capabilities?

          Nope

          But the US has invaded countries on the pretext that they were trying to attain nuclear capabilities and since you have to try to attain them before you can have them, and the US already would kinda like to see you gone then trying to attain them is just drawing a bullseye on your capital

          1. That’s not true. The Pakistanis were crazy enough to try it during the 4th Indo-Pakistani War, not to mention their constant border skirmishes.

      2. A little bit from column A, a little bit from column B.

        The US government likes to throw its weight around even for nebulous reasons. What are Libya and Syria, chopped liver?

        And it’s not like the Iranians have clean hands, either. They might be one good intelligence leak away from the US having just as much reason to invade as with Iraq or Afghanistan.

        1. Also important to note that American pressure made Libya give up its various chemical, biological and nuclear weapon programs. Then about a decade later the U.S. helps overthrow said government. That sends a pretty clear message to despotic governments about what happens if you trust the United States and willingly give up whatever advantage you can get.

      3. Lybia seems like a bad example for your case. We didn’t invade, but we did intervene to help topple Ghaddafi.

        1. Other dictators saw what happened to Ghaddafi and made mental notes not to give up anything that would deter our interventions. Assad, for one, seems to have learned the lesson very well.

  25. Shouldn’t this be at LRC?

  26. Have you ever heard of the “Iranian Dream”?

    On March 8, 2015, Ali Younesi, advisor to Iranian President Hassan Rohani and previously intelligence minister (2000-2005) in the government of president Khatami, spoke at the “Iran, Nationalism, History, and Culture” conference in Iran; his statements were published by the Iranian ISNA news agency the same day.

    According to Younesi, Iran is once again an empire, as it was in the past, and its capital, Iraq, is “the center of Iranian heritage, culture, and identity.” Delineating the borders of the Persian Empire, or, in his words, “greater Iran,” he included countries from China, the Indian subcontinent, the north and south Caucasus, and the Persian Gulf. He added that since the very dawn of its history, Iran had been an empire and a melting pot of different cultures, languages, and peoples.

    1. Younesi stressed that despite the current obstacles to the unification of the countries in the region under Iranian leadership, Iran cannot disregard its regional influence if it wishes to preserve its national interests. Iran, he said, has been operating in this region, particularly in Iraq, with the aim of ensuring the security of the peoples there, whose connection to Iran is obvious because of history and culture. Saudi Arabia has nothing to fear from Iran’s actions, he added, because the Saudis themselves are incapable of defending the peoples of the region. He also assured the peoples of the region that Iran is operating there against Islamic extremism as embodied by ISIS, as well as against the Saudi Wahhabis, Turkey, secularists, Western rule, and Zionism.

      Further emphasizing that anything that enters Iran is improved by becoming Iranian, especially Islam itself, he added that Islam in its Iranian-Shi’ite form is the pure Islam, since it has shed all traces of Arabism, racism, and any other element that divides the various Islamic groups.

      Following are excerpts from Younesi’s statements:

    2. Know who else had a dream?

        1. God dammit! REFRESH, SWITZY,REFRESH!!!

      1. That kid in “The Lathe of Heaven”?

      2. Me. Last night. Scarlett Johansson. And her twin sister who had decided to go brunette. Woke up literally stuck to the sheets.

        Good times last night.

  27. Not wanting to go to war with Iran? Makes perfect sense; I can understand and agree with this position.

    Not wanting to go to war with them even as they are pursuing nukes? Again makes sense and I support this option (for the moment, at least).

    Not thinking that Iran wants nukes or that there would be no advantage to their having nukes is absurd. If I were an Iranian colonel who served in the Iran-Iraq War, I would be champing at the bit for nukes even if I weren’t psychotic. If I were or had regional aspirations of dominance, I sure as shit would want nukes in my arsenal.

    Why is this in any way controversial?

    1. ^This.

  28. This is growing tiresome. Yes, “we shouldn’t be fucking around in Iran” is a solid position. There are plenty of legitimate libertarian arguments backing that position.

    But arguing that Iran isn’t building a nuke because they put up a good face for the IAEA, or that the mullahs are just getting their comeuppance for the Shah, or that Iran is just a peaceful put-upon nation, is absolutely ridiculous.

    Just because you get called on your bullshit doesn’t mean the person doing the calling is a secret warhawk or neocon.

    1. This is the point being made by most of the commenters as far as I can tell and it’s absolutely correct.

    2. Just because you get called on your bullshit doesn’t mean the person doing the calling is a secret warhawk or neocon.

      Yes it does and you are obviously a neo-con socon OFWG. The Arbiter has spoken at length on this – see any 500+ comment thread in the past 18 months.

  29. I propose a Constitutional amendment.

    Only the People of the United States of America have the Power to declare War. Upon simple majority, Congress may propose to declare War. Such proposals shall be made public to the People for thirty days for review. At the end of the review period, a national referendum to declare War shall be put to the People.

    A declaration of War shall require a simple majority of all, eligible voters. Non-voters or abstainees shall count as “no” votes. A “yes” vote is explicitly volunteering to serve in the military to prosecute the war and, upon a successful Declaration of War, all persons that registered a “yes” vote must immediately report to the nearest Military Entrance Processing Facility and must remain, as long as they are fit for duty, in such service until such time as the War is ended. Volunteers that are not fit for active combat duty, shall be utilized in non-combat, clerical, logistics, or other such duties as they are able to conduct.

    I bet that would make a lot of hawks think twice…

    1. More likely it would lead to eternal war. Hooking up votes to the gravy train of 3 hots and a cot? Especially if you’re not fit you get to Fobbit it out?

      C’mon, son!

      1. More likely it would lead to eternal war. Hooking up votes to the gravy train of 3 hots and a cot? Especially if you’re not fit you get to Fobbit it out?

        Hahahaha

        There’s no way the dependent class would vote to exchange their current entitlements for military service. I mean. That would require, you know, like, actual work… and potential for real combat.

        There’s damned sure no way the independent class, as a whole, is going to give up their lifestyles for military service. The army’s 3 hots and a cot don’t compare.

        Part of the problem we’ve had with going to war, especially in the last century or so, is the people that make the decisions to go to war generally don’t have any skin in the game. Or, if they do, they have the pull to make sure Jr. stays safely in the rear, or comfortable in College.

        1. There’s no way the dependent class would vote to exchange their current entitlements for military service. I mean. That would require, you know, like, actual work… and potential for real combat.

          I would assume that to make such a regime workable you’d have to end the no-work welfare state.

          Part of the problem we’ve had with going to war, especially in the last century or so, is the people that make the decisions to go to war generally don’t have any skin in the game. Or, if they do, they have the pull to make sure Jr. stays safely in the rear, or comfortable in College.

          I agree with that point. But that has more to do with the existence of a standing army more than anything else. I mean, just yesterday Irish reported that he was arguing with a vet who earnestly believed the entire purpose of the American government was to crush her enemies and was rock hard to vaporize Iran tomorrow. And he wanted to be the one riding that bomb, Dr. Strangelove-style.

          1. Good Lord. I am just glad I am home with my wife, kids and family. I did my duty and have hung my sword up over the mantelpiece. I cannot fathom someone wanting to actively start more of this.

          2. I believe it has been shown that many in the US military’s higher echelon are fierce evangelic millenarians who see any war involving Israel as fulfillment of prophecy and harbinger of the Second Coming, so it’s easy to understand how all their various erectile tissues become engorged at the thought of nukular warrin’ in MENA.

        2. The only means of getting political skin in the game is when the other side has the means of eliminating the political class, namely nukes.

          Noy great surprise that wars became cold the minute that politicians were no longer able to externalize the cost of war to troops on the ground. The prospect of being killed (and if you’re charitable, seeing your family & friends killed) in a nuclear strike certainly does inspire a lot of peace.

    2. Besides HM’s point, I also doubt such a thing ever would pass. Congress will gladly pass its power on to the President, but to truly abdicate such power? Not going to happen.

      More realistically: I think that the War Powers Act should be amended. The President should not have the authority to deploy troops unless a) Congress has issued a formal Declaration of War, b) the territory of the United States has been invaded by the armed forces of another nation (and the President should face an automatic impeachment trial, just like the automatic court martial after a ship is lost at war), or c) the territory of an ally with whom a ratified treaty of alliance exists has been invaded by the armed forces of another nation (same deal). Furthermore, a Declaration of War without a prior invasion of the US or one of its allies should require a supermajority of both houses. There should be severe limits on the scope of such declarations, as well.

      Make the exercise of going to war so onerous that is only used in cases of true need.

      1. Also, any changes to a treaty of alliance/mutual defense, such as adding a new member to NATO, have to be ratified the same as an entirely new treaty.

      2. I also doubt such a thing ever would pass. Congress will gladly pass its power on to the President, but to truly abdicate such power? Not going to happen.

        I’m sure you’re right, but one could hope 🙂

        Make the exercise of going to war so onerous that is only used in cases of true need.

        That’s kinda my point to; to make it difficult. But, beyond that, the individuals with the power to make the choice should also have to put their own asses on the line for that choice. It’s easy to vote to send someone else to war. Not so easy to vote to send yourself to war.

    3. “… must immediately report to the nearest Military Entrance Processing Facility and must remain, as long as they are fit for duty, in such service until such time as the War is ended. Volunteers that are not fit for active combat duty, shall be utilized in non-combat, clerical, logistics, or other such duties as they are able to conduct.”

      It worked just about like this in WWII and the great majority seemed to think it was ok.

      1. There was probably a lot of overlap between those who served and those who supported the war, but I’m pretty sure “I do not support the war” or “I did not vote for FDR” were accepted as valid reasons for draft deferment.

        1. … were not accepted …

      2. It worked just about like this in WWII and the great majority seemed to think it was ok.

        Really? How many of the politicians that voted to go to war quit their posts and enlisted?

        1. Generals gathered in their masses
          Just like witches at black masses
          Evil minds that plot destruction
          Sorcerers of death’s construction
          In the fields the bodies burning
          As the war machine keeps turning
          Death and hatred to mankind
          Poisoning their brainwashed minds
          Oh lord yeah!

          Politicians hide themselves away
          They only started the war
          Why should they go out to fight?
          They leave that role to the poor

          1. Satan, laughing, spreads his wings…

    4. 13. To declare war
      A. War must be declared by Congress prior to commencing hostilities unless:
      1. The US is actually under attack and time prohibits obtaining a Congressional declaration of war.
      a. In such circumstances the President is authorized to commence hostilities for 120 hours. If no Congressional declaration is obtained within that period, ALL hostilities will cease and may not recommence without said declaration.
      B. The Declaration will specify who, specifically, the declaration applies to and criteria for termination
      C. Declarations are good for a maximum of one year and then require another.
      D. Failure to comply with 13., provided Congress is physically capable of voting, will result in immediate removal of the President from office to be replaced through line of succession.
      1. In such an instance, the senior ranking military officer is charged with the responsibility of removing the President from office and is subsequently subservient to the successor.

  30. How about Sheldon Richman has 1 post a day, and Bo, Ace, and Buttplug can comment to their hearts’ content?

    I can see some value in that.

    1. Watching the one true scotsmen agreeing with Jackass and PB is worth making popcorn for.

      1. “The One True Scotsman”

        I like it!

      2. C’mon man – you should at least be a Corporal or a SGT!

        1. I keep getting busted back to private for excessive drinking and smoking of the pot.

          1. In this Brigade?! You might get busted for insufficient drinking or weed use.

  31. my co-worker’s half-sister makes $86 hourly on the internet . She has been without work for five months but last month her pay check was $15863 just working on the internet for a few hours. read this article……….

    ????? http://www.netjob70.com

  32. Sheldon undoubtedly considers himself “antiwar”, which is one of those very fair and objective terms, like “pro choice” and “pro life”. Because anything that Sheldon wouldn’t do is “pro war”. Don’t hate Israel? Pro war. Write a stern letter to Khameini? Pro war. Don’t think Chris Kyle = Adam Lanza? Pro war.

  33. There are seriously like maybe four people here who don’t automatically genuflect in the direction of Republican crotches.

    1. Me and… who else?

      (Actually the vast majority, but you’ll ignore it. The Hawks come out when there are articles like this.)

      1. Funny, they seem to have exactly the same handles as the regulars on all the other articles. WTF is a libertarian hawk?

        1. Not all who post here are libertarians.

          Considering you post here, I would have thought you’d know that…

        2. WTF is an intelligent socialist?

    2. That happens like 8% of the time

    3. Tony|3.12.15 @ 1:33PM|#
      “There are seriously like maybe four people here who don’t automatically genuflect in the direction of Republican crotches.”

      Translated from brain-dead:
      “There are one or two people posting here who agree with me”.
      We know. We know who they are. We know they are uniformly dishonest and rarely argue in good faith, as you just showed, you slimy POS.

    4. Hmm, a veiled homosexual reference and a completely unsubstantiated claim.

      Sorry Tony, you missed the prog trifecta, we were looking for you to include something about us being beholden to Israel or retarded christians or something.

      Better luck next time.

      1. You don’t get to be a libertarian and favor warmongering with Iran at this juncture. As a neutral outsider, I get to decide these things.

        And all of you attack two particular writers at this magazine for being insufficiently Republican, essentially. Not to mention Bailey for believing in science.

        1. Has anyone on this comment thread favored warmongering and intervention?

          What’s that? Nobody has? Then Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

        2. As a neutral outsider, I get to decide these things.

          Actually you only get to pretend to.

  34. I see no difference between the argument thst some Republicans favor armed conflict with Iran in lieu of continued negotiations regarding Iran’s nuclear power program and Adam Lanza’s murdering of children.

    1. Winner

  35. Six months ago I lost my job and after that I was fortunate enough to stumble upon a great website which literally saved me. I started working for them online and in a short time after I’ve started averaging 15k a month… The best thing was that cause I am not that computer savvy all I needed was some basic typing skills and internet access to start… This is where to start……===========
    http://www.jobs-check.com

  36. Six months ago I lost my job and after that I was fortunate enough to stumble upon a great website which literally saved me. I started working for them online and in a short time after I’ve started averaging 15k a month… The best thing was that cause I am not that computer savvy all I needed was some basic typing skills and internet access to start… This is where to start……
    ============ http://www.netjob70.com

  37. “What they, like Netanyahu and other Israeli hawks, want is war and nothing less than regime change. ”

    Those evil, evil republicans want a totalitarian theocracy that is the leading state sponsor of terrorism to be replaced with a less psychotic regime. Booo! Hisssss!

    “So the hawks and hardliners are demonstrably wrong about the alternative to the current talks”

    Please, oh all powerful jackass, “demonstrate” the inevitable future to us.

    “The cruel sanctions regime will then crumble”

    Well if they’re so “cruel”, you presumably *want* them to crumble.

    “Catastrophe would follow.”

    That looks like a *claim*, not a *demonstration*.

    “If anything can persuade Iran’s rulers to go for a nuke, it’s the hardliners’ lust for war. What does that tell you?”

    It tells me that IT WILL ALL BE AMERICA’S FAULT! Forever and ever. Amen. (Is that the sig in Richman’s emails?)

    The mullahs were peace loving Care Bears, forced to nuke Tel Aviv by the evil fly over peasants.

  38. Six months ago I lost my job and after that I was fortunate enough to stumble upon a great website which literally saved me. I started working for them online and in a short time after I’ve started averaging 15k a month… The best thing was that cause I am not that computer savvy all I needed was some basic typing skills and internet access to start… This is where to start……
    ============ http://www.job-bandana.com

  39. Rand Paul signed that letter too. Is he for “war” too?

    No one in the GOP is for “war”. Rhetoric can go too far, but at the end of the day, that’s all there is. We didn’t go to war with Russia after Mccain said some tough things about them after Putin backed terrorists shot down a civilian air plane.

    The only person who got us even close to war after Bush left is – Obama. But even he didn’t engage in full scale war against a state. The guy’s not a full on dove because public opinion on dealing with ISIS and the Islamic State is becoming more hawkish.

  40. Isn’t this the same Gareth Porter who denied the Khmer Rouge atrocities in book form and before Congress?

    1. Reading his wikipedia page he seems to have a tendency to blindly believe whoever is against the US. He does seem to change his opinion occasionally so there is that.

  41. So in the “unlikely” instance that Iran manufactures nukes, would that mean that the chickenhawks stop talking about war?

    What does it mean when you breathe a sigh of relief that the wackos in North Korea or Iran get their hands on nuclear weapons and are moved off the list of war targets for GOP progressives who want to export “democracy” at the low price of a few thousand American deaths and a trillion dollars?

    1. What does it mean when you breathe a sigh of relief that the wackos in North Korea or Iran get their hands on nuclear weapons

      It means you are a moral pervert and should be considered a threat to freedom.

  42. Of course they want war, their corporate sponsors demand it.

    And never you mind that we made peace with a country who killed well over 100K Americans and who we later dropped two nukes on, and forget that other country where over 50K Americans died fighting and we now trade. Nope. Iran held 52 hostages for 444 days. That deserves an ass thumping like never before.

    1. You forgot the part where Iran continued to terrorize and murder Americans.

      their corporate sponsors demand it.

      Citation needed.

  43. Richman is not a proponent of peace. He just uses peace as a vehicle to front policies designed to hobble The Evil West. Anyone who actually believes that Iran isn’t gunning for a nuke is retarded. That’s the only reason for their extremely expensive nuclear facilities to exist. Anyone who believes the GOP is sincerely for war with Iran is also retarded. There was this thing called the ‘Bush Presidency’ where the GOP could (and probably should) have warred upon Iran at any time and didn’t.

  44. Since November, 1979, a State of War has existed between the United States of America, and the Islamic Republic of Iran, due to the aggression committed by Iran against the United States by attacking, occupying, and making prisoners of the staff of the Embassy of the United States in Tehran.
    Some people need to be reminded of that.
    What the Senators did was a proper reminder to the World – it was a OPEN LETTER, after all – that the United States is fairly unique among the Family of Nations, in that the Chief of State does not have unfettered power to do what he may wish, but has to consult with others within the government that stand with an equal basis.
    I’m sure that Reason, and its writers and readers, were just as outraged during the 1980’s with the issuance of the “Dear Commandante” letter by the Congress addressed to the Sandinista Leader, Daniel Ortega, and with Senator John Kerry’s (D-MA) trip to Nicaragua to talk with Mr. Ortega, and were clamoring for Logan Act charges to be brought against the senator.
    Right?
    Right!

  45. Republican’s are gunning for another war…Spending taxpayer dollars on trails about how President Obama’s strategy in Iraq is failing against ISS…However the war of the past has left 67,495 in 2011 to 62,619 in 2012 Veterans Homeless…These are men and women who fought in these egregious wars for congress Republicans…Men and women left with PTSD or without an arm or leg…Homeless and pennyless and ever still Republicans in Congress with their House Speaker push for yet another war…. Meanwhile our First Lady is pushing bigger and better Ideas: First Lady Michelle Obama Highlights New Orleans’ and Other Cities’ Progress in Ending Veteran Homelessness | April 20, 2015…Hurray for the Obama’s! So not only are congress controlled Republicans’ not creating jobs or raising the minimim wage to a livable wage…Or not all trying to pay back the Social Security Republicans have spent on war or misused…No Republicans are once again heading this country right back into war debt while never caring or thinking of our past and future veterans! Begs to question why anyone would vote Republicans into control of the USA house and Senate???

  46. Republican’s are gunning for another war…Spending taxpayer dollars on trials about how President Obama’s strategy in Iraq is failing against ISIS…However the war of the past has left 67,495 in 2011 to 62,619 in 2012 Veterans Homeless…These are men and women who fought in these egregious wars for congress Republicans…Men and women left with PTSD or without an arm or leg…Homeless and pennyless and ever still Republicans in Congress with their House Speaker push for yet another war…. Meanwhile our First Lady is pushing bigger and better Ideas: First Lady Michelle Obama Highlights New Orleans’ and Other Cities’ Progress in Ending Veteran Homelessness | April 20, 2015…Hurray for the Obama’s! So not only are congress controlled Republicans’ not creating jobs or raising the minimim wage to a livable wage…Or not all trying to pay back the Social Security Republicans have spent on war or misused…No Republicans are once again heading this country right back into war debt while never caring or thinking of our past and future veterans! Begs to question why anyone would vote Republicans into control of the USA house and Senate???

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.