Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Obama to Senate Dems: Guys, come on. This is the *first* time in 60 years where we can actually look like badasses on foreign policy. Do you *really* want to f*ck that up? We don't even have to go to war if you keep your mouths shut   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 46
    More: Cool, sanctions against Iran, Australian Prime Ministers, Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Obama, Los Cabos, Cristina Fernandez, Iran, senate democrats  
•       •       •

2378 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Jan 2014 at 9:14 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



46 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-16 08:47:33 AM  
The way punishment works is that you stop doing it when they start to behave.  I would have thought that would have been obvious, but here we are.
 
2014-01-16 08:58:51 AM  
The thing about these talks is that it's always the... OMG LOOK AT THE VIDEO ON THE SIDEBAR OF THE ABANDONED DACHSHUND THAT MADE FRIENDS WITH THE PARALYZED KITTY!!! WHO GIVES A F*CK ABOUT POLITICS AT A TIME LIKE THIS?!
 
2014-01-16 09:17:49 AM  
Oh, god dammit.  Media whores, all of them.  Every last one.
 
2014-01-16 09:24:01 AM  
Those comments...

I know the explanation, at least in words, but I'll never be able to really grok how conservatives seem to love Israel and hate Jews so much at the same time.
 
2014-01-16 09:24:21 AM  
First time the Dems can be foreign policy badasses since....Eisenhower?
 
2014-01-16 09:27:32 AM  

Koodz: Those comments...

I know the explanation, at least in words, but I'll never be able to really grok how conservatives seem to love Israel and hate Jews so much at the same time.


They need Israel to burn to start the rapture or is it the other way around?  I keep forgetting, one way or the other, the second coming is tied to Israel. And something about a cow, I remember a cow involved.
 
2014-01-16 09:28:22 AM  

Koodz: Those comments...

I know the explanation, at least in words, but I'll never be able to really grok how conservatives seem to love Israel and hate Jews so much at the same time.


They like Israel because its existence is a harbinger of the end times.
They hate Jews for roughly the same reasons they hate everyone else.
 
2014-01-16 09:28:54 AM  
I can't think of a time when Democrats weren't correct on every matter of foreign policy.
 
2014-01-16 09:29:23 AM  

EvilEgg: The way punishment works is that you stop doing it when they start to behave.  I would have thought that would have been obvious, but here we are.


Was trying to figure out how to say this, but then there you have it.

I blame it on the secret conservative fascination of BDSM. They think the pain should never stop.
 
2014-01-16 09:30:07 AM  
You'd think the far right would WANT Iran to have the bomb.  Isn't destroying Israel the end goal of the Evangelicals?
 
2014-01-16 09:30:57 AM  

Lost Thought 00: I can't think of a time when Democrats weren't correct on every matter of foreign policy.


Viet Nam?
 
2014-01-16 09:31:28 AM  

EvilEgg: Koodz: Those comments...

I know the explanation, at least in words, but I'll never be able to really grok how conservatives seem to love Israel and hate Jews so much at the same time.

They need Israel to burn to start the rapture or is it the other way around?  I keep forgetting, one way or the other, the second coming is tied to Israel. And something about a cow, I remember a cow involved.


Maybe when they finally wear out the chicken?
 
2014-01-16 09:36:44 AM  
In related news the GOP has reached out to Dennis Rodman to engage in Basketball Diplomacy with Iran.
 
2014-01-16 09:37:09 AM  
This is what I got:

1) Impose sanctions as leverage/punishment
2) Economic pressure from sanctions helped prompt a "meeting of the minds" and workable agreement to disarm in exchange for lifting of sanctions (bribery of sorts, but reasonably effective)
3) ??
4) Make big noise about new sanctions "in case working agreement fails"

That about right?

1) Ground teenager as leverage/punishment
2) Social pressure from grounding prompts teen to agree to parental demands
3)??
4) Parent states new sanctions "I can always throw you out of the house if you break another rule"
5) Teen decides parent is an unreasonable ass and moves in with loser boyfriend to prove a point

The Dems on board with this deserve an angry-teen-volumed "What is WRONG with you?!"
 
2014-01-16 09:40:05 AM  

parasol: This is what I got:

1) Impose sanctions as leverage/punishment
2) Economic pressure from sanctions helped prompt a "meeting of the minds" and workable agreement to disarm in exchange for lifting of sanctions (bribery of sorts, but reasonably effective)
3) ??
4) Make big noise about new sanctions "in case working agreement fails"

That about right?

1) Ground teenager as leverage/punishment
2) Social pressure from grounding prompts teen to agree to parental demands
3)??
4) Parent states new sanctions "I can always throw you out of the house if you break another rule"
5) Teen decides parent is an unreasonable ass and moves in with loser boyfriend to prove a point

The Dems on board with this deserve an angry-teen-volumed "What is WRONG with you?!"


Really? You're confused about what #3 represents? How about "Implement agreement specified in #2"?
 
2014-01-16 09:40:37 AM  

EvilEgg: Koodz: Those comments...

I know the explanation, at least in words, but I'll never be able to really grok how conservatives seem to love Israel and hate Jews so much at the same time.

They need Israel to burn to start the rapture or is it the other way around?  I keep forgetting, one way or the other, the second coming is tied to Israel. And something about a cow, I remember a cow involved.


There will be barbecue in Heaven.  It's in II Corinthians, somewhere.  Or maybe one of the Old Testament prophets.  I've read it before...
 
2014-01-16 09:44:53 AM  

qorkfiend: parasol: This is what I got:

1) Impose sanctions as leverage/punishment
2) Economic pressure from sanctions helped prompt a "meeting of the minds" and workable agreement to disarm in exchange for lifting of sanctions (bribery of sorts, but reasonably effective)
3) ??
4) Make big noise about new sanctions "in case working agreement fails"

That about right?

1) Ground teenager as leverage/punishment
2) Social pressure from grounding prompts teen to agree to parental demands
3)??
4) Parent states new sanctions "I can always throw you out of the house if you break another rule"
5) Teen decides parent is an unreasonable ass and moves in with loser boyfriend to prove a point

The Dems on board with this deserve an angry-teen-volumed "What is WRONG with you?!"

Really? You're confused about what #3 represents? How about "Implement agreement specified in #2"?


No, I'm not - just following the fark tradition
To clarify? Ought we not give implementation (and verification) per the agreement a chance to work before we threaten a new round of sanctions?
Isn't that one of the mistakes we've made in the past?
 
2014-01-16 09:45:40 AM  
Because doing the same thing over and over and over again has worked so well....
 
2014-01-16 09:48:16 AM  

Heraclitus: Because doing the same thing over and over and over again has worked so well....


What's your proposal?
 
2014-01-16 10:01:40 AM  
I can't understand why you'd negotiate with someone yet even before an agreement is enacted and a time table established, you do some punitive shiat for no reason.  The only reason to vote for sanctions now is if a) you want to embarass the US in the hopes that the public decides to hold their nose and vote R next time or b) you want yet another armed conflict in the middle east.

Either way, you're a farking jackass to think like that.
 
2014-01-16 10:05:26 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: You'd think the far right would WANT Iran to have the bomb.  Isn't destroying Israel the end goal of the Evangelicals?


They get their reward when the bad thing happens, but if they help it along then they are undeserving of that reward.

Just another one of Yahweh's perverse mind-games.
 
2014-01-16 10:15:13 AM  
Dammit Obama. According to latest reports Iran is only SIX MORE DAYS away from building a nuclear weapon.

And we're just supposed to let it happen?
 
2014-01-16 10:31:08 AM  
So...

1) Congress passes additional sanctions with veto proof majority.
2) Iran use the new sanctions as proof that the US can not be trusted
3) China and Russia decide not to support US call for more sanctions
4) Sanctions that were in place that caused Iran to want to negotiate in the first place can not restarted
5) Iran can sell oil on the world market.
6) Iran wins.

Am I wrong?
 
2014-01-16 10:34:02 AM  

EvilEgg: And something about a cow, I remember a cow involved.


Crossed wires.

The Evangelicals need all the Jews to return to Israel so that we can all get burned up (apparently, god's a big fan of streamlining) so that Christians can be raptured so that Jesus.

Jews believe the (or "a") harbinger of the "end times" (a return of Jews to a Biblical Israel, complete with Third Temple to replace the Dome of the Rock) is the appearance of a Red Heifer (cf. Numbers 19). TL;DR, a Red Heifer is the only means of ritual purification once the impurity of the dead gets you (and there's a LOT behind that; I could fill a fark thread by myself on "purity/impurity").

// of course, there is also a popular opinion that the Red Heifer is a red herring to get us to study rules with no purpose (I think Maimonedes said that?)
// because the rules are worth studying for their own sake
 
2014-01-16 10:37:20 AM  

Lost Thought 00: I can't think of a time when Democrats weren't correct on every matter of foreign policy.


ok. Ya got me. I can't tell if this is Poe's Law or not.
 
2014-01-16 10:41:15 AM  
It may very well be the first time in 60 years that liberals think they look like that, but to everyone living in reality, they look like fools.

Nobody in their right mind thinks Iran is going to keep their end of the bargain. Everyone in their right mind knows Iran is charging forward with the development of nuclear weapons and anything they do is just a stalling tactic to give them more time to do that.
 
2014-01-16 10:48:42 AM  

randomjsa: Nobody in their right mind thinks Iran is going to keep their end of the bargain. Everyone in their right mind knows Iran is charging forward with the development of nuclear weapons and anything they do is just a stalling tactic to give them more time to do that.


How is halting uranium refinement and destroying stockpiles of highly refined uranium with 3rd party verification a stalling tactic?
 
2014-01-16 10:52:40 AM  

Muta: So...

1) Congress passes additional sanctions with veto proof majority.
2) Iran use the new sanctions as proof that the US can not be trusted

2.5) Iran uses new sanctions as reason to develop the bomb.
3) China and Russia decide not to support US call for more sanctions
4) Sanctions that were in place that caused Iran to want to negotiate in the first place can not restarted
5) Iran can sell oil on the world market.
6) Iran wins.

Am I wrong?
 
2014-01-16 10:53:58 AM  

Muta: randomjsa: Nobody in their right mind thinks Iran is going to keep their end of the bargain. Everyone in their right mind knows Iran is charging forward with the development of nuclear weapons and anything they do is just a stalling tactic to give them more time to do that.

How is halting uranium refinement and destroying stockpiles of highly refined uranium with 3rd party verification a stalling tactic?


Oh, poor naive little Muta. You're just not living in reality. Rejoin the sane. There's plenty of room left in the reptilian complex of Next Gingrich's brain. Climb on in!
 
2014-01-16 10:55:42 AM  

EvilEgg: The way punishment works is that you stop doing it when they start to behave.  I would have thought that would have been obvious, but here we are.


The goal of a Senate vote on Iranian sanctions has nothing to do with modifying Iran's behavior. I thought that would have been obvious, but here we are.
 
2014-01-16 10:59:49 AM  
Subby seems to forget how Democrats encouraged strongarmed GWBush to invade a third world country to the tune of $1trillion dollars and 4000 American lives.
 
2014-01-16 11:00:44 AM  

randomjsa: It may very well be the first time in 60 years that liberals think they look like that, but to everyone living in reality, they look like fools.

Nobody in their right mind thinks Iran is going to keep their end of the bargain. Everyone in their right mind knows Iran is charging forward with the development of nuclear weapons and anything they do is just a stalling tactic to give them more time to do that.


I remember this song - only before this cover-version it was Saddam and WMDs

Sorry, random - this time I'd like to err on the side of diplomacy - it isn't like we can't pass new sanctions with breathtaking speed when we want to
 
2014-01-16 11:03:25 AM  

randomjsa: It may very well be the first time in 60 years that liberals think they look like that, but to everyone living in reality, they look like fools.

Nobody in their right mind thinks Iran is going to keep their end of the bargain. Everyone in their right mind knows Iran is charging forward with the development of nuclear weapons and anything they do is just a stalling tactic to give them more time to do that.


"Knows" meaning, in your view "really wants to be true despite the fact that it's not supported by evidence."

Much like the whole Iraq debacle. Remember how sure "everyone in their right mind" was then?

Of course you don't. If you learned from your mistakes you wouldn't be a Republican.
 
2014-01-16 11:05:09 AM  

Almost Everybody Poops: Muta: So...

1) Congress passes additional sanctions with veto proof majority.
2) Iran use the new sanctions as proof that the US can not be trusted
2.5) Iran uses new sanctions as reason to develop the bomb.
3) China and Russia decide not to support US call for more sanctions
4) Sanctions that were in place that caused Iran to want to negotiate in the first place can not restarted
5) Iran can sell oil on the world market.
6) Iran wins.

Am I wrong?


Close but I think it would be more like this:

1) Congress passes additional sanctions with veto proof majority.
2) Iran use the new sanctions as proof that the US can not be trusted
3) China and Russia decide not to support US call for more sanctions
4) Sanctions that were in place that caused Iran to want to negotiate in the first place can not restarted
5a) Iran can sell oil on the world market.
5b) Iran can start up their uranium refinement program
6) Iran wins.
 
2014-01-16 11:06:14 AM  

Muta: randomjsa: Nobody in their right mind thinks Iran is going to keep their end of the bargain. Everyone in their right mind knows Iran is charging forward with the development of nuclear weapons and anything they do is just a stalling tactic to give them more time to do that.

How is halting uranium refinement and destroying stockpiles of highly refined uranium with 3rd party verification a stalling tactic?


Anything delaying bombing Iran is stalling.
 
2014-01-16 11:07:43 AM  
In general, if someone is getting traction on negotiations, you support them, you don't try and fark things up.
 
2014-01-16 11:14:06 AM  

mrshowrules: In general, if someone is getting traction on negotiations, you support them, you don't try and fark things up.


In general, yes. But this Congress has a very special talent for farking things up.
 
2014-01-16 12:03:04 PM  

qorkfiend: Lost Thought 00: I can't think of a time when Democrats weren't correct on every matter of foreign policy.

Viet Nam?


bestuff.com

We didn't lose Vietnam. It was a tie!
 
2014-01-16 12:05:06 PM  
seriable.com

Don't worry Obama. I got this.
 
2014-01-16 12:28:31 PM  
This is basically a prisoners dilemma.  Iran and the US both have the choice to cooperate or to betray.  The difference is that Iran can know the US's choice before it chooses to act.

If the US betrays, Iran has no reason to cooperate and will certainly continue, if not accelerate its nuclear program.

If the US cooperates and Iran betrays, then at the very least they will incur a loss of time in their program as well as the expense of keeping their nuclear material hidden from inspectors, which almost certainly wouldn't work anyway.  Iran gets closer to a weapon but substantially pisses off the SC nations.

If both cooperate we get on a path where the threat of a nuclear Iran is seriously degraded at minimal costs while Iran gets increased access to the international community.

The thing is, even if we cooperate and Iran betrays, we're still in better shape than if we just kill the treaty now.  We've cost them time and money in trying to hide their program, and we have even more support amongst the security council for further punitive measures which we don't currently have.  I just don't see why this is so difficult to understand.
 
2014-01-16 01:42:31 PM  

Stile4aly: This is basically a prisoners dilemma.  Iran and the US both have the choice to cooperate or to betray.  The difference is that Iran can know the US's choice before it chooses to act.

If the US betrays, Iran has no reason to cooperate and will certainly continue, if not accelerate its nuclear program.

If the US cooperates and Iran betrays, then at the very least they will incur a loss of time in their program as well as the expense of keeping their nuclear material hidden from inspectors, which almost certainly wouldn't work anyway.  Iran gets closer to a weapon but substantially pisses off the SC nations.

If both cooperate we get on a path where the threat of a nuclear Iran is seriously degraded at minimal costs while Iran gets increased access to the international community.

The thing is, even if we cooperate and Iran betrays, we're still in better shape than if we just kill the treaty now.  We've cost them time and money in trying to hide their program, and we have even more support amongst the security council for further punitive measures which we don't currently have.  I just don't see why this is so difficult to understand.


You're making logical and cogent statements. The people trying to sink this have the logic and consistency of someone who's been tied up in a bug-infested tropical fever swamp for a month - or at least an appreciable fraction of their district do.

(They also have a real thing for having negative beliefs about things, then turning those beliefs into self-fulfilling prophecies. See: this article)

Lost Thought 00: I can't think of a time when Democrats weren't correct on every matter of foreign policy.


Vietnam comes to mind. Cuba & the Bay of Pigs. If you don't mind going a bit farther back, there was a good deal of naivety regarding what Communism is really like among "the left" back in the 20s/30s.
 
2014-01-16 02:13:15 PM  

erik-k: Lost Thought 00: I can't think of a time when Democrats weren't correct on every matter of foreign policy.

Vietnam comes to mind. Cuba & the Bay of Pigs. If you don't mind going a bit farther back, there was a good deal of naivety regarding what Communism is really like among "the left" back in the 20s/30s.


Was an Eisenhower Administration thing originally. It was already at a very advanced stage when Kennedy came into office, and the senior military and intelligence people leaned on him pretty hard to carry through with it, and it had been set up in a way that would have basically guaranteed that the plan would become public if cancelled, and the cuban expats already knew. So if he cancelled it, the cuban community and the broader public would be outraged and would paint him as being weak on Communism. The intel was also at fault- basically, the CIA and military had been morons, and were very, very far off in their battle planning. Kennedy had major doubts, but didn't want to radically shift US foreign policy operations so quickly. He assumed the military and CIA knew what they were doing, and relied on their expertise.

tl;dn: Ike's admin planned it, and Kennedy as a new President with absolutely no experience in this kind of process, didn't have enough confidence to push back, especially given the political fallout that would have resulted from cancellation. Farkup up and down the ladder from the nonpartisan career guys to the President(s) themselves, but I wouldn't pin it as a Democratic farkup.

Vietnam, certainly. Communism early in the game, certainly. The isolationist Dems that fought FDR on trying to get involved in WWII as well- people forget that FDR was a pretty lonely voice in Democratic politics in wanting to confront Hitler. Republicans certainly weren't any better on that, however. I'd argue that Clinton had a few major farkups, and had Truman known the effect backing Israel would have on the region long term, I doubt he would have put the weight of the US behind that one. I'm not a fan of Clintonian trade policies, and he could have done more to combat extremism and slow the growth of the armed groups that Reagan and Bush sponsored for use against the Soviets, and which later became the terrorist groups we're dealing with today.

So yeah, Democrats have certainly had their share of farkups. But if you asked me to put together a list of Republican crap, it would take a lot more time. We could start with basically everything the Dulles brothers ever did, for example.
 
2014-01-16 02:39:38 PM  
There's a pretty good example from just a few years ago.
 
2014-01-16 05:44:54 PM  
Fark AIPAC. Seriously.

/I'm so disappointed in Booker
 
2014-01-16 09:55:56 PM  

erik-k: If you don't mind going a bit farther back, there was a good deal of naivety regarding what Communism is really like among "the left" back in the 20s/30s.


Not coincidentally, there was a good deal of naivety regarding what Fascism is really like among the "left" in roughly the same time period.
 
2014-01-16 09:56:59 PM  

Baz744: erik-k: If you don't mind going a bit farther back, there was a good deal of naivety regarding what Communism is really like among "the left" back in the 20s/30s.

Not coincidentally, there was a good deal of naivety regarding what Fascism is really like among the "left" in roughly the same time period.


Excuse me. Among "the right."

Dammit. So much for rhetorical impact.
 
Displayed 46 of 46 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report