In an effort to inspire Porter Lansing to take his foot out of his mouth, he first has to know it is in there. Two weeks ago, repetitive liberal poster Porter posted the following as a definitive statement Obama’s Iran Nuclear deal merited approval by Congress:
Endorsement the day:
Three dozen retired generals and admirals released an open letter Tuesday supporting the Iran nuclear deal and urging Congress to do the same.
Calling the agreement “the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons,” the letter said that gaining international support for military action against Iran, should that ever become necessary, “would only be possible if we have first given the diplomatic path a chance.” – Karen DeYoung (WashingtonPost) Read it here
Today, 195 retired generals and admirals respond with:
“In our judgement as former senior military officers, the agreement will not (prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons). Removing sanctions on Iron and releasing billions of dollars to its regime over the next ten years is inimical to the security of Israel and the Middle East. (There is no process of reinstating sanctions) should Iran violate the agreement. In this and other respects, the (Iran Agreement) would threaten the national security and vital interests of the United States and, therefore, should be disapproved by Congress.
“The agreement as construed does not “cut off every pathway” for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. . . .
“The agreement is unverifiable. . . .
“The agreement provides by some estimates $150 Billion or more to Iran of sanctions relief. . . .
“In summary, this agreement will enable Iran to become far more dangerous, render the Mideast still more unstable and introduce new threats to American interests as well as our allies. In our professional opinion, far from being an alternative to war, (the agreement) makes it more likely that the war the Iranian regime has waged against us since 1979 will continue, with far higher risks to our national security interests. Accordingly, we urge the Congress to reject this defective accord.”
In short, 84% of the former retired generals and admirals have expressed opposition. 16% have expressed support. This is a landslide. Dirty toes in mouth isn’t good. The entire foot really isn’t good.
Link to second set of quotations?
In reality, saying that “84% of the former retired generals and admirals have expressed opposition. 16% have expressed support” is at best meaningless, and at worst deliberately misleading, because there are several thousands of retired generals and admirals (about 4700 in 2006, the latest stats I could quickly Google) and your comparison above represents those who signed only two politically charged position papers. The second sample is clearly a political response to the first, and neither claims to be representative of all military brass, retired or otherwise. “84% to 16%” only refers to those who signed one of the two political position statements (which, in my opinion, is a unwise political position for any military leadership to advertise). Persuade me with meaningful stats, not just blather of landslides and dirty toes.
John, good catch. I added a link to the letter from the 195. Thanks. Regarding the persuasiveness of the letter, my first point is Porter claimed the first letter was significant (so did the Obama Administration). Now the Obama administration is back tracking that it isn’t about “signatures.” Just wondering if Porter will do the same. My second point though is knowing whether the agreement is good or bad is beyond the expertise of virtually all average Americans. At the end of the day, we have to rely on the judgment of experts. Right now, it is 84%-16% against among retired experts. (Troy)
I reiterate that 84%-16% remains meaningless, and so is any other forthcoming ratio of retired generals. (Was your position invalid last week when the ratio was 36-0 pro? And should any diplomacy be determined by poll of generals?) And since you would have us relying on the judgment of experts – who exactly are the experts to whom you wish to defer? Military brass? Some or all of Congress? Do you mean to suggest the entire State Department is devoid of experts?
This diplomatic agreement, from start to finish, is political. It’s an exercise of political and economic realities of many countries, including the political reality that, absent this agreement at this time, the US has little effective means to pursue these economic and military goals besides overt military aggression, which seems to be the ulterior motive with many on the right. Rep. Verchio’s enthusiastic comments about “quick, decisive, complete destruction” make that point far better than I can.
“he US has little effective means to pursue these economic and military goals besides overt military aggression, which seems to be the ulterior motive with many on the right.”
You too have bought into this either/or false dichotomy.
There are MANY effective tools for the US to use to slow down, even halt, the Iranian’s nuclear development.
You, like the idiot Obama, have failed to even consider such tools.
The lack of imagination is dangerous.
Okay PC, go ahead. Imagine a few “tools” for us.
I’m sure we’d all love an opportunity to inspect your strategic brainchildren.
Quick, five surefire ideas of your own, off the top of your head. Show us how to stop Iran from developing nukes.
Right now. Throw ’em down.
And no looking things up. Gotta be original.
Then we’ll decide about who’s dangerous.
Maintain the current sanctions regime.
Maintain the sequestration of proceeds from illegal oil sales.
In other words, keep doing what we have been doing? That’s the extent of your imagination? Interesting. Sounds about right for a conservative though, I guess. Maintain the status quo.
Why is it the Iranians came to the table? Did it have anything to do with the sanctions already in place? This is an example where the US and the rest of the world was negotiating from a position of strength. Instead of dictating the terms in which the sanctions would be lifted, John Kerry and the President gave away the store so they could say they got an agreement. Can you name one thing we get from this? Iran gets a nuke. Iran is able to hide their work on a nuke. Iran gets money that has been frozen in the US for decades, an infusion of the equivalent of trillions of dollars when compared to the US economy. Iran gets to continue state sponsored terrorism. When the status quo is working, yeah don’t change it. Perhaps you have missed the rule that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. The liberal approach seems to be that since we are evil we need to level the playing field for that poor defenseless Iranian regime.
What? Who was arguing for the status quo?
We should keep doing what we been doing AND MORE.
Instead of a lame duck/lameass president looking to invent some “legacy” by giving away nuclear weapons.
As I suspected, PC doesn’t have any ideas. That’s why I was so entertained to see him/her write ‘The lack of imagination is dangerous.’ Funny.
I provided at least two “ideas”; and a third on why Obama doesn’t want to use them,
Reject them ,debate them, …whatever,.
But they are there. Everyone can read therm.
Can you read?
Sorry Billy, but your “deny reality” approach doesn’t work here. Go back to your fellow underwear-clad fembotss over at Mudvile.
if you call doing what we’ve been doing ‘new ideas,’ its easy to see why, frequently, no one can figure out what you’re talking about. it appears you speak a vaguely familiar, yet somehow foreign language. 🙂
“if you call doing what we’ve been doing ‘new ideas”
I did not claim that my ideas were “new ideas”–
“There are MANY effective tools for the US to use to slow down, even halt, the Iranian’s nuclear development.”
You demanded to know what these tools were (like a petulant child), so I provided some to you. Now you’re whining that these tols are not “new”enough for you …just like you wanted! Boo-hoo,
Look back, it it YOU who started yammering about “new ideas”. Can you read what you wrote?
” it appears you speak a vaguely familiar, yet somehow foreign language”
‘
It’s called “English”.
Is that a foreign language to you?
First you challenge a poster here for his lack of imagination, then when invited to show us yours, you descend into insults.
You could just as well instead have admitted to us that you don’t have any original ideas, especially since that is —t o most of us — already patently obvious.
This has just been a little exercise in holding up a mirror so you can perhaps have some insight into how foolish you look.
Thanks for playing along.
p.s. you are perhaps proving your own point however. Your lack of imagination does indeed seem dangerous. 😉
“First you challenge a poster here for his lack of imagination, then when invited to show us yours, you descend into insults.”
I did not “challenge” the poster….I pointed out that the false dichotomy of “deal or war” involves a dangerous lack of imagination.
“that you don’t have any original ideas, ”
Who claimed that I had any “original ideas” pertinent to the current Iran issue??? Why do you criticize me (again) for not addressing the strawmen that you created? You claim that I said something about “new ideas” and “original ideas” and then criticize me for not providing them, when AT NO POINT have I ever suggested that “new ideas” or ” original ideas” were required.
It was nice of you to butt in and try to defend the errant poster, but you’ve only demonstrated your own failure to think rationally..
And where are the “insults”? Next to the “new ideas” that you imagined reading ?
“Thanks for playing along.”
Oh, so you finally admit your posts here were simply a game! So how are we to know when you’re playing a game or trying to be serious?
If the past is an indication, you appear to be playing a game ALL THE TIME! Really, NO ONE can be as ignorant WITHOUT playing a game
Sorry for mistaking you for someone who might have a good idea every once in a while. I’m sure you understand that Iran already has nuclear capability and that your “solution” doesn’t do anything to change that. It’s okay with me if you don’t have ideas. It’s not exactly an easy problem to solve.
I just remembered–
weren’t you the blowhard who claimed that Trump was saying what Rep wanted to hear, but when I challenged you, you could not quote anything Trump was saying that backed up your claim!
Oh god, you’re a piece of work Billy.
” At the end of the day, we have to rely on the judgment of experts”– If there is a battle to be fought you want the “experts” in war to fight the battle, you do not want THOSE experts deciding IF a battle is to be fought.
Precisely. Great point.
Oh, another game Billy?
wink, wink..I get it!
Part of the problem is just who those “experts are”. There are two kinds of military officers. One group actually fights the enemy. The other group fights to get ahead in the bureaucracy. The latter group is more interested in their careers than in the interests of the US.
I believe that most military professionals will tell that political correctness foisted upon the military hampers all winning strategies today . The military should be allowed to kill the enemy and break their things with any means available without violating the Geneva Convention . We are too concerned with collateral damage and civilian casualties which results in more casualties within our military . So what if we destroy their water or electrical supply , so what if we have to destroy the occasional house of worship or religious icon . We need to return to WINNING wars as quickly as possible . Quick , decisive , complete destruction of our enemies .
Mike, I am not sure your approach would work. I think I just read that any military should be able to do whatever they want without worrying about the Geneva Convention?
“with any means available without violating the Geneva Convention”
Nuclear? Chemical? Those are both means that various military entities have available.
I wanted to give you a chance to clarify before I stated that you show a disturbing lack of understanding about how the world works. A disturbing lack of understanding.
But maybe you didn’t mean it quite that way, so you have a chance to elaborate if necessary.
Rep. Mike Verchio– As a “lefty” loon I agree completely with you.. Compare WW11 with any war/conflict after that.
The technology and accuracy of much of todays weaponry precludes the use of nuclear and chemical weapons .
So under your earlier proclamation, do nuclear and chemical qualify under the “any means available” definition or do they not qualify?
Do they or don’t they?
John Campbell:
1) Porter called 36 retired generals and admirals the “endorsement of the day.” Well his endorsement was trumped 5-1. That isn’t “meaningless” in my opinion.
2) Similar to Bush’s “mission accomplished,” Obama told us we were on the verge of an “Arab Spring.” Well, since then we have nothing but disasters that are now Iraq, Syria, Libya, and the growth of ISIS, so I am not going to automatically defer to this administration.
3) In a few weeks, we’ll see what the Congress thinks but I’m confident it will be a majority in both houses and likely strong majorities. The question is whether or not there will be a super-majority necessary to override the veto.
4) You can’t make good deals with bad people. The Iranians couldn’t even wait until the ink was dried before they sent a terrorist general to Russia in violation of international travel restrictions or have demonstrations calling for the Death of America led by people who must approve this agreement.
5) I have no desire to go to war with Iran. But, I’ve also learned the Chamberlain lesson that peace at any cost only leads to war.
6) Neither do I have a desire to lift economic sanctions. Neither do I want to create a situation where one of our Middle East allies might decide they must bomb an Iranian nuclear facility to protect their homeland.
7) I ascribed to the original Obama objective of anytime inspections. We didn’t get that which is why this agreement is effectively unenforceable.
one in five doctors thought the aca was a good deal too. there’s no accounting for some people.
Chemical off the table nukes never off the table (deterrent)