Will the cranks be ok if we add this Iran deal to "the list"?

[scheming daemons]

You know... the list of accomplishments of the Obama administration that inexplicably gets derided on a Democratic web site.

This is another in a LONG line of things that would've been VERY different with a GOP administration.

For the first time in 35 years, we have successfully negotiated with Iran, bringing them back into the community of nations just a wee bit.

We have responsibly drawn down two wars and avoid two others (Syria and Iran).

And yes... going from 80,000 combat troops to 8,000 troops that are pretty much confined to bases in Afghanistan is a successful drawdown.

This man has been a peace President. He has been a stallwart standing between us and the barbarians at the gate in foreign and domestic affairs, despite having an enormous array of moneyed interests aligned against him.

History will judge his presidency much better than too many of us do in the moment.

[spanone]

1. k&r....

[JNelson6563]

2. The list grows, in spite of gnashing of teeth

and the sack-cloth & ashes crowd.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

81. Yes indeed!

[madokie]

3. I agree wholeheartedly

I like our President in case you didn't already know that.
I've been solidly on his side since day one.

[Laelth]

4. This is part of the pivot, imo.

Saudi Arabia and Israel were mad that we backed off on Syria. I think we made the right move on that, and I have said so, even if it meant we ticked off some allies. With the Iran deal, we're ticking off those same allies again. That's the downside of this deal. We should acknowledge the downside and not pretend it doesn't exist.

That said, peace is better than war, and this appears to be a step toward peace, but we must be clear that our ticking off Israel and SA could lead to more conflict. On that, only time will tell.

Iran sells most of its oil to China. Just as the TPP is a move to isolate China, so this peace deal is a move to threaten China's oil supply. It's part of the pivot, and it is belligerent in that sense.

I am still harrowed by this map:



Our plan to isolate and, perhaps, destroy Iran has been in place for a long time, and I am glad we are backing away from said plan, but it does carry some cost that we would be foolish to ignore.

We have done very well in drawing down two wars and avoiding war in Syria. I am quite pleased about our foreign policy in this regard. Credit where it is due, but I will not pretend that this move isn't risky. It's not good to tick off one's allies.

-Laelth

[BumRushDaShow]

14. However this policy is also

isolating Israel to force them to stop using excuses about Syria and Iran for why they can't seal the deal on a peace plan with the Palestinians - focusing solely on their own issues and not external ones. Every day Bibi rants about Iran is a day that he's not negotiating for Israel proper.

And by moving to stabilize the 2 countries once considered part of the "Axis of Evil" by removing talking points about them and from them, this now shines the spotlight on Saudi for the radical anti-Israel crowd to see, where they would then consider Saudi as being an "appeaser to the Zionists" (in quotes). And if anything, that might help to tamp down some of the recent flaming rhetoric coming from Saudi in the ongoing Sunni vs Shia debate that continues to keep the region simmering.

[Laelth]

16. Useful addition to this discussion. Thanks. n/t

-Laelth

[LWolf]

5. Are you calling DUers who don't agree with you "cranks?"

Can't you just create your list, and add what you want to it, without getting confrontational over it?

[scheming daemons]

6. I am calling people who deride the list of accomplishments cranks

..

[LWolf]

7. You are deriding DUers who disagree with you about that list,

and doing so by engaging in juvenile name-calling.

That's no way to make a point or to get someone who doesn't already to agree with you.

[theaocp]

9. Pretty much.

There is no reason to start this thread other than to create drama and fights.

[tridim]

10. Do you agree that this is a MAJOR accomplishment or not?

[scheming daemons]

11. it is another in the list... therefore they will minimize it

..

[Bradical79]

17. How could "they" minimize it?

[tridim]

21. See your post #10. nt

[Bradical79]

13. That's 100% dependant on what happens over the next several months -nt

[tridim]

18. Yes, I'm sure the GOP will have lots of negative things to say about it in the next several months.

That is the GOP M.O.

What's yours? Is it just general disrespect for the President or do you have a specific reason?

[Bradical79]

68. I just dont like your approach in particular

This administration is doing a fine job with Iran. But a temporary short term provisional agreement is not any kind of great victory to be throwing in people's faces before anything has actually been followed through with, especially on a Democratic message board. If you want to use the agreement as a divisive weapon in your online war against criticism, then that's your prerogative.

[rhett o rick]

118. Sadly this major accomplishment is overshadowed in this thread by divisiveness. It seems important

to some to alienate some Democrats.

[LWolf]

94. Neither.

I hope that the net result will be positive. If so, that's an accomplishment, whether or not it's "MAJOR."

I don't have any need to take a side one way or the other; I'd just like to see people express themselves without deriding others.

It's that simple.

[rhett o rick]

117. At last I found the term that describes what you do. It's called JAQing off.

Asking questions to insinuate a point yet never actually venturing into making a statement.

See here for the definition: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/JAQing_off

[treestar]

85. But in this case it's tit for tat

Derides of the list invariably make fun of the list poster.

[LWolf]

92. Nope.

I don't know that I agree with this list poster, but I'm not "making fun of" the poster, or deriding the poster.

I AM criticizing the tone and substance, because the thread seems to be more about attacking people who disagree than promoting something positive for "the list."

[Bradical79]

12. Where's the list? -nt

[Sheepshank]

15. do a little search on DU, every time a list of accomplishments arrives..the crap throwers do too.

[Bradical79]

27. OK, found a list

First one that popped up was from 2012 as a Rachael Maddow segment. There wasn't a single crap thrower. Search list of accomplishments and there it is. Doesn't look like his supporters are very good at maintaining and promoting lists.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

78. No. He cannot. The cranks are always confrontational.

As Obama has said, it would be foolish to unilaterally disarm.

[JaneyVee]

8. Safe to say if McCain won in 2008 we'd be in our 5th year of war with Iran.

[Heather MC]

30. If Romney had won, It would have been Russia...

you know our biggest geopolitical foe

[trishtrash]

35. Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.

[calimary]

49. We'd be in our fifth year of war - in FIVE Middle Eastern countries!

And for Heaven's Sake, he actually WENT to war. He of all people should know better! He of all people should know the real costs of war, since he personally paid some. When I heard his schtick at the 2012 GOP CONvention, agitating for not one, not two, not three, but FIVE different fights we need to pick with countries over there.

[tblue]

66. McCain is rightfully pissed at the Vietcong.

That's why he promotes war at every opportunity. He just wants to get back at somebody, anybody, everybody. I feel so sorry for him because of what he endured, but he learned the wrong lesson from it. Just MHO. It's tragic actually.

[Douglas Carpenter]

19. is it not possible to like some of the things he has done like this Iran deal but not like some of

the other things he has done?

[tridim]

23. Let me guess, you don't like how he passed Chained CPI?

[Douglas Carpenter]

47. I do like how progressives spoke up with such a lound voice that we stopped chained CPI

I was unaware that I am obligated to robotically agree with anyone or robotically oppose anyone for that matter, either. There is something called critical thinking - however uncool it may be.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

70. Delusional...

Look pal, either its:

1] Progressives are so weak that all those Democrats (who are really Republicans) are running over us.

or

2] Progressives have veto authority over anything the President wants to do.


Pick one. It can't be both.


- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

/What really happened was that Obama put Chained CPI on the table to call the GOP's bluff and they folded immediately. Fringe screamers on a website had nothing to do with it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

76. you just don't understand politics at all. There has been huge push from the sensible center to

implement chained CPI for some time and that push is still around although greatly weakened. The talking heads of the sensible center all agreed that it was the "far left" who were blocking "entitlement reform" AKA cutting benefits for Social Security and Medicare. Fortunately it became clear to everyone that the sensible center were the real fringe with no more than a handful of supporters at least on this issue and the "far left" were representing the overwhelming majority of Americans on this issue. Thanks to those not in the sensible center speaking up loudly and boldly and in concert with the vast majority - this move toward "entitlement reform" was stopped dead in its tracks. Or one can believe some conspiracy theory about how the Obama Administration never wanted what they were putting on the table and proposing.

And NO - it is not a choice between believing progressives have no influence and progressives run the show any more then there is a choice between having to support everything the Obama Administration does and opposing everything the Obama Administration does. Again, there is something called critical thinking - however uncool it may be. But, I guess it is wacky and delusional to critically support some things from this administration while opposing some others. While it is being part of the reality based community to blindly and uncritically support everything.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

83. You have no idea what you're talking about

[Douglas Carpenter]

86. I and almost everyone here are very happy that an agreement has been reached with Iran

Why on earth are some of you using this try to create ill will and division?

[PowerToThePeople]

99. Nice reply Doug

[Number23]

114. Thank You!! God, I don't know whether to laugh or weep at the competing delusions of victimhood

and grandeur that some of these folks around here seem to possess.

[rhett o rick]

120. There you go again, asking a question in lieu of making a statement. Speak out

if you have something to say.

[MyNameGoesHere]

20. Well it is on the list so everything should be great now.

Peace in our time. Now that this has been added to the list we have nothing to worry about.

[tridim]

24. Yep, that's the kind of stupid respose the OP is talking about. nt

[geek tragedy]

26. Funny how they turn into John Bolton if that's what it takes to trash the President nt

[MyNameGoesHere]

46. Actually the OP said crank

you said stupid. Please add that to your list.

[Bradical79]

88. Stop creating problems.

The fact is people such as yourself are going out of your way to make and create enemies simply because you are unable to rationally discuss any criticism of President Obama or his policies. Maybe if people like yourself would stop resorting to preemptive attacks and blatant dishonesty about your fellow liberals there would be less problems. Discussion of some decision from his administration shouldn't cause you so much fear.

[MyNameGoesHere]

115. People such as me?

I enjoy making lists. I enjoy calling out a preemptive fuck you in public as the OP did. Now what I really enjoy is making you waste your time on something as frivolous as my post. Thank you stroking my self importance. Now what will you do for an encore?

[geek tragedy]

25. Oooh, a Neville Chamberlain reference. If haters can't bash him from the left, bash him from the

extreme right,

[Cirque du So-What]

22. Better Believe It

There will undoubtedly be derision. My only question: the number of forms this derision will take. For instance, if the price of crude oil drops as a result of reduced tensions in the Middle East, I wouldn't be surprised to see some of these deriders take up the environmental mantle - pivoting in an utterly out-of-character way - to complain that lower gas prices will lead to increased consumption.

[cantbeserious]

28. Crank Here - CIA Drones - NSA Domestic Surveillance - Wall Street - Economy - TPP

Sorry that some of us are not in the fan club.

-------------

Warren 2016

[Sheepshank]

36. Tharr-r-r-r-r she blows!!!!!!!

you forgot the reference to multi dimensional chess and it's stupidity.

[RC]

39. Another crank here.

That Syria deal was not one of Obama's accomplishments. Putin stepped in and brokered the peace deal. Obama wanted to bomb Syria, right up till the time he didn't. Some people here have memories as long and as accurate as those on the Right do.

Reality is a wonderful thing. More should try it sometime.

[geek tragedy]

72. That's the second time you've posted that deranged lie about the Syria deal.

The basic terms of that deal had been discussed between Obama and Putin the week before Putin 'stepped in' with his diplomatic solution.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE9890I020130910?irpc=932

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Barack Obama discussed the idea of placing Syria's chemical weapons arsenal under international control on the sidelines of a G20 summit last week, Putin's spokesman said on Tuesday.

"The issue was discussed," spokesman Dmitry Peskov said by telephone. He would not say who raised the issue or give other details.

You are spreading factually false horseshit, because just like Ted Cruz and the Obama haters on the right, you just can't wrap your mind around the idea of Obama being right and you being wrong about something, or of Obama doing something right instead of being the malevolent inept clown you imagine him to be.

[RC]

95. My glow about Obama started fading a few months into his first term.

I voted for the Liberal that Obama campaigned as and what we got instead is a Right of Center, DLC, corporatist, beholden to Wall Street and big business and not so much to the people who voted for him. That is called reality.

That "deranged lie" as you call it, was the news for a few weeks. At the time, most of DU was relived Putin did step in with a diplomatic solution to avert the bombing of Syria and quit possibly, war with Russia.

I also noticed your either/or, one extreme or the other, thinking. Liberals, Progressives and others on the Left see shades of grey between the extremes. You do not seem to. Your view points are either admiration or hate. For or against, not much in between.

[geek tragedy]

100. Again, you repeat the lie that Putin stepped in with a diplomatic solution. Stop lying.

That solution had been discussed for months by the US and Russia. The US was in constant discussions with Russia's government about it.

Obama and Putin had discussed it specifically, in person, the week before it was announced.

That announcement was the culmination of months, if not years, of diplomacy between the US and Russia. It was the product of that diplomacy.

This has been documented, with links, to statements by the Russian government itself as well as the US.

You are deliberately stating a falsehood when you claim that Obama had refused to look at diplomatic solutions and that the diplomacy that happened was only because Vladimir Putin rode to the rescue.

ODS is not a valid substitute to telling the truth.

[RC]

103. Lies indeed.

Analysis: Putin scores diplomatic win on Syria

Vladimir Putin's call for peace

"But after Putin's bombshell opinion piece in the New York Times in which, among other things, he takes America to task for an "alarming" pattern of intervening in the internal conflicts of foreign countries, it's obvious something has shifted.

"It absolutely is a diplomatic win by Putin right now," said Fiona Hill, expert on Putin and director of the Center on the United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution."
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/politics/syria-putin-analysis/

Syria crisis: A long week – Putin’s diplomatic gambit
Russia appears to have outplayed the US but co-operation over Syria may ultimately spell trouble for Assad

Mr Kerry’s performance was far from fluent. Somewhat strangely, he said that any military action would be “unbelievably small”. But when a reporter from America’s CBS network asked if there was anything the Assad regime could do to stop a US attack, Mr Kerry said something even more unexpected. “Sure,” he replied. “He could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week. Turn it over, all of it, without delay, and allow a full and total accounting for that. But he isn’t about to do it. And it can’t be done, obviously.”

Throughout this week, those 50 words have been repeatedly dissected as the moment that stopped another US war. Four hours after Mr Kerry spoke, Sergei Lavrov, his Russian counterpart, responded. Russia, he announced, would propose to President Bashar al-Assad, its loyal ally, that he should hand over his chemical weapons to the international community for destruction.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/55e2f4c4-1c6c-11e3-a8a3-00144feab7de.html

Putin Calls for Diplomacy on Syria in Times Op-Ed

Russian President Vladimir Putin wrote an op-ed published in the New York Times Wednesday in which he calls for a diplomatic solution to the crisis in Syria and warns that a U.S. strike will lead to “more innocent victims and escalation.”
http://world.time.com/2013/09/11/putin-calls-for-diplomacy-on-syria-in-times-op-ed/

Obama and Putin: Time For Diplomacy on Syria

“Never has the use of violence brought peace in its wake. War begets war, violence begets violence.” So said Pope Francis, addressing the crowd on Sunday in the Vatican City’s St. Peter’s Square. He was speaking about the crisis in Syria, as President Barack Obama ramped up a planned military strike there. “I exhort the international community to make every effort to promote clear proposals for peace in that country without further delay, a peace based on dialogue and negotiation, for the good of the entire Syrian people,” the Pope said.

>SNIP<

Diplomacy prospects were diminished from the outset, when Obama canceled a planned bilateral meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin that was to take place immediately after the G-20. Obama was enraged by Russia’s decision to grant temporary political asylum to National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden. This G-20 meeting is the first major gathering of world leaders following Snowden’s revelations of massive spying by the United States. Many G-20 members have been targeted by the NSA’s myriad spy programs.

>SNIP<

On the home front, President Obama surprised many when he said he would seek congressional approval to strike Syria, though he said he is not bound by its decision. Obama’s frontman for the effort is Secretary of State John Kerry. Before both the Senate and House Foreign Relations committees, Kerry made the case for a “limited” military authorization. One consistent concern voiced by congressional members of both parties is the possibility that U.S. troops would be drawn into the civil war.
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2013/9/5/obama_and_putin_time_for_diplomacy_on_syria

Vladimir Putin warns US not to launch attack in Syria
Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, has warned against US military intervention in Syria, writing in what he called a direct address "to the American people and their political leaders" that it could "increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism".

Syria was not witnessing a battle for democracy but "an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multi-religious country", Putin said, in a New York Times comment piece repeating assertions that rebels rather than the government might have used chemical weapons, "to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons", and may be planning further attacks, even against Israel.

>SNIP<

In his article, Putin welcomed Obama's consideration of the Russian-backed plan for Syria to hand over its chemical weapons and said his relationship with the US president was marked by "growing trust". But he warned: "It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America's long-term interest? I doubt it.

"Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan: 'You're either with us or against us.'" Putin said Russia was not aiming to protect the Syrian government but international law.

The White House insisted that the Russian offer was genuine and a direct result of the pressure it had put on Syria. "There is no question that the credible threat of US force helped bring us to this point," Carney said. "By making this proposal Russia has, to its credit, put its prestige on the line when it comes to a close ally."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/12/putin-warns-us-not-to-attack-syria

This last paragraph is called "Saving Face" i.e., when something does not go as planned, telling everyone, "Yeah, I meant to do that".
And the plan was to bomb Syria.

[geek tragedy]

104. Citing inaccurate and misleading pieces just proves you know you're bullshitting,

1) an opinion piece by a "putin expert" on CNN that is pure conjecture/spin

2) Just proves my point--Kerry was essentially stating in public the deal Putin and Obama and he and Lavrov had worked out in private.

3) As usual, Democracynow slants things against the US, by missing the wee little fact that Obama and Putin did discuss Syria AT the G20 summit.

4) Repeating Putin's speeches is not proof of anything.

It is a FACT that the very deal that was first proposed by Kerry in public, then accepted by Putin in public, had been worked out in private before it entered the public sphere. Kerry did not mention those words by accident--you'd have to be an idiot to believe that.

If Obama walked on water, you'd be saying "Barry can't swim."

[RC]

107. If Obama walked on water. I'd know it had been setup beforehand.

Just so ya know, the reason I did this, was not to convince you of anything. Once you make up your mind, it is like a steel trap, rusted shut.
I did this for other DU'ers and lurkers reading this, to refresh their memories, or that they may not have been paying attention back then. They have something to check out now.

The Syrian situation played out between the US and Russia like a version of Good Cop/Bad Cop. We were the Bad Cops - bomb them. Putin was the Good Cop - diplomacy. The problem was, there was no prier decision or discussion between us, to decide who was going to do what. Both sides were winging alone it from the get-go. Then Putin writes a LTTE that changes everything. And those facts alone beats your argument into junk.

[geek tragedy]

109. "there was no prior discussion" another lie from you.

They discussed the very solution that was implemented at the G20 and for months earlier.

I have to admire your determined willingness to simply pretend that facts don't matter so long as they are inconvenient for your myth making. Ted Cruz would be proud.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

111. I'll have a detailed post on finance,

but on Syria it's pretty obvious that Kerry was forcing Russia's hand by mentioning the deal in public. The face saving move was on Putin's part. Had Obama decided to bomb Syria, there was nothing Russia could do about it. They had a lot more to lose than we did by being humiliated in force in public by such a thing.

[geek tragedy]

112. pretty clear that both Putin and Obama had a lot to lose wrt a bombing campaign nt

[rhett o rick]

121. Calling someone a liar because they disagree isnt very liberal. Just sayin. nm

[geek tragedy]

123. This isn't a matter of disagreement.

That person is making claims that are demonstrably, factually false. They then double down when provided with proof of said inaccuracy.

[99Forever]

29. Wudevva doooood.

[stupidicus]

31. this crank will gladly add it to the pro column with much glee

and openly mock those that either

1. use invisible ink composing the con column

2. think those that don't should just shut up about the content of their con column

3. think that the lesser of two evils such a method of evaluation is used to determine, transforms the lesser evil/s into good

etc, etc, etc

we know these things and more are true in much the same way those that assert implicitly or explicitly that we're all a bunch of stupid nincompoops who aren't aware that things would be worse under rightwingnuttery do, and despite the fact that history will judge the BHO legacy using the pro/con method.

We all must after all, collectively validate the rightwingnut designation of "Messiah" for BHO, the perfection of whom is seriously undermined by childish whining about harmless things like chained CPI, the TPP, NSA spying, etc, etc, etc.

ANd of course, holding his feet to the fire as he requested is what, sadism on our part?

Why I could likely compose a "If by sadist THEY mean... mirroring that for "liberal" JFK http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/90682-if-by-a-liberal-they-mean-someone-who-looks-ahead did, as could any chucklehead that knows the diff between rightwingnuttery and rightwing-lite, maybe plus in several undesirable ways.

[zeemike]

45. "transforms the lesser evil/s into good "

Yep that is how it works....they call it triangulation...and have been doing it to us for decades now.
And people who point it out on DU are called cranks and accused of hating.

[stupidicus]

80. that's been observation in my relatively short experience here

they largely use and rely upon the same "debating", etc, tactics those rightwingnut bogeymen use, and for the same reasons I'm guessing a need not list here in their entirety.

It's much easier better to get the messenger into defense mode with personal garbage than to mount a defense against their "offensive" message. In all these cases, their argument seems to be that the threat from rightwingnuttery is so great that criticism of the "good guys" should be disallowed lest support for them be diminished. It's naked advocacy for ignoring the baby steps taken towards the blurring of the line between who are and aren't the bad guys, like the good guy shouldn't be called out when he does bad because that somehow diminishes the badness of the bad guys or promotes more badness outta them or something, as opposed to merely representing a blemish on the good guy that knowingly sought it.

It's really as I've long argued it around here, a self-defeating effort and prophecy. I can ally myself with others when sufficient common ground and goals are to be found, but I draw a line when they ask me to leave the party so to speak, with crank, etc, talk. That's an "unwelcome" mat just as visible at their door as the ones blacks, gays, etc see in front of the repub tent. As we know though, that's the length to which many of them are willing to go to protect their "triangulation" efforts and remain free of any criticism for it.

You like me and many others I suspect, are simply no longer willing to allow the fear of rightwingnuttery to justify baby steps in that direction, because it merely adds to the length of the life of that rightwingnuttery, not shortens it. That's the dynamics behind DC's shift rightward as the country goes left, and it's inescapable that they have a particapatory role in that.

Thats' what all the "crank", "Hater", etc BS is supposed to but fails to obscure, and why they are often weaklings virtually indistinguishable from the common rightwingnut troll in the methods and means, and particularly the use of reliance on offensive offense like that as their only defense.

have a good one dude -- gotta scoot

[zeemike]

89. Well they are not in the majority here

But they want to be...and so seek to drive those away that don't buy the love it or leave it line of reasoning.

[stupidicus]

130. yep, I think you're so right about that dude

that's been pretty obvious from my beginning around here as well.

The most amusing part about it all to me is the way they ask for it, then play the victim role like so many Sarah Palins

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

32. Well said,

Peace!

[former9thward]

33. It is a little too early.

N. Korea has also made nuclear deals with the U.S. They have broke every one of them.

[Sheepshank]

37. If one side breaks with the accord who is to blame?

it's not early IMHO to acknowledge that both sides had in one moment intime agreed to a nuclear accord.

This acoord means that at one time, before minds and hearts were changed, they were on the same page and had agreed to some big deals. Something I thought couldn't ever happen.

[former9thward]

40. All true IF you believe both sides are negotiating in good faith.

With countries like Iran and N. Korea that is always a big IF.

[Sheepshank]

42. What do you suppose is the outcome for failure to abide by the accord?

...a resumption in embargo's? The threat of a war they cannot win? There is likely some incentives going on.

So I guess I'm not worried if they break the now loudly publicized agreement. They will come out on the losing end and the USA will still end up as the 'bigger' diplomat here.

Your "so what's the point" type of statements seems to imply there was absolutely no point to the negotiations. Really? you'd rather have a no attempt at peace, type of leadership form the USA?

[former9thward]

48. There were six global powers involved here.

Not just the USA. I know we all like to be USA centric but I try and avoid that when possible. The outcome? I don't know. I don't know if there is a will to start up the sanctions or not. Many countries, such as Russia and China, were ignoring the sanctions anyway. I think that in the long run (30 years) any country on earth that wants a nuclear bomb will have one. The technology is just moving too fast and it is no longer possible for the 'big' guys to keep knowledge and materials from everyone else.

[Sheepshank]

108. haa haa way to deflect from the critism that negotiations are a waste of time and effort. Not. n/t

[former9thward]

110. I never said they were a waste of time and effort.

But I am happy I could humor you.

[Marr]

34. You're accusing people of binary thinking while doing it yourself.

A person can laud some things the administration does, while condemning others. The world isn't a cartoon with cowboys in white hats and cowboys in black hats.

[geek tragedy]

38. Heck, they were calling for Kerry to resign two months ago,.

Not too late for them to spin this as a victory for Vladimir Putin though,

[RC]

43. It was a victory for Putin. Glad you agree.

And you even remembered! Many here remember Obama never tried diplomacy. The only thing on his table was bomb, bomb, bomb syria...

Russia stepped in with some diplomacy and behold... It worked! That problem went away.
Maybe we could try some diplomacy instead of drones on school kids, ya think?

[arely staircase]

57. the threats worked

simple as that.

[RC]

59. No, it is not that simple.

Was Obama in cahoots with Putin on the Syria deal? Answer: No.

Nice try, but fail.

[arely staircase]

60. like there would have been a deal without the threats

lol

Obama threatened them. people like you went bugfuck. Obama threats worked and the naysayers ended up with egg on their face.

[Bluenorthwest]

61. That is not such a great argument to make because threats of military action to extract a political

objective are in fact very much illegal. If that's what he was doing, that's a war crime under treaties to which we are party. What you think is a defense is actually an accusation of wrong doing.

[geek tragedy]

65. In the academic, lecture circuit version of reality yes some consider it a war crime.

In the real world, the implicit threat of force is part of diplomacy, and has been as long as diplomacy has existed.

Obama, like every other leader of a major power, cares nothing regarding the former.

[Bluenorthwest]

93. It is a war crime under international law, not 'sort of academically' but as a matter of legal fact

and this is the case for damn excellent reasons. Feel free to accuse Obama of a war crime in order to make what you think is some point 'scored' on DU. I find it not only tasteless but inaccurate.
What happened this weekend is excellent stuff. Not sure why so many are bent on exploiting it for petty reasons and making it about their view of DU. The OP is one of those who uses the plural 'we' when speaking, as if he was conjoined twins or the voice of the government in exile or something. There is a 'we' and that we keeps a list! That's what this tread is about, not the historic moment, not the contributions of Democratic officials to that achievement, not the signal of progress from the Iranian people, this thread is about some 'we' on DU exploiting this story to call others names. I don't even like speaking of issues which cost lives in a thread of this intent, which is not about war and peace and progress but is all about 'I'm right and anyone who does not always agree in form and function with me is a doody head'.

[dreamnightwind]

125. +1

That is also my take on the purpose of this thread, well said.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

127. Love how you state it's a "legal fact" instead of citing any law or actual facts

It is exceedingly reminiscent of the way teabaggers argue.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[woo me with science]

128. Superb post.

Thank you.

[arely staircase]

67. got rid of Assad's poison gas factories so I'm cool with it.

I'm sure the families of those kids twitching on those hospital floors share your concern

[Bluenorthwest]

87. That rhetorical use of the suffering of others as if they existed for such use is creepy stuff.

The tactic you describe is illegal. It's not 'my concern' it is a matter of fact. I do not think that is what they did because to do so is a war crime. You think it is a good thing to say they engaged in such actions but it is not.

[arely staircase]

91. gassing kids is creepy stuff

stopping it from happening again is definitely a good thing, whether the method of doing so offends Noam Chomsky's sensibilities or not.

[tina tron]

97. This

[RC]

63. If Putin had not stepped in, Obama would have started bombing Syria.

We would be in the middle of another long lasting Mid East war right now. Obama's threats worked ONLY because Putin stepped in and brokered a peace deal, averting our bombing of Syria. Otherwise Obama would have started bombing, possibly starting WW-III, as Syria was a Russian satellite and is under obligation to come to their defense. Putin did not want war, Obama, as was apparent at the time, did.
You are trying to rewrite history. The events did not happen as you imagined.

[arely staircase]

64. Assad certainly seemed to think so. nt

[geek tragedy]

73. Again, stop peddling your dishonest lies about heroic, peaceloving Putin

staving off evil bloodthirsty Obama.

Your hate is not a substitute for the truth.

http://backchannel.al-monitor.com/index.php/2013/09/6197/us-russia-discussed-idea-to-remove-syria-chemical-arms-for-months/

Obama and Putin, meeting in a corner for 20-30 minutes last Friday (Sept. 5), “agreed that a political solution is ultimately necessary to resolve the civil war, but we continue to have differences about Assad’s role in that transition,” a senior US administration official said Tuesday. “However, they did agree that we could cooperate on the issue of chemical weapons – specifically, an effort to secure [chemical weapons] stockpiles, as both the US and Russia believe that they pose a significant danger, within Syria and beyond.”

“Putin broached the idea that had been discussed in previous meeting about reaching an international agreement to remove chemical weapons,” the US official said. “Obama agreed that could be an avenue for cooperation, and said that Kerry and Lavrov should follow up on the concept to shape a potential proposal. Putin agreed to relay that to Lavrov.”

Kerry, Lavrov and Putin earlier “spoke about this concept back in the spring, when Kerry first visited Moscow in April – at the time hooked to the notion that all shared an interest in avoiding collapse of the institutions of the state,” the U.S. official said.

In fact, Obama and Putin had discussed the concept at the G-20 meeting in Los Cabos, Mexico last year, and in subsequent meetings, “though agreement could not be reached,” the senior US official said.

[geek tragedy]

62. I do not disagree with your account. I know it is false as a matter of fact rather than opinion.

Those who "remember that Obama never tried diplomacy" are not acquainted with reality. Russia "stepped in" with a proposal that Kerry floated in public and that the US and Russia had discussed previously.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE9890I020130910?irpc=932

The ODSers have a lot of false memories.

[arely staircase]

56. right?

there were even people here saying they could totally understand if Obama was impeached if he bombed Syria. Then the threats worked and they spun it as Pooty victory. Sad really.

[geek tragedy]

75. Some of them are still claiming the Syria deal was a last second breakthrough

engineered by Putin that caught the evil warmongering Obama so completely off-guard he didn't have time to wipe the blood off his fangs.

[arely staircase]

77. right here in this thread

they are saying it

[geek tragedy]

79. I've posted the facts in response, I expect crickets in return. nt

[gulliver]

41. It's fair weather. They'll be friendly. nt

[OilemFirchen]

44. And such small portions!

h/t Woody "He's Such a Disappointment" Allen.

[progressoid]

50. Oh goody. Name calling!

That really makes DU suck less.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

53. ~~

At Sun Nov 24, 2013, 04:32 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Will the cranks be ok if we add this Iran deal to "the list"?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024085130

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Accusing loyal DUers who disagree with someone of being "cranks" is pure trollery, designed to create ill feelings and shut down civil, thoughtful discussion.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Nov 24, 2013, 04:39 PM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Get a grip, alerter.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Ok with leaving this - I don't always agree with the president but I think he is aiming this at the few obvious trolls who are always here to stir it up.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: Flamebait, yes. There is room for argument/discussion/debate on this topic, methinks.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[KG]

51. a global academy award for directing the final act in the kabuki theatre that spuriously

portrayed Iran as a threat to world peace? sure, good ahead. add it. whatever blows sunshine up your skirt.

[arely staircase]

52. it's just like Bush got a third and fourth term

you know nuclear treaty with Iran is soooo Cheney.

and yeah it is funny how they deride the list of this presidents extensive and impressive accomplishments with "oh the list again."

[George II]

54. All well and good, but..........

....his website isn't working!!!

[liberal_at_heart]

55. I'm not sure the world would agree with you. Our reputation has been tarnished by Obama's drone

policy. And Obama does not get all the credit for this deal. If Ahmadinejad had continued on the path he was on our administration was fully prepared to go to war with Iran. Luckily under the new leader and all Western countries involved not just us a deal was reached. We deserve part of the credit but not all.

[Pisces]

58. Ha, they are all out in force complaining about a peace deal. Add this to the top of the list!!!!

[FSogol]

69. Use blue links. That really enrages them. n/t

[msanthrope]

90. They really do see red at the blue links. nt

[freshwest]

126. The color blue gives some people the blues. They should change their default colors.

Mine are purple and green.



But Misery still loves company.

[Enrique]

71. a lot of people are happy about this deal

not just the people for whom every action Obama takes is the greatest thing that anyone has ever done, but some normal people as well.

[Bluenorthwest]

74. Wow, so eager to exploit news of diplomatic progress to create domestic divisions.

Odd impulse.

[treestar]

82. Oh that evil list!

It's getting longer!

[Douglas Carpenter]

84. Why on earth are you trying to create ill will and division?

For once we have an issue where almost everyone here feels happy and good about

[Union Scribe]

101. Very good question. nt

[SidDithers]

96. DU rec...

for pissing off all the right people.



Sid

[bluestate10]

98. They will NEVER be satisfied. There is still imaginary betrayal of Social Security

that President Obama has up his sleeve.

[Union Scribe]

102. Nasty thread.

Obama would cringe at the petty backbiting playground behavior. We get it. You see love and hate as the only and unchanging positions on Obama. But that's your hangup and not an excuse to be a prat to everyone who doesn't share your neurosis.

[ConcernedCanuk]

105. This is GD - nasty is normal

.
.
.

live with it



CC

[last1standing]

106. MUST...TURN....GOOD....NEWS....INTO....DU....DRAAAAAAHHHHMMMAAAAAAA!!!11!!!!!!1111!!!!!!

I find the compulsion to ruin good news by rubbing the noses of DUers who don't walk in lockstep with your desires to be amusing, but pathetic at the same time.

How many of these "YOU MUST WORSHIP MY PRESIDENT" threads do you think you can post in a single day? I think you could break your old record if you try real hard.

[Number23]

113. K&R Though it seems a HELL of a lot of folks doing all that "deriding" have been shown the door

recently. And it's about damned time.

I just hope that this and not the president's plunging poll numbers are his lasting legacy. Though I think it's interesting that as he enacts more "liberal" policies, the lower his poll numbers plunge. But that's right, we're not supposed to notice things like that here. Goes against the narrative of him being a "fascist corporatist 1 percenter"

[rhett o rick]

116. How sad that we cant celebrate this great event without trying to use it as a bludgeon

to use on those that might dare to disagree with you.

Is it your goal to be divisive to the point of helping the Republicans?

[99Forever]

122. Exactly.

The whole mindset of people like this one, is disgusting. Winning at all costs, regardless of what is won, how it's done, or who get hurt along the way, is exactly what's wrong with this once great nation.

[rug]

119. Lilly Ledbetter ! ! ! 1 ! ! 1 !

[Benton D Struckcheon]

124. First off, I'd rather have Obama in the WH than Romney/McCain of course.

That's a given.
However, as I've noted before, Obama has not done what FDR did in the Great Depression: inoculate the financial system for a couple of generations against another crisis.

Two things needed to be done. Both are crucial, and doing one without the other will be ineffective:

1 - Break up the big banks, and then put something statutory in place to keep them small. The old solution was Glass-Steagall's separation of commercial and investment banking. That was FDR's. There was a second piece, put in place later: The Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, which prohibited interstate banking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Holding_Company_Act

2 - Reinstate national usury laws, repealed all the way back in 1980: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury#Usury_statutes_in_the_United_States
This allows unlimited profit in finance, and is the reason for predatory payday lenders being legal.

Without these limits, we will have another crisis just as bad as 2008 in the relatively near future, which is to say within a generation, which was the old, pre-New Deal frequency of bank crises. Obama hasn't done one thing at all to prevent this frequency of crisis from occurring, never mind the overwhelming moral issue of allowing predatory lending on the poor to continue unabated. Given the mandate he received in 2008, there is no plausible reason for this.

So, there are legit reasons to be greatly disappointed in Obama. There are of course many excellent things that he has done, and many terrible things he has prevented, such as a war with Iran, as noted here. But that doesn't mean he's anywhere near perfect.
No President is, of course. Criticism and pushback is always needed. I'm glad Warren introduced, loudly, the idea of expanding SS. It will stop Ryan and the other scum in their tracks.

[grahamhgreen]

129. Sure! Just keep doing what we tell ya;)

[Scurrilous]

131. LOL