Politics #47traitors

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

your mentioning trustworthy is pretty laughable when it was our cia and british intelligence agencies that planned and backed the coup to replace their DEMOCRATICLLY elected prime minister and parliament in 1953, to be replaced by a dictator backed by a brutal secret police on par with gestapo Germany in their torture and terror tactics trained by our very own cia. the middle east had democratic governments following the end of WWII but we didn't like their politics so we replaced them with our own dictators(see also Pakistan).the Tehran embassy take over by student protesters was directly a result of our own actions and complicity. the authoritarian theocracy that is now there filled the void left by the shah fleeing and the students not really having a solid plan for the aftermath... do I trust them completely? no but I certainly can see why they are a wee bit skeptical of our motives. I also think that to try to offer the perception of our government having the moral authority and high ground to dictate to the Iranians is laughable too.

Well laugh you butt off. However, it has nothing to do with moral high ground. There is no basis for trust so no agreement could possibly be worth anything. It certainly will not be a treaty, the Senate has said as much.

However, I do find you can believe in what they say:

"This regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

"If one permits an infidel to continue in his role as a corrupter of the earth, his moral suffering will be all the worse. If one kills the infidel, and this stops him from perpetrating his misdeeds, his death will be a blessing to him."

I know for a fact that I am deemed an infidel in Iran. How about yourself?

High ground? Geez! I don't even give one fig about it, no nucs for Iran, no trust.
 
Checks and balances suck. Dictatorial governments are awesome!
 
When your ship is on fire, you can stay and burn or jump into the water. Going into the water doesn't guarantee survival - but it at least gives you a chance.

No one despises Islamic governments more than I do.....but I prefer the chance of peace to the certainty of war. Trust doesn't have a damn thing to do with it. This is about some folks not understanding the difference between negotiation and ultimatum.
 
When your ship is on fire, you can stay and burn or jump into the water. Going into the water doesn't guarantee survival - but it at least gives you a chance.

No one despises Islamic governments more than I do.....but I prefer the chance of peace to the certainty of war. Trust doesn't have a damn thing to do with it. This is about some folks not understanding the difference between negotiation and ultimatum.

Sometimes there is no other choice. They've already declared war on us.
 
Sometimes there is no other choice. They've already declared war on us.

I seem to recall people saying the same thing about the Soviets. Every treaty we ever signed with them was derided in some circles as being (at best) a temporary solution. Well, all those temporary solutions added up to no nuclear war.

Of course, if there was still a Suni government in Iraq we would have a counter-balance to Iran.....but that is spilt milk.
 
This general argues that the senators actions are not treasonous, but they are mutinous. Sounds like a better description to me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...rt-by-army-general-over-mutinous-iran-letter/

The open letter to the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran signed by 47 senators and instigated by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) was a stunning breach of protocol. One so outrageous that my former colleagues at the New York Daily News dubbed the signers “traitors.” While it is indeed a slap in the face of President Obama and an affront to the presidency, I’m not sure I would go that far, especially since Cotton is an Army veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. So, I turned to retired Major Gen. Paul D. Eaton for perspective. He wouldn’t say Cotton and Co. were “traitors,” either. He had a better word.

“I would use the word mutinous,” said Eaton, whose long career includes training Iraqi forces from 2003 to 2004. He is now a senior adviser to VoteVets.org. “I do not believe these senators were trying to sell out America. I do believe they defied the chain of command in what could be construed as an illegal act.” Eaton certainly had stern words for Cotton.

“What Senator Cotton did is a gross breach of discipline, and especially as a veteran of the Army, he should know better,” Eaton told me. “I have no issue with Senator Cotton, or others, voicing their opinion in opposition to any deal to halt Iran’s nuclear progress. Speaking out on these issues is clearly part of his job. But to directly engage a foreign entity, in this way, undermining the strategy and work of our diplomats and our Commander in Chief, strains the very discipline and structure that our foreign relations depend on, to succeed.” The consequences of Cotton’s missive were plainly apparent to Eaton. “The breach of discipline is extremely dangerous, because undermining our diplomatic efforts, at this moment, brings us another step closer to a very costly and perilous war with Iran,” he said.

“I think Senator Cotton recognizes this, and he simply does not care,” Eaton went on to say. “That’s what disappoints me the most.” And that’s what’s so scary about this whole episode. The freshman senator from Arkansas and 46 of his Republican colleagues sought to bigfoot Obama on a deal not yet done whose details are not yet known.

In his column today, Michael Gerson makes a point that should have been obvious to all the signatories of the Cotton letter.

If Republican senators want to make the point that an Iran deal requires a treaty, they should make that case to the American people, not to the Iranians. Congress simply has no business conducting foreign policy with a foreign government, especially an adversarial one. Every Republican who pictures his or her feet up on the Resolute Desk should fear this precedent.

This is a point you imagine Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) would have made back in the good old days when he was a statesman. Instead, he signed the letter.

“I expect better from the men and women who wore the uniform,” Eaton said of Cotton. And the American people deserve better from the Senate.
 
but they are mutinous
Here is the salient phrase in the article.
"a deal not yet done whose details are not yet known"

No wonder members of the Senate (whom ratify treaties) are near mutiny. What is the hell is this President doing dealing with a nation, in complete secrecy, that considers us the great Satan?

Why the hell has he not informed the American People of what he is up to, especially the Senate which has the responsibility to ratify treaties.

Well the answer is quite obvious. This President is going around the constitution again, he has no intention of involving the Senate. He intents to take the deal to the UN and sing about it.
That ought to piss off the other 53 Senators and the American people.
 
I see Sly liked this drivel. I wonder what he liked about it?

I don't have to agree with everything in a post to like it. It was well thought out and well written. It continues and promotes further conversation vs insulting someone or calling what they've written drivel.

Again Marazul, these forums and threads would be boring if everyone agreed on everything. If you have a different opinion on a thread's topic you should express it instead of trying to shut down the views of those you disagree with.

It makes for a more entertaining debate and you just might change someone's opinion.
 
trying to shut down the views

Not trying to shutdown anything. That is what you guys (moderators) do when you ban interesting people. I am simple trying to point out that the issue at hand is probably survival,
With or without the high ground, we should take action that insures survival, not some silly agreement that is more fair than we have been in the past.

But I will continue when the motivation strikes me, even if you are not entertained. Funny now that you mention it, the motive to entertain you has never occurred to me.
 
Not trying to shutdown anything. That is what you guys (moderators) do when you ban interesting people. I am simple trying to point out that the issue at hand is probably survival,
With or without the high ground, we should take action that insures survival, not some silly agreement that is more fair than we have been in the past.

But I will continue when the motivation strikes me, even if you are not entertained. Funny now that you mention it, the motive to entertain you has never occurred to me.


Here is the salient phrase in the article.
"a deal not yet done whose details are not yet known"


No wonder members of the Senate (whom ratify treaties) are near mutiny. What is the hell is this President doing dealing with a nation, in complete secrecy, that considers us the great Satan?

Why the hell has he not informed the American People of what he is up to, especially the Senate which has the responsibility to ratify treaties.

Well the answer is quite obvious. This President is going around the constitution again, he has no intention of involving the Senate. He intents to take the deal to the UN and sing about it.
That ought to piss off the other 53 Senators and the American people.
 
PapaG was interesting in the same way that your physician might find a peculiar mole on your back interesting.
 
PapaG was interesting in the same way that your physician might find a peculiar mole on your back interesting.

Well then you must be pleased that they shutdown his input, hey! To me it was just one less now of few interesting voices. The way Sly is heading, I think he soon will make it one less not so entertaining voice.

I do see his point though about entertaining, now that he point it out, I recognize he strives to do just that. Not so sure entertaining is in order though when discussing Iran and Nucs.
 
Not trying to shutdown anything. That is what you guys (moderators) do when you ban interesting people. I am simple trying to point out that the issue at hand is probably survival,
With or without the high ground, we should take action that insures survival, not some silly agreement that is more fair than we have been in the past.

But I will continue when the motivation strikes me, even if you are not entertained. Funny now that you mention it, the motive to entertain you has never occurred to me.

You entertain me all the time and you're one of my favorite posters.
 
You entertain me all the time and you're one of my favorite posters.

Really! Gosh! I was sure you just accused me of shutting down opinions. That wouldn't be very nice, nothing to differ with then. But then some folk like it where the group speaks as one.

I spent a few hours a couple of different days here recently at a Rotory Club that invited me to be a guess speaker. I couldn't help but notice how like minded the people were.
The never disagreed with each other. They took two votes while I was there, both resulted in unanimous approval. Not sure how well I entertained them though, they devote much effort to funding scholarships and raising funds for many things. And here I am, speaking about how the more public money that is raised to help young people with education, is just helping raising the tuition costs. And raising the cost without an improvement in the product unless more Progressives is the mission.

But then, contention makes things better, I have no fear of doing my part, just like the one eyed man in the remote village of all blind people. They hung him for not seeing their way.
 
Last edited:
you dont need applause to be entertaining. I find you to be great fun. Although sly is right, you are a little rough around the edges and somethings that sound funny in person dont come across as favorably in print..... but i have no issue with it or you.
 
cover-image.jpg
 
Big Sly and little Marzul seem to be making up there quite well. Back when every thread got hijacked by PapaG or Crandc, it was easier to Fight the Hijack.
 
I seem to recall people saying the same thing about the Soviets. Every treaty we ever signed with them was derided in some circles as being (at best) a temporary solution. Well, all those temporary solutions added up to no nuclear war.

Of course, if there was still a Suni government in Iraq we would have a counter-balance to Iran.....but that is spilt milk.

Yeah, because the Soviets and the Shiite mullahs have exactly the same motivations. Usually you're just whiny, but now you've ventured into being moronic.
 
Back
Top