Killing the Iran deal sets us up for a quagmire, nuclear Iran, or both

Irankonferenz. Au§enminister Mohammed Dschawad Sarif trifft die Hohe Vertreterin der EU f?r Au§en- und Sicherheitspolitik, Catherine Ashton in Wien. 18.02.2014, Foto: Dragan Tatic

As usual, the media coverage of the Iran deal tends to focus on the political aspects: can Obama get the votes he neeeds? Will the Democrats be split? What will the voters think? But in a decade, historians looking back will judge the wisdom of the deal, or the idiocy of killing it, on three key points, based on whether we (1) simply reimplement sanctions, (2) launch a full on invasion, or (3) pursue a ‘limited’ airwar. It’s frankly hard to see which option is worst, but the past decade and a half has shown that none are good as good as the deal we’re presented with:

1. We’ve played this game before – and lost- in North Korea. George W. Bush slammed the door shut on rapproachment with Iran, North Korea, and Iraq (the last of whom, to be fair, little rapproachment had been attempted with) in January of 2002 by declaring them part of an ‘Axis of Evil’. Part of the fallout was the collapse of US-N. Korea diplomatic negotiations,as Bush ‘got tough’ with Kim Jong Il. What did it get him? A nuclear armed North Korea (which I discussed at the time here, a quagmire in Iraq, and the current situation in Iran. Bush’s strategy was ultimately futile, because after stopping negotiations with North Korea, he lacked the wherewithal to back up strong words with strong action, and the sanctions alone, while devasting for the North Korean people, couldn’t effectively stop the development of nuclear weapons. I would argue the failure of this strategy should have been predictable at the time, but to repeat the same error today would be even less forgivable.

2. There’s no excuse for hubris today. The alternative to making a deal or allowing -indeed, pressuring- Iran to go nuclear (as Bush did with North Korea) is to go to war. In 2002, it seemed like maybe American military might had reached such a pinnacle of power that it could ignore what had previously been common sense, and so the major argument against the Iraq war was that it was immoral, not that it was impossible. That is no longer the case: having seen the difficulty in accomplishing our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is the epitome of irresponsibility to openly consider going to war with a country with a more powerful military and larger population than both of those states combined.

3. It would aggravate the chaos we’ve already created in the region, and undue any nation building that’s been accomplished. Even if we try to cripple Iran merely with airstrikes to save our own troops, a destabilized Iranian regime would spell disaster for our efforts to contain the Islamic state and achieve some sort of stability in Afghanistan. All in all, it would likely be a humanitarian disaster on the scale of what we’ve already done under Bush, and a geopolitical catastrophe to boot, removing the Islamic State’s most powerful opponent and futher destabsilizing the region with inevtiable millions of refugees. And the worst part? An air war on Iran couldn’t hope to secure the fissile material already there, meaning that we would not only make negotiation impossible but would leave fissile material, nuclear scientists, and the like unsecured and untraceable.

The Iran deal may be unpalatable politically, but it is better than any alternative, and responsible statesmen and women will accept it.

If you appreciate an independent voice holding Montana politicians accountable and informing voters, and you can throw a few dollars a month our way, we would certainly appreciate it.

Subscribe to our posts

About the author

The Polish Wolf


Click here to post a comment

Leave a Reply to steve kelly Cancel reply

Please enter an e-mail address

  • The USA Congress could make war on Iran,
    and dynamite the reserve status of the dollar,
    the dollar would have to crash
    and the USA would loose the currency war!

    NO, the American people now and forward,
    would loose,
    because they would have to pay
    for right wing USA Congress

    entangled, enamored, engaged, long time married
    and harried by arrangement
    with right wing extremists in Israel.

    Of course the huge problem is that the long term alliance
    has morphed some Zionists to transition
    from spousal abuse, toward trending toward
    spousal homicide.

    Could be that the Iran War Proposition has a hidden poison pill
    ignored by MSMedia!

    Only Israel and War Financiers could win. The USDollar and the US economy would loose ! !

    If that sounds damn crazy, ask a thinking war hawk,
    to follow the link, and read and understand what political/military/political/MSM have perhaps suppressed.

    Until John Kerry admonished America
    to take a good close look at OBVIOUS consequences
    of the proposition for belligerent assault on Iran,
    falsely labeled as “war”.

    Oh, and for a war hawk, from what I have gathered,
    If Iran violated the deal, then there would be
    grounds for a real war.

  • “That is no longer the case: having seen the difficulty in accomplishing our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is the epitome of irresponsibility to openly consider going to war with a country with a more powerful military and larger population than both of those states combined.” Perpetual war is our mission.

    Please at lease consider that the “mission” was accomplished, and conditions are precisely as predicted. I’m not buying the “miscalculation” or “incompetence” argument. Plans to divide-and-conquer the ME have been written and followed faithfully since at least the 1982 Yinon Plan.

    • While I agree that a prosperous and democratic Iraq (as advertised) was not the likely goal of the planners of the Iraq war, I find it hard to imagine that the present situation was the plan, either. If the main goal by the US had been simply to destabilize the Baathist regime in Iraq and thus split up the country, that could have been accompished easily and relatively cheaply from the air – indeed, it was nearly accomplished inadvertantly in 1998. I can’t see the geopolitical logic in intensifying (immensely) the influence of Iran in Iraq and ruining our relationship with Pakistan, especially because both moves increase the influence of our greatest actual rivals in the region, China and Russia.

        • Good move Steve Kelly!
          Time to admit the obvious, the USA-Israel alliance plans and results
          are causing cascades of problems for the USA, and the world and for the ME.

          (Course really it’s not the Israel-USA alliance.)
          More likely to my mind,
          it’s a Political alliance between their
          organized right wing “religous organizations”.
          All that capitalized on by press and TV oligopolies

        • Oh I see. Yeah, if the plan is to preserve Israel’s strategic position, everything is going according to plan. But from a US geopolitical perspective (since Israel does very little for us, strategically), it’s been one disaster after another.

          • In your opinion, however, the Yinon Plan stands on its own and you will find US authors familiar to you if you take the time to read it. The US is the global superpower, not Israel.

          • The point is, I doubt US policy makers expected things to go as they did in Iraq. I imagine they imagined handing power to an ‘elected’ leader in the mold of Mubarak – but the American military proved unable to pull it off. Even if that were not their plan in Iraq, it’s clear that it can’t be expected to go any better in Iran, nor in a way that serves US interests, which is ultimately the point.

  • The Polish Wolf has composed a fine work instructive of three mega problems of warfare against Iran.
    I ripped a comment on another mega problem.
    Steve Kelly comment reminds us of the big picture
    about perpetual war ESPECIALLY observing
    (present day realities) of plan to divide
    and conquer the Middle East.

    Myself, I find the above comments to work together!

  • I am sick of hearing all the sabre-rattling about going to war with Iran. I’d like to draw attention to one little fact that everyone should take a little time to think about. In over 1000 years of existence, the Islamic Republic of Iran has never initiated a single war. It has responded when attacked, but has not once initiated a single war. There is no other country on the planet with that record of non-aggression.

    People who should know better keep running around trying to paint this portrait of Iran as this bloodthirsty country that is always attacking its neighbors – but that portrait is simply not true. Iran will defend itself if attacked, but it does not do the attacking. Seems like we need to take a step back from all the rhetoric and consider the alternative – that it is just that.

    Iran has offered multiple olive branches, has offered multiple peace offerings, only to be slapped in the face, called a liar, disrespected and so on. In the face of the insults and all, Iran has continued to work with us to solve hostage crises, to work on multiple other diplomatic and logistics problems while we were bombing the daylights out if its neighbor Iraq, and continued to offer olive branches in spite of the angry rhetoric by its angry-sounding President Ahmedinijad.

    Maybe just step back a little and listen below the angry-sounding stuff and look at the actual record and listen to the quiet under the noise.

    • While the last 1000 years maybe be an exaggeration, the main thrust or your argument is absolutely right: the current government of Iran has never attacked any of its neighbors, and I think youre on to something too many people don’t: the ‘loud anger’ we occasionally hear from Iranian politicians, is a distraction, there’s a real movement in Iran towards rapproachment with the rest of the world, one that some factions in the US are clearly trying to sabotage to serve their bellicose goals.

      • seems to me that maybe Tehran moving toward
        negotiated peace, while Zionism begining
        yet another campaign of violence.

        I would sure like to follow up on some links to
        some of the real movement in Iran!

        Might be damned interesting to compare with our own, personal links to what some mainline and Orthodox
        Jews in America are now expressing, in support of,
        The Peace Deal with Iran!

        Heavens to be! Let us be informed of what people say!
        Especially now with an increasingly propagandized electorate, subsidized by dark money in a protection racket
        Granted by the once supreme, but still Supreme Court of the USA.

        Still a great Title! I hear it as: a Huge Quagmire, a Nuclear Iran, or BOTH.

        • If you’re interested in learning more, look up some of what Stephen Kinzer has written on the subject. He’s very knowledgeable and has been active in trying to prevent a conflict with Iran.

          • Oh my gosh. Kinzer is still current.
            Maybe $40 oil means less Empire interest in taking over oil of Iran. more intere$t in ten year plan for taking land, resources and position of Ukraine.

  • I’m quite sure Israel can take care of itself in nuclear combat, if it comes to that.
    The problem is that Saudis — who have been giving the Texans in the oil patch the reach-around since 1973 — want to continue to use the American military to fight their inter-Islamic civil war.
    Saudi Wahhabism is the wellspring of the insanity of ISIS. Saudis staffed 9/11. And Saudis finance Fox News, with the billions of dollars American motorists have been giving them for generations.

  • Someone needs to ask Senator Tester if self inspection will work.

    “Iran, in an unusual arrangement, will be allowed to use its own experts to inspect a site it allegedly used to develop nuclear arms under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press.
    The revelation is sure to roil American and Israeli critics of the main Iran deal signed by the U.S., Iran and five world powers in July. Those critics have complained that the deal is built on trust of the Iranians, a claim the U.S. has denied.

    The investigation of the Parchin nuclear site by the International Atomic Energy Agency is linked to a broader probe of allegations that Iran has worked on atomic weapons. That investigation is part of the overarching nuclear deal.”-AP.

  • Virtually all of these matters are hidden from view, those items discussed in the media merely cover story. But as with Cuba, the cooling down of tensions and increase in diplomacy signals a defeat for both countries, finally brought down by the current American regime, incorporated into the London/Wall Street axis.

    So a review of American news coverage of these events is useless. Only time will tell us what really happened there.

    It is not about nuclear threats, that much is painfully obvious. Iran has abided by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty throughout the decades. the U.S. has not. Under that treaty, Iran has the right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful use, and has done so because it’s oil reserves are not as significant as other countries, so that it needs to move forward into new energy technology.

    The nuke scare is window dressing for other issues. Iran regarded a nuclear bomb as nothing more than a means to buy time if attacked. The idea that Iran would attack another country (five minutes before being vaporized) in is ludicrous, but falls under the general hubris of American attitudes, the upside down version of world affairs called “We’re rational, they’re not.” Quite the opposite, the madmen in the wings,the real threat to’our survival, are in Washington, London, and the junior partner, Israel.

    Israel having the bomb is a scary thought, and remember that when the technology was new, and only one country possessed it, that country, run by madmen, used it to incinerate two cities. Only by the Sovuets, and then the Chinese developing the bomb have the Americans been kept in their cages.

    Iran merely wanted to survive in the threat of a massive hostile superpower and its junior partner. It has behaved rationally. We have not.

    • ” It has behaved rationally. We have not.” That would be the crux of the issue. While you know I believe your history to be someone hollow, the root here is correct. Worse, we’ve behaved in a way that makes attaining nuclear weapons the only rational option. The only way to slow nuclear proliferation is to reverse that.

      • General statement about whether my view of history is “somewhat hollow” is of no use. It falls under the fallacy “sweeping generalization.” That it is also haughty and dismissive is a sheltering tactic.

        Each is useful as a debate tactic, but shed no light. In other words, specifics please.

          • Yes, we have. Go back and search: you and I (and actually Don and I) disagree strenuously on the the use of nuclear weapons during WWII. There was a time I found such debates useful: I learned a little from your posts and a lot from my research to respond to them. But the debates have all been had, and I have better things to do. As to the London/Wall Street axis: again, I agree that they’ve had a big victory here. But the Tel Aviv-Pentagon axis is still opposed – and so choosing between the power structure that wants to incorporate Iran into the international community, and the one that wants to drag us into another war, I’d go with the former.

          • Again, your dismissive attitude, ” I learned a little from your posts and a lot from my research to respond to them” is just a tad offputting. It’s a defense mechanism, nothing more. Arrogance is always a sign of underlying insecurity – that’s been my experience.

          • Was I supposed to have learned more from a couple paragraphs of your commenting than from the hours I spent doing research afterwards? Sorry, Mark, for being ‘off putting’.

          • What if the research you did was of the self-affirming variety? That’s what most American scholars do … they limit themselves to sources that affirm their already-learned beliefs. If that is the case, yes, you could have learned more from a couple of paragraphs, if only to introduce doubt into your narrative.

          • Alas, Mark, that wasn’t the case. Because the statistics I looked up still hold true, while Iran remains stubbornly un-nuked, and so my enlightenment seems to have been postponed indefinately.

          • You do realize that the nuclear issue with Iran is not real, right? You do realize that all the negotiations are about other stuff, right?

            Or do you consume news whole?

          • I’m so excited to hear what it’s really about. I’m guessing something about petrodollars? The long term goal of removing Iran was set decades ago, and to that end I agree that nukes aren’t the long term reason. But they are both the short term justification, and the factor that seems to be pushing ahead the schedule. If you think Iran isn’t trying to develop nuclear capacity, at least as a back up, then you really don’t think they are rational. After 9/11, their only choices were to get nukes or normalize relations with the US; in 2002 the latter became temporarily impossible. Iraq went worse than expected, on the ground and more importantly in public opinion, so they got some extra breathing room. If they didn’t use that time to try to develop a nuclear deterrant, at least to bring the US to the bargaining table, they were being foolish. Now we have another chance at normalization, and Netanyahu et al are working hard to scuttle it.

          • Again with the arrogance! Oh, well, it’s your choice. You could just be a tad humble, admit to not knowing everything. I wonder if it is the result of American schooling, the testing regime that instills fear of being wrong?

            Anyway, 1953 with the overthrow of Mossadegh is the event that dictated future events. By 1979 Iran, under the fascist Shah was a kettle that boiled over. His overthrow set in motion everything we have seen since, the policy of encirclement, the agitprop treatment in American news, schooling and entertainment, as if there were some sort of evil empire there. All it was was a country that wanted to control its own destiny.

            The nuclear issue is not real as you view it because Iran getting a nuclear weapon is not a danger to world peace. Quite the opposite – a nuclear Iran is able to buy time. The United States, known to deal in aggressive war, must somehow be deterred. So the US is dead set against Iran having the bomb because of eh deterrent value o\of having such a weapon.

            That’s really about the size of it. There’s been no evidence that Iran is engaged in a nuclear program, but such ideas in American circles become reality by means of our indoctrination system. Reality is not learned or perceived, but defined by authority figures, and repeated. The submissiveness of the American intelligentsia to power is a thing to behold.

            But Iran has capitulated of late. I regard this as a policy victory for the US, and a defeat for human freedom, one less outpost.

            But that’s how it rolls. Iran was safely under control until 1979, and broke free. They are a well-educated and intelligent people. They may well break free again. There is always hope.

          • That there, Mark, is a good example of a post wherein I didn’t learn anything. Indeed, if I took it seriously, I would know less. Because as you’ve said before, Iran is rational, and a rational state in their position would seek a nuclear deterrent, but you’re arguing that they are not seeking a nuclear deterrent, because, well, that’s what RT is telling you. Moreover, you argue that this is a capitulation. What, exactly, is Iran losing? It’s gaining billions of dollars to help its people, and losing some uranium (which it doesn’t need if it’s not seeking a bomb). And that’s where we get back to your basic misunderstanding: that somehow engaging with the world economic system is bad for the people of a country – back to the level of Counterpunch, bemoaning the horrors inflicted on Bulgaria since the fall of Communism (which have seen health, education, and income rise dramatically – much like, actually, Iran has seen since 1955).

          • Pack in 1963 CIA decided to undermine the Cuban economy by flooding it with counterfeit currency. It worked. They had to issue new currency. From the imperialist viewpoint, Cuba suffered by not joining in the world economy. From theirs, they did not capitulate to thugs.

            You’ve simply adopted the attitude of the thugs, easy to do as you live among them. You assume iran has failed all by their lonely selves. You’ve no clue the lengths that those with banking power go to destroy any country that operates outside the system. With Libya and Iraq, for example, bombs and death. With Iran, strangulation.

            You’re running with thugs. You admire thugs. You’ve no clue of the other side. You’ve got the imperialist hubris bug, taught in all our major institutions. You’ll soon be a thug. And why not! There’s no price to pay in terms of career. Only in honor.

          • Iran hasn’t really failed at all – they’ve continued to progress in literacy and life expectancy at the same rate or more quickly than before the revolution. But, if the US will normalize relations, they’ll do even better in the decades to come. That’s where I don’t see the capitulation you’re talkign about – what do they possibly gain from walking away from the deal? They are giving up nothing they need and gaining a great deal of value to them.

          • You seem not to understand why any country fights imperialist masters. You seem to presume that life under a yoke is better than life without it. That is American hubris.

            We overthrew their government. We brought them the Shah. It sorta sticks in the craw.

          • No, Mark, I think it’s you that doesn’t understand why people resist, or don’t resist, imperialism. People resist it because they think it will hurt them, or because they remember it hurting them. They rarely act out of spite. Moreoer, when they aren’t comfortable accountants in Colorado, they tend to be less sympathetic towards idealistic positions that make their lives worse. There’s nothing in this deal to hurt the Iranian people and plenty to help them – and less than 10% of the population even remembers Mossadegh (for that matter, less than half have any clear memory of the Shah).

          • The notion that imperialism is a benign force is generally widespread among imperialist powers. The Brits are especially famous for this, imagine their brand to be a force for good even as their leading philosopher, Russell, mentioned that the British aristocracy had a blood trial as long as Stalin’s.

            Vietnam is a good example of the mindset – the enemy was not North Vietnam, but rather the miscreants in the South who did not accept outside rule via puppets. So the US set out to murder them, wipe them out, “pacification” they called it. How many millions PW? For the sake of a peaceful future? Of course, a 25 year embargo followed as well. Good grief, the monsters!

            More recently, Iraq – terror, torture, bombs, all rained on a country that did nothing to justify such an assault. Nothing. We just outright attacked them. Why?

            And you really imagine you’re part of a force for good? If so, why is murder such a large part of the daily agenda?

            Your ability not to know things qualifies you for inclusion in the American intelligentsia. Your badge is in the mail.

          • Iranians would do well to remember the Shah, by the way, as there has been no “change of course,” the leopard still wearing its spots on the outside. Those who put him in power are still with us in spirit. If persuasion does not work, bloodshed will.

          • I just stumbled on this doing some other stuff, PW, and ask that you give it a look. The question I ask is why, in the face of so much contrary evidence, do you and your compatriots cling to the belief that the United States is a nation suffering from good intentions gone awry, rather than what is obvious: Mere Machiavellian means to ends.

            This is William James, from 1892: “That theory will be most generally believed which, besides offering us objects able to account satisfactorily for our sensible experience, also offers those which are most interesting, those which appeal most urgently to our aesthetic, emotional, and active needs.”

            The theory that gives us the most comfort is the theory that allows us to maintain the pleasure of our illusions.

          • I’ve said a lot here Mark, so this should be easy: find one quotation of mine in this entire thread where I ascribe positive motives to the United States. We didn’t blunder with good intentions in Iraq; we blundered with machievellian intentions. We tried to do something smart geopolitically, I imagine, but failed tremendously. I don’t imagine morality entered into it one way or the other, since morality would have always argued against the invasion (as I said in the post). Go ahead. I’m waiting. Otherwise, you’re beating the living hell out of that strawman, but it’s not doing any good.

          • I merely out-arroganted you, didn’t I? Enjoying it? Your comment now sounds like a fella who looks in the mirror, well the mirror of your country, and sees it for what it is, a greedy imperialist power run by a few select interests who have no concern for other humans. Hy, you’ve stepped up now, and haev come to somewhat match tech insight of people we ahve dominated for so long.

            Your country, that is. You’re still all full of yourself. But age has a way of chiseling a man down to the finer qualities. The arrogance will weather and fade, you’ll be a human someday!

            We are off on a world journey. If I return at all it will be at odd times. I’ve enjoyed our exchange.

          • I’ll take that as a roundabout admission that I never said anything like the things you’ve been arguing against.

            • Quite the contrary, you come equipped with the full compliment of imperialist attitudes, including the notion that your good intentions are in no way sullied by the reality of on-the-ground practices (we can soft talk them into surrender, but if that doesn’t work, bomb the shit out of them. Carpet of gold … carpet of bombs.) When pressed, you merely refer us to your good intentions and disown your master.

              It’s as if you’re not a willing accomplice,

          • Where do I refer to good intentions? I expressly deny them. This is what Don means when he says you’re bad at reading.

          • Well, quoting Don in an argument with me is not good form. Don only reads what he regards as approved sources, does not think for himself, and by his own admission does not read comments.

            I find you to be a dodger … On one hand you will say that Iran is better off joining the Wall Street/London system, that they’ve forgotten the Shah and cannot even spell Mossadegh, and when I remind you that all of those things deeply harmed that country, you say “where did I ever say I liked what we did to them? ”

            You didn’t. you merely said A, I supplied B. I am entitled to do so because A infers B. That you don’t state it outright, that’s part of imperialist hubris. It’s a cover, the robe of blissful ignorance.

            Another part of the hubris is what Chomsky calls the “doctrine of change of course.”‘When exposed for committing for real crimes, American imperialists claim that it was all long ago, different people, and we’re different now, especially, as you reminded us with Libya and Ukraine, now that your guy is in office are it better, kinder. The people do indeed change, the policy does not. If murdering Iranians were the stepping stone to bringing them down, it would be done. Without a blink, just as in Iraq, Vietnam, Indonesia, Libya, Serbia, Dyrian, Somalia, Palestine, Yemen ,..

            You want to be a part and apart at once. Choose your team, fella. if you want to be,one to the club, at least stop denying the reality if the team you are supporting.

            And stop,pretending partisan politics plays a role. You can’t possibly believe that and be a man who draws opinions from evidence.

  • Mark, imo that’s a good piece you wrote. It’s helpful.
    So, with some trust, do you have any good links to
    de-bunking the anti-Peace Deal ‘story of the week’?

    Specially if they work with humor for people in Montana,
    with a new man at the ID helm, moving the rudder!

    • Over the years I have come to respect the work of Chomsky and Theirry Meyssan, for a couple of fresh outlooks and insights. Chomsky, himself Jewish, has long been a critic of the US/Irraeli axis, and regards Israel as a mere front man for the US. His writing on the subject goes back to the late 1960’s.

      Meyssan, a French intellectual who runs the website (a stable of writers), usually surprises me with his fresh outlook, going places and thinking things beyond my scope or ability.

      Steve Kelly, above, has good insight and is long and well-read on the subject. The objective of carving the Middle East up into little fiefdoms, to Balkanize the area into manageable small states, has long been a US policy objective. That it does not always go according to plan does not matter. War never does. They merely regroup and attack again, the latest attack under the guise of ISIS.

      It should be noted here that the U.S. has now attacked every secular regime in the MidEast with the exception of Turkey. Small, despotic states like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait, Qatar, etc., fly under the radar. This is strong evidence that the U.S. does not care about democracy, as these small states, cruel little tyrannies, would be easy targets for such a policy.

  • MSNBC just now, one poll shows around 60% Ohio/Pennsylvannia

    (We are most all propagandised. Only Rand Paul was not obeiscant to the never never yahoo for talmudic zionism Lecturing Congress.

    Remember when Montanans for Rand Paul were run off.)

    • Mr. Tokarski to you, Buddy.

      I agree, banning Larry is cruel and unusual. What did he do to deserve it?

      banning is the sigh of the oppressed creatures, the lashing out if the crossing guard, the hall monitor. it is the opiate of the asses.

      • No, I was trying to focus in on the procedures,
        that missed the opportunity for a win-win.

        Trying to focus on optional procedures, not psyches.

        Because issues from change of guard, may have
        frustrated implementing optional procedures.

        Optional procedures like careful intro to new ID policies
        like moderation.

        Perhaps deciding to not use warnings! (But Pete well applied warnings!)

        Perhaps proceeding directly to blocking, and blocking for how long? Till come back and abide by policies? Blocked for a year? Life?

        In conclusion, ID policies may be in process, so please make what you can of the above suggestions.
        It’s kinda like the proposed deal with Iran. With it in place,
        there would be less chance of attacks, warfare and War.

        • Banning at this site is ideological, normally. Pogie tries to keep it a strict Democrats-good Republcians-bad place, and those comments that advance that notion are considered “thoughtful.” Insight, like seeing through the two-parter veneer as nothing more than a thought control device, draws sneers and anger. Party-first Democrats are among the most intolerant people on the planet, and will lower the ax, eliminate links, ban, and generally act like little tyrants while preaching their moral superiority to the other party.

          Their crowning achievement to date is election of a half-black president. He’s a neocon who has led us into more wars as be bought off the banks and played doormat to AHIP and PhRMA, but he’s black dammit! Morally superior Democrats are aware of his race and not much else.

          Such is the state of American politics, an extremely shallow minefield. When Pogie returns, he’ll ban me again, and Norma will shout out in joy, as she is among the most enlightened and tolerant of the Democrats. Her words. not mine.

          • I probably wouldn’t have banned Kralj, were I in charge, but I see the conundrum: the offensive things he says, I would have wanted to ban Swede for a long time ago. The things he says about Catholics, for example, would have gotten him banned if he said them about Muslims. So, when he says something that would normally be offensive, I tend to deem it less damaging, and I let it slide – but that shows I guess my own hypocrisy, too.

          • I’m not sure that I will wait that long.

            And repeating the same argument (PARTIES BAD! TOKARSKI SMART!) over and over again is hardly “insight.” It’s a tantrum from a child.

            On a more serious note, you should do some serious looking into your attitudes about race. Piece together enough of them, and we’ve not only got a child here, but a racist one at that. Maybe it’s time to point some of that “insight” inwards.

          • You speak of the need to ban as if it existed, per se, outside of your mind. It does not. There is not need to hall-monitor a blog. It’s not a meaningful or useful activity, no one ever changes their mind. There is no rational discussion in politics, that is, hardly anyone bases a viewpoint on empirical evidence. I just mentioned that Obama is a Neocon who had done a lot of right wing stuff, and you suggested I ought to examine my attitude about race. My point exactly! His race is your ticket to moral superiority. You don’t even know what he’s been up to!

            Cowgirl runs a blog as a party aparattchik, and when someone interferes with its true purpose, to keep the party members agitated about the other party, that person is banned. Your blog is strikingly similar in that regard, which leads me to believe you get a small stipend for this work. What else can explain your authoring the same post about members of the other party 700,124 times

            • Once again, as in almost all things, you are wrong. If I am receiving a stipend, it is coming to the wrong address. Once again, as always, I suspect you will not let this fact interfere with your “insight.”

              And again, you seem to have some troubling attitudes about race that are worth serious examination. It’s one thing to be a one-note bore; it’ another entirely to be a racist one-note bore.

          • I said a “small” stipend. It does not take much to move a man in the direction he wants to go anyway. The way you go about this business, constantly haranguing the other party, ignoring the sins of your own, speaks of a tool. If you’re not paid for it, you should be. You perform a service and should not give it up for free.

            I will not defend my attitudes about race. I’ve got nothing to defend. I treat Obama like any other president. He gets no special dispensation for being black, as that would be racist.

            The difference between us, Don: empirical evidence. I am a man of science and reason. But science and reason would kick the legs right out from under your faith-based beliefs. This is why you continually harp on the same subject, bad Republicans. A reasonable man would quickly realize that he has to apply the the same standards to all politicians.

          • I’ll be the first to admit that my comment is only tangentially related to the non-discussion of Tokarski’s opinions concerning ID and its proprietor. But I gotta say, Mark, you crack me up every time you state that you are a man of science and reason., Mr. “Velocity has nothing to do with Newton’s third law of motion”. Of course, the only people who will understand why that cracks me up are those who are persons of science and reason.

        • There is a clear commenting policy in place, and an additional post outlining those expectations. Just because there was no public notice here does not mean that a commenter was not informed and or warned before being banned. The length of that suspension is also not a public matter.

          I would have agreed with the decision to give Larry a pause from commenting. His tendency to obsess on points (like the “two black chicks” in Seattle) distracted from conversation and kept other people from commenting. That’s another form of censorship itself. That being said, he has not been blocked from commenting on this site.

    • Larry, the truth is that most people can ignore Tokarski, and none of us really care about what he says about us. After the 700,124 version of the same insult, one tends to become numb to it.

Send this to a friend