Gyroscopic Investing

I pretty much agree with this. Most of the fear surrounding Iran building a nuclear weapon seems to be a rejection of the principle of mutually-assured destruction which has proven to be so dramatically correct in the nuclear age. I mean heck, Kim Jong Un already has nuclear weapons and hasn't nuked anyone. He's not suicidal.

…which brings me to the only point that makes sense to me: that Iran might provide these weapons to its puppet terrorist groups to suicide-nuke Israel or the USA or somewhere else and then feign shock that such a thing could happen. But I doubt they're so stupid as to believe that if they did that, the entire world wouldn't be pointing the finger at them.

It just seems silly to assume that Iran's leaders lack the self-preservation of even lunatics like the members of North Korea's Kim dynasty.

Mutually assured destruction relies on two rational, if opposed, parties both fearing death.  I personally do not discount apocalyptic religious motivations in the middle east so quickly.  Iran is not the secular Soviet Union where God was outlawed, or even North Korea where Kim is God. It requires a different approach.

We also have to remember that nuclear balance is much more complicated than Iran vs. the US.  If Iran gets nukes, it has the potential to spark an arms race in the middle east.  Considering the centuries-long conflicts in the area, mutually assured destruction does not preclude it happening.

In any case, rather than the Dems bitching about the Pubs bitching about the President, I'd much prefer the two parties get their effing acts together and actually lead rather than both hide behind the coat of a President to whom they willingly concede all power in order to avoid being on the record for a tough decision.  It's pathetic.

Dan Carlin is my new civil liberties and foreign policy (more-so the former than the latter) perspective go-to.  As imperfect as he may be, I haven't found anyone to have the property balance and historical perspective since I've been exposed to his Common Sense podcast (I highly recommend it).

I should have made better notes as to which of his podcasts cover which specific topics most articulately, but if you have interests in this topic and foreign policy balance in-general, I'd definitely recommend burning through them (helps to go 1.5x speed if you can on your phone).

Tenn,

I don't mean to beat this horse, but you would LOVE Dan Carlin's Common Sense.

Tenn,

Just checked my podcast list... shiiiiit... he deleted a bunch of episodes from his "free" batch.  The rest are a buck a piece if memory serves... but of those free ones...

Torturing our Values

In Search of Context

Riding Chaos to Stasis

Spectar of Dissent



He seriously deleted some AWESOME episodes from his free list.  Snowstorm was my favorite, if memory serves.

Tenn,

If you're willing to pay for some episodes, go into the topics, and if it is related to wire-tappings or searches, Edward Snowden, ISIS, or any other foreign policy or civil liberty related topic, it would be a safe bet to download it.

If he were on this board, he'd be Gumbying the $hit out of us on some of those topics.

On economics and other issues I think he's a little weak.  But he knows his history and government processes/firewalls.

Pointedstick wrote: It just seems silly to assume that Iran's leaders lack the self-preservation of even lunatics like the members of North Korea's Kim dynasty.

They're not lunatics, they're statist tyrannists.  True lunatics are ISIS.  ISIS would gladly WELCOME self-retaliation!

TennPaGa wrote: I'm disappointed in Paul as well.

I told y'all -- TOLD Y'ALL -- he was a pansy assed faux libertarian.  But no one believed me.

So according to this "logic", the President really is a King! Who knew?

TennPaGa wrote: German diplomat: Iran letter 'not helpful'

A key European diplomat said Thursday that the letter to Iran from Senate Republicans “was not helpful”? to ongoing international nuclear talks with Iran, as other officials lowered expectations for reaching a framework deal this month.
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier was reacting to a letter signed by 47 Senate Republicans warning Tehran that any nuclear deal it strikes with President Barack Obama will be nonbinding and easily undone.
  ...
According to sources close to the negotiations, the letter may have given Iran more leverage in the nuclear talks.
“The game that was played in the past is that we are credible and the Iranians are not credible,”? said one. “The letter is creating the advantage for the Iranians. It is hurting our position in the negotiations.”?

Apparently, damaging U.S. credibility abroad and leaving our allies out to dry *is* OK, if you're a Republican.

Luckily for them, Obama lacks the stones to call out such behavior.

Sorry, but I must have missed civics class the day they explained how the President can bind the country to agreements without the concurrence of Congress. Why not just get rid of Congress altogether?

I agree with Tenn.  If this were done as a part of any sort of consistent application of a principle, I'd have some if not a lot of support for it, but it's just theater, and the principles behind it will be abandoned as soon as their they're (holy crap that's embarrassing) not convenient to the agenda currently being served.  And personally I think it's more important to actively point that out than whatever limited positive effect a letter like that will actually have on the way we conduct ourselves in the future.  I'm not saying every movement/political-strategy has to be morally pure, but holy crap... do we really want the majority of the signers of this document to be the torch-carriers for the "limited executive movement?"

They'll wrap that torch in a wet blanket as soon as they get a chance.  They're temporarily hijacking some good ideas, attaching an obnoxious strategy to those ideas, and are using them as a one-time power play tool. 

TennPaGa wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:

TennPaGa wrote: German diplomat: Iran letter 'not helpful'
Apparently, damaging U.S. credibility abroad and leaving our allies out to dry *is* OK, if you're a Republican.

Luckily for them, Obama lacks the stones to call out such behavior.

Sorry, but I must have missed civics class the day they explained how the President can bind the country to agreements without the concurrence of Congress. Why not just get rid of Congress altogether?

Presidents have been participating in executive agreements for a long time, which is my understanding of what this is / would be.

That said, I'm certainly sympathetic to your broad point.  For example, if Congress were doing its job, they'd be contemplating impeachment proceedings for the current ISIS intervention and drone wars.  But that isn't going to happen.

I suppose my main point is that none of this is based on principle for either side, but on power accumulation.

"Power accumulation" defined as the legislature reining in executive excesses? What an odd idea.

As much as I hate Palin, I'm hoping Republicans are the skins...

TennPaGa wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:

TennPaGa wrote:
Presidents have been participating in executive agreements for a long time, which is my understanding of what this is / would be.

That said, I'm certainly sympathetic to your broad point.  For example, if Congress were doing its job, they'd be contemplating impeachment proceedings for the current ISIS intervention and drone wars.  But that isn't going to happen.

I suppose my main point is that none of this is based on principle for either side, but on power accumulation.

"Power accumulation" defined as the legislature reining in executive excesses? What an odd idea.

No.  Power accumulation defined as trying to tilt the Shirts vs. Skins game.

Again, my main point is that the Shirts would be happy to pull of whatever stunt the Skins are currently engaging in, if it was to their benefit.

I'm sure you're right, whoever the Shirts and Skins might represent. However, the benefit of division of powers is not that some people are angels, but that no one is.