Kerry says Congress veto of Iran deal would be 'ultimate screwing of ayatollah'

Worked really well in Iraq. Stupidity ( which often appears to be the working Republican idealogy) is repeating the same error over and over and expecting a different result.

 

The only nuclear bombs and missiles in the Middle East belong to Isreal and I doubt they are going to attack "Europe and beyond"

 

Isn't that insanity?

 

I am quite aware of the early history of the Zionist movement, including: (1) the fact that many Jews did not favor the Zionist vision and preferred integration in the European nations they were living in, with Zionists being a minority of Jews before the Holocaust; (2) that Palestine wasn't even the only 'homeland' considered by the early Zionists, some looking to various parts of the globe for that homeland; (3) that many then orthodox Jews regarded Zionism as sacrilegious.

But regardless, I don't believe promises by the "powers to be" is all that matters when I look at what is right/just. Nor do I find it all that comforting that there were other lines being drawn in the sand in dividing up the Ottoman empire. Much of the problems we face in the region are, in fact, due to those kind of arbitrary acts (such as the Sykes-Picot Agreement). Fundamentally, I just don't think might makes right. However, once the Arabs lost the 1948 war, and once a generation of Israelis were born on the land, I agree that new facts were created and the issue was no longer all that simple and straight forward.

A 2-state solution, if it truly satisfies the Palestinians, will eventually be accepted by Iran since it would be untenable for Iran to oppose a deal that the Palestinians accept. But I believe attempts at a 2-state solution on the current framework are akin to cutting the proverbial baby into half! Not the right approach. You will not get a real solution to the problem that way. The solution lies elsewhere, even if it isn't the solution by either the Likudniks or the one suggested by Iran. It can, however, emerge from the clash of these two contradictory visions.

Israel has "justified" whatever it has wished to do and which it has been able to get away with, which is plenty. But the lies and propaganda is very annoying. When those lies and the propaganda was focused on the Palestinian issues, I could ignore it even if it was irritating. When it began to cover issues relating to Iran, it went beyond being irritating to me. To be sure, in the case of Iran, a country that openly and proudly supports Hezbollah (founded the organization, funds it, has armed it, etc), with Israel having engaged in Hezbollah in war, you really didn't need "justification" to begin a war with Iran. If Israel didn't start such a war with Iran, the reasons are that Israel didn't find a war with Iran in its interests at that point. It might decide differently, including ironically if this nuclear deal leads Iran to put all its nuclear program in one easy to destroy place. In which case, the Israelis may then think they have the ability to seriously damage Iran's nuclear program, even if they would then have to live with the consequences.

I meant Iran is not going to capitulate further than it has already. The current nuclear deal is capitulation of sorts already. It allows the kind of meddling and interference with Iran's activities that few nations would willingly accept. If Iran is forced to accept them, it is only because the array of forces assembled, both outside and even within Iran's own government, to put pressure on Iran to accept this course has been overwhelming.

 

The Democrats had the votes to do so if they had chosen to do it. The Democrats had a filibuster proof senate and could have passed anything they wanted. That is until Ted Kennedy died and Republican Scott Brown was elected to fill his seat. Then the Democrats had to get the ACA passed in a hurry before their filibuster proof senate disappeared. They passed the ACA without having all the details ironed out and it does have a ton of problems. But the Democrats never envisioned 2010 to happen and for them to lose the House and 63 seats to the Republicans, they thought they could iron out the details and correct what they knew needed correcting later. Didn't happened.

The majority of Americans were against the ACA from the start, more probably would have been against single payer although we do not know that since it wasn't tried. It might have been better than this thing they finally passed. Here are the polls from 2009 and 2010 when the ACA was passed which lead directly to the election results of 2010. The people didn't like their wishes being ignored by the people they elected.

Below are the polls thanks to RCP of public opinion on the ACA when the Senate passed it in November of 2009 National 38.2% for, 52.6% against:
CNN/Opinion Research 12/2-12/3 36% for 61% Against/Oppose +25
Rasmussen Reports 11/29 - 11/29 41% for 53% Against/Oppose +12
Gallup 11/20-11/22 44% for 49% Against/Oppose +5
Ipsos/McClatchy 11/19 - 11/22 34% for 46% Against/Oppose +12
Rasmussen Reports 11/21 - 11/22 38% for 56% Against/Oppose +18
FOX News 11/17 - 11/18 35% for 51% Against/Oppose +16
PPP (D) 11/13 - 11/15 40% for 52% Against/Oppose +12

Below are the polls thanks to RCP of public opinion on the ACA when the House passed it in March of 2010 National average 38.0% for, 53.1% against
Bloomberg 3/19 - 3/22 38% for 50% Against/Oppose +12
CNN/Opinion Research 3/19 - 3/21 39% for 59% Against/Oppose +20
CBS News 3/18 - 3/21 37% for 48% Against/Oppose +11
Rasmussen Reports 3/19 - 3/20 41% for 54% Against/Oppose +13
Quinnipiac 3/16 - 3/21 36% for 54% Against/Oppose +18
Democracy Corps (D) 3/15 - 3/18 40% for 52% Against/Oppose +12
FOX News 3/16 - 3/17 35% 55% Against/Oppose +20

This opposition may be the reason the Democrats didn't press for single payer.

 

As if we don't want Khamenie screwed.....