I think the US gets plenty. We get to monitor their nuclear program in way that nuclear experts would give high grades to (which is what the international sanctions were for - nuclear program, not the other stuff):

"I would give it an A": Why nuclear experts love the Iran deal - Vox

Can we please use a better term than "Straw Man"? It's just played out.

Played out? It's the term.

You know, I use the word "table" a lot. Can we use another? "Sunlight", too. I'm so sick of that shit.

Yes. Well, what they apparently have in uranium can't be used for bombs. But the question is why they have spent billions on thousands of centrifuges enriching a lot of it to just under the 20% threshold - something that doesn't have any justification for peaceful applications on the level they're doing it if they don't intend to do the easier and more-easily concealed work to enrich it to the 90% level, which is necessary for nuclear weapons.

The scary part of the agreement is how deeply Iran resisted an inspection requirement for the smaller military labs. That's the only thing they really wanted to protect. They don't want people to see they have warheads fitted for nuclear weapons and they don't want people to see the uranium enrichment from 20% to 90%, which doesn't require these huge numbers of centrifuges. It only requires about 60 pounds of U-235 to wipe out a city.

If the US had held firm to unfettered access, I could see some positives in a deal. But there's nothing in it. Once international sanctions are lifted, getting Russia to agree that there's a violation will be impossible. This agreement really is tacit approval of Iran's nuclear weapons program.

That's why there is a snapback provision. To quote the interview I linked:


So, if the US is dissatisfied with compliance and the joint commission can't approve anything and then the UN Security Council can't approve anything, the sanctions immediately snapback into place. The Security Council has to take affirmative action to prevent the sanctions from automatically reapplying.

There are two major problems with snapback itself:

1) It doesn't apply to deals that will be made before a violation is found. And Russia, at least, is very eager to make those deals - Iran will get a huge cash infusion right away and Russia has an impressive store.

2) It is subject to this bizarre phrase, "...unless the U.N. Security Council decides otherwise." Why was this included? What does it mean?

The literal read is that snapback takes place if we can't agree, unless we do agree. But that's gibberish. The implication is that the independent action of a permanent Security Council member can negate snapback at least as it applies to that member (and anyone else who seeks that member's Security Council protection from sanctions down the road for violating the agreement).

Snapback may sound clever and like a real protection. But it's really absolutely nothing. If Iran wants nuclear weapons, this agreement gives them nuclear weapons. And Iran's actions indicate they want nuclear weapons very badly. Which means Saudi Arabia will want nuclear weapons, because they are Sunni (like around 90% of Muslims in the Middle East) and Iran is Shiite. Of course, we have to be extra careful about taking sides because ISIS and Al-Qaeda are Sunni.

What do you mean bizarre phrase? It means unless the U.N. Security Council decides otherwise, the sanctions snapback automatically. It's straight forward. And the US, of course, has a veto on the Security Council. So even if all the other countries feel the US's dissatisfaction is unwarranted, they cannot override the US if it really wants to pull the trigger.


Where exactly are you getting this from?

Here is a good article that outlines why President Obama will be viewed as one of our most important and consequential presidents. Unlike someone like W, history actually will be kind to Obama's legacy.

Barack Obama is officially one of the most consequential presidents in American history - Vox

Some good articles on the negotiations and the deal. Both were insightful but think NYT had more background info.

Log In - The New York Times

The path to a final Iran nuclear deal: Long days and short tempers - The Washington Post

Overall, leaning towards this is a good deal for the US. Kerry and Zarif are likley Nobel Prize finalists.

The deal may actually, finally, validate Obama's Nobel Prize.

Friedman interview with Obama.

Log In - The New York Times


I agree with the below for sure.

To paraphrase a popular movie, let's not start sucking each other dicks quite yet. Let's see how it all plays out first.

Good heaven, I completely forgot about that stupid thing.

Wasn't Obama the one that made that award obsolete?

In light of the fact this thread is largely a political catch-all ...

Looks like domestic attacks on the military have joined school/public shootings as being so common that they're no longer immediately topical.

"No Way To Prevent This," Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens - The Onion - America's Finest News Source

How do we stop these things, then?

No solutions allowed! Only complaints!

I guess we could follow France's lead. Never mind.

Is there a flag we can remove?

Must be one somewhere.

A Jordanian born Kuwaiti(or vice versa) naturalized US citizen carries out a heavily armed targeted suicide attack on US military personnel on the eve of Ramadan expiring and we've gotta sit around and decide if it's terrorism or random violence. Geez.

The only solution is a less awesome America, I guess.

Wonder why there won't be a bunch of thinkpieces saying Muslims need to be held accountable for his actions.

It's interesting reading these stories as everybody who know the attacker is saying they can't believe it. Of course, we're already reading that he was "radicalized."

So my question is two parts...

1. Do you think people have to be radicalized or do people just hide their true nature?

2. If you believe somebody can be radicalized, what doe that person's mindset have to be prior? That is, in what condition does the mind have to be in order to be accepting of what is preached to make you carry out something that violent?

How the South Skews America - Michael Lind - POLITICO Magazine

If by "less awesome" you mean one where the culture eventually shifts, then maybe:


I had a back and forth with someone on FB over the flag/monument debate, someone who was heated enough to state that they would kill with a shovel anyone who comes to dig up any soldiers (specifically Forrest, who Memphis is looking to move). I don't doubt that she was completely serious. But her opinions were based in her view of heritage:


To which I ask: why in the blue blazes does that matter? Really, why should I or anyone else care that your ancestors were in Jamestown? How does that have any relevance on you or me, in 2015? Should you get points for this? Am I less of an American because my family came here in the 1900s? This speaks directly to what the author of the linked story points out:


I don't believe they want mobility. Not if they endorse a system that ranks you based on if you came over in 1607, or 1650, or 1700, etc. Not if they've named places and controlled them for a couple hundred years. They want to keep doing so. If you are black? Well, you can't get in on that lineage. Nor if you are an immigrant. Or a carpet bagger. This is their land, has been and in their minds always will be, and nobody else can tell them what to do. Except that by the numbers, that will eventually change. Will America be less awesome? I know what some will answer (some will say there won't BE one in 30 years). Guess we'll have to wait and find out.

If you break down the statistics a little further it ends at a point that I don't think the author intended it to. And definitely not at a point that those on the left want it to.

Right, right, I know - well the PROBLEM with the Southern states is more black folk!

And sure, I have no doubt that there is less social and economic mobility for black people, in the South or otherwise. Where you fall on all of this is basically if you believe that is mostly their doing, or if it's more the whites who have held power and money for 400 years doing their best to keep it while attempting to suppress everyone else.

The demographics and politics of gun-owning households | Pew Research Center



So, is it the chicken or the egg? Did ownership rise in defense to violence, or did they proliferate as threats of violence?

I've learned to understand a lot of the regional culture of the US by reading Colin Woodward's, American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Reigonal Cultures of North America.

The South basically breaks down along three of these "nations;" Tidewater, the Deep South and Greater Appalachia.




Over generations the cultures of these areas have been dramatically influenced by the people who settled there. The ideals, social standing and mores of these regions are branded by the history of the area and the people who settled there. Our current political divides are a focused battle to define what makes America, America. These same battles have been going on for generations and will continue into the future. I believe we are possibly heading to a point where open conflict between Americans over that true definition may become a reality.

Oh, thanks PilotMan - that sounds like a very interesting read. And it makes a lot of sense - earlier after posting I thought to myself "it's as if that woman wants to perpetuate feudalism" with her lineages and societies. If her family is based in Virginia and North Carolina that matches perfectly with Tidewater.

ETA: this essay may be a little more direct than trying to navigate his site; and yes, he does touch on gun ownership and violence http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine...p-in-arms.html

The article was being smug and implying that if it weren't for those evil white rednecks in the South, this country would be a beacon of enlightenment. That statistically it is holding the country back.

I'm simply pointing out that if you breakdown the statistics further, it's not the evil white Southerners that is skewing the data downward.

We don't get to do this on each other's stuff very often so ...

+1

Donald doesn't stand a chance but he is fun to listen to, makes this process more interesting. He brings up some polarizing issues and its interesting to see how candidates respond (or not).

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/17/politi...rge/index.html

Real or Onion?

ISIS head Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi bans group from releasing more execution videos

Early opinions on legacy, history book stuff etc. on Obama's presidency.

From my perspective, his domestic policy has been transformational and I think is equal to or exceeds Reagan. His foreign policy doesn't quite rise up to the end of the Cold War ...

Obama, you're still no Reagan - CNNPolitics.com

What was so transformational about it? I'm not knocking it but just don't see him accomplishing anything dramatic during his Presidency. At least from a domestic standpoint.

The two are Obamacare and LGBT rights. Arguably (and probably still to be determined) the third is himself as a black man achieving the presidency.

For a group that swears by v1.0....lets call this ISIS v1.0.0.1

I'll call it transformational when we don't label him based on skin color.

Same goes for Dr. King!

He's the first so it's inevitably taken into account (as will gender if Hillary wins). The traditional white male president is going to be joined by a black, a woman, and probably a Hispanic president in the next 10-20 years.

I know I'm just despondent over the Chattanooga incident and how a seemingly normal immigrant wasn't able to see the good that US is and the opportunities she gave his family and him.

Obama's strategy seems to be more containment and hope the regional powers get its act together. I'm paying more attention to GOP candidates that are talking tougher (some saying "boots on the ground") and willing to have a more active participation with the Kurds. Is our national security interests not being threatened or has it not yet reached that level?

Maybe with the Nuke deal done, Obamacare done ... he can start to focus on the Middle East.

It is historic...Im waiting for the American transformation when the color of our skin is irrelevant. It's possible, just still a ways off.

Meet Your Three New National Monuments

I don't know if Obamacare is that transformational. It changed things a bit, but it feels like a bandaid till the country moves to a national health care system. And many of the LGBT advances weren't from his pen.

I mean he'll go down as the first black President which will always be a big deal. But "transformational" seems overboard. When I think about that, I think of guys like Lincoln, Roosevelt, Truman, etc that governed during important times and made dramatic changes to not only the country but the world. It's not Obama's fault that he's President during a rather boring time in the world, but we also shouldn't blow up some of his actions to be larger than they are in the grand scheme of things.

It depends. If Hillary wins, Obama can be seen as the first in an era of government as an important part of the solution is back - and the ACA will be an example of that transformation. Kind of a reversal of Reagan sort of understanding of the role of government.

Obamacare was really just an expansion of what Reagan started with health care in the 80's though.

....

This is a surprise as I thought there was some sort of Turkish backdoor deal of pseudo-peace with ISIS to get back their diplomats from a year (?) ago. Good stuff though, there's hope yet that Obama can save his Iraq fiasco.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/23/politi...sis/index.html