Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-07-2011, 12:14 AM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default Words Are Wind (Robert Farley & Michael Cohen)

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-07-2011, 01:03 AM
Baz Baz is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 113
Default Robert Farley & Michael Cohen

Cohen brings up Serbia in WW1 as an example of national suicide to which Farley responds and totally objects to as an example of national suicide but rather coherent rational long tern planning...Cohen replies "Well ok...I'm not sure I agree with that but we don't have to talk about WW1 here."

Ok carry on...
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-08-2011, 09:09 PM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Robert Farley & Michael Cohen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz View Post
Cohen brings up Serbia in WW1 as an example of national suicide to which Farley responds and totally objects to as an example of national suicide but rather coherent rational long tern planning...Cohen replies "Well ok...I'm not sure I agree with that but we don't have to talk about WW1 here."

Ok carry on...
I felt like Cohen spent that whole section of the DV conflating the end of a country as a political entity with the literal destruction of the population of that country in a very problematic way.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-09-2011, 05:25 AM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Robert Farley & Michael Cohen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz View Post
Cohen brings up Serbia in WW1 as an example of national suicide to which Farley responds and totally objects to as an example of national suicide but rather coherent rational long tern planning...Cohen replies "Well ok...I'm not sure I agree with that but we don't have to talk about WW1 here."

Ok carry on...
Depends on what we're talking about. Splinter groups, like the Black Hand, or Al Qaeda, or arguably the IRGC, have interests which can diverge from what is obviously national interest. A group like the Black Hand (Or the others mentioned) can gain power and advance a cause even if the nation's overall health suffers. Indeed, they often feel that cause is more important than the national interest. In the case of the Black Hand, it was the Greater South Slav dream.

So yes, it is an example of national suicide. When institutions are too weak to defeat extreme militants, history simply becomes a death watch. It is also "rational self interest" for the extremists. If you seek to remove Germanic barriers to your desire for an ethnic superstate (Comparably), or a religious one, then "worse is better" in many ways. Also, your calculations simply differ from the official leadership because your assumptions are different. The Black Hand assumed that rational self-interest/fear would stay the hands of the Austrians if the Russians came to Serbia's defense, and if not the Austrians, then the Germans from the threat of war with both France and Russia.

What the Left and people like Farley don't want to grasp is that you don't need to be "insane" to destroy the prevailing world order and ruin your own nation. You just need to start with different assumptions which lead to self interest. If it is better for men to die by the tens or hundreds of thousands rather than live in a world where Austrians dominate Serbs, then your approach to this matter differs. If it is better to live in a world where Tehran (Home to traitorous youths and corrupt bureaucrats) smolders but the world has been cleansed of the "Zionist entity", then your calculations differ.

The Iranians obviously aren't going to launch a weapon the day after they get it. But the kinds of things which can trigger the Iranians into launching it are far more delicate than anything the Soviets would have considered a provocation. The Soviets also didn't have a constituency in the USSR which was excited by the thought of launching its weapons. Of course, the Soviets didn't really even have a "constituency" at all. But the IRGC does.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-07-2011, 01:53 AM
Baz Baz is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 113
Default Robert Farley & Michael Cohen

So even Farley supports illegal covert operations against Iran and further sanctions against the Iranian people (and our own crippled economies) which we know from history will further entrench the regimes power and ramp up the anti western sentiment of even the reformers inside Iran.

I prefer Ron Pauls "We should offer them friendship."
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-07-2011, 03:39 AM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Robert Farley & Michael Cohen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz View Post
So even Farley supports illegal covert operations against Iran and further sanctions against the Iranian people (and our own crippled economies) which we know from history will further entrench the regimes power and ramp up the anti western sentiment of even the reformers inside Iran.

I prefer Ron Pauls "We should offer them friendship."
Good point on the incoherence of Robert's position, at least as he stated it here. He might flesh it out by saying he would reluctantly support some sanctions on Iran as a form of appeasement to the Israeli and US hawks who would rather bomb Iran, micromanage regime change and engage in a new round of failed-state fixing.

This is often the sanctions quagmire, however. Sanctions proponents start slowly and escalate, so it's important to reject sanctions as an act of war from the beginning, or at least an act of lethal hostility that portends war. There are ways to get off the sanctions train before hot war breaks out, but the USA and Israel have already gone way beyond sanctions in "covert" acts of violence within Iranian borders.

"We should offer them friendship" is excellent policy, from whomever it comes.

Also, it seems fair to me to ask (demand?) that the USA butt out of the entire matter. Let the Israelis and Iranians work it out amongst themselves.

The best thing we can do for the region is comply with the NPT (disarmament), which would allow a nuclear weapons-free Middle East to prosper.

Great article by Michael on Gene McCarthy, by the way (see links next to diavlog). Homework: apply Gene's philosophy to the Middle East today.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-07-2011, 05:17 AM
Florian Florian is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,118
Default Re: Robert Farley & Michael Cohen

[QUOTE=Wonderment;233778]
Quote:
"We should offer them friendship" is excellent policy, from whomever it comes.

Also, it seems fair to me to ask (demand?) that the USA butt out of the entire matter. Let the Israelis and Iranians work it out amongst themselves.

The best thing we can do for the region is comply with the NPT (disarmament), which would allow a nuclear weapons-free Middle East to prosper.
Leaving aside your last proposal, which is not going to happen within the lifetime of anyone reading this, it seems to me that your first and second proposals are mutually incompatible. States cannot be both "friends" (allies) and neutral with regard to two other states that regard themselves as enemies. That is just not how international relations work. Since the US is a friend (ally) of Israel, which considers Iran an enemy, just as Iran considers Israel an enemy, the US cannot be both a friend (ally) of Iran and neutral between the two countries. It could of course choose to be neutral, but only at the cost of no longer being an ally of Israel (or Iran).

I am not knocking your good intentions, but there is a certain logic to international relations---often a diabolical logic.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-07-2011, 09:08 AM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Re: Robert Farley & Michael Cohen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian View Post
States cannot be both "friends" (allies) and neutral with regard to two other states that regard themselves as enemies. That is just not how international relations work. Since the US is a friend (ally) of Israel, which considers Iran an enemy, just as Iran considers Israel an enemy, the US cannot be both a friend (ally) of Iran and neutral between the two countries.
I think this is an exaggeration. It is quite possible, indeed common, to be allied with two other states which are in conflict. For example, it is possible for the US to consider both India and Pakistan as allies. This does not imply complete "neutrality" on every contentious issue, of course. In times of conflict, we may swing more towards one side or the other. Being allied means that we have shared values and shared interests with both states. Indeed, it is these relationships that can help to defuse conflict.

As you know from your own experience with human relationships, it is sometimes a common friend who breaks up an argument between two others.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-07-2011, 09:50 AM
Florian Florian is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,118
Default Re: Robert Farley & Michael Cohen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
I think this is an exaggeration. It is quite possible, indeed common, to be allied with two other states which are in conflict. For example, it is possible for the US to consider both India and Pakistan as allies. This does not imply complete "neutrality" on every contentious issue, of course. In times of conflict, we may swing more towards one side or the other. Being allied means that we have shared values and shared interests with both states. Indeed, it is these relationships that can help to defuse conflict.

As you know from your own experience with human relationships, it is sometimes a common friend who breaks up an argument between two others.
What you say is true if the conflict (s) between two states can be arbitrated by a neutral third party, i.e. if they consent to arbitration (as in a court of law). That implies that the two states in conflict accept the third party as truly neutral and that they both have an interest in a peaceful rather than a violent settlement of their conflict (s). Otherwise, why would they accept arbitration? It seems to me that the only "value" all the parties have to share is an "interest in peace."

IMO, it it is impossible for the US to arbitrate between two states that consider themselves irreconcilable enemies, as Iran and Israel do, because the US has not been a neutral broker for some time. It is clearly an ally and a friend of Israel. The fact that the US shares certain "values" with Israel only complicates the situation further. The only real value the US needs to share with Israel and Iran in order to be an arbitrator is an "interest in peace."

Last edited by Florian; 12-07-2011 at 09:54 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-07-2011, 09:56 AM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Re: Robert Farley & Michael Cohen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian View Post
The fact that the US shares certain "values" with Israel only complicates the situation further. The only real value the US needs to share with Israel and Iran is an "interest in peace."
I grant that we are not in a good situation with Iran. I just think it's a multi-dimensional problem that goes beyond "We're for peace". There can be economic interests, for example.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-07-2011, 10:27 AM
Florian Florian is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,118
Default Re: Robert Farley & Michael Cohen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
I grant that we are not in a good situation with Iran. I just think it's a multi-dimensional problem that goes beyond "We're for peace". There can be economic interests, for example.
It is the bare minimum, the sine qua non, which is lacking in this case. If the US is to act as an impartial, neutral arbitrator, it has to be "for peace." As long as the US takes the side of Israel and is perceived by Iran as taking the side of Israel, it does not have an interest in peace. It is a party to the conflict.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-07-2011, 12:18 PM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Re: Robert Farley & Michael Cohen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian View Post
It is the bare minimum, the sine qua non, which is lacking in this case. If the US is to act as an impartial, neutral arbitrator, it has to be "for peace." As long as the US takes the side of Israel and is perceived by Iran as taking the side of Israel, it does not have an interest in peace. It is a party to the conflict.
If you want to bring about peace, you have to be "for peace"? OK, I guess that's a tautology.

And no, I don't think the US can act as an impartial, neutral arbitrator. The US has interests closer to Israel's. That doesn't mean US actions have to be 100% consistent with Israel's wishes.

"Impartial neutral arbitrator" is strange idea. What does that mean in this context? Someone who just doesn't give a damn? What would an impartial arbitrator do? Award Iran half-a-bomb? Award Iran equally many bombs as Israel has? Destroy only one-half of Israel and protect the rest? I think it's an undefinable concept.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-07-2011, 12:55 PM
Florian Florian is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,118
Default Re: Robert Farley & Michael Cohen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
If you want to bring about peace, you have to be "for peace"? OK, I guess that's a tautology.

And no, I don't think the US can act as an impartial, neutral arbitrator. The US has interests closer to Israel's. That doesn't mean US actions have to be 100% consistent with Israel's wishes.

"Impartial neutral arbitrator" is strange idea. What does that mean in this context? Someone who just doesn't give a damn? What would an impartial arbitrator do? Award Iran half-a-bomb? Award Iran equally many bombs as Israel has? Destroy only one-half of Israel and protect the rest? I think it's an undefinable concept.
No, it is not a tautology. The US is an ally of Israel, therefore it is not an impartial arbitrator of the conflict between Israel and Iran. The US "has interests closer to Israel's?" Thank you for repeating exactly what I said.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-07-2011, 01:30 PM
Baz Baz is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 113
Default Re: Robert Farley & Michael Cohen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
"Impartial neutral arbitrator" is strange idea. What does that mean in this context? Someone who just doesn't give a damn? What would an impartial arbitrator do? Award Iran half-a-bomb? Award Iran equally many bombs as Israel has? Destroy only one-half of Israel and protect the rest? I think it's an undefinable concept.
Is there any real evidence that Iran is building a bomb? As far as I'm aware the most authoritative answer on this is from America's own intelligence from the CIA and the pentagon who say even if Iran decides to build a bomb its years down the line. Any state with nuclear power capabilities can decide at any time to start developing a weapons program which Iran hasn't yet. I'm afraid Israel and the US are the only ones blocking a nuclear weapons free zone in the middle east.

Last edited by Baz; 12-07-2011 at 01:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-07-2011, 02:44 PM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Re: Robert Farley & Michael Cohen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz View Post
Is there any real evidence that Iran is building a bomb? As far as I'm aware the most authoritative answer on this is from America's own intelligence from the CIA and the pentagon
Depends on what you mean by "real" evidence. All the items below are bits of evidence, some stronger than others. As with any mystery, you have to correlate all the bits of information you have to arrive at an estimate. Or you can accept the assessment of the International Atomic Energy Agency (see Nov 8, 2011, below).

(Reuters: )

November 23, 2010 - An IAEA report says Iran told the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on November 22 that 28 cascades, or interlinked units of normally 164 centrifuges, are now enriching uranium.

Iran tells inspectors it has produced around 7,017 pounds (3,183 kg) of low-enriched uranium (LEU) since February 2007, about 840 pounds (380 kg) more than at the start of August. That amount is enough for at least two atom bombs, if enriched further to 90 percent fissile purity.

December 5 - Iranian nuclear energy chief Ali Akbar Salehi says Iran will use domestically produced uranium concentrates, known as yellowcake, for the first time at a key nuclear facility, cutting reliance on imports of the ingredient for nuclear fuel.

January 21, 2011 - The six powers fail to prise any concessions from Iran, such as limits on enrichment activity and transparency about it, in talks.

April 9 - Iran holds annual celebration of nuclear program, announcing the production and testing of second and third generation centrifuges.

May 24 - The IAEA says it has received new information about possible military aspects to Iran's atomic activities. Its report also shows Iran amassing more low-enriched uranium, despite increased international sanctions.

June 9 - Russia and China join Western powers in telling Iran its "consistent failure" to comply with U.N. resolutions "deepened concerns" about possible military dimensions to its nuclear program.

The statement was issued a day after Iran said it would triple production of higher-grade uranium and shift it to an underground bunker, protected from possible air strikes.

October 18 - Iran's nuclear program is struggling with low-performing centrifuges but would still be able to produce material usable in atom bombs, says a report by the Institute for Science and International Security, a U.S. think-tank.

October 21 - Iran plans to soon start moving nuclear material to its underground Fordow site for the pursuit of sensitive atomic activities, diplomatic sources say.

The first batch of uranium hexafluoride gas (UF6), material which is fed into machines used to refine uranium, is to be transferred to Fordow site near the holy city of Qom in preparation for launching enrichment work there.

November 8 - IAEA releases a report saying Iran has worked on developing a nuclear weapon design, and testing and other research relevant for nuclear arms, and some of the activities may still be going on.

Nov 18 - The IAEA censures Iran over findings that it is trying to develop atomic bombs. The resolution did not mention any further sanction on Iran.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz View Post
...even if Iran decides to build a bomb its years down the line.
That's what they said about Pakistan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz View Post
Any state with nuclear power capabilities can decide at any time to start developing a weapons program...
So what? That doesn't make it acceptable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz View Post
I'm afraid Israel and the US are the only ones blocking a nuclear weapons free zone in the middle east.
I respectfully disagree about the US. I suspect Washington would be delighted to see Israel's nukes gone. But there is no good way to make that happen.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-07-2011, 07:14 PM
Baz Baz is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 113
Default Re: Robert Farley & Michael Cohen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
I respectfully disagree about the US. I suspect Washington would be delighted to see Israel's nukes gone. But there is no good way to make that happen.
Hang on...its not my opinion that the US is blocking a nuclear weapons free middle east...thats just fact. The US demands that any nuclear agreement (including NPT) for the middle east must exclude Israel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
(Reuters: )

November 23, 2010 - An IAEA report says Iran told the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on November 22 that 28 cascades, or interlinked units of normally 164 centrifuges, are now enriching uranium.

Iran tells inspectors it has produced around 7,017 pounds (3,183 kg) of low-enriched uranium (LEU) since February 2007, about 840 pounds (380 kg) more than at the start of August. That amount is enough for at least two atom bombs, if enriched further to 90 percent fissile purity.

December 5 - Iranian nuclear energy chief Ali Akbar Salehi says Iran will use domestically produced uranium concentrates, known as yellowcake, for the first time at a key nuclear facility, cutting reliance on imports of the ingredient for nuclear fuel.

January 21, 2011 - The six powers fail to prise any concessions from Iran, such as limits on enrichment activity and transparency about it, in talks.

April 9 - Iran holds annual celebration of nuclear program, announcing the production and testing of second and third generation centrifuges.

May 24 - The IAEA says it has received new information about possible military aspects to Iran's atomic activities. Its report also shows Iran amassing more low-enriched uranium, despite increased international sanctions.

June 9 - Russia and China join Western powers in telling Iran its "consistent failure" to comply with U.N. resolutions "deepened concerns" about possible military dimensions to its nuclear program.

The statement was issued a day after Iran said it would triple production of higher-grade uranium and shift it to an underground bunker, protected from possible air strikes.

October 18 - Iran's nuclear program is struggling with low-performing centrifuges but would still be able to produce material usable in atom bombs, says a report by the Institute for Science and International Security, a U.S. think-tank.

October 21 - Iran plans to soon start moving nuclear material to its underground Fordow site for the pursuit of sensitive atomic activities, diplomatic sources say.

The first batch of uranium hexafluoride gas (UF6), material which is fed into machines used to refine uranium, is to be transferred to Fordow site near the holy city of Qom in preparation for launching enrichment work there.

November 8 - IAEA releases a report saying Iran has worked on developing a nuclear weapon design, and testing and other research relevant for nuclear arms, and some of the activities may still be going on.

Nov 18 - The IAEA censures Iran over findings that it is trying to develop atomic bombs. The resolution did not mention any further sanction on Iran.
So where's the evidence that Iran is building a nuclear bomb? You have just written that Iran has large amounts of enriched uranium and has moved it to underground sites...ok. Iran, as a signer of the NPT, is perfectly entitled to enrich uranium and move it around their country. The IAEA report about Iran's weapons program is based on information going back nearly 10 years to pre 2003 and thats why it was laughed at by almost every serious analyst I've heard.

Iran has called on the IAEA and the US to provide sources for the allegations made in the report but they have refused so all we have is hear say by the Obama administration without any sources provided. Read the CIA and Pentagon reports that they issued to congress...the IAEA report is purely political.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
That's what they said about Pakistan.
??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
So what? That doesn't make it acceptable.
Are we talking about the same issue here? Do you understand what the NPT is? Do you understand that as a signatory to the NPT, Iran is entitled to develop and advance itself in the nuclear field? This means that any country on the planet who develops a nuclear power program will at some stage have the potential to start a weapons program. This is physics, technology, an inevitability of any advanced nuclear power program...get it?

Japan and Germany could decide tomorrow to start a nuclear weapons programme and they could build a bomb in a few months such is their expertise and technology in the field...but they haven't and neither has Iran as far as we know.

Last edited by Baz; 12-07-2011 at 07:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-07-2011, 08:17 PM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Re: Robert Farley & Michael Cohen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz View Post
So where's the evidence that Iran is building a nuclear bomb? You have just written that Iran has large amounts of enriched uranium and has moved it to underground sites...ok. Iran, as a signer of the NPT, is perfectly entitled to enrich uranium and move it around their country. The IAEA report about Iran's weapons program is based on information going back nearly 10 years to pre 2003 and thats why it was laughed at by almost every serious analyst I've heard.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "building". The production of large quantities (kilograms) of highly enriched uranium is the main bottleneck, the most difficult part of the process, and that seems to be what Iran is pursuing with vigor.

We each make judgments about what Iran's true intentions are, based on evidence, our understanding of human nature, and our common sense. Strangely, we have come to different conclusions. If we happen to learn in 10 years the news that Iran has several weapons ready to go, it will be cold comfort for me to know that I guessed correctly.

Just to help me calibrate your intuition, I have a question. Do you think Israel has the bomb? If so, what's the basis of your belief?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz View Post
Do you understand that as a signatory to the NPT, Iran is entitled to develop and advance itself in the nuclear field? This means that any country on the planet who develops a nuclear power program will at some stage have the potential to start a weapons program. This is physics, technology, an inevitability of any advanced nuclear power program...get it?

Japan and Germany could decide tomorrow to start a nuclear weapons programme and they could build a bomb in a few months such is their expertise and technology in the field...but they haven't and neither has Iran as far as we know.
You are focused, like some accountant with a green eye-shade, on the details of the NPT, and you conclude with scholarly authority that under law Iran is equivalent to Germany. Why is this important to you? Iran is unlike Germany in so many other ways. One would think that concern about nuclear holocaust would transcend arcane academic arguments about the niceties of a treaty.

I only hope that when Iran gets its bomb (and that's my prediction) that the US has poked, prodded, sabotaged and made life sufficiently difficult for Iran. Because that will make it less likely the weapons are distributed haphazardly or stored insecurely.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-07-2011, 10:58 PM
Baz Baz is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 113
Default Re: Robert Farley & Michael Cohen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
Just to help me calibrate your intuition, I have a question. Do you think Israel has the bomb? If so, what's the basis of your belief?
Confirmation Hearing of Robert Gates to Be Secretary of Defense
December 5, 2006


Gates (on Iran) "They are surrounded by powers with nuclear weapons: Pakistan to their east, the Russians to the north, the Israelis to the west and us in the Persian Gulf."

Israel has deployed nuclear weapons so no need for intuition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "building". The production of large quantities (kilograms) of highly enriched uranium is the main bottleneck, the most difficult part of the process, and that seems to be what Iran is pursuing with vigor.

We each make judgments about what Iran's true intentions are, based on evidence, our understanding of human nature, and our common sense. Strangely, we have come to different conclusions. If we happen to learn in 10 years the news that Iran has several weapons ready to go, it will be cold comfort for me to know that I guessed correctly.
It seems to who? I've tried to point you in the direction of the actual evidence thats available on the issue from the proper sources in the intelligence community but you don't seem interested in this evidence. If you want me to put links up then I will for the sake of clarity but I'm astounded as to why you have not already done so before making claims about these issues.

As far as I can tell there's nothing "strange" about our different conclusions here. You say you're making the judgements based on evidence but you haven't provided any, then you mention "human nature" and "common sense" which is intriguing to say the least. Guess away all you want Simon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
You are focused, like some accountant with a green eye-shade, on the details of the NPT, and you conclude with scholarly authority that under law Iran is equivalent to Germany. Why is this important to you? Iran is unlike Germany in so many other ways. One would think that concern about nuclear holocaust would transcend arcane academic arguments about the niceties of a treaty.

I only hope that when Iran gets its bomb (and that's my prediction) that the US has poked, prodded, sabotaged and made life sufficiently difficult for Iran. Because that will make it less likely the weapons are distributed haphazardly or stored insecurely.
You mean I look for evidence on important issues instead of relying on political propaganda and intuitions which are based on nothing but rhetoric. I thought all states were equal under international law, I thought that was the point of international law. You have absolutely nothing so you bring up the holocaust, shame on you. The Jews weren't the only group of people who suffered at the hands of the nazi's incase you didn't know but we don't exhalt these other groups above international law and everyone else...but what the hell does that have to do with this issue anyway...we are talking about Iran's nuclear power program and evidence that its not for peaceful purposes.

Last edited by Baz; 12-07-2011 at 11:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-07-2011, 11:28 PM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Re: Robert Farley & Michael Cohen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz View Post
Gates (on Iran) "They are surrounded by powers with nuclear weapons: Pakistan to their east, the Russians to the north, the Israelis to the west and us in the Persian Gulf."
Good answer. I accept your implication that the US Defense Secretary is a highly credible source.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz View Post
You have absolutely nothing so you bring up the holocaust, shame on you. The Jews weren't the only group of people who suffered at the hands of the nazi's incase you didn't know but we don't exhalt these other groups above international law and everyone else...but what the hell does that have to do with this issue anyway...we are talking about Iran's nuclear power program and evidence that its not for peaceful purposes.
Just to head off any misunderstanding on this narrow point - I was using the word "holocaust" in its generic sense, having nothing to do with Jews. You might want to take note that Israeli security is pretty far down my list of top concerns. The real issue with this technology in Iran (or Pakistan, India, North Korea) is security against loose nukes and crazy people who could threaten any major industrialized city anywhere in the world.

Kindly remind me of all the reasons Iran is a stable, trustworthy partner in peace, and perhaps we can come to some agreement.

Last edited by Simon Willard; 12-07-2011 at 11:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-08-2011, 12:40 AM
Baz Baz is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 113
Default Re: Robert Farley & Michael Cohen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
Good answer. I accept your implication that the US Defense Secretary is a highly credible source.
This was more than likely a slip of the tongue from Gates but Israel has deployed nuclear weapons openly anyway.

Israel deploys nuclear arms in submarines

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
Just to head off any misunderstanding on this narrow point - I was using the word "holocaust" in its generic sense, having nothing to do with Jews.
I apologize for my flustering so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
Kindly remind me of all the reasons Iran is a stable, trustworthy partner in peace, and perhaps we can come to some agreement.
When was the last time Iran attacked another sovereign nation? Did Iran invade and occupy Iraq? Or did Iran invade and occupy Afghanistan? No. All the actual aggression is from the US. Look at the constant threats and illegal covert operations coming from the US against Iran. Trustworthy...give me a break.

Last edited by Baz; 12-08-2011 at 12:43 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-08-2011, 11:31 AM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Robert Farley & Michael Cohen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
Depends on what you mean by "real" evidence. All the items below are bits of evidence, some stronger than others. As with any mystery, you have to correlate all the bits of information you have to arrive at an estimate. Or you can accept the assessment of the International Atomic Energy Agency (see Nov 8, 2011, below).
Here's what appears to be a decent analysis of the IAEA report.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-07-2011, 08:23 PM
Diane1976 Diane1976 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 333
Default Re: Robert Farley & Michael Cohen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz View Post
Is there any real evidence that Iran is building a bomb? .
I wondered about that too. From reading the report from the IAEA it seems that Iran hasn't given them enough information to prove they aren't. This somehow gets translated into they are ready to wipe out Israel tomorrow, knowing full well they will be wiped out themselves if they do. So, of course, we should all be prepared to go to war with Iran any minute.

At least, that's my take on it.

BTW, I saw a poll showing something like 50% of Americans are prepared to go war with Iran. I thought that was kind of amazing. But I guess they think it would be quick and cheap, not like a "regime change" thing, although some of the Republican candidates were saying there is no point in doing it without "regime change". But, hey, what's a little regime change.

Last edited by Diane1976; 12-07-2011 at 08:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-08-2011, 11:16 AM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Robert Farley & Michael Cohen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diane1976 View Post
BTW, I saw a poll showing something like 50% of Americans are prepared to go war with Iran.
What poll? Here are some. Even with the likelihood that people will more positive when the details are not being discussed (people could assume that the discussion is about some bombing raids, like with Iraq during the Clinton admin), the current numbers aren't anywhere near 50%.

The recent ones are:

CNN: 16% for military action (more say no action, a lot more say diplomacy/economic)

CBS: 15% for military action (again, more say no threat, a lot more say diplomacy)

The other polls with larger numbers are from periods in the past and I'm skeptical about them for various reasons. However, the one that indicates that a majority believed Iran already had nukes is interesting.

Last edited by stephanie; 12-08-2011 at 11:18 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-09-2011, 08:38 PM
Diane1976 Diane1976 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 333
Default Re: Robert Farley & Michael Cohen

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
What poll? Here are some. Even with the likelihood that people will more positive when the details are not being discussed (people could assume that the discussion is about some bombing raids, like with Iraq during the Clinton admin), the current numbers aren't anywhere near 50%.

The recent ones are:

CNN: 16% for military action (more say no action, a lot more say diplomacy/economic)

CBS: 15% for military action (again, more say no threat, a lot more say diplomacy)

The other polls with larger numbers are from periods in the past and I'm skeptical about them for various reasons. However, the one that indicates that a majority believed Iran already had nukes is interesting.
The Quinnipiac poll. Should have mentioned it refers to people who would support a war if other measures fail. But that's similar to one of the CNN polls on your list (third one/2010) if you add those who would support a war now and those who would support a war only if other means fail.

But, as you say polls also indicate that a high number of people already think Iran has a nuclear program. US policy is that a nuclear Iran is not tolerable, and "all options are on the table". So, I would say that sort of sets the stage, so to speak, should a future president want to go to war with Iran. I don't think Obama does. I see the Republican candidates talking it up, even if only for vote getting reasons, as adding to that atmosphere of acceptance of war as a solution.

I was also thinking of the diavlog with Bob and Heather Hurlbert. He made the point that accepting that a nuclear Iran is intolerable is like conceding the argument, should, say, a president want to start a war at some point. But Heather said arguing against that idea that a nuclear Iran is intolerable would result in being "marginalized", not being taken seriously by anybody with influence over policy. This was an interesting debate because I've been thinking ever since the Iraq war that those who are generally anti-war need to improve their arguments and strategies. I would say the pro-war side has done that. (I mean did that, post-Vietnam and pre-Iraq.)

The Q. poll was criticized as "leading", but that would actually apply to these polls generally. If you ask people for their thoughts on Iran's wmd, they're likely to think they exist. If you talk about military action as the solution of last resort, they're, perhaps, not likely to consider it may not work or will have horrible consequences, unless you remind them of, say, Iraq, first. I don't think this makes this poll any more inaccurate than most of the others, but it's a good point.

I noticed people don't seem very hopeful about sanctions working, but they are positive about diplomacy. BTW, I thought the US effort to create a "virtual embassy" in Iran was really interesting. Hope that gets discussed in some diavlog. It's a very creative idea. Unfortunately, it has already been taken down by the Iranian government, but maybe it will be back.

PS: I thought article you found on IAEA was good. I think that sums up the situation.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/20...ll-inaccurate/

Virtual Embassy
http://iran.usembassy.gov/

Last edited by Diane1976; 12-09-2011 at 09:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-09-2011, 10:30 PM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Re: Robert Farley & Michael Cohen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diane1976 View Post
The Quinnipiac poll. Should have mentioned it refers to people who would support a war if other measures fail.
...
The Q. poll was criticized as "leading", but that would actually apply to these polls generally. If you ask people for their thoughts on Iran's wmd, they're likely to think they exist. If you talk about military action as the solution of last resort, they're, perhaps, not likely to consider it may not work or will have horrible consequences, unless you remind them of, say, Iraq, first. I don't think this makes this poll any more inaccurate than most of the others, but it's a good point.
...
http://thinkprogress.org/security/20...ll-inaccurate/

I was reading the Thinkprogress article and was struck by the word "fail".

Quote:
While Quinnipiac University’s findings that “50 percent of U.S. voters support military action if sanctions fail” are disturbing, the pollsters may have seriously misled respondents by suggesting that there is conclusive evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program or that a military attack could be effective in destroying Iran’s alleged weapons program.
What does it mean for "sanctions to fail"? It must mean that Iran builds a weapon. What else could it mean? But if the question is contingent on Iran developing a weapon, then how can the Quinnipiac "leading" assumption that Iran has a nuclear weapons program affect the polling results? In other words, how does the assertion of a weapons program lead the respondent if the question posits up front that Iran develops the weapon? I think this is a simple logical inconsistency that negates the Thinkprogress argument.

I could be missing something. Can anyone illuminate?

Last edited by Simon Willard; 12-09-2011 at 10:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-09-2011, 10:44 PM
Baz Baz is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 113
Default Robert Farley & Michael Cohen

Here's the Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence from Feb 2010.

The content dealing with Iran begins on page 14 but here's the assessment on Iran's nuclear program.

Quote:
Iranian WMD and Missile Program

The Iranian regime continues to flout UN Security Council restrictions on its nuclear program. There is a real risk that its nuclear program will prompt other countries in the Middle East to pursue nuclear options.

We continue to assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that bring it closer to being able to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.

I would like to draw your attention to two examples over the past year that illustrate some of the capabilities Iran is developing.

First, published information from the International Atomic Energy Agency indicates that the number of centrifuges installed at Iran’s enrichment plant at Natanz has grown significantly from about 3,000 centrifuges in late 2007 to over 8,000 currently installed. Iran has also stockpiled in that same time period approximately 1,800 kilograms of low-enriched uranium. However, according to the IAEA information, Iran also appears to be experiencing some problems at Natanz and is only operating about half of the installed centrifuges, constraining its overall ability to produce larger quantities of low-enriched uranium.

Second, Iran has been constructing—in secret until last September—a second uranium enrichment plant deep under a mountain near the city of Qom. It is unclear to us whether Iran's motivations for building this facility go beyond its publicly claimed intent to preserve enrichment know-how if attacked, but the existence of the facility and some of its design features raise our concerns. The facility is too small to produce regular fuel reloads for civilian nuclear power plants, but is large enough for weapons purposes if Iran opts configure it for highly enriched uranium production. It is worth noting that the small size of the facility and the security afforded the site by its construction under a mountain fit nicely with a strategy of keeping the option open to build a nuclear weapon at some future date, if Tehran ever decides to do so.

Iran’s technical advancement, particularly in uranium enrichment, strengthens our 2007 NIE assessment that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity to eventually produce nuclear weapons, making the central issue its political will to do so. These advancements lead us to reaffirm our judgment from the 2007 NIE that Iran is technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon in the next few years, if it chooses to do so.

We judge Iran would likely choose missile delivery as its preferred method of delivering a nuclear weapon. Iran already has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East and it continues to expand the scale, reach and sophistication of its ballistic missile forces— many of which are inherently capable of carrying a nuclear payload.

We continue to judge Iran’s nuclear decisionmaking is guided by a cost-benefit approach, which offers the international community opportunities to influence Tehran. Iranian leaders undoubtedly consider Iran’s security, prestige and influence, as well as the international political and security environment, when making decisions about its nuclear program.

That is as far as I can go in discussing Iran’s nuclear program at the unclassified level. In my classified statement for the record, I have outlined in further detail the Intelligence Community’s judgments regarding Iranian nuclear-related activities, as well as its chemical and biologicalweapons activities and refer you to that assessment.

Iran’s growing inventory of ballistic missiles and its acquisition and indigenous production of anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs) provide capabilities to enhance its power projection. Tehran views its conventionally armed missiles as an integral part of its strategy to deter—and if necessary retaliate against—forces in the region, including US forces. Its ballistic missiles are inherently capable of delivering WMD, and if so armed, would fit into this same strategy.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-10-2011, 03:52 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Robert Farley & Michael Cohen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diane1976 View Post
The Quinnipiac poll. Should have mentioned it refers to people who would support a war if other measures fail. But that's similar to one of the CNN polls on your list (third one/2010) if you add those who would support a war now and those who would support a war only if other means fail.
I was going to link the thinkprogress response to this, but saw you did below. More generally, I see a problem with the '09 and '10 polls too, because they are in the context of "if military action was the only way to prevent nuclear Iran" and, especially, at a time when military action and what that would mean was not being seriously discussed. I think people are more willing to say yes if something is really vague and hypothetical. Also, I'm not sure when people say yes they necessarily envision something other than the kinds of bombing raids we did on Iraq during the Clinton admin. The CNN and CBS polls seem more consistent with the US opinion I've heard, including from Republicans not running for president.

Quote:
But Heather said arguing against that idea that a nuclear Iran is intolerable would result in being "marginalized", not being taken seriously by anybody with influence over policy. This was an interesting debate because I've been thinking ever since the Iraq war that those who are generally anti-war need to improve their arguments and strategies. I would say the pro-war side has done that. (I mean did that, post-Vietnam and pre-Iraq.)
Yeah, I agree. In particular, I think the people who aren't pacifists but who think that we should be conservative in our willingness to jump into war need to do a better job of addressing the various arguments, rather than leaving the loudest voices against to be the pacifist types. I respect pacifists, but the fact is that most people don't agree with them, so when -- as to a certain extent pre Iraq -- they form the main opposition, because so many others are unwilling to come out with strong opinions or aren't getting heard, then it's not going to be a successful argument from the POV of non-pacifist opponents (or opponents generally).
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-09-2011, 11:32 PM
thouartgob thouartgob is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 765
Default Re: Robert Farley & Michael Cohen

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
However, the one that indicates that a majority believed Iran already had nukes is interesting.
This reminds me of polls done back in '02-'03 time-frame when large majorities of respondents thought that Saddam Hussein was somehow complicit in 9/11. Gee that went well back then didn't it.

As before ignorance helps one side and not the other.
__________________
Newt Gingrich:“People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz.”
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-10-2011, 03:53 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Robert Farley & Michael Cohen

Quote:
Originally Posted by thouartgob View Post
As before ignorance helps one side and not the other.
Well, I was kind of thinking that if people have already gotten used to a nuclear Iran in their own minds a war to prevent that intolerable situation wouldn't seem so worthwhile or the situation so intolerable.

But you are likely right.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-10-2011, 04:34 PM
thouartgob thouartgob is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 765
Default Re: Robert Farley & Michael Cohen

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
Well, I was kind of thinking that if people have already gotten used to a nuclear Iran in their own minds a war to prevent that intolerable situation wouldn't seem so worthwhile or the situation so intolerable.

But you are likely right.
I take your point here actually and it wasn't sinking into my head the way you were intending ( my "buoyancy" issue not yours ) but I would also suggest that if the americans polled are so out of it then they might also have no idea what it would take to "de-nuclearfy" by force and so ignorance still might play a role. As I said your take has merit and maybe the way things are.
__________________
Newt Gingrich:“People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz.”
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-07-2011, 01:35 PM
Baz Baz is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 113
Default Re: Robert Farley & Michael Cohen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian View Post
Leaving aside your last proposal, which is not going to happen within the lifetime of anyone reading this, it seems to me that your first and second proposals are mutually incompatible. States cannot be both "friends" (allies) and neutral with regard to two other states that regard themselves as enemies. That is just not how international relations work. Since the US is a friend (ally) of Israel, which considers Iran an enemy, just as Iran considers Israel an enemy, the US cannot be both a friend (ally) of Iran and neutral between the two countries. It could of course choose to be neutral, but only at the cost of no longer being an ally of Israel (or Iran).

I am not knocking your good intentions, but there is a certain logic to international relations---often a diabolical logic.
A candidate like Ron Paul could have an impact on US foreign policy if elected which I admit is a long (long) shot.

Last edited by Baz; 12-07-2011 at 01:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-07-2011, 01:43 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Robert Farley & Michael Cohen

Quote:
A candidate like Ron Paul could have an impact on US foreign policy if elected which I admit is a long (long) shot.
Forget about Ron Paul being elected. He won't be. He can have an impact on US foreign policy without being elected, however. He already has. His foreign policy views are influential and expand the circle of the peace community.

Work for candidates down the road who will share the foreign policy views of Ron Paul, but lack some of his unappetizing domestic views and his personal baggage.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-07-2011, 01:49 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Robert Farley & Michael Cohen

[QUOTE=Florian;233780]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post

Leaving aside your last proposal, which is not going to happen within the lifetime of anyone reading this, it seems to me that your first and second proposals are mutually incompatible. States cannot be both "friends" (allies) and neutral with regard to two other states that regard themselves as enemies. That is just not how international relations work. Since the US is a friend (ally) of Israel, which considers Iran an enemy, just as Iran considers Israel an enemy, the US cannot be both a friend (ally) of Iran and neutral between the two countries. It could of course choose to be neutral, but only at the cost of no longer being an ally of Israel (or Iran).

I am not knocking your good intentions, but there is a certain logic to international relations---often a diabolical logic.
I see your point. I suppose it depends what you mean by "friendly." I'm just arguing for not tethering the future of the world to Israel and Iran, or Pakistan and India, for that matter.

The US can offer friendship to Iran and Israel in the same way it can offer friendship to Bolivia and Paraguay. If Bolivia and Paraguay get into a war, the US should maintain neutrality and support peace talks at the UN.

This is all easier to do in the Middle East if everyone complies with the NPT (which requires steady progress toward disarmament) because it takes the nukes fears off the table. The nuclear genie can and ought to be put back in the bottle. In fact, that is the promise of the current POTUS (for which he received a premature Nobel Prize) and that is the commitment of all signatories of NPT. Israel is a rogue NPT state (along with India, Pakistan, North Korea). Iran claims to be complying, but then so do the USA and Russia.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-07-2011, 02:59 PM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Re: Robert Farley & Michael Cohen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
I see your point. I suppose it depends what you mean by "friendly." ...

The US can offer friendship to Iran and Israel in the same way it can offer friendship to Bolivia and Paraguay. If Bolivia and Paraguay get into a war, the US should maintain neutrality and support peace talks at the UN.
OK. But please note that in the service of "neutrality" you have watered-down the definition of "friendship" to the point where it has lost all meaning.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-07-2011, 03:36 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Robert Farley & Michael Cohen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
OK. But please note that in the service of "neutrality" you have watered-down the definition of "friendship" to the point where it has lost all meaning.
I actually think that's how Ron Paul meant to use the word. I would extend that to include considerable humanitarian aid, however. But all of that could be handled through the UN.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-07-2011, 05:15 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Robert Farley & Michael Cohen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
I actually think that's how Ron Paul meant to use the word. I would extend that to include considerable humanitarian aid, however. But all of that could be handled through the UN.
Gingrich declares John Bolton would be his Secretary of State, "but only if" Bolton agrees to remake the entire department in his image.

Chilling.
__________________
"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." -- Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-07-2011, 05:18 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Robert Farley & Michael Cohen

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
Gingrich declares John Bolton would be his Secretary of State, "but only if" Bolton agrees to remake the entire department in his image.
Meanwhile:

Topline Results of Nov. 29-Dec. 6, 2011, CNN/TIME/ORC Poll


FLORIDA

Gingrich 48%
Romney 25%
Paul 5%
Bachmann 3%
Huntsman 3%
Perry 3%
Santorum 1%
Someone else (vol.) 1%
None/ No one (vol.) 3%
No opinion 7%


IOWA

Gingrich 33%
Romney 20%
Paul 17%
Perry 9%
Bachmann 7%
Santorum 5%
Huntsman 1%
Someone else (vol.) *
None/ No one (vol.) 2%
No opinion 5%


NEW HAMPSHIRE

Romney 35%
Gingrich 26%
Paul 17%
Huntsman 8%
Bachmann 3%
Perry 2%
Santorum 2%
Someone else (vol.) 1%
None/ No one (vol.) 1%
No opinion 6%


SOUTH CAROLINA

Gingrich 43%
Romney 20%
Perry 8%
Bachmann 6%
Paul 6%
Santorum 4%
Huntsman 1%
Someone else (vol.) *
None/ No one (vol.) *
No opinion 11%


(Full Results)
__________________
"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." -- Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-07-2011, 10:04 PM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default According to Intrade: Romney 43%, Gingrich 35%

...and Obama has a 50% chance of winning the general election.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-08-2011, 09:50 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: According to Intrade: Romney 43%, Gingrich 35%

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
...and Obama has a 50% chance of winning the general election.
If the idiot Republicans had their act together even a lttle bit it would have been zero.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-07-2011, 08:02 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Robert Farley & Michael Cohen

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
Gingrich declares John Bolton would be his Secretary of State, "but only if" Bolton agrees to remake the entire department in his image.

Chilling.
Yes, Bolton is horrifying, as is Gingrich himself.

However, a Gingrich nomination would hand an easy victory to Obama, I think. Go Newt! Romney, OTOH, actually has a good chance of beating Obama. Of course, I could be wrong about how repulsive Gingrich will be to independent voters. If so, I'll be moving to my underground bunker in Tahiti, which still won't be far enough away from the USA.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.