Nothing except a zero-notice inspection program would prevent the Iranians from moving around already enriched uranium, and that has never been on the table.
You also have to get rid of the radioactivity. Even if you move the uranium, there’s all the “structure” left behind.
*“Surely you have considered terrorist activity?”
There was another pause. Then the spokesman said, in the quiet tones of someone who has had enough and who is going to quit after this and raise chickens somewhere, “Yes, I suppose we must. All we need to do is find some terrorists who are capable of taking an entire nuclear reactor out of its can while it’s running and without anyone noticing. It weighs about a thousand tons and is forty feet high. So they’ll be quite strong terrorists. Perhaps you’d like to ring them up, sir, and ask them questions in that supercilious, accusatory way of yours.”*
– The BBC interviews a nuclear spokesperson (Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman, Good Omens)
Let me take this opportunity to clarify my OP.
I got into a debate with someone saying that Obama undermined his own efforts to gain support for the deal by using gratuitously insulting and divisive rhetoric, such as blaming opposition to the deal on “knee-jerk partisanship” and saying that the Iranian hardliners were finding common cause with the Republican caucus (the latter point having especially hit a nerve on the right).
I am interested in (1) assessing the claim that Obama’s rhetoric resulted in a net loss of support for the deal (or a lower net gain than he would have had by choosing less “divisive” rhetoric). Pace Gyrate, public polling seems to suggest many people are in fact undecided on the Iran deal, so I would think the president’s speech could move the needle more than in other contexts.
I am secondarily interested in people’s thoughts on whether such rhetoric is somehow beneath the dignity of the office. The closest hypothetical I can come up with to pump my intuition on this is if a Republican president was pushing hard for some fairly dramatic, consequential expansion to our relationship with Israel, and amid fierce opposition made a speech saying “Hamas is now finding common cause with the Democratic caucus.” Would that piss me off? Given my policy leanings, yes. Would I think it was beyond the pale? I don’t think so. But I’m curious what others have to say about this.
Financial problems? I’m talking about actual lives lost.
Terrorism is the same type of threat that the Nazis were? Must be terrible living in such constant fear.
I would not have gone there, but then I have not been accused of trying to destroy the country or of being a Trojan Horse of Islam, etc., for seven years.
Wrong again, Ralph.
Getting tired of pointing this out, but Iran’s non-state buddies - like Hizbollah - will receive millions rather than billions, and the vast majority of those $150 billion will be spent within Iran itself, mostly on good, nice, excellent civilian stuff.
It’s not fear to recognize what you can do something about and what you can’t. There’s a reason that issues like crime and terrorism have more visceral resonance among voters than social programs. If I’m 80 years old, I can live with a little less Medicare. What I can’t live with is not being able to go to the market down the street because someone will beat me up and rob me. That’s not fear. It’s recognition that I can adjust to lower Medicare benefits easier than I can adjust to unsafe streets.
Not sure I can accept the premise that an 80 yr old can always live with a little less medical care, but ignoring that why do you think controlling street crime is easier than controlling the Medicare spending?
Why did we create government? To give us free stuff? No, to protect the weak from the strong. And to keep marauding bands of barbarians from pillaging our villages.
It’s nice that we live in a society now where we are wealthy enough to do both, but only one is a top priority.
You said “It’s not fear to recognize what you can do something about and what you can’t.” and then you referred to Medicare and street crime. So I wondered why you thought street crime is easier than Medicare spending. I didn’t ask why you thought we invented government.
It’s easier to financially plan for your retirement than to defend yourself once you get old. People can adjust to changes in social programs easier than they can adjust to increases in violence against the most helpless members of society. Especially since we know that cuts are coming due to the simple arithmetic of the problem. I’ll bet if you polled 60-year old New Yorkers about whether they’d rather endure a 25% cut in Medicare and SS when they turn 65, or for New York’s crime problem to go back to the way it was during the 1980s that they’d gladly take the benefits cut.
Just factor in a private bodyguard as part of your retirement fund. Probably cheaper than a private nurse. Easy peasy. Why do we expect the government to give us free bodyguards?!?
That’s what government is for. Everything else is a more recent development and ultimately disposable. We’ll get rid of Medicare long before we get rid of police and the military and regulators.
But lest we get too far off track, I’ve just been pointing out that it’s ridiculous to claim that wanting to cut Medicare is worse than 9/11. Especially when you count the other effects of 9/11, from the recession it caused to the near death of the airline industry, to costing us some civil liberties. Cutting Medicare wouldn’t have nearly the same effect on the country.
We also developed clothing to keep from freezing to death, but I have to wear a suit even when it’s hot out.
And we’ve just been pointing out that your point only works if you keep moving the goalposts. Frankly, at the distances and frequency you move them I don’t know how you afford the shipping charges.
So you work for the Iranian government? Must be nice to know what they are buying.
What I want to know is why the President is lying and smearing his opponents as in league with Iranian hardliners. Unless he’s just that ignorant.
I’m unaware of any lies in this speech, and I’m unaware of any assertions that he accused his opponents of being “in league” with Iranian hardliners. Saying that his opponents have the same position as Iranian hardliners is totally different of saying they’re “in league” together.
He’s not lying. Iranian hardliners and Republicans are both against the deal.