As a filtering mechanism sure. When applied to off board criticism defintely people can choose their sources based on whatever criteria they see fit. But **Ravenman’s **original proclomation applied to both off board and on board criticism. Using one’s view of another’s credibility is a valid way to filter content, but it should not be mistaken for an actual argument.
The inspections aren’t toothless even if aspects can be avoided. It’s likely hard to play a shell game with operational centrifuges (that get drastically cut for the beginning of the agreement). Aside from on formal ground inspections we don’t suddenly lose the ability to observe other ways. We can still watch what happens between an announcement and inspectors showing up.
For the first decade it looks like there’s good limitations on their ability to get a bomb quickly if they back out. That leaves time to escalate.
I always thought there was a good chance Iran’s interests were motivated in part by the perception that they were pursuing the program and close than actually getting too close to fielding the first weapon. They could buy the influence and status of being close. In some ways that’s similar to Saddam’s Iraq after the first Gulf War. Especially after Desert Fox, non-cooperation with inspectors was a tactic to gain regional influence by raising the specter of WMD. He just lost his bet on whether someone would do something about it.
While not ideal on first blush this seems better than no agreement for all parties involved.
I prefer to apply a Libya test over an Iraq test. What lessons a commentator drew from Iraq are more telling IMO. It’s a test that requires showing full work though instead of just multiple choice. 
I see. That is where we disagree. As long as any creationist or neocon ist making an earnest attempt to have a rational and civil discussion I will be glad to point out to them where I find that they are wrong. Of course, if I feel that all they want to do is preach, I go elsewhere, but then its them, not me who evaded the discussion.
Sounds reasonable.
The more hear about this deal (from both sides) the more I like it. I think this is a fantastic achievement for Obama, and one of the reasons I voted for him twice-- hoping he would think out of the box and not be just another typical president. Good on him for engaging constructively with Iran, which is the best way to get them to be more cooperative with The West in general. I think we have a better chance of nudging them towards becoming a true democracy and to better respect human rights if we are workig with them rather setting them up as The Evil Enemy.
Above all, I don’t want war. I don’t care what regional power we gain or lose because of that, I want to avoid war with Iran.
I’m not willing to go to war with Iran whether they have or do not have a bomb. I’m willing to let them have a bomb to avoid war, and I’m willing to drop all support for Israel if they go to war with Iran. I don’t think a lot of conservatives realize how much their past adventures in the middle east have soured people on their warlike philosophy.
I agree, based on what I’ve heard so far. But it’s kind of sad, in a way, that this isn’t what a “typical president” would go for. Aggression, bluster, and ‘tough talk’ has been the norm for so long.
To be clear, I intended my remark to be about off-board talking heads, along the lines of some of the politicians who have already been mentioned. Until you wrote this it never occurred to me that my comment could be construed to apply to posters here. As opposed to ignoring posters who say that this is a bad deal, I very much look forward to reading their arguments and debating with them.
I think your comment of filtering, rather than an argument in and of itself, is a much better way to describe my comment. One cannot dismiss a well-reasoned argument against the deal on the basis that someone supported the Iraq invasion – however, if someone supported the Iraq war, their claims of “bad deal” should be more carefully picked apart on the basis that their judgment has been questionable (or disastrous, if you prefer) before on foreign policy matters.
So, given that Kerry voted in favor of the Iraq War, what conclusions are you suggesting we draw about his judgment in crafting the Iran deal?
While I admire his incredible perseverance in getting the P5+1 and Iran to come to an agreement, I have never been particularly fond of his foreign policy positions. I don’t find his explanations of the benefits of the deal to be particularly persuasive.
I think the filtering argument is fine. We already know what politicians like McCain and Graham and Cotton and everyone running for the Republican nomination will say. We know what pundits like Thiessen and Gerson and Rubin (just to name three I know will vomit all over the Washington Post) will say. If you already know the opinion, why bother paying attention to it? Especially when some have a record of always being wrong.
Along with that, explain the following to me. The CIA overthrew an elected government and installed the Shah. Reagan had both the arms for hostages scandal and Iran-Contra, and somehow Obama is supposed to be bad about this deal with Iran? How is that even logically defensible?
I don’t see how what the CIA did or Reagan did affects if this is a good deal or not, or if Obama is bad or not.
If the Iranians keep their word on this like they didn’t on the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, and like the North Koreans didn’t on the treaty Carter got them to sign, well and good. But we won’t know that until someone else is President.
Regards,
Shodan
Very few things more scary in this world than a ranting US fundamentalist politician.
Well, the argument would be that every administration thinks it can shape Iran the way it wants or find the right Iranians to deal with, and generally every administration is disappointed. Query whether there is reason to believe that this time will be different.
Whether there is or not, I still think there’s very good reason to believe that the future with this deal is better than a future without it.
sezHillary Clinton on her vote for the Iraq war.
So, according to your standards, Hillary Clinton is terrible at foreign policy.
Clinton on Nuke deal:
Using your (horrid, by the way) logic, we ought to consider the deal a mistake as Clinton is for it.
As far as the deal itself goes, the devil is in the details. What I have seen so far isn’t particularly good but that assessment may change when I can read the full details.
I suspect that this agreement won’t mean much at all in 15 years or so.
Slee
By this standard she’s still much, much better than most Republicans, who either refuse to admit that Iraq was a mistake or came to the realization much later than Hillary.
Not that this is the only way to evaluate someone’s skill at foreign policy.
Amen. For “people” you can read pretty well the entire planet.
Bunch of parochial, self-serving, ignorant, bribe taking, cynical careerists. It’s kind of like FIFA but with God and guns.
I often find great humor in posts like this. I know it’s common to try to set up “gotcha” questions or conclusions during a debate. It’s a perfectly fine thing to do. But it’s really only effective if one uses the actual logic of one’s adversary against them. Using some of the same words of an argument, leaving out others, and then hollering “GOtchaya!” just isn’t effective.
Is this just an Internet phenomenon, or do people do this in real life? Like at work?
At a construction site:
Boss: “Ok, newbie, here’s a hammer. Walk around the framing of this house and pound in any nails that are sticking out.”
Worker: “Gotcha. Use the hammer to pound down and destroy all the framing.”
B: “No, that isn’t what I said.”
W: “You said hammer, framing, and pound. Gotchaya!”
B: “No, that makes no sense. It isn’t what I said.”
W: “You used those words! I win!”
There was no straw-manning done. Perhaps you should look the word up. While you’re at it, check “moral high ground”, as well.