Collin Powell on Iran nuclear deal

NJlonghorn

NJlonghorn

2,500+ Posts
He supports it.

God, I wish we had someone like Powell running for president. Not because he supports the deal. I don't even know whether I support it, and don't have the time or resources to learn enough to form an opinion. Rather, I like Powell because he forms his own well-reasoned opinions rather than spewing party-line rhetoric.
 
Powell also endorsed Obama in 2008 so I am not sure how much I would trust his reasoning and judgement skills.
 
ProdigalHorn said:
What was his reasoning for supporting the deal? I didn't see it here. How do you know it's well-reasoned?
Click to expand...
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-pre...-deal--i-think-it-is-a-good-deal-520273475781

The entire interview was good. I respect Powell's logic and reasoning, but I disagree because Iran isn't starting from Step 0. If they were, yes, I'd would say this would be a "pretty" good deal. But they aren't. I see this as the pitching coach coming out of the dugout to stall a little longer so the flamethrower in the bullpen can get a few more warmup pitches so he can get the last couple of outs. Additionally, Iran hasn't shown in other matters of US foreign relations to have come around.

Iran also doesn't have to renounce it's "Death to America/Israel" policy.
 
I get his point but he basically ignores the primary issue, which is that Iran is being allowed to self-report. He says he's "carefully looked at the opposition", but if that's the case, why doesn't he address that point?
 
UTChE96 said:
Powell also endorsed Obama in 2008 so I am not sure how much I would trust his reasoning and judgement skills.
Click to expand...

I don't remember what other reasons he may have given, but he really doesn't like the far right and made a big deal about the specter of a Palin presidency.
 
zork said:
shall we defend Iran from Israel? I say no.

https://www.google.com/#q=iran+on+israel+quotes
Click to expand...

Iran hates Israel and the U.S. Wow, that's a new one.

The question is how best to deal with the problem that is Iran. I understand, but repeating how bad Iran is contributes nothing to the conversation.

zork said:
Why Jewish voters turn out for the Democrats is a big question mark.
Click to expand...

There are a wide variety of reasons, but I'll offer a few. Of course, these are broad generalizations that can't possibly speak for everyone.

(1). Most of us believe that war is a bigger threat to Israel than radical Islam is. Trying to find a negotiated settlement, even if it is imperfect, is desirable.

(2). Many of us, myself included, see the politicized Christian Right as a more proximate threat (not a bigger one by any stretch, but a closer one) than Iran. Every time I hear that this is a Christian country, I cringe.

(3). We as a whole care more about domestic policy than foreign policy.
 
Last edited:
Continuing the prior post, I would add:

(4). We as a group have been subject to more than our fair share of discrimination. Thus, we are naturally sympathetic to others who face discrimination -- blacks, gays, Hispanics, foreign immigrants, transgenders, etc. Heck, I even saw a statistic showing that American Jews are more sensitive than the general public to discrimination against Muslims.
 
NJlonghorn said:
Iran hates Israel and the U.S. Wow, that's a new one.

The question is how best to deal with the problem that is Iran. I understand, but repeating how bad Iran is contributes nothing to the conversation.



There are a wide variety of reasons, but I'll offer a few. Of course, these are broad generalizations that can't possibly speak for everyone.

(1). Most of us believe that war is a bigger threat to Israel than radical Islam is. Trying to find a negotiated settlement, even if it is imperfect, is desirable.

(2). Many of us, myself included, see the politicized Christian Right as a more proximate threat (not a bigger one by any stretch, but a closer one) than Iran. Every time I hear that this is a Christian country, I cringe.

(3). We as a whole care more about domestic policy than foreign policy.
Click to expand...


Wow, the Christian Right bigger threat than Iran? I have seen many stupid posts here, but you win NJ, you win.
 
NJlonghorn said:
(2). Many of us, myself included, see the politicized Christian Right as a more proximate threat (not a bigger one by any stretch, but a closer one) than Iran.
Click to expand...

theiioftx said:
Wow, the Christian Right bigger threat than Iran? I have seen many stupid posts here, but you win NJ, you win.
Click to expand...

In the initial draft of my post, I said that the threat was "more proximate". I knew that someone wouldn't know what proximate means, or would simply ignore my careful word choice. So I added a clarification, highlighted in red above. Even though I made my point abundantly clear, you took my statement "not a bigger threat" to mean "a bigger threat." Go figure.

To restate, Iran is the bigger threat. However, it looms off in the distance as a hypothetical possibility. In contract, the Christian right is a smaller threat. But it is here every day, talking about the US as a Christian nation and pushing Christian morals on us non-Christians. This is what I meant when I said the threat is more proximate.
 
NJlonghorn said:
In contract, the Christian right is a smaller threat. But it is here every day, talking about the US as a Christian nation and pushing Christian morals on us non-Christians.
Click to expand...

I think the issue is more in the use of the phrase "threat." I get that you may not like those who push for a different morality, but to call it a threat seems pretty extreme. By that definition, pretty much anything I don't like could be construed as "a threat". But that's a loaded term - it implies sinister motives, danger, peril, all that stuff. It's hard to imagine any of those virtues as being a threat to the U.S., since the U.S. was founded when those were much stronger even than they are today, flourished when they were the norm, and seems to be struggling much more as people are trying to push those morals aside. I'm assuming that those morals would be resistance to gay marriage and abortion? Are we really saying that failure to liberalize those two issues is going to doom this country?

It seems more accurate to say that Christianity poses a nuisance.
 
ProdigalHorn said:
I get his point but he basically ignores the primary issue, which is that Iran is being allowed to self-report. He says he's "carefully looked at the opposition", but if that's the case, why doesn't he address that point?
Click to expand...

Prodigal: that point is being misreported. Still worthy of debate, but it should be debated accurately. I don't blame those who assume that we are naively letting Iran inspect its own facilities for nuclear development, because that is the deliberate mis-impression that deal opponents (most recently I saw Dick Cheney playing this game) are trying very hard to give.

The deal concerns three areas: known nuclear sites (sites always surveiled or available for immediate inspection), sites that we come to have suspicion about (inspectable on request, but subject to the controversial arbitration procedure), and historical sites (where nuclear activity occurred in the past) that are not currently known or suspected to house active nuclear operations. In that third category, there is one site, Parchin, that is currently Iranian's primary conventional military site. We suspect that there was past testing of nuclear triggers was done at that base – this is non-nuclear, but nuclear related high explosive testing. IAEA has been granted access several times in the past, but wishes to perform further inspection concerning past activities, not current or suspected future nuclear activity. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/parchin-2.htm http://breakingdefense.com/2012/04/iranians-could-have-tested-nuke-trigger-at-parchin-study-finds/ http://www.reuters.com/article/2015...N0QP0ID20150820?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

IAEA has a legitimate need to inspect to fulfill the historical research portion of the deal. Iran has a legitimate interest in preventing espionage at their conventional military installation. We wouldn’t agree to full, unlimited access to, say, the Pentagon, or say, Groton Submarine Base. The deal attempts to forge a reasonable compromise. The IAEA and the negotiators believe such a compromise was achieved on the less sensitive historical assessment aspect of the deal, for this one site (the details of this inspection scheme are complex, but are the genesis of the "self inspection" claims). Critics can disagree, but they are disingenuous when they imply that inspection of current or suspected nuclear sites will be by “self inspection,” an implication that you, Prodigal, appear to have accepted.

There are legitimate concerns and good arguments to be made on both sides – this things are necessarily complicated http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...uts-irans-nuclear-program-under-lock-key-and/ --but the arguments should be honest.
 
Don't give NJ too much flack on this. I understand what he means, and his statement wasn't stupid at all. It was well-thought out and nuanced. The word "proximate" is key. American Jews are no more immediately threatened by Iran than an American non-Jew, and Iranians don't drive American policy. Politically active Christians are around them every day and do impact American policy. Accordingly, though they're not going to launch Holocaust 2.0 like radical Muslims might, they're in a position to more immediately (and arguably adversely) impact them to some degree.

I also wouldn't assume that he's talking specifically about gay marriage and abortion. Most Jews I've known were pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, but they evaluated those issues on their own merits, not because of religion. After all, Jewish theology and Christian theology on those issues aren't very far apart. In fact, they're arguably identical. What most of them feared was religious indoctrination and affirmation by the government, while it claims to represent them and takes their tax money. They didn't want their kids having to sit through or participate in a Christian prayer or have the government take positions that are overtly Christian. True, most government prayers nowadays are nondenominational, but I think your average Jew would rather just not go there at all and avoid any ambiguity or slippery slope.

Remember what NJ brought up - people referring to America as a "Christian nation," not abortion or gay marriage. I used to do that, and I stopped for two reasons. First, it's false. Legally, America is a secular nation by nature of the constitutional prohibition of the federal government endorsing a religion or having religious tests. Second, it is needlessly exclusionary. It implies that America is a place for Christians and that others (like Jews) are somehow less welcome or less worthy even if they share American values. That's not how the nation is supposed to work, and I can see why it would piss off Jews.

Nevertheless, the Jewish vote is in a state of transition. A Republican isn't going to win the Jewish vote anytime soon. That hasn't happened in almost a century. However, their vote is becoming less and less predictable. In 2012, Jews gave Romney 30 percent of their vote - better than any Republican has done since 1988. It wouldn't surprise me if within a few years, Jewish voters aren't much more likely to vote Democratic than other voters who fit a similar demographic (white, well-educated, urban and inner-suburban voters).
 
Sorry, but either his post was intended to stir up anger or it was stupid. I guess the World's Largest State Sponsor of Terrorism does not use social media? The week of September 11th and NJ does not think Iran is a more "proximate" threat than The Christian Right? The World Trade Centers say "hello."
 
Mr. Deez said:
Don't give NJ too much flack on this. I understand what he means, and his statement wasn't stupid at all. It was well-thought out and nuanced. The word "proximate" is key. American Jews are no more immediately threatened by Iran than an American non-Jew, and Iranians don't drive American policy. Politically active Christians are around them every day and do impact American policy. Accordingly, though they're not going to launch Holocaust 2.0 like radical Muslims might, they're in a position to more immediately (and arguably adversely) impact them to some degree.

I also wouldn't assume that he's talking specifically about gay marriage and abortion. Most Jews I've known were pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, but they evaluated those issues on their own merits, not because of religion. After all, Jewish theology and Christian theology on those issues aren't very far apart. In fact, they're arguably identical. What most of them feared was religious indoctrination and affirmation by the government, while it claims to represent them and takes their tax money. They didn't want their kids having to sit through or participate in a Christian prayer or have the government take positions that are overtly Christian. True, most government prayers nowadays are nondenominational, but I think your average Jew would rather just not go there at all and avoid any ambiguity or slippery slope.

Remember what NJ brought up - people referring to America as a "Christian nation," not abortion or gay marriage. I used to do that, and I stopped for two reasons. First, it's false. Legally, America is a secular nation by nature of the constitutional prohibition of the federal government endorsing a religion or having religious tests. Second, it is needlessly exclusionary. It implies that America is a place for Christians and that others (like Jews) are somehow less welcome or less worthy even if they share American values. That's not how the nation is supposed to work, and I can see why it would piss off Jews.

Nevertheless, the Jewish vote is in a state of transition. A Republican isn't going to win the Jewish vote anytime soon. That hasn't happened in almost a century. However, their vote is becoming less and less predictable. In 2012, Jews gave Romney 30 percent of their vote - better than any Republican has done since 1988. It wouldn't surprise me if within a few years, Jewish voters aren't much more likely to vote Democratic than other voters who fit a similar demographic (white, well-educated, urban and inner-suburban voters).
Click to expand...

Thanks Deez, I couldn't have said it better myself and appreciate your support. This has nothing to do with gay marriage, abortion, or other issues of social policy. Those issues are impacted by religion, but they aren't religious issues.

My fears relate to supposedly "nondenominational" prayer at state-sponsored events. My fears relate to people who want kids to study creationism in a science class. My fears relate to laws that prohibit stores from opening on Sundays. My fears relate to hate crimes against Jewish-owned businesses, synagogues, and JCCs. My fears relate to people who think Jews have horns and are responsible for the death of Christ. These things are all very real, right here in the good-ole' USA.

Two concrete examples. (1) A few years ago, my daughter's first-grade teacher read her class an Easter book that talked about how those who accept Christ will be saved, while those who don't will suffer for all eternity. (2) A friend's kid says that every football practice and game starts with a prayer. They rotate through who leads the prayer, and the Christian kids (all but him) often end with "in Jesus's name we pray." I find these things (and countless others like them) not only annoying, but threatening.

Are they a bigger threat than state-sponsored terrorism in general and Iran in particular? No. But do they impact me more on a daily basis? Absolutely.
 
Last edited:
NJ
How does the politicized Christian Right impact you on a daily basis? Specifically since you identify that group as a threat how does that group impact you negatively or in threatening ways on a daily basis?
 
Yeah, saying in Jesus name, changes the sound waves going into your ears for about a milisecond and then life is back to normal.
 
The christian right directly influences almost every election with a republican in it, especially the primaries. Think about issues such as gay marriage, the drug war, vouchers, gambling laws, abortion, alcohol laws, strip club laws, school prayer, etc. Every issue has a religious group pushing one way or another.
 
Last edited:
True LarryT
and isn't that part of what makes us great?
but how does that affect daily life of Jews in a threatening way?
 
I don't know many Jewish people, so I would hate to be presumptuous and butcher their argument.....but this is the internet, so here goes. I think it has more to do with a slippery slope than anything. They have seen what it looks like in the past when groups take over the government and start passing laws on the basis of their religion. It scares them and they want to go the other direction. Many conservatives, especially in the south, do not hide their religious motivation while on the senate or house floor. I'm pretty sure that many of you would be upset if there was a large group of politicians doing the same thing if you didn't share a religion in common. Think of the fear that would exist in some circles if a muslim was on the house floor using his faith to support a particular issue. I don't think Jews are any different in this regard. People of all faiths (or no faith) tend to not trust the motivation of politicians trying to persuade their constituents based on faith.

One example that sticks out in my mind is Dan Patrick during the abortion debates in Texas. I mostly agreed with him on the issue, but the speech was more of a church sermon than a political rallying cry. I understand that will work well in Texas, but I can see why people that do not share his religion would be turned off.
 
LarryT
I am pretty sure none of the issues you mentioned put any Jewish lives at risk( unless it is a Jewish baby saved from abortion) or maybe save a Jewish Husband from getting beaten by his wife since he cant go to a strip club near a school.
Can you name one example of any Pol using their religion on the state or US floor? and the name of the religion they espoused?

I am still waiting to hear from the poster who declared that a particular religious group impacted him in a threatening way.
 
NJ
How does the politicized Christian Right impact you on a daily basis? Specifically since you identify that group as a threat how does that group impact you negatively or in threatening ways on a daily basis?
Click to expand...
It was kind of disheartening to read this after NJ posted this:
My fears relate to supposedly "nondenominational" prayer at state-sponsored events. My fears relate to people who want kids to study creationism in a science class. My fears relate to laws that prohibit stores from opening on Sundays. My fears relate to hate crimes against Jewish-owned businesses, synagogues, and JCCs. My fears relate to people who think Jews have horns and are responsible for the death of Christ. These things are all very real, right here in the good-ole' USA.
Two concrete examples. (1) A few years ago, my daughter's first-grade teacher read her class an Easter book that talked about how those who accept Christ will be saved, while those who don't will suffer for all eternity. (2) A friend's kid says that every football practice and game starts with a prayer. They rotate through who leads the prayer, and the Christian kids (all but him) often end with "in Jesus's name we pray." I find these things (and countless others like them) not only annoying, but threatening.
Click to expand...

For the most part, I like this political board because most of us are careful readers and respect those with whom we disagree.
 
Respect those with whom we disagree?
Would that include giving the benefit of doubt that a post might not have shown up when I wrote either of the posts asking what threats polarized religious right group posed?
I am disheartened by your disheartenment.:smokin:

Notice please my post above yours written 4 mins before yours which stated I was wanting to hear from NJ on that subject.The post You referenced had not shown up then.
I don't understand how or when posts show up but they all don 't seem to be instantaneous.
 
I have now read that post from NJ.
I live in Texas so I can't speak for other parts of the country but much of what he fears doesn't seem to come from the group he seems to fear, the polarized religious right.
There are no blue laws in Texas or any other state of which I am aware.
This may be ignorant but where are prayers allowed at any gov't event anymore? I am not speaking of grass roots prayers. And I am pretty sure the US Congress still has leaders of all faiths including Judaism pray before Congress.
Jews with horns? REALLY? can you provide an example of a religious group that preaches that?
Crimes against Jewish business is a legitimate issue but again can you provide proof the crime was committed by an legitimate group. The only wacko group I know is the Westbore idiots but they get beaten down by biker groups and I don't know they ever committed a crime.
Are there people out there who hate Jews? Yes just as there are people who hate almost every segment there is.
Is there an polarized religious right group wanting to harm any Jew based on their Judaism?
 
Sorry to suggest you were a poor or disinterested reader 6721. I know sometimes a response can be posted without benefit of seeing interim posts on a thread. It's happened to me.
 
NJlonghorn said:
Two concrete examples. (1) A few years ago, my daughter's first-grade teacher read her class an Easter book that talked about how those who accept Christ will be saved, while those who don't will suffer for all eternity. (2) A friend's kid says that every football practice and game starts with a prayer. They rotate through who leads the prayer, and the Christian kids (all but him) often end with "in Jesus's name we pray." I find these things (and countless others like them) not only annoying, but threatening.
Click to expand...

So I can certainly understand that a Jew would be concerned about potential persecution as well as real, immediate persecution, considering the history in this country and abroad, and I'm certain there is plenty of antisemitism out there.

Having said that, what happened in example 1 is pretty egregious and likely illegal. I would share your concern about it because I don't want my hypothetical kids being told there's no god or that Jesus is a fraud. It doesn't belong in a secular school one way or another. But I don't know that there's a widespread push to have the gospel injected into school curriculum - even the most hard-core Christians I know haven't ever expressed that.

In the case of the second one, is a prayer really that threatening? I get that it would be annoying, but I feel like this society has taken the concept of a threat and really distorted it. Comparing the "threat" or hearing a prayer that you don't like with the "threat" of people who want to kill you damages your case, and frankly causes a lot of the pushback that you see on this board and in normal life. People don't like being compared to terrorists - explicitly or implicitly - because they practice religion openly. Is your child being forced to pray along? I've been in situations where a group prayed and I could not in good conscience join in... so I didn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top