A question for Scott Walker about Iran: What’s your alternative?

“Negotiations will not prevent Iran from getting nukes either because Iran wants it badly, as I proved in my Community Voices piece today so negotiations have not succeeded.”

I don’t know if the plan to be put in place will succeed either. But it is something, and doing something has a better chance of doing nothing, of staying on the present course which results either in Iran having a nuclear weapon or going to war. Bear in mind that whatever happens with the Iran deal, the option to go to war, such as it is, is always there.

Let’s be clear here. The high risk folks, the people who are recklessly gambling, the people who are gambling the future of humanity in pursuit of narrow political goals, are the people who may not want, but are perfectly willing to allow Iran to continue, their program of building nuclear weapons.

Obama himself talked about Iran’s abandonment of its nuclear program when he was pushing for sanctions.

I did too. Such talk is common before negotiations start. You don’t open talks with your final offer.

“Obamacare passed the Senate with all 60 Democrats voting for it (otherwise it would not have passed) just before new Congress took place.

Well, no, the point of Obamacare was to provide universal and affordable health care for all Americans, not to provide bed time reading for Congress people. It passed the way it did because Congress was under time pressure, but in that in no way, affected the validity of the bill. Touchdowns don’t count for fewer points because they were scored in the last minute of a football game. In any event, there are many instances of Democrats supporting Republican bills. It’s just a fact that we think in all sorts of different ways. There will certainly be a significant number of Democrats who oppose the Iranian deal.

“However, I also remember that Iraq did not comply with all international demands at that time.”

Here is something that’s true about complicated deals. Whenever you want to find someone in breach, you can always sift through the agreements and find violations. It’s true for car leases, it’s true for international arms deals. The fact is, there were extensive international inspections, and those inspections did not find a nuclear arms program. We know now that a significant factor in that failure to to find such a program was the fact that none existed, something of a cautionary tale for the Iranians, I would think.

“Getting back to Iran, I never said that the war should be the first choice as you imply. But it should not be a “no-choice” either as it currently is.”

The presient’s Republican opponents in Washington have made the choice not to talk about war, because they know how deeply their decision to go to war with Iraq was discredited by history. But by not clearly articulating the policy they favor, by giving the impression at least is that they support negotiations only on the condition that they never succeed, they are the ones putting America and the whole world really, at the risk of nuclear holocaust.

As I said, I am not a fan of historical analogies, but sometimes I can’t resist in indulging them. Maybe Munich is the right example, but maybe the question is where are we in the process. Are we Chamberlain in 1938? Or are we David Lloyd Georgre and Rene Clemenceau in Paris of 1919. In that meeting, the negotiations were just a facade for capitulation, perhaps in the same way many want the negotiations with Iran to be today. If we succeed today in forcing capitulation today, as the allies did in 1919, will we be setting ourselves up for another Munich, not today, not tomorrow, but not too many years down the road?

Revenge

And by the way, of course our war against Iraq was a war of revenge.

you are correct that judicial conclusion is an equivalent of war but it has nothing to do with what I said – beating will never be allowed, the same as enrichment should never be allowed in Iran; and you ignored this point.

And the solution to that problem is to go to war. And that’s what I am saying. The real problem for critics of this Iran deal isn’t the deal itself, it that it represents a policy other than going to war with Iran. Well, we have fought a series of wars against middle eastern and south Asian countries and they don’t seem to be getting us anywhere. But hey, maybe the next on is the charm.

“Of course the Constitution did not require senators to read the bills they vote for… it was assumed to be a common sense at that time.”

Actually, the common sense of the constitution has always been to divide the Congress into committees so that members could specialize. But committees aren’t in the constitution either.

“Would you vote for anything without reading it?”

Yes, I would. Actually, it’s physically impossible to read everything legislatures vote on. There is just too much, and the amendments fly by too quickly.

“I highly doubt that but you are OK with your senator’s voting for something he or she doesn’t know enough about?”

The quality of legislation isn’t depended on whether my senator knows anything about it or not.

“Democrats were under enormous pressure to pass this bill – but not from their constituents”

Republicans were under enormous pressure to oppose the bill. But that’s what happens in a democracy.

“And no Democratic senator voted against Obamacare and only 34 Democrats voted against that in the House – and you call it a “significant number?””

Yes and that happened only after a long negotiation, Many Democrats voted against the bill in the House.

“Can you give an example of a Republican saying that we are waging a war on religion in the Middle East? ”

I hear it on right wing media all the time. This is a war between Islam and America is one of O’Reilly and Hannity’s and others most frequent refrains. Do you seriously think we would have gone to war against Iraq if their national religion was Buddhism?

he opponents don’t want to go to war – they just do not want a deal that allows beating a son and think that if a guy wants to do it, he should go to jail.

Then they pretty much want a continuation of the status quo, which leads to Iran having nuclear weapons. Those are the alternatives to a policy of negotiation. I guess in your analogy, what that means is that they favor is endless litigation while the parent continues to beat the son, if that helps.

“Committees are supposed to discuss things in depth but everyone is supposed to read the bill before voting.”

Maybe, but they don’t. And the fact is, Congress turns out an enormous volume of complex legislation, and lots of people don’t read it all. We can’t allow a non readers veto, a situation where legislation is invalid simply because legislators have chosen, for whatever reason, not to read it.

“So you acknowledged that Democrats were under enormous pressure to vote for the bill from Reid and Obama and then say that it applies to Republicans.”

They were under pressure from a lot of people. I know I told my congressman that if he didn’t pass health care legislation, he risked losing my support. Boy, did that scare him.

“Neither O’Reilly nor Hannity were saying this – instead they referred to “militant” Islam, and that makes all the difference.”

Presumably “militant” Islam is Islam and a religion just like any other. In Minnesota we have the Missouri Synod. They are pretty militant, but they are still Lutherans. The Catholic faith often refers itself to a church militant. Does that make the Pope as any less Catholic?

“And what does religion have to do with Iraq war? ”

I am sorry. The fact is I hear on the media all the time, people tell me that we are at war with Islam. And by the way, that’s what our enemies say who always refer to us as “crusaders”. It just isn’t a coincidence that the country we chose to go to war with was an Islamic nation. And even if it wasn’t, it’s certainly perceived as that by Muslims, militant and otherwise who watch American media by satellite.

a dad who beats his son should go to jail and Iran should quit nuclear activity.

Possibly, but the differences are significant. In the case of the dad, what he is doing is illegal. There is nothing illegal about Iran’s nuclear activity. In the case of dad, there is an external force, the police that is capable of enforcing the law. In the case of Iran, the dispute is whether such force not exists, but whether it should be used, In effect, the analogy works to the extent it does, because it assumes away the problem. Iran’s nuclear program cannot be assumed away.

“True, is a senator did not read a bill and still voted for it, it shall not be an invalidating factor so the ACA is the law. I was talking about what is right and what is wrong.”

I think it’s right that all Americans have access to affordable health care. That’s the morality that drives my position. Policy shouldn’t be driven by reading choices of 535 legislators in Washington.

“Militant Islam is not Islam according to all scholars and Obama but an aberration because Islam is peaceful and ISIS just doesn’t know what true Islam is.”

It seems to me, they are wrong. For one thing, scholars don’t have the authority to decide what Islam is or not. For myself, when people say they have a religion, and that their religion dictates what they do, I take them at their word. I just don’t have any other standard to judge them by. Certainly, there is nothing about religion generally that precludes the concept of militancy. Christianity certainly went through it’s own violent period. And I suggest that there are many millions of Muslims in this world who see their co-religionists targeted by drone strikes see what is happening as a war between Christianity and Islam.