MICHELE KELEMAN: Did you manage to persuade India that it's time to get tough on Iran?So. The US is going to try to enlist India, a nuclear-armed non-signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in an effort to "get tough" on Iran, a non-nuclear-armed signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We are, in other words, going to enlist an egregious nuclear proliferater in an effort to convince a non-proliferator not to proliferate.
HILLARY CLINTON: India shares our concerns about Iran persuing nuclear weapons. India . . . shares a lot of information with us . . . we're going to continue to deepen our intelligence cooperation. I think India understands the threat of nuclear proliferation to and by both countries and non-state actors like al Qaeda and others . . . So, I'm very much looking forward to, in the course of this strategic partnership that we announced when I was there, really delving into depths with India about there ideas about to how to try to dissuade Iran.
-On NPR's Morning Addition
This is sure to succeed.
70 comments:
Ohh its sweeter than that. We flagrantly violated the core tenants of the NPT in our recent nuclear deal with India, whereas Iran either has not violated the NPT, or violated somewhat ancillary disclosure requirements. Surely there must be some hypocrisy contest we can enter.
I love how the incoherence and incompetence of the Bush Administration (born of american Exceptionalism and arrogance) is continuing full force under The Messiah.
...the threat of nuclear proliferation to and by both countries and non-state actors like al Qaeda...
nudge, wink.
Clinton also wants to extend a defense umbrella over the region. is Iran developing nuclear rain, too?
Well that depends on your definition of success. It should further some political careers.
India shares our concerns about Iran persuing [sic] nuclear weapons.
Because Iran's imaginary weapons are a threat to India on a par with Pakistan's actual weapons.
Hey, India may have nukes but you can totally tell they'll never use them for anything we don't like.
Not like Iran. I mean, just look at it. You can just TELL it's from a bad family. It totally wants nukes and would use them in a flash.
You guys suck at foreign policy, man.
Heck, let's dispense for a moment with the procedural-ethics navel-gazing, and plug in the street smarts. Would you rather have to turn your back on Iranian Muslim leaders or on Indian Hindu leaders?
It's not even close, is it?
The respectable Mr. Inkberrow needs to learn about the nature of Hinduism in Indian government and then read about how Hindu politics manifests itself in that country. And then he needs to specify which Iranian Muslim leaders.
Oh, and India's definitely not on my list of vicious enemies of peace, but they've picked a hell of a lot more wars (with nuclear powers, even) than Iran.
Anyway, getting to that bit of "navel-gazing" that I call logic, the US also reached an arm over the Gulf states to shelter them from--who else?--Iran. Because after all, as Hillary Clinton says, the Persian Gulf must be part of the American orbit so it does not fall into the... Iranian orbit.
Why is it that empire is always built on threats of empire? The Ottomans blamed Iran, too, incidentally.
I thank Mr. Inkberrow for an excuse to ask: ergo what muthafucka?
Damn it! For the life of me I can't figure out how to plug a Lebowski quote into this.
I'd go with, "You've go the wrong Lewbowski. Do I look fucking married to you? The toilet seat is up."
You said it, man -- nobody fucks with the Siva.
you're not dealing with morons here.
Obviously you're not a golfer.
Well it's not LITERALLY about Nam, dude.
Little prick's stonewallin' me.
I guess that's the way the whole durned human comedy keeps perpetuatin' itself.
You see a wedding ring? Does this
place look like I'm fucking married?
The toilet seat's up!
I'm talking about a line in the sand.
Fun model of foreign policy analysis. So, campaneros, ask yourselves: Would you rather buy ten gallons of gas and a snickers bar from an Iranian Moslem or rent a fleabag hotel room from an Indian Hindu and shack up with some floozy? The floozy every time, right?
Case closed.
Would you rather put a dot on your head or never eat bacon again.
Oh, wait, I think Hindus might be vegetarians.
Obviously, as an informed citizen, my opinion on Irano-Indio-Americo relations is important.
Personally I'm loving the extent to which the British empire (and its collapse) never gets the love it deserves.
India? Pakistan? Israel? The Islamic Republic? All us, bitches.
I'll give you Korea though.
Lots of clever vogueing, plenty of impressive tap-dancing, but we're still missing a straight answer. I guess one has to be in the actual situation in order to know whether one would trust a Indian Hindu leader or an Iranian Muslim leader in a matter of life and death.
Full circle back to Secretary Clinton and the Obama adminstration's vote, and our host's complaint....
I certainly wouldn't trust a US Christian leader, if that helps.
Or a US Muslim leader. I guess we're back to square 1 on who to trust with our backs turned. Me, I just want to be close when it goes off.
Actually, dumb fuck, we're waiting for you to explain how this situation gets boiled down, in your mind, to a zero-sum game where we have to "turn our back" (whatever the fuck that actually means) on one or the other.
And plus, I thought you right-wing fuckknobs were in favor of a nuke being dropped on an American city now, so you can have the joy of saying you told us so.
Trust seems a rather naive rubric whether among nations or men.
Gridlock---
Compared with an Iranian Muslim leader you would. With your life on the line based on the right choice between the two, you and every armchair hipster on here would say the Pledge Allegiance and "I Love You Baby Jesus" with expressions of reverence on your faces straight out of a Norman Rockwell painting.
"Compared with an Iranian Muslim leader you would"
It depends, is he black?
Hehe, you're funny. Got any more? How about one for you; a gay Mexican or a cripple lesbian? YOUR LIFE IS ON THE LINE.
Your life is in her hands, dude. He asked me to repeat that. Her life is in your hands.
I guess Inky is typing with one hand while imagining us "armchair hipsters" crawling to Jesus and his favorite nation, the USA, begging for forgiveness and protection.
Personally, Inky, I hope Iran nukes Israel, and I hope an Iranian man fucks your wife while you're on here trying to get us to give a shit about your ridiculous obsession.
Fucking Monday Morning hipsters, nothing ever changes.
Oh, they're armchair hipsters? Are we splitting hairs here?
Stepping back for a minute, I have to admit that trying to invoke real death and destruction in this analysis was inflammatory and, as Anonymous@7:16 trenchantly noted, "obsessive". After all, this is just a blog comments-section debate, not actual brinksmanship involving nuclear weapons and fanatical, revengeful Muslim statesmen!
Duly chastened, fellas. My bad.
Morning Addition?
It is to be hoped that's a joke I don't get.
this is just a blog comments-section debate, not actual brinksmanship involving nuclear weapons and fanatical, revengeful Muslim statesmen
Doesn't the language have a word for "utterance intended as ironic but in which the ostensible and true meaning are actually congruent, unbeknownst to the speaker because of douchebaggery?"
Personally I never ask the confessional orientation of the fellow to whom I turn my back. After all, what matter whether he be Muslim, Hindu, Christian, animist or whatever, as long as he's fully capable of doing the necessary? Priorities, people!
the indian 'hindu' leaders were the ones who took india, kicking and screaming, and against all priorities into the nuclear age where we are now in the position of begging for fuel from the likes of the NSG. they also perpetrated a mini-genocide in 2002 and routinely practice anti-minority violence and rhetoric.
so, no, i would never trust a 'hindu' indian leader anymore than i would trust an iranian leader.
while the current govt is too broad a coalition to have a single coherent ideology, they really were too busy sucking hillary's dick(metaphorically?) to actually make 'deals' other than those that seems like prostitution... the fawning media coverage was like the reacharound required to complete a good session of fellatio.
Inky
I'd rather enjoy an Iranian muslim man's dick up my ass while fucking an Indian woman at the same time - though that could be difficult to negotiate physically. Because, of course, all international relations should be reduced to sexual metaphors... Besides, it sounds fun!
As for your complete ignorance as to the history of hindu terrorist crap within India itself and any remote understanding of the history of Iran vis a vis the US, all I can say is go grab another meal of high fructose corn syrup and msg from the 7-11 and diddle yourself, unless, of course, your diabetes prevents you from getting erections...
I think a bunch of Western Civ profs are pretty darn proud of this group today! Bold, reflexively hostile cynicism about America and American prerogatives, coupled with courageous outrage at the sins of everybody but America's implacable enemies. Not one single discouraging word about Muslims from the anointed here, but let's face it, it couldn't happen to a nicer group of monotheists. Ah, the White Progressive Man's Burden.....
American exceptionalism sure is a sight to behold.
You're not special, Bub.
If America keeps turning her back, she's gonna get a real reputation, if you know what I mean.
easy now, Inkberrow. i, for one, am not playing favorites. i hate all authoritarian power-seekers equally. religious extremism seems kind of beside the point, and the flavor of religious fervor seems a weird metric to judge by.
The fucker still doesn't seem to get that India isn't even Hindu. But let's bash college professors. For that matter, David Horowitz would be pretty darn proud of you, Inky, but what that means to this conversation, I can't say.
Let me be clear about this. I judge men on their acts and their interests, when I can remember one and divine the other. I believe that India, while definitely preferable--for me, anyway--to the loathsome Iranian state, has started more conflicts and holds more potential to start conflicts, than Iran. I don't see how one emboldens India without creating more problems down the road. You see, it's called precedent.
I know that you're frustrated because we refuse to accept your proposed reframe of the debate, but just think about the complexities of the situation. Sino-Indian conflict, Iran's vast poverty and poor infrastructure, the desire of each to work with the other. There's your pathetic little scenario out the god-damn window. The Iranian Muslim and the Indian Hindu aren't our options; they're growing buddies we're trying to break up! I mean, I know you clash-of-civilization folks think that there's this essentially explosive quality of Islam, but there are historic ties between Persia and India that, while troubled, I grant you, also predate Islam. And with mutual interests and mutual neighbors on the verge of collapse, who's to say that relationship won't grow as it has in the last few years. And both certainly know how fickle the US is. Ah, but there's that kneejerk hatred of America, right? I know you're not reading any of this anyway.
As I hinted, "American exceptionalism" too often these days, including in these comments, means "Blame America only". Floating the concept that all-too many Middle Eastern Muslims, including (especially) the leaders, are violent anti-West fanatics, is somehow bad form on arrival, perhaps by dint of accuracy, even when the topic is Iran in the first place. It's not even the hoary old "two wrongs don't make a right"; it's more at "our wrongs mean we lose the right to complain or worry about the wrongs of others".
Teach your children well.
Actually, dumb fuck, the topic was how we insist certain nations abide by standards that we and our friends-of-the-month flaunt with impunity, and the implication was that such galling hypocrisy is likely to make it more difficult for us to obtain the sort of results we want, when those certain nations realize that the game is rigged, we're playing Calvinball, and since the rules are always changing and the goalposts always moving, they might as well tell us to go get stuffed and do what's best for them, namely defend themselves against the two hostile powers who have made it achingly clear that they just can't wait for a chance to bomb the holy fuck out of them.
You just saw the words "Iran" and "nuclear", and the front of your pants haven't been dry since. I suppose there are people who can help you with that, but all I care about is that you stop flailing around in here, pissed off because no one will play along with your ridiculous scenario.
fuck Iran. fuck the entire concept of Iran. who the fuck cares? why are we talking about this.
Anon @ 1:15:
Say, I'll bet beneath that tendentious vulgarian's exterior there's a grown-up, three-dimensional thinker bursting to get out! Your sense of "the topic" is mine as well, even if we disagree on the merirs---the sense or nonsense in America's treating India differently than Iran where nuclear proliferation is concerned.
Predictably, the doctrinaire Bad-America/Misunderstood-Muslim progs were offended at The Very I-Dee-A that India leaders could be cast as light years more reliable and civilized than the anti-Israel, anti-West lunatics running Iran.
And these are, indeed, our only choices. We must consider only immediate expediency and bend the rules with India, or surely Iran will break those rules and consequently grow empowered and emboldened. There is no way other. I congratulate Inkberrow on his clarity of vision.
YOU'RE the vulgarian, you fuck!
Again, Inky, no one but you is interested in comparing 'n' contrasting the Ideal Platonic Forms of India and Iran and insisting on breaking it down to a metaphor about which one of them is most likely to jump you from behind and steal your wallet. IOZ and most others are simply noting that Iran's, uh, insane Muslim fanatic leadership is certainly rational enough to realize that playing by the rules doesn't guarantee shit when the US and Israel are determined to fuck with you.
Calling in India for support...well, since you like metaphors based on individuals so much, let's try this: it would be like if the cops kept showing up demanding to search your house for drugs, and this time, they have a notorious methhead along with them, wearing a brand-new badge and smirking at you.
fuck Iran. fuck the entire concept of Iran. who the fuck cares? why are we talking about this.
Fuck it! Yes! That's your answer. That's your answer for everything! Tattoo it on your forehead!
I give him a reasonable allowance. He has n money of his own. I know how he likes to present himself. Father's weakness is vanity. Hence the slut.
Anon @ 4:56---
What are you, the embittered janitor in the proggy Ivory Tower? I said nada about Platonic Forms. Nor does naming Middle Eastern Muslims for what they are, especially Iranian, somehow constitute silly claims about America or India's virtue.
Here's something even you can readily understand. Remember the campaign trope, "which one would you you rather have a beer with?" Sen. Obama over Sen. Clinton, easy, right? Concentrate now. If compelled to choose, who would you rather trust with your safety, Iranian leaders, or Indian leaders? Take your time, but answer honestly.
For the love of fuck, Inky, read the post again, and then tell me what this has to do with having to make a choice between India and Iran to guarantee my safety. In case you haven't noticed yet, I (and everyone else) are rejecting the basic premise of your question as irrelevant and incoherent to begin with. Repeating the irrelevant incoherence with a generous helping of Answer DAMN YOU ANSWER in't going to change that.
A bunch of fig-eaters wearing towels on their heads, trying to find reverse in a Soviet tank. This is not a worthy adversary.
"If compelled to choose, who would you rather trust with your safety, Iranian leaders, or Indian leaders?"
But that's a false dilemma, you pigfucking son of a bitch. We're not being compelled. We do not need to abandon nuclear proliferation treaties in order to uphold those very treaties.
"If compelled to choose, who would you rather trust with your safety, Iranian leaders, or Indian leaders?"
I have considered this question for 10 minutes, I still have no clue what relevance it has on anything or really even what it means. What does it mean to trust my safety with Iranian or Indian leaders and would I go about doing either from San Francisco?
I love fish curries but nobody cooks rice better than the Persians..
Shit, can't choose, sorry.
Yeah, Justin, I'd trust my safety with a good-lookin' man in San Fran Sicko any day.
nice marmot.
Inkberrow simply wants us to validate his feelings. He's scared shitless of Iranian nukes and demands that we join him in his conviction that Something, Anything, Must Be Done.
I'm guessing his weird insistence on this ridiculous "choice" we have to make is because he thinks he has us stuck on the horns of a dilemma: either we admit our secret yearning to live under sharia law, or we admit that we prefer Western civilization and its rational, humanist values...at which point, like that old used-car salesvulture from the Looney Tunes cartoons, he will take the contract we signed and give it a vigorous shake, causing it to unfold and display the previously hidden clause that authorizes him and his ideological comrades to do whatever necessary to protect our country from Iran's Future Nukes that Don't Exist Yet. Hey, you signed it, bitches! It's official! You don't trust those moo-lahs, so we need to take them out before they do it to us!
SECOND MULLAH
You think veer kidding und making
mit de funny stuff?
THIRD MULLAH
Vee could do things you only dreamed
of, Lebowski.
SECOND MULLAH
Ja, vee could really do it, Lebowski.
Vee belief in nossing.
I-RAN. Does the word scare you Mr Lebowski?
Inkberrow, watch closely.....poof!
I just did it. I just got rid of all non-existent nukes held by Iran. Feel better now?
This is the best comment thread ever.
Anon @ 1:20
IOZ's post....read closely. Poof! Preventing proliferation the issue; India versus Iran in the sanity sweepstakes as well.
Feel smarter now?
Inkberrow: one last time. Iran has no nukes. Our meddling can only be an inducement to them to get nukes. They see us as a legitimate threat - which considering our previous CinC referred to them as part of the "Axis of Evil" is kinda understandable. Thus our meddling actually increases their desire to become a nucleur power....
Feel smarter now?
Plus, that's actually the plan!
Shh!
Almost seventy five percent of the state's cities made it to the existing grid of storage providers. Picture Doctor may be able to enjoy many of these gate keepers are clueless not only about how to properly evaluate fleshlight the skills of prospects, but also their precision.
Post a Comment