Well, it’s not Superman V, but it’s a start.

Nob Akimoto

Nob Akimoto is a policy analyst and part-time dungeon master. When not talking endlessly about matters of public policy, he is a dungeon master on the NWN World of Avlis

Related Post Roulette

43 Responses

  1. greginak says:

    From what i’ve read so far, this sounds like great news. Sadly tomorrow will start yet unheard of levels of head exploding shouts of treason, a metric ton more ignorant invocations of Neville Chamberlain and an ocean full of tears about our not doing the bidding of Israel. If i was really cynical i’d hope the Secret Service is keeping a really close track on all known or suspected Israeli agents in the US. So i hope O cuts back on the public appearances for a while and the Secret Service and NSA really dial up all their fancy tech on every Israeli agent.Report

  2. Shazbot9 says:

    Superman IV, no?Report

  3. Kazzy says:

    Tucker Carlson just now on “Fox and Friends”: (paraphrased) “Iran is an oil-rich nation. They don’t need nuclear power. There is only one reason why they’d pursue a nuclear program.”

    It’s amazing how myopic some people can be when it is politically (or financially) expedient.Report

    • J@m3z Aitch in reply to Kazzy says:

      I agree there’s one major reason Iran would pursue a nuclear program–they have no real friend or dependable allies and the U.S. doesn’t f**k with countries with nukes. It’s a very rational move on their part to try to protect themselves from U.S. hegemony.

      The power generation is a nice side benefit, though.

      Oh, Tucker Carlson? He’s got the wrong reason, but then he is, and always has been, an idiot.Report

      • Kazzy in reply to J@m3z Aitch says:

        As I asked before, it astounds me that conservatives can be steadfast in defending a natural right to guns as a means of self-preservation and deterence but simultaneously deny that same natural right to states for those same purposes.Report

      • Kazzy in reply to J@m3z Aitch says:

        However, I was referring to Tucker’s inability to understand why even an oil-rich nation would explore alternatives to fossil fuel.

        “Only pinkos go green! And Muslims can only have evil intentions!”Report

      • mark boggs in reply to J@m3z Aitch says:

        Because, in many minds, no one in leadership positions of them crazy middle eastern countries could ever, possibly act rationally about the acquisition of powerful weapons. When Reagan argued the MAD theory (Mutually Assured Destruction), well he was a cunning and responsible statesman. If a middle eastern leader acts from that same motive, especially in light of Mr. Hanley’s astute observation that nuclear weapons usually changes the way the US treats you, well, you just know all they wanna do is go off willy-nilly, blowing up everything and anything around them.Report

      • J@m3z Aitch in reply to J@m3z Aitch says:


        Oh, I got what you were saying. And you’re right, of course. I was just riffin’ because I don’t think enough people have any understanding of Iran’s actual geo-political position. But, yeah, of course even an oil rich country would want alternative sources of energy. If you can provide energy through nuclear power for less than the selling price of oil you come out ahead of where you would just using that oil yourself. And of course the oil isn’t going to last forever.

        But it’s a lot easier to gain a regular audience by painting simplistic morality stories of the good guys and the bad guys, especially when the bad guys have dark skin and and don’t worship baby Jesus.Report

      • Mike Schilling in reply to J@m3z Aitch says:

        Also, Iran doesn’t have enough refining capacity to meet its needs, making it dependent on other countries for gasoline, diesel, etc. That’s one area where the sanctions hurt. But only members of the axis of evil value energy independence.Report

      • Notme in reply to J@m3z Aitch says:

        As I asked before, it astounds me that conservatives can be steadfast in defending a natural right to guns as a means of self-preservation and deterence but simultaneously deny that same natural right to states for those same purposes.

        First we aren’t talking about guns but nukes which can kill a lot more folks a lot quicker. Second most gun owners I know don’t go around threatening other folks as Iran has done, not to mention their support of terrorist activities. If gun owners did threaten others they would be subject to legal sanction. Is this really a serious question?Report

      • Kazzy in reply to J@m3z Aitch says:

        It is, @notme . So you’re saying that if I can find evidence of a gun owner who has made violent threats, you would support me in seeking to strip him of his guns? Would my neighbor’s “Terrorist Hunting Permit” bumper sticker qualify?

        I recognize that nukes are different than guns. But the defense of the right to guns is often couched in a broader right to self-defense, including self-defense through deterrence. Well, a state is greater than an individual, and as such will require a greater effort to defend itself and deter would-be attackers. Enter the nuclear weapon… the greatest deterrent currently known to man.

        So why shouldn’t Iran — whose current leader has made no such threats — have the right to pursue arms with which to defend itself?Report

      • mark boggs in reply to J@m3z Aitch says:

        And given the fact that the US has a bit of history putting its fingers into the political pie of the Iranian landscape, it would seem entirely reasonable, for them to seek a way to deter anymore foreign intrusion into their doings. One would argue they could be irresponsible from their own citizens’ perspective not to seek out this option.Report

      • Kim in reply to J@m3z Aitch says:

        no state in the country has “deterrence” as a right. Mostly because booby traps are hella dangerous.Report

      • Jam3z Aitch in reply to J@m3z Aitch says:

        Kazzy is talking about real states, not the Ameruxan orivinces we incorrectly call states.Report

      • Jam3z Aitch in reply to J@m3z Aitch says:

        “Ameruxan orivinces” = American provinces.

        At least until I write my sci fi book based on that typo.Report

  4. North says:

    Looks like a stellar interim deal. A freeze on Iranian enrichment and heightened monitoring in exchange for a limited and gradual easing of sanctions? That’s pretty much as good as the west could possibly hope to get!
    Now it’s imperative that we stick to the agreed deal, no foot dragging on sanctions relief or anything that the Iranian hawks could spin as discrediting Rouhani’s initiative on this. If this goes well we could be looking at a final diplomatic solution to the whole mess as a followup. Removing the nuclear worries and releasing all that oil and the Iranian economy back into the global markets would be an excellent boost to the global economy.Report

  5. Mike Schilling says:

    I’m assuming this doesn’t require two-thirds Senate confirmation, because there are certainly 34 idiots there who’d scuttle it. Or even a majority of both houses, because the House GOP’s grasp of geopolitics is “Obama bad!”Report

  6. greginak says:

    I guess someone should note that there really are no differences between the parties. Both have the same agenda and do the exact same things. It really doesn’t matter who gets elected. Hat tip to R. Nader.Report

  7. Mike Schilling says:

    James Jay Carafano writes at National Review

    Munich II

    No, that’s not a facile, partisan jab.

    At which point I stopped reading, because that’s three lies by the end of the first sentence.Report

    • The Munich analogy is basically the historical analogy version of turtles all the way down.Report

      • Notme in reply to Nob Akimoto says:

        I don’t see what is so great about this agreement. Obama has given the Iranians their frozen money already and they haven’t started performing yet. You aren’t supposed to give everything away upfront, duh! Clearly Obama hasn’t learned anything from dealing with the North Koreans.Report

      • Clearly you’re reading the version from Earth-923.

        Here on Earth prime, unfreezing a small portion of the financial assets frozen in exchange for down-blending Iran’s 20% enriched uranium, slowing completion of its Plutonium reactor and stopping enrichment of uranium past 5%, along with strong and frequent IAEA inspections.

        Of course there’s also the little fact that a lot of sanctions remain on Iran.Report

      • Notme in reply to Nob Akimoto says:

        If all you want to do is trade insults disguised as intelligent comments I can do that as well.Report

      • Well given that all you’ve done so far is parrot right-wing nutjob talking points and sociopathic desires for war, insults that actually have intelligence behind them count as an elevation in the rhetorical quality of the conversationReport

  8. Jaybird says:

    While it’s a hair early to call it Munich, it’s also a hair early to see it as a success.

    That said, Peace Prizes have been given to people for less. This is worth watching and, in a couple of years (assuming good faith on everybody involved), worth a nomination or two.Report