Neo

Omen? I'm watching Sabres, June 19, 1999 on NHL Network, now. Yes, it's on. At 11:30, I'm leaving to get a seat at a Bills Backers bar for today's game. Low point, high point?

As always, I'm grateful for all observations ...

... I'm laughing ... I suspect, if that's so, you'd have taken someone with you!

I'd pay it. Maybe only once, but I'd pay it.

Just bought seats for my daughter. I'm 1300 miles away, but Lambchop's gonna represent! Bring it!

Powell brings me comfort. I mentioned that here, in support of the treaty, perhaps ten days or so ago. I don't think the sanctions did nothing to deter nuclear weapon development. Crippling an economy hurts all aspects of a nation, military included. It may not have done enough, I'll grant that. I hope you're right on purchased time. There were two major issues on the table. One was the dollar cost of sanctions. We ceded. The other were limits on weapons development (nukes). None of us knows what Iran ceded nor do we have a meaningful way to inspect. Bike path? I guess we'll take their word for it. Again, to be fair, I suspect we have some confidence that "we'll know if they cheat". I do know, when evaluating that confidence, I am unsettled by the administration's own words which assured meaningful inspections for over a year, and then surprised the world with what I think we all see as far less intrusive than m"meaningful would imply". Remember the administration's "anytime, anywhere" stance? Tough issue ...

I did not directly answer your question. I spoke to a changed circumstance. Error mine. On the other side of the coin, what is your question getting at? I agree we retain options. Iran does, too. We retain them against an adversary $150 Billion richer. Would you agree to that? That brings me to what I think is the critical question. What did we get? Trying to answer your direct question, as you've worded it, while still making what I think is the whole point of the treaty, I'll say this: "We no longer have e option of dealing with a struggling Iranian economy $150 Billion less wealthy than it is now". The status quo was the option surrendered. At your request, im trying to use "options" and address the meaningful "no longer" and "before". It's the best I can do with the question as asked. Neither side ceded land or resources. Each side is bound only by its ethical convictions. Our entire "chip" was the sanctions. They were effective enough to bring Iran to the table. I don't think anyone disputes this. We surrendered our chip. Fair enough. It was a huge chip. What did we get? I don't know, yet. I'm not encouraged that we got something meaningful. I know we surrendered something meaningful to the Iranians. With the chip surrendered, is your next chip military action? If so, that's another reason I would have preferred retaining the first, effective, chip. At least until I knew what I was getting, that is.

Then why did Iran come to the table? Did no one inform them the sanctions were ending? I'll answer again.

1). Better than anything else. 2). Continued sanctions. They were working. They brought Iran to the table. It wasn't "this deal or war", regardless of how the Administrtion frames it.

I think I've been fair to the administration in terms of a rock and a hard place. However, to answer your direct question: $150 Billion. That's what brought Iran to the table. The question I have is what did we get?

If my youth had a chorus, a refrain, it would be this ...

Awesome ... but isn't it the 303? Also awesome ...

Makes me think the briefed Blackhawks have some confidence. Comments from those more familiar with the process?

Awesome ...

48. Buffalo Wings in any non-Buffalo City ... The Matt Ellis of regional favorites.

Neo ... The Matt Ellis of SabreSpace members. (I dig the whimsy, X).

No attack felt. As to the rest, I'm in with your points. Consequences. Exhibit A: we funded Iraq WHILE cutting taxes.

I was explaining my understanding and not advocating. As an add on to my "meat grinder" statement posted earlier. Republicans contradict or conflict more often when they dissect to branches, states, federal governments, and roles. The party also struggles with demographic realities and acquiesces to non-conservative stances. Strange positions follow. As to your questions -- sometimes yes, and sometimes no.

I'm not normal.

Insight, BagBoy. I posted earlier that a Fiorina v Clinton debate is my fantasy. It remains so.

D4rk: It goes to a core Republican stance that military spending, or defense spending, is a legitimate role of government. More fiscally conservative, and more libertarian, Republicans wrestle with the issue you raise. I want the world's strongest military, deployed defensively. I strongly believe in shifting the cost of defense to those being defended. There's debate around this. Do you want military might in the hands of Japan (Asia) and Germany (Europe)? I am willing to move beyond two world wars. Some aren't. We're back to vacuums and who fills them in a world that remains dangerous.

Rapid Reaction: Fiorina Rubio.

I'm too busy alerting the national press, Obama's staff, the Senate and the House, all of whom debated Obama's time table for over 12 months. When I'm finished, I will email the White House. Obama believes it was his timetable, as well. Silly goose. He has since his speech announcing and advocating it. I'm going to be busy. We're gonna make headlines.

Republican debates are tougher to follow. There's more meat to grind. Issues, as well as the role of three branches of government, each at the federal and state level, come into play like three dimensional chess. Gay marriage? Yes, at the state level. Yes, if legislatures allow it. No, of a Supreme Court over rules a state court. Nothing's simple. Accordingly, nothing's simple.

I love you. You're uninformed and nuts.