QuoteNetanyahu says U.S. is on verge of 'bad deal' with Iran over nuclear program
By Steven Mufson and Katie Zezima March 3 at 3:26 PM
Washington Post
In a rousing speech before Congress punctuated by more than 40 bursts of applause, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu assailed the Obama administration's nuclear negotiations with Iran, asserting bluntly that the United States was on the verge of making "a bad deal."
Though he said he was "grateful" for all President Obama has done for Israel, Netanyahu went on to excoriate the administration for failing to insist on terms tough enough or enduring enough to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
"It doesn't block Iran's path to the bomb; it paves Iran's path to the bomb," Netanyahu said Tuesday.
The speech before a joint meeting of Congress gave the Israeli prime minister a rare platform for confronting a president with whom he has shared mostly animosity and for trying to stop or radically alter negotiations that are reaching a critical juncture. Obama has said that if Iran does not agree to the outline of an agreement by the end of March then further talks would be pointless.
Netanyahu made the most of the opportunity, invoking the Constitution, Moses and the Holocaust to argue that the United States and Israel should stand fast to block Iran from gaining weapons. He hailed Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel, who was in the gallery, and said "I wish I could promise you, Elie, that the lessons of history have been learned."
Aware of the danger that Congress would be persuaded to try to scuttle a deal with Iran, the White House quickly responded to Netanyahu.
Speaking in the Oval Office alongside Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter, Obama said that Netanyahu didn't offer any "viable alternatives" to the nuclear negotiations with Iran. Obama, who had been on a conference call discussing Ukraine with European leaders during Netanyahu's speech, said he read a transcript and that "there was nothing new" in it.
"We are pursuing a deal that verifiably prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon," said a senior administration official. "Where is the better alternative? Simply demanding that Iran completely capitulate is not a plan, nor would any country support us in that position. The prime minister offered no concrete action plan."
The official added that "the logic of the prime minister's speech is regime change, not a nuclear speech."
Netanyahu's speech marked the climax of controversy that began six weeks ago when he accepted an invitation from House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) to address Congress; Boehner sidestepped the usual protocol of consulting with the president and Democrats in Congress before issuing the invitation the day after Obama's State of the Union address. Accusations that the plan was hatched to serve partisan purposes in the United States as well as in Israel, where voters go to the polls in two weeks, laid bare fissures between the prime minister and the Obama administration.
Netanyahu used the address on Tuesday to paint Iran as a sponsor of terrorism that is aggressively marching across the Middle East and determined to realize its nuclear ambitions. Netanyahu said the country poses a "grave threat" to Israel and the world.
"This is a bad deal. A very bad deal. We are better off without it," he said. "Why should Iran's radical regime change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both worlds? Aggression abroad, prosperity at home?"
Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif are talking in Geneva on Tuesday ahead of a March 24 deadline on the framework for a nuclear deal. But Netanyahu said that demands should be tougher and that "if Iran threatens to walk away from the table, call their bluff." He said tough economic sanctions would bring them back to talks.
Leaks and a Reuters interview with Obama on Monday have provided some general outlines of the agreement being negotiated by the United States and five other world powers including Russia and China. As a condition for the talks, Iran agreed to eliminate its stockpile of highly enriched uranium needed for a nuclear weapon.
The terms being negotiated would require inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, limits on the type and number of centrifuges that could be used for enrichment, full replies to IAEA questions about past activities including military activities, and continuing to turn uranium into rods used for civilian nuclear power or send the material to Russia. The goal is to establish at least one year of "breakout time," the time Iran would need to develop a weapon if cooperation broke down.
Some of those terms are highly technical; new centrifuges would be four to five times more efficient than older ones Iran possesses. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, a physicist and former professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has joined the talks.
The United States initially asked Iran to agree to terms that would last 15 to 20 years, while Iran asked for a five- to 10-year period. Obama said Monday the duration would have to be "double digit." After that period, say people familiar with the deal, Iran would still have to comply with IAEA guidelines and allow unfettered inspections by the agency. But limits on centrifuges could end.
"It's not as though they are free to develop nuclear weapons," said Robert Einhorn, an arms control export at the Brookings Institution who previously advised the State Department under President Obama. "There is still intrusive verification under additional protocols of the IAEA so we would be in a better position than today to detect movement toward nuclear weapons and there would still be the option of military action. It's not as though it's a free pass to nuclear weapons after expiration."
But Netanyahu said a deal would only "whet Iran's appetite" for more nuclear material. Playing off the title of an Ernest Hemingway novel, he said "this deal won't be a farewell to arms. It would be a farewell to arms control."
The prime minister also spoke of the Jewish holiday Purim, which begins Wednesday night. It celebrates the Jewish Book of Esther, where describes a plot by a high-ranking member of the Persian empire to kill the Jews; the plot is foiled by Queen Esther, who is Jewish.
"Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us," Netanyahu said.
He warned against viewing Shiite Iran as an ally against Sunni extremists in the Islamic State, declaring that "the enemy of your enemy is your enemy."
He cited threats by Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to "annihilate" Israel and the implication of Iran — and its "tentacles of terror" — in various attacks around the world. He said nuclear talks should require a change in behavior. "If Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country," he said.
Later in the Oval Office, Obama said he agrees with Netanyahu that Iran is a dangerous regime that has repeatedly threatened Israel and that "no one can dispute" that Iran has used anti-Semitic language against Israelis.
"But on the core issue, which is how do we prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, which would make it far more dangerous and would give it scope for even greater action in the region, the prime minister didn't offer any viable alternatives," Obama added.
Nearly a quarter of congressional Democrats did not attend the speech, citing the politicization of the address and the disrespect they felt Netanyahu and Boehner had shown the president. Others attended reluctantly.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who left the chamber as Netanyahu was saying goodbyes, said in a statement she was "saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States as part of the P5 +1 nations, and saddened by the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran and our broader commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) told CNN that Netanyahu "clearly . . . doesn't like what the deal is. What he didn't say was what would happen if there was no deal" or what would happen if the United States's negotiating partners — Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China — "all agreed, and the United States did not."
Erel Margalit, a leading Labor Party candidate in the coming Israeli elections, was in the United States on Tuesday. "In three weeks, we'll have a chance to set a new path for Israel," he said. "Hopefully we can not just define ourselves by the threat we face but by the opportunities . . . with the United States as our main ally."
He said the Labor Party shared Netanyahu's concerns about Iran's nuclear program, but he said "we want to work with the administration rather than have a showdown with it."
We got our Bibisitter.
God, I hate the fucking Republicans. What a bunch of complete douchebags.
Quite surprising that a foreign leader should use congress to attack the President; manners don't appear to be BBs strong suit.
I used to think it was a great strength of the American political system that a firm distinction was drawn between the Office of the President and the President. This seems to be a move that takes a solid swipe at the Office.
Did he use more props like this?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.globalpost.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Fgp3_slideshow_large%2Fbibi_bomb_graphic.jpg&hash=fb652801dd8b0223ac9f458f1d8b6b115b9914ff)
Quote from: Martinus on March 03, 2015, 04:45:46 PM
Did he use more props like this?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.globalpost.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Fgp3_slideshow_large%2Fbibi_bomb_graphic.jpg&hash=fb652801dd8b0223ac9f458f1d8b6b115b9914ff)
Well if the trigger system is that simple, I'm surprised more people haven't developed their on nuclear bombs.
Or is it a large lion drowning in a septic tank; Schroeder's cat writ large?
Quote from: Berkut on March 03, 2015, 04:40:38 PM
God, I hate the fucking Republicans. What a bunch of complete douchebags.
:lol: :punk:
Quote from: mongers on March 03, 2015, 04:41:29 PM
Quite surprising that a foreign leader should use congress to attack the President; manners don't appear to be BBs strong suit.
He said some nice things about Obama.
Quote from: derspiess on March 03, 2015, 05:03:30 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 03, 2015, 04:41:29 PM
Quite surprising that a foreign leader should use congress to attack the President; manners don't appear to be BBs strong suit.
He said some nice things about Obama.
A few token things, and then he got around to telling his employees how to respond to the deal the administration is negotiating. At least the pretense of Americanism is now stripped away. But the Republicans will still pretend that they represent the people, and not the special interests.* A sad day for American politics.
* not to be confused with the special interests who fund the Democrats, of course.
Quote from: mongers on March 03, 2015, 04:41:29 PM
Quite surprising that a foreign leader should use congress to attack the President; manners don't appear to be BBs strong suit.
Yeah, nothing like showing Iran a solid and unified front.
They kill Rabin and can't even get a shot in at this guy? Useless.
If I were Hansmeister, I might suggest inviting a foreign leader to come to this country with the express aim of undermining the government's foreign policy smacks of treason.
Luckily I am not Hansmeister and thus personally would not make that suggestion.
I miss Ariel Sharon.
Plus moron
(a) does not get the Purim story right,
(b) is unaware that Purim story is a fantasy. Like much of the speech.
Quote from: Norgy on March 03, 2015, 07:50:13 PM
They kill Rabin and can't even get a shot in at this guy? Useless.
Wow.
I don't understand the strategery behind this.
He has to know there is zero chance of changing Obama's mind and getting him to attack Iran. As his elegant UN graph that Martinus posted upthread clearly shows, there isn't time to wait for a new US president.
So at the cost of ruining whatever relationship there was with the president (admittedly probably not much of one), he enters the following potential futures:
1) The future reveals that he oversold the Iranian threat and he looks like a dumbass.
2) He is incinerated along with his country in a nuclear Holocaust.
I think the only winning strategy is not to play.
It seems he has the short term goal of the next election. The Republicans have no discernible goal other than continuing to act like Republicans.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 03, 2015, 08:10:35 PM
1) The future reveals that he oversold the Iranian threat and he looks like a dumbass.
2) He is incinerated along with his country in a nuclear Holocaust.
I think the only winning strategy is not to play.
1) I don't know how one would go about determining Iran will never, ever acquire a nuclear weapon.
2) It's very conceivable Iran could develop the bomb but hold on to it as a deterrent. That's what most members of the nuclear club have done.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2015, 08:15:57 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 03, 2015, 08:10:35 PM
1) The future reveals that he oversold the Iranian threat and he looks like a dumbass.
2) He is incinerated along with his country in a nuclear Holocaust.
I think the only winning strategy is not to play.
1) I don't know how one would go about determining Iran will never, ever acquire a nuclear weapon.
2) It's very conceivable Iran could develop the bomb but hold on to it as a deterrent. That's what most members of the nuclear club have done.
He is selling Iran being particularly horrible. If they act like the other nuclear powers, he has rather oversold the threat, hasn't he?
Quote from: alfred russel on March 03, 2015, 08:22:30 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2015, 08:15:57 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 03, 2015, 08:10:35 PM
1) The future reveals that he oversold the Iranian threat and he looks like a dumbass.
2) He is incinerated along with his country in a nuclear Holocaust.
I think the only winning strategy is not to play.
1) I don't know how one would go about determining Iran will never, ever acquire a nuclear weapon.
2) It's very conceivable Iran could develop the bomb but hold on to it as a deterrent. That's what most members of the nuclear club have done.
He is selling Iran being particularly horrible. If they act like the other nuclear powers, he has rather oversold the threat, hasn't he?
Everyone needs an ultimate evil to sustain their political momentum, pity for America that the Republicans choose Obama above all others.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 03, 2015, 08:22:30 PM
He is selling Iran being particularly horrible. If they act like the other nuclear powers, he has rather oversold the threat, hasn't he?
He's selling that part about as much as Barry is.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 03, 2015, 08:22:30 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2015, 08:15:57 PM
1) I don't know how one would go about determining Iran will never, ever acquire a nuclear weapon.
2) It's very conceivable Iran could develop the bomb but hold on to it as a deterrent. That's what most members of the nuclear club have done.
He is selling Iran being particularly horrible. If they act like the other nuclear powers, he has rather oversold the threat, hasn't he?
I don't think he's oversold the threat, because I don't believe Iran will act like the other nuclear powers; It's just not the time to turn it up to 11 just yet.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 03, 2015, 07:57:49 PM
If I were Hansmeister, I might suggest inviting a foreign leader to come to this country with the express aim of undermining the government's foreign policy smacks of treason.
Luckily I am not Hansmeister and thus personally would not make that suggestion.
I seriously doubt Hans would say this specific act was treason. Now if something like this had happened back in 2004...
How awesome would it have been if Nancy Pelosi had invited Dominique de Villepin to address congress back in the day?
I find it really odd for a sitting head of government to visit another country, and deliver a formal address at the host country's legislature that slams the government of the host country. Especially that the host country is his greatest benefactor.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 03, 2015, 11:32:41 PM
I find it really odd for a sitting head of government to visit another country, and deliver a formal address at the host country's legislature that slams the government of the host country. Especially that the host country is his greatest benefactor.
Welcome to the weirdness of US-Israel relations.
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 11:44:06 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 03, 2015, 11:32:41 PM
I find it really odd for a sitting head of government to visit another country, and deliver a formal address at the host country's legislature that slams the government of the host country. Especially that the host country is his greatest benefactor.
Welcome to the weirdness of US-Israel relations.
Where's the <LIKE> button? This place really needs a <LIKE> button....
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 11:44:06 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 03, 2015, 11:32:41 PM
I find it really odd for a sitting head of government to visit another country, and deliver a formal address at the host country's legislature that slams the government of the host country. Especially that the host country is his greatest benefactor.
Welcome to the weirdness of US-Israel relations.
Yeah, but this is new weird.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 04, 2015, 12:03:49 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 11:44:06 PM
Welcome to the weirdness of US-Israel relations.
Yeah, but this is new weird.
Not really; this is the just big fight out in the yard in front of everybody for a change, when before it was just inside and everybody knew it was happening but ignored it. Now everybody's shit's just tossed all out over the yard, somebody's screaming in their underwear, and the neighbors decided to finally call the cops. Iran is posting the video as we speak.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 04, 2015, 12:06:56 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 04, 2015, 12:03:49 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 11:44:06 PM
Welcome to the weirdness of US-Israel relations.
Yeah, but this is new weird.
Not really; this is the just big fight out in the yard in front of everybody for a change, when before it was just inside and everybody knew it was happening but ignored it. Now everybody's shit's just tossed all out over the yard, somebody's screaming in their underwear, and the neighbors decided to finally call the cops. Iran is posting the video as we speak.
It's better sometimes to have it all out in the open. :)
Israel thinks itself way too important. Iran has other cats to put down first whenever it gets a Nuclear deterent.
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 04, 2015, 08:28:51 AM
Israel thinks itself way too important. Iran has other cats to put down first whenever it gets a Nuclear deterent.
Disagree: if there's one thing that a Sunni and Shi'ite can agree upon, it's the Jew has to go first.
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2015, 08:18:57 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 04, 2015, 12:06:56 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 04, 2015, 12:03:49 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 11:44:06 PM
Welcome to the weirdness of US-Israel relations.
Yeah, but this is new weird.
Not really; this is the just big fight out in the yard in front of everybody for a change, when before it was just inside and everybody knew it was happening but ignored it. Now everybody's shit's just tossed all out over the yard, somebody's screaming in their underwear, and the neighbors decided to finally call the cops. Iran is posting the video as we speak.
It's better sometimes to have it all out in the open. :)
It's certainly better for the enemies of the US and Israel. :)
I just do not know what Bibi is thinking. One of the things that Republicans and Democrats agree on is that they support Israel. Going after one party and turning support for Israel into a partisan issue would be a disaster for Israeli interests. Just puzzling.
Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2015, 08:58:25 AM
I just do not know what Bibi is thinking. One of the things that Republicans and Democrats agree on is that they support Israel. Going after one party and turning support for Israel into a partisan issue would be a disaster for Israeli interests. Just puzzling.
There is a large portion of the Israeli public, including many Likud voters and theoretically netanyahu, that view Obama as biased against Israel. It seems unlikely that Netanyaho and Obama have much of a working relationship to damage.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/why-do-sarkozy-and-obama-hate-netanyahu/2011/11/08/gIQAPqRQ1M_blog.html
Obama is a lame duck. Going after him just poisons the water for Israel if the Democrats win the 2016 election. Does Bibi really want Israeli interests tied to the Republican party?
Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2015, 09:23:52 AM
Obama is a lame duck. Going after him just poisons the water for Israel if the Democrats win the 2016 election. Does Bibi really want Israeli interests tied to the Republican party?
I doubt the speech is going to have long term implications for the Democratic candidate's/party's stance on Israel. The 2016 democratic candidate is going to run on standing with israel same as always.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 04, 2015, 09:31:01 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2015, 09:23:52 AM
Obama is a lame duck. Going after him just poisons the water for Israel if the Democrats win the 2016 election. Does Bibi really want Israeli interests tied to the Republican party?
I doubt the speech is going to have long term implications for the Democratic candidate's/party's stance on Israel. The 2016 democratic candidate is going to run on standing with israel same as always.
Not if Democratic voters and interests get pissed off.
Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2015, 09:23:52 AM
Does Bibi really want Israeli interests tied to the Republican party?
I think what Bibi really wants is there to be no confusion and for nobody to be surprised when, once everything is said and done, Israel finally decides to preemptively strike Iran.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 04, 2015, 09:33:29 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2015, 09:23:52 AM
Does Bibi really want Israeli interests tied to the Republican party?
I think what Bibi really wants is there to be no confusion and for nobody to be surprised when, once everything is said and done, Israel finally decides to preemptively strike Iran.
Since everybody has been saying this is going to happen any day now since 2003 I think he is safe on that one.
Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2015, 09:31:59 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 04, 2015, 09:31:01 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2015, 09:23:52 AM
Obama is a lame duck. Going after him just poisons the water for Israel if the Democrats win the 2016 election. Does Bibi really want Israeli interests tied to the Republican party?
I doubt the speech is going to have long term implications for the Democratic candidate's/party's stance on Israel. The 2016 democratic candidate is going to run on standing with israel same as always.
Not if Democratic voters and interests get pissed off.
Over this speech? This is a few day story that will be forgotten the next time Lindsay Lohan gets arrested.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 04, 2015, 09:37:01 AM
Over this speech? This is a few day story that will be forgotten the next time Lindsay Lohan gets arrested.
Lindsay Lohan got arrested? *runs off*
Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2015, 09:34:49 AM
Since everybody has been saying this is going to happen any day now since 2003 I think he is safe on that one.
It should've been us, though. :( Right after the Axis of Evil speech, when the French told the world what was going on at Natanz and Arak.
But noooooooooooo...Saddam tried to whack mah Daddy, don't mess with Texas, heh-heh-heh, Freedom Fries, *cokesnort*, etc.
Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2015, 09:23:52 AM
Obama is a lame duck. Going after him just poisons the water for Israel if the Democrats win the 2016 election. Does Bibi really want Israeli interests tied to the Republican party?
Bibi's facing re-election: polls on March 17. This speech was more about that fact, than any concern over Israeli-US relations.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 04, 2015, 09:33:29 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2015, 09:23:52 AM
Does Bibi really want Israeli interests tied to the Republican party?
I think what Bibi really wants is there to be no confusion and for nobody to be surprised when, once everything is said and done, Israel finally decides to preemptively strike Iran.
Agreed on that. I think one of the resons for Bibi's speech was to tell how he feels about the threat of Iran as a precursor to a possible or likely attack on Iran. The Israelis have a very different viewpoint living in the region under constant threat, so are going to do whatever is in their interests to survive. They went through near annihilation once before in living memory and are determined not to face that again. Israel supposedly has the backing of some Arab nations, such as Saudi Arabia who may allow them to use their air space. Many Arab nations have a great fear of Iran getting the bomb and also what they've been up to in the region, such as the latest of having added Yemen to their sphere, having overthrown a US ally there.
Quote from: KRonn on March 04, 2015, 10:21:49 AM
Agreed on that. I think one of the resons for Bibi's speech was to tell how he feels about the threat of Iran as a precursor to a possible or likely attack on Iran. The Israelis have a very different viewpoint living in the region under constant threat, so are going to do whatever is in their interests to survive. They went through near annihilation once before in living memory and are determined not to face that again. Israel supposedly has the backing of some Arab nations, such as Saudi Arabia who may allow them to use their air space. Many Arab nations have a great fear of Iran getting the bomb and also what they've been up to in the region, such as the latest of having added Yemen to their sphere, having overthrown a US ally there.
I don't think that we learned anything new from this speech, other than that Bibi is willing to try ro make US foreign policy a partisan issue. Only the venue for the speech was new; every word he said he has said before.
And the non-existant Yemeni government hasn't been overthrown by Iran. It died of self-inflicted wounds.
Quote from: Malthus on March 04, 2015, 09:49:03 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2015, 09:23:52 AM
Obama is a lame duck. Going after him just poisons the water for Israel if the Democrats win the 2016 election. Does Bibi really want Israeli interests tied to the Republican party?
Bibi's facing re-election: polls on March 17. This speech was more about that fact, than any concern over Israeli-US relations.
:yes:
Quote from: grumbler on March 04, 2015, 10:48:53 AM
Quote from: KRonn on March 04, 2015, 10:21:49 AM
Agreed on that. I think one of the resons for Bibi's speech was to tell how he feels about the threat of Iran as a precursor to a possible or likely attack on Iran. The Israelis have a very different viewpoint living in the region under constant threat, so are going to do whatever is in their interests to survive. They went through near annihilation once before in living memory and are determined not to face that again. Israel supposedly has the backing of some Arab nations, such as Saudi Arabia who may allow them to use their air space. Many Arab nations have a great fear of Iran getting the bomb and also what they've been up to in the region, such as the latest of having added Yemen to their sphere, having overthrown a US ally there.
I don't think that we learned anything new from this speech, other than that Bibi is willing to try ro make US foreign policy a partisan issue. Only the venue for the speech was new; every word he said he has said before.
And the non-existant Yemeni government hasn't been overthrown by Iran. It died of self-inflicted wounds.
No, we may not have learned all that much but I think we saw Bibi emphasize how many Israelis see the issue, which is very different from the rest of us. He was probably laying out the framework publicly to justify an Israeli strike, if they feel the need to do so. He also spelled out a few things, like how Israel could perhaps live with the agreements if they didn't end in ten years, which is also a sticking point for some Dems like Diane Feinstein.
I think one point Bibi made though was that ISIS and Iran are pretty much the same in their goals, but they do it differently. Iran has its hand in Lebanon with Hezbollah which is probably stronger than the government; Hamas, Syria as an ally, now Yemen, and is a huge sponsor of terrorism. This all has to have the Saudis and Gulf States pretty worried. The fact that Iran is fighting ISIS is the two ideologies at war, Sunni vs Shia, not that Iran is somehow ok for "helping" out with ISIS. They don't want Sunni competition for their plans of dominance. It's kind of a stark point to see how the removal of Saddam enabled Iran in some ways as one of their chief antagonists is gone.
Yemen was a US ally, weak as it was, had large demonstrations which overthrew the previous government and brought in a new one cooperating with the US/West against AQ. It had US bases targeting AQ and other extremists. Just last September Pres Obama was pointing that all out as a success for the US strategy so the US had some investment there. But the larger point is that Iran has taken down the government and Iranian supported "rebels" have taken over the country. Seems a page taken out of Putin's playbook.
Quote from: KRonn on March 04, 2015, 02:35:31 PM
I think one point Bibi made though was that ISIS and Iran are pretty much the same in their goals, but they do it differently. Iran has its hand in Lebanon with Hezbollah which is probably stronger than the government; Hamas, Syria as an ally, now Yemen, and is a huge sponsor of terrorism. This all has to have the Saudis and Gulf States pretty worried. The fact that Iran is fighting ISIS is the two ideologies at war, Sunni vs Shia, not that Iran is somehow ok for "helping" out with ISIS. They don't want Sunni competition for their plans of dominance. It's kind of a stark point to see how the removal of Saddam enabled Iran in some ways as one of their chief antagonists is gone.
I did like his line, when talking about Iran and ISIS, that "the enemy of your enemy is your enemy." :lol:
But yeah, I am growing increasingly concerned that between Osama, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, salafism, exportation of wahhabism, A-Q of Iraq, ISIS, and all the other bullshit we've been dealing with from Islam's Sunni-Side-Up breakfast buffet since 9/11 that Iran gets the "White Hat" treatment and falls into the "Least Worst" category by some parties, a mistake we always seem to make in our need to pick a side in all this millennia-old tribal bullshit.
I think there's a danger in losing sight of the fact that, as far as Israel and US interests are concerned, Iran has been the bigger Bad Guy for the longer time with the most damage under its belt. This is still the same '79 Iran, the same Iran whose Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah has vaporized US embassies; kidnapped, tortured and murdered US citizens; blown up US Marines; funds and arms Hamas, fighting an ongoing proxy war with Israel...and let's not even talk about their influence in Iraq, courtesy of the United States, who's given them more geopolitical heft than anything they could've possibly dreamed of. Oh, and they're building the fucking bomb.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 04, 2015, 04:40:35 PM
I did like his line, when talking about Iran and ISIS, that "the enemy of your enemy is your enemy." :lol:
Iran is the enemy of Israel. Iran is also the enemy of the US.
Thus the the US and Israel are both "the enemy of your enemy" to one another, so by Bibi's logic Israel and the US are apparently enemies.
It doesn't seem like he thought that one through...
Quote from: derspiess on March 03, 2015, 08:07:58 PM
Quote from: Norgy on March 03, 2015, 07:50:13 PM
They kill Rabin and can't even get a shot in at this guy? Useless.
Wow.
Do you remember the circumstances surrounding Rabin's murder? Well, you see, he was at a peace celebration and got murdered by some settler. You know, one of those armed angry ones that tend to vote for people like Nethanyahu. Nethanyahu is not someone who will bring peace or good foreign relations. No wonder the Republicans love him.
Quote from: Norgy on March 04, 2015, 05:11:07 PM
Do you remember the circumstances surrounding Rabin's murder? Well, you see, he was at a peace celebration and got murdered by some settler. You know, one of those armed angry ones that tend to vote for people like Nethanyahu. Nethanyahu is not someone who will bring peace or good foreign relations. No wonder the Republicans love him.
My take on Israeli politics isn't very well informed, but isn't Nethanyahu sort of like the moderate/rightish guy? The nutters go for Lieberman or similar.
Quote from: KRonn on March 04, 2015, 02:35:31 PM
No, we may not have learned all that much but I think we saw Bibi emphasize how many Israelis see the issue, which is very different from the rest of us. He was probably laying out the framework publicly to justify an Israeli strike, if they feel the need to do so. He also spelled out a few things, like how Israel could perhaps live with the agreements if they didn't end in ten years, which is also a sticking point for some Dems like Diane Feinstein.
And in ten years the US will be in the same position to pressure Iran as it is today. Iran doesn't gain anything by freezing its nuclear program for ten years. I think that Bibi will attack Iran (if he does attack Iran) for domestic Israeli political reasons, not because he thinks a ten-year freeze is too little. He needs an Operation urgent manhood op.
QuoteI think one point Bibi made though was that ISIS and Iran are pretty much the same in their goals, but they do it differently. Iran has its hand in Lebanon with Hezbollah which is probably stronger than the government; Hamas, Syria as an ally, now Yemen, and is a huge sponsor of terrorism. This all has to have the Saudis and Gulf States pretty worried. The fact that Iran is fighting ISIS is the two ideologies at war, Sunni vs Shia, not that Iran is somehow ok for "helping" out with ISIS. They don't want Sunni competition for their plans of dominance. It's kind of a stark point to see how the removal of Saddam enabled Iran in some ways as one of their chief antagonists is gone.
Yemen was a US ally, weak as it was, had large demonstrations which overthrew the previous government and brought in a new one cooperating with the US/West against AQ. It had US bases targeting AQ and other extremists. Just last September Pres Obama was pointing that all out as a success for the US strategy so the US had some investment there. But the larger point is that Iran has taken down the government and Iranian supported "rebels" have taken over the country. Seems a page taken out of Putin's playbook.
I think you give Iran far more credit for secret ops than it possesses, and simplify several complex situations far more than is prudent. Iran is not battling with ISIS for "baddest Muslim" titles, it is battling ISIS because ISIS is encroaching on Shiite territory. And the Houthi movement isn't entirely Shi'ite, nor was the coalition that forced out the pro-US government of Ali Abdullah Saleh a Shi'ite dominated one. Both of the recent "coups" were broadly-based and only "Iranian" in that they contained Shia, in that Iran backs Shi'ite groups across the Middle East. You are over-egging your beer with your claims of Iran's "plans of dominance," though. I don't think Iran's leaders (barring the handfl of nut cases you always end up with in a dictatorship) delude themselves into believing that they can dominate the world or even the Middle East. They do believe they can be major players, though. Thus, the nuclear program. But the nuclear program is a means to an end, not an end. Bibi doesn't seem to want to acknowledge this.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 04, 2015, 05:33:51 PM
My take on Israeli politics isn't very well informed, but isn't Nethanyahu sort of like the moderate/rightish guy? The nutters go for Lieberman or similar.
I think that you are correct. I think that Bibi veers to the far right when it is politically expedient to do so, but I don't think he has a lot of the convictions of the right wing (though I think he lives and breathes Israeli exceptionalism in much the same way Churchill did British exceptionalism).
Quote from: grumbler on March 05, 2015, 04:48:15 PM
I don't think Iran's leaders (barring the handfl of nut cases you always end up with in a dictatorship) delude themselves into believing that they can dominate the world or even the Middle East. They do believe they can be major players, though. Thus, the nuclear program. But the nuclear program is a means to an end, not an end. Bibi doesn't seem to want to acknowledge this.
Way I see it is this: most of the world sees Iran's nuke program as the same as any other middle-ranking regional power's nuke program: basically, an insurance to deter aggression at the state-to-state level (though as Israel's own nuke program demonstrates, it doesn't deter modern forms of aggression, which utilize sub-state actors as proxies - Israel has nuked hardly
anyone for supporting Hamas or Hezbollah ;) ).
Some Israelis, however, have a tendency to see it as a true existential threat; there is a tendency to take remarks from Arab or Iranian leaders about destroying Israel quite literally. Bibi himself probably knows this is most unlikely, and that Iranian leaders care more about things in their own immediate neighbourhood than about destroying Israel (and thus probably themselves) - and that words about destroying Israel are simply puffery designed to play well to the Persian plebes. However, given his political situation, it is essentially impossible for him to admit this. He's a relative 'moderate' on the right, facing challenges from the hard-right; if he showed any weakness vs. Iran on the nuke issue, they would eat him alive.
Bibi Andersson >>>>>>>>>>> Jew Bibi
Quote from: Malthus on March 05, 2015, 05:11:50 PM
Some Israelis, however, have a tendency to see it as a true existential threat; there is a tendency to take remarks from Arab or Iranian leaders about destroying Israel quite literally. Bibi himself probably knows this is most unlikely, and that Iranian leaders care more about things in their own immediate neighbourhood than about destroying Israel (and thus probably themselves) - and that words about destroying Israel are simply puffery designed to play well to the Persian plebes.
The thing about the risk of getting nuked out of existence is that even an unlikely threat may be worth a significant reaction.
Quote from: grumbler on March 05, 2015, 04:48:15 PM
And in ten years the US will be in the same position to pressure Iran as it is today. Iran doesn't gain anything by freezing its nuclear program for ten years. I think that Bibi will attack Iran (if he does attack Iran) for domestic Israeli political reasons, not because he thinks a ten-year freeze is too little. He needs an Operation urgent manhood op.
Well hence a speech at 11am US time - but prime time for Israeli TV. The reason that he gave that speech at all was that polls show more Israelis are worried about housing prices than Iran.
QuoteI think that you are correct. I think that Bibi veers to the far right when it is politically expedient to do so, but I don't think he has a lot of the convictions of the right wing (though I think he lives and breathes Israeli exceptionalism in much the same way Churchill did British exceptionalism).
I think he's a tactician.
I would qualify though in that Lieberman has moderated a lot recently and is now, I'd say, more centrist (especially on the Palestinian issue) than Bibi. Bibi is competing with Naftali now - which is kind of terrifying.
QuoteHe's a relative 'moderate' on the right, facing challenges from the hard-right; if he showed any weakness vs. Iran on the nuke issue, they would eat him alive.
I think he believes it as well. I think he thinks this is his sole job as Israeli PM whereas, as is often the case, I agree with Jeffrey Goldberg and think it's probably the second most important job of an Israeli PM after keeping the Americans onside whoever's in the White House. I also think he believes he's the only man who can do the job.
But ultimately there's very little that can be done to stop a country that has the technical skills and the will and can get the material from making a bomb. The problems with Bibi's position are:
1- What were sanctions for if not to coerce and improve negotiations? They can't be an end in themselves.
2- If the US/West signs a deal that keeps Iran, say, permanently a year from obtaining nukes, then what leverage does Israel have in the White House over the implementation of this deal? It'll be the White House not Congress that does it and while Israel and the US share a huge amount of national security interests I think Israel would be better placed to shape that policy if it was working with the White House rather than publicly against them in cahoots with the President's domestic opponents.
3- Ultimately if Israel opposes negotiations and wants a permanent military 'solution' to the Iranian program then only the US can deliver that. What influence can it have in dissuading the White House from continuing with negotiations and delivering?
I still don't know if this speech matters a lot or is utterly unimportant but I think it's extraordinary that there have been Jewish members of Congress who've stayed away from a speech to Congress by the PM of Israel. That can't be a good thing for Israel.
And the problem with Bibi is he's burning through genuine friends and won't even show any willingness on issues other countries and the White House care about - like settlements. As Sir Richard Ottaway put it when abstaining on the recognition of Palestine vote 'I have to say to the government of Israel that if they are losing people like me, they will be losing a lot of people.' And they are and now Bibi's even making an enemy of the party the overwhelming majority of American Jews support :blink:
Quote from: Malthus on March 05, 2015, 05:11:50 PM
Some Israelis, however, have a tendency to see it as a true existential threat; there is a tendency to take remarks from Arab or Iranian leaders about destroying Israel quite literally. Bibi himself probably knows this is most unlikely, and that Iranian leaders care more about things in their own immediate neighbourhood than about destroying Israel (and thus probably themselves) - and that words about destroying Israel are simply puffery designed to play well to the Persian plebes. However, given his political situation, it is essentially impossible for him to admit this. He's a relative 'moderate' on the right, facing challenges from the hard-right; if he showed any weakness vs. Iran on the nuke issue, they would eat him alive.
I pretty much agree with this; Bibi has aligned himself with the Israeli equivalents of the Iranian nutcases (they are themselves nutcases like the Iranian nutcases, note; they are just the analogs of the Iranian nutbars) and so can't really speak honestly, any more than the Iranians who aren't slavering idiots can speak honestly. Honesty is suicidal once you lie down with the dogs.
I don't really have a problem with this. he is a politician doing what politicians do. I do have a problem with the US Republicans inviting him to speak to them knowing that he will be trimming his sails to please an irrational wing of his own party, and applauding every bullshit remark that comes off his lips. Not even the frothiest Hans believes that Obama wants to "pave the way for the Iranians to get the bomb," but the dumb saps on the Hill applauded the speech like it was the Second Sermon on the Mount. The only thing funnier than watching them gobble Bibi's cock is the thought of how they would be howling if the Democrats had ever done such a thing when they were in the majority.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 05, 2015, 06:17:23 PM
And the problem with Bibi is he's burning through genuine friends and won't even show any willingness on issues other countries and the White House care about - like settlements. As Sir Richard Ottaway put it when abstaining on the recognition of Palestine vote 'I have to say to the government of Israel that if they are losing people like me, they will be losing a lot of people.' And they are and now Bibi's even making an enemy of the party the overwhelming majority of American Jews support :blink:
Israel has no reason to negotiate away anything. They are winning the long game. The number of jews in the West Bank is exploding, to the point it is unlikely much of the territory will ever go to Palestine. The pressure on Israel from terrorism has dramatically subsided, and it is probably less likely than ever that Israel's neighbors will invade. The US is standing behind Israel as strongly as ever, and any European bias against Israel has been nullified by islamophobia.
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 11:44:06 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 03, 2015, 11:32:41 PM
I find it really odd for a sitting head of government to visit another country, and deliver a formal address at the host country's legislature that slams the government of the host country. Especially that the host country is his greatest benefactor.
Welcome to the weirdness obscenity of US-Israel relations.
FYP.
Why's nobody been making fun of his faggy name, huh? Bibi. LOL
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 04, 2015, 08:32:30 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 04, 2015, 08:28:51 AM
Israel thinks itself way too important. Iran has other cats to put down first whenever it gets a Nuclear deterent.
Disagree: if there's one thing that a Sunni and Shi'ite can agree upon, it's the Jew has to go first.
ISIS has disproven that, since clearly they are targetting the ennemy within first.
Quote from: Norgy on March 04, 2015, 05:11:07 PM
Nethanyahu is not someone who will bring peace or good foreign relations. No wonder the Republicans love him.
actually, he's the one that got the closest to it in decades.
QuoteThe Iranian Regime on Israel's Right to Exist
The foreign minister says his country is friendly to Jews. But his country seeks the elimination of the country in which nearly half the world's Jews live.
Jeffrey Goldberg (a Jew!)
Mar 9 2015, 8:32 AM ET
The Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, wants Jews to know that he, and the country he represents, are their friends. In an interview with Ann Curry, he accused the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, of intentionally misreading Jewish scripture in order to make the case that Iran is malevolently predisposed toward Jews: "If you read the Book of Esther, you will see that it was the Iranian king who saved the Jews," Zarif said. "If you read the Old Testament, you will see that it was an Iranian king who saved the Jews from Babylon. Esther has a town in Iran where our Jewish population, which is the largest in the Middle East, visits on a regular basis."
It is true that, at different times, and in different ways, Persia has been a friend of the Jews. Cyrus the Great (the Iranian king mentioned by Zarif in the interview) restored the Jews to their homeland in the Land of Israel after their Babylonian exile. President Harry Truman, who recognized the state of Israel in 1948, 11 minutes after it was reborn, later proclaimed proudly, "I am Cyrus."
There is dark humor (or a lack of self-awareness) in Zarif's citation of Cyrus as proof of Iranian philo-Semitism, because today's Iranian leadership does not recognize Jewish sovereignty in Israel, as Cyrus once did, but instead seeks the annihilation of the Jewish state.
I am in favor of a negotiated agreement that will keep Iran at least a year away from a nuclear weapon in part because, in the post-Holocaust era, it is crucially important to keep such weapons out of the hands of those who promise to do Jews real harm. As I've written, it is not likely that Iran would launch a preemptive nuclear attack on Israel, but it would almost certainly redouble, under the protection of a nuclear umbrella, its work toward Israel's eradication, with disastrous consequences. (We'll have the argument over whether the agreement now taking shape is the best possible deal in another post. Suffice it to say that the parameters of the current, still-unfinished deal are cause for some worry.)
Netanyahu's deployment of the Holocaust to make his case against Iran (and against the current deal) is controversial. There are many aspects of Netanyahu's approach I find disagreeable and counterproductive (most, actually), but an Israeli prime minister who does not recognize that extinction-level threats directed at Jews have sometimes been more than aspirational is not fulfilling his responsibilities.
(For a recent example of an argument about the putative dangers of casting the Holocaust in political, cautionary terms, please see this post from my colleague James Fallows, who quotes an unnamed history professor at at a university in the Southwest arguing, in essence, that the Holocaust was so terrible and enormous that we should resist the urge to learn from it: "The constant reiteration of this particular event achieves little more than dumbing down the discourse: it's the historical equivalent of hollering." The professor goes on to write, "To paraphrase Levi-Strauss, the Holocaust is not particularly good to think with. Its extremity serves as a bludgeon." This argument is unwise and unfair; just imagine the same argument in a specifically American historical context: Slavery was so terrible, and so extreme, that we shouldn't talk about it in the context of politics, because someone is bound to use it as a bludgeon. An absurd argument, of course.)
I think it is possible to strike an appropriate balance in this debate, somewhere between, "The Jews should stop talking about the Holocaust so much," which is the subtext of this professor's complaint, and "The Nazis are coming" line of argument used periodically by Netanyahu and his allies.
The Iranian regime is not populated by Nazis, but it is led by people who do, in fact, seek the physical elimination of the Jewish state and its replacement by a Muslim state. It works toward this end, by sponsoring terrorist groups that regularly kill Jews, both in Israel and elsewhere.
So, as a reminder to those who argue that Jews should stop worrying so much about people who threaten to kill them, here is some (just some) of what Iran's leaders, and leaders of its proxy militia, Hezbollah, in Lebanon, have said about Israel:
Mohammad Khatami, the former president of Iran: "If we abide by real legal laws, we should mobilize the whole Islamic world for a sharp confrontation with the Zionist regime ... if we abide by the Koran, all of us should mobilize to kill." (2000)
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: "It is the mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to erase Israel from the map of the region." (2001)
Hassan Nasrallah, a leader of Hezbollah: "If they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." (2002)
Nasrallah: "Israel is our enemy. This is an aggressive, illegal, and illegitimate entity, which has no future in our land. Its destiny is manifested in our motto: 'Death to Israel.'" (2005)
Yahya Rahim Safavi, the former commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps: "With God's help the time has come for the Zionist regime's death sentence." (2008)
Mohammad Hassan Rahimian, Khamenei's representative to the Moustazafan Foundation: "We have manufactured missiles that allow us, when necessary to replace [sic] Israel in its entirety with a big holocaust." (2010)
Mohammad Reza Naqdi, the commander of the Basij paramilitary force: "We recommend them [the Zionists] to pack their furniture and return to their countries. And if they insist on staying, they should know that a time while arrive when they will not even have time to pack their suitcases." (2011)
Khamenei: "The Zionist regime is a cancerous tumor and it will be removed." (2012)
Ahmad Alamolhoda, a member of the Assembly of Experts: "The destruction of Israel is the idea of the Islamic Revolution in Iran and is one of the pillars of the Iranian Islamic regime. We cannot claim that we have no intention of going to war with Israel." (2013)
Nasrallah: "The elimination of Israel is not only a Palestinian interest. It is the interest of the entire Muslim world and the entire Arab world." (2013)
Hojateleslam Alireza Panahian, the advisor to Office of the Supreme Leader in Universities: "The day will come when the Islamic people in the region will destroy Israel and save the world from this Zionist base." (2013)
Hojatoleslam Ali Shirazi, Khamenei's representative in the Revolutionary Guard: "The Zionist regime will soon be destroyed, and this generation will be witness to its destruction." (2013)
Khamenei: "This barbaric, wolflike & infanticidal regime of Israel which spares no crime has no cure but to be annihilated." (2014)
Hossein Salami, the deputy head of the Revolutionary Guard: "We will chase you [Israelis] house to house and will take revenge for every drop of blood of our martyrs in Palestine, and this is the beginning point of Islamic nations awakening for your defeat." (2014)
Salami: "Today we are aware of how the Zionist regime is slowly being erased from the world, and indeed, soon, there will be no such thing as the Zionist regime on Planet Earth." (2014)
Hossein Sheikholeslam, the secretary-general of the Committee for Support for the Palestinian Intifada: "The issue of Israel's destruction is important, no matter the method. We will obviously implement the strategy of the Imam Khomeini and the Leader [Khamenei] on the issue of destroying the Zionists. The region will not be quiet so long as Israel exists in it ..." (2014)
Mohammad Ali Jafari, the commander-in-chief of the Revolutionary Guard: "The Revolutionary Guards will fight to the end of the Zionist regime ... We will not rest easy until this epitome of vice is totally deleted from the region's geopolitics." (2015)
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/03/Iranian-View-of-Israel/387085/
Because Bibipalooza wasn't enough: a strong letter to follow! Let's do more stuff on our own and ignore the President!
QuoteRepublican letter to Iran intensifies dispute with White House
Washington Post
An already heated battle between the White House and Republicans over negotiations to curtail Iran's nuclear program grew more tense Monday when 47 Republican senators sent a letter to Iran designed to kill any potential deal.
The White House responded by accusing the Republicans of conspiring with Iranian hard-liners, who oppose the delicate negotiations, and suggesting that their goal was to push the United States into a military conflict.
"I think it's somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran," President Obama said a few hours after the letter was made public. "It's an unusual coalition."
Vice President Biden blasted the letter as "beneath the dignity of an institution I revere."
"In 36 years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which Senators wrote directly to advise another country — much less a longtime foreign adversary — that the President does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them," Biden said in a statement.
The letter, written by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), suggests that any deal between Obama and the Iranian leadership would amount to only an "executive agreement" that could be undone by Congress or a future president. "The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time," states the letter which was first reported by Bloomberg View.
The Republican signatories dismissed Obama's assertion that they are cozying up to Iranian hard-liners.
"I think that's a laughable charge coming from this administration," said Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), who signed the letter. He said the administration's rush to secure a deal with Iran had led it to dismiss Congress's concerns.
Administration officials insisted that the president doesn't need congressional approval to make a deal with Iran and that Congress wouldn't be able to alter the terms of a deal. "There are several inaccuracies in the letter about how things work," said State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki.
Iran's foreign minister, meanwhile, dismissed the letter as "mostly a propaganda ploy."
The Republican outreach to Tehran's leaders comes at a critical juncture in the negotiations over Iran's nuclear program. Obama has said that Iran must agree to the outline of an accord by the end of March or further talks would be pointless.
It also comes only a week after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denounced the Obama administration's nuclear negotiations in a rousing speech before a joint meeting of Congress. Netanyahu spoke at the invitation of House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who didn't consult with the White House or Democrats in Congress before issuing the invitation.
The White House derided that invitation as a breach of protocol designed to undercut the president's ability to conduct foreign policy. On Monday, White House press secretary Josh Earnest described Cotton's letter as a "continuation" of a partisan strategy designed to push the United States into a military conflict with Iran that would, at best, delay the Iranian program for only a few years.
"The rush to war or at least the rush to the military option that many Republicans are advocating is not at all in the best interest of the United States," he said.
The deal being negotiated with Iran would limit its capacity to enrich uranium to the point that, if Iranian leaders decided to kick out inspectors, it would take the country at least a year to produce enough fuel for a bomb.
Iran would also have to commit to intrusive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency over the course of the agreement. The United States initially asked Iran to agree to limitations on its nuclear program lasting 15 to 20 years, but Tehran has pressed for a shorter period.
Obama has suggested in recent days that a deal could be imminent. "I think it is fair to say that there is an urgency because we now have been negotiating for well over a year," he said in an interview with CBS News that aired Sunday.
If Iranians agree to the deal and abide by the inspections regime, the White House could start to ease economic sanctions, which have crippled Iran's economy, in the coming months and years. Lifting all American sanctions on Iran would require congressional action.
Cotton, an Iraq war veteran and national security hawk, characterized his letter as a remedial civics lesson designed to educate Iran's mullahs on the limits of presidential power. "Many Iran experts say that Iran's leaders don't understand our Constitution," Cotton said in an interview with Fox News Channel.
Cotton tweeted his letter at Iranian officials and encouraged Democrats, including presumptive presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton, to add their signatures.
"We already have four senators on the letter who were thinking about running for president," said Cotton, who later added: "I've spoken privately with other presidential candidates who might join us."
The letter drew widespread derision from Democrats, who blasted it as an amateurish attempt to torpedo the negotiations.
"This is not a time to undermine our commander in chief purely out of spite," Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said Monday afternoon in an impassioned 10-minute speech attacking the Republican intervention. "We should always have robust debate about foreign policy, but it's unprecedented for one political party to directly intervene in an international negotiation with the sole goal of embarrassing the president of the United States."
Other Democrats agreed. "This letter only serves one purpose — to destroy an ongoing negotiation to reach a diplomatic agreement in its closing days," said Sen Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said in a tweet that he was "beyond appalled" by the letter.
It's unclear what impact the letter will have on the delicate negotiations.
Some prominent Republicans, including Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, declined to sign Cotton's letter. An aide to the senator said he's focused on building support for a bipartisan bill that would require Congress to review any nuclear agreement with Iran. The president has said he would veto such a bill.
The refusal of the congressional Republicans to accept the legitimacy of this President is beyond pathological.
Wow. A new low. Congressmen have done some stupid shit in the past, but this takes the cake. Republicans really seem to want the US to fail so that they have yet more to blame the president for. I can't even imagine the outrage they would be expressing had the shoe been on the other foot and this had been a Republican president and a democratic congress.
Straight-up treason. That's new.
Apparently the Iranians responsible for the negotiations have such bad intel on the US they lack even remedial knowledge of our Constitution according to these helpful Republicans. Iranian leaders should really shake up their staffs. Were they aware we speak English? Maybe the Republicans can teach them that to.
It isn't without precedent. I remember for instance Republicans traveling to climate change conferences to try to undermine the chance of Obama making a deal and telling foreign representatives some of the same arguments here.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 10, 2015, 10:03:46 PM
It isn't without precedent. I remember for instance Republicans traveling to climate change conferences to try to undermine the chance of Obama making a deal and telling foreign representatives some of the same arguments here.
I am sure no foreigners who negotiate with the US have remedial knowledge of our Constitution. They are just trying to be helpful and no trying to undermine diplomacy at all. I am sure they will inform them what 'USA' stands for and give them a cheat sheet on all the state capitals.
So much for loyal opposition. It's kinda galling to see a party that likes to trumpet itself as the most jingoistic of the jingos betraying their country for the sake of Iran.
QuoteIran Offers to Mediate Talks Between Republicans and Obama
TEHRAN (The Borowitz Report)—Stating that "their continuing hostilities are a threat to world peace," Iran has offered to mediate talks between congressional Republicans and President Obama.
Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, made the offer one day after Iran received what he called a "worrisome letter" from Republican leaders, which suggested to him that "the relationship between Republicans and Obama has deteriorated dangerously."
"Tensions between these two historic enemies have been high in recent years, but we believe they are now at a boiling point," Khamenei said. "As a result, Iran feels it must offer itself as a peacemaker."
He said that his nation was the "logical choice" to jumpstart negotiations between Obama and the Republicans because "it has become clear that both sides currently talk more to Iran than to each other."
He invited Obama and the Republicans to meet in Tehran to hash out their differences and called on world powers to force the two bitter foes to the bargaining table, adding, "It is time to stop the madness."
Hours after Iran made its offer, President Obama said that he was willing to meet with his congressional adversaries under the auspices of Tehran, but questioned whether "any deal reached with Republicans is worth the paper it's written on."
For their part, the Republicans said they would only agree to talks if there were no preconditions, such as recognizing President Obama's existence.
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/iran-offers-to-mediate-talks-between-republicans-and-obama?utm_content=bufferb22b5&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
So far I have found New Yorker's treading into The Onion's territory to be a bit lacking, but this one is actually quite good.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 03, 2015, 08:00:00 PM
Plus moron
(a) does not get the Purim story right,
(b) is unaware that Purim story is a fantasy. Like much of the speech.
Isn't Cyrus called The Anointed in the Tanakh? Kind of amusing to point to a fantasy constructed so that Jews could celebrate Nowruz like their Persian friends, including the Messiah Cyrus, would be used as a slur against Persians by Jews 2,500 years later.
Persian period is really a kind of blind spot in Jewish history. I don't recall hearing anything about it in Hebrew School, sermons, etc.; the few Biblical books that have narrative of the period are odd and problematic even by Biblical standards; there is a void of solid historical source material. I suspect that by the time literature starts to flourish in the Hellenistic period none of the powers that be had much interest in preserving memories of that period - the Jerusalem priesthood because it seems likely Jerusalem Temple did not in fact enjoy unquestioned primacy during the period, the Hasmoneans because they were parvenus and because the few Biblical accounts seemed to privilege scribal authority.
Still it seems clear enough that in the broad sweep of Jewish history with all its misfortunes, the Achaemenids were overall pretty darn Good for the Jews (TM). For that matter the Parthians and the Sassanids weren't too shabby either.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 11, 2015, 04:43:43 PM
Still it seems clear enough that in the broad sweep of Jewish history with all its misfortunes, the Achaemenids were overall pretty darn Good for the Jews (TM). For that matter the Parthians and the Sassanids weren't too shabby either.
Maybe hitler was just trying to make is fellow indo europeans look better?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 09, 2015, 11:54:01 PM
Hossein Sheikholeslam, the secretary-general of the Committee for Support for the Palestinian Intifada: "The issue of Israel's destruction is important, no matter the method. We will obviously implement the strategy of the Imam Khomeini and the Leader [Khamenei] on the issue of destroying the Zionists. The region will not be quiet so long as Israel exists in it ..." (2014)
I don't know what's funnier---that guy's name or that there's a committee by that name.
Sheik Hole Slam of the CSPI. :P
47 Republican Senators should be impeached for borderline treason. Fucking despicable.
One of the most infuriating thing about this is that there isn't even a deal to oppose - they are basically saying that they are against ANY deal at all.
So what does that leave? The only possible way of dealing with Iran is war? They certainly aren't in favor of letting them have a bomb, right?
So if diplomacy is not an option, what is the alternative?
Quote from: Valmy on March 10, 2015, 10:06:38 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 10, 2015, 10:03:46 PM
It isn't without precedent. I remember for instance Republicans traveling to climate change conferences to try to undermine the chance of Obama making a deal and telling foreign representatives some of the same arguments here.
I am sure no foreigners who negotiate with the US have remedial knowledge of our Constitution. They are just trying to be helpful and no trying to undermine diplomacy at all. I am sure they will inform them what 'USA' stands for and give them a cheat sheet on all the state capitals.
Just because they have knowledge of it doesn't mean they believe we follow it.
From what I've read the KGB was always searching for the real puppet masters who ran the country, and Putin's statements to GWB show that he didn't really see a difference between how he did things and how Bush did.
Quote from: Berkut on March 11, 2015, 09:14:22 PM
47 Republican Senators should be impeached for borderline treason. Fucking despicable.
One of the most infuriating thing about this is that there isn't even a deal to oppose - they are basically saying that they are against ANY deal at all.
that's not true. If Netanyahu had told them to support some deal, they would obey. I don't think you can really blame the Republicans for being obstructionist when they are just following orders.
Obstructing proposed legislation, including a treaty ratification, through the usual means available to Congress -- is one thing.
Congressional freelance diplomacy - sending a demarche directly to a foreign power - is another; looks to me like a pretty big breach of separation of powers.
I can't personally recall another incident quite like this one.
Btw I don't know if you fags noticed, but the present SocDem-Green governement of Sweden managed to piss off both Israel and the Arabs and now the whole of the ME hates us. I'm sure this was all part of some incredibly awesome plan, but I have yet to fully understand the genuis of it. :hmm:
Quote from: The Brain on March 12, 2015, 01:37:12 PM
Btw I don't know if you fags noticed, but the present SocDem-Green governement of Sweden managed to piss off both Israel and the Arabs and now the whole of the ME hates us. I'm sure this was all part of some incredibly awesome plan, but I have yet to fully understand the genuis of it. :hmm:
How did they manage that? Granted that is not hard to manage. Everybody in that region is pretty touchy.
Quote from: Valmy on March 12, 2015, 01:40:25 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 12, 2015, 01:37:12 PM
Btw I don't know if you fags noticed, but the present SocDem-Green governement of Sweden managed to piss off both Israel and the Arabs and now the whole of the ME hates us. I'm sure this was all part of some incredibly awesome plan, but I have yet to fully understand the genuis of it. :hmm:
How did they manage that? Granted that is not hard to manage. Everybody in that region is pretty touchy.
First they recognized the state of Palestine and then they told the Saudis (an important business partner) that their medieval bullshit was just that. The foreign minister had been invited to the Arab League to speak but after those comments was very publicly stopped from addressing the League. Foreign minister Loserfuck (a braindead retard) failed majestically...
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 12, 2015, 01:28:16 PM
Obstructing proposed legislation, including a treaty ratification, through the usual means available to Congress -- is one thing.
Congressional freelance diplomacy - sending a demarche directly to a foreign power - is another; looks to me like a pretty big breach of separation of powers.
I can't personally recall another incident quite like this one.
I'll be dreadful if this idiocy sets a 'precedent'. :bleeding:
But who is there to smack them down? Can the White House or perhaps a political/libertarian/rights NGO take a case to the supreme court? :unsure:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 12, 2015, 01:28:16 PM
Obstructing proposed legislation, including a treaty ratification, through the usual means available to Congress -- is one thing.
Congressional freelance diplomacy - sending a demarche directly to a foreign power - is another; looks to me like a pretty big breach of separation of powers.
I can't personally recall another incident quite like this one.
The Washington Post has an op ed saying otherwise:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-letter-to-iran-is-far-from-unprecedented/2015/03/11/6e247750-c80b-11e4-a199-6cb5e63819d2_story.html
Quote from: alfred russel on March 12, 2015, 04:40:57 PM
The Washington Post has an op ed saying otherwise:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-letter-to-iran-is-far-from-unprecedented/2015/03/11/6e247750-c80b-11e4-a199-6cb5e63819d2_story.html
:lol:
I think the op ed proves the point as the examples it gives all involve a single Senator, the certifiable loon Jessie Helms, doing his certifiably loony stuff.
I also have little doubt that one could find other examples of individual senators misbehaving.
But that is nowhere near into the same neighborhood as 47 senators sending what purports to be an official diplomatic communication to a foreign government.
BTW props to the guy who wrote the WaPost op ed; it takes real courage and rare honesty to admit having once worked as an aide to Jesse Helms.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 12, 2015, 04:46:36 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 12, 2015, 04:40:57 PM
The Washington Post has an op ed saying otherwise:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-letter-to-iran-is-far-from-unprecedented/2015/03/11/6e247750-c80b-11e4-a199-6cb5e63819d2_story.html
:lol:
I think the op ed proves the point as the examples it gives all involve a single Senator, the certifiable loon Jessie Helms, doing his certifiably loony stuff.
I also have little doubt that one could find other examples of individual senators misbehaving.
But that is nowhere near into the same neighborhood as 47 senators sending what purports to be an official diplomatic communication to a foreign government.
I think he was the chair of the senate foreign relations committee. I presume his private diplomacic relations with most african nations were a bit strained.
Yeah, gotta give the guy kudos for sticking up for his boss, and offering the argument that Jesse Helms = 47 GOP assholes.
Joan: would you have the same objections if those 47 senators had submitted the same letter to the NYT, with the expectation that it would be read in Teheran?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 12, 2015, 04:52:16 PM
Yeah, gotta give the guy kudos for sticking up for his boss, and offering the argument that Jesse Helms = 47 GOP assholes.
Not to mention that objectively speaking, the argument that "it's Ok because Jesse Helms did it" is NOT all that persuasive.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 12, 2015, 04:53:21 PM
Joan: would you have the same objections if those 47 senators had submitted the same letter to the NYT, with the expectation that it would be read in Teheran?
I.e. a letter to the NYT containing the same substance but not addressed directly to the foreign regime?
As a matter of policy I would disagree. And if the real goal was to influence Tehran and not so much to persuade domestic opinion then I would say not cricket.
But it wouldn't raise the same separation of powers concerns.
How much is the Senate involved in the Iran deal anyway? Aren't Senate leaders usually quasi-part of the formulation of treaties since they have to ratify them in the end anyway? I don't know for sure how it works but it seems like the State dept. would be keeping them in the loop at least.
Also, isn't the Senate going to turn down any deal with Iran? Or are there amenable Republican senators (plus the entire Democrat bloc)?
Quote from: celedhring on March 12, 2015, 05:04:57 PM
Also, isn't the Senate going to turn down any deal with Iran? Or are there amenable Republican senators (plus the entire Democrat bloc)?
7 senators did not sign including the Chair of the Foreign Relations committee
Read into that what you will.
Did Charlie Wilson's actions create separation of powers issues?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 12, 2015, 05:08:17 PM
Quote from: celedhring on March 12, 2015, 05:04:57 PM
Also, isn't the Senate going to turn down any deal with Iran? Or are there amenable Republican senators (plus the entire Democrat bloc)?
7 senators did not sign including the Chair of the Foreign Relations committee
Read into that what you will.
McConnell did though. Can he keep it from coming to the floor?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 12, 2015, 05:27:13 PM
McConnell did though. Can he keep it from coming to the floor?
47 is more than enough for a filibuster.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 12, 2015, 05:29:24 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 12, 2015, 05:27:13 PM
McConnell did though. Can he keep it from coming to the floor?
47 is more than enough for a filibuster.
Did Charlie Wilson's actions create separation of powers issues?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 12, 2015, 05:29:24 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 12, 2015, 05:27:13 PM
McConnell did though. Can he keep it from coming to the floor?
47 is more than enough for a filibuster.
Treaties require a 2/3rds vote anyway.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 12, 2015, 05:16:04 PM
Did Charlie Wilson's actions create separation of powers issues?
Not that I know of.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 12, 2015, 06:05:41 PM
Treaties require a 2/3rds vote anyway.
True but an executive agreement - specifically referenced in the Cotton letter - requires no congressional approval at all.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 12, 2015, 06:16:16 PM
Not that I know of.
Then help me understand the objectionable part of the Iran letter, if it's not a member of Congress communicating with a foreign government on a policy matter.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 12, 2015, 06:19:34 PM
True but an executive agreement - specifically referenced in the Cotton letter - requires no congressional approval at all.
However Congress will have to approve any changes to the sanctions regime, or its repeal.
What is the law on when a treaty is required and when a memorandum of understanding will suffice?
And is it even possible to sign a treaty with a country one doesn't have relations with?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 12, 2015, 06:19:34 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 12, 2015, 06:05:41 PM
Treaties require a 2/3rds vote anyway.
True but an executive agreement - specifically referenced in the Cotton letter - requires no congressional approval at all.
Right, and while the agreement can be overturned by the next admin, I think that if the UN also signs off on it then it becomes binding for the US. Something like that from what I heard discussed on news report. That all bypasses Congress which bothers me, as something as big as such an agreement I'd want more political support behind it, if it's a good deal as the admin is trying to say.
Will the 47 Morans have to perform seppuku?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 12, 2015, 06:34:11 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 12, 2015, 06:16:16 PM
Not that I know of.
Then help me understand the objectionable part of the Iran letter, if it's not a member of Congress communicating with a foreign government on a policy matter.
?
It is a member of Congress communicating with a foreign government on a policy matter. 47 members.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 13, 2015, 09:02:02 AM
?
It is a member of Congress communicating with a foreign government on a policy matter. 47 members.
Which is the same thing Charlie Wilson did, but in that case it was not objectionable. Or am I missing something?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2015, 09:04:23 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 13, 2015, 09:02:02 AM
?
It is a member of Congress communicating with a foreign government on a policy matter. 47 members.
Which is the same thing Charlie Wilson did, but in that case it was not objectionable. Or am I missing something?
Charlie Wilson wrote to the leader of Afghanistan telling him to not make a deal with the United States because he was actively trying to undermine it? Man they left that part out of the movie.
Quote from: Valmy on March 13, 2015, 09:17:16 AM
Charlie Wilson wrote to the leader of Afghanistan telling him to not make a deal with the United States because he was actively trying to undermine it? Man they left that part out of the movie.
We had a deal: you promised you would stop being a spaz once you passed your finals. :contract:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2015, 09:19:59 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 13, 2015, 09:17:16 AM
Charlie Wilson wrote to the leader of Afghanistan telling him to not make a deal with the United States because he was actively trying to undermine it? Man they left that part out of the movie.
We had a deal: you promised you would stop being a spaz once you passed your finals. :contract:
How was that spazy? I honestly do not see the comparison. Senators have been traveling around and visiting other countries and having a say in foreign policy for years. That is their job. But direct intervention like this into a negotiation seems a bit outside. It is not exactly a group of Senators showing up at Yalta saying 'make no deal with this man Roosevelt!' but it is pretty obnoxious.
Quote from: Valmy on March 13, 2015, 09:30:05 AM
How was that spazy? I honestly do not see the comparison. Senators have been traveling around and visiting other countries and having a say in foreign policy for years. That is their job. But direct intervention like this into a negotiation seems a bit outside. It is not exactly a group of Senators showing up at Yalta saying 'make no deal with this man Roosevelt!' but it is pretty obnoxious.
It's spazzy because I have been asking exactly what it is that makes the letter objectionable, so instead of getting all snarky you could have just answered the question.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2015, 09:39:57 AM
It's spazzy because I have been asking exactly what it is that makes the letter objectionable, so instead of getting all snarky you could have just answered the question.
I did answer the question. Directly. Ok so I used a little snark, my apologies.
Quote from: Valmy on March 13, 2015, 09:47:40 AM
I did answer the question. Directly.
In a spazzy way.
I look around and I see a lot of new faeces. That means some of you have followed the first two rules of Languish.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2015, 09:04:23 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 13, 2015, 09:02:02 AM
?
It is a member of Congress communicating with a foreign government on a policy matter. 47 members.
Which is the same thing Charlie Wilson did, but in that case it was not objectionable. Or am I missing something?
Did Charlie Wilson do it in an effort to undermine the President?
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2015, 10:05:40 AM
Did Charlie Wilson do it in an effort to undermine the President?
Not that I'm aware of. In fact based on the movie at least the president at the time was indifferent.
Congress does however "undermine the President" all the time. Treaties are not ratified, nominees are not confirmed, budgets not approved, etc., etc. Disagreements are raised in the press.
I must admit that i am not following the Charlie Wilson analogy here. How is Wilson's action in any way comparable to the letter by the 47 Senators?
I'm with grumbler here. What did Charlie Wilson do that's comparable to this? I'm asking this question honestly; I was under the impression that, ultimately, the only thing Wilson did was getting more funds for the CIA. That seems well within the purview of Congress. Ultimately it was the CIA who armed the rebels, Wilson was just sympathetic to the cause.
Quote from: celedhring on March 13, 2015, 10:16:57 AM
I'm with grumbler here. What did Charlie Wilson do that's comparable to this? I'm asking this question honestly; I was under the impression that, ultimately, the only thing Wilson did was getting more funds for the CIA. That seems well within the purview of Congress. Ultimately it was the CIA who armed the rebels, Wilson was just sympathetic to the cause.
Communication with a foreign government on a matter of policy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2015, 10:12:15 AM
Congress does however "undermine the President" all the time. Treaties are not ratified, nominees are not confirmed, budgets not approved, etc., etc. Disagreements are raised in the press.
True but this is different. The negotiation of treaties is supposed to be the purview of the President. If Congress has issues they need to be talking to our side, not theirs.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2015, 10:17:57 AM
Communication with a foreign government on a matter of policy.
And working with the executive branch while doing it, concerning matters within his prerogative. In this case, funding for an already existing program.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2015, 10:17:57 AM
Communication with a foreign government on a matter of policy.
That's not something unique to CW or the senators. Communication with foreign governments on matters of policy is a constant.
Quote from: Valmy on March 13, 2015, 10:18:10 AM
True but this is different. The negotiation of treaties is supposed to be the purview of the President. If Congress has issues they need to be talking to our side, not theirs.
This is the distinction I'm wrestling with. On the one hand members of Congress are allowed to announce to the American public (and by extension, the world) their opposition to a certain deal, and their intention to block any required legislation, or to overturn it if their party wins the White House, but by putting "Dear Mr. Raghead" at the top of a letter the exact same communication becomes a constitutional issue.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2015, 10:17:57 AM
Quote from: celedhring on March 13, 2015, 10:16:57 AM
I'm with grumbler here. What did Charlie Wilson do that's comparable to this? I'm asking this question honestly; I was under the impression that, ultimately, the only thing Wilson did was getting more funds for the CIA. That seems well within the purview of Congress. Ultimately it was the CIA who armed the rebels, Wilson was just sympathetic to the cause.
Communication with a foreign government on a matter of policy.
Communication with a foreign government on a matter of policy with the intent of sabotaging the executive branch's efforts, you mean?
Amazing the lengths the radicals in each party will go to justify anything their tribe does.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2015, 10:29:59 AM
This is the distinction I'm wrestling with. On the one hand members of Congress are allowed to announce to the American public (and by extension, the world) their opposition to a certain deal, and their intention to block any required legislation, or to overturn it if their party wins the White House, but by putting "Dear Mr. Raghead" at the top of a letter the exact same communication becomes a constitutional issue.
I don't understand the confusion. If you tell your brother "I am going to kill you!" he will laugh. Tell a cop that, and you'll likely get shot. The audience and intent of the communication matter.
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2015, 10:33:46 AM
Amazing the lengths the radicals in each party will go to justify anything their tribe does.
Is Yi a radical?
Quote from: derspiess on March 13, 2015, 11:55:57 AM
Is Yi a radical?
I am sure Siege would consider him an establishment sellout and enemy of the people.
Quote from: derspiess on March 13, 2015, 11:55:57 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2015, 10:33:46 AM
Amazing the lengths the radicals in each party will go to justify anything their tribe does.
Is Yi a radical?
From the standpoint of knee-jerk defending his tribe, very much so.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2015, 09:04:23 AM
Which is the same thing Charlie Wilson did, but in that case it was not objectionable. Or am I missing something?
What exactly did Charlie Wilson do? All I know about him is that he was pro aid to the Afghan rebels; Massoud maybe?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 13, 2015, 01:31:51 PM
What exactly did Charlie Wilson do? All I know about him is that he was pro aid to the Afghan rebels; Massoud maybe?
Met with Zia ul-Haq, discussed more aid for Afghans and how it should be channeled.
Also met with Egyptian defense officials to arrange arms transfers.
Do you not watch movies?
Yeah but again he was working with the executive branch to do that.
Yi is gonna make this square peg fit this round hole if it takes all day.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2015, 01:35:25 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 13, 2015, 01:31:51 PM
What exactly did Charlie Wilson do? All I know about him is that he was pro aid to the Afghan rebels; Massoud maybe?
Met with Zia ul-Haq, discussed more aid for Afghans and how it should be channeled.
Also met with Egyptian defense officials to arrange arms transfers.
How did that undermine the administration?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2015, 09:49:25 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 13, 2015, 09:47:40 AM
I did answer the question. Directly.
In a spazzy way.
Excuse me, but the correct term is "Razy", not "spazzy".
Quote from: Jacob on March 13, 2015, 01:53:34 PM
How did that undermine the administration?
I don't think it does.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2015, 01:35:25 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 13, 2015, 01:31:51 PM
What exactly did Charlie Wilson do? All I know about him is that he was pro aid to the Afghan rebels; Massoud maybe?
Met with Zia ul-Haq, discussed more aid for Afghans and how it should be channeled.
Also met with Egyptian defense officials to arrange arms transfers.
Do you not watch movies?
Saw it a while ago, didn't recall the exact details, wouldn't necessarily trust Hollywood to get it accurate anyway.
The kinds of things you are talking about seem more like overseas "fact-finding" missions where the discussion centers around implementation of existing policy. There is precedent for that sort of thing although if the administration was not kept in the loop it would seem a bit dicey to me.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2015, 01:59:20 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 13, 2015, 01:53:34 PM
How did that undermine the administration?
I don't think it does.
So that's the difference.
Talking to foreign governments with the buy-in of the administration, in pursuit of the administration's foreign policy goals is very different than talking to foreign governments without the buy-in of the administration, and with the explicit intention of undermining the foreign policy goals of the administration.
Quote from: Jacob on March 13, 2015, 02:49:05 PM
So that's the difference.
Talking to foreign governments with the buy-in of the administration, in pursuit of the administration's foreign policy goals is very different than talking to foreign governments without the buy-in of the administration, and with the explicit intention of undermining the foreign policy goals of the administration.
Unless the second is done indirectly.
Apparently.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2015, 02:53:22 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 13, 2015, 02:49:05 PM
So that's the difference.
Talking to foreign governments with the buy-in of the administration, in pursuit of the administration's foreign policy goals is very different than talking to foreign governments without the buy-in of the administration, and with the explicit intention of undermining the foreign policy goals of the administration.
Unless the second is done indirectly.
Apparently.
That doesn't seem that difficult a distinction to make.
So Yi, you are seriously suggesting that it is "fair pool" for members of the Senate to directly communicate with foreign belligerent powers with the express intent of sabotaging ongoing negotiations undertaken by the executive?
Quote from: Jacob on March 13, 2015, 03:08:48 PM
That doesn't seem that difficult a distinction to make.
It's a trivially easy distinction to make.
My point is that it seems like a fairly minor and technical point to hang a constitutional argument on.
Ted Cruz drops Munich on the Euros, and John Hero hits 'em with Neville Chamberlain for a 1-2 Nazi combo!
QuoteEuropean allies join in criticism of Republican letter to Iran
By Karen DeYoung
March 13 at 1:04 PM
Washington Post
National Security
European allies are joining the Obama administration in criticizing Republican congressional interjection into nuclear negotiations with Iran, saying that an open letter from Republican senators to Iranian leaders has been counterproductive and comes at a particularly sensitive time in the talks.
"Suddenly, Iran can say to us: 'Are your proposals actually trustworthy if 47 senators say that no matter what the government agrees to, we can subsequently take it off the table?' " German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said during a visit to Washington.
"This is no small matter we're talking about," Steinmeier warned in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "This is not just an issue of American domestic politics."
Germany, France and Britain, along with Russia and China, are U.S. negotiating partners in the Iran talks.
Meanwhile, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, took aim at Washington, saying that political divisions in the United States made Iranian negotiators question the Obama administration's ability to follow through with any agreement.
"Of course I am worried, because the other side is known for opacity, deceit and backstabbing," Khamenei said Thursday, according to Iran's Mehr News Agency.
European allies are alarmed by U.S. political tensions on a host of foreign policy issues.
President Obama has so far resisted demands from a bipartisan congressional majority to send lethal military equipment to Ukraine. Germany and France, which helped negotiate a sputtering cease-fire between the Ukrainian government and Russian-backed separatists, have said Western arms shipments would only escalate the conflict and undermine a possible solution.
Republicans, in turn, have struck back at European criticism. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said that what he considered U.S. and European capitulation to Iran was reminiscent of Western appeasement of Adolf Hitler.
"I believe we are at a moment like Munich in 1938," Cruz said on the Hugh Hewitt radio show on Thursday.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) extended the World War II metaphor to Ukraine in a direct attack on Steinmeier. "The foreign minister of Germany is the same guy that refuses, in his government, to enact any restrictions on the behavior of [Russian President] Vladimir Putin, who is slaughtering Ukrainians as we speak. He has no credibility."
Steinmeier, McCain said, "is in the Neville Chamberlain school of diplomacy," a reference to the British prewar prime minister who signed the 1938 Munich agreement conceding the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia to Hitler's Germany.
Secretary of State John F. Kerry told lawmakers Wednesday that the letter to Iran by 47 Republican senators "risks undermining the confidence that foreign governments in thousands of important agreements commit to. It purports to tell the world that if you want to have any confidence in your dealings with America, they have to negotiate with 535 members of Congress."
The letter warned Iran that any nuclear agreement signed by Obama could be revoked "by the stroke of a pen" by any future president, and that Congress could modify its terms "at any time."
Some of the letter's backers have sought political cover as they were flooded with broad-based rebukes.
On Friday, one signer, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) told Bloomberg journalists that he now questions the decision to address the letter to Iran's leaders.
"I suppose the only regret is who it's addressed to," Johnson said. "But the content of the letter . . . none whatsoever."
Obama further added to the White House backlash in comments reported Friday: "I am embarrassed" for the letter signers, he was quoted as saying.
"For them to address a letter to the ayatollah who, they claim, is our mortal enemy and their basic argument to them is: Don't deal with our president because you can't trust him to follow through on an agreement," Obama said in an interview with Vice media that is expected to be released Monday, according to the AFP news agency.
Earlier this week, Vice President Biden called the letter "a highly misleading signal to friend and foe alike that our commander-in-chief cannot deliver on America's commitments — a message that is as false as it is dangerous."
Kerry and the other negotiators will meet with Iranian officials next week in Lausanne, Switzerland, for another round of talks.
The administration has said a framework for a deal must be agreed to by the end of this month if technical details are to be completed before the negotiating deadline at the end of June. Negotiators have said that deadline will not be extended.
U.S. and European officials have cited recent progress in the negotiations, while cautioning that a deal may not be possible. Outstanding issues are said to include the future status of Iran's underground nuclear-enrichment facility at Fordow, near the city of Qom, and aspects of Iran's nuclear research and development program.
Obama has said the goal is to block Iran's path to a nuclear weapon in a lasting and verifiable way. Opponents have insisted that Iran's nuclear capability — which Tehran says is designed only for legitimate, peaceful energy purposes — must be destroyed.
Even before Steinmeier's visit on Thursday, Germany, Britain and France had repeatedly expressed concern about congressional interference in the talks. Ambassadors from the three Western European countries have been a frequent presence on Capitol Hill, trying to persuade lawmakers to hold off on new Iran sanctions or any other legislation related to the negotiations while they are underway.
Following publication of the letter Sunday night, French Ambassador Gerard Araud, a diplomat of long experience in this country and a prolific user of social media, posted a Twitter link to the letter and his own comment that "for a foreigner, Washington can be full of surprise."
In London on Tuesday, British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond told a parliamentary committee that new legislation on Iran "could become a spanner in the works" and "have an unpredictable effect on leadership opinion and public opinion in Tehran."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2015, 03:11:25 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 13, 2015, 03:08:48 PM
That doesn't seem that difficult a distinction to make.
It's a trivially easy distinction to make.
My point is that it seems like a fairly minor and technical point to hang a constitutional argument on.
It seems neither technical nor minor to me. Either a line was crossed or it wasn't.
No matter where the line is, I'm sure it's possible to find ways to dance right up next to it and get away with it; but crossing the line is still crossing the line.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 13, 2015, 02:23:23 PM
Saw it a while ago, didn't recall the exact details, wouldn't necessarily trust Hollywood to get it accurate anyway.
The kinds of things you are talking about seem more like overseas "fact-finding" missions where the discussion centers around implementation of existing policy. There is precedent for that sort of thing although if the administration was not kept in the loop it would seem a bit dicey to me.
The book was more credible, I think. The movie was, as is the case in all fictionalizations f real events, not accurate in terms of persons or timelines.
Wilson was acting as a member of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, which had oversight over the money being spent. I'm not sure the 47 Senators belonged to the Senate equivalent (in fact, I don't think that there is a Senate subcommittee with oversight over treaty negotiations). So, no, there is no meaningful comparison between what Wilson was doing and what the Senators were doing.
QuoteMeanwhile, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, took aim at Washington, saying that political divisions in the United States made Iranian negotiators question the Obama administration's ability to follow through with any agreement.
Well I guess they got what they wanted. Diplomatic mission accomplished!
Quote from: Jacob on March 13, 2015, 03:36:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2015, 03:11:25 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 13, 2015, 03:08:48 PM
That doesn't seem that difficult a distinction to make.
It's a trivially easy distinction to make.
My point is that it seems like a fairly minor and technical point to hang a constitutional argument on.
It seems neither technical nor minor to me. Either a line was crossed or it wasn't.
No matter where the line is, I'm sure it's possible to find ways to dance right up next to it and get away with it; but crossing the line is still crossing the line.
The line is whether the legislators are acting in their role as overseers of the budgets they pass, or are acting as politicians seeking partisan gain. It is, as you note, not a trivial issue. If the Republicans are going to abandon the 225-year-old American political tradition of not giving aid and comfort to enemies of the US for partisan gain, that's neither fairly minor nor merely technical.
The effect of this is actually greatly more despicable than the intent behind it.
Assuming the intent was just to make the President look bad, if they succeed, the result will be a vastly greater chance for war.
Their letter to Iran is basically saying "Hey, we don't want a deal, we really want to fucking bomb you, so please don't make a deal!"
I want to believe that they are just fucking clueless, and don't realize that what they are doing is an attempt to force us into a war that will result in a lot of people dieing. I really do want to believe that...
Quote from: Jacob on March 13, 2015, 03:36:58 PM
It seems neither technical nor minor to me. Either a line was crossed or it wasn't.
That's a little circular. I'm saying this particular line is rather technical and arbitrary.
Meanwhile despite months of polls saying Israelis are mainly interested in social and domestic affairs according to the last pre-election polls Likud's strategy of only talking about security hasn't worked.
Zionist Union in the lead. In some polls Likud down to 20 seats. Lots of talk of a possible grand coalition but it looks increasingly unlikely that Bibi will be PM :o
Caveat: Israeli election polls are notoriously inaccurate and Israeli elections unpredictable :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 13, 2015, 04:04:26 PM
Caveat: Israeli election polls are notoriously inaccurate and Israeli elections unpredictable :lol:
:unsure:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2015, 03:58:07 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 13, 2015, 03:36:58 PM
It seems neither technical nor minor to me. Either a line was crossed or it wasn't.
That's a little circular. I'm saying this particular line is rather technical and arbitrary.
Yeah I got that; but so far you have not advanced a credible argument for why it's technical and arbitrary.
I have advanced one that in my mind is credible.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 13, 2015, 04:04:26 PM
Zionist Union in the lead.
Wow really? Awesome. Here is hoping they pull it out.
Quote from: Valmy on March 13, 2015, 07:17:00 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 13, 2015, 04:04:26 PM
Zionist Union in the lead.
Wow really? Awesome. Here is hoping they pull it out.
And just days after I'd said how much Lieberman had moderated he said disloyal Israeli Arabs should be beheaded :bleeding:
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 13, 2015, 07:18:57 PM
And just days after I'd said how much Lieberman had moderated he said disloyal Israeli Arabs should be beheaded :bleeding:
The Israelis are going native on us. They are so much like the other Middle Easterners now. That is why I have a hard time considering them trusted allies. At least that is my interpretation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2015, 07:12:31 PM
I have advanced one that in my mind is credible.
It doesn't seem to have convinced anyone else.
You know, this is kind of like the North Korean nuclear deal that Clinton set up. Congress wisely refused to fund it and waited till a tough guy conservative could deal with North Korea and prevent them from ever getting nukes.
Quote from: Jacob on March 13, 2015, 10:57:38 PM
It doesn't seem to have convinced anyone else.
Do you find that conclusive?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 14, 2015, 01:07:11 AM
Quote from: Jacob on March 13, 2015, 10:57:38 PM
It doesn't seem to have convinced anyone else.
Do you find that conclusive?
I do not find your argument conclusive, no.
Doesn't look good for Bibi. After his last minute pitch ('there will be no Palestinian state' disowning his professed policy since 2009), he's now warning that the Israeli right is in extreme danger. Arabs are voting in 'droves' and they're being bused in by the left.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 17, 2015, 07:04:19 AM
Doesn't look good for Bibi. After his last minute pitch ('there will be no Palestinian state' disowning his professed policy since 2009), he's now warning that the Israeli right is in extreme danger. Arabs are voting in 'droves' and they're being bused in by the left.
God I hate Bibi. Please Arab smuggling baby Yeshua not-Christ let the Israeli right lose just one more time before the religious nutcases rule Israel forever.
Good piece on the various computations:
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2015/03/16-israeli-elections-decision-time-kahlon-kingmaker
A non-profit Dem group is being investigated by a bi-partisan group in Congress. Apparently they were given tax money by the State dept and and they another group have been in Israel doing work for Bibi's opponent. (Is it normal for a US political group to be working for political parties in another country?) I think the main questions here are if tax dollars are being used and also the non-profit status possibly being violated.
Quote from: KRonn on March 17, 2015, 09:49:32 AM
(Is it normal for a US political group to be working for political parties in another country?)
Of course not but this is US-Israel relations.
I'm not sure about those allegations K, but Bibi has been bitching about Us donors. Which does leave you wondering: Sheldon Adelson? :blink:
Bibi definitely looks panicked. He's just been barred from giving a press conference as PM while the polls are still open.
So it sounds like Bibi fumbled the ball in his own territory with a minute left in the 4th quarter.
Looks like both parties have people who've gotten involved in the Israeli elections.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/02/12/israel-election-us-consultants-donors/23237871/
Israeli elections are unpredictable. And he may lose the election but still win the coalition negotiations.
But he is following the usual pattern for the downfall of a Middle Eastern leader. Right now he's blaming foreign governments and provocateurs....
First exit polls out. Looks like it's 50-50. Far easier for Bibi to form a coalition. Perhaps more difficult to walk back the last couple of days.
Apparently NOC for either likely coalition according to exit polls, so President wanting negotiations of national unity government. Maybe rotating premiership?
Well that's a bummer. Ah well I know never to expect good news from that part of the world.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 17, 2015, 11:51:28 AM
I'm not sure about those allegations K, but Bibi has been bitching about Us donors. Which does leave you wondering: Sheldon Adelson? :blink:
The man is Prime Minister of Israel. You expect chutzpah at epic levels and bibi delivers.
Did Chuck Norris' endorsement of Netanyahu help turn things around?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MpY5HIlipY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MpY5HIlipY)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Festaticos.elperiodico.com%2Fresources%2Fjpg%2F1%2F6%2F1426585903761.jpg&hash=4c671018029f85054c7a34eda4c37ec5c3e7e18d)
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2015, 03:19:22 PM
Well that's a bummer. Ah well I know never to expect good news from that part of the world.
To be honest it's a pretty decent in my opinion.
Yachad didn't get in. Labor is back. Meretz beat Lieberman (who almost fell out of the Knesset. To top it all, though Bibi won (which sort of remains to be seen) it looks like he mostly did it by taking votes off Bennett.
Quote from: Valmy on March 13, 2015, 07:26:57 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 13, 2015, 07:18:57 PM
And just days after I'd said how much Lieberman had moderated he said disloyal Israeli Arabs should be beheaded :bleeding:
The Israelis are going native on us. They are so much like the other Middle Easterners now. That is why I have a hard time considering them trusted allies. At least that is my interpretation.
No way. Look at what the middle east is. Syria is completely psycho, Saudi Arabia doesn't let women drive, I'm not sure what Lebanon is. Jordan and some of the gulf states may be okayish, but then you have Yemn and Oman. And of course Iraq.
The country is much more like us than them.
If the US faced the same level of continuous attacks and the same security issues as Israel, I suspect we wouldn't be as much like us either.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2015, 05:20:34 PM
If the US faced the same level of continuous attacks and the same security issues as Israel, I suspect we wouldn't be as much like us either.
If our response to the attacks we have had is any indicator, we would be a fucking police state that would make 1944 Germany look idyllic.
Looks like he won. My conservative friends on Facebook are celebrating.
Honestly, the only rational move for Iran is to get atomic weapons, with both the US and Israel looking politically unstable and constantly threatening to attack. Iran finds itself in a similar position to China prior to the war with Japan.
It's a good thing that Obama is in his second term. If the Republicans had much more time to stew, we might just see the Republicans pulling some 1930s Japanese bullshit, with the assassinations of non-hardliners and cabals working to undermine the government's foreign policy.
Quote from: Neil on March 17, 2015, 08:32:02 PM
Honestly, the only rational move for Iran is to get atomic weapons, with both the US and Israel looking politically unstable and constantly threatening to attack. Iran finds itself in a similar position to China prior to the war with Japan.
Yeah. I'm not a fan of the Iranian government, nor do I think the world is going to be better off if Iran has the bomb. But were I in charge of looking after Iran's national interest (and unable to change the country by fiat) then becoming a nuclear state seems like a pretty rational step.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2015, 05:20:34 PM
If the US faced the same level of continuous attacks and the same security issues as Israel, I suspect we wouldn't be as much like us either.
That is how you are welcomed into the Middle Eastern family of nations.
Anyway Bibi promises more settlements, annexations, and no Palestinian State and pulls it out. Well isn't that just awesome?
Wow, I'm surprised that Bibi won so big, which is a big rebuttal to the polls which showed it very close or with his opponent in the lead, including the exit polls from what I was seeing on the news last night.
The US constantly threatening to attack Iran? What in the world are you talking about Neil?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2015, 07:43:15 AM
The US constantly threatening to attack Iran? What in the world are you talking about Neil?
The Axis of Evil, various statements made by prominent US politicians, 47 Republicans just sent Iran a letter encouraging Iran telling them that they would do their best to start a war.
I think that these election results are a pretty clear refutation of the idea that Israel and the US share a lot of interests in the Middle East. Israel is, and will remain for the foreseeable future, a democratic and liberal state, but its expansionist ambitions are inconsistent with the US ambition to see peace in the region.
Overall, this is probably a good result. I think there was a lot of delusion on the part of many outsiders that there was a majority pro-peace faction in Israel. This election clears the air.
Quote from: Neil on March 18, 2015, 08:07:57 AM
The Axis of Evil, various statements made by prominent US politicians, 47 Republicans just sent Iran a letter encouraging Iran telling them that they would do their best to start a war.
Trolling is all fun and games until it sucks a poor innocent like Jacob in.
Quote from: grumbler on March 18, 2015, 08:33:40 AM
Overall, this is probably a good result. I think there was a lot of delusion on the part of many outsiders that there was a majority pro-peace faction in Israel. This election clears the air.
The peace parties on both sides are pretty much dead for awhile now but they have to pretend to keep us happy.
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2015, 09:39:37 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2015, 05:20:34 PM
If the US faced the same level of continuous attacks and the same security issues as Israel, I suspect we wouldn't be as much like us either.
That is how you are welcomed into the Middle Eastern family of nations.
Anyway Bibi promises more settlements, annexations, and no Palestinian State and pulls it out. Well isn't that just awesome?
There are now something like 400,000 settlers in the west bank. In east jerusalem, the muslim population is divided on whether it wants to be a part of a palestinian state.
To a certain extent what Bibi promises is just reality. The point where you could peacefully remove the settlers is well in the past. There already is a de facto Palestinian state with significant international recognition, but Israel can't recognize it with all those settlers in the west bank, and it doesn't seem likely to cede a bunch of territory. So here we are.
Here we are indeed.
Well there you are.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2015, 08:34:25 AM
Quote from: Neil on March 18, 2015, 08:07:57 AM
The Axis of Evil, various statements made by prominent US politicians, 47 Republicans just sent Iran a letter encouraging Iran telling them that they would do their best to start a war.
Trolling is all fun and games until it sucks a poor innocent like Jacob in.
Danes aren't innocent. Just evil.
Quote from: garbon on March 18, 2015, 08:59:33 AM
Europe. :cool:
Try not to become an anti-semite, plz.
Quote from: derspiess on March 18, 2015, 09:50:17 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 18, 2015, 08:59:33 AM
Europe. :cool:
Try not to become an anti-semite, plz.
Seems unlikely.
edit: Total tangent but when I was watching the film with Nazi soldiers, I caught a German word or two because I knew the meaning of the derived Yiddish word. :D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2015, 08:34:25 AM
Quote from: Neil on March 18, 2015, 08:07:57 AM
The Axis of Evil, various statements made by prominent US politicians, 47 Republicans just sent Iran a letter encouraging Iran telling them that they would do their best to start a war.
Trolling is all fun and games until it sucks a poor innocent like Jacob in.
Oh the irony.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2015, 08:34:25 AM
Quote from: Neil on March 18, 2015, 08:07:57 AM
The Axis of Evil, various statements made by prominent US politicians, 47 Republicans just sent Iran a letter encouraging Iran telling them that they would do their best to start a war.
Trolling is all fun and games until it sucks a poor innocent like Jacob in.
When Mitt Romney is banging the war drums during his presidential campaign, I don't think it's unreasonable for the Iranians to feel that the US might attack them. And now you have a significant portion of the US Senate repudiating diplomacy, and it's not really that unreasonable for the Iranians to seek a deterrent.
That you see any attempt to look at things from the Iranian point of view as 'trolling' says more about you than it does me.
Iran isn't the enemy. We need to stop thinking that.
Quote from: Neil on March 18, 2015, 02:31:57 PM
When Mitt Romney is banging the war drums during his presidential campaign, I don't think it's unreasonable for the Iranians to feel that the US might attack them. And now you have a significant portion of the US Senate repudiating diplomacy, and it's not really that unreasonable for the Iranians to seek a deterrent.
That you see any attempt to look at things from the Iranian point of view as 'trolling' says more about you than it does me.
I don't think it's completely unreasonable either. But suggesting that an attack on nuclear facilities to prevent Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons is a good rationale for pursuing nuclear weapons is at best retarded.
Quote from: Caliga on March 18, 2015, 02:33:13 PM
Iran isn't the enemy. We need to stop thinking that.
But then again, neither is Israel. They are both foreign countries with competing foreign policy objectives, neither of which are especially beneficial to the West.
Israel is our only true friend in the Middle East and as such we need to stand by them at all costs. We can't trust any other country in that (strategically critical) region.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2015, 02:35:27 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 18, 2015, 02:31:57 PM
When Mitt Romney is banging the war drums during his presidential campaign, I don't think it's unreasonable for the Iranians to feel that the US might attack them. And now you have a significant portion of the US Senate repudiating diplomacy, and it's not really that unreasonable for the Iranians to seek a deterrent.
That you see any attempt to look at things from the Iranian point of view as 'trolling' says more about you than it does me.
I don't think it's completely unreasonable either. But suggesting that an attack on nuclear facilities to prevent Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons is a good rationale for pursuing nuclear weapons is at best retarded.
Iran was a part of the Axis of Evil, along with Iraq and North Korea. Iraq didn't get nuclear weapons, was invaded by the US and their allies and then ceased to exist as a meaningful polity. North Korea got the bomb, and remains independent to this day. If you're the leader of a country in that kind of position, it's not completely beyond reason to think that rushing a bomb is a rational move.
Quote from: Neil on March 18, 2015, 02:44:29 PM
Iran was a part of the Axis of Evil, along with Iraq and North Korea. Iraq didn't get nuclear weapons, was invaded by the US and their allies and then ceased to exist as a meaningful polity. North Korea got the bomb, and remains independent to this day. If you're the leader of a country in that kind of position, it's not completely beyond reason to think that rushing a bomb is a rational move.
When did Iran begin its nuclear program, the day after the Axis of Evil speech?
Quote from: Caliga on March 18, 2015, 02:38:47 PM
Israel is our only true friend in the Middle East and as such we need to stand by them at all costs. We can't trust any other country in that (strategically critical) region.
Sometimes friends want different things. The US wants peace in the Middle East, whereas Israel wants to expand.
Quote from: Neil on March 18, 2015, 02:48:28 PM
Sometimes friends want different things. The US wants peace in the Middle East, whereas Israel wants to expand.
Those goals are not necessarily mutually exclusive. :sleep:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2015, 02:47:20 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 18, 2015, 02:44:29 PM
Iran was a part of the Axis of Evil, along with Iraq and North Korea. Iraq didn't get nuclear weapons, was invaded by the US and their allies and then ceased to exist as a meaningful polity. North Korea got the bomb, and remains independent to this day. If you're the leader of a country in that kind of position, it's not completely beyond reason to think that rushing a bomb is a rational move.
When did Iran begin its nuclear program, the day after the Axis of Evil speech?
The late 1950s.
Quote from: Caliga on March 18, 2015, 02:50:37 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 18, 2015, 02:48:28 PM
Sometimes friends want different things. The US wants peace in the Middle East, whereas Israel wants to expand.
Those goals are not necessarily mutually exclusive. :sleep:
Of course they are. How can Israel expand without violence?
After that, there will be peace. :)
Quote from: Caliga on March 18, 2015, 02:53:21 PM
After that, there will be peace. :)
There will always be another group of refugees displaced by Israeli expansion that will continue to drive the cycle of terrorism.
Quote from: Caliga on March 18, 2015, 02:53:21 PM
After that, there will be peace. :)
At least they won't have to make a desert and call it peace. The desert is already there.
Quote from: Neil on March 18, 2015, 02:55:51 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 18, 2015, 02:53:21 PM
After that, there will be peace. :)
There will always be another group of refugees displaced by Israeli expansion that will continue to drive the cycle of terrorism.
:hmm:
"Death solves all problems. No man, no problem."
?
The Israelis have a lot of balls but they lack the stomach for genocide.
Maybe they can trick the Iranians into doing their dirty work? :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on March 18, 2015, 02:38:47 PM
Israel is our only true friend in the Middle East and as such we need to stand by them at all costs. We can't trust any other country in that (strategically critical) region.
The problem here is you're assuming they're a true friend. Even after snubbing Obama in an ill-advised visit to Congress, prompting an ill-advised attempt by the Republicans to interfere in the negotiations with Iran, even
then, Netanyahu still had the balls to accuse the US of pumping money into efforts to get him out of office.
We have
no true friends in that region, and I'm starting to think we'd do better to acknowledge that fact and switch to a Soviet-era policy of containment: let them all whack each other until they're too tired to be obstinate, and
then step in and help them rebuild.
I guess I chose my words poorly here. I probably should have said "true ally" (friends and allies most definitely not being the same thing).
I view Israel as a secure foothold in the Middle East and the only one we reliably have and have had since pretty much the end of WWII. We used to have that with Iran too, but alas the Iranians went nutty and overthrew the Shah.
In my view if we were ever to let that foothold slip away there would be the real danger of the entire region falling under the sway of crazies like ISIS. We can't allow that to happen.
Nothing nutty about overthrowing the Shah. Now what they replaced it with? That's something else.
Quote from: Valmy on March 18, 2015, 03:20:35 PM
Nothing nutty about overthrowing the Shah. Now what they replaced it with? That's something else.
He was our bastard. :(
QuoteFollowing the death of Ayotollah Khomeini, the leadership of President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Supreme Leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei sought to revive Iran's overt nuclear civilian program and expand undeclared nuclear activities during the 1990s. According to a strategic dossier from International Institute for Strategic Studies, Iran turned away from Western suppliers and obtained nuclear assistance from Russian and China in a number of key areas, including uranium mining, milling and conversation, as well as technology for heavy-water research reactors.[51] However, Washington intervened with Moscow and Beijing to prevent Iran from fully acquiring its list of nuclear power and fuel-cycle facilities. The 1990s also saw Iran expand its furtive nuclear research into conversion, enrichment and plutonium separation. "Most importantly, on the basis of additional centrifuge assistance from the A.Q. Khan network, Iran was able to begin the construction of pilot-scale and industrial-scale enrichment facilities at Natanz around 2000."[51] Full exposure of Iran's nuclear activities came in 2002, when an Iranian exiled opposition group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) declared the Natanz project in August of that year. Since that time, international pressure on Iran has remained steady, hampering but not halting the country's nuclear development.[51] Iran remains legally bound to the NPT and states its support for the treaty.
That's from Wiki
The Axis of Evil speech was made on January 29, 2002.
So we can drop once and for all the claim that Iran started its nuclear weapons program as a rationale response to fears of American attack?
They started it under the Shah, so can we stop any pretense it's to use against Israel?
It was after the first Gulf War though, where American forces easily trashed the Iraqi military which had been fighting a deadly campaign with Iran for the decade prior. I think that made it clear that Iran could not stand up to the US in a conventional war, which it has to expect at some point if it has greater ambitions in the Middle East. Either it could attempt to modernize and expand their military or undertake a long term, less costly nuclear program.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2015, 03:31:23 PM
They started it under the Shah, so can we stop any pretense it's to use against Israel?
We started under FDR, so Russia doesn't have to worry either. :yes:
Sweden was working on an atomic bomb when the US was inhabited by naked savages.
Quote from: The Brain on March 18, 2015, 04:33:04 PM
Sweden was working on an atomic bomb when the US was inhabited by naked savages.
But its substandard nuclear engineers have yet to achieve success. :(
Quote from: alfred russel on March 18, 2015, 04:34:18 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 18, 2015, 04:33:04 PM
Sweden was working on an atomic bomb when the US was inhabited by naked savages.
But its substandard nuclear engineers have yet to achieve success. :(
It was cancelled because it would have been too awesome for the world.
Quote from: The Brain on March 18, 2015, 04:35:29 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 18, 2015, 04:34:18 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 18, 2015, 04:33:04 PM
Sweden was working on an atomic bomb when the US was inhabited by naked savages.
But its substandard nuclear engineers have yet to achieve success. :(
It was cancelled because it would have been too awesome for the world.
Swedish engineers recognized the immigration trends and decided to forgo a nuclear weapon to keep it out of the hands of a future islamic state?
Quote from: Valmy on March 18, 2015, 03:20:35 PM
Now what they replaced it with? That's something else.
Mehdi Bazargan was OK
I hear Cameron has invited Obama to campaign against him.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2015, 04:11:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2015, 03:31:23 PM
They started it under the Shah, so can we stop any pretense it's to use against Israel?
We started under FDR, so Russia doesn't have to worry either. :yes:
Well, I'm glad we are all in agreement here.
Quote from: derspiess on March 18, 2015, 05:52:34 PM
I hear Cameron has invited Obama to campaign against him.
:lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2015, 03:21:17 PM
So we can drop once and for all the claim that Iran started its nuclear weapons program as a rationale response to fears of American attack?
No one has made that claim, except you in refuting it.
The point, however, remains that if you're responsible for Iran's national security and interests at this time, pursuing nuclear power status seems pretty rational independently of whether the original program was initiated in response to fears of American attack or not.
You've got to be kidding.
What did you think Neil was talking about when you agreed with him?
I was saying that at this point in time, a nuclear weapons program is a reasonable move. I made no judgement on the origins of anybody's nuclear program. No matter how or when it got started, it's a good idea now.
Quote from: Neil on March 19, 2015, 04:03:13 PM
I was saying that at this point in time, a nuclear weapons program is a reasonable move. I made no judgement on the origins of anybody's nuclear program. No matter how or when it got started, it's a good idea now.
To which I responded that "the constant threats of attack from the US" are about eliminating the weapons program, which defeats that argument.
To which you responded that they started with the Axis of Evil speech.
To which I responded by showing that the weapons started before the speech.
I mentioned a number of times that the US has threatened to attack Iran. US-Iranian hostility dates back to long before the Axis of Evil speech.
You mentioned Axis of evil, the current letter and "various statements made by politicians."
Ah, so because Neil mentioned the Axis of Evil speech Iran's nuclear program is aimed at Israel. I'm not sure I follow that idea. I mean, Reagan approved strikes against Iran at one point. Also there was that thingy with the Vinccennes.
I don't follow that idea either Raz.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2015, 05:23:29 PM
I don't follow that idea either Raz.
Then what is your argument? You focus on the Axis of Evil speech, what relevance does it have beyond Neil mentioning it?
I guess he is saying that Iran does not regard the US as a threat or, that they do but it has zero to do with their nuclear program.
Quote from: Valmy on March 19, 2015, 06:02:23 PM
I guess he is saying that Iran does not regard the US as a threat or, that they do but it has zero to do with their nuclear program.
As far as I can tell, Yi's argument is that when Iran started its nuclear program it was apparently not worried about the US, which means there is no rational reason for Iran to pursue a nuclear program now.
That makes no sense to me, so maybe he means something else.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 19, 2015, 05:52:01 PM
Then what is your argument? You focus on the Axis of Evil speech, what relevance does it have beyond Neil mentioning it?
My argument is that by the time the US was making "constant threats of attack," Iran had already started its nuclear weapons program.
There is no rational reason for Iran to have a nuclear program, Yi is right about that.
Let's say Iran is afraid of a US attack. Then building nukes is a terrible idea, it makes it far more likely that the US would use its far more devastating and reliable nuclear arsenal against Iran which even if it developed weapons would be hard pressed to hit the USA.
Let's say Iran thinks that the US will attack conventionally but will not if Iran has nukes. Nope - not rational. Because:
(1) It takes time to develop nukes so developing them only increases the likelihood of the feared for attack. And the fact that attack has nonetheless materialized despite years and multiple presidencies proves that the initial fear of attack was horribly misplaced to begin with.
(2) The US attacked Iraq despite -- nay, BECAUSE of -- the fact that the US believed the Iraq had developed deployable weapons of mass destruction.
QED
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2015, 06:14:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 19, 2015, 05:52:01 PM
Then what is your argument? You focus on the Axis of Evil speech, what relevance does it have beyond Neil mentioning it?
My argument is that by the time the US was making "constant threats of attack," Iran had already started its nuclear weapons program.
The previous Iranian nuclear program was dismantled shortly after the Shah was overthrown. The US making constant threats of attacks occur shortly after the Iranian revolution with an attempted actual attack (Operation Eagle Claw), Reagan approved a bombing of Iran in 1985, In 1987 the US attacked Iranian offshore oil facilities and attacked the Iranian navy in 1988 and shot down one airliner. When exactly do you think that Iran started it's Nuclear weapons program?
If you're going to call the hostage rescue attempt an attack I'm not going to bother fact checking the others.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 19, 2015, 06:25:32 PM
Let's say Iran is afraid of a US attack. Then building nukes is a terrible idea, it makes it far more likely that the US would use its far more devastating and reliable nuclear arsenal against Iran which even if it developed weapons would be hard pressed to hit the USA.
Let's say Iran thinks that the US will attack conventionally but will not if Iran has nukes. Nope - not rational. Because:
(1) It takes time to develop nukes so developing them only increases the likelihood of the feared for attack. And the fact that attack has nonetheless materialized despite years and multiple presidencies proves that the initial fear of attack was horribly misplaced to begin with.
(2) The US attacked Iraq despite -- nay, BECAUSE of -- the fact that the US believed the Iraq had developed deployable weapons of mass destruction.
QED
Let's quantify the chances of attack. Let's say that every year there is a 3% chance the US will attack Iranian targets. If Iran is building a nuclear weapon it increases the chance of attack to 6% every year. Let us say it takes five year to build a bomb. After which, chance of the US attacks on Iran are only .1% every year. Is it rational to build this weapon now?
Now of course I made these numbers up. I'm not good with stats, the US has attacked targets of the Iranian republic in the 1980's several times and zero times in the 1990's, 2000's and 2010's that I know of. So statistically the chance of an overt military attack may actually go down while they are building a bomb.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 19, 2015, 06:49:03 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 19, 2015, 06:25:32 PM
Let's say Iran is afraid of a US attack. Then building nukes is a terrible idea, it makes it far more likely that the US would use its far more devastating and reliable nuclear arsenal against Iran which even if it developed weapons would be hard pressed to hit the USA.
Let's say Iran thinks that the US will attack conventionally but will not if Iran has nukes. Nope - not rational. Because:
(1) It takes time to develop nukes so developing them only increases the likelihood of the feared for attack. And the fact that attack has nonetheless materialized despite years and multiple presidencies proves that the initial fear of attack was horribly misplaced to begin with.
(2) The US attacked Iraq despite -- nay, BECAUSE of -- the fact that the US believed the Iraq had developed deployable weapons of mass destruction.
QED
Let's quantify the chances of attack. Let's say that every year there is a 3% chance the US will attack Iranian targets. If Iran is building a nuclear weapon it increases the chance of attack to 6% every year. Let us say it takes five year to build a bomb. After which, chance of the US attacks on Iran are only .1% every year. Is it rational to build this weapon now?
Now of course I made these numbers up. I'm not good with stats, the US has attacked targets of the Iranian republic in the 1980's several times and zero times in the 1990's, 2000's and 2010's that I know of. So statistically the chance of an overt military attack may actually go down while they are building a bomb.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 19, 2015, 06:49:03 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 19, 2015, 06:25:32 PM
Let's say Iran is afraid of a US attack. Then building nukes is a terrible idea, it makes it far more likely that the US would use its far more devastating and reliable nuclear arsenal against Iran which even if it developed weapons would be hard pressed to hit the USA.
Let's say Iran thinks that the US will attack conventionally but will not if Iran has nukes. Nope - not rational. Because:
(1) It takes time to develop nukes so developing them only increases the likelihood of the feared for attack. And the fact that attack has nonetheless materialized despite years and multiple presidencies proves that the initial fear of attack was horribly misplaced to begin with.
(2) The US attacked Iraq despite -- nay, BECAUSE of -- the fact that the US believed the Iraq had developed deployable weapons of mass destruction.
QED
Let's quantify the chances of attack. Let's say that every year there is a 3% chance the US will attack Iranian targets. If Iran is building a nuclear weapon it increases the chance of attack to 6% every year. Let us say it takes five year to build a bomb. After which, chance of the US attacks on Iran are only .1% every year. Is it rational to build this weapon now?
Now of course I made these numbers up. I'm not good with stats, the US has attacked targets of the Iranian republic in the 1980's several times and zero times in the 1990's, 2000's and 2010's that I know of. So statistically the chance of an overt military attack may actually go down while they are building a bomb.
Is that actually a response to Joan's posts as it doesn't really seem to address anything he said. :unsure:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2015, 06:41:30 PM
If you're going to call the hostage rescue attempt an attack I'm not going to bother fact checking the others.
That is very short sighted of you. It was my understanding Operation Eagle Claw was a military operation. We never stated if an attack is unjustified or not, and the Iranians would almost certainly see US military vehicles flying into their capital as an attack.
From Wikipedia:
QuoteThe operation was designed as a complex two-night mission. On the first night, the aircraft would enter Iran in a remote coastal area 60 miles west of Chabahar,[7] and fly to Desert One (33°04′23″N 55°53′33″E)[7] via the Dasht-e Lut desert. Desert One would be secured and established with a protection force and approximately 6,000 gallons of jet fuel would be brought to the area in collapsible fuel bladders carried by United States Air Force (USAF) C-130 aircraft. Three EC-130Es (Call signs: Republic 4 to 6) would carry the Delta Force and other protection elements and three MC-130E Combat Talons (Call signs: Dragon 1 to 3) would carry the logistical supplies. Next, eight United States Navy (USN) RH-53D Sea Stallion helicopters from HELMINERON 16 (Call signs: Bluebeard 1 to 8) would arrive from the USS Nimitz. The helicopters would refuel and fly the Delta Force soldiers 260 miles further to Desert Two (35°14′00″N 52°09′00″E),[7] located 52 miles short of Tehran. Because it would be close to morning, the helicopters and ground forces would hide during the day at Desert Two.
The second night would involve the rescue operation. First, CIA agents who were already inside Iran would bring trucks to Desert Two. Together, the CIA agents and ground forces would then drive from Desert Two into Tehran. While the main assault force was moving to Tehran, other US troops would disable electrical power to the area, in an effort to slow any response from the Iranian military. In addition, AC-130 gunships would be deployed over Tehran to provide any necessary supporting fire. Lastly, Army Rangers would capture the nearby Manzariyeh Air Base (34°58′58″N 50°48′20″E) so that several C-141 Starlifters could arrive. The ground troops would then assault the embassy and eliminate the guards. Afterwards the hostages and troops would rendezvous with the helicopters across the street at the Shahid Shiroudi Stadium. Finally, the helicopters would bring everyone to the Manzariyeh Air Base, where the C-141s could fly everyone back to friendly territory.
Protection for the operation was to be provided by Carrier Air Wing 8 (CVW-8) operating from the USS Nimitz and CVW-14 operating from the USS Coral Sea. For this operation, the aircraft bore special invasion stripes identification on their right wings. CVW-14 Marine F-4Ns had a red (VMFA-323) or yellow (VMFA-531) stripe enclosed by two black stripes. CVW-14 attack aircraft (A-7s and A-6s) had an orange stripe enclosed by two black stripes. Nimitz aircraft were marked in a similar fashion to help differentiate US aircraft from Iranian aircraft purchased from the US (F-14 Tomcats and F-4 Phantoms).
This sounds very much like a military raid, not unlike where POWs are rescued during wartime. Do you disagree with that characterization?
Quote from: garbon on March 19, 2015, 06:51:37 PM
Is that actually a response to Joan's posts as it doesn't really seem to address anything he said. :unsure:
Well not when you post it over and over again. JR's argument is based on increasing and decreasing the chance of an attack. He claims that building the bomb actually increases the chance of attack, though this is by no means certain. If there is chance every year that US will attack Iran then eventually the US will attack given enough time. If having a bomb eliminates that chance, but increases the chance of attack while the bomb is being built then it may very well be rational to accept a short period of additional risk.
Blow the motherfucking Iranians up. We owe them for '79 at least.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 19, 2015, 07:01:20 PM
This sounds very much like a military raid, not unlike where POWs are rescued during wartime. Do you disagree with that characterization?
Are you arguing that it's smart for Iran to build nukes, because we tried to rescue the embassy hostages?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 19, 2015, 06:25:32 PM
Let's say Iran is afraid of a US attack. Then building nukes is a terrible idea, it makes it far more likely that the US would use its far more devastating and reliable nuclear arsenal against Iran which even if it developed weapons would be hard pressed to hit the USA.
Let's say Iran thinks that the US will attack conventionally but will not if Iran has nukes. Nope - not rational. Because:
(1) It takes time to develop nukes so developing them only increases the likelihood of the feared for attack. And the fact that attack has nonetheless materialized despite years and multiple presidencies proves that the initial fear of attack was horribly misplaced to begin with.
(2) The US attacked Iraq despite -- nay, BECAUSE of -- the fact that the US believed the Iraq had developed deployable weapons of mass destruction.
QED
What would be a rational reason for Iran to build Nukes?
Given the timing of its revival (1989), the Iranian nuclear program was probably originally aimed at Iraq. Nukes would have been a deterrent against another Iraqi invasion.
The French action he supports won't influence the Israelis even if the US supported it, since the US would never go further than that, so I don't see a way that we can prevent them from doing whatever they want. They won't pay any price.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2015/03/benjamin_netanyahu_isn_t_the_problem_the_united_states_has_enabled_israel.html
Quote
The Price Israel Must Pay
4.4k
98
2.5k
We no longer have a Netanyahu problem. We have an Israel problem.
By William Saletan
Two weeks ago, the United States had a Benjamin Netanyahu problem. The Israeli prime minister seemed to have gone rogue. His ambassador to Washington had secretly negotiated with Republicans to have Netanyahu address a joint session of Congress. Against the Obama administration's wishes, Netanyahu spoke on the floor of the House of Representatives against U.S. foreign policy. He told members of Congress that the speech wasn't political. Then he went home and used video of their applause in an ad promoting his re-election.
In the final days of his campaign, Netanyahu pitched himself to Israelis as the candidate who would stand up to President Obama, "American money," the "international community," and Israel's Arab minority. He bragged that he had used settlements to seize strategic Palestinian land, and he vowed to keep doing so. A day before the election, he renounced Israel's commitment to a Palestinian state. He pledged that if he were re-elected, he wouldn't permit such a state. He implored Jews to flock to the polls and drown out the ballots of Arab Israelis.
Many Americans, including me, thought these rants would hurt Netanyahu. We were wrong. In those final days, his support soared. On Tuesday, Netanyahu's party, Likud, won a plurality of seats in Israel's parliament. Thirty-three percent of Israelis voted for Likud or for smaller parties that officially rejected a Palestinian state. Another 15 percent voted for Jewish nationalist or ultra-Orthodox parties that have blocked Palestinian independence. A further 7 percent voted for a Likud offshoot that is expected to round out the new government. That adds up to more than 55 percent of the electorate. It's more than 60 percent of Israel's Jewish voters.
Netanyahu can no longer be dismissed as a rogue. He has proved that his people stand behind him. They have given him more seats in parliament than he had before and a more hawkish coalition of ruling parties. We don't have a Netanyahu problem anymore. We have an Israel problem.
Israel and the United States have a long, deep friendship. It's based on shared interests and values. But it's no longer clear that the old interests and values are shared. The U.S. government believes that Palestinian Arabs, like Jews, are entitled to a sovereign state. We believe it's wrong to build settlements on land that doesn't belong to you. We believe that ethnic minorities are entitled to participate in the political process and that they shouldn't be vilified to scare up votes. The events of the past week suggest that the prime minister of Israel doesn't believe these things and that most of his people either agree with him or don't care enough to vote the other way.
It's true that Israelis have other concerns, such as the high cost of housing. But when you set aside an issue, such as the rights of Palestinians, you're saying it isn't important to you. It's also true that it's easy for Americans like me to talk about this without facing the threat of terrorism. But sometimes distance is helpful. A friend can help you see changes in yourself. The constant pressure of war, terrorism, and peril has hardened Israel's heart.
In the days since Netanyahu's victory, some people have suggested that he didn't really mean what he said about rejecting Palestinian statehood. They argue that it was just an election ploy and that he can "walk it back." Please. Netanyahu would never accept such an excuse from a Palestinian leader who disavowed his prior commitment to peace. Netanyahu would say that such a leader couldn't be trusted, that he wasn't a "partner for peace," and that his use of such a ploy to win votes showed the true belligerence of his people. For years, Arabs have said that Netanyahu behaves like a man who's trying to prevent a Palestinian state. Now he has openly admitted as much. Why should they believe he didn't mean it?
When you look for a pattern in Netanyahu's behavior—the settlements, the ethnic demagoguery, the speech to Congress, the retraction of his commitment to an independent Palestine—no moral principle unites them. What unites them is audacity and calculation. Netanyahu does whatever he thinks he can get away with. That's how he describes the thinking of his adversaries, because that's how he thinks, too. If you listen to Israeli leaders who are trying to influence the behavior of their nation's enemies, the word you'll hear again and again is price.
That's why Israel has descended to its current level of disregard for others. It hasn't paid a price. Even in the face of Netanyahu's unwelcome speech to Congress, the Obama administration sent officials to AIPAC's annual conference to pledge that the United States would stand by Israel no matter what. "We have Israel's back, come hell or high water," national security adviser Susan Rice assured the crowd. So Netanyahu delivered his speech, went home, and gave the United States, Europe, and the Palestinians more hell. And Israelis re-elected him.
We have enabled this behavior, and we must end it. Friends don't let friends drive drunk. We must clarify the price Israel will pay for continuing to flout international norms and commitments. The challenge is to find the right measure. It can't be destructive, vengeful, or disproportionate. That rules out sanctions, cutting military aid, and subjecting Israel to prosecution under the International Criminal Court. It also rules out supporting a Palestinian-backed United Nations resolution that would demand the establishment of a Palestinian state within a year, with no corresponding promises to Israel.
The right vehicle is a different resolution, floated three months ago by France, which would authorize a two-year timetable for resolving the terms of statehood. It would stipulate a "non-militarized" Palestine, as well as a "full-phased withdrawal of Israeli security forces." The terms of the French draft aren't much different from what the United States informally accepts. But by endorsing the resolution and making clear that we will no longer use our veto in the Security Council to fend off such measures, the United States would signal to Israel that our patience has run out. Israel can join the discussions and move toward recognition of Palestine. Or it can stand alone.
Not to state the obvious here but establishing a State in Palestine with a political culture of corruption on one end and Islamism on the other end, all while the region is erupting in flames is a pretty much impossible task. It would be hard under ideal circumstances.
No to mention that after the failure of Gaza Israel is not going to be unoccupying any more land. And even if they did the Palestinians would keep attacking them. But they won't, somebody would have to force them to do it which we won't and the Europeans can't. As for Israel won't pay a price, oh they paid a price alright. The Palestinians made sure they paid dearly for pulling out of Gaza.
It is an ethnic conflict and there is really nothing to be done until both sides are tired of fighting. When somebody actually wants peace again, then we can talk. Until then the peace process is not so much a process as another arena of conflict to jostle for position.
And while all this is going on, this region is the most prosperous and stable in the neighborhood. Ah the Middle East.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 19, 2015, 07:12:39 PM
If there is chance every year that US will attack Iran then eventually the US will attack given enough time.
Only true if each year's annual chance of attack is completely independent of the next year's probability which is obviously false; i.e. it works only if you assume the "US" (its interests/outlooks/personnel/policy apparatus) completely and randomly resets every year.
Quote from: frunk on March 19, 2015, 09:25:51 PM
What would be a rational reason for Iran to build Nukes?
There are rational reasons which may even be the real reasons, like:
+ Lots of money made by politically connected contractors/suppliers/importers. AKA the Rev Guards
+ Lots of opportunities for politically powerful types to get bribed
+ A large group of engineers, technicians and other relatively high status types get nice employment and hence a reason to support the program and regime.
+ When the inevitable criticism from the West comes, it is useful tool for using nationalism to rally popular support to the regime.
But I assumed Yi meant rational in an objective security sense.
If I were Iran I would try to get nukes. The prize is too great to ignore.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 19, 2015, 10:53:44 PM
The French action he supports won't influence the Israelis even if the US supported it, since the US would never go further than that, so I don't see a way that we can prevent them from doing whatever they want. They won't pay any price.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2015/03/benjamin_netanyahu_isn_t_the_problem_the_united_states_has_enabled_israel.html
Quote
The Price Israel Must Pay
4.4k
98
2.5k
We no longer have a Netanyahu problem. We have an Israel problem.
By William Saletan
Two weeks ago, the United States had a Benjamin Netanyahu problem. The Israeli prime minister seemed to have gone rogue. His ambassador to Washington had secretly negotiated with Republicans to have Netanyahu address a joint session of Congress. Against the Obama administration's wishes, Netanyahu spoke on the floor of the House of Representatives against U.S. foreign policy. He told members of Congress that the speech wasn't political. Then he went home and used video of their applause in an ad promoting his re-election.
In the final days of his campaign, Netanyahu pitched himself to Israelis as the candidate who would stand up to President Obama, "American money," the "international community," and Israel's Arab minority. He bragged that he had used settlements to seize strategic Palestinian land, and he vowed to keep doing so. A day before the election, he renounced Israel's commitment to a Palestinian state. He pledged that if he were re-elected, he wouldn't permit such a state. He implored Jews to flock to the polls and drown out the ballots of Arab Israelis.
Many Americans, including me, thought these rants would hurt Netanyahu. We were wrong. In those final days, his support soared. On Tuesday, Netanyahu's party, Likud, won a plurality of seats in Israel's parliament. Thirty-three percent of Israelis voted for Likud or for smaller parties that officially rejected a Palestinian state. Another 15 percent voted for Jewish nationalist or ultra-Orthodox parties that have blocked Palestinian independence. A further 7 percent voted for a Likud offshoot that is expected to round out the new government. That adds up to more than 55 percent of the electorate. It's more than 60 percent of Israel's Jewish voters.
Netanyahu can no longer be dismissed as a rogue. He has proved that his people stand behind him. They have given him more seats in parliament than he had before and a more hawkish coalition of ruling parties. We don't have a Netanyahu problem anymore. We have an Israel problem.
Israel and the United States have a long, deep friendship. It's based on shared interests and values. But it's no longer clear that the old interests and values are shared. The U.S. government believes that Palestinian Arabs, like Jews, are entitled to a sovereign state. We believe it's wrong to build settlements on land that doesn't belong to you. We believe that ethnic minorities are entitled to participate in the political process and that they shouldn't be vilified to scare up votes. The events of the past week suggest that the prime minister of Israel doesn't believe these things and that most of his people either agree with him or don't care enough to vote the other way.
It's true that Israelis have other concerns, such as the high cost of housing. But when you set aside an issue, such as the rights of Palestinians, you're saying it isn't important to you. It's also true that it's easy for Americans like me to talk about this without facing the threat of terrorism. But sometimes distance is helpful. A friend can help you see changes in yourself. The constant pressure of war, terrorism, and peril has hardened Israel's heart.
In the days since Netanyahu's victory, some people have suggested that he didn't really mean what he said about rejecting Palestinian statehood. They argue that it was just an election ploy and that he can "walk it back." Please. Netanyahu would never accept such an excuse from a Palestinian leader who disavowed his prior commitment to peace. Netanyahu would say that such a leader couldn't be trusted, that he wasn't a "partner for peace," and that his use of such a ploy to win votes showed the true belligerence of his people. For years, Arabs have said that Netanyahu behaves like a man who's trying to prevent a Palestinian state. Now he has openly admitted as much. Why should they believe he didn't mean it?
When you look for a pattern in Netanyahu's behavior—the settlements, the ethnic demagoguery, the speech to Congress, the retraction of his commitment to an independent Palestine—no moral principle unites them. What unites them is audacity and calculation. Netanyahu does whatever he thinks he can get away with. That's how he describes the thinking of his adversaries, because that's how he thinks, too. If you listen to Israeli leaders who are trying to influence the behavior of their nation's enemies, the word you'll hear again and again is price.
That's why Israel has descended to its current level of disregard for others. It hasn't paid a price. Even in the face of Netanyahu's unwelcome speech to Congress, the Obama administration sent officials to AIPAC's annual conference to pledge that the United States would stand by Israel no matter what. "We have Israel's back, come hell or high water," national security adviser Susan Rice assured the crowd. So Netanyahu delivered his speech, went home, and gave the United States, Europe, and the Palestinians more hell. And Israelis re-elected him.
We have enabled this behavior, and we must end it. Friends don't let friends drive drunk. We must clarify the price Israel will pay for continuing to flout international norms and commitments. The challenge is to find the right measure. It can't be destructive, vengeful, or disproportionate. That rules out sanctions, cutting military aid, and subjecting Israel to prosecution under the International Criminal Court. It also rules out supporting a Palestinian-backed United Nations resolution that would demand the establishment of a Palestinian state within a year, with no corresponding promises to Israel.
The right vehicle is a different resolution, floated three months ago by France, which would authorize a two-year timetable for resolving the terms of statehood. It would stipulate a "non-militarized" Palestine, as well as a "full-phased withdrawal of Israeli security forces." The terms of the French draft aren't much different from what the United States informally accepts. But by endorsing the resolution and making clear that we will no longer use our veto in the Security Council to fend off such measures, the United States would signal to Israel that our patience has run out. Israel can join the discussions and move toward recognition of Palestine. Or it can stand alone.
That's what happens when the president is a rabid anti-Semite.
First the Semites next the Ottomans. Sad state of affairs really.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 20, 2015, 01:56:49 AM
First the Semites next the Ottomans. Sad state of affairs really.
:unsure: The Ottoman Empire fell 97 years ago.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2015, 07:33:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 19, 2015, 07:01:20 PM
This sounds very much like a military raid, not unlike where POWs are rescued during wartime. Do you disagree with that characterization?
Are you arguing that it's smart for Iran to build nukes, because we tried to rescue the embassy hostages?
I'm arguing that the US and Iran have been enemies since the Iranian Revolution, and in that period there has been actual fighting and threats against one another. They kidnapped our diplomatic staff, attacked an embassy and a marines barracks through proxies and we've sunk some of their ships and shot down their planes etc. The threat of attacks is by no means recent, and real blood has been shed all prior to George W. Bush's speech. I do not think they are building a nuke as some sort of national suicide vest (which using it to attack Israel, even by Proxy would be), but as a defensive measure against it's enemies, a prestige item to bolster the government, and a tool for regional hegemony. This doesn't strike me as irrational, and our efforts to prevent them from getting a nuke aren't irrational either. However, if we are to counter them, we have to understand why they want it, and ascribing incorrect motives is counterproductive.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 19, 2015, 11:58:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 19, 2015, 07:12:39 PM
If there is chance every year that US will attack Iran then eventually the US will attack given enough time.
Only true if each year's annual chance of attack is completely independent of the next year's probability which is obviously false; i.e. it works only if you assume the "US" (its interests/outlooks/personnel/policy apparatus) completely and randomly resets every year.
How would you judge the chances of military action against Iran on any given year?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 19, 2015, 07:12:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 19, 2015, 06:51:37 PM
Is that actually a response to Joan's posts as it doesn't really seem to address anything he said. :unsure:
Well not when you post it over and over again. JR's argument is based on increasing and decreasing the chance of an attack. He claims that building the bomb actually increases the chance of attack, though this is by no means certain. If there is chance every year that US will attack Iran then eventually the US will attack given enough time. If having a bomb eliminates that chance, but increases the chance of attack while the bomb is being built then it may very well be rational to accept a short period of additional risk.
Why would Iran having a nuclear bomb eliminate the chance of the US attacking?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2015, 04:43:36 PM
You mentioned Axis of evil, the current letter and "various statements made by politicians."
Are you really arguing that the Axis of Evil speech was the start of the US-Iranian tensions?
You do realize that stuff happened before that, and the speech was a RESULT of that relationship, not the genesis of it?
You really tie yourself up in knots justifying support for this stuff.
What stuff am I tying myself into knots supporting Berkut?
It would be interesting to analyze the rational reasons for a mid-range regional power like Iran for having nukes - I suspect strongly that it boils down to a matter of prestige (both domestic and international), rather than for any real military use. The very term "a nuclear power" connotes a country that has to be taken more seriously than one that is not.
The problem with Iran is the lingering suspicion that at least some elements within the government may be thinking of irrational reasons for having them.
I think given US conventional military hegemony, it is perfectly natural for mid range powers who see themselves as being largely in opposition to US interests (and vice versa) to seek out a equalizer, something that allows them to act with more freedom than they would otherwise.
Right now, at the end of the day, the US can and will hold over the head of any power like Iran the threat that we can militarily step in and stop anything they want to do.
A nuclear armed Iran has more freedom to act, even if that is regionally, as they have their own stick to use to threaten against intervention, even if that threat is intended against those who would, for example, host US forces.
A nuke it the "big stick". Having the big stick means you get to use your other sticks with great impunity.
Yeah exactly, Berkut, and that remains true whatever happened with the hostages in Tehran back in the day. It remains true independently of the exact motivations for Iran starting the nuclear program when they started it.
Quote from: Berkut on March 20, 2015, 10:12:38 AM
I think given US conventional military hegemony, it is perfectly natural for mid range powers who see themselves as being largely in opposition to US interests (and vice versa) to seek out a equalizer, something that allows them to act with more freedom than they would otherwise.
Right now, at the end of the day, the US can and will hold over the head of any power like Iran the threat that we can militarily step in and stop anything they want to do.
A nuclear armed Iran has more freedom to act, even if that is regionally, as they have their own stick to use to threaten against intervention, even if that threat is intended against those who would, for example, host US forces.
A nuke it the "big stick". Having the big stick means you get to use your other sticks with great impunity.
In theory - in practice, future great-power intervention is unlikely in any case to take the form of direct "Desert Storm"-style military intervention: Iran is simply too horrible a quagmire for a great power to want to get bogged down in. Rather, it is more likely to be in the form of offering support to participants already engaged in a conflict - "advisors", cash, weapons and the like. This is true whether the target has nukes or not. What's the target gonna do, threaten to nuke Washington if the US doesn't stop providing (say) the Iraqis with cash and guns?
As the Israelis have discovered in the case of Iranian support for Hezbollah, having nukes simply doesn't deter that sort of meddling - even against a mid-ranked, regional power that lacks nukes itself. Israel simply
can't crediibly threaten Tehran with nuclear armageddon for supporting its enemies.
Having nukes is a bit of a military dud really - they are only good for deterring a truly existential threat to the country from a conventional force, which is the
least likely threat to Iran, currently.
Quote from: garbon on March 20, 2015, 05:51:45 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 19, 2015, 07:12:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 19, 2015, 06:51:37 PM
Is that actually a response to Joan's posts as it doesn't really seem to address anything he said. :unsure:
Well not when you post it over and over again. JR's argument is based on increasing and decreasing the chance of an attack. He claims that building the bomb actually increases the chance of attack, though this is by no means certain. If there is chance every year that US will attack Iran then eventually the US will attack given enough time. If having a bomb eliminates that chance, but increases the chance of attack while the bomb is being built then it may very well be rational to accept a short period of additional risk.
Why would Iran having a nuclear bomb eliminate the chance of the US attacking?
Because they can hit back. Has the US ever openly attacked a nuclear power?
Quote from: Malthus on March 20, 2015, 10:56:13 AM
In theory - in practice, future great-power intervention is unlikely in any case to take the form of direct "Desert Storm"-style military intervention: Iran is simply too horrible a quagmire for a great power to want to get bogged down in. Rather, it is more likely to be in the form of offering support to participants already engaged in a conflict - "advisors", cash, weapons and the like. This is true whether the target has nukes or not. What's the target gonna do, threaten to nuke Washington if the US doesn't stop providing (say) the Iraqis with cash and guns?
As the Israelis have discovered in the case of Iranian support for Hezbollah, having nukes simply doesn't deter that sort of meddling - even against a mid-ranked, regional power that lacks nukes itself. Israel simply can't crediibly threaten Tehran with nuclear armageddon for supporting its enemies.
Having nukes is a bit of a military dud really - they are only good for deterring a truly existential threat to the country from a conventional force, which is the least likely threat to Iran, currently.
That's a great argument for Israel to get rid of its nuclear weapons. Don't know how likely that is, though.
Listening to Netanyahu's interview on NPR this morning was a hoot. They called him out for lying on the air no less than three times:
http://www.npr.org/2015/03/20/394191261/transcript-nprs-interview-with-israeli-prime-minister-benjamin-netanyahu
From the typical political doublespeak:
QuoteAmericans are aware that just before the election you made a statement on Israeli radio that there would indeed not be a Palestinian state were you to remain as prime minister; that you were against a Palestinian state. Is that still your position?
N: Well, actually, what I said was that under the present circumstances, I said today it's unachievable because I had laid out very clearly what my conditions were for a two-state solution in the 2009 speech I gave at Bar-Ilan University. And I haven't changed; I haven't retracted that speech, at all. I said that the implementation of that vision is not relevant right now because of two things. First the decision of the leadership of the Palestinian Authority last year to forge a pact with Hamas, which is a terrorist organization that works for our destruction.
...to the outright lie:
QuoteSI: I want to ask another question, Prime Minister Netanyahu. While we were reporting in Israel, we heard people in Israel on the left and on the right openly worry about Israel's increasing international isolation, particularly because the conflict with Palestinians has gone on and on and there has not been the establishment of a Palestinian state. How concerned are you about Israel's international isolation?
N: Well, look. I think that there is a misperception. Israel has done enormous amount of, for peace. I myself have done things that no prime minister previously had done. I had frozen the settlements. Nobody did that. And I think, you know, the ones that have to be convinced are not only the international communities, the people of Israel will have to be convinced that the Palestinians are ready for peace. The leaders of Iran, just in the last few days have said that they would arm the West Bank and turn it into another Gaza. What the people of Israel are saying, "Hey, make sure that doesn't happen again." And if that is misperceived in some parts of the international community that's unfortunate, but I think that that's the truth.
SI: I have to just check a fact here, Prime Minister. You said that you froze settlements. It is correct that during your time as prime minister there was a period of months where there was a moratorium on settlements.
N: That's right.
SI: But when I was traveling around the West Bank we saw construction everywhere, construction cranes everywhere. There's plenty of building going on today.
N: Well, first of all, remember that 90 percent, 85 to 90 percent of Israeli citizens in Judea-Samaria, in the West Bank, live in clusters, in urban blocks. Everybody understands that if we were to have a solution then those blocks would stay in Israel. And that's where you saw these cranes; that's where Israelis live. In the Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem, everybody understands, they will stay.
SI: I saw cranes outside of Jerusalem. I'm thinking of Ariel, for example.
N: Those are, well, the blocks are outside of Jerusalem, that's exactly true. And what I'm saying is that the map is not affected by that. The critical problem we have is not merely where the borders will be but what will be on the other side of the border. Do we walk out and the Islamists walk in, backed by Iran, as happened in Gaza, as happened in Lebanon, as is happening in other parts of the Middle East. They're either backed by Iran or they're backed by al-Qaida or, if you will, by ISIS.
...to covering his butt getting busted with a lie by retconning the question on the fly:
QuoteSI: We spoke with Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian negotiator, and he said, first, directly in the interview "I recognize the state of Israel." And second he said of you, Prime Minister Netanyahu, "he's not a two-stater." Are you a two-stater?
N: Well, I don't want a single state. And I talked about two states where a demilitarized Palestinian state recognizes the Jewish state, and I stand by that. I haven't retracted my position; I haven't changed it.
SI: Erekat also warned of violence because Palestinians are losing hope. If you were talking to a group of Palestinians what, if anything, would you tell them to hope for in their futures?
N: I would tell them, let's build in your economy. Let's see that you actually recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, something Erekat refuses to do.
SI: But I'm saying that this man said, on the record, on tape, "I recognize Israel." What's he failing to say?
N: He's failing to say that he won't flood Israel with the descendants of Palestinian refugees.
Also, with the speed he was backpedalling on his comments about Arabs, they could probably hook up a generator to him, export the power to Iran, and get them to completely drop their nuclear program altogether.
Quote from: Malthus on March 20, 2015, 10:56:13 AM
In theory - in practice, future great-power intervention is unlikely in any case to take the form of direct "Desert Storm"-style military intervention: Iran is simply too horrible a quagmire for a great power to want to get bogged down in. Rather, it is more likely to be in the form of offering support to participants already engaged in a conflict - "advisors", cash, weapons and the like. This is true whether the target has nukes or not. What's the target gonna do, threaten to nuke Washington if the US doesn't stop providing (say) the Iraqis with cash and guns?
As the Israelis have discovered in the case of Iranian support for Hezbollah, having nukes simply doesn't deter that sort of meddling - even against a mid-ranked, regional power that lacks nukes itself. Israel simply can't crediibly threaten Tehran with nuclear armageddon for supporting its enemies.
Having nukes is a bit of a military dud really - they are only good for deterring a truly existential threat to the country from a conventional force, which is the least likely threat to Iran, currently.
How about this scenario. 10 years in the future. Iran has pacified Iraq and consolidated it's position there with military bases. War breaks out against their hated rivals, the Saudis. They invade Saudi Arabia. In this intervening time period they have built a nuke and rocket capable of hitting the US. Does the US want to risk the loss of a few million citizens to protect the Saudis?
Ugh, NPR. I'm surprised Banana didn't slip into a coma while listening.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 20, 2015, 11:17:00 AM
Ugh, NPR. I'm surprised Banana didn't slip into a coma while listening.
My commute in all directions is an hour, give or take. Sometimes I zone out on NPR, but it's still better than the shock jocks on the music stations, which don't seem to play all that much music in the morning. <_<
Driving while listening to NPR? LOCK THAT MAN UP.
I love NPR. Except for the weekend crap.
Iowa Public Radio sucks though.
Quote from: Jacob on March 20, 2015, 11:08:05 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 20, 2015, 10:56:13 AM
In theory - in practice, future great-power intervention is unlikely in any case to take the form of direct "Desert Storm"-style military intervention: Iran is simply too horrible a quagmire for a great power to want to get bogged down in. Rather, it is more likely to be in the form of offering support to participants already engaged in a conflict - "advisors", cash, weapons and the like. This is true whether the target has nukes or not. What's the target gonna do, threaten to nuke Washington if the US doesn't stop providing (say) the Iraqis with cash and guns?
As the Israelis have discovered in the case of Iranian support for Hezbollah, having nukes simply doesn't deter that sort of meddling - even against a mid-ranked, regional power that lacks nukes itself. Israel simply can't crediibly threaten Tehran with nuclear armageddon for supporting its enemies.
Having nukes is a bit of a military dud really - they are only good for deterring a truly existential threat to the country from a conventional force, which is the least likely threat to Iran, currently.
That's a great argument for Israel to get rid of its nuclear weapons. Don't know how likely that is, though.
Israel is differently positioned. Though I agree that it currently faces no truly existential threat from a conventional state (assuming of course Iran's use of its pending nuke is "rational"). When it acquired its nukes, though, it did face such a threat.
What would Israel gain from a realist perspective from giving up nukes it already has, though?
Quote from: Malthus on March 20, 2015, 10:56:13 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 20, 2015, 10:12:38 AM
I think given US conventional military hegemony, it is perfectly natural for mid range powers who see themselves as being largely in opposition to US interests (and vice versa) to seek out a equalizer, something that allows them to act with more freedom than they would otherwise.
Right now, at the end of the day, the US can and will hold over the head of any power like Iran the threat that we can militarily step in and stop anything they want to do.
A nuclear armed Iran has more freedom to act, even if that is regionally, as they have their own stick to use to threaten against intervention, even if that threat is intended against those who would, for example, host US forces.
A nuke it the "big stick". Having the big stick means you get to use your other sticks with great impunity.
In theory - in practice, future great-power intervention is unlikely in any case to take the form of direct "Desert Storm"-style military intervention: Iran is simply too horrible a quagmire for a great power to want to get bogged down in. Rather, it is more likely to be in the form of offering support to participants already engaged in a conflict - "advisors", cash, weapons and the like. This is true whether the target has nukes or not. What's the target gonna do, threaten to nuke Washington if the US doesn't stop providing (say) the Iraqis with cash and guns?
Of course not - but they might threaten to nuke Tel Aviv if the US doesn't stay out of their intervention into Kuwait, or whatever. Using the Gulf War analogy, would Saudia Arabia risk having Riyadh nuked if Saddam had nukes, and he said any intervention in response to his invasion of Kuwait would result in him taking out Riyadh?
Quote
As the Israelis have discovered in the case of Iranian support for Hezbollah, having nukes simply doesn't deter that sort of meddling - even against a mid-ranked, regional power that lacks nukes itself. Israel simply can't crediibly threaten Tehran with nuclear armageddon for supporting its enemies.
Israel cannot, but that doesn't mean that Iran cannot. Nobody would take such a threat from Israel seriously - it is well understood that Israel nuclear arms are to be used only to deter an existential threat. Other regional powers may not be so reserved.
Quote
Having nukes is a bit of a military dud really - they are only good for deterring a truly existential threat to the country from a conventional force, which is the least likely threat to Iran, currently.
I don't think that is the case at all, at least not for these kind of regional powers.
Quote from: Malthus on March 20, 2015, 11:26:48 AMIsrael is differently positioned. Though I agree that it currently faces no truly existential threat from a conventional state (assuming of course Iran's use of its pending nuke is "rational"). When it acquired its nukes, though, it did face such a threat.
What would Israel gain from a realist perspective from giving up nukes it already has, though?
About the same as Iran would lose from getting nukes, I reckon.
Quote from: Jacob on March 20, 2015, 11:47:06 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 20, 2015, 11:26:48 AMIsrael is differently positioned. Though I agree that it currently faces no truly existential threat from a conventional state (assuming of course Iran's use of its pending nuke is "rational"). When it acquired its nukes, though, it did face such a threat.
What would Israel gain from a realist perspective from giving up nukes it already has, though?
About the same as Iran would lose from getting nukes, I reckon.
Not really, no.
Iran is paying a stiff international price to obtain nukes - ongoing sanctions, problems from its neigbours, attacks of various sorts by shadowy spooks (most likely US and Israeli).
To the extent Israel paid a price to obtain nukes, it was paid years ago; it does not face ongoing sanctions, problems from its neighbours, or attacks because it has nukes.
Quote from: Malthus on March 20, 2015, 12:53:48 PM
Not really, no.
Iran is paying a stiff international price to obtain nukes - ongoing sanctions, problems from its neigbours, attacks of various sorts by shadowy spooks (most likely US and Israeli).
To the extent Israel paid a price to obtain nukes, it was paid years ago; it does not face ongoing sanctions, problems from its neighbours, or attacks because it has nukes.
But Israel enjoys a more secure position because it has nukes. It may seem worthwhile to go through the current difficulties, to get to that more secure position with nukes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 20, 2015, 11:22:33 AM
I love NPR. Except for the weekend crap.
Iowa Public Radio sucks though.
fag
Quote from: Jacob on March 20, 2015, 12:56:31 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 20, 2015, 12:53:48 PM
Not really, no.
Iran is paying a stiff international price to obtain nukes - ongoing sanctions, problems from its neigbours, attacks of various sorts by shadowy spooks (most likely US and Israeli).
To the extent Israel paid a price to obtain nukes, it was paid years ago; it does not face ongoing sanctions, problems from its neighbours, or attacks because it has nukes.
But Israel enjoys a more secure position because it has nukes. It may seem worthwhile to go through the current difficulties, to get to that more secure position with nukes.
Israel
had a more secure position from owning nukes, when its existence was threatened by Syrian and Egyptian tanks.
Right now, the threats to Israel come from 'unconventional warfare' attacks from Hamas and Hezbollah. So I would agree with your original point, that right now Israel has nothing much to gain in security from owning nukes - but also, nothing much to lose from owning 'em, as nobody will give Israel anything to give them up, and no-one is imposing any cost on Israel to keep them.
In contrast, Iran has nothing much to gain, but a high price to pay to own 'em.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 20, 2015, 01:19:04 PM
fag
Admittedly, NPR's a lot better in the morning than it is late at night. News from the BBC >>> Q.
Quote from: Malthus on March 20, 2015, 10:56:13 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 20, 2015, 10:12:38 AM
I think given US conventional military hegemony, it is perfectly natural for mid range powers who see themselves as being largely in opposition to US interests (and vice versa) to seek out a equalizer, something that allows them to act with more freedom than they would otherwise.
Right now, at the end of the day, the US can and will hold over the head of any power like Iran the threat that we can militarily step in and stop anything they want to do.
A nuclear armed Iran has more freedom to act, even if that is regionally, as they have their own stick to use to threaten against intervention, even if that threat is intended against those who would, for example, host US forces.
A nuke it the "big stick". Having the big stick means you get to use your other sticks with great impunity.
In theory - in practice, future great-power intervention is unlikely in any case to take the form of direct "Desert Storm"-style military intervention: Iran is simply too horrible a quagmire for a great power to want to get bogged down in. Rather, it is more likely to be in the form of offering support to participants already engaged in a conflict - "advisors", cash, weapons and the like. This is true whether the target has nukes or not. What's the target gonna do, threaten to nuke Washington if the US doesn't stop providing (say) the Iraqis with cash and guns?
As the Israelis have discovered in the case of Iranian support for Hezbollah, having nukes simply doesn't deter that sort of meddling - even against a mid-ranked, regional power that lacks nukes itself. Israel simply can't crediibly threaten Tehran with nuclear armageddon for supporting its enemies.
Having nukes is a bit of a military dud really - they are only good for deterring a truly existential threat to the country from a conventional force, which is the least likely threat to Iran, currently.
It's only a little over 10 years ago that the US invaded Iraq. You don't make nuclear plans based on the weather but on the climate.
Quote from: The Brain on March 20, 2015, 02:01:47 PM
It's only a little over 10 years ago that the US invaded Iraq. You don't make nuclear plans based on the weather but on the climate.
Remind me again, what was the stated reason for that attack?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 20, 2015, 02:03:33 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 20, 2015, 02:01:47 PM
It's only a little over 10 years ago that the US invaded Iraq. You don't make nuclear plans based on the weather but on the climate.
Remind me again, what was the stated reason for that attack?
If you're gonna do the time you may as well do the crime.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.breitbart.com%2Fmedia%2F2015%2F03%2Fisrael-anti-obama-sign-AP-640x480.jpg&hash=6373e4dafb34eca19a46e4f2f40fca1ed282175f)
On Thursday, the press announced that the Obama administration would fully consider abandoning Israel in international bodies like the United Nations.
According to reports, President Obama finally called Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to congratulate him – but the "congratulations" was actually a lecture directed at forcing Netanyahu to surrender to the terrorist Palestinian regime.
For some odd reason, many in the media and Congress reacted with surprise to Obama's supposedly sudden turn on Israel. The media, in an attempt to defend Obama's radicalism, pretend that Netanyahu's comments in the late stages of his campaign prompted Obama's anti-Israel action.
But, in truth, this is the culmination of a longtime Obama policy of destroying the US-Israel relationship; Obama has spent his entire life surrounded by haters of Israel, from former Palestine Liberation Organization spokesman Rashid Khalidi to former Jimmy Carter National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, pro-Hamas negotiator Robert Malley to UN Ambassador Samantha Power (who once suggested using American troops to guard Palestinians from Israelis), Jeremiah Wright (who said "Them Jews ain't going to let him talk to me") to Professor Derrick Bell ("Jewish neoconservative racists...are undermining blacks in every way they can"). Here is a concise timeline, with credit to Dan Senor and the editors of Commentary:
February 2008: Obama says while campaigning, 'There is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you're anti-Israel." At the time, as Dan Senor pointed out in The Wall Street Journal, Israel was run by the Kadima government run by Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni, and Shimon Peres, and was attempting desperately to bring the Palestinians to the table. Instead, the Palestinians launch war, as always.
June 2008: Obama tells the American Israel Public Affairs Conference that Jerusalem ought to remain undivided, attempting to woo Jewish votes. He then walks that back the next day, saying only that the capital shouldn't be divided by barbed wire.
March 2009: The Obama administration reverses the Bush era policy of not joining the United Nations Human Rights Council. Secretary of State Clinton said, "Human rights are an essential element of American global foreign policy," completely neglecting the UNHRC's abysmally anti-Semitic record. The Washington Post reported that the administration joined the Human Rights Council even though they conceded that it "has devoted excessive attention to alleged abuses by Israel and too little to abuses in places such as Darfur, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe."
May 2009: Obama tells Netanyahu that "settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward." Netanyahu announces a settlement freeze to comply. The Palestinians refuse to negotiate. Obama then slams Israel: "they still found it very hard to move with any bold gestures."
June 2009: Obama tells the world in his infamous Cairo speech that Israel was only created based on Jewish suffering in the Holocaust. He then says that Palestinians have been similarly victimized by the Jews: "They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own."
July 2009: Obama threatens to put "daylight" between the United States and Israel. He tells Jewish leaders, "Look at the past eight years. During those eight years, there was no space between us and Israel, and what did we get from that?" Except for Israel forcibly removing thousands of Jews from the Gaza Strip, the election of Hamas, and the launch of war by the Palestinians and Hezbollah, nothing happened. Obama then lectures the Jews about the need for Israeli "self-reflection." The same month, Obama tells CNN that the United States would "absolutely not" give Israel permission to strike Iran's nuclear facilities.
September 2009: Obama tells the United Nations that "America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements." Obama's definition of Israeli settlements, as the world soon learned, included building bathrooms in a home already owned by Jews in East Jerusalem. Obama offers no serious criticism of the Palestinians.
March 2010: Obama follows up on his threatening language about settlements by deploying Vice President Joe Biden to Israel, where Biden rips into the Israelis for building bathrooms in Jerusalem, the eternal Jewish capital. Hillary Clinton then yells at Netanyahu for nearly an hour on the phone, telling him he had "harmed the bilateral relationship." David Axelrod calls the building plans an "insult" to the United States. When Netanyahu visits the White House a week and a half later, Obama makes him leave via a side door.
April 2010: Obama refuses to prevent the Washington summit on nuclear proliferation from becoming an Arab referendum on the evils of Israel's nukes.
June 2010: An anonymous "US defense source" leaks to the Times of London that Israel had cut a deal with the Saudis to use their airspace to strike Iran. The deal is scuttled.
May 2011: The State Department labeled Jerusalem not a part of Israel. The same month, Obama demanded that Israel make concessions to the Palestinians based on the pre-1967 borders, which Israelis call the "Auschwitz borders" thanks to their indefensibility.
November 2011: Obama and French president Nicolas Sarkozy are caught on open mic ripping Netanyahu, with Sarkozy stating, "I can't stand him, he's a liar," and Obama replying, "You're tired of him? What about me? I have to deal with him every day."
December 2011: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rips into the State of Israel, stating that it is moving in the "opposite direction" of democracy. She said that Israel reminded her of Rosa Parks, and that religious people not listening to women sing – a millennia-long policy among some segments of the Orthodox – reminds her of extremist regimes, adding that it seemed "more suited to Iran than Israel."
February 2012: Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta tells David Ignatius at the Washington Post that the possibility he worried about most was that Israel would strike Iran. The Post then adds, "Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June – before Iran enters what Israelis described as a 'zone of immunity' to commence building a nuclear bomb." The goal: to delay any potential Israeli strike.
March 2012: NBC News somehow gains information from "senior Obama administration officials" that Israel had financed and trained the Iranian opposition group Mujahideen-e-Khalq, and adds that the Obama administration had nothing to do with hits on Iranian nuclear scientists. More daylight. More leaks. The same month, Foreign Policy receives information from "four senior diplomats and military intelligence officers" that the "United States has recently been granted access to Iran's northern border." Foreign Policy also reports that a "senior administration official" has told them, "The Israelis have bought an airfield, and the airfield is Azerbaijan." Again, a potential Israeli strike is scuttled. The same day as the Foreign Policy report, Bloomberg reports a Congressional Research Service report stating that Israel can't stop Iran's nuclear program in any case. Columnist Ron Ben-Yishai of Yidioth Ahronoth writes that the Obama administration wants to "erode the IDF's capacity to launch such strike with minimal casualties."
June 2012: In an attempt to shore up the Jewish vote, top members of the Obama administration, including Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and then-CIA director Leon Panetta were quoted by David Sanger of The New York Times talking about the President's supposedly deep involvement in the Stuxnet plan to take out Iran's nuclear reactors via computer virus. Until that point, it had been suspected but not confirmed that Stuxnet was an Israeli project. The Obama administration denied leaking the information. A year later, the State Department released emails showing that Sanger had corresponded regularly with all the top Obama officials, including correspondence on Stuxnet.
December 2012: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks at the Saban Forum on US-Israel Relations, where she says that Israelis have a "lack of empathy" for Palestinians, and that the Israelis need to "demonstrate that they do understand the pain of an oppressed people in their minds."
March 2013: Obama forces Netanyahu to call Islamist Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan to apologize for Israel's actions to stop a terrorist-arming flotilla from entering the Gaza Strip to aid Hamas. Erdogan had recently labeled Zionism racism.
May 2013: Members of the Obama Pentagon leak information that Israel attacked the Damascus airport to stop a shipment of weapons to terrorist groups. Obama officials actually had to apologize for this leak, since it endangered American lives. They blamed "low-level" employees.
June 2013: The Obama administration leaks specific information regarding Israeli Arrow 3 anti-ballistic missile sites. Weeks later, US sources tell CNN that Israel attacked a Syrian installation full of Russian-provided missiles. The same month, "American intelligence analysts" tell the New York Times that Israeli strikes had not been effective. All that information was classified.
June 2014: Three Jewish teenagers are kidnapped, including an American, and murdered by Hamas. The Obama administration immediately calls on Israel for restraint, and says it will continue to work with a Palestinian unity government including Hamas. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki says that the Obama administration wants "the Israelis and the Palestinians continue to work with one another on that, and we certainly would continue to urge that... in spite of, obviously, the tragedy and the enormous pain on the ground." Throughout the ensuing Gaza War, in which Hamas fired rockets at Israeli civilians and tunnels were uncovered demonstrating Hamas' intent to kidnap Israeli children, the Obama administration criticized Israel's prosecution of the war.
August 2014: In the middle of a shooting war, Obama stopped weapons shipment to Israel. According to the Wall Street Journal, Obama found out that Israel asked the Defense Department for shipments of Hellfire missiles. Obama personally stepped in and blocked the shipments.
October 2014: Jeffrey Goldberg, court Jew for the Obama administration, releases an article in The Atlantic quoting Obama officials calling Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a "chickenshit." Goldberg, naturally, blames Netanyahu (of course, he also wrote in 2008 that any Jew who feared Obama on Israel was an "obvious racist").
January 2015: Obama deploys his campaign team to defeat Netanyahu in Israel. A group titled "One Voice," funded by American donors, pays for the Obama campaign team, led by Obama 2012 field director Jeremy Bird. The announcement comes days after Speaker of the House John Boehner's invite to Netanyahu to speak before a joint session of Congress. Obama quickly announced he would not meet with Netanyahu, making the excuse that the meeting would come too close to the election.
March 2015: Netanyahu wins. Obama refuses to call him to congratulate him for two days. When he does, he threatens to remove American support in the international community, even as he moves to loosen sanctions and weapons embargoes on Iran.
Nothing has changed. Obama is who he always was. The mask has simply been removed.
Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the new book, The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). He is also Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.org. Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.
While the other team says Obama is completely owned by Zionists and an enemy to all Muslims. Being an American is fun.
Go back to the Moon Landing stuff Siege, it's more entertaining.
Quote from: frunk on March 20, 2015, 02:43:44 PM
Go back to the Moon Landing stuff Siege, it's more entertaining.
Gotta agree. You're getting really tedious Seeb.
Quote from: Valmy on March 20, 2015, 02:31:30 PM
While the other team says Obama is completely owned by Zionists and an enemy to all Muslims. Being an American is fun.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.islamicthinkers.com%2Findex%2Fimages%2Fjewbama_support.jpg&hash=ecc4151dc9c5a57e89310b74d51afe89bd455287)
I am not sure that is the correct usage of 'disillusioned' there :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on March 20, 2015, 03:08:19 PM
I am not sure that is the correct usage of 'disillusioned' there :lol:
They are a "Thinkers Society," so I'm sure they thought this through. :)
They area Thinkers Society, they obviously aren't disillusioned since they are sure they can convince Obama with the strength of their arguments.
Quote from: Malthus on March 20, 2015, 01:22:34 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 20, 2015, 12:56:31 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 20, 2015, 12:53:48 PM
Not really, no.
Iran is paying a stiff international price to obtain nukes - ongoing sanctions, problems from its neigbours, attacks of various sorts by shadowy spooks (most likely US and Israeli).
To the extent Israel paid a price to obtain nukes, it was paid years ago; it does not face ongoing sanctions, problems from its neighbours, or attacks because it has nukes.
But Israel enjoys a more secure position because it has nukes. It may seem worthwhile to go through the current difficulties, to get to that more secure position with nukes.
Israel had a more secure position from owning nukes, when its existence was threatened by Syrian and Egyptian tanks.
Right now, the threats to Israel come from 'unconventional warfare' attacks from Hamas and Hezbollah. So I would agree with your original point, that right now Israel has nothing much to gain in security from owning nukes - but also, nothing much to lose from owning 'em, as nobody will give Israel anything to give them up, and no-one is imposing any cost on Israel to keep them.
In contrast, Iran has nothing much to gain, but a high price to pay to own 'em.
I think immunity to attack by the US is a major gain. Look at Russia, they are attacking their neighbor right now and are totally immune to military attacks from the US.
I'm not looking forward to the next 22 months of US-Israeli relations...:ph34r:
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 20, 2015, 04:31:35 PM
I'm not looking forward to the next 22 months of US-Israeli relations...:ph34r:
Russia will happily fill the position
It's time for Abepalooza! :w00t:
http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/03/27/usa-japan-speech-idINL3N0WT1CY20150327
Quote
Japan PM Abe to address joint session of U.S. Congress
(Adds comment from Japan's top government spokesman)
By Patricia Zengerle
(Reuters) - Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will address a joint meeting of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives on April 29, becoming the first Japanese leader to do so.
Abe will spend eight days on a state visit expected to focus on joint responses to growing Chinese assertiveness in Asia, including his moves to loosen the constraints of Japan's pacifist, postwar constitution on the military.
In announcing the invitation to the Japanese leader, U.S. Speaker of the House John Boehner said Abe's speech would be an opportunity for Americans to hear from a close ally about ways to expand cooperation on economic and security priorities.
"That, of course, includes working together to open markets and encourage more economic growth through free trade," Boehner said in a statement.
Trade is an important component of President Barack Obama's diplomatic and security "pivot" to Asia. Progress toward a 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal has been touted as a key hope for Abe's visit to the United States, starting April 28. Congress, however, has been slow to finalize legislation to speed such agreements.
There had been some resistance to offering Abe the honor of addressing both houses.
An organization for former U.S. prisoners of the Japanese and a Korean-American forum said last week he should only be allowed to make the address if he acknowledged Japan's World War Two past.
HISTORY
Abe cuts a controversial figure in parts of Asia given what critics see as his attempts to water down past statements about the behavior of Japan's Imperial Army during the war.
Washington has stressed the need for Japan and its neighbors, including another U.S. treaty ally, South Korea, to bury historical animosities.
Asked about the speech, Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga told a news conference in Tokyo on Friday that it would "have great significance in that it will demonstrate the strong U.S.-Japan alliance to the world."
"This will be an a splendid opportunity to send a message to the world, that the United States and Japan reconciled after the war and as strong allies...have contributed to the peace and prosperity of international society...," Suga said.
U.S. State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke said a Feb. 12 speech to Japan's parliament by Abe delivered "a very positive message about history issues" and added: "We continue to emphasize the importance of approaching historical legacy issues in a way that promotes healing and reconciliation."
Speaking to Congress will be a personal milestone for Abe, given that his grandfather, Kishi Nobusuke, addressed the house as Japanese prime minister in 1957, and the most recent address to that chamber by a Japanese leader was in 1961 by then-Prime Minister Hayato Ikeda.
Although addresses to both houses by foreign leaders are fairly rare, Abe's will be the third this year. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to both houses on March 3, and Afghan President Ashraf Ghani did so on March 25. nL2N0WS1XM (Reporting by Patricia Zengerle and David Brunnstrom; Additional reporting by Kaori Kaneko and Linda Sieg in Tokyo; Editing; by Doina Chiacu, Bernard Orr, Andrew Hay and Michael Perry)
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/president-signs-order-making-ted-cruz-ineligible-for-obamacare
Bravo......... :P Ted is a douche
Quote from: Valmy on March 20, 2015, 02:31:30 PM
While the other team says Obama is completely owned by Zionists and an enemy to all Muslims. Being an American is fun.
Where in the fuck did the GOP go? Talk about a party of nutjobs.
QuoteAbe will spend eight days on a state visit
What will the Emperor do during the visit?
Quote from: The Brain on March 27, 2015, 01:22:42 AM
QuoteAbe will spend eight days on a state visit
What will the Emperor do during the visit?
Reign.
Quote from: grumbler on March 27, 2015, 06:50:04 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 27, 2015, 01:22:42 AM
QuoteAbe will spend eight days on a state visit
What will the Emperor do during the visit?
Reign.
"Looks like reign." :contract:
Eh, he ain't going to do shit. Not unless the Saudis are on board with it.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iran-nuclear-talks/netanyahu-calls-iran-agreement-threat-israels-survival-n334961
QuoteNetanyahu Calls Iran Nuclear Agreement a Threat to Israel's Survival
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday slammed a preliminary agreement over Iran's nuclear program as one that puts the Jewish state into mortal danger.
"A deal based on this framework would threaten the survival of Israel," Netanyahu warned in a statement after speaking to President Barack Obama by telephone.
"Such a deal would not block Iran's path to the bomb. It would pave it," he said.
Obama on Thursday announced a framework agreement with Iran in which Iran would agree to limits on its programs to enrich uranium and make weapons-grade plutonium — two methods of building a weapon — and agree to inspections in return for a lifting of crippling economic sanctions.
President Barack Obama said any deal under the agreement "would cut off every pathway that Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon" and that inspections would be thorough. "If Iran cheats, the world will know it," Obama said.
Obama emphasized in the phone conversation with Netanyahu that "progress on the nuclear issue in no way diminishes our concerns with respect to Iran's sponsorship of terrorism and threats towards Israel," and that "the United States remains steadfast in our commitment to the security of Israel," the White House said in a statement.
Netanyahu said in the U.S. and other countries should ratchet up the pressure on Iran until a better deal is reached.
The Saudis are almost certainly on board. But it's still difficult for Bibi.
For June to negotiate the full deal is a very narrow timeframe for an Israeli strike and Obama, as he announced the preliminary deal, invited the GCC to the White House for security talks.
Quote from: The Brain on March 27, 2015, 01:22:42 AM
QuoteAbe will spend eight days on a state visit
What will the Emperor do during the visit?
Sit around naked and see if anyone notices.
"Limits on weapons grade plutonium?" As in they get some? :blink:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2015, 07:41:22 PM
The Saudis are almost certainly on board. But it's still difficult for Bibi.
For June to negotiate the full deal is a very narrow timeframe for an Israeli strike and Obama, as he announced the preliminary deal, invited the GCC to the White House for security talks.
Well, if they're really on board with it, then maybe there will be strike. However, there's beem so many claims over the last 5-10 years that this is the year Israel will strike, that I'm skeptical it will actually happen.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2015, 08:03:59 PM
"Limits on weapons grade plutonium?" As in they get some? :blink:
The proposed limit is zero so no.
Quote from: Valmy on March 20, 2015, 02:31:30 PM
While the other team says Obama is completely owned by Zionists and an enemy to all Muslims. Being an American is fun.
This means you are doing something right.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 02, 2015, 08:14:53 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2015, 07:41:22 PM
The Saudis are almost certainly on board. But it's still difficult for Bibi.
For June to negotiate the full deal is a very narrow timeframe for an Israeli strike and Obama, as he announced the preliminary deal, invited the GCC to the White House for security talks.
Well, if they're really on board with it, then maybe there will be strike. However, there's beem so many claims over the last 5-10 years that this is the year Israel will strike, that I'm skeptical it will actually happen.
Let's hope it will be another success story, like Iraq.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 02, 2015, 08:14:53 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2015, 07:41:22 PM
The Saudis are almost certainly on board. But it's still difficult for Bibi.
For June to negotiate the full deal is a very narrow timeframe for an Israeli strike and Obama, as he announced the preliminary deal, invited the GCC to the White House for security talks.
Well, if they're really on board with it, then maybe there will be strike. However, there's beem so many claims over the last 5-10 years that this is the year Israel will strike, that I'm skeptical it will actually happen.
Things in the Mid East are so quiet now so an Israeli strike on Iran will break the peace and tranquility of the region.
Quote from: Martinus on April 03, 2015, 01:46:36 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 20, 2015, 02:31:30 PM
While the other team says Obama is completely owned by Zionists and an enemy to all Muslims. Being an American is fun.
This means you are doing something right.
Not necessarily. Plenty of leaders have pissed off both sides and done so in utter failure. Not that I would ever say that about Obama :goodboy:
Quote from: derspiess on April 03, 2015, 10:29:49 AM
Not necessarily. Plenty of leaders have pissed off both sides and done so in utter failure. Not that I would ever say that about Obama :goodboy:
G.H.W. Bush wasn't an utter failure. He was a perfectly ordinary failure.
The problem the Bibi Who Cried Wolf has is that he cannot step up his game now that there is a treaty framework to criticize; he went before Congress and told the cheering morons that he would characterize any agreement framework, no matter the terms, as "paving the way to an Iranian bomb." He was shrieking so loudly before there was anything to shriek about that his shrieking is now just background noise. His fifteen minutes was up weeks ago.
Not sure that's solid enough to call it the "Obama doctrine", nor am I completely sold on the idea that Iran understands they can't fight us. It's not that I think they believe they can take us in a full blown conventional war, but I'm not so sure they understand where the line lies regarding unconventional actions that would incite such a conflict.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iran-nuclear-talks/obama-iran-nuclear-deal-they-cannot-fight-us-n336161
QuoteBy Hasani Gittens
President Barack Obama believes the controversial Iran nuclear deal has a shot at working for the simple fact that America is bigger and more powerful than Iran and can fall back on other options if it doesn't work.
In an interview with the New York Times' Thomas Friedman — conducted Saturday and published Sunday — the president defends what the columnist called an "Obama doctrine" with respect to warming relations with Iran, as well as Cuba and Myanmar.
"We are powerful enough to be able to test these propositions without putting ourselves at risk. And that's the thing ... people don't seem to understand," Obama said. "You take a country like Cuba. For us to test the possibility that engagement leads to a better outcome for the Cuban people, there aren't that many risks for us. It's a tiny little country. It's not one that threatens our core security interests, and so [there's no reason not] to test the proposition. And if it turns out that it doesn't lead to better outcomes, we can adjust our policies."
He added: "The same is true with respect to Iran, a larger country, a dangerous country, one that has engaged in activities that resulted in the death of U.S. citizens, but the truth of the matter is: Iran's defense budget is $30 billion. Our defense budget is closer to $600 billion. Iran understands that they cannot fight us."
He said he felt it was worth the attempt to see whether Iran would slow its march toward a nuclear weapon.
Critics have said the deal gives Iran too much for too little in return. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday called it "a dream deal for Iran, and it's a nightmare deal for the world."
/quote]
Could we please just cut out the middle man, have us nuke Israel and be done with this whole goddamn mess?
:huh:
Quote from: sbr on April 06, 2015, 01:10:51 AM
Could we please just cut out the middle man, have us nuke Israel and be done with this whole goddamn mess?
We'd need to launch Israel's retaliatory strike on Iran, as well. We're probably talking about two missiles, maybe more. Even used, you are talking about missiles and warheads worth tens of missions of dollars. Can we afford it?
Quote from: 11B4V on March 27, 2015, 12:34:33 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 20, 2015, 02:31:30 PM
While the other team says Obama is completely owned by Zionists and an enemy to all Muslims. Being an American is fun.
Where in the fuck did the GOP go? Talk about a party of nutjobs.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Falfonzorachel.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F01%2Fliberal-logic-101-263.jpgw500h416.jpg&hash=7f785d0f3ae64b22851d70c18959e775562bac11)
:lol:
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTJGjdzN9Z3f5wUuBD9WafZtCqZnwRLgxVeVfVPIBPjKTdFUrK2)
I'm fucking tire of 11B4V and his fucking lies.
Quote from: Siege on April 06, 2015, 12:24:09 PM
I'm fucking tire of 11B4V and his fucking lies.
Me too, which is why I appreciate you introducing new ones. :hug:
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR0gijMJaYWGXNHhDf4PzIEHtfdtriEMdBsmwWzOBRh3FRye5va)
These are some of the best ones yet, Siege.
They'd be better if the photos looked a little more like the Star Trek characters they are lampooning, but the "Yes, MLK Jr was a Republican" line was a howler.
Quote from: Siege on April 06, 2015, 12:24:09 PM
I'm fucking tire of 11B4V and his fucking lies.
But you're a liar. You've told lies here and have been caught.
Quote from: Siege on April 06, 2015, 12:36:44 PM
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR0gijMJaYWGXNHhDf4PzIEHtfdtriEMdBsmwWzOBRh3FRye5va)
So "Joe Soptic" was the name of the character that put those ear things into Enterprise crewmen in
Wrath of Khan? I thought that character was named "Khan" as in the movie title.
Someone who knows the movie better, help me out.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-3oU0Wli1bPc%2FT-KH2RrkKgI%2FAAAAAAAAFDE%2FkSDQgMfiBVY%2Fs1600%2Fliberal-logic-101-104.jpg&hash=f6090fae74fc5958bbb703627a76b7942a64c415)
Quote from: Razgovory on April 06, 2015, 12:40:39 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 06, 2015, 12:24:09 PM
I'm fucking tire of 11B4V and his fucking lies.
But you're a liar. You've told lies here and have been caught.
what the fuck are you talking about?
Quote from: Siege on April 06, 2015, 12:47:17 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-3oU0Wli1bPc%2FT-KH2RrkKgI%2FAAAAAAAAFDE%2FkSDQgMfiBVY%2Fs1600%2Fliberal-logic-101-104.jpg&hash=f6090fae74fc5958bbb703627a76b7942a64c415)
I disagree with this. While I agree TNG was better (at least towards the end) than TOS, I don't think Stargate SG-1 ever approached that height.
Quote from: grumbler on April 06, 2015, 01:20:58 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 06, 2015, 12:47:17 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-3oU0Wli1bPc%2FT-KH2RrkKgI%2FAAAAAAAAFDE%2FkSDQgMfiBVY%2Fs1600%2Fliberal-logic-101-104.jpg&hash=f6090fae74fc5958bbb703627a76b7942a64c415)
I disagree with this. While I agree TNG was better (at least towards the end) than TOS, I don't think Stargate SG-1 ever approached that height.
You must be high.
SG-1 was far more visionary than either TOS or TNG.
SG-1 had all the elements from the Technological Singularity, even thought they did not truly understand the process in which the TechSing appears to be developing in real life.
SG-1 had technoimmortality, all kinds of genetic modifications, robotization of the economy, post-scarcity civilizations, post-technological "ascencion" to a "higher plane of existance", and techno-retraction, which is when a civilization's tech level is so advance that they go completely into the nano-scale and retract from the visible physical world.
Quote from: Siege on April 06, 2015, 12:48:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 06, 2015, 12:40:39 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 06, 2015, 12:24:09 PM
I'm fucking tire of 11B4V and his fucking lies.
But you're a liar. You've told lies here and have been caught.
what the fuck are you talking about?
YOu said that the guy who crashed that airliner into a mountain in France was a Muslim. This is not true, ergo, you are a liar.
Quote from: Siege on April 07, 2015, 04:15:12 PM
You must be high.
SG-1 was far more visionary than either TOS or TNG.
SG-1 had all the elements from the Technological Singularity, even thought they did not truly understand the process in which the TechSing appears to be developing in real life.
SG-1 had technoimmortality, all kinds of genetic modifications, robotization of the economy, post-scarcity civilizations, post-technological "ascencion" to a "higher plane of existance", and techno-retraction, which is when a civilization's tech level is so advance that they go completely into the nano-scale and retract from the visible physical world.
Odyssey 5 had all that, and was much better-done. SG-1 was a fun romp, but wasn't visionary at all. The technobabble was for the sake of sounding like an SF show, which is really wasn't, strictly speaking.
Quote from: Siege on April 06, 2015, 12:48:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 06, 2015, 12:40:39 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 06, 2015, 12:24:09 PM
I'm fucking tire of 11B4V and his fucking lies.
But you're a liar. You've told lies here and have been caught.
what the fuck are you talking about?
Yeah WTF are you talking about?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 07, 2015, 04:49:32 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 06, 2015, 12:48:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 06, 2015, 12:40:39 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 06, 2015, 12:24:09 PM
I'm fucking tire of 11B4V and his fucking lies.
But you're a liar. You've told lies here and have been caught.
what the fuck are you talking about?
If his lips or fingers are moving......he be lying.
YOu said that the guy who crashed that airliner into a mountain in France was a Muslim. This is not true, ergo, you are a liar.
Quote from: 11B4V on April 07, 2015, 09:29:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 07, 2015, 04:49:32 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 06, 2015, 12:48:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 06, 2015, 12:40:39 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 06, 2015, 12:24:09 PM
I'm fucking tire of 11B4V and his fucking lies.
But you're a liar. You've told lies here and have been caught.
what the fuck are you talking about?
If his lips or fingers are moving......he be lying.
YOu said that the guy who crashed that airliner into a mountain in France was a Muslim. This is not true, ergo, you are a liar.
I know what raw was talking about. I wonder what siege was dribbling on about.
Quote from: 11B4V on April 07, 2015, 09:37:50 PM
I know what raw was talking about. I wonder what siege was dribbling on about.
Never try to understand the Siege. Enjoy, but don't try to understand. His shtick is almost impenetrable.
So, is this the Israel megathread now? :unsure:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/middle-east-unrest/israel-says-airstrike-foiled-terrorist-attack-syrian-border-n348646
Quote
Israel Says Airstrike Foiled 'Terrorist' Attack at Syrian Border
The Israeli military said it launched airstrikes Sunday that "neutralized" an imminent attack by bomb-carrying militants along the Israeli-Syrian border.
Few details were immediately available. In a brief statement, the Israel Defense Forces said the air force was deployed after "terrorists armed with explosives" were spotted.
Reuters quoted an Israeli military source as saying, on condition of anonymity, that four militants placed an explosive on a fence near Majdel Shams, at the foot of Mount Hermon in the annexed Golan Heights. All four were killed, according to the Reuters source.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed the military action, although he provided no details.
"Any attempt to harm our soldiers or civilians will be met with a determined response like the IDF operation from tonight, which thwarted an attempted attack," Netanyahu said in a statement on Twitter. "I wish to praise the alertness of our soldiers, who acted quickly and precisely."
Quote
IDF
✔ @IDFSpokesperson
Terrorists armed w/ explosives along Israeli-Syrian border were en route to imminent attack on our forces. Our air force neutralized threat.
4:35 AM - 27 Apr 2015
298 298 Retweets
288 288 favorites
Quote from: grumbler on April 08, 2015, 06:37:35 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on April 07, 2015, 09:37:50 PM
I know what raw was talking about. I wonder what siege was dribbling on about.
Never try to understand the Siege. Enjoy, but don't try to understand. His shtick is almost impenetrable.
See, this is why we never get along. You never tried to enjoy me.