Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Bibi's speach - Yea or Nay? (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: Bibi's speach - Yea or Nay?
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I myself say Nay

for the following reasons:

1. Failing to recognize that he is nothing but a pawn in The Game between democrats and republicans. Or - even worse - recognizing that he is simply used as a tool to bash Obama but still wishes to go through it for reason #2

2. Using the speech solely for internal Israeli political reasons and not for any "real agenda" against Iran

3. The speech can easily happen a week after the elections and still be on time before march 24th

4. It is very safe to say that the Americans and Iranis would not have made a deal by that time anyways (hence my belief in reason 2)

5. Clearly, this will hurt future relations between Israel and the USA, it does not seem clear to me what Israel or the USA gains from yet another Speech.

6. If bibi had the guts - he would have bombed Iran already

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's also possible that Iran is very close to a point where he'll have no choice but to bomb and this speech is a media-prep for when he'll have to do it. The Iranians are insane, not dumb. They've been pushing these deadlines out for a reason, and Obama has been content to let them do it.

In all the years since 9-11 our HUMINT still appears to be in relative shambles and I doubt electronic surveillance would serve us enough to know how close they are.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
yeah it's harder to bomb the Iranians when their present is no longer a trolling Nazi
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I see no reason to believe that the Iranians are insane.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DJQuag:
I see no reason to believe that the Iranians are insane.

I see no reason to believe that "the Iranians" are running Their own country. Censorship, religious Police, public torture like the sort of slow hangings that even Adolf Hitler Did Behind the Scenes, all these things tend to put a dampener on participatory democracy. in that light the sanity of the Iranian people generally, is a straw man, a red herring, a fart in a cyclone, & not particularly dispositive.

[ February 17, 2015, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let me set aside for a second my take on the whole "Western-Iranian-deal"

I think its a sham, the Iranians will never agree to anything that will make them lose the capability to develop nukes. Everybody who is right in his mind knows this. Unless they are the most ridiculously PC liberals.

So... the negotiations will fail, unless... the Western world will agree to a deal that will put Iran in a place where they can develop a nuke in months time and no one will be able to stop it.

If this is the case - then Israel should let it all out on Iran without mercy.

That was my take, what I am asking is... should Bibi give the speech in the congress or not

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No. A foreign leader coming to the US to give a speech to a joint session of congress criticizing US foreign policy/the President is insulting. The fact that he is being used as a pawn in American domestic politics and using it to boost his own standing Israeli politics right before an election makes it doubly off putting.

If he wants a big international stage for his speech go to the UN or wait for the President and congress to invite him.

Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" If this is the case - then Israel should let it all out on Iran without mercy"

and without looking for Obama's backing, I should hope.


______
Yoserian, insulting or not, that's the Constitution Article One working as designed.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well - if it was up to me yes. I am pretty confident with the IDF's capabilities...

I would also sure hope there won't be a US intervention though.
For instance - in 1991, the US refused to share IFF codes with the IAF so that we will not be able to retaliate against Iraq.

Flying over Jordan and most of Iraq will not be a problem, what about the carriers at the golf? will they let the IAF pass?

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by DJQuag:
I see no reason to believe that the Iranians are insane.

I see no reason to believe that "the Iranians" are running Their own country. Censorship, religious Police, public torture like the sort of slow hangings that even Adolf Hitler Did Behind the Scenes, all these things tend to put a dampener on participatory democracy. in that light the sanity of the Iranian people generally, is a straw man, a red herring, a fart in a cyclone, & not particularly dispositive.
I thought my point was plain enough, but apparently not. I see no reason to believe that the Iranian government is insane.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think its a sham, the Iranians will never agree to anything that will make them lose the capability to develop nukes. Everybody who is right in his mind knows this. Unless they are the most ridiculously PC liberals.
What will you say if they do sign a treaty? Will you then argue that they still must be cheating, because by definition it's a sham because "the Iranians will never agree to anything that will make them lose the capability to develop nukes"?

There's some nasty extremists in the Iranian government. At the same time, Iran/Persia has not started a conventional military war in over a thousand years. And the most prominent relationship between Iran and weapons of mass destruction is that more Iranians have been killed by weapons of mass destruction than citizens of any other country in the world (over 100,000 killed by Iraqi gas attacks in the 1980's). I have yet to understand how Iran, without nukes and no track record of starting wars, is always seen as more of a risk than Pakistan, which has nukes, has started wars, and which has provided support to the Taliban. Why do we have to go to war with Iran but Pakistan is fine?

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
that's a horrible straw man. no one said that Pakistan is fine. Pakistan having nukes is the reason that it has been able to get away with the ISI creating and sustaining the Taliban.

a nuclear Iran would expand its terrorist operations tenfold, knowing that no one could hurt it.

what happened in Pakistan, if you trouble yourself to look at the history, is that they became nuclear before we realized. it would have been well worth it to bomb Pakistan before it became nuclear, given the trouble that Taliban and their cute little gifts have inflicted on us.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
tell the lebanese about peace loving iranians that never start wars.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Yoserian, insulting or not, that's the Constitution Article One working as designed. [/QB]

Yes, it is. That doesn't mean a foreign leader should play along.
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"What will you say if they do sign a treaty?"

From my perspective, a key word here is "A treaty"

If they will sign a treaty that is deemed ok to the Mossad and the Israeli Intelligence Corps, I will be fine with it.

If they will sign something that is not, and this is where I worry that there is a conflict between Israel and the "West" Then I will continue to call it a sham.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the "West" is risk/conflict averse to the level of absurdity. Many of these politicians who are negotiating are more interested with being able to say they are the ones who succeeded in signing a deal with Iran rather than the content of that deal.

Who should Israel trust exactly? The same western countries who are now letting Ukraine fall to the hands of Russia? Why should we have it any better?

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hannibal:
Who should Israel trust exactly? The same western countries who are now letting Ukraine fall to the hands of Russia? Why should we have it any better?

You can defend yourselves. An ability you should work to keep. You are correct that no one in the west cares enough about Ukraine to get in a shooting war with Russia. If Ukraine was stronger militarily I'm guessing they would get more aid. No one wants to back a looser too strongly. If the US put boots on the ground in Ukraine it would significantly increase the risk of an all out war that could escalate to the use of nuclear weapons (which Russia still has lots of). The cost/benefit of saving Ukraine is too high. If the west engages strongly and wins Ukraine is free and Putin gets a slap on the nose, if they engage strongly and things get drawn out we have WWIII.
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why should we have it any better?
Depends on what treaty obligations the US (and the rest of the West) have towards Israel. We had essentially none towards Ukraine, in part to avoid unpleasant obligations if the Russian invaded.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ukraine isn't, and wasn't, under attack from Russia, so don't spend too much time worrying about that. This is no invasion or repeat of Cold War conquest.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Exactly, the treaty will only be a device to create divisions between the US and Iran. Iran still openly calls the US the "great Satan" and calls for Israel's and our destruction. You cannot trust them. They are an evil regime that oppresses their own people. And yes they are insane theocrats.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
the "West" is risk/conflict averse to the level of absurdity
If the West is risk/conflict averse to the level of absurdity, and yet in the last 20 years has conducted significant military operations in the former Yugoslavia, Libya, and now Iraq, has conducted actual wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, and has continued to use unmanned aircraft to kill enemies in several countries, what level of military action would be necessary to rise above the level of what you consider to be absurdity?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Those were done because they were viewed as "easy" opponents who had no real capability to defeat us or strike back and inflict major damage on us.

When was the last time we openly warred with a nuclear power?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg:

Is Vs Was.

past stupid adventures such as Kosovo and iraq have rendered us understandably with adverse

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Politicians are adverse to committing to actions that will lose them votes, and which exceed their budget capabilities. That's about all the adverse there is. If a war was sellable and affordable there would be no political resistance.

If anything it was Vietnam that made 'hard opponents' a thing that won't be repeated any time soon.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So non-absurdity is only when we fight someone who has nukes? That seems a little absurd in its own right.

And besides, if the Bush Administration team that led us into Iraq was sincere rather than delusional themselves, didn't they expect that weapons of mass destruction would be used against our troops?

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On the other hand, there's an argument to be made that for the past 60 years the US has been more risk adverse than our potential adversaries with respect to combat casualties. Instead of matching up head-to-head with adversaries such as the Soviets, the US has sought technological advantage to counter numerical superiority

quote:
In a Nov. 15 speech to the Reagan National Defense Forum, outgoing U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced the creation of a Pentagon initiative to develop new military technologies and operational concepts to counter growing threats to U.S. military supremacy. He noted that potential American adversaries are increasingly able to field advanced weaponry that rivals U.S. capabilities at a time when the Pentagon finds itself in a severely constrained fiscal environment. According to Hagel, the new initiative will seek to produce breakthrough innovations and eventually “develop into a game-changing third ‘offset’ strategy” that will allow the United States to remain the world’s dominant military power in an increasingly challenging security environment.

The two previous U.S. offset strategies were implemented during the Cold War. The first, adopted by President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s administration during the 1950s, relied on the vast size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal to offset the Soviet Union’s enormous numerical superiority in conventional forces. The second offset strategy began to emerge two decades later. By the mid-1970s, the Soviets were approaching nuclear parity with the United States, a development that appeared to undermine the credibility of the U.S. nuclear deterrent. Having downsized considerably after the end of the Vietnam War, the U.S. military continued to find itself heavily outnumbered by Soviet forces. American defense planners turned to advanced technology as a way to even the playing field. .

link

That does truly count as risk aversion, but it goes back a number of generations

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
So non-absurdity is only when we fight someone who has nukes? That seems a little absurd in its own right.

And besides, if the Bush Administration team that led us into Iraq was sincere rather than delusional themselves, didn't they expect that weapons of mass destruction would be used against our troops?

No idea what you mean by paragraph number 1.

P2:
No. our troop movements were such of that chemical weapons would have been useless against them. since the death of trench warfare, chemical weapons are generally used against civilian populations.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry, Pete, I believe I was responding to someone else's comment ("the West is risk/conflict averse to the level of absurdity") but now for some reason I can no longer find that original comment.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I disagree that "since the death of trench warfare, chemical weapons are generally used against civilian populations", and the reason for the disagreement is a pretty fundamental one when talking about weapons of mass destruction and Iran.

Over 100,000 Iranian soldiers were killed by chemical weapons used by Iraq in the 1980's wars that, and worse yet, the US was not only aware, but involved in several key ways: p

quote:
As documented in 2002 by Washington Post reporter Michael Dobbs, the Reagan administration knew full well it was selling materials to Iraq that was being used for the manufacture of chemical weapons, and that Iraq was using such weapons, but U.S. officials were more concerned about whether Iran would win rather than how Iraq might eke out a victory... The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague…
link

quote:
1988, during the waning days of Iraq’s war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein’s military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.

The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop movements, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defenses. The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq’s favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration’s long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed.

link

If this is true - and I do believe that all of this is not denied by any but an extreme fringe, then we really do need to look at Iranian dynamics as a country that not only suffered over a million deaths within living memory from 4 Iraqi-started wars, but also many Iranians have friends or relatives who died in chemical warfare.

I agree that there are extremists in Iran, but given the experiences across the population, I can also understand why their experience may have embedded a certain level of fear of American actions.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
only an extreme Fringe Deny that we sold Saddam Hussein bubonic plague?

Seriously?

so George HW Bush sold Saddam Hussein bubonic plague and then Invaded Him?
Seriously?

did we sell anyone else bubonic plague?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Dobbs quote appears to have some substantiation (link), but I'll drop the assertion of transferring materials to enable the chemical weapons program; the Iraqi use of chemical weapons (and the use of US targeting intelligence) are the more important claims, and I have seen much deeper substantiation for them
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So the Iranians have cause to be angry with us? Why does that matter? They hate us and have vowed to destroy us and Israel, does it matter whether their past grievances are justified or not? Do you want us to survive? This is the Ornery American forum, not Ornery Iranian forum. For better or worse the US engaged in some bad moves, but that doesn't mean we should sit by and allow people who have declared themselves to be our enemies to get weapons as a way to punish ourselves. That's insane.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" I agree that there are extremists in Iran, but given the experiences across the population, I can also understand why their experience may have embedded a certain level of fear of American actions"

your language assumes that the Iranian people are running their own country. one would have to be extremely gullible and missing any sort of historical calendar of events, to suppose that Iran is more radicalized after the Iran Iraq war then it was immeIdiately before. finally I'd have to ask, what's the total number of the Iranian killed by Ayatollas for political and religious reasons? I ask because a middle school classmate of mine was put to death I at age 14 for being the son of one of the Shaws and bassadors. so I very little patience for this drivel about trusting the Iranian people. Iranian people don't control the Iranian government.
,

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I never said anything about trusting them based on this experience, I said understanding them. And even the most militant and most moderate members of government all may have family members killed in chemical attacks - it helps to understand their psychology
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
after 9 11, Iranian people demonstrated to show sympathy for the United States. the religious police beat them in the street and then arrested them. so please, let's have no more of these Inane assumptions that the Iranian people control their government.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To be fair, they tolerate it. If they were at the point of not tolerating their government where they had nothing left to lose they'd swarm their government and overthrow it. They aren't there yet. In this way even tyrannies are "consent of the people."
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"1. Failing to recognize that he is nothing but a pawn in The Game between democrats and republicans. "...

This is more about international alignment of conservative perspectives, and principles.

"Or - even worse - recognizing that he is simply used as a tool to bash Obama but still wishes to go through it for reason #2 "...

If there are also conservatives in Israel, I would be stunned if the first part of #2 was not a consideration.

"2. Using the speech solely for internal Israeli political reasons and not for any 'real agenda' against Iran. "...

Does Netanyahu have a reputation for bluffing in Israel?

"3. The speech can easily happen a week after the elections and still be on time before march 24th. "...

It is hardly unknown that public persuasion is a necessary precursor to significant military action.

"4. It is very safe to say that the Americans and Iranis would not have made a deal by that time anyways (hence my belief in reason 2) "...

... Or any time at all.

"5. Clearly, this will hurt future relations between Israel and the USA... "...

No, you do not understand americans, or America.

"It does not seem clear to me what Israel or the USA gains from yet another Speech. "...

... Already answered in #3.

"6. If bibi had the guts - he would have bombed Iran already. "...

Do you know something the rest of us should?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If they were at the point of not tolerating their government where they had nothing left to lose they'd swarm their government and overthrow it.
Let me submit that the point when individuals decide they have nothing left to lose by swarming their military is relatively far down the line of "I have problems with my government." I mean, Scott Walker is still alive, for example, even though a lot of college professors know where he lives. [Wink]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
״This is more about international alignment of conservative perspectives, and principles.״

The Likud party is far cry from the Republican party when it comes to economic positions. Israel is a social democracy.

They only share some sort of common grounds when it comes to defense issues, and honestly I don't think that the labour party is any different in that regard (i.e - the labour party will also bomb Iran if there is no other option).

So... there are conservatives in Israel, but in all honesty I don't believe it is the same as conservatives in the USA. I could be wrong here, but I think the context of an Israeli conservative vs an American conservative is different.

"Does Netanyahu have a reputation for bluffing in Israel?"
Netanyahu has a reputation of never taking an action. sitting on the fence till the last possible second (and many times far later than that) and then when forced by the circumstances to take an action - he will take the most populist one.

""5. Clearly, this will hurt future relations between Israel and the USA... "...

No, you do not understand americans, or America."

You are saying - that the current outrage on this speech will have no affect on future relations between bibi and Obama ? or in general the way the American public think of bibi ? (From the little I am seeing working in NYC I think I am right on this one)

"It is hardly unknown that public persuasion is a necessary precursor to significant military action."
"Do you know something the rest of us should?"

By now, I am pretty certain bibi does not have the guts to bomb Iran. I think he is all talk on that matter. I think I have a much larger exposure to the way he acts and behaves. and it seems to me that he has will not act on this matter.

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You'd better hope he has the guts to bomb Iran, because if he doesn't then Obama surely doesn't. At this point I think Obama would actually have no response to a 'mystery' terrorist nuke going off somewhere 'randomly' (remember his administration's sick explanation of the kosher market attack?). And yes, that would be despite any radiological analysis that attempted to link the fissile material back to someone, especially since we don't have access to analyze Iran's fissile material ahead of time to be able to make a match later anyway...
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No one ever says what happens on day two after a hypothetical bombing attack. If Iran is this cartoon villain enemy that you imagine, what next? What level of military action would end the threat from such people? Iran is a bigger country than Iraq, with a population of 77 million - how much do you need to destroy, and how many of them do you need to kill until you achieve what you consider to be a satisfactory outcome? How many ground troops are you planning on sending in after the initial "shock and awe" phase of bombing?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1