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 3)

 - 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?
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mynnion,

"Why is the US such a target? "...

Envy.

"Is it possibly because we keep manipulating the affairs of nations to the benefit of the US and the detriment of the native populations? "...

Where does the zero-sum calculation enter into this? The only thing our adversaries in that region have going for them is petroleum (including Russia), and the U.S. is the single largest consumer.

Ask the leaders of these third-rate nations, or Obama, if they would like to see the emergence of an energy independent America.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Envy- In your dreams.

"Ask the leaders of these third-rate nations, or Obama, if they would like to see the emergence of an energy independent America."

I hadn't realized that it was the leaders giving us grief in most of these nations.

Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  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 
"Envy- In your dreams. "...

Hmm, we have Putin comparing whether he, or GWB has the biggest, baddest, dog. :

http://m.huhmagazine.co.uk/6571/george-w.-bush-unveils-painting-of-vladimir-putin

And the Koranic Jesus fooling people into thinking he was crucified, because their prophets just don't lose. :

http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/cornelius/crucifixion_quran.html

"I hadn't realized that it was the leaders giving us grief in most of these nations. "...

Did you think I would be surprised?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  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 
m, I don't understand how you can blow off and the as a cause. many of our opponents have spelt that Out. and the power, of wealth, and of cultural influence. Osama bin Laden's targets, and Isis imitation of Hollywood techniques and its videos, all point to Envy as a major factor.

if our highest objective was to avoid making enemies, then we would need to disconnect the World Wide Web, and ban Americans from making movies or books.

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 
quote:
what is your plan for the war against Iran?
I don't have one. Should we be forced to let ourselves be nuked because we don't have one or have one that you'd consider is a good plan?

quote:
Is it possibly because we keep manipulating the affairs of nations to the benefit of the US and the detriment of the native populations?
We hear this a lot from certain people. Lets assume it's true and we stop meddling with the world tomorrow. What should we do about the enemies who are already stirred up and want to attack us already? Just let them?
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 
Thanks (sincerely) Seneca, for acknowledging that you don't have a plan for conducting the war.

I think our positions are clear - you and noel and maybe Pete think that those who are pursuing diplomacy right now are cowardly and wrong. My position would be the exact opposite - those advocating war are in fact cowardly and wrong.

I don't imagine that we are going to persuade each other either way, but I feel that we have achieve a good meeting of the minds in that I believe that the positions are clear. So, thanks all for the discussion - it has helped make things clearer for me (as it often does, even when heated)

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  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 
"... those advocating war are in fact cowardly and wrong. "...

Well, I suppose that is clarity of a sort. [Smile]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think our positions are clear - you and noel and maybe Pete think that those who are pursuing diplomacy right now are cowardly and wrong.
I do not recall saying that people opposed to war were cowardly. Can you maybe quote a statement I made saying that to job my memory? Thanks.
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 
Seneca, I believe I came to that conclusion about your belief from remarks such as "You'd better hope he has the guts to bomb Iran, because if he doesn't then Obama surely doesn't". That seems to be a direct implication that people who don't favor your policy lack guts, i.e.; are cowardly.

Whereas to me, this urge to start a war with a cartoon-evil picture of the enemy in your mind and without any clear understanding of the end-game strikes me as a cowardly form of panic rather than rational and clear cut analysis.

[ February 23, 2015, 12:37 AM: Message edited by: Greg Davidson ]

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:

quote:
Is it possibly because we keep manipulating the affairs of nations to the benefit of the US and the detriment of the native populations?
We hear this a lot from certain people. Lets assume it's true and we stop meddling with the world tomorrow. What should we do about the enemies who are already stirred up and want to attack us already? Just let them?
This is an interesting question, Seneca, and I think it's the most important one I've seen in this thread. How would we deal with nations already angry with us even if we do everything we can not to anger others?

One possible answer is to turn them into friends, trade with them, make both nations interdependent, build infrastructure, and build bridges. This is, of course, only possible with nations that want to do so. Making the people of another nation prosperous helps both nations; us, because we have a stable trading partner, them for the same reason, but also because if their nation is prosperous it will be less likely to have internal instability. Peaceful trading is plus-sum, whose only downside is that another power (like Russia) might happen to benefit from it more than us; i.e. one cannot expect extremely favorable trade contracts without using force to get them. The fact is that the U.S. learned long ago that not only is trading good, but it's even better when you get to dictate the terms of the trade. This kind of thinking is accurate for the short term but creates long term problems that aren't worth it.

If another nation is 'crazy' and refuses to trade at all, then they can be left alone and opposed if they make aggressive moves towards another nation. This is a basic non-interventionist approach.

The non-interventionist approach has a few issues:

1) Nuclear proliferation. If non-nuclear nations really want to acquire this technology, it's only a matter of time until they do. Unless you want to keep Iran in the stone age then they will eventually be able to do what we did 75 years ago (!). Just think about Iran in 100 years, with flying cars, robot servants, and still unable to figure out technology from the age of propeller planes. Sounds a little far-fetched, no? For right now pure force can prevent a nation developing nuclear technology, but how long can that last? And when you have been using pure force all the while, what will the attitude of the nation be when they eventually get nukes anyhow? It seems weird to me anyhow to declare by law that a nation can't develop certain technology, but that's another matter.

2) Refusal to trade or partake in the international banking system. This isn't so much a problem as it is a thorn in the side of certain powers that can't stand not having a piece of the pie everywhere. I don't have too much sympathy with this issue, although it is the cause of many wars and "people's revolutions."

3) Massacres within the nation's borders. If we don't like the idea of the population of some nation being gassed or killed in large numbers then it would be a question whether or not to invade or do something about it. On paper one would think we would do so, except historically this hasn't tended to be a reason to intervene in a nation's affairs. Peacekeeping happens, but overall nations with weak strategic value don't tend to attract military attention no matter what's happening there. For such nations a non-interventionist approach would not change much.

4) The terrorist problem. Even a nation we leave along might sponsor terrorists anyhow. This is hard to talk about, since every power around right now has been messed with to such an extent that it's impossible to discuss what is whose fault. I'd say the first step towards healing would be to stop messing with other nations, and to see if that helps the problem. If it doesn't, then the problem could be re-assessed.

One thing that's true is that if healing takes a certain amount of time, and there is a potential nuclear threat in the short-term before that can happen, then something has to be done. One answer to this can be a funny one: Bribe them. Give them stuff for not pursuing nuclear programs; make it worth their while. If such bribes came partially in the form of the building up of their country, it would help even the tyrants since that would mean better morale in the populace which would keep the tyrants in power.

But since might has played such a part in foreign policy in the past, you're right that it's almost hard to contemplate how we would treat others if it wasn't through using force against them. I don't know that I have the answers, but I feel it's the right question to ask.

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 
I'd argue that the best strategy is to try a combination of efforts to undercut the extremists and reinforce other factions who see it less in their interest to have conflict. Obama's careful efforts to define extremists as separate from Islam is exactly the right approach if you want to try and separate the extremists from the rest of the population. In contrast, language that comes from the panicky fear of conservative leaders about 1.6 billion Islamofascists just tends to drive Muslim factions together against an American threat.
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:

I think our positions are clear - you and noel and maybe Pete think that those who are pursuing diplomacy right now are cowardly and wrong.

... I believe that the positions are clear.

expositions are " clear " then why do you say maybe about me?

I approve of us engagIng Iran in discussion.

if you think reducing Iran to Stereotype is cowardly, what should I make of your reduction of My arguments to stereotype?

I find the naive fuzzy innocent Iranian argument to be cowardly as in Evasive of Inconvenient uubvious fact, but i neverthIeless support US negotiation with monsters.Stalin & Mao were as monstrous as any cartoon if not more, & Yet we were right to negotiate with them

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 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
I'd argue that the best strategy is to try a combination of efforts to undercut the extremists and reinforce other factions who see it less in their interest to have conflict. Obama's careful efforts to define extremists as separate from Islam is exactly the right approach if you want to try and separate the extremists from the rest of the population. In contrast, language that comes from the panicky fear of conservative leaders about 1.6 billion Islamofascists just tends to drive Muslim factions together against an American threat.

I AGREE COMPLETELY.

Nevertheless, We need to bravely recognize the devil we sup with.

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 
Obama Should not adopt the rhetoric of Fox News but neither should he continue to Give speeches that sound like they were written by Cair & The Muslim Brotherhood.

His refusal to adress the concerns of Muslim secularists is a great and Cowardly betrayal of liberal Principles.

Obama Provokes islamophobia by Playing stupid about islamism.

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 was unclear about your position and I withdraw the speculation that you might stand with noel and Seneca on this issue.

Also, I don't think that there is a direct equivalence of viewing Iran as a cartoon and being cowardly in one's approach to Iran. I could, for example, believe a cartoon picture about Swiss people that might be foolishly unrealistic, but it would not necessarily drive cowardly behavior. But to choose a cartoon image based on your most fearful nightmares, and then in your panic to advocate for a war with no clear understanding of an end-game, that is cowardly.

This thread has me thinking a lot about a quote that never used to make sense to me, it's FDR's "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself". Even in a time of actual, realized warfare, why did FDR use those words, and why did they resonate? Fear and panic change how people think. In my experience, sometimes people who are afraid choose anger over fear, because the adrenaline of anger is less unpleasant than the anxiety of fear. Fear can make you want to start a war that you have no idea how to end (and that might even increase the danger that you face).

Fear can also shape how you see the world. I was just listening to an NPR podcast called Invisibilia, and they were discussing lab research that showed if people think about dying, they tend to like people with their same background more, and tend to like those of other backgrounds less.

I see the Republican Party in the United States as feeding off of fear for the last 35 years. There are some very unusual aspects of the United States relative to the other countries in the world - we have far more people in prison. Either Americans are way more likely to be threats and thus need to be incarcerated, or Americans are way more afraid of potential criminals and thus are far more likely to imprison people who would not he incarcerated in other countries. Fear is a motivator. And yes, many politicians in all countries use some level of fear (vote for X and your social security will be cut or your taxes will go up, etc.), but it is this existential fear (Obama is a Muslim sleeper anti-Christ,etc.) that has become the daily diet of the Republican Party.

[ February 23, 2015, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: Greg Davidson ]

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 
Fine. I'll go on record and say I think those blindly opposing military action are cowardly. Also, I am not advocating war, I am grudgingly admitting there is no other option.

The Iranians are not some enemy we are guessing about and making up fears about. They have explicitly said they want to wipe Israel and the USA off the map. Are we supposed to ignore that and pretend they never made those statements and let them get nukes when we could stop them from acquiring them?

Think of all the close calls we had during the Cold War. That was with a secular regime that could be somewhat reasoned with. How do you reason with a theocracy who believes it is their holy duty to destroy us?

[ February 23, 2015, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  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 
I recall hearing that Iran's nuclear program wasn't susceptible to significant disruption by military force. That it would be difficult for bombings to seriously impair their ability to continue development. Has that changed or was in error?

Basically, I'm not sure that going in to blow stuff up isn't going to do anything other than kill a bunch of people and convince the Iranians they really do need nuclear weapons before the US decides the only solution is regime change.

Though the diplomatic solution seems equally impractical. The Iranians, given the threat they face, cannot reasonably be expected to agree to anything that will prevent them from getting nukes quickly should the US decide to manufacture a cassus belli. Unless you think they're telling the truth about only wanting the tech for civilian applications.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  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 
"We would become vulnerable only when their space-launch vehicle becomes operational, which is why we will have to launch a preemptive nuclear attack if our allies are attacked with nuclear equipped medium range missiles."

Or we can do like Clinton, and actually GIVE the opponent the long-range technology they need to hit us. [Big Grin]

"The ayatollahs themselves have shown little personal interest in becoming martyrs."

True enough. Captain goatbeard himself lived in Paris for years, nicely avoiding personal risk.

But Iran is unlikely to develop even medium range nukes. The danger is that it will act like Pakistan (training and equipping groups like the Taliban), but on a large scale.

But Noel, are you serious about launching a nuke at a country with which (1) we aren't even at war, and (2) we're actually engaged with, fighting a common enemy?

Wouldn't that kind of be like nuking Stalin during World War II? Amusing, perhaps, but hardly fair play.

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 
quote:
I think those blindly opposing military action are cowardly
Blind opposition is certainly foolish, and if someone were cowardly that could be one reason for blind opposition.

Fortunately, that's not referring to me. And in the words of the best President in my lifetime:

quote:
"I don't oppose all wars... What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by [officials] to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne."
link
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 
Here's an indication that as with the race to conduct war against Iraq, pro-war advocates are similarly raising fears that their own security apparatus does not agree with:

quote:
The Mossad briefing about Iran’s nuclear programme in 2012 was in stark contrast to the alarmist tone set by Netanyahu, who has long presented the Iranian nuclear programme as an existential threat to Israel and a huge risk to world security. The Israeli prime minister told the UN: “By next spring, at most by next summer, at current enrichment rates, they will have finished the medium enrichment and move[d] on to the final stage. From there, it’s only a few months, possibly a few weeks before they get enough enriched uranium for the first bomb.”

He said his information was not based on secret information or military intelligence but International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports.

Behind the scenes, Mossad took a different view. In a report shared with South African spies on 22 October 2012 – but likely written earlier – it conceded that Iran was “working to close gaps in areas that appear legitimate, such as enrichment reactors, which will reduce the time required to produce weapons from the time the instruction is actually given”.

But the report also states that Iran “does not appear to be ready” to enrich uranium to the higher levels necessary for nuclear weapons. To build a bomb requires enrichment to 90%. Mossad estimated that Iran then had “about 100kg of material enriched to 20%” (which was later diluted or converted under the terms of the 2013 Geneva agreement). Iran has always said it is developing a nuclear programme for civilian energy purposes.

Last week, Netanyahu’s office repeated the claim that “Iran is closer than ever today to obtaining enriched material for a nuclear bomb” in a statement in response to an IAEA report.

link
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:
link

quote:
Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
What's changed, in your view, since he said that?
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 
If Obama trusts Iran to honestly negotiate in good faith then he IS dumb, not cowardly. If he is shrewd enough to realize that Iran will lie and cheat every chance they get because they hate us and will never be honest with us, then he IS cowardly by kicking this can down the road and making the inevitable conflict harder and costlier every second that he postpones it.
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 
And if he's shrewd enough to realize that Iran will lie and cheat every chance they get because they hate us and will never be honest with us, but sees this negotiation as a chance to get inspectors in?
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 
Pete, you are right to point out that Obama was calling for some things will out so-called allies as a State Senator that he has not been able to achieve as a President. Reality has set in in some ways.

At the same time, I never would have imagined that in 2015 we'd be as immune to issues over Middle Eastern oil as we find ourselves today. Fracking has been a big help in this regard, but renewable sources of energy have also made very large increases (to about 12% of total energy use in 2013)

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 
Some progress is good. Unless most of that "renewable" resource increase includes ethanol which is produced through use of nonrenewable resources.

Also, I agree that is a very good speech. Reminds me of why I found him hopeful in 2008, and was outraged when the press upstaged his declaration into the race because of the death of some old stripper. I remember working out in the gym, waiting for him to come on TV and make his announcement, and changing the channels looking for him, and seeing nothing but endless white silicone cleavage.

[ February 24, 2015, 02:48 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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 
From Iran's point of view, the US can't negotiate in good faith. They've no way of being certain that whatever deal they reach with Obama's administration won't be tossed out the window by someone looking for a short victorious war.

If one assumes Iranian decisions makers are neither stupid nor suicidal, the only reasonable explanation for their pursuit of nuclear technology is to get immunity from American militant adventurism. With a side benefit of cowing Iraq or other neighbours.

Any treaty with Iran would have to address that concern. I don't see how the US can do so credibly given that half its political establishment encodes "bomb Iran" as subtext in their every comment on the subject.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  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 while these "negotiations" are going on, The Iranian government holds a rally in Tehran, part of which is dedicated to effigies of Obama and other US leaders being destroyed as well as other anti-American symbolism and constant messages about the destruction of America.

quote:
Just weeks before Secretary of State John Kerry held new nuclear talks with Iran’s foreign minister in Geneva, Iranians were hanging Kerry's boss in effigy at a huge Tehran-sponsored rally marking the Islamic Revolution’s 36th anniversary, an event that critics say underscores the absurdity of the ongoing diplomatic effort.

The U.S. and Iran are trying to reach a final nuclear agreement by a March 31 deadline against a backdrop of ongoing anti-American hatred in the Islamic republic. Photos posted by the Middle East Media Research Institute this week show Iranians marching in front of a display depicting President Obama hanging from a gallows and carrying signs of Kerry, portrayed as a devious fox.

Hundreds of thousands of Iranians took part in the Feb. 11 Revolution Day, which commemorates the 1979 overthrow of the U.S.-assisted Shah of Iran. The Iranians, as they have in past, chanted, “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.” They also burned and trampled an American flag.

“The Iranians on the one hand want to get as many concessions as they can from America during the nuclear talks but on the other hand they are not ready to give up their anti-Americanism
- Ali Alfoneh, Foundation for Defense of Democracies
MEMRI said other photos from the rally show Iranians waving posters of Obama looking like Pinocchio.

The U.S. and other superpowers want to stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. Iran says its nuclear intentions are peaceful, a claim that experts dismiss.

“The Iranians on the one hand want to get as many concessions as they can from America during the nuclear talks but on the other hand they are not ready to give up their anti-Americanism,” said Ali Alfoneh, a senior fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington.

Alfoneh said Iran’s 'anti-Americanism' gives the country some degree of legitimacy in the Muslim world.

“They’re using their hatred of America and their promotion of hatred of America to take over the mantel of leadership in the Muslim world,” he said.

“This of course to me shows that even if a nuclear deal is reached between Iran and the U.S. it does not necessarily mean that Iran is going to change its ideological fundamental line against the U.S.”

Presidents Bush and Obama were portrayed as being hanged in effigy. (MEMRI)
The Iran expert said the Feb. 11 rally doesn’t necessarily mean Iran doesn’t want a nuclear deal.

“But what they are demonstrating is that if there is a deal they are not going to change their view of the U.S. as an enemy,” Alfoneh said.

Another Iran expert, Ilan Berman, vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council, said the Revolution Day footage indicates that Iran still views the U.S. as the main enemy.

“And that is not going to change even if we make a deal,” Berman said. He said the problem for the White House is the expectation that a deal on the nuclear front will lead to a broader reconciliation with Iran, which is not going to happen.


Secretary of State John Kerry was portrayed as a "devious fox" in the event, which took place even as the U.S. was in talks with Iran about its nuclear program. (MEMRI)
“What you have is an unreconstructed revolutionary regime and they’re not interested in relations with the U.S. in a long-term, meaningful way,” Berman said.

For months now, the U.S. and the world’s other superpowers have been trying to hammer out a deal with Iran that would freeze the Islamic republic’s nuclear program for a period of time. In exchange the U.S. would lift billions of dollars in sanctions that have damaged Iran’s economy. Last weekend Kerry flew to Geneva to join the negotiations and then on Tuesday went to Capitol Hill to make his case for a deal with Congress.

Also Tuesday an Iranian opposition group urged inspection of an "underground top-secret site" outside Tehran that it said was being used to enrich uranium intended for nuclear weapons beyond the detection of U.N. inspectors.

MEMRI said the day before Iran’s Revolution Day, the Facebook page of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei called on Iranians to participate to show the U.S. that sanctions had not harmed the country.

"A U.S. official said that sanctions have trapped Iranians; On (Feb. 11) they will receive a decisive answer, God willing," Khamenei said in his call-to-action poster.

MEMRI that at a Revolution Day event in Kermanshah, Basij commander Mohammad Reza Naqdi called the U.S. and the other superpowers at the nuclear talks—Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany, the 5 + 1 coalition—“a coalition against humanity and against Islam

“The enemies always fear Islam and the progress of the Iranian nation, but do not (openly) say so,” Naqdi said. “Iran’s significant regional and global role has put an end to their exclusive hegemony.”

MEMRI also found a sermon Assembly of Experts member Ahmad Khatami gave on Feb. 13 in which he said that “this year’s processions" produced two new slogans: "‘No to sanctions an no to humiliation, (yes to) dignified negotiations,’ and ‘(our) response to all the (American ) options on the table is: death to American that opposes Islam.’”

He added, "So the Iranian people's hatred for America grows from year to year."

How many different ways do they have to say they want us dead before we believe them?

Also interesting was the discovery of the secret nuclear weapons development site. Take a look at the photos.
http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/8451.htm

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 
Seneca, this article you cite is entirely consistent with my analysis. I believe that there is a strongly extremist anti-US faction in Iran. The difference is that I do recommend taking actions that weaken the anti-American extremists rather than actions that will strengthen them and unite Iranians in supporting them.

The approach of the Republicans and others favoring war will undermine those such as the Iranian opposition group that is cited in the article, and an actual war will kill some members of opposition groups as well as some of the extremists.

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 
Faction?! It's not a "faction," it's the government , you know, the same one pretending to be negotiating about not acquiring the nukes they were just caught making in a secret facility that they need to destroy us with...
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:
Faction?! It's not a "faction," it's the government , you know, the same one pretending to be negotiating about not acquiring the nukes they were just caught making in a secret facility that they need to destroy us with...
Wow, very different world view. Do you think that there are large organizations such as a government of a large country that does not have factions?
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 
Seneca, can you provide any possible reason would Massad have for coming to a significantly different assessment of the risk from Iranian nukes as Netanyahu? Because that's something I presented a few posts back, and your level of fear is vastly higher than that of Mossad.
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 NobleHunter:
From Iran's point of view, the US can't negotiate in good faith.

They can't. Not even with each other.

Nevertheless, the US has a good history of not bombing Iran despite considerable animosity, and it's reasonable to believe that we won't bomb them if they desist from the nuke program. We certainly won't desist just because Obama said we would (Senate just made that crystal clear), but we would desist if we had no compelling motive to bomb. Negotiation therefore does not proceed on a stupid assumption of good faith, but rather on determining what each other really want and what each are willing to give up to secure those objectives.

In other words, they can't trust our word but they can trust us to continue to act like Americans. We can't trust their word, but we can trust them to continue to act like Ayatollackeys. I'm willing to believe that it's possible to construct a lasting peace by those parameters.

[ February 26, 2015, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

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 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Seneca, can you provide any possible reason would Massad have for coming to a significantly different assessment of the risk from Iranian nukes as Netanyahu? Because that's something I presented a few posts back, and your level of fear is vastly higher than that of Mossad.

Could you please repost?

Danke

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 
quote:
We can't trust their word, but we can trust them to continue to act like Ayatollackeys. I'm willing to believe that it's possible to construct a lasting peace by those parameters.
You do realize it's quite possible that the Iranian government might have succeeded too well over the years in indoctrinating the wrong people so much against America that when it comes down it that leads to some insurrection and the deployment of a nuke against America even against the Ayatollah's orders even if he tried to stop it?
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 
Even if that's true, it doesn't change my premise that peace is unlikely if Iran proceeds with it's nuke program. Even if you're wrong, Seneca, and if I'm wrong too, and if Greg's right and Iran just wants to Love America and the bomb together, the fact is that Republicans and Israel will not honor any treaty that leaves Iran developing nukes. If what Greg says is true, then it's such an unbelievable truth that folks who have fingers on bombs are unlikely to credit it.
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 
Pete, it's just a few posts above, but here's the Mossad input

quote:
The Mossad briefing about Iran’s nuclear programme in 2012 was in stark contrast to the alarmist tone set by Netanyahu, who has long presented the Iranian nuclear programme as an existential threat to Israel and a huge risk to world security. The Israeli prime minister told the UN: “By next spring, at most by next summer, at current enrichment rates, they will have finished the medium enrichment and move[d] on to the final stage. From there, it’s only a few months, possibly a few weeks before they get enough enriched uranium for the first bomb.”

He said his information was not based on secret information or military intelligence but International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports.

Behind the scenes, Mossad took a different view. In a report shared with South African spies on 22 October 2012 – but likely written earlier – it conceded that Iran was “working to close gaps in areas that appear legitimate, such as enrichment reactors, which will reduce the time required to produce weapons from the time the instruction is actually given”.

But the report also states that Iran “does not appear to be ready” to enrich uranium to the higher levels necessary for nuclear weapons. To build a bomb requires enrichment to 90%. Mossad estimated that Iran then had “about 100kg of material enriched to 20%” (which was later diluted or converted under the terms of the 2013 Geneva agreement). Iran has always said it is developing a nuclear programme for civilian energy purposes.

Last week, Netanyahu’s office repeated the claim that “Iran is closer than ever today to obtaining enriched material for a nuclear bomb” in a statement in response to an IAEA report.


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 
quote:
the US has a good history of not bombing Iran despite considerable animosity
That hardly shines in the annals of history... Let's look how good our history is in not bombing Iran (not withstanding that we bombed the crap out of Iraq just next door on what has to be at least as flimsy a rationale as we would have for bombing Iran). Of course, the 8 years of war started by Saddam Hussein's Iraq might actually have involved a certain number of bombs. And there's plenty of reasons that the Iranians would have believe that Iraq's effort had the support of the United States, look at this meticulously researched website (with original documentary sources) link

Meanwhile, when is the last time than Iran has started a war with another country? Not supporting paramilitary proxies, which many countries do, but an actual full-scale military conflict. I think it was when they were Parthians

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:
quote:
the US has a good history of not bombing Iran despite considerable animosity
That hardly shines in the annals of history...
There's less truth in History's annals than in its anals, and in the rare cases that it ever drops out to see the light of day, Truth rarely shines. But an unvarnished truth is a better foundation for a lasting peace, than a bright shining lie. Mutual Assured Destruction wasn't shiny but it worked, until we screwed up and accidentally "won" what worked so much better as a stalemate.

quote:
Let's look how good our history is in not bombing Iran (not withstanding that we bombed the crap out of Iraq just next door on what has to be at least as flimsy a rationale as we would have for bombing Iran).
"We" are not George W. Bush, nor are we likely to elect a president whose beloved daddy was just almost assassinated by an Ayatollah. Nor has America just endured eight years of whining, if only George Bush Senior had "finished the job." [DOH] Facts are not the same.
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 
This talk about what we plan on doing is fairly irrelevant. Iran will attack us, we know that because they've said so. It would be foolish to deny their own words.

What kind of country participates in peace talks while sponsoring rallies and parades with the theme of destroying the country they are "negotiating" with?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  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 
Hells' Bells, Seneca, do actually believe everyone's going to do what they say they will?
quote:
Nevertheless, the US has a good history of not bombing Iran despite considerable animosity, and it's reasonable to believe that we won't bomb them if they desist from the nuke program. We certainly won't desist just because Obama said we would (Senate just made that crystal clear), but we would desist if we had no compelling motive to bomb. Negotiation therefore does not proceed on a stupid assumption of good faith, but rather on determining what each other really want and what each are willing to give up to secure those objectives.
What level of risk should Iran accept that they'll get bombed regardless of the status of their nukes? Is there anything we can give them to mitigate or compensate for that risk? Nothing Obama says or does will feel permanent enough. It may be an "only Nixon could go to China" moment, but nukes mean effective immunity from conventional retaliation and that's a pretty hard offer to beat. The second order effects, like freer rein to screw with Israel or intimidating other neighbours just drive the price up.

Other fun thing: what if all the scaremongers are wrong about the state of Iran's nuclear program? Iran would know how far they are from nukes and they just might figure the West is overstating the risk to justify military action. It's not like we've ever done that before. Add in all the anti-Muslim rhetoric and they've all the incentive they need to get nukes before the spin machine makes war nearly inevitable.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  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