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 4)

 - 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?
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
We" are not George W. Bush
Is Iran more Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than we are George W. Bush? Neither is in office.

Of those currently in government, have any American leaders called for war against Iran? Why yes, most of the Republican party is calling for war. So remind me again why you see a significant difference between those in the Iranian government calling for our destruction and those in the US government calling for Iranian destruction?

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 
Iran "is" essentially the Ayatollah since he never leaves power and has total power over the country with no limitations.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  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:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
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.

So we should ignore them when they say they want to destroy us and assume, what, the opposite? Really?

We have a pretty good idea that Iran wants to get nukes and is trying from multiple intelligence sources. The sources differ from how far along they are but none of the sources disagree that Iran IS seeking them.

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 
How about recognizing that people say things for a variety of reasons? Or that expressing desire isn't the same as a commitment to carry out an act or a desire to accept the consequences if they actually tried. If that were true, you'd have a public option.

Yes, they're trying for nukes, but as Pete pointed out, the important question is: why? To kick off a nuclear exchange so they can matyr half their country? To slip nukes to terrorists so they can destroy their enemies without self-immolating? To stop the US from invading? To make sure that no-one ever invades them again? To let them indulge in Cold War style proxy fights?

You'll notice some of those options are fantastically dumber than others.

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 
Never underestimate the ability of Islamist religious fanatics to engage in self-delusion. What may seem dumb to you makes perfect sense to the Ayatollah.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  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 
So....

Anybody listened to the speech? Any impression?

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 
I heard a lot of it, great speech.

He highlighted the many attacks where Iran has killed American citizens either directly or indirectly through its terrorist proxies, and how they are blowing up mock US aircraft carriers and having parades with Obama's effigy in a noose they are simultaneously at the bargaining table pretending to care about peace. There was also the discovery of the secret nuclear facility that violates previous international agreements by the Iranian resistance group.

Netanyahu made the case that everything Iran is doing shows they are lying and still want to wipe out the US and Israel.

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 
Did Netanyahu ever pay up when he literally "guaranteed" in testimony to Congress in 2002 that taking out Saddan would have enormously beneficial consequences? Or for 20 years of predictions that Iran was a year or two away from having nukes?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  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 
Not that I like to rush to his defense...

but there has been an ENORMOUS effort to slow down Iran both overtly and covertly.

So saying that he is been saying this for 20 years is really a shallow argument.

I also wouldn't blame your failed invasion of Iraq on what the Israeli PM said or not said. One may also say that the middle east is a better place without Sadam. Isis is a lot less scary than Iraq and the arab winter is not related to Saddam either.

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Disgraceful Spectacle in Congress
quote:

There was nothing interesting in the content of Netanyahu’s speech to Congress this morning. One remarkable thing about the event was how shamelessly the prime minister repeated one dishonest or tendentious claim after another. He held up an utterly unrealistic “much better deal” that Iran would never agree to as the only alternative, and he absurdly claimed that the deal currently being negotiated would “pave” the way to an Iranian nuclear weapon. The “much better deal” that he insisted on isn’t remotely possible, and the only reason to insist on it is to try to kill off the best chance of reaching an agreement. Netanyahu nonsensically warned about an unrestricted Iranian nuclear program ten years from now at the same time that he was agitating for the rejection of the only deal that could restrict the program. Needless to say, Netanyahu’s record of false predictions and warnings about Iran’s nuclear program makes him an especially unreliable source of information. The fact that his obnoxious performance was received so warmly in Congress today is not surprising, but it is nonetheless deeply discouraging for anyone interested in peace or foreign policy restraint.

The other remarkable thing was the embarrassing, rapturous response of the assembled members in the audience. Except for extremely rare occasions when an American president has enjoyed stratospheric approval ratings, I cannot recall such a loud, overwrought response from members of a Congress to a visiting speaker. The audience this morning enthusiastically cheered on the sabotage of a major U.S. diplomatic initiative, the undermining of an important U.S. policy goal, and the blatant meddling of a foreign leader in our domestic politics. It is one of the more disgraceful things I’ve seen an assembly of American political leaders do, and that is really saying something.


Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  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 
Hannibal,

Do you still believe that Netanyahu will not take independent action against Iran's fissile material enrichment targets? Our House represenatives (both sides of the isle) gave him a standing ovation when he said Israel would go it alone if necessary.

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 
I also noticed how the vast majority of both parties received the speech very well.

I guess there's a difference between partisan posturing for the press and finally coming face to face with the realization that Iran wants to hit the US and Israel with nukes.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  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:
I also noticed how the vast majority of both parties received the speech very well.

I guess there's a difference between partisan posturing for the press and finally coming face to face with the realization that Iran wants to hit the US and Israel with nukes.

Or the relationship with Israel is such that Congressmen from both parties have been instructed to show support no matter what and to keep any dissent to themselves.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  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 
Fenring,

If Barry was unable to stage a Democratic no-show beyond ~50 represenatives (while Harry Reid made a cameo appearance), who is giving orders to the line toeing Democratic House members that applauded the speech?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  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 noel c.:
Fenring,

If Barry was unable to stage a Democratic no-show beyond ~50 represenatives (while Harry Reid made a cameo appearance), who is giving orders to the line toeing Democratic House members that applauded the speech?

The President is not the one with the power to give Congressmen instructions.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  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 
Who is?
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  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 noel c.:
Who is?

It would be terrific to have an answer to that involving specific names. I can guess but it won't mean much.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  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 noel c.:
Who is?

In theory, the People
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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 
The people have been fairly consistent about legislation crafted in secret, and rushed to a vote so that we could "find out what is in it".

Barry's Iran treaty brainchild would do to nations what the UCA is doing to the American people. The "people" just don't know what's good for 'em.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  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 
Granted I've only read summaries and not very favourable ones at that, but Netanyahu seemed more Neville-ish that his opponents. Instead of 'just one more treaty', it's 'just one more refusual'. One more insult, one more show of force and the Iranians will kick out the ayatollahs, roll over, and become good little members of the Western order.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  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 
@Noel,

No, I still don't think so. I hope so, but don't think so. I do think that there is no difference which Israeli PM it will be, they all have the exact same position when it comes to a nuclear Iran and a pre-emptive strike, I guarantee you that.
It was the labour party that blew up all the arab airforces in 1967 not Bibi.

As much as I am against Bibi in everything related to Israel, I think he is definitely right about Iran.

It is a very bad deal, which will eventually one way (they will cheat) or the other (they will simply wait) end up with a nuclear Iran which will be such a bad development that we cannot even begin to postulate.

Philantofil's quote only demonstrates the huge dissonance we (Israelis) have with American Liberals on the Iran issue.

How can you expect a party like Iran (who indoctrinates their people to hate you and everything your way of life stands for, and actively kill you in various different ways) to sign any deal in good faith?

Why aren't you not believing what their leaders are saying face value?

How can you not see it, really? why is demanding that Iran stop threatening to destroy Israel be part of the agreement? this is the whole point, if this is something Iran can't agree to, then don't sign a deal its that simple.

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:
It is a very bad deal, which will eventually one way (they will cheat) or the other (they will simply wait) end up with a nuclear Iran which will be such a bad development that we cannot even begin to postulate.

It's a deal that will at least pause the development of a nuclear weapon for a decade. That is a longer delay than I have heard of any military strikes having. It isn't ideal but it puts us back in the same position we are in now in 10 years. That is a lot of time for things to get better or things to get bad enough that military strikes are clearly the only option.

quote:

How can you expect a party like Iran (who indoctrinates their people to hate you and everything your way of life stands for, and actively kill you in various different ways) to sign any deal in good faith?

How can you expect a party like the US who helps topple democratically elected governments and has government officials routinely call for bombing/war against Iran to negotiate in good faith?

Yes that last statement is a bit hyperbolic but there is plenty of reason for distrust on both sides.

quote:

Why aren't you not believing what their leaders are saying face value?

How can you not see it, really? why is demanding that Iran stop threatening to destroy Israel be part of the agreement? this is the whole point, if this is something Iran can't agree to, then don't sign a deal its that simple.

Don't sign a deal delaying their nuclear weapons program by a decade and do what instead?

If there was a military strike option that guaranteed they wouldn't get a nuclear weapon for a decade but could promise nothing beyond that would you take it?

Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  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:
Granted I've only read summaries and not very favourable ones at that, but Netanyahu seemed more Neville-ish that his opponents. Instead of 'just one more treaty', it's 'just one more refusual'. One more insult, one more show of force and the Iranians will kick out the ayatollahs, roll over, and become good little members of the Western order.
So then read the whole speech. It's not very long and it's pretty good.

Your Chamberlain comment is backwards. The only one acting like him here is Obama who is literally negotiating with someone who is simultaneously throwing rallies where they have effigies of Obama with a noose around its neck, burning American flags, showing maps of the US with radiation symbols on them and blowing up mock US aircraft carriers in military drills.

What proof do you require that the Iranians want us dead? Do we have to die to finally prove it to you?

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 
You're missing the point. Netanyahu is saying the solution is more negotiations rather than less. He's saying that a better deal is possible if the US tells Iran to get stuffed. That we have force Iran to swallow poison pills if we withold honey. What I fail to see if Iran will cheat on a sweet deal, will they not cheat faster on a bitter one? It's like saying Germany would have held to the Treaty of Versaille if only the Allies had insisted they completely disarm rather than partially.

Furthermore, I don't give a fig about what the Iranians want, I give a fig about what they're willing to do. There are states with nuclear weapons that would see America in ruins. Huge chunks of the Arab world would prefer to see Israel destroyed. Yet they haven't seriously tried in decades and the only country to use nukes as weapons of war is the US.

It is effectively impossible for Iran to gain second-strike capability, so any use of nuclear weapons, by whatever delivery method risks their destruction. If they are so uncaring about their own fates that they'd use nukes anyway, why isn't Netanyahu arguing for invasion? Instead it's calling for more talk, not less.

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 
Which Arab state has nukes? None. Your two sentences are deceptive in their proximity. Yes it's bad NK has nukes but that is not a reason to let Iran get them.

Which theocracy has nukes? None.

Iran has two aspects which will lead to their use of nukes.
1. They are a theocracy. They are making their decisions from a primarily religious context. Dying to kill infidels would be OK to many if not most of them.
2. They have deep ties with terrorist organizations and will hope that passing it off to them gives them a decent chance that they won't be retaliated against especially if no one can trace the nuke signature back to them if the program is never inspected.

[ March 04, 2015, 11:46 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 
North Korea? I was talking about Russia.

No theocracies? Read the news coming out of Alabama lately? [/slander]

1. Only if they're stupid enough to think that a single blaze of glory is the best way to kill infidels. If Netanyahu's laundry list of offenses is accurate, then they've no need to destroy themselves to kill infidels. Note: he isn't saying that Iran will actually use nukes. That's not the threat.

2. Right, deep ties with terrorist organizations that no one would suspect got nukes from their sponsor. Are you seriously suggestng that if Hezbollah uses a nuke people won't hold Iran responsible?

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think you are correct with the inclusion of "most" in item 1. But item 2. I think you are spot on. That would be the method used to strike with the hopes of surviving the process. It wasn't US! It was stolen! It was a frige element of our military and we've delt with those traitors! We are the victims as well, don't retaliate!

That's the scenario I fear if they become armed.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  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 
DW, I'm not saying it isn't something to be concerned about, but to act like it's an inevitability is absurd.

The real threats, the ones even Netanyahu could see, are that they'll use the nukes as an shield while they conduct more conventional transgressions. That it will mean the end effective end of non-proliferation. That the international order will become so invested in the stability of the Iranian regime that it will not be permitted to collapse, for fear of truly state-less actors will use the chaos to steal the nukes. All this will allow them to export global jihad (good job, Bibi, the Iranians are both Nazis and Communists!) far more effectively than a brief flash of nuclear fire that will in all likelihood end in their destruction.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A lot of my views on foreign policy are absurd by conventional standards.

I lean heavily towards isolationism with the capability to swat down threats. No nation building, no bullying, just go in, smash something, then leave.

I would prefer the other countries, who don't care much for us, thought of us as a sleeping giant. One they feared waking up but wasn't going to medal with them if they left it alone.

Doubt I'd ever get my way on that one though. [Wink]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
A lot of my views on foreign policy are absurd by conventional standards.

I lean heavily towards isolationism with the capability to swat down threats. No nation building, no bullying, just go in, smash something, then leave.

I would prefer the other countries, who don't care much for us, thought of us as a sleeping giant. One they feared waking up but wasn't going to medal with them if they left it alone.

Doubt I'd ever get my way on that one though. [Wink]

Not enough profit in it.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Which is why it's absurd. You need to be making profit if you are going to have any military / political potency. If you are making profits you are also making enemies and need that military / political potency.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Which is why it's absurd. You need to be making profit if you are going to have any military / political potency. If you are making profits you are also making enemies and need that military / political potency.

It's like a Rorschach test. How you respond to that says a lot about you [Smile]
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The question is can you just declare yourself the winner and opt out of the game? Would your audacity, and the envy of others who can't do the same still, create too many enemies? Could you fend off these enemies still once you turned inward and left the others to their own devices?

Oh well enough rambling on what will never be. [Smile]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The U.S. economy now relies on arms sales, which is streamlined by having a powerful and active army to purchase much of that equipment. However if the military is equipped with ordnance it doesn't use for a while (peace-time) it will become obsolete or degrade over time and you are left with the option to either just throw it out and upgrade it, or to keep the old stuff for many years until a 'necessary war' occurs. It is economically more efficient to continuously use the arms and require replenishment, and in using it to obtain foreign resources, trade agreements, and 'allies'.

In short, if you become a peaceful nation or a sleeping giant, you may well remove the effective ability to keep a strong standing army with constantly updated gear (not that all of it gets updated in a timely fashion, mind you). So the ability to swat threats, as you put it, would inevitably be impaired, unless gross amounts of money were going to be continually levied towards a military that is essentially inactive and not generating revenue.

I think to an extent a nation has to choose between looting and between having a much less powerful army and being content to use coalitions to wage military campaigns. I'd be fine with the latter, but many people don't trust foreign powers to take care of business should it arise; it feels much safer to have an overwhelmingly strong U.S. military.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  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 
"It's like a Rorschach test. How you respond to that says a lot about you. "...

Interestingly, how you respond to Rorschach test validity says a lot about you. :

"Conclusion
The problems confronted in the Rorschach test are ones which cannot be overlooked when assessing personalities for therapeutic purposes. Although Hermann Rorschach’s original intention was not for inkblots to be a projective test, the succeeding psychologists have deemedits position as such. The reliability and validity of a test assessing one’s personality are extremely significant. Since this test is used to determine psychopathologic behaviors, any misinterpretations or testing variables can substantially alter results. “Because face validity influences attitudes and evaluations of a test's acceptability, to some extent the Rorschach'slimitations may be afforded less tolerance than the limitations inherent in other tests” (Meyer &Archer, 2001). While other personality tests that are empirically based may have room for somevalidity issues, the inferential structure of the Rorschach inkblots cannot provide alternatives."

https://www.academia.edu/1315365/An_Analysis_of_Rorschach_Inkblot_Personality_Assessment_Tests

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  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 
DW,

"Which is why it's absurd. You need to be making profit if you are going to have any military / political potency. If you are making profits you are also making enemies and need that military / political potency. "...

How does the animus of both Iranian, and ISIL trace upon this absurdity construct?

Hannibal,

When listening to Netanyahu's arguments before the House, were you impressed? I believe his speech is seminal. Many American's have been yearning for that type of cogency from the mouth of a national leader, and I am happy to receive it from Israel.

Are you certain he is not getting a bad rap at home? His military credentials do not seem to match what I am hearing from you. The last U.S. President that even came close was GHWB, and I am frankly much less impressed with the home balance of that juxtaposition.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't understand your question noel. Are you just pointing out that not all enemies come to be because they were profited off of? Are you pointing out that there are reasons to have a strong military besides plundering? Both of those are true IMO. Not sure if that's what you were getting at though.

Or if it was just a rebuke to stay on topic. [Wink]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 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 
DW,

Yes, yes, and yes. [Wink]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  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 
Fenring,

"However if the military is equipped with ordnance it doesn't use for a while (peace-time) it will become obsolete or degrade over time and you are left with the option to either just throw it out and upgrade it, or to keep the old stuff for many years until a 'necessary war' occurs. "...

That is the reason I think we should exhaust our Minuteman II inventory on taking out Iranian enrichment facilities.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  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:
That is the reason I think we should exhaust our Minuteman II inventory on taking out Iranian enrichment facilities.
I don't see how you can suggest this and still call Netanyahu's speech seminal. He did a whole bunch of tap dancing to suggest such drastic action wouldn't be necessary.

He wasn't saying Iran will get nukes if we don't blow them up, he was saying Iran will give up on nukes if we're slightly meaner to them. He was telling politicians that they didn't need to make a decision on an imperfect treaty but just wait a little longer and Iran will totally capitulate.

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