icanthearyou 4,463 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I find it nothing short of hilarious irony that the people who seemingly are arguing that Iran should be given a clear path to creating nuclear bombs are the exact same people who argue that I do not have the right to own a pistol to protect my family. Netanyahu made a very compelling case and when he did slightly exaggerate the case, I view that as erring on the side of caution rather than expediency. Iran is the largest sponsor of terrorism in the world and has been linked to sponsorship of Al Qaeda. Those people can only trusted at our own peril. An unintended consequence of a nuclear armed Iran is a nuclear arms race in the middle east. Hey, Im sure thats something ALL democrats can get behind but individual ownership of a pistol is strictly verboten..a'ight? you "slightly" exaggerated the first paragraph. No I didn't. Okay then, who are these imaginary people who argue to give Iran a "clear path to creating nuclear bombs"? Do you have a link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,463 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 But that said, I have to say I agree with Bibi in this regard: I believe the Iranians are not negotiating in good faith, and that any deal likely to be struck under the framework the Obama administration is using would be a bad one. They can't be trusted and will continue to attempt to develop a weapon secretly no matter what and will just use lessened sanctions to buy time to do so. I cannot understand how Obama thinks they won't. Completely fair POV. Of course, that belief pretty much leaves us with our hands tied. In other words, if you don' think we have a partner to negotiate with, then what options do we have? You essentially end up advocating for a military-based enforcement approach. Not sure that gets us to a better place ... Maybe it doesn't. But if he's right, does it matter that you're left with the lesser of two bad options? It just is what it is and we have to move from what is true rather than what we wish it was. Is there any precedent for negotiating with a government that we historically do not trust and, making stringent verification requirements part of the agreement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cptau 169 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 But that said, I have to say I agree with Bibi in this regard: I believe the Iranians are not negotiating in good faith, and that any deal likely to be struck under the framework the Obama administration is using would be a bad one. They can't be trusted and will continue to attempt to develop a weapon secretly no matter what and will just use lessened sanctions to buy time to do so. I cannot understand how Obama thinks they won't. Completely fair POV. Of course, that belief pretty much leaves us with our hands tied. In other words, if you don' think we have a partner to negotiate with, then what options do we have? You essentially end up advocating for a military-based enforcement approach. Not sure that gets us to a better place ... Maybe it doesn't. But if he's right, does it matter that you're left with the lesser of two bad options? It just is what it is and we have to move from what is true rather than what we wish it was. Is there any precedent for negotiating with a government that we historically do not trust and, making stringent verification requirements part of the agreement? With Communist Russia. START I The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), first proposed in the early 1980s by President Ronald Reagan and finally signed in July 1991, required the United States and the Soviet Union to reduce their deployed strategic arsenals to 1,600 delivery vehicles, carrying no more than 6,000 warheads as counted using the agreement’s rules. The agreement required the destruction of excess delivery vehicles which was verified using an intrusive verification regime that involved on-site inspections, the regular exchange of information, including telemetry, and the use of national technical means (i.e., satellites). The agreement’s entry into force was delayed for several years because of the collapse of the Soviet Union and ensuing efforts to denuclearize Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus by returning their nuclear weapons to Russia and making them parties to the NPT and START agreements. START I reductions were completed in December 2001 and the treaty expired on Dec. 5, 2009. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cptau 169 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 But that said, I have to say I agree with Bibi in this regard: I believe the Iranians are not negotiating in good faith, and that any deal likely to be struck under the framework the Obama administration is using would be a bad one. They can't be trusted and will continue to attempt to develop a weapon secretly no matter what and will just use lessened sanctions to buy time to do so. I cannot understand how Obama thinks they won't. Completely fair POV. Of course, that belief pretty much leaves us with our hands tied. In other words, if you don' think we have a partner to negotiate with, then what options do we have? You essentially end up advocating for a military-based enforcement approach. Not sure that gets us to a better place ... Maybe it doesn't. But if he's right, does it matter that you're left with the lesser of two bad options? It just is what it is and we have to move from what is true rather than what we wish it was. Reimpose the sanctions that Obama lifted and make new stronger ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 “The recent dry months, including the driest November in the history of the state, are a warning light to us all that the threat of climate change is no less menacing than the security threats that we face. I intend to act determinedly in this field. In a country that suffers from a severe water shortage, this is an existential struggle,” Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu http://www.jpost.com/Enviro-Tech/Cabinet-okays-NIS-22b-to-reduce-greenhouse-gases Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,463 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 But that said, I have to say I agree with Bibi in this regard: I believe the Iranians are not negotiating in good faith, and that any deal likely to be struck under the framework the Obama administration is using would be a bad one. They can't be trusted and will continue to attempt to develop a weapon secretly no matter what and will just use lessened sanctions to buy time to do so. I cannot understand how Obama thinks they won't. Completely fair POV. Of course, that belief pretty much leaves us with our hands tied. In other words, if you don' think we have a partner to negotiate with, then what options do we have? You essentially end up advocating for a military-based enforcement approach. Not sure that gets us to a better place ... Maybe it doesn't. But if he's right, does it matter that you're left with the lesser of two bad options? It just is what it is and we have to move from what is true rather than what we wish it was. Reimpose the sanctions that Obama lifted and make new stronger ones. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cptau 169 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 But that said, I have to say I agree with Bibi in this regard: I believe the Iranians are not negotiating in good faith, and that any deal likely to be struck under the framework the Obama administration is using would be a bad one. They can't be trusted and will continue to attempt to develop a weapon secretly no matter what and will just use lessened sanctions to buy time to do so. I cannot understand how Obama thinks they won't. Completely fair POV. Of course, that belief pretty much leaves us with our hands tied. In other words, if you don' think we have a partner to negotiate with, then what options do we have? You essentially end up advocating for a military-based enforcement approach. Not sure that gets us to a better place ... Maybe it doesn't. But if he's right, does it matter that you're left with the lesser of two bad options? It just is what it is and we have to move from what is true rather than what we wish it was. Reimpose the sanctions that Obama lifted and make new stronger ones. Why? They were working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted March 3, 2015 Author Share Posted March 3, 2015 Iran says it rejects Obama's demand for 10m year nuclear work halt. Mr. POTUS, take Bibi's advice and call their bluff. http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran-says-rejects-Obamas-demand-for-10-year-nuclear-work-halt-392768 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 The Stunt and the Dysfunctional U.S.-Israel Relationship: Richard Cohen warns about another “existential threat” to Israel that doesn’t exist: Iran may or may not be the existential threat to Israel that Netanyahu insists it is. But a lessening of U.S. support for Israel certainly would be [bold mine-DL]. With an indifferent America, Israel would become a lonely, frightening place. That’s almost certainly not true. If it is true that America doesn’t need Israel, as Cohen acknowledges, it is equally true that Israel doesn’t really need America. Whether it became a “lonely, frightening place” or not would depend for the most part on how it chose to govern itself and how it chose to behave in relation to its neighbors. That is up to Israelis to decide, and none of that has been foreordained. If it didn’t have the U.S. as a patron, Israel would likely be just as secure because of its great conventional and nuclear superiority in the region, but it might just be less intransigent and heavy-handed in its dealings with surrounding peoples because it would know that there would be no superpower guaranteed to bail it out in a jam. (If anyone thinks that decades of U.S. enabling of Israeli behavior have helped to restrain it in any way, I have a bridge to sell you.) At the very least, less reflexive support from Washington would help to remind the client government that it can’t take U.S. backing for granted, and so it would therefore probably be more careful to cultivate a good relationship with the U.S. That would involve paying more attention to American preferences and not going to such lengths to undermine American policies. That would make for something of a more normal relationship between the two governments. Unfortunately, I don’t think there is much chance that today’s spectacle will make U.S. support for Israel any less reflexive, nor will it cause future Israeli governments to believe that U.S. backing can’t be taken for granted. All indications are that the administration is making a point of papering over this dispute and doing what it can to keep the damage to a bare minimum. Despite the unprecedented and outrageous behavior from Netanyahu today, the relationship seems likely to remain just as remarkably dysfunctional and lopsided as it has been for decades. That is undesirable for both countries, but then a relationship this unhealthy was never going to be improved so quickly thanks to one leader’s political stunt. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-stunt-and-the-dysfunctional-u-s-israel-relationship/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Anyone who says there's no threat to Israel from a nuclear Iran is an idiot. End of discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted March 3, 2015 Author Share Posted March 3, 2015 Netanyahu's favorable rating in the U.S.improves. Nearly twice as many Americans approve of him as disapprove.....45% to 24% according to Gallup poll. Even Dems evenly split at 31%. http://www.gallup.co..._campaign=tiles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,125 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 That's pretty funny, but I opted to pull that post. Still, why an " alleged " member of the USN would so casually dismiss the building and destruction of a mock US carrier , by Iran, in the midst of so crucial negotiations , baffles description. That's not how legitimate governments deal with each other, not even remotely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,425 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Well put from the opposition leader (Isaac Herzog) ... "The painful truth is that after all the applause, Netanyahu is alone and Israel is isolated, and the negotiations will continue without Israel's input. The speech sabotaged Israel's relations with the US. It will not change the view of the administration, only deepen the rift with our strategic ally."http://www.jpost.com...Congress-392813 Rob, Bebe's job is to protect the Israeli people. He is out numbered and out gunned and will soon have to look at fighting a war by lobbing nukes. that is a war where so many die so fast it will take the world's breath away. In the past, every time i can remember we negotiated with Iran, we have gotten the shaft. As for damaging the relationship with the Obama Administration, it is most obvious from the incredibly shabby back door treatment Netanyahu has gotten from Obama that our relationship could not be worse. IMHO, Bebe could be letting the world see that Israel is about to take out the Iranian problem because no one else has the guts to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 That's pretty funny, but I opted to pull that post. Still, why an " alleged " member of the USN would so casually dismiss the building and destruction of a mock US carrier , by Iran, in the midst of so crucial negotiations , baffles description. That's not how legitimate governments deal with each other, not even remotely. Not only did I casually dismiss it but so did USNAVCENT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,483 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 But that said, I have to say I agree with Bibi in this regard: I believe the Iranians are not negotiating in good faith, and that any deal likely to be struck under the framework the Obama administration is using would be a bad one. They can't be trusted and will continue to attempt to develop a weapon secretly no matter what and will just use lessened sanctions to buy time to do so. I cannot understand how Obama thinks they won't. Completely fair POV. Of course, that belief pretty much leaves us with our hands tied. In other words, if you don' think we have a partner to negotiate with, then what options do we have? You essentially end up advocating for a military-based enforcement approach. Not sure that gets us to a better place ... Maybe it doesn't. But if he's right, does it matter that you're left with the lesser of two bad options? It just is what it is and we have to move from what is true rather than what we wish it was. Is there any precedent for negotiating with a government that we historically do not trust and, making stringent verification requirements part of the agreement? Soviet Union Iraq North Korea A mixed bag wouldn't you say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Got to love all these faux patriots. They couldn't care less about Israel but they are a useful tool to bash the President. Meanwhile our actions speak a very different tune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,425 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Got to love all these faux patriots. They couldn't care less about Israel but they are a useful tool to bash the President. Meanwhile our actions speak a very different tune. Want to show a list of the faux patriots? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted March 3, 2015 Author Share Posted March 3, 2015 Right on David. Apparently Israel has learned more from such agreements than this administration has......can you say North Korea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,125 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 That's pretty funny, but I opted to pull that post. Still, why an " alleged " member of the USN would so casually dismiss the building and destruction of a mock US carrier , by Iran, in the midst of so crucial negotiations , baffles description. That's not how legitimate governments deal with each other, not even remotely. Not only did I casually dismiss it but so did USNAVCENT. I don't ******* care what they or you dismissed. That's not how legit govts who are dealing in negotiations over the production of nuclear weapons carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,125 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Got to love all these faux patriots. They couldn't care less about Israel but they are a useful tool to bash the President. Meanwhile our actions speak a very different tune. Said the jack wagon w/ the Guy Fawkes mask on Uncle Sam, as their avatar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Our actions: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Our actions: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Our actions: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Our actions: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted March 3, 2015 Author Share Posted March 3, 2015 Actions by ISIS which are being suppoted by Iran. http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/15/middleeast/isis-video-beheadings-christians/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.