Powerful Speech...Thank You PM Netanyahu

[aubfaninga 16]

Iran won't accept a deal that won't allow them to keep enriching uranium. If they continue to do that then they will have the ability to at some point make bomb material out of it. What to do once the deal is made and the term runs out. The sanctions never should have been lifted against them. This administration will not make a deal that is favorable to us or Israel. Trusting them is like Auburn trusting Alabama to act in Auburns' best interest. It ain't gonna happen. They are desperate for a deal and Iran knows it. Never negotiate from that standpoint. Follow the old rule of first do no harm. No deal is preferable to a bad one.

The sanctions have never stopped Iran from enriching uranium. Netanyahu has told you this numerous times.

Your question asking what happens when the term runs out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons

[WarTim 3,456]

All that aside, protecting your country from one sworn to erase you from the face of the earth is a highly defendable position. Even in the light of God's word. JMUHO

No debate from me there. I may not agree with bibi but I definitely do not envy his position. Many people would rejoice if Israel or the US were nuked tomorrow. On the other hand, many people are just looking for a reason to hate Israel or the US. Very fine tight rope an Israeli Prime Minister must tread across. VERY THIN!

For the record, I defended Israel's latest actions in regards to Gaza. You shoot anything at me and I will return with 10x the force. The government of Israel showed more restraint than I would have if someone had shot a bullet at my children. So please do not think I am saying that Israel should just roll over and take it nor do I feel the US should just watch it.

Agreed and Thanks!

[homersapien 11,379]

Basically what you are saying is that you are with Netanyahu because you are against Obama. "Do what you do"

Exactly. They cannot see past Obama to look at this objectively and evaluate what is best for the U.S.

[TitanTiger 20,483]

Well, Netanyahu also have another good point...this framing of working this deal or heading to war is a false dichotomy. As he said, the only alternative to this bad deal isn't war, it's working out a better deal.

I don't think Bibi wants a deal ... Hell, he's undermining this one while its still being negotiated ... How can you want a "better" deal when this one hasn't even come to fruition?

Because we already have indicators as to what's on the table and it looks really bad. He's not going to sit around and wait until it's inevitable, he wants to put the pressure on now to alter the course of it.

I don't know if he's right, but I do understand that Israel's position on this comes from a place of much more immediate concern and danger than ours. If the deal that's really in the works has the provisions in it that we've been hearing, I'm not fond of it either. So in that sense, I do get wanting a better deal. A better one than what is being discussed. If Obama has some information on the deal that would assuage his concerns, then it should be fairly easy to do that. It doesn't appear he's done that so far which seems to indicate that what we're hearing about it is pretty close to accurate.

[TitanTiger 20,483]

There's no guarantee that additional pressure on Iran at this time would lead to a better deal, or to Tehran giving up more of its nuclear infrastructure," said Kelsey Davenport, director for nonproliferation policy at the nonpartisan Washington-based Arms Control Association. "What it risks doing is pushing Iran away from the negotiations and killing the prospects for a good deal that blocks Iran's pathways to a nuclear weapon."

...

"I don't think we can get a deal on the terms that Netanyahu proposes," Einhorn said. "He says the alternative to a bad deal is not war -- it's a better deal. That's a good formulation. But what if the better deal is not achievable? What are you left with then?"

http://politi.co/18iWvMQ

Equally, there is no guarantee that pushing for a more stringent deal would fail or that pushing for it would inevitably result in war. A bad deal just gives a false sense of security. And Iran is in no position to have this much ability to steer things.

[japantiger 4,051]

And how, pray tell, is being Defensive "acting warlike"? JMUHO

Again, this is where bibi and I separate.

bibi only proposes two options. He preaches "sanctions" but reserves "force".

If you heard another alternative from him please let me know. IT WAS NOT IN HIS SPEECH TO CONGRESS.

Neither of these options are "defensive". They are aggressive tactics to pressure another country by weakening it.

You do business with your allies and you put "sanctions" on people you disagree with.

We can paint a pretty picture around the word "sanction" all we want. We can pull up definitions to prove the difference between blockades and sanctions till we are blue in the face but it would not relate to the real world. If the U.N. puts sanctions on a country they might as well just board the place up.

What you guys are all proposing has worked so well thru history and particularly last century, I can understand why we would want to repeat them. Appease the bad guy and make it harder on the good guys...I've got it; why don't we just offer Iran, Israel? Sort of like the Sudetenland, Alsace Lorraine or the Polish corridor...that was a winning strategy. Nah, I guess that would be so 20th century...let's just make the position of our only ally in the region untenable and force them to react in desperation...that's the ticket. The essence of negotiating is understanding your strengths and your opponents weaknesses. Netanyahu understands these well and advocates for them ... and his simple point "Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger? "....well, the answer to this is pretty obvious isn't it? Rolling over to bad guys does only one thing...it emboldens the bad guys.

[cooltigger21 0]

Giving bad guys access to lots of money is not a good idea. I keep hearing the Cuba embargo didn't work. Well if other bad guys hadn't kept them propped up the regime would have collapsed long ago. Iran really has no friends in the world. They hate everyone. ISIS now has access to oil money and can use that to finance their activities around the world. If this deal goes through then we're looking at a nuclear arms race in the ME. None of the other players in the region can afford to allow Iran to become the big bad ass on the block. I look back at the cold war and all the agreements we made with the Soviets. The agreements weren't worth the paper they were written on. They violated them before the ink dried yet we kept on doing the same thing over and over. For some reason we expect Iran to abide by the terms of any deal we make with them. Making a deal you can't enforce is an absurdity. If anyone expects the IAEA to be of any help, you're wishing on the wrong star.

[aubfaninga 16]

Well I guess we will never know because I am very doubtfull that Iran signs any deal with Obama. (Despite the claims that he is handing them a nuke on a silver platter)

Then the next president can show us all how its done.

[homersapien 11,379]

And how, pray tell, is being Defensive "acting warlike"? JMUHO

Again, this is where bibi and I separate.

bibi only proposes two options. He preaches "sanctions" but reserves "force".

If you heard another alternative from him please let me know. IT WAS NOT IN HIS SPEECH TO CONGRESS.

Neither of these options are "defensive". They are aggressive tactics to pressure another country by weakening it.

You do business with your allies and you put "sanctions" on people you disagree with.

We can paint a pretty picture around the word "sanction" all we want. We can pull up definitions to prove the difference between blockades and sanctions till we are blue in the face but it would not relate to the real world. If the U.N. puts sanctions on a country they might as well just board the place up.

What you guys are all proposing has worked so well thru history and particularly last century, I can understand why we would want to repeat them. Appease the bad guy and make it harder on the good guys...I've got it; why don't we just offer Iran, Israel? Sort of like the Sudetenland, Alsace Lorraine or the Polish corridor...that was a winning strategy. Nah, I guess that would be so 20th century...let's just make the position of our only ally in the region untenable and force them to react in desperation...that's the ticket. The essence of negotiating is understanding your strengths and your opponents weaknesses. Netanyahu understands these well and advocates for them ... and his simple point "Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger? "....well, the answer to this is pretty obvious isn't it? Rolling over to bad guys does only one thing...it emboldens the bad guys.

That may sound convincing but it's really not a good analogy. The "Cold War model" comes much closer:

http://www.theatlant...it-1938/386716/

The Central Question: Is It 1938?

[aubfaninga 16]

And how, pray tell, is being Defensive "acting warlike"? JMUHO

Again, this is where bibi and I separate.

bibi only proposes two options. He preaches "sanctions" but reserves "force".

If you heard another alternative from him please let me know. IT WAS NOT IN HIS SPEECH TO CONGRESS.

Neither of these options are "defensive". They are aggressive tactics to pressure another country by weakening it.

You do business with your allies and you put "sanctions" on people you disagree with.

We can paint a pretty picture around the word "sanction" all we want. We can pull up definitions to prove the difference between blockades and sanctions till we are blue in the face but it would not relate to the real world. If the U.N. puts sanctions on a country they might as well just board the place up.

What you guys are all proposing has worked so well thru history and particularly last century, I can understand why we would want to repeat them. Appease the bad guy and make it harder on the good guys...I've got it; why don't we just offer Iran, Israel? Sort of like the Sudetenland, Alsace Lorraine or the Polish corridor...that was a winning strategy. Nah, I guess that would be so 20th century...let's just make the position of our only ally in the region untenable and force them to react in desperation...that's the ticket. The essence of negotiating is understanding your strengths and your opponents weaknesses. Netanyahu understands these well and advocates for them ... and his simple point "Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger? "....well, the answer to this is pretty obvious isn't it? Rolling over to bad guys does only one thing...it emboldens the bad guys.

That may sound convincing but it's really not a good analogy. The "Cold War model" comes much closer:

http://www.theatlant...it-1938/386716/

The Central Question: Is It 1938?

Have you read, "Irans leaders are not suicidal" yet? The Atlantic has some great reads

[AUUSN 823]

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/13ry42/bibi-s-big-adventures

[AUFAN78 3,909]

There's no guarantee that additional pressure on Iran at this time would lead to a better deal, or to Tehran giving up more of its nuclear infrastructure," said Kelsey Davenport, director for nonproliferation policy at the nonpartisan Washington-based Arms Control Association. "What it risks doing is pushing Iran away from the negotiations and killing the prospects for a good deal that blocks Iran's pathways to a nuclear weapon."

...

"I don't think we can get a deal on the terms that Netanyahu proposes," Einhorn said. "He says the alternative to a bad deal is not war -- it's a better deal. That's a good formulation. But what if the better deal is not achievable? What are you left with then?"

http://politi.co/18iWvMQ

Equally, there is no guarantee that pushing for a more stringent deal would fail or that pushing for it would inevitably result in war. A bad deal just gives a false sense of security. And Iran is in no position to have this much ability to steer things.

"When your child misbehaves you don't allow them to make the rules. You punish them."

[AUFAN78 3,909]

Basically what you are saying is that you are with Netanyahu because you are against Obama. "Do what you do"

I have to call BS here. I see it as saying ...don't believe everything you hear. It is a clear pattern of lies regardless from where it spews.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Basically what you are saying is that you are with Netanyahu because you are against Obama. "Do what you do"

I have to call BS here. I see it as saying ...don't believe everything you hear. It is a clear pattern of lies regardless from where it spews.

Do you feel the same way about Netanyahu? Has he been truthful with the world about the Iranians progress in regards to enrichment?

[homersapien 11,379]

http://thedailyshow....-big-adventures

"Festival of Slights"

[TheBlueVue 177]

Basically what you are saying is that you are with Netanyahu because you are against Obama. "Do what you do"

I have to call BS here. I see it as saying ...don't believe everything you hear. It is a clear pattern of lies regardless from where it spews.

Do you feel the same way about Netanyahu? Has he been truthful with the world about the Iranians progress in regards to enrichment?

Have you ever seen a bad policy you couldn't cheer lead? Or by contrast, ever been willing to accept the obvious,.. ever? Your specialty is pointing out the obvious when it comes to defending leftist propaganda but you seem utterly unwilling to have a look at the world through a Jews eyes and, in this case, Netanyahu is no ordinary Jew...he actually is in charge of protecting his people from a rogue state that has vowed to wipe the Jewish race off the face of the earth. How do you know he hasn't been truthful? The fact is the Iranians lie like Obama does for expediency...whenever the situation calls for it. There really is no telling what their current nuclear capabilities are because they have regularly been caught cheating and even expelling IAEA agents from the country. That said, it is clear they are not interested in simply possessing nuclear power...their interest is to produce a bomb and the intercontinental ballistic missile capability to deliver them to Europe AND America. I have no problem allowing Bibi some leeway to err on the side of caution in dealing with Iranians

You're an Neville Chamberlain like idiot.

[homersapien 11,379]

You're an Neville Chamberlain like idiot.

http://www.theatlant...it-1938/386716/

The Central Question: Is It 1938?

[cooltigger21 0]

The idea that we can trust this administration is laughable. The IAEA, like every other international body similar to it, is a complete joke. You could lock anyone of them in a broom closet with the fattest man in the world, turn on the light and they still couldn't find him. Every time this administration has been confronted tyranny or just bad actors on the world stage, they've huffed and puffed and drawn red lines and imposed meaningless sanctions. They have never done anything concrete to help prevent these people from doing what they wanted to do. People that were actually being a help to the United States have been thrown under the bus.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Basically what you are saying is that you are with Netanyahu because you are against Obama. "Do what you do"

I have to call BS here. I see it as saying ...don't believe everything you hear. It is a clear pattern of lies regardless from where it spews.

Do you feel the same way about Netanyahu? Has he been truthful with the world about the Iranians progress in regards to enrichment?

Have you ever seen a bad policy you couldn't cheer lead? Or by contrast, ever been willing to accept the obvious,.. ever? Your specialty is pointing out the obvious when it comes to defending leftist propaganda but you seem utterly unwilling to have a look at the world through a Jews eyes and, in this case, Netanyahu is no ordinary Jew...he actually is in charge of protecting his people from a rogue state that has vowed to wipe the Jewish race off the face of the earth. How do you know he hasn't been truthful? The fact is the Iranians lie like Obama does for expediency...whenever the situation calls for it. There really is no telling what their current nuclear capabilities are because they have regularly been caught cheating and even expelling IAEA agents from the country. That said, it is clear they are not interested in simply possessing nuclear power...their interest is to produce a bomb and the intercontinental ballistic missile capability to deliver them to Europe AND America. I have no problem allowing Bibi some leeway to err on the side of caution in dealing with Iranians

You're an Neville Chamberlain like idiot.

Wow! You make a very strong case. But, about what? Neville Charmberlain like idiot? Nicely played meme/insult!

Have you seen the report on Iranian enrichment levels from Mossad?

I do appreciate your admission of hypocrisy and, willingness to compromise the truth. You are a fine representative of what you call "conservatism".

[AUFAN78 3,909]

Basically what you are saying is that you are with Netanyahu because you are against Obama. "Do what you do"

I have to call BS here. I see it as saying ...don't believe everything you hear. It is a clear pattern of lies regardless from where it spews.

Do you feel the same way about Netanyahu? Has he been truthful with the world about the Iranians progress in regards to enrichment?

Somewhat. I think he may have exaggerated, but it very well could have been his conscience. Look, he is in a totally different situation than our POTUS and I empathize with him in that regard.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Basically what you are saying is that you are with Netanyahu because you are against Obama. "Do what you do"

I have to call BS here. I see it as saying ...don't believe everything you hear. It is a clear pattern of lies regardless from where it spews.

Do you feel the same way about Netanyahu? Has he been truthful with the world about the Iranians progress in regards to enrichment?

Somewhat. I think he may have exagerated, but it very well could have been his conscience. Look, he is in a totally different situation than our POTUS and I empathize with him in that regard.

So you give him a pass on being truthful? His circumstances justify lying?

[WarTim 3,456]

And how, pray tell, is being Defensive "acting warlike"? JMUHO

Again, this is where bibi and I separate.

bibi only proposes two options. He preaches "sanctions" but reserves "force".

If you heard another alternative from him please let me know. IT WAS NOT IN HIS SPEECH TO CONGRESS.

Neither of these options are "defensive". They are aggressive tactics to pressure another country by weakening it.

You do business with your allies and you put "sanctions" on people you disagree with.

We can paint a pretty picture around the word "sanction" all we want. We can pull up definitions to prove the difference between blockades and sanctions till we are blue in the face but it would not relate to the real world. If the U.N. puts sanctions on a country they might as well just board the place up.

What you guys are all proposing has worked so well thru history and particularly last century, I can understand why we would want to repeat them. Appease the bad guy and make it harder on the good guys...I've got it; why don't we just offer Iran, Israel? Sort of like the Sudetenland, Alsace Lorraine or the Polish corridor...that was a winning strategy. Nah, I guess that would be so 20th century...let's just make the position of our only ally in the region untenable and force them to react in desperation...that's the ticket. The essence of negotiating is understanding your strengths and your opponents weaknesses. Netanyahu understands these well and advocates for them ... and his simple point "Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger? "....well, the answer to this is pretty obvious isn't it? Rolling over to bad guys does only one thing...it emboldens the bad guys.

Very well stated my Friend!

[AUFAN78 3,909]

Basically what you are saying is that you are with Netanyahu because you are against Obama. "Do what you do"

I have to call BS here. I see it as saying ...don't believe everything you hear. It is a clear pattern of lies regardless from where it spews.

Do you feel the same way about Netanyahu? Has he been truthful with the world about the Iranians progress in regards to enrichment?

Somewhat. I think he may have exagerated, but it very well could have been his conscience. Look, he is in a totally different situation than our POTUS and I empathize with him in that regard.

So you give him a pass on being truthful? His circumstances justify lying?

Do you have facts that he lied or strickly opinion pieces by a political rag? Do you put stock into an ex member of his security force? I see a lot of opinions and speculation from both sides on this issue. Who is right? Can we prove it?

[WarTim 3,456]

Basically what you are saying is that you are with Netanyahu because you are against Obama. "Do what you do"

I have to call BS here. I see it as saying ...don't believe everything you hear. It is a clear pattern of lies regardless from where it spews.

Do you feel the same way about Netanyahu? Has he been truthful with the world about the Iranians progress in regards to enrichment?

Somewhat. I think he may have exagerated, but it very well could have been his conscience. Look, he is in a totally different situation than our POTUS and I empathize with him in that regard.

So you give him a pass on being truthful? His circumstances justify lying?

Works for potus... :-)

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Basically what you are saying is that you are with Netanyahu because you are against Obama. "Do what you do"

I have to call BS here. I see it as saying ...don't believe everything you hear. It is a clear pattern of lies regardless from where it spews.

Do you feel the same way about Netanyahu? Has he been truthful with the world about the Iranians progress in regards to enrichment?

Somewhat. I think he may have exagerated, but it very well could have been his conscience. Look, he is in a totally different situation than our POTUS and I empathize with him in that regard.

So you give him a pass on being truthful? His circumstances justify lying?

Do you have facts that he lied or strickly opinion pieces by a political rag? Do you put stock into an ex member of his security force? I see a lot of opinions and speculation from both sides on this issue. Who is right? Can we prove it?

Have you not seen the leaked Mossad memo? Heck, even you used the word exaggerated. Come on.