Netanyahu Spoke Before Congress Today

Tony Stark said:
Well obviously the Republican version of truth and the actual truth are two very different things.
Click to expand...

Your grasp on the Truth (tm) seems equally tenuous, and will hardly be bettered by taking a hand off to point a finger at Republicans.
 
Toontown said:
Your grasp on the Truth tm seems equally tenuous, and will hardly be bettered by taking a hand off to point a finger at Republicans.
Click to expand...

Says a guy who quoted an article whose very title was the exact opposite of his position as "evidence" that his position was correct.
 
Tony Stark said:
"Does Iran Have the Right to Enrich Uranium? The Answer Is Yes".
Click to expand...

...Says a reporter.

Suspended, says the UNSC.

Get a grip on who does the enforcement (clue: it ain't HuffPost). Then you'll have a grip on which opinion counts, and which opinion is just hot air.
 
Tony Stark said:
Says a guy who quoted an article whose very title was the exact opposite of his position as "evidence" that his position was correct.
Click to expand...

...which means less than nothing. Particularly in view of the observable fact that the article also includes the quote I lifted from the undersecretary of state.

Get a grip on the fact that an article can contain more than one opinion. Then work on getting that grip on who exactly does the enforcement of international law, if any is to be done.
 
Toontown said:
...Says a reporter.

Suspended, says the UNSC.

Get a grip on who does the enforcement (clue: it ain't HuffPost). Then you'll have a grip on which opinion counts, and which opinion is just hot air.
Click to expand...

According to a reporter whose article YOU cited. Like I said, couldn't be more dishonest if you tried.

And newsflash, genius, the P5+1 are negotiating a deal that will recognize the "inalienable right" (words of a treaty you've never read not mine) of Iran to have a civilian nuclear program. It isn't possible to make a deal that doesn't recognize this fact. Iran would just carry on regardless of what the US/UNSC said if the terms were that Iran give up its rights.
 
Do people even realize that Iran has been a very low-key *ally* of the U.S. in recent conflicts? That from Iran's point of view, the U.S. has been a source of state-sponsored terror? That bluster about Iran having no right to a civilian nuclear program is the one sure way to get Iranian dissidents and its hardliners on the same page?

Let blowhards in Iran, Israel and the U.S. spin their rhetoric to suit their respective domestic audiences. No Islamic regime really wants to wipe out Israel. Without Israel they would lose the enemy that gives them common cause in the first place. I'm not an expert on Iran but I've been there, long after the revolution, and you would be hard-pressed to find a population more in love with America. Yes, I know I sound naive and I probably am, but there is every reason to tread lightly behind the scenes.

The official animosity is good for appearances, maybe, but in recent years Iran has helped the U.S. and the U.S. has helped Iran. It's not your stereotypical dictatorship. The fact that the mullahs allowed Hassan Rouhani to stand for election (and win) is the biggest possible signal that Iran wants to re-engage with the world as something other than a rogue state. Believe it or not, it has an extremely mature democratic structure for that part of the world. Granted, there is one huge caveat - the democratic institutions are allowed only as much freedom as religious hard-liners allow. But, IMO, from decades of observation, major overtures are being made to "the West." This is a country that could be huge in eradicating ISIS. And I don't want to sound preachy, or too naive, so I'll stop.

Except, ETA: China will go shop for resources on the open market. Economically, the U.S. needs the rest of the world more than it needs us. Our great trading partner, with its stellar human-rights record [/irony], is not picky about who it does business with. A U.S.-Iranian alliance would have many potential benefits. But Iran is so demonized, it is practically sacrilege to suggest this.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
You lost me when you more or less stated that the US, if push comes to shove,should let Iran get nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

Better than sending who knows how many Americans to die in a war that would be a monumental disaster.
 
Tony Stark said:
Better than sending who knows how many Americans to die in a war that would be a monumental disaster.
Click to expand...

And, yeah, if India, China, Pakistan, Israel and France all have nuclear weapons - I don't see why Iran in particular adds a huge margin of danger. I am not convinced Iran even wants a nuclear weapon. Very highly placed Iranian leaders (Ali Khamenei) have denounced/renounced such an ambition. Of course, that could all be for show and I might be a sucker.

If Israel wants to strike so bad, let it strike. They have their own freakin' nukes, immune from inspections apparently, as they have no treaty to even symbolically bind them.

ETA: Khamenei isn't doing so great. I'm very curious about possible succession. Iran does not have a monolithic power structure. This could be significant.
 
Last edited:
Minoosh said:
And, yeah, if India, China, Pakistan, Israel and France all have nuclear weapons - I don't see why Iran in particular adds a huge margin of danger.
Click to expand...

This is argument by ignorance. i.e. 'France, Britain, USA all had Jewish minorities in the 1930's - I don't see why German Jews in particular should be in huge danger.'
 
Giz said:
This is argument by ignorance. i.e. 'France, Britain, USA all had Jewish minorities in the 1930's - I don't see why German Jews in particular should be in huge danger.'
Click to expand...

Difference is that Israel can completely destroy Iran. No sentiant being thinks that Iran would act in such a way that makes that nessesary though.
 
Tony Stark said:
Difference is that Israel can completely destroy Iran. No sentiant being thinks that Iran would act in such a way that makes that nessesary though.
Click to expand...

"While many experts tell us Iran is a rational, pragmatic regime like any other in the world, all the facts shout that it is not. A large number of Iranian officials and decision makers have deeply rooted apocalyptic beliefs. Underestimating this radical ideology even as the Iranian regime is on its way to building a nuclear bomb can lead to dangerously wrong conclusions. The suggestion taking hold of late that a nuclear armed Iran is not the end of the world may unfortunately be dead wrong."
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-military-strategy-for-apocalypse-soon/
 
Giz said:
"While many experts tell us Iran is a rational, pragmatic regime like any other in the world, all the facts shout that it is not. A large number of Iranian officials and decision makers have deeply rooted apocalyptic beliefs. Underestimating this radical ideology even as the Iranian regime is on its way to building a nuclear bomb can lead to dangerously wrong conclusions. The suggestion taking hold of late that a nuclear armed Iran is not the end of the world may unfortunately be dead wrong."
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-military-strategy-for-apocalypse-soon/
Click to expand...

Well if some blogger says so.
 
Giz said:
God forbid we curtail the inalienable nuclear ambitions of apocalyptic theocratic terrorist sponsors with a penchant for genocidal fantasies.
Click to expand...

Do you want some bombast with your hyperbole?
 
Last edited:
This seems relevant and worth mentioning:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/23/leaked-spy-cables-netanyahu-iran-bomb-mossad

Binyamin Netanyahu’s dramatic declaration to world leaders in 2012 that Iran was about a year away from making a nuclear bomb was contradicted by his own secret service, according to a top-secret Mossad document.

It is part of a cache of hundreds of dossiers, files and cables from the world’s major intelligence services – one of the biggest spy leaks in recent times.

Brandishing a cartoon of a bomb with a red line to illustrate his point, the Israeli prime minister warned the UN in New York that Iran would be able to build nuclear weapons the following year and called for action to halt the process.

But in a secret report shared with South Africa a few weeks later, Israel’s intelligence agency concluded that Iran was “not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons”. The report highlights the gulf between the public claims and rhetoric of top Israeli politicians and the assessments of Israel’s military and intelligence establishment.
Click to expand...
 
Tony Stark said:
According to a reporter whose article YOU cited. Like I said, couldn't be more dishonest if you tried.
Click to expand...

Do explain how it is dishonest, there in bizarro world, to copy-paste a quote from an article which also contains a differing opinion.

The opinion piece was in fact the perfect vehicle for expressing my point of view, to wit: opinions are a dime a dozen. But in reality, no international law exists except that which is enforced, and the enforcers' opinion is the only one that counts.

Want your opinion on international law to matter? Then enforce it.

Tony Stark said:
And newsflash, genius, the P5+1 are negotiating a deal that will recognize the "inalienable right" (words of a treaty you've never read not mine) of Iran to have a civilian nuclear program. It isn't possible to make a deal that doesn't recognize this fact. Iran would just carry on regardless of what the US/UNSC said if the terms were that Iran give up its rights.
Click to expand...

And has Iran retained this "inalienable right" even after it's long term use of the treaty for ass wipe?

The UNSC says no. Perhaps that is why Iran finds itself negotiating for the return of this "inalienable right".

Seems this "inalienable right" only exists for countries which do not use the NPT for ass wipe. Strange as that may seem to you.

If Iran really wants this "inalienable right", it should have the common decency to pull out of the NPT, or demonstrably and consistently stop using the treaty for ass wipe.

Because violating the treaty which grants the "inalienable right" has the observable effect of abrogating the "inalienable right". How difficult is this simple principle for you and Iran to understand?

Perhaps the above principle would be easier for you and Iran to understand if you were to snap to the fact that bringing a new clumsily concealed nuclear weapons program into the world is the very essence of "nuclear proliferation" - which is precisely what the NPT is intended to prevent.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom