Netanyahu Spoke Before Congress Today

Minoosh said:
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.
Click to expand...

In spìte of my many reservations, there is a great deal of truth in this. Points taken.
 
mgidm86 said:
...One thing I'll say for Netanyahu is that at least he makes his position clear.
Click to expand...

Childlike Empress said:
You know who also made his position clear? That's right... ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah. Winston Churchill, when he was warning about nazi Germany in the late 30's, when WWII was just a gleam in Hitler's eye.

These Jew hating countries - you can't trust them. They make genocide a policy objective.
 
Last edited:
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...

theprestige said:
This... does not seem plausible.
Click to expand...

Tony Stark said:
Israel does not have nuclear weapons or you're being super sematic about the words "completely destroy"?
Click to expand...

You keep presenting these false binary choices. Do you do this intentionally, or do you not see any other alternatives, or is there some other reason?

For example, perhaps it is Israel actually using it's nukes to "completely destroy Iran" which seems implausible. Or perhaps it doesn't seem plausible to assume that no sentient being would think Iran might act in such a way as to make it necessary, since Iran would hardly be the first country to act in such a way as to get itself reduced to rubble.

Hint: Openly stating a desire or intent to act in such a way likely to result in getting themselves reduced to rubble is typically the way such countries have historically signaled such intent. I consider it a subconscious cry for help. But what are you gonna do? You can't talk sense to them. They're too crazy. So they end up getting reduced to rubble. So you try to rebuild them in such a way that they won't repeat the same stupid behavior. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. And so it goes, quite tiresomely.

"Every day the bucket goes to the well. One day the bottom will drop out."

 
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...

So we should have invaded north korea, india and pakistan too? How should we have prevented their acquisition of nuclear weapons?
 
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...

Well it isn't like any of them wanted Germanys jews. Look at the voyage of the st louis. The USA turned those Jews away and sent them back to the death camps. So it isn't like any of those countries really cared.
 
ponderingturtle said:
So we should have invaded north korea, india and pakistan too? How should we have prevented their acquisition of nuclear weapons?
Click to expand...

Just curious. What are you talking about?

Are you talking about Netanyahu's speech? Just wondering, because Netanyahu never mentioned invading Iran. He just advocated holding out for a deal which doesn't guarantee Iran the bomb within a decade.

Failure to achieve such a deal would simply revert to sanctions, in which a number of countries were participating. No mention of invasion.

I'll be the one to mention invasion, by first pointing out that there is no "we" here. If such a "we" existed, Iran would be at serious risk of invasion if it didn't cooperate with the UNSC and IAEA. Because such a "we", if it existed, would be a large group of civilized countries intent upon guaranteeing that their grandchildren will live in an advanced, peaceful 22nd century civilization. But no such "we" exists, and we all know that.

So all we're actually talking about, if we're even talking about Netanyahu's speech, is a better deal than what's on the table, or reverting to sanctions.

"So let us stop talking falsely now. The hour's getting late."

 
Toontown said:
Just curious. What are you talking about?

Are you talking about Netanyahu's speech? Just wondering, because Netanyahu never mentioned invading Iran. He just advocated holding out for a deal which doesn't guarantee Iran the bomb within a decade.

Failure to achieve such a deal would simply revert to sanctions, in which a number of countries were participating. No mention of invasion.

I'll be the one to mention invasion, by first pointing out that there is no "we" here. If such a "we" existed, Iran would be at serious risk of invasion if it didn't cooperate with the UNSC and IAEA. Because such a "we", if it existed, would be a large group of civilized countries intent upon guaranteeing that their grandchildren will live in an advanced, peaceful 22nd century civilization. But no such "we" exists, and we all know that.

So all we're actually talking about, if we're even talking about Netanyahu's speech, is a better deal than what's on the table, or reverting to sanctions.

"So let us stop talking falsely now. The hour's getting late."

Click to expand...

He seemed to be doing a lot of advocating for regime change and the imminence of the threat for something like sanctions to be effective. If the threat is as imminent as he claims then sanctions are not likely to be effective. We only have 8-12 months after all.
 
ponderingturtle said:
He seemed to be doing a lot of advocating for regime change and the imminence of the threat for something like sanctions to be effective. If the threat is as imminent as he claims then sanctions are not likely to be effective. We only have 8-12 months after all.
Click to expand...

Again, what are you talking about? Are you reading between the lines? Are you suggesting that, since in your opinion (not Netanyahu's), sanctions are not likely to be effective, Netanyahu must therefore be implicately advocating invasion, presumably within the next 8-12 months?

Edited to add: Who doesn't hope for regime change in Iran, including much of the population of Iran itself?

Netanyahu's stated hopes for regime change centered around biting sanctions, coupled with collapsed oil prices, bringing about internal regime change. Again, no mention of invasion.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
Well it isn't like any of them wanted Germanys jews. Look at the voyage of the st louis. The USA turned those Jews away and sent them back to the death camps. So it isn't like any of those countries really cared.
Click to expand...

Well, some of them care now - a little bit. They started to care a little bit when the genociders killed tens of millions of them, along with the 6 million Jews.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Well it isn't like any of them wanted Germanys jews. Look at the voyage of the st louis. The USA turned those Jews away and sent them back to the death camps. So it isn't like any of those countries really cared.
Click to expand...

That the USA didn't care enough then, hardly seems like a good argument for not caring now. Mistakes should be learned from, not repeated.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Well it isn't like any of them wanted Germanys jews. Look at the voyage of the st louis. The USA turned those Jews away and sent them back to the death camps. So it isn't like any of those countries really cared.
Click to expand...

Giz said:
That the USA didn't care enough then, hardly seems like a good argument for not caring now. Mistakes should be learned from, not repeated.
Click to expand...

Well, it isn't like mistakes have ever been learned from. Not for long anyway. When something very bad happens, there are vows of "never again", But within a couple of generations the bad memories have been buried along with their carriers. And then a whole new batch of bad memories have to be made.
 
Last edited:
Giz said:
That the USA didn't care enough then, hardly seems like a good argument for not caring now. Mistakes should be learned from, not repeated.
Click to expand...
The gap between "should" and "is" or "will" is pretty wide.
I don't see that changing any time soon.

Edit: I don't often agree with CE, but that photo with the choice makes a point I support.
 
Last edited:
Toontown said:
Well, it isn't like mistakes have ever been learned from. Not for long anyway. When something very bad happens, there are vows of "never again", But within a couple of generations the bad memories have been buried along with their carriers. And then a whole new batch of bad memories have to be made.
Click to expand...

Look on the bright side, at least no one cares about all the other genocides in the world, or we would have had to actually do something about the former Yugoslavia, or Rwanda or...

But hey as non jews they clearly are less important, and for Rwanda they were black so of course no one should even care.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Look on the bright side, at least no one cares about all the other genocides in the world, or we would have had to actually do something about the former Yugoslavia, or Rwanda or...

But hey as non jews they clearly are less important, and for Rwanda they were black so of course no one should even care.
Click to expand...

Indulging in some Jew envy, are you?

Me too. I often wish my people had been genocided by the nazis, so I, too, could get a little patch of ground in the desert, surrounded by homicidal enemies bent on finishing the job the nazis started.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom