sean in udon Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Appeasing an aggressive violent bully who has their own agenda doesn't work. An aggressive violent bully, like, for example, Israel? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggold Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Invites Netanyahu......because he's possibly soon to be a convicted international war criminal and won't have the ability to travel? And that is highly unlikely, Do you think America would arrest him even if he were. Still I guess you no hoper's need something to grasp onto! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggold Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Some may consider this naive, but what gives any nation the right to say another nation cannot have nuclear power? If they can't have then we should not have it either. The simple threat of mutually assured destruction (MAD) should be enough to deter the use of nuclear weapons as long as everybody has them. Does anybody really believe that any country, knowingly will commit murder and suicide? If anyone lets loose we will know instantly who it was and unleash a retaliatory attack. I know the world is run by idiots, but surely they are not stupid! Does anybody really believe that any country, knowingly will commit murder and suicide? Yes and that countries name is Iran, Why, well it has something to do with Armageddon, similar to evangelists and the second coming. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingalfred Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 All the loons "obama is a muslim" "where's his passport" baggers out now. Hahaha so funny they will stew in the Congress House pit for 2 years jumping up and down when they cant get their way. Boo Hoo !!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Steely Dan Posted January 22, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted January 22, 2015 Some may consider this naive, but what gives any nation the right to say another nation cannot have nuclear power? If they can't have then we should not have it either. The simple threat of mutually assured destruction (MAD) should be enough to deter the use of nuclear weapons as long as everybody has them. Does anybody really believe that any country, knowingly will commit murder and suicide? If anyone lets loose we will know instantly who it was and unleash a retaliatory attack. I know the world is run by idiots, but surely they are not stupid! Unfortunately, there are those that stupid. They would try to use the arguement that the other side will back down. I think Mr, Putin is playing that card currently. It does appear he is having some success. That's because Putin is dealing with Obama and not congress. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggold Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 I think it would be wrong for Netanyahu to go and speak to Congress! Better to stay out of other countries internal politics. It won't do him any favours. But unfortunately his ego is too big for him to see that it would be a wrong move. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony5 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 So what do Boehner and the his crazy Republican congress want to do? Attack Iran? -snip- Where on earth does anything say anything about attacking Iran? Such an imagination. Hmmm, maybe your war hunger blinds you too much. Obama has threatened to veto any new sanctions legislation, saying it could scuttle ongoing nuclear talks with Iran and heighten the risk of a military showdown. The showdown is coming, Why does an oil producing country need nuclear energy to supply electric? The only person who doesn't think Iran wants a nuclear bomb is Obama. But he is a Muslim first and last. Maybe because 31 other countries also use a nuclear reactor to generate electricity ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post ggold Posted January 22, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted January 22, 2015 Where on earth does anything say anything about attacking Iran? Such an imagination. Hmmm, maybe your war hunger blinds you too much. Obama has threatened to veto any new sanctions legislation, saying it could scuttle ongoing nuclear talks with Iran and heighten the risk of a military showdown. The showdown is coming, Why does an oil producing country need nuclear energy to supply electric? The only person who doesn't think Iran wants a nuclear bomb is Obama. But he is a Muslim first and last. Maybe because 31 other countries also use a nuclear reactor to generate electricity ? They aren't threatening to destroy another country because it's citizens are Jewish. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony5 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Hmmm, maybe your war hunger blinds you too much. Obama has threatened to veto any new sanctions legislation, saying it could scuttle ongoing nuclear talks with Iran and heighten the risk of a military showdown. The showdown is coming, Why does an oil producing country need nuclear energy to supply electric? The only person who doesn't think Iran wants a nuclear bomb is Obama. But he is a Muslim first and last. Maybe because 31 other countries also use a nuclear reactor to generate electricity ? They aren't threatening to destroy another country because it's citizens are Jewish. Well, if threatening to destroy other countries and in fact effectively doing it would be a deciding factor in allowing nuclear reactors, then I wonder why the US is allowed to have some as they have been destroying other countries for all kind of reasons for the past 100 years. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 The Congress can invite whomever they like to speak before it, but it needs to be pointed out that the select and few foreign leaders that have addressed a special joint session of Congress have done so while they have been present in the United States on an official state visit. The president is the chief of state of the United States and I don't believe he has invited the prime minister of Israel for an official state visit at this time. The Constitution designates the president as the chief diplomatic officer of the United States with the Secretary of State as his/her fully authorized agent and designee. The Constitution does not say anything about the Congress having 535 secretaries of state in addition to the one in the Executive Branch of the government. The president is in charge of foreign affairs and United States foreign policy. If Speaker Boehner and Sen McConnell want to involve themselves in the current election campaign in Israel they might want to go over there to do it on their own time. Since Boehner and McConnell are taking sides in the election in Israel, I'd like to declare my support for the opposition Labor Party to win over there as in my judgement a radical change is needed to the Israeli government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post twix38 Posted January 22, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) I stand to be corrected but to me this is a very very simply issue. Iran insists on enriching Uranium and will not allow this to be stopped or for it to be supplied by a 3rd party. Russia was once put forward as a supplier I think. If Iran insists on enriching Uranium themselves rather than having it supplied to them and where it can be ensured not at sufficient purity for a bomb, then there is only one reason for this intransigence. They want a BOMB!! Now, Iran plays games and deceives and spins negotiations out. It's all in bad faith as they make progress and give themselves time* and reprieve from crippling sanctions. I have little doubt talks will either fail or Obama will sell a bad deal as a success. Well done anyone who can cut through and see that Iran is insincere and if a deal is struck we will all regret it in time and many will realise that immediately. It's just a pity not so many can foresee it with clarity or through past experience. Iran simply does not need to enrich Uranium themselves for peaceful means!! * they have already gone through 2 prior deadlines with Obama and EU extending them! Edited January 22, 2015 by twix38 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 The reset button didn't work. As far as the U.S. is concerned ... Iran is an active enemy and so is ... RUSSIA. Iran's leaders have been playing the negotiating game brilliantly. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 The EU and the US have handled the Iran nuclear policies exceedingly well and have prevented Netanyahu from blowing up the Middle East due to an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. If it comes down to that, it would only be because the long and complex negotiations would have failed and Iran would indisputably have started producing bombs. In the meantime the negotiations need to continue and the Congress has to quit trying to be 535 secretaries of state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twix38 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) Publicus, Only my opinion, but the talks will fail or any agreement be seen as weak and foolhardy. IRAN DO NOT NEED TO ENRICH URANIUM themselves unless they want a bomb. It should be a RED line! The reason it is not a Red line is because talks would stop immediately. Any other outcome allowing Iran to enrich will be a problem for all right thinking people imho and Obama is too desperate for a deal and would like to push this down the road to the next president who has responsible Red lines! Edited January 22, 2015 by twix38 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Jingthing Posted January 22, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) Well, there are all bad choices here in dealing with Iran. You can't regard their extremist Islamist regime (the grand poobahs not the happy faces fronting to the world) as any kind of rational force and no, such types should never have nuclear weapons. (See North Korea.) I think it's a good thing that there is right wing pushback on Obama about Iran policy ... it might help keep Obama honest about this and possibly result in a slightly better "deal" assuming any kind of "deal" is ever managed. Anyway, the game Iran is playing is pretty obvious to anyone who's watching ... Edited January 22, 2015 by Jingthing 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 I stand to be corrected but to me this is a very very simply issue. Iran insists on enriching Uranium and will not allow this to be stopped or for it to be supplied by a 3rd party. Russia was once put forward as a supplier I think. If Iran insists on enriching Uranium themselves rather than having it supplied to them and where it can be ensured not at sufficient purity for a bomb, then there is only one reason for this intransigence. They want a BOMB!! Now, Iran plays games and deceives and spins negotiations out. It's all in bad faith as they make progress and give themselves time* and reprieve from crippling sanctions. I have little doubt talks will either fail or Obama will sell a bad deal as a success. Well done anyone who can cut through and see that Iran is insincere and if a deal is struck we will all regret it in time and many will realise that immediately. It's just a pity not so many can foresee it with clarity or through past experience. Iran simply does not need to enrich Uranium themselves for peaceful means!! * they have already gone through 2 prior deadlines with Obama and EU extending them! That is it in a nutshell. Kudos ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Ulysses G. Posted January 22, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted January 22, 2015 Well, lets hope they fight their own war this time, and not drag the rest of the world in to fight in wars they start. They didn't even send a single medic to help the allies in recent conflicts. You are making up things again. Israel has fought and won every war with their own soldiers. No help needed. Maybe you are thinking of the Palestinians? They have had five Arab countries backing them up and they still lost. Israel has not sent anyone to help their allies in Middle East Wars, because they were specifically asked not to, to keep the Muslims happy. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Because of massive anti-semitism in the Islamic world, sending Israeli troops to Middle East conflicts not related to Israel would be counterproductive. Israel does however have an active program of humitarian aid for global disasters in the greater world ... such as earthquake relief in Haiti where the Israeli teams were very visible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post chuckd Posted January 22, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) The Congress can invite whomever they like to speak before it, but it needs to be pointed out that the select and few foreign leaders that have addressed a special joint session of Congress have done so while they have been present in the United States on an official state visit. The president is the chief of state of the United States and I don't believe he has invited the prime minister of Israel for an official state visit at this time. The Constitution designates the president as the chief diplomatic officer of the United States with the Secretary of State as his/her fully authorized agent and designee. The Constitution does not say anything about the Congress having 535 secretaries of state in addition to the one in the Executive Branch of the government. The president is in charge of foreign affairs and United States foreign policy. If Speaker Boehner and Sen McConnell want to involve themselves in the current election campaign in Israel they might want to go over there to do it on their own time. Since Boehner and McConnell are taking sides in the election in Israel, I'd like to declare my support for the opposition Labor Party to win over there as in my judgement a radical change is needed to the Israeli government. And Congress is in charge of writing legislation. The President is in charge of faithfully executing them. Look how that's turned out the past six years. Edited January 22, 2015 by chuckd 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Steely Dan Posted January 22, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) The Congress can invite whomever they like to speak before it, but it needs to be pointed out that the select and few foreign leaders that have addressed a special joint session of Congress have done so while they have been present in the United States on an official state visit. The president is the chief of state of the United States and I don't believe he has invited the prime minister of Israel for an official state visit at this time. The Constitution designates the president as the chief diplomatic officer of the United States with the Secretary of State as his/her fully authorized agent and designee. The Constitution does not say anything about the Congress having 535 secretaries of state in addition to the one in the Executive Branch of the government. The president is in charge of foreign affairs and United States foreign policy. If Speaker Boehner and Sen McConnell want to involve themselves in the current election campaign in Israel they might want to go over there to do it on their own time. Since Boehner and McConnell are taking sides in the election in Israel, I'd like to declare my support for the opposition Labor Party to win over there as in my judgement a radical change is needed to the Israeli government. I'm sure Netanayhu will be quaking in his boots at the thought of you batting for the other side. But you're getting to the nub of it, Obama has been an unmitigated disaster where foreign policy is concerned. Not only is he showing impotence with Iran to a degree only hitherto rivaled by Carter, but he has also been instrumental in coercion preventing Israel taking unilateral action to deal with an existential threat. This is all setting aside Obama's role in supporting the Muslim brotherhood, bringing down long term allies (Egypt) or stabilizing nations (Libya) giving rise to ISIS and the disaster we know as the Arab spring. Then to top it all he starts releasing prisoners from Gitmo, who surprisingly have already been involved in terrorist atrocities.Well if congress invite Netanayhu in a manner that departs from constitutional precedent then how fitting that is in view of Obamas contempt for congress and the constitution. P.s Obama's spat with Netanyahu all but guarantees Netanyahu's reelection if Obama's approval rating in Israel (10%) is anything to go by. Edited January 22, 2015 by Steely Dan 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggold Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 The EU and the US have handled the Iran nuclear policies exceedingly well and have prevented Netanyahu from blowing up the Middle East due to an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. If it comes down to that, it would only be because the long and complex negotiations would have failed and Iran would indisputably have started producing bombs. In the meantime the negotiations need to continue and the Congress has to quit trying to be 535 secretaries of state. They have been working on getting the bomb even while negotiating with the US. To think otherwise is naive! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) I'm sure Netanayhu will be quaking in his boots at the thought of you batting for the other side. But you're getting to the nub of it, Obama has been an unmitigated disaster where foreign policy is concerned. Not only is he showing impotence with Iran to a degree only hitherto rivaled by Carter, but he has also been instrumental in coercion preventing Israel taking unilateral action to deal with an existential threat. This is all setting aside Obama's role in supporting the Muslim brotherhood, bringing down long term allies (Egypt) or stabilizing nations (Libya) giving rise to ISIS and the disaster we know as the Arab spring. Then to top it all he starts releasing prisoners from Gitmo, who surprisingly have already been involved in terrorist atrocities. Well if congress invite Netanayhu in a manner that departs from constitutional precedent then how fitting that is in view of Obamas contempt for congress and the constitution. P.s Obama's spat with Netanyahu all but guarantees Netanyahu's reelection if Obama's approval rating in Israel (10%) is anything to go by. Agreed. It is STRONGLY suspected that the Obama administration leaked information about Israel being given access to airbases by Azerbaijan, from which Israel could launch air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Later they called Netanyahu "chickenshit" for not carrying out the mission anyway, even though they were the ones that exposed it. What a bunch of backstabbing hypocrites. Edited January 22, 2015 by Ulysses G. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggold Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) The Chamberlain analogy is correct. Appeasing an aggressive violent bully who has their own agenda doesn't work. Some politicians and regimes simply lie. When do you want the US to engage in warfare against Iran? When for North Korea? When for the multitude of aggressive, violent behaviour? Whoa, almost forgot China's claims in the South China Sea and Russia's sending in troops in the Ukraine? I agree, sometimes military fighting is necessary but saber rattling is a very dangerous game for any country a tad overextended. as it is. Yeah, it would be a whole day's hard work to get rid of Iran's nuclear program. Everyone knows where it is, in bunkers deep in the ground. Drop a half dozen GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bombs on it and go have coffee. Israel isn't going to let Iran get nukes. Israel has the GBU-37 GPS-Aided bunker busters and the means to deliver them and will do it if necessary. Well, lets hope they fight their own war this time, and not drag the rest of the world in to fight in wars they start. They didn't even send a single medic to help the allies in recent conflicts. If anyone else had made those comments I would have said they were dumb and stupid. But I appreciate you showing everyone how intelligent you are. You think Iraq would allow Israeli medics into Iraq to help the Allies? Maybe they should have bomb Baghdad when Saddam was firing missiles at Israel? Edited January 22, 2015 by ggold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wat dee Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Jewish politician putting Israel's interests before USA's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Ulysses G. Posted January 22, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted January 22, 2015 Sorry to make your conspiracy theory look stupid, but John Boehner is a Roman Catholic. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 The Congress can invite whomever they like to speak before it, but it needs to be pointed out that the select and few foreign leaders that have addressed a special joint session of Congress have done so while they have been present in the United States on an official state visit. The president is the chief of state of the United States and I don't believe he has invited the prime minister of Israel for an official state visit at this time. The Constitution designates the president as the chief diplomatic officer of the United States with the Secretary of State as his/her fully authorized agent and designee. The Constitution does not say anything about the Congress having 535 secretaries of state in addition to the one in the Executive Branch of the government. The president is in charge of foreign affairs and United States foreign policy. If Speaker Boehner and Sen McConnell want to involve themselves in the current election campaign in Israel they might want to go over there to do it on their own time. Since Boehner and McConnell are taking sides in the election in Israel, I'd like to declare my support for the opposition Labor Party to win over there as in my judgement a radical change is needed to the Israeli government. I'm sure Netanayhu will be quaking in his boots at the thought of you batting for the other side. But you're getting to the nub of it, Obama has been an unmitigated disaster where foreign policy is concerned. Not only is he showing impotence with Iran to a degree only hitherto rivaled by Carter, but he has also been instrumental in coercion preventing Israel taking unilateral action to deal with an existential threat. This is all setting aside Obama's role in supporting the Muslim brotherhood, bringing down long term allies (Egypt) or stabilizing nations (Libya) giving rise to ISIS and the disaster we know as the Arab spring. Then to top it all he starts releasing prisoners from Gitmo, who surprisingly have already been involved in terrorist atrocities.Well if congress invite Netanayhu in a manner that departs from constitutional precedent then how fitting that is in view of Obamas contempt for congress and the constitution. P.s Obama's spat with Netanyahu all but guarantees Netanyahu's reelection if Obama's approval rating in Israel (10%) is anything to go by. Just to get a clear idea on this: President Obama is a Muslim Brotherhood fanboy, and therefore he enables Iran's nuclear ambitions? Netanyahu's sour relationship with the the current USA administration may be electorally beneficial with regards to securing the right wing voters from drifting elsewhere, not a very popular stance on other quarters of the political scene. Not surprised that Netanyahu will go this way, but would have thought that the USA Congress would show slightly better form. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) And this might be of interest to some: Israeli Mossad Goes Rogue, Warns U.S. on Iran SanctionsThe Israeli intelligence agency Mossad has broken ranks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, telling U.S. officials and lawmakers that a new Iran sanctions bill in the U.S. Congress would tank the Iran nuclear negotiations. Already, the Barack Obama administration and some leading Republican senators are using the Israeli internal disagreement to undermine support for the bill, authored by Republican Mark Kirk and Democrat Robert Menendez, which would enact new sanctions if current negotiations falter. Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- supported by Republican Senators Lindsay Graham and John McCain -- is pushing for his own legislation on the Iran nuclear deal, which doesn't contain sanctions but would require that the Senate vote on any pact that is agreed upon in Geneva. The White House is opposed to both the Kirk-Menendez bill and the Corker bill; it doesn't want Congress to meddle at all in the delicate multilateral diplomacy with Iran. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-01-22/netanyahu-mossad-split-divides-u-s-congress-on-iran-sanctions Edited January 22, 2015 by Morch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingalfred Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 The Congress can invite whomever they like to speak before it, but it needs to be pointed out that the select and few foreign leaders that have addressed a special joint session of Congress have done so while they have been present in the United States on an official state visit. The president is the chief of state of the United States and I don't believe he has invited the prime minister of Israel for an official state visit at this time. The Constitution designates the president as the chief diplomatic officer of the United States with the Secretary of State as his/her fully authorized agent and designee. The Constitution does not say anything about the Congress having 535 secretaries of state in addition to the one in the Executive Branch of the government. The president is in charge of foreign affairs and United States foreign policy. If Speaker Boehner and Sen McConnell want to involve themselves in the current election campaign in Israel they might want to go over there to do it on their own time. Since Boehner and McConnell are taking sides in the election in Israel, I'd like to declare my support for the opposition Labor Party to win over there as in my judgement a radical change is needed to the Israeli government. And Congress is in charge of writing legislation. The President is in charge of faithfully executing them. Look how that's turned out the past six years. non sense. clearly doesnt know what you are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingalfred Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Sorry to make your conspiracy theory look stupid, but John Boehner is a Roman Catholic. meaning what? One fact is that Religion and State are separated under US constitution and the many radical Christians hate that, particularly the loopy wing of the Republicans. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dexterm Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 The Chamberlain analogy is correct. Appeasing an aggressive violent bully who has their own agenda doesn't work. Some politicians and regimes simply lie. When do you want the US to engage in warfare against Iran? When for North Korea? When for the multitude of aggressive, violent behaviour? Whoa, almost forgot China's claims in the South China Sea and Russia's sending in troops in the Ukraine? I agree, sometimes military fighting is necessary but saber rattling is a very dangerous game for any country a tad overextended. as it is. Yeah, it would be a whole day's hard work to get rid of Iran's nuclear program. Everyone knows where it is, in bunkers deep in the ground. Drop a half dozen GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bombs on it and go have coffee. Israel isn't going to let Iran get nukes. Israel has the GBU-37 GPS-Aided bunker busters and the means to deliver them and will do it if necessary. Well, lets hope they fight their own war this time, and not drag the rest of the world in to fight in wars they start. They didn't even send a single medic to help the allies in recent conflicts. If anyone else had made those comments I would have said they were dumb and stupid. But I appreciate you showing everyone how intelligent you are. You think Iraq would allow Israeli medics into Iraq to help the Allies? Maybe they should have bomb Baghdad when Saddam was firing missiles at Israel? There was no Iraqi government at the time to object. I'm sure the people would have welcomed all help to deliver freedom and democracy to them , when the mission statement somehow metamorphosed into regime change from finding WMD. The Israeli medics could have stayed safely in the green zone treating allied injured...no not a single Israeli helper, while the likes of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Moldova were pulling their weight. With such staunch US friends as Israel who needs enemies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq It will be the same again if USA does Israel's dirty work for them by attacking Iran if Netanyahu and the paid AIPAC lackeys in the US Congress have their way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now