Ulysses G. Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 non sense. clearly doesnt know what you are talking about. Chuckd is correct. YOU are wrong. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. 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? Meaning read the post that I am replying to, before making comments that do not apply to it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingalfred Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Meaning your "conspiracy theory" about a poster who never suggested a "conspiracy". But par for the course for TV Republican wingnuts 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 22, 2015 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. 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. *posts removed to allow reply* Can't seem to find Saudi Arabia on the list of "Contributing Nations" appearing in the link provided. Iran isn't on it as well. Israel was not invited nor encouraged to participate or openly contribute, for obvious political reasons to do with reactions of the Arab World. 1 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. They have been working on getting the bomb even while negotiating with the US. To think otherwise is naive! To think otherwise would indeed be naive. Who doesn't know Iran can or will be able to produce nuclear weapons under their present program which is what their program is about, and which the present long running negotiations are all about precluding. We may have to go in to smash the core elements of Iran's well buried and sheltered nuclear program, yes. The Israeli Air Force threaded the needle when it destroyed the pinpointed parts of Iraq's reactor back when and they alone or with the USAF can do much the same kind of highly specific attack to the underground facilities in Iran now. Iran knows this. My post referred to Congress overstepping its bounds. We don't need 535 ad hoc secretaries of state in addition to the one and the only one provided for in the constitution. The United States speaks with one voice on foreign policy whether the far right likes the voice or not. Congress should go home for a while before it does serious damage to the US abroad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 And this might be of interest to some: Israeli Mossad Goes Rogue, Warns U.S. on Iran Sanctions The 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 And, quite unusually, there is a direct clarification from non other than the Mossad: Mossad chief denies opposing new sanctions on Iran Mossad chief Tamir Pardo issued a rare press release on Thursday denying reports that he told U.S. senators he was opposed to further sanctions on Iran during its negotiations with world powers over its contentious nuclear program. In a statement issued by the Prime Minister's Office, Pardo noted that he did meet with a delegation of senators on January 19, at their request, and with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's approval. "Contrary to what has been reported, the Head of the Mossad did not say that he opposes imposing additional sanctions on Iran, " read the statement. Rather, "the Head of the Mossad emphasized in the meeting that the exceptional effectiveness of the sanctions imposed on Iran in recent years are what brought Iran to the negotiating table." http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.638509 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
attento Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 If he is able to visit the USA, will Mr Netanyahu spare a few minutes to pop across to the UN and explain why he is ignoring their Sanctions ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post chuckd Posted January 22, 2015 Popular Post 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. Care to rephrase this into some sort of sensible comment? Exactly who doesnt (sic) know what I was talking about? What part of my post are you having trouble understanding. Admittedly I have no clue what you are on about. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnie Brasco Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 So what do Boehner and the his crazy Republican congress want to do? Attack Iran? Using a Neville Chamberlain analogy shows how some are not up with history. Stick with your poster name US civil war stories! The Chamberlain analogy is correct. Appeasing an aggressive violent bully who has their own agenda doesn't work. Some politicians and regimes simply lie. Have a look at Pat Buchanan's take on Chamberlain, Czechoslovakia and Poland. More than HALF of the U.S. population saw it that way as well . . . . . And then, "my goodness gracious, are those Japanese warplanes in the sky over Pearl Harbour ?... All politicians and all regimes have their agenda. ALL lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 So what do Boehner and the his crazy Republican congress want to do? Attack Iran? Using a Neville Chamberlain analogy shows how some are not up with history. Stick with your poster name US civil war stories! The Chamberlain analogy is correct. Appeasing an aggressive violent bully who has their own agenda doesn't work. Some politicians and regimes simply lie. Have a look at Pat Buchanan's take on Chamberlain, Czechoslovakia and Poland. More than HALF of the U.S. population saw it that way as well . . . . . And then, "my goodness gracious, are those Japanese warplanes in the sky over Pearl Harbour ?... All politicians and all regimes have their agenda. ALL lie. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a hoax, then? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggold Posted January 22, 2015 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. 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. *posts removed to allow reply* Can't seem to find Saudi Arabia on the list of "Contributing Nations" appearing in the link provided. Iran isn't on it as well. Israel was not invited nor encouraged to participate or openly contribute, for obvious political reasons to do with reactions of the Arab World. He knows that, he is just being argumentative for the sake of it! 1 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! To think otherwise would indeed be naive. Who doesn't know Iran can or will be able to produce nuclear weapons under their present program which is what their program is about, and which the present long running negotiations are all about precluding. We may have to go in to smash the core elements of Iran's well buried and sheltered nuclear program, yes. The Israeli Air Force threaded the needle when it destroyed the pinpointed parts of Iraq's reactor back when and they alone or with the USAF can do much the same kind of highly specific attack to the underground facilities in Iran now. Iran knows this. My post referred to Congress overstepping its bounds. We don't need 535 ad hoc secretaries of state in addition to the one and the only one provided for in the constitution. The United States speaks with one voice on foreign policy whether the far right likes the voice or not. Congress should go home for a while before it does serious damage to the US abroad. Seems to me Obama doesn't need congress's help he is doing a pretty good job of damaging the US abroad, mostly allied countries prior to Obama taking office! 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. They have been working on getting the bomb even while negotiating with the US. To think otherwise is naive! To think otherwise would indeed be naive. Who doesn't know Iran can or will be able to produce nuclear weapons under their present program which is what their program is about, and which the present long running negotiations are all about precluding. We may have to go in to smash the core elements of Iran's well buried and sheltered nuclear program, yes. The Israeli Air Force threaded the needle when it destroyed the pinpointed parts of Iraq's reactor back when and they alone or with the USAF can do much the same kind of highly specific attack to the underground facilities in Iran now. Iran knows this. My post referred to Congress overstepping its bounds. We don't need 535 ad hoc secretaries of state in addition to the one and the only one provided for in the constitution. The United States speaks with one voice on foreign policy whether the far right likes the voice or not. Congress should go home for a while before it does serious damage to the US abroad. Seems to me Obama doesn't need congress's help he is doing a pretty good job of damaging the US abroad, mostly allied countries prior to Obama taking office! That is the predictable response to the statement so go ahead and sit in the corner.....oh, I see you're there already Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggold Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 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. http://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-medics-seen-treating-syrian-rebels-in-new-video/ In the video, military medics in the Golan Heights are seen tending to three Syrians in a military ambulance, assessing their condition and providing initial treatment before moving them to a hospital. Read more: IDF medics seen treating Syrian rebels in new video | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-medics-seen-treating-syrian-rebels-in-new-video/#ixzz3PZUNuT3b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnie Brasco Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 So what do Boehner and the his crazy Republican congress want to do? Attack Iran? Using a Neville Chamberlain analogy shows how some are not up with history. Stick with your poster name US civil war stories! The Chamberlain analogy is correct. Appeasing an aggressive violent bully who has their own agenda doesn't work. Some politicians and regimes simply lie. Have a look at Pat Buchanan's take on Chamberlain, Czechoslovakia and Poland.More than HALF of the U.S. population saw it that way as well . . . . . And then, "my goodness gracious, are those Japanese warplanes in the sky over Pearl Harbour ?... All politicians and all regimes have their agenda. ALL lie. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a hoax, then? No more than your remark is a craven appeal to intellectual laziness and ignorance. How does that sound ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggold Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) They have been working on getting the bomb even while negotiating with the US. To think otherwise is naive! To think otherwise would indeed be naive. Who doesn't know Iran can or will be able to produce nuclear weapons under their present program which is what their program is about, and which the present long running negotiations are all about precluding. We may have to go in to smash the core elements of Iran's well buried and sheltered nuclear program, yes. The Israeli Air Force threaded the needle when it destroyed the pinpointed parts of Iraq's reactor back when and they alone or with the USAF can do much the same kind of highly specific attack to the underground facilities in Iran now. Iran knows this. My post referred to Congress overstepping its bounds. We don't need 535 ad hoc secretaries of state in addition to the one and the only one provided for in the constitution. The United States speaks with one voice on foreign policy whether the far right likes the voice or not. Congress should go home for a while before it does serious damage to the US abroad. Seems to me Obama doesn't need congress's help he is doing a pretty good job of damaging the US abroad, mostly allied countries prior to Obama taking office! That is the predictable response to the statement so go ahead and sit in the corner.....oh, I see you're there already Well no, I don't have to live with American politics, just my observation as an outsider. As such I have often wondered if this is really about politics or if it has something to do with Obama's colour? I just don't remember there being this much animosity against a President and his agenda? If anything he a lame duck with two years to go, he only has the veto left as a weapon. Edited January 22, 2015 by ggold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) My post referred to Congress overstepping its bounds. We don't need 535 ad hoc secretaries of state in addition to the one and the only one provided for in the constitution. The United States speaks with one voice on foreign policy whether the far right likes the voice or not. Congress should go home for a while before it does serious damage to the US abroad. Seems to me Obama doesn't need congress's help he is doing a pretty good job of damaging the US abroad, mostly allied countries prior to Obama taking office! That is the predictable response to the statement so go ahead and sit in the corner.....oh, I see you're there already Well no, I don't have to live with American politics, just my observation as an outsider. As such I have often wondered if this is really about politics or if it has something to do with Obama's colour? I just don't remember there being this much animosity against a President and his agenda? If anything he a lame duck with two years to go, he only has the veto left as a weapon. Prez Obama is commander in chief until noon January 20, 2017 at which time the new CinC will raise her right hand to take the oath of office and she will take charge. In the meantime, the White House said just now Netanyahu's visit is not and will not be an official state visit, which means Netanyahu will lack the regular standing for a foreign head of state or government to address a joint session of Congress, and that Prez Obama will not meet with Netanyahu while he is in Washington because long standing White House policy over many decades is not to meet with a leader on the eve of an election he's having back home. Netanyahu can speak regardless but the Congress is taking an extraordinary and most imprudent step....it is a Congress in which both chambers are controlled by the Republican party so this is just more of the Obama must fail crowd at work. Republican country clubs are astir over Obamacare and wildly picture the next black president budgeting reparations to every black American for slavery, if that might address your musings in the matter. Can't allow another one of 'em, in short. Republicans have long gone insane. Almost no one in the country trusts or has any confidence in the Republican party in matters of war and peace and in matters involving nuclear weapons especially and in particular. Voters won't put a Republican in the White House cause that's where the launch codes are. Republicans in Congress trying to run nuclear negotiations that involve matters of war and peace is just as unacceptable to the American people. If the ayatollahs in Tehran get the bomb then it won't make any difference in the ME for us to take out their capability and to do it with decisive force. Tehran getting the bomb will turn the ME upside down, so either way we'd just need to get on with checkmating that. Which is why the negotiations need to continue with the United States speaking with one voice. Mr Netanyahu needs to stay home and the Republicans in Congress need to stop trying to be ad hoc self appointed secretaries of state. Edited January 22, 2015 by Publicus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingalfred Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 If he is able to visit the USA, will Mr Netanyahu spare a few minutes to pop across to the UN and explain why he is ignoring their Sanctions ?ignoring their resolutions to remove Israelis from illegally occupied land! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 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. Have a look at Pat Buchanan's take on Chamberlain, Czechoslovakia and Poland.More than HALF of the U.S. population saw it that way as well . . . . . And then, "my goodness gracious, are those Japanese warplanes in the sky over Pearl Harbour ?... All politicians and all regimes have their agenda. ALL lie. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a hoax, then? No more than your remark is a craven appeal to intellectual laziness and ignorance. How does that sound ? Pompous? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 (edited) Benjamin Netanyahu is the new Republican party Senator from Israel....Likud. Republicans are siding with a foreign country over their own president http://www.vox.com/2015/1/21/7866089/netanyahu-boehner-congress As I'd said, the tea party has contempt of the Constitution. Edited January 23, 2015 by Publicus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnie Brasco Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 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.Have a look at Pat Buchanan's take on Chamberlain, Czechoslovakia and Poland.More than HALF of the U.S. population saw it that way as well . . . . . And then, "my goodness gracious, are those Japanese warplanes in the sky over Pearl Harbour ?...All politicians and all regimes have their agenda.ALL lie. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a hoax, then? No more than your remark is a craven appeal to intellectual laziness and ignorance.How does that sound ? Pompous? *Sigh* if you wish.I prefer well-read, well-researched, well-supported; with an aversion to the sealed up lock-box approach to scholarship and its relationship to the accurate historical record. This usually happens after that inexplicable 50-year security seal we've been conditioned to expect.It used to be that 50 years was long enough for most of the players to have safely died off.Really, if the so-called hard sciences like Physics and Chemistry can be revised and re-formulated why not History ?Nonetheless, there you go again with that famous "appeal" of yours. . . . . a shopworn nostrum to the same old audience.(Spotty bookings in the Catskills this season ?)(Now, let's have a little "I don't know what you're talking about" along with all that world-famous chopped liver you dish out so humbly.)Thinking folks have had a real belly-full of it by now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Personally, I think Netanyahu should not have accepted this invitation. Now it has blown up politically and he's in a fix (Obama refusing to see him while in town) and probably has to go through with it. If Netanyahu has messages to U.S. legislators to send, he can send them without this big messy show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggold Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Seems to me Obama doesn't need congress's help he is doing a pretty good job of damaging the US abroad, mostly allied countries prior to Obama taking office! That is the predictable response to the statement so go ahead and sit in the corner.....oh, I see you're there already Well no, I don't have to live with American politics, just my observation as an outsider. As such I have often wondered if this is really about politics or if it has something to do with Obama's colour? I just don't remember there being this much animosity against a President and his agenda? If anything he a lame duck with two years to go, he only has the veto left as a weapon. Prez Obama is commander in chief until noon January 20, 2017 at which time the new CinC will raise her right hand to take the oath of office and she will take charge. In the meantime, the White House said just now Netanyahu's visit is not and will not be an official state visit, which means Netanyahu will lack the regular standing for a foreign head of state or government to address a joint session of Congress, and that Prez Obama will not meet with Netanyahu while he is in Washington because long standing White House policy over many decades is not to meet with a leader on the eve of an election he's having back home. Netanyahu can speak regardless but the Congress is taking an extraordinary and most imprudent step....it is a Congress in which both chambers are controlled by the Republican party so this is just more of the Obama must fail crowd at work. Republican country clubs are astir over Obamacare and wildly picture the next black president budgeting reparations to every black American for slavery, if that might address your musings in the matter. Can't allow another one of 'em, in short. Republicans have long gone insane. Almost no one in the country trusts or has any confidence in the Republican party in matters of war and peace and in matters involving nuclear weapons especially and in particular. Voters won't put a Republican in the White House cause that's where the launch codes are. Republicans in Congress trying to run nuclear negotiations that involve matters of war and peace is just as unacceptable to the American people. If the ayatollahs in Tehran get the bomb then it won't make any difference in the ME for us to take out their capability and to do it with decisive force. Tehran getting the bomb will turn the ME upside down, so either way we'd just need to get on with checkmating that. Which is why the negotiations need to continue with the United States speaking with one voice. Mr Netanyahu needs to stay home and the Republicans in Congress need to stop trying to be ad hoc self appointed secretaries of state. So you think or hope H Clinton will become the first female President? But what of Dr Carson ® What if he were elected? Or is that your reference to reparations to Black Americans. Would the republicans be more amenable to him? The Question is does Obama really think they do not want a bomb? If the general view is Iran wants and would use the bomb then what is there to negotiate about? It is Obvious that the Iranians have been stalling for years, who is playing who's game. You don't allow someone to start on the road to a nuclear device and then think you can negotiate, It is as if Obama wants them to have the bomb, by which time it would be too late to do anything about. You don't see the US attacking N Korea! I agree Netanyahu should stay home. But he has too big an ego not to go, It is because of who the President is that he is going! Netanyahu hopes this will marginalise Obama, Though He probably is marginalised because the republicans control both houses. While you may be right that foreign Policy should be spoken with one voice, That doesn't mean background voices should not be signalling what may happen if negotiations fail. But in this case I think you need to ask yourself if Americans trust Obama any more? He has ignored the views of Allies, not Just of Israel But of Iran's neighbours and their fears of an Iranian bomb and influence in the region. Where in History has a US President upset so many of his allies as this one has? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 So will this visit actually help Netanyahu domestically in Israel in the upcoming Israeli elections? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnie Brasco Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 The (cough, cough) lobby just can't resist another chance to play for (cough's) toadies. It'll be impossible for him to resist. And that's a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 If he is able to visit the USA, will Mr Netanyahu spare a few minutes to pop across to the UN and explain why he is ignoring their Sanctions ?ignoring their resolutions to remove Israelis from illegally occupied land! Not long ago, he gave a speech there. It's not a question of whether Netanyahu is able to visit the U.S. but whether its wise of him to do this visit without Obama's invite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Steely Dan Posted January 23, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted January 23, 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 ... Exactly my thoughts and probably this has some bearing on the timing of congress inviting Netanayhu. The Iranian regime are not a rational player and can't be dealt with as such. It is however worth recalling that the Iranians released the U.S embassy hostages the day Reagan came to power and Carter left. I suspect the Iranians are confident of being able to attain a nuclear bomb if Obama continues to be the sole factor preventing them, with the prospect of Congressional intervention they may decide discretion is preferable and hope to hoodwink a future Clinton administration should they get the chance to. Edited January 23, 2015 by Steely Dan 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggold Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 So will this visit actually help Netanyahu domestically in Israel in the upcoming Israeli elections? Maybe Obama is arrogant enough to think so! Reality is, probably not. Netanyahu will be re-elected unfortunately! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 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 ... Exactly my thoughts and probably this has some bearing on the timing of congress inviting Netanayhu. The Iranian regime are not a rational player and can't be dealt with as such. It is however worth recalling that the Iranians released the U.S embassy hostages the day Reagan came to power and Carter left. I suspect the Iranians are confident of being able to attain a nuclear bomb if Obama continues to be the sole factor preventing them, with the prospect of Congressional intervention they may decide discretion is preferable and hope to hoodwink a future Clinton administration should they get the chance to. Hillary Clinton will be more hawkish than Obama ... no worries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 So will this visit actually help Netanyahu domestically in Israel in the upcoming Israeli elections? Maybe Obama is arrogant enough to think so! Reality is, probably not. Netanyahu will be re-elected unfortunately! Interesting. Well, I do understand the "excuse" of not wanting to seem to get involved either way in internal Israeli politics when elections are close. 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