Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Prediction: Israel is attacked in the next 1.5 years? No, it's Paris, France.

Prediction: Israel is attacked in the next 1.5 years? No, it's Paris, France. (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2015, 03:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That wasn't the part I quoted. You asked why Bush came up in comparison. I'm telling you why he would come up first.
Ok, I think I'm with you now.

I don't know if Netanyahu is lying, but it seems clear at the very least he's exaggerating. And then people point out he's been singing the same song since 1992 and it becomes a 'boy who cried wolf' situation.
Iran's rhetoric and funding of terrorism against, Israel, the US and abroad would lend credence to his position. Iran hasn't nuked anyone, but they sure as hell have killed a lot of people, or at least directly supported such actions.


Doesn't this fable cut both ways? Why should they trust a nation that has completely disregarded their sovereignty in the past for commercial pursuits and has shown even recently it will go to war on merely perceived danger?

True, but we don't call for the complete destruction of Iran and it's people on a consistent regular basis. If Iran were at all interested in any kind of peaceful relations you'd think by now they would take steps, or at least even state a goal for such. Iran is not/was not minding their own sovereignty - in fact they've been using it to undermine it's (perceived) enemies via terrorism and religious jihad. If Iran wants it's sovereignty to be respected by the US and Israel, it needs to stop using it to kill Americans and Israelis.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2015, 12:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Iran's rhetoric and funding of terrorism against, Israel, the US and abroad would lend credence to his position. Iran hasn't nuked anyone
That undermines his position. It's one thing to claim Iran is dangerous. It's another to fearmonger with the same talking point for 20 years with no evidence to back yourself up.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
True, but we don't call for the complete destruction of Iran and it's people on a consistent regular basis.
No, we merely label them 'The Axis of Evil' and have one of presidential candidates sing "Bomb, bomb, Iran" on the campaign trail.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
If Iran were at all interested in any kind of peaceful relations you'd think by now they would take steps, or at least even state a goal for such.
This strikes me as a step they are taking.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Iran is not/was not minding their own sovereignty - in fact they've been using it to undermine it's (perceived) enemies via terrorism and religious jihad. If Iran wants it's sovereignty to be respected by the US and Israel, it needs to stop using it to kill Americans and Israelis.
I need a refresher on the Americans they've killed in the past decade.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2015, 10:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That undermines his position. It's one thing to claim Iran is dangerous. It's another to fearmonger with the same talking point for 20 years with no evidence to back yourself up.
What more evidence do you need? Iran has been fighting proxies wars against Israel for that long and longer - it's no secret.
No, we merely label them 'The Axis of Evil' and have one of presidential candidates sing "Bomb, bomb, Iran" on the campaign trail.
Citation? Not for the Axis of evil, but for advocating a military war with Iran?
This strikes me as a step they are taking.
Citation?

http://www.businessinsider.com/irani...failed-2014-11

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middle...503434943.html

I need a refresher on the Americans they've killed in the past decade.
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand...RAND_OP322.pdf

Are you denying Iran's support for insurgency groups in Iraq and Afghanistan? Where do you think these "non-state" groups are getting their arms from? Funding? The guns and bombs aren't just popping out of the sand, ya know.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2015, 01:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
What more evidence do you need? Iran has been fighting proxies wars against Israel for that long and longer - it's no secret.
Remember, the claim here is Iran is mere moments away from having The Bomb. 10%, if you believe his snazzy graphics.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Citation? Not for the Axis of evil, but for advocating a military war with Iran?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg


The parallels to our government are on display here. Not sure what the problem is.
After Rouhani soundly beat conservative rivals to win a presidential election last year, the hardliners were unlikely to be happy whatever the outcome of the negotiations with the United States, China, Russia, France, Britain and Germany.

They remain suspicious of reaching any compromise with the West, after Rouhani promised during campaigning to end the sanctions by resolving the nuclear dispute and reengaging Iran with the outside world.
Sounds like the dynamic between hawks vs. doves here. Or you and I.

"It's already a year since Mr Rouhani tried his magic key to turn around America's wolfish nature. Instead of turning, the key of trust and optimism broke in the lock," said Hamid Rasaei, a member of parliament and close ally of hardline ex-president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Replace America with Iran and this could easily be a quote from one of our reps. Not seeing what's so bad here.



Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand...RAND_OP322.pdf

Are you denying Iran's support for insurgency groups in Iraq and Afghanistan? Where do you think these "non-state" groups are getting their arms from? Funding? The guns and bombs aren't just popping out of the sand, ya know.
I apologize, but I didn't have time to read the entire PDF (blessedly short as it is). This stuck out at me, though:
On the whole, it appears that Iran could play an even more positive and constructive role in Afghanistan from the U.S. perspective.2 Iran’s efforts at economic reconstruction, which are in line with the U.S. counterinsurgency campaign, outweigh the negative effects of its aid to the Taliban. Hence, Iran could serve as a natural partner for U.S. and NATO efforts to defeat the insurgency in Afghanistan, especially in the Dari-speaking regions.

However, the poor state of U.S.-Iranian relations has thwarted such cooperation. The U.S. inclusion of Iran in the “axis of evil” in 2002, the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, and ongoing tensions over Iran’s nuclear aspirations have been major obstacles to leveraging Ira- nian influence in Afghanistan. Iranian internal political dynamics also complicated efforts at collaboration.

Iran was flexible on its approach toward the United States due to the more-moderate domestic and foreign policies of President Mohammad Khatami (1997–2005). However, the presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (2005–) and the political ascent of the Revolutionary Guards have led to increasingly strident Iranian foreign policies, ranging from the develop- ment of Iran’s nuclear program to its involvement in Afghanistan.
So our previous administrations foreign policy negatively affected our relations with Iran, further compounded by the election of Ahmadinejad and Iranian hardliners. Now, both administrations are gone and have been replaced by more moderate forces now guiding foreign policy. This sounds like the exact right time to try and mend fences, not blow them up.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2015, 03:15 PM
 
Somebody is sweating bullets ....

Increasingly worried that he could lose Tuesday’s elections, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel lashed out at the country’s Arab voters, expressing alarm that a large turnout by them could determine the outcome. Opponents accused him of baldfaced racism.

Mr. Netanyahu’s remarks, in a video posted via social media, were seen by critics as the most strident in a series of assertions he has made in recent days to rally right-wing supporters to his argument that he is the only Israeli leader who will save the country from its enemies.

On Monday, Mr. Netanyahu said if his Likud faction was returned to power, he would never allow the creation of a Palestinian state, reversing a stance he had taken six years earlier. His statement was seen not only as validating Palestinian suspicions, but also risked further alienation between Mr. Netanyahu and the Obama administration.

Mr. Netanyahu also openly acknowledged having promoted a settlement over the 1967 lines in southeast Jerusalem in order to block the expansion of the West Bank city of Bethlehem and its connection with Jerusalem, something that critics said harmed the contiguity of any future Palestinian state.

His remarks on Tuesday came amid assessments that Israeli-Arab citizens, whose turnout has been historically lower than Jewish citizens in previous elections, were voting in larger numbers.

They appeared to be supporting the Joint Arab List, an alliance of four smaller parties that together could win a significant bloc in the 120-seat Knesset, the Israeli Parliament, potentially preventing Mr. Netanyahu from gaining the 61 seats he needs to form a government.


However, the Arab parties have maintained that they will honor their tradition of refusing to join any governing coalition.

“Right-wing rule is in danger. Arab voters are streaming in huge quantities to the polling stations,” Mr. Netanyahu said in the video. “The left-wing nonprofit organizations are bringing them in buses.”

He exhorted supporters of Likud to vote. “With your help and God’s help we will form a national government and protect the state of Israel,” he said.

His most important adversary in the election, the center-left Zionist Union alliance, denounced Mr. Netanyahu’s language as racial fearmongering.

“No other Western leader would dare utter such a racist remark,” Shelly Yacimovich, a senior member of the bloc, wrote on Twitter. “Imagine a warning that starts, ‘Our rule is in danger, black voters are streaming in quantity to the polling stations.’  ”


The Joint Arab List announced that it had complained to Judge Salim Joubran, the chairman of the Central Election Committee, against Likud’s campaign clip, asking him to instruct the Likud to remove it.

“A prime minister who conducts propaganda against national minority citizens is crossing a red line of incitement and racism,” said Dov Hanin, a Joint Arab List candidate. “Such a message, voiced by a prime minister on the very day in which citizens are supposed to be encouraged to go out to vote, is testimony to a complete loss of compass and his preparedness to smash all principles of democracy just for the sake of his own leadership.”

Although many Israeli analysts had predicted that the Joint Arab List could significantly raise voter turnout among Israel’s Arab citizens, it remained unclear by late Tuesday afternoon how many Israeli Arabs were voting. There are about 1.7 million Arab citizens of Israel, making up about 20 percent of the population.
Netanyahu Expresses Alarm Over Strong Arab Voter Turnout | NYTimes.com

OAW
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2015, 03:20 PM
 
Real piece of shit. Personally this struck me more: Israel's PM Netanyahu: No Palestinian state on my watch - CNN.com
Asked by an interviewer with the Israeli news site, NRG, if it was true that a Palestinian nation would never be formed while he's prime minister, Netanyahu replied, "Indeed."

...

"Anyone who is going to establish a Palestinian state, anyone who is going to evacuate territories today, is simply giving a base for attacks to the radical Islam against Israel," he said.
Man, must be nice to see it in black and white that you've been negotiating in bad faith for his entire reign.

Edit: I'm sorry OAW, you quote had even better info.
On Monday, Mr. Netanyahu said if his Likud faction was returned to power, he would never allow the creation of a Palestinian state, reversing a stance he had taken six years earlier.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2015, 03:32 PM
 
^^^^

Anyone who's been even remotely paying attention to the Israeli-Palestinian "peace process" knows that Likud has never had any intention of actually following through on a two-state solution. From the original Likud Party Platform ...

The Right of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel)

a. The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.

b. A plan which relinquishes parts of western Eretz Israel, undermines our right to the country, unavoidably leads to the establishment of a "Palestinian State," jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population, endangers the existence of the State of Israel. and frustrates any prospect of peace.
OAW
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2015, 04:10 PM
 
And this worse than the original Hamas Charter?

The Covenant Of The Islamic Resistance Movement – Hamas
"'Israel will exist, and will continue to exist, until Islam abolishes it, as it abolished that which was before it.' [From the words of] The martyr, Imam Hasan al-Banna', Allah's mercy be upon him.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2015, 04:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
And this worse than the original Hamas Charter?
Does this somehow makes Netanyahu lies ok?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2015, 04:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Does this somehow makes Netanyahu lies ok?
What lies are those?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2015, 05:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
And this worse than the original Hamas Charter?

The Covenant Of The Islamic Resistance Movement – Hamas
Actually I don't think it's worse at all. I just think the hypocrisy in the mainstream US media which constantly highlights the Hamas charter while turning a blind eye to the Likud platform speaks volumes.

OAW
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2015, 07:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Remember, the claim here is Iran is mere moments away from having The Bomb. 10%, if you believe his snazzy graphics.
To me, that's a bit different than advocating for a war. The claim is far more than just "the bomb", although if we're reducing a candidate's position to twitter sized briefs, I guess I can see your point. I'm just not sure the last 40 years under Iran's same administration that we've ever seen Iran take strides towards peaceful coexistence with us and Israel.

As long as Israel is our ally, Iran will seek our destruction.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg


The parallels to our government are on display here. Not sure what the problem is.
Sounds like the dynamic between hawks vs. doves here. Or you and I.
Perhaps I'm just a bit more hesitant to trust a country that repeatedly calls for our mass annihilation, even during such negotiations.

Replace America with Iran and this could easily be a quote from one of our reps. Not seeing what's so bad here.
You're really gonna have to cite this one for me. Perhaps I've just never seen our reps/government chant "Death to Islam", and I certainly haven't seen it from our citizenry.


I apologize, but I didn't have time to read the entire PDF (blessedly short as it is). This stuck out at me, though:
So our previous administrations foreign policy negatively affected our relations with Iran, further compounded by the election of Ahmadinejad and Iranian hardliners. Now, both administrations are gone and have been replaced by more moderate forces now guiding foreign policy. This sounds like the exact right time to try and mend fences, not blow them up.
Iran's got the same administration: Their supreme leader, who's "hardline" stance on Israel and the US hasn't changed. Their president is just their PR mouthpiece, picked by the government via rigged elections. Their administration see's a chance to gain an advantage by dealing with a weak US foreign policy, and he's not going to pass it up. Khatami wasn't executing the supreme leader's will effectively enough, so Ahmadinejad was tapped to replace him. Rhoutani's image as "more moderate" certainly causes a great deal of skepticism. By all accounts I've read, he's not as batshit as Ahme but equally if not more ruthless.

The crux of my argument is this - I don't see why we'd give up sanctions that are working until we can be certain that Iran's nuclear pursuit is peaceful. We have no such guarantee even with this non-legally binding deal, unless we keep up the sanctions until the IAEA gives us an all clear. We are the only ones making a concession here.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 18, 2015, 01:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
What lies are those?
The one bolded in my post previous to yours.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 18, 2015, 02:25 PM
 
Any comments on the Obama Admins use of charity organizations in Israel being used to try to overthrow the current admin, all while whining those lying croc tears about Bibi speaking here or the Senate letter being political?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 18, 2015, 03:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
The one bolded in my post previous to yours.
This?

On Monday, Mr. Netanyahu said if his Likud faction was returned to power, he would never allow the creation of a Palestinian state, reversing a stance he had taken six years earlier.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 18, 2015, 04:09 PM
 
Now that Netenyahu has publicly disavowed the "Two State Solution" and won re-election the Palestinian Authority has no reason not to formally and unilaterally declare a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. Either that or officially disband and call on Israel to formally annex the West Bank and Gaza and grant full citizenship to all residents.

OAW
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 18, 2015, 09:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Now that Netenyahu has publicly disavowed the "Two State Solution" and won re-election the Palestinian Authority has no reason not to formally and unilaterally declare a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.
That won't lead to violent conflict :/
Either that or officially disband and call on Israel to formally annex the West Bank and Gaza and grant full citizenship to all residents.

OAW
Not a bad plan.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 18, 2015, 10:55 PM
 
^^^^

But from the right-wing Israeli perspective that plan is even worse than the "Two State Solution". Demographically the Arab population will outnumber the Jewish population within a few generations. Forced expulsion of the Arab population would make Israel an international pariah state even more than it already is. And that's why the policy of the Israeli government has been to simply pay lip service to the peace process while dragging its feet and maintaining the status quo.

OAW
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2015, 05:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
^^^^

But from the right-wing Israeli perspective that plan is even worse than the "Two State Solution". Demographically the Arab population will outnumber the Jewish population within a few generations. Forced expulsion of the Arab population would make Israel an international pariah state even more than it already is. And that's why the policy of the Israeli government has been to simply pay lip service to the peace process while dragging its feet and maintaining the status quo.

OAW
Perhaps it'd be much easier to convince Israel to change the status quo, if the status quo of rockets fired at their city were changed as well.

I don't fault Israel for being skeptical of embracing a group with open arms, when among that group there are operatives funded by an enemy state fighting a full on proxy war against sovereign Israeli population centers. If we want to change that, we've got to pick clean the wolves among the sheep. Iran's role in undermining the peace process cannot be overstated.

Death to Israel is Iran's mission statement. Death to America their long term goal. I'm not sure how you could construe their explicit statements as such to be anything else.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2015, 10:33 AM
 
The Supreme Leader call for "Death to America" (after Israel) after Obama video.

Iran’s Supreme leader Ali Khamenei called for “Death to America” on Saturday, a day after President Barack Obama appealed to Iran to seize a “historic opportunity” for a nuclear deal and a better future, and as US Secretary of State John Kerry claimed substantial progress toward an accord.

Khamenei told a crowd in Tehran that Iran would not capitulate to Western demands. When the crowd started shouting, “Death to America,” the ayatollah responded: “Of course yes, death to America, because America is the original source of this pressure.

Read more: Khamenei calls 'Death to America' as Kerry hails progress on nuke deal | The Times of Israel Khamenei call Death to America as Kerry hails progress on nuke deal | The Times of Israel
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2015, 02:01 PM
 
If there is anyway to prove this, nothing will happen.
Netanyahu pollster: Obama role in election larger than reported | TheHill
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2015, 06:42 PM
 
So after all that time and effort coming to an 11th hour framework for a deal, the US and Iran can't even agree on what was agreed upon.

You think Obama's starting to get the idea of what everyone's been telling him about Iran for the past 40 years? :roll eyes: We'll have better luck making a deal with a frying pan.

Even if a deal were to pass, Iran will just violate it and bring everyone back to the table, like they've been doing for a decade now to keep everyone's eyes off of what their clandestine nuclear program is actually doing.

Not to mention their backing of Yemeni rebels, clear proof of their intent of conquest through destabilization of the region.

The US needs to set terms, take em or leave em for sanctions and also set a threshold of progress towards a nuclear bomb that should Iran cross would result in their government's immediate and utter destruction. No exceptions, no deals, just the guidelines for peaceful coexistence between Iran and the civilized world. Yemen's government was a US ally, which Iran is actively waging war against. What should we do there? Just let Iran take it over? That would be a serious blow to stability in the region and Western attempts to curtail terroristic Islamic extremism.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2015, 06:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
If there is anyway to prove this, nothing will happen.
Netanyahu pollster: Obama role in election larger than reported | TheHill
Of course. Just like Obama claimed to be against gay marriage to get elected he claim's to be a friend of Israel's to bolster is his influence among our lawmakers.

Both were untrue, and while the former is laudable the latter is absolutely appalling.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2015, 11:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Of course. Just like Obama claimed to be against gay marriage to get elected he claim's to be a friend of Israel's to bolster is his influence among our lawmakers.

Both were untrue, and while the former is laudable the latter is absolutely appalling.
You're angry at Obama over hearsay that, even if it were true has no direct connection to him?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2015, 11:39 AM
 
*raises hand*

What is stopping Iran from working on the bomb currently?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2015, 11:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
To me, that's a bit different than advocating for a war.
What is he advocating then? Iran is already under sanctions.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Perhaps I'm just a bit more hesitant to trust a country that repeatedly calls for our mass annihilation, even during such negotiations.
If I were Iran, I'd be hesitant to trust a country that says they wouldn't honor any agreement coming from those negotiations.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
You're really gonna have to cite this one for me. Perhaps I've just never seen our reps/government chant "Death to Islam", and I certainly haven't seen it from our citizenry.
Why should I? You didn't even do me the courtesy of acknowledging the McCain clip I cited for you, which you were so skeptical of.

But in reality, you didn't read what I said. I said our govt. sounds similar to what's described in the article you linked to; To highlight my point, the same thing I quoted makes perfect sense just switching out names:
After Obama soundly beat conservative rivals to win a presidential election last year, Republican hawks were unlikely to be happy whatever the outcome of the negotiations with the Iran.

They remain suspicious of reaching any compromise with the Iran, after Obama promised during campaigning to end the sanctions by resolving the nuclear dispute and reengaging the West with Iran.
     
unicast reversepath
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2015, 01:42 PM
 
I am a neo-jingoist - I think the entire middle east should be transformed into a huge smoking hole.


<tongue firmly in cheek>
If you have Ghosts, you have Everything!
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2015, 02:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
What is he advocating then? Iran is already under sanctions.
He's advocating for the US to set the conditions for which the sanctions would be lifted.

If I were Iran, I'd be hesitant to trust a country that says they wouldn't honor any agreement coming from those negotiations.
What do they need to trust us for? There's nothing clandestine about the sanctions (unlike the bomb), and we haven't repeatedly promised to wipe Iran off the face of the Earth like they've done with us and Israel.

Why should I? You didn't even do me the courtesy of acknowledging the McCain clip I cited for you, which you were so skeptical of.
My apologies, I will go re-read.

But in reality, you didn't read what I said. I said our govt. sounds similar to what's described in the article you linked to; To highlight my point, the same thing I quoted makes perfect sense just switching out names:
Semantically or in reality? You could plug in a lot of different words to that sentence and have it "make sense". I'm failing to see your point here.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2015, 01:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
He's advocating for the US to set the conditions for which the sanctions would be lifted.
That can't be it – I asked what he's been advocating with scaremongering for the past 20 years.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
What do they need to trust us for?
That we won't resanction them even though they hold up their end of the bargain.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Semantically or in reality? You could plug in a lot of different words to that sentence and have it "make sense". I'm failing to see your point here.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
The parallels to our government are on display here. Not sure what the problem is.
Sounds like the dynamic between hawks vs. doves here. Or you and I.


Let me hammer it home a little further: Louie Gohmert: 'It's Time To Bomb Iran'
"It's time to bomb Iran," Gohmert said in an interview Wednesday with Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on the radio show "Washington Watch," according to Right Wing Watch.

“We need to make clear to Iran: You can play these silly games with our president that buys into them and our secretary of state, but the American people aren’t buying it and you’re going to pay a price,” Gohmert added. "We have got to get that message across."
That was just last month, during negotiations.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2015, 02:01 PM
 
I think this is great fun as well.

Bloomberg Politics National Poll Finds Deep Partisan Split on Israel and Iran - Bloomberg Politics
On the question of whether to support Israel's interests even when they diverge from America's, independents are closely divided, 48 percent to 44 percent, a bare plurality in favor of supporting Israel because of its importance as an ally and the only democracy in the region.1Republicans say yes by 67 percent to 30 percent, while 64 percent of Democrats say the U.S. must pursue its own interests over Israel's.

Religion appears to play an important role in shaping the numbers. Born-again Christians are more likely than overall poll respondents, 58 percent to 35 percent, to back Israel regardless of U.S. interests. Americans with no religious affiliation were the least likely to feel this way, at 26 percent.2 Ideological identification also has a strong connection: 62 percent of self-identified conservatives say supporting Israel is key, while that drops to 35 percent among moderates.3


Republicans support Benjamin Netanyahu more than Barack Obama: An unprecedented partisan split in favor of a foreign leader.
“Do you approve or disapprove of the way Obama is handling U.S. relations with Israel?” Democrats expressed approval, 66 percent to 21 percent. Republicans expressed disapproval, 86 percent to 8 percent. The second question was: “Do you approve or disapprove of the way Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is handling Israel’s relations with the United States?” Democrats disapproved of Netanyahu’s behavior, 58 percent to 21 percent. But Republicans approved of it, 59 percent to 21 percent. Overwhelmingly, Republicans preferred the Israeli prime minister to the American president.
Does a majority of the Republican Party identify more with Israeli interests than with American interests? When Israel’s prime minister speaks on the floor of Congress, do Republicans feel more allegiance to him than to their president? If so, will the feeling subside once Obama leaves office? Or does it signify an enduring rift in the fabric of this country?
I'm not treading on new ground here, but I just don't get the hard-on for Israel. The religious reasons seem startlingly at the fore-front, and while I'm against seeing them attacked, I'm also not for supporting a country that treats a segment of their population (or occupied lands) so poorly. Seems like a classic case of the US backing a country not because its right, but because our interests are somewhat aligned (see: Saudi Arabia).

Oddly, though, now that our interests are not aligned, a huge segment of the population has flipped on us, rather than them. A segment that either is concerned with religious implications or sees military action as the first and best answer to all the problems in the middle east (Or perhaps, just knee-jerks against a certain someone in office). A segment that doesn't seem to grasp that the current state of the middle east can be in part if not fully attributed to the removal of Saddam from Iraq.

I suppose there's a certain simplicity in wanting to bomb Iran – it's certainly the most black and white state in the mideast, what with the cluster**** of Syria where picking a side goes from uncomfortable to unthinkable. (Could we let things sort out on their own? Or is that an affront to decades of foreign policy where we constantly intervene militarily or covertly?)

In the meantime, Iran still talks its big game against Israel, which while troubling, isn't a real threat. We know Israel has a policy of MAD and we know Iran knows, and there's no indication Iran is suicidal; and that's before we consider that the world (Or at least us) wouldn't stand by and let Israel get wiped off the map. Or their nose bloodied, for that matter.

Since I don't have a real end to this post, I'll ask again:
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
*raises hand*

What is stopping Iran from working on the bomb currently?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2015, 05:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I'm not treading on new ground here, but I just don't get the hard-on for Israel. The religious reasons seem startlingly at the fore-front, and while I'm against seeing them attacked, I'm also not for supporting a country that treats a segment of their population (or occupied lands) so poorly.
I think it's because quite a few want someone like Bibi in the White House, someone who appears strong, isn't afraid of upsetting other countries if its (perceived to be) in your own country's benefit.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2015, 06:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I think it's because quite a few want someone like Bibi in the White House, someone who appears strong, isn't afraid of upsetting other countries if its (perceived to be) in your own country's benefit.
I'd like to disagree with you, but we're talking about the same party that had talking heads praising Putin as a strong leader just a year ago after he invaded Crimea.

My problem is there's just no way they'd tolerate this type of undermining by democrats. None. It's also amazingly petty as it yields no results other than general assholishness.

My other problem is the guys they are salivating over is a liar who invaded a sovereign country and annexed a piece of it and the other is a liar who essentially admitted he had been negotiating in bad faith during his tenure. These are who you hold up as leaders you long for? How far gone do you have to be to advocate for these guys?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2015, 10:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
My other problem is the guys they are salivating over is a liar who invaded a sovereign country and annexed a piece of it and the other is a liar who essentially admitted he had been negotiating in bad faith during his tenure. These are who you hold up as leaders you long for? How far gone do you have to be to advocate for these guys?
Just to be clear: I didn't mean to praise Nethanyahu, just outline what made him attractive to some. If you want to know what kind of man he is, look no further than his superacrobatic before-after-election flip-flop on whether a Palestinian state should exist. Even if you're in line with most of his political ideals, you should be appalled by his behavior. And I agree with you: the people cheering for him should ask themselves if they really want to cheer for someone like him.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2015, 05:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That can't be it – I asked what he's been advocating with scaremongering for the past 20 years.
A stable, secure Israel not under constant threat of Iranian backed paramilitaries.

Our best chance at peace in the region is through the best-suited apparatus to that end: Israel. Should Israel concede all contested areas the groups dedicated to it's destruction would still continue to that end. It's their stated mission and they are backed by a regional fundamentalist Islamic powerhouse, who's mission is also the destruction and eradication of all Jews in the region.
That we won't resanction them even though they hold up their end of the bargain.
This is somewhat of a weak argument. Should we re-sanction them without provocation they could just continue their nuclear program unphased by sanctions that would stick no matter what. Sanctioning them gives us nothing except a shaky nod and wink that they won't pursue a nuclear weapon. It would not make sense for us strategically, and Iran is savvy enough to know that.









Let me hammer it home a little further: Louie Gohmert: 'It's Time To Bomb Iran'


That was just last month, during negotiations.
I hardly find that an apt comparison.

Finding one extreme representative out our of 700 congressmen is hardly the same as an authoritarian regime with a supreme leader. I would challenge you to find further examples of which, ones which aren't a knee-jerk response to the "Death to America" dogma of the Iranian regime during particularly contentious diplomatic negotiations.

If Iran is peaceful as they say, it is up to them to join the rest of the civilized world in such peaceful interactions. Iran is asking the world to bend to their doctrine including countless human-rights abuses and an utter lack of modern civility. Their doctrine is conquest both economic and military, and have demonstrated as much since their revolution.

Our best bet right now for Iran is that their Supreme Leader kicks the bucket and a popular uprising regains control of the country. If you remember, Iran violently squelched peaceful demonstrations during election season that were protesting blatant election abuse just a few years ago. I cannot empathize with a government that claims to want peace, but proves time and time again that "peace" in their minds involves a purging of the Jewish state and an expansion of their authoritarian regime across the region.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2015, 05:56 PM
 
[QUOTE=The Final Dakar;4317460]I think this is great fun as well.

Bloomberg Politics National Poll Finds Deep Partisan Split on Israel and Iran - Bloomberg Politics







Republicans support Benjamin Netanyahu more than Barack Obama: An unprecedented partisan split in favor of a foreign leader.



I'm not treading on new ground here, but I just don't get the hard-on for Israel. The religious reasons seem startlingly at the fore-front, and while I'm against seeing them attacked, I'm also not for supporting a country that treats a segment of their population (or occupied lands) so poorly. Seems like a classic case of the US backing a country not because its right, but because our interests are somewhat aligned (see: Saudi Arabia).
Are you aware of the history of the Jewish people? They've been hunted, exterminated, persecuted, and subjucated for millennia. After the horror of WW2, the American people vowed to protect the Jews from further persecution including the provision of a homeland state and the ability to defend that state.

Since WW2, Israel has been attacked numerous times by neighboring secular Arab states from all sides, and only through utter military domination was Israel able to secure diplomatic relations with those states, which have become stronger and more fruitful in the years since. The contested areas were won by Israel in the midst of severe aggression towards them, threatening their very existence.

The only difference between Iran and WW2 Germany when it comes to the Jewish people is that Iran's relative strength and ability to conquer is several orders of magnitude smaller. If the Arabs in the region truly want to bear the fruit of a successful and democrat Arab-Jewish state, they ought to work with Israel to that end and quit housing the groups that launch rockets towards Israeli population centers on a near-daily basis.

Oddly, though, now that our interests are not aligned, a huge segment of the population has flipped on us, rather than them. A segment that either is concerned with religious implications or sees military action as the first and best answer to all the problems in the middle east (Or perhaps, just knee-jerks against a certain someone in office). A segment that doesn't seem to grasp that the current state of the middle east can be in part if not fully attributed to the removal of Saddam from Iraq.
The current state of the middle east is way beyond the removal of Saddam including Russia's backing of the Syrian regime and a failure of the US & coalition forces to properly secure a regionally strategic ROI through a prosperous Iraq, though I would agree that his removal contributed to instability in the region. The fundamentalist movement, which was able to strike the US on 9/11 was and has been growing for decades.

We could have stopped ISIS before they were ever a problem via a commitment to our ultimatum against Syria's civil war or a sterner stance against Iraq's corrupt fledgling government. Either scenario would have severely limited ISIS's influence. We pretty much destroyed the country, then halfway through the job of rebuilding it decided we'd had enough and pulled out leaving a massive power vacuum and an extremely ill-prepared and ineffective Iraqi security force. . Perhaps if we still controlled Iraw militarily Iran would be much more willing to negotiate and work with us towards a stable Iraq. Instead they're just taking over because we left a massive power vacuum in the region.

If Saddam were still in power, Iran's position would be far weaker than today though Saddam would still present a large problem for Western influences and human-rights agendas. We'd be dealing with both Iraq and Iran instead of Iran and ISIS.

I suppose there's a certain simplicity in wanting to bomb Iran – it's certainly the most black and white state in the mideast, what with the cluster**** of Syria where picking a side goes from uncomfortable to unthinkable. (Could we let things sort out on their own? Or is that an affront to decades of foreign policy where we constantly intervene militarily or covertly?)
We could let things sort out on their own, though it'll be quite a bloody thing to watch for the next 50 years and some of that blood could (and already has) reached western states. Israel would likely fight multiple wars to maintain their defenses and the possibility that they are overcome is present (provided the US and her allies do not intervene).

I think we ought to identify and neutralize the main causes of conflict in the region 1). An aggressive Iran. 2) An aggressive Russia. 3) Our inability to properly address central figures in the conflict from a foreign policy standpoint. We are the Alpha wolf without teeth howling at our pack to stop fighting one another with an utter disinterest in paying the price for freedom and security both for ourselves and for the peoples' of the affected areas.

Don't get me wrong, the solution is not purely military and is infact primarily diplomatic. We just cannot be afraid to use military options to back our policy imperatives. Again, I'm not advocating the immediate use of a military option (that ship sailed in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen). We publicly took our best assets in the region out of the game and are wondering why no one in the world is listening to our imperatives for a free, democratic, and prosperous region. By failing to maintain the security of the region, we've ensured another decade or two of bloody conflict for the peoples' of the region and likely for us and our allies as well.

In the meantime, Iran still talks its big game against Israel, which while troubling, isn't a real threat.
How is this?

We know Israel has a policy of MAD and we know Iran knows, and there's no indication Iran is suicidal; and that's before we consider that the world (Or at least us) wouldn't stand by and let Israel get wiped off the map. Or their nose bloodied, for that matter.
If Iran gets the bomb, the game changes completely as Iran would be free to wage conventional war through their proxy groups and/or their regular military without fear of a preemptive Israeli nuclear strike, with the added threat of sneaking in a dirty bomb or small nuclear device through one of their proxy networks while maintaining plausible deniability. Israel's major population centers could be obliterated with the IDF powerless to address the situation.
Since I don't have a real end to this post, I'll ask again:
Who says they're not working towards that end even as we speak? Sure, we can go in and take a look at the facilities we know about and assess their suitability towards a nuclear bomb, but we can't know what kind of R&D Iran would continue clandestinely which would be almost impossible to detect. The deal calls for Iran to maintain a year's standoff for a nuclear bomb. That means that Iran would be fully capable of engineering one, but their capacity to do so would be limited to that timeframe (provided we're able to detect any more clandestine facilities).

Stuxnet was severely damaging to Iran's nuclear program and Israel seems adept at picking off their best scientists to delay the inevitable. But we're simply delaying the inevitable. I don't see anyone really worried about Russia's newfound aggression and how willing they would be to provide Iran with a bomb or the technology to produce their own should that favor Russia's world interests. They've shown their willingness to back Syria's regime and outright invade Ukraine, fully taking advantage of the toothless Alpha wolf who's retreated from the region leaving a massive power vacuum ripe for conquest.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2015, 01:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
A stable, secure Israel not under constant threat of Iranian backed paramilitaries
That's an ideal, not an action. He want something to happen with all this "Iran almost has the bomb!" for 20 years.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Our best chance at peace in the region is through the best-suited apparatus to that end: Israel.
Israel can't even achieve peace within its borders.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
This is somewhat of a weak argument. Should we re-sanction them without provocation they could just continue their nuclear program unphased by sanctions that would stick no matter what. Sanctioning them gives us nothing except a shaky nod and wink that they won't pursue a nuclear weapon. It would not make sense for us strategically, and Iran is savvy enough to know that.
I'm lost. You're against the lifting sanctions but here you point out that they can still pursue a nuclear program with sanctions in place. Isn't an outcome where they dismantle most of their program preferable to one where they don't, even if they pursue the technology in both cases?



Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I hardly find that an apt comparison.

Finding one extreme representative out our of 700 congressmen is hardly the same as an authoritarian regime with a supreme leader.
You're changing the rules again. You asked me to cite inflammatory speech, I give you McCain. I you ask me to show one of politicians clamoring for war, you got it. I held up my end of the bargain. Hold up your end and stop changing the rules.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Are you aware of the history of the Jewish people? They've been hunted, exterminated, persecuted, and subjucated for millennia. After the horror of WW2, the American people vowed to protect the Jews from further persecution including the provision of a homeland state and the ability to defend that state.
Is the holocaust a blank check for unlimited assistance? Just wondering since blacks suffered pretty heavily at our hands but the reigning opinion nowadays is it's been 40 years since civil rights, time to suck it up and move on.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Since WW2, Israel has been attacked numerous times by neighboring secular Arab states from all sides, and only through utter military domination was Israel able to secure diplomatic relations with those states, which have become stronger and more fruitful in the years since. The contested areas were won by Israel in the midst of severe aggression towards them, threatening their very existence.
Yes, Israel has had to deal with aggressive states surrounding them. They've also managed to kick their asses and take land. They don't need our help.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
We could let things sort out on their own, though it'll be quite a bloody thing to watch for the next 50 years and some of that blood could (and already has) reached western states.
Considering our track record with intervening the past hundred years, that seems like a not unwise change in foreign policy. Also, Africa is murdering the shit out itself but very few people want to intervene there. No oil, I guess.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Israel would likely fight multiple wars to maintain their defenses and the possibility that they are overcome is present (provided the US and her allies do not intervene).
Which neither you nor I advocate.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
We just cannot be afraid to use military options to back our policy imperatives.
Nothing I've seen indicates we're afraid. Quite the opposite, really.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
If Iran gets the bomb, the game changes completely as Iran would be free to wage conventional war through their proxy groups and/or their regular military without fear of a preemptive Israeli nuclear strike
Israel has no problem with preemptive strikes. Operation Opera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2015, 04:17 PM
 
What a ****in joke. What was even the point of the deal? Why didn't Obama just lift the sanctions with no strings attached? In effect, that's what he's done - just keeps lying about his administration's stance to protect his poll numbers.

Not to mention Obama lied point blank to the public, once again, regarding the extent at which he and Iran were negotiating, according to the Iranians themselves.

Iranian Leaders: Obama Admin Secretly Recognized Our Right to Nuclear Program Back in 2011 - The Gateway Pundit

No coverage on any LWMSM.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2015, 04:36 PM
 
Not sure how Dakar, but I completely missed this post of yours until i just searched for the thread. My apologies for the extremely delayed response.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That's an ideal, not an action. He want something to happen with all this "Iran almost has the bomb!" for 20 years.
Sometime's an ideal is the foundation for an inaction (such as not negotiating a sham of a deal). I think he wants to avoid having to take even more drastic actions to keep Israel out of a full-out war.

Israel can't even achieve peace within its borders.
When you're surrounded by an ethnicity that keeps vowing to wipe you off the face of the planet, what would you expect? You advocate heavily against Israel ending the violence, including the Iranian rockets that continue to fly towards Israeli cities day after day? Then make it sound like Israel is the reason there isn't peace?


I'm lost. You're against the lifting sanctions but here you point out that they can still pursue a nuclear program with sanctions in place. Isn't an outcome where they dismantle most of their program preferable to one where they don't, even if they pursue the technology in both cases?
Except they're not going to dismantle their program. That this isn't patently obvious to you makes me wonder if even an Iranian nuke set off inside of Israel would change your mind.


You're changing the rules again. You asked me to cite inflammatory speech, I give you McCain. I you ask me to show one of politicians clamoring for war, you got it. I held up my end of the bargain. Hold up your end and stop changing the rules.
I'm sorry Dakar, I just don't see a similarity between Mccain's "fiery rhetoric" and Khameni's.


Is the holocaust a blank check for unlimited assistance? Just wondering since blacks suffered pretty heavily at our hands but the reigning opinion nowadays is it's been 40 years since civil rights, time to suck it up and move on.
Are you really making a comparison between the plight of civil rights and the holocaust? If so, that's a bit disturbing. Don't forget that the Nazi's killed millions of blacks, and the Arab's (including Iran) have atrocious human rights records on par with (but not in the same scale as) the Nazi regime.

Yes, Israel has had to deal with aggressive states surrounding them. They've also managed to kick their asses and take land. They don't need our help.
The only reason they were able to kick so much ass was because of our help. Yes, they need our help especially in preventing a nuclear armed Iran.

Considering our track record with intervening the past hundred years, that seems like a not unwise change in foreign policy
Are you including WW1 and WW2 in that statement? Or are you just talking really the last 40 years.
. Also, Africa is murdering the shit out itself but very few people want to intervene there. No oil, I guess.
No african nations are developing nukes, nor pose a threat to American interests or any of our allies. Plus, we're heavily engaged with some north african countries.

Which neither you nor I advocate.
Of course not, though we cannot wish our version of what reality ought to be upon the situation. We have to deal with it whether we want to or not. Unless, that is, you wouldn't mind seeing Israel wiped off the map.

Nothing I've seen indicates we're afraid. Quite the opposite, really.
Either afraid, deceitful, or just plain stupid. See my post above.

Israel has no problem with preemptive strikes. Operation Opera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[/quote]

But would lack the capacity without our weapons and support. Pre emptive strikes aren't really feasible after Iran's got a bomb.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2015, 03:58 PM
 
I gotta be honest, I really don't care anymore.

Edit: Well, I do care, but I don't see any room for progress.
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2015, 02:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I gotta be honest, I really don't care anymore.

Edit: Well, I do care, but I don't see any room for progress.
If you have two minutes and three seconds to spare:
Ben Shapiro's anti-BDS speech at UCLA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwaP_Iq8-YM

Ben Shapiro: First They Came for the Jews (YouTube length 4:15)
( Last edited by Hawkeye_a; Sep 19, 2015 at 03:02 PM. )
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 21, 2015, 10:09 AM
 
Not that I do videos, but what is that even in regards to?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 21, 2015, 10:44 AM
 
Short form:

Middle Eastern country does it and no one bats an eye

[Heath Ledger]

Israel does it and everyone loses their minds


Edit: that's somewhat uncharitable to the Israeli side, but it's a quick summary.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 21, 2015, 10:56 AM
 
I have no idea what that has to do with my post then.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 21, 2015, 11:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I have no idea what that has to do with my post then.
The second video is more to the point. I get from Shapiro, if Obama knew that Israel was about to be attacked he would do nothing to prevent it.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 21, 2015, 11:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
I get from Shapiro, if Obama knew that Israel was about to be attacked he would do nothing to prevent it.
Seems logical.

Still has nothing to do with my post.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 21, 2015, 11:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
The second video is more to the point. I get from Shapiro, if Obama knew that Israel was about to be attacked he would do nothing to prevent it.
But we would HAVE TO PROTECT IRAN??? WTF? Sounds about right for a Kerry/Obama deal. At least Kerry was never president.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 21, 2015, 11:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
The second video is more to the point. I get from Shapiro, if Obama knew that Israel was about to be attacked he would do nothing to prevent it.
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
But we would HAVE TO PROTECT IRAN??? WTF? Sounds about right for a Kerry/Obama deal. At least Kerry was never president.
I forgot that is part of "The Deal"
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 21, 2015, 03:18 PM
 
Where is that in the deal?
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 21, 2015, 03:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
I forgot that is part of "The Deal"
Ben Shapiro on "The Deal" YouTube length 4:50
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 21, 2015, 03:34 PM
 
Where in the deal is this defense clause?
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:43 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,