Ignoring allies and Empowering Enemies

Originally posted by SayWhat
What you don't understand is that most of our politicians are funded by the zionist state as well as other global governments. Sure if you look at all the Pac Money donors, it will seem its only just good old USA folks that are funding the GOP and Dems. That is a bit naive.

The fact he can address both houses of Congress and have an audience, that is some clout there. Grandstanding of course. But let's not kid ourselves, the USA is the tail of the dog, Israel is the rest of the dog.

Originally posted by SayWhat
What you don't understand is that most of our politicians are funded by the zionist state as well as other global governments. Sure if you look at all the Pac Money donors, it will seem its only just good old USA folks that are funding the GOP and Dems. That is a bit naive.

The fact he can address both houses of Congress and have an audience, that is some clout there. Grandstanding of course. But let's not kid ourselves, the USA is the tail of the dog, Israel is the rest of the dog.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
You guys think this is political, however its not. Its common sense, prevent Iran from getting nukes at all cost is the most primary concern. The deal on the table does not prevent that.

If we were two years from the next Israeli election, I might call it innocuous-ish (it's still a blatant interference in American affairs--seriously, not cool), but as it is you would have to be either blind or self-deluding to not see this as a grand political statement on Netanyahu's part.

And here's the problem with Netanyahu's "common sense" position that Obama and other democrats pointed out: at no point did Netanyahu present a viable alternative to negotiations with Iran. What's the conclusion we draw from this? He says that Iran can't be negotiated with, thus it follows that he wants total capitulation on Iran's part, which could only be brought about by either much more crippling economic isolation than already exists (effectively impossible now that we can't count on Russia as a partner, and China likes to have its cake and eat it too by sanctioning Iran while also buying its resources) or military action. There's no way you could permanently (which is all Netanyahu's interested in) stop Iran from getting a nuke with air power alone. You'd need an invasion. Israel's not going to invade a country of eighty million people. So who gets the bill in that scenario? Starts with 'U' and ends with 'A.'

Originally posted by SayWhat
What you don't understand is that most of our politicians are funded by the zionist state as well as other global governments.

Yes this is true. Which surprises me why Obama and Bibi don't get along on policy.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Dude, how is it not political? There's an election in Israel in two weeks and Netanyahu has basically said to Israel "Look, I got invited to address the legislature of our most important ally and I said some really strong stuff against our greatest adversary. I'm decisive, I'm tough on Iran, support my party, damn it."

If we were two years from the next Israeli election, I might call it innocuous-ish (it's still a blatant interference in American affairs--seriously, not cool), but as it is you would have to be either blind or self-deluding to not see this as a grand political statement on Netanyahu's part.

And here's the problem with Netanyahu's "common sense" position that Obama and other democrats pointed out: at no point did Netanyahu present a viable alternative to negotiations with Iran. What's the conclusion we draw from this? He says that Iran can't be negotiated with, thus it follows that he wants total capitulation on Iran's part, which could only be brought about by either much more crippling economic isolation than already exists (effectively impossible now that we can't count on Russia as a partner, and China likes to have its cake and eat it too by sanctioning Iran while also buying its resources) or military action. There's no way you could permanently (which is all Netanyahu's interested in) stop Iran from getting a nuke with air power alone. You'd need an invasion. Israel's not going to invade a country of eighty million people. So who gets the bill in that scenario? Starts with 'U' and ends with 'A.'

You know darn well that this 10 year deal ends with them having a full nuclear arsenal..#facts

And we know Obama is dodging this as best he can and going to hand it off, kinda like all his votes in the Senate where he voted "Present"

Wake up Omega, its like you love defending the fool in the room. Is your head up your ass?

dp.

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-interview-reid-wants-congress-delay-iran-legislation-173737715--politics.html

Harry wants Congress not to do their job which the constitution clearly says is their job, but at the same time wants to allow Obama to handle the deal even though it clearly says its not his job, but congress's.

You must be an Indian, cuz you made a tp. (sorry, terrible pun)

The ten year moratorium is difficult enough as it is to get Iran to agree to, but it's a worthy goal. As it is, Iran could get a bomb in much less than ten years. You keep on ignoring my posts and coming out with one sentence replies that demonstrate you don't have much of a grasp of the issue.

Let me break it down for you: if North Korea can produce its own nuclear weapon, a country like Iran with a larger population, more resources, and relatively less onerous sanctions can certainly make their own weapon. We want to prevent Iran from getting a weapon, if for no other reason than the principle that too many countries already have them, why add to the list? In order to prevent Iran from getting a bomb, we have three possible avenues. Diplomatic, economic, or military. You and Netanyahu reject the diplomatic angle out of hand, so let's explore the other two.

Economic: what we've been doing so far. It's worked insofar as we brought the Iranians to the negotiating table, something that would have been unthinkable in 2010 when Ahmadinejad was in power. However, we've reached a point of diminishing returns with economic pressure. Oil prices have basically bottomed out, it's very unlikely that they'll get lower than they are now, so Iran's oil exports can only become more valuable as time goes on. Couple this with Russia, the wild card of the whole debacle. Russia is now facing sanctions similar to Iran's own, though not as onerous. Russian politicians have repeatedly extolled the virtues of aligning Russia with Iran. Recently they've agreed to resume a long suspended deal to sell modern air defense systems to Iran as a "take that" to the West. We can't rely on Russia to put any real pressure on Iran when Russia itself is under economic pressure from the West. It's also unlikely that China will do anything more than it's already done. Trade with Russia and China alone should be enough to keep Iran economically viable for the forseeable future. In sum: we can't cripple Iran's economy enough to force them to completely surrender to the political will of the West.

Military option: in terms of what's the most effective, full-proof way of preventing Iran from building a nuke, this is the best option. However it's also the worst option because it would be horrendously more difficult and expensive than either of the other two. Some people think a few airstrikes could shut down Iran's nuclear program. At best, it would slow it down and force the Iranians to build their research facilities deeper and deeper in the ground. To actually shut down Iran, you'd need to occupy and reconstruct the country. You'd need to get rid of the Islamic Republic, the Revolutionary Guard, the Mullahs, anyone who ever wanted to make Iran into an aggressive regional power.

In short, you'd need an invasion.

If you support an invasion of Iran, say so now and we can move on to discussing the logistics of such an enterprise.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You must be an Indian, cuz you made a tp. (sorry, terrible pun)

The ten year moratorium is difficult enough as it is to get Iran to agree to, but it's a worthy goal. As it is, Iran could get a bomb in much less than ten years. You keep on ignoring my posts and coming out with one sentence replies that demonstrate you don't have much of a grasp of the issue.

Let me break it down for you: if North Korea can produce its own nuclear weapon, a country like Iran with a larger population, more resources, and relatively less onerous sanctions can certainly make their own weapon. We want to prevent Iran from getting a weapon, if for no other reason than the principle that too many countries already have them, why add to the list? In order to prevent Iran from getting a bomb, we have three possible avenues. Diplomatic, economic, or military. You and Netanyahu reject the diplomatic angle out of hand, so let's explore the other two.

Economic: what we've been doing so far. It's worked insofar as we brought the Iranians to the negotiating table, something that would have been unthinkable in 2010 when Ahmadinejad was in power. However, we've reached a point of diminishing returns with economic pressure. Oil prices have basically bottomed out, it's very unlikely that they'll get lower than they are now, so Iran's oil exports can only become more valuable as time goes on. Couple this with Russia, the wild card of the whole debacle. Russia is now facing sanctions similar to Iran's own, though not as onerous. Russian politicians have repeatedly extolled the virtues of aligning Russia with Iran. Recently they've agreed to resume a long suspended deal to sell modern air defense systems to Iran as a "take that" to the West. We can't rely on Russia to put any real pressure on Iran when Russia itself is under economic pressure from the West. It's also unlikely that China will do anything more than it's already done. Trade with Russia and China alone should be enough to keep Iran economically viable for the forseeable future. In sum: we can't cripple Iran's economy enough to force them to completely surrender to the political will of the West.

Military option: in terms of what's the most effective, full-proof way of preventing Iran from building a nuke, this is the best option. However it's also the worst option because it would be horrendously more difficult and expensive than either of the other two. Some people think a few airstrikes could shut down Iran's nuclear program. At best, it would slow it down and force the Iranians to build their research facilities deeper and deeper in the ground. To actually shut down Iran, you'd need to occupy and reconstruct the country. You'd need to get rid of the Islamic Republic, the Revolutionary Guard, the Mullahs, anyone who ever wanted to make Iran into an aggressive regional power.

In short, you'd need an invasion.

If you support an invasion of Iran, say so now and we can move on to discussing the logistics of such an enterprise.

Best thing you said, I agree.

You agree with what?

The invasion of Iran would add a layer of instability in a region that is currently volatile. It'd go against french interests at the very least, but I think it'd be against the West as a whole. If that's what Netyanahu is asking for, he's asking for too much.

Lol, so true:

eHWbqwh4PB0#t=121

Smith said, "it seems like [Netanyahu's government] think[s] we don't pay attention and that we're just a bunch of complete morons, the United States citizens, as if we wouldn't pick up on what's happening here."

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Lol, so true:

eHWbqwh4PB0#t=121

I'm honestly not sure what Netenyahu thought he could realistically accomplish with that speech of his.

Outside of getting re-elected I mean.

For anyone who thinks that all blacks are on Obama's side with how he snubbed the Israeli leader here is your wake-up call:

http://americanprosperity.com/the-way-this-group-of-black-pastors-defied-obama-is-shocking/

I'm glad some of them have come to their senses and have had enough of him. I'm grateful for these black pastors who realize that by snubbing Israeli leader you are doing the same thing to God Himself.

Bring it.

This belief that Israel = god worries me, tbh.

Originally posted by Star428
by snubbing Israeli leader you are doing the same thing to God Himself.

There are cases of jewish authorities offending God in the Bible. I'm sure you can tell the difference between political manipulations and the will of the Almighty.

Originally posted by Star428
I'm glad some of them have come to their senses and have had enough of him. I'm grateful for these black pastors who realize that by snubbing Israeli leader you are doing the same thing to God Himself.

Bring it.

Do you honestly believe that Netanyahu speaks for God and/or is in some fashion God's avatar on earth?