Overall, a very good speech (rhetorically and substantively) by Netanyahu. I would give my own analysis, but I really like what Charles Krauthammer said in this video: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/03/03/krauthammer_netanyahu_showed_he_would_have_support_of_congress_if_israel_attacked_iran.html
I already addressed that above but you must have glossed over it.... Imagine that. I guess the links connecting some of the 9/11 terrorists to the the Saudi royal family isn't all that important either. We're learning a lot about you tonight texxx.
Hitler's government sacrificed their self-preservation. And for a long time, certain people in the West thought that would never happen. But he just ended up doing what he had always said he would - just like Iran would if they could. And Iran's government is actively threatening (and has been for a while) to wipe Israel off the map. The truth is that many of those arguing in favor of Iran's current government here actually wouldn't mind that much - or secretly rejoice - if they went ahead with their threat. If people think like that, of course they don't mind Iran getting nukes. Or at least they would like for the threat to Israel to be real.
Nazi Germany is incomparable to Iran. Nazi Germany had superior conventional military power relative to it's neighboring states. Also, strong unified alliances such as NATO and the UN did not exist yet. United States hegemony was not in place yet also. Hitler legitimately believed that his aggression would not sacrifice self preservation and for a substantial amount of time he was correct. Many of the world's powers watched as Hitler just walked into Poland and other neighboring states. Iran does not have the same benefits that Nazi Germany had. An unprovoked attack on Israel, especially a nuclear attack would result in IMMEDIATE retaliation by multiple superior militaries(U.S, UK, Germany etc.) and would result in an immediate forced regime change in Iran. You don't think the Iranian government knows this? And stop straw-manning the view points of those that don't share the exact same opinion as you. No one here "supports" Iran's government. They just believe that Iran's threats to Israel are empty.
LOL @ the responses to my earlier post. EXACTLY as I expected. Understand this: I have no expectation of dialogue with the libtards here. They are too stupid to converse with and too deluded to understand the issues at hand. Having a dialogue is not my purpose here. Iran just rejected the deal, calling the requirements too limiting. Here is what is going to happen. Kerry and Obama are going to completely cave. The new "deal" will be that we are going to abandon all sanctions in exchange for some future vague promises that Iran won't make a bomb. There may be inspections involved, but the Iranians will easily cheat them just as they have previously. The capitulation will be total. Iran is going to get the bomb, the sanctions are going to be lifted. All so that Obama can cement his legacy. (hint: that legacy isn't going to be as awesome as he thinks it will be once Iran gets the bomb) Once this deal is done, Saudi Arabia will exercise its deal with Pakistan to acquire several nuclear warheads to put on top of its DF-3s and DF-21s. This deal is not a secret. Hello arms race. Israel is going to look very, very hard at knocking out Iran's nuclear sites, if only to forestall the inevitable. Iran, for its part, will step up its efforts to take over Iraq and Syria, both a result of Obama's withdrawal from the region. Once Iran gets the bomb, they are effectively impervious to American or Israeli military action. They are free to maneuver throughout the region and the world without interference. Nuclear weapons are not so much an offensive weapon as they are an umbrella. The IRGC will be free to operate and topple more governments, spread the revolution. And that is exactly what will happen. This is a monumental clusterfark in the making. It's entirely preventable, although the hour is late. It is mostly caused by Obama's strategic miscalculations in the region - so many, so so many. It is going to get a LOT of people killed. The Israelis and all other Arab states in the region are opposed to it. Why? And no, I do not expect any libtards here to understand it. You fukwads are more interested in playing partisan politics than actually discussing issues, and most of you are too ignorant of the issues involved to have a rational discussion anyway. Obama will get his way. His goal is to chalk up a deal for the history books and push the problems to his successors. Just like ISIS, Iran will go to the backburner and be the next President's problem. He isn't actually interested in solving problems, so much as avoiding them - easiest way to do that is to pretend that you're addressing the problem while shuffling it off to your successor. I wonder how President Walker will deal with this? Hmm...
Did you know that Valerie Jarret was born in Iran? She was born in Shiraz, Irn, to American parents. Lived her first 5 years there before they came back. She is Obama's most influential adviser by all accounts. Does this matter? You be the judge.
Dude, she moved out of Iran almost a full 20 years before the Iranian revolution and the installment of the current Islamic Republic regime. She was born to a father who was a philanthropist geneticist who helped run a hospital. Where the **** do you come up with your silly conjecture assertions?
Not that anyone who was born in a foreign country and raised there during their childhood years would have sympathies towards that country. Oh no, biases like that could never develop. Right? And there is zero possibility that such a person who had the President's ear could influence policy. Simply not possible. Right?
So at this point... Iran is going to get the bomb. My question for libtards and people with a brain as well: What will America's strategic posture be in the ME region and the larger world be? A nuclear Iran is likely to be more aggressive in its attempts to seize Iraq by proxy. Lebanon via Hizbollah as well. Yemen via the Houthis as well.With this expanding footprint... Islamic extremists are advancing on all fronts, and this administration refuses to even admit that they are a problem. So.... What's the plan? There doesn't seem to be one.
So...regardless of what people think about the speech - is anyone actually agreeing with the ridiculous premise of this thread? (Did Boehner commit treason) How far to the extreme left do you have to be to actually believe that?
I didn't hear you making these allegations of Wolfowitz and Perle leading the charge for Israel under Bush. Not that anyone that was Jewish would have sympathies towards Israel. Oh no, biases like that could never develop. Right? And there's zero possibility that such a person or persons that had the President's ear could influence policy. Simply not possible. Right? It's remarkable the standard for crapola that you have that seems to only flow one way. Not that you're here for dialogue of course because you're far too informed for anyone to call out your nonsense.
I am by no means a liberal, chances are I will be voting republican this next election, and I think you are an asshat with a rudimentary understanding at best treeman. Your posts scream uneducated nutjob ...I don't know how you think putting "libtards" or "fukwads" would help portray you as a rational person, because you clearly are not. Some of the smarter misled neocons at least hide their bias and warped thinking through subtle responses. In the eyes of the law? No, I think its clear, that he's in the clear. But it really does show a lack of unity and how petty congress can be. Stand as one, don't invite the leader of another nation to undermine your COF. I may have hated Bush, but the day he got those shoes thrown at him I was pretty pissed. It undermined us in the eyes of the world, but this...this was something brought on by the very people that were elected to hold our best interests at hand. The only thing they're good for is gridlock and wasting tax payer's $$, Pelosi, Boehner, the whole lot of them. How receptive would Germany be if the left/right there pulled a stunt like this?
The title is sensationalist but the premise is still sound. The speaker of the house undermined OUR head of state to meet and collaborate with a foreign head of state. If a head of state has a beef with another state he interacts with that state's head of state or whom that head of state authorizes such as the secretary of state.
The left in Germany just recently invited two known hateful anti-Semites to the parliament. That ended in them aggressively chasing and attacking the head of the leftist party until he had to hide in the restroom from them.
Odd... None of my questions have been answered. None of my assumptions addressed. None of my hypotheticals considered. It's almost like a whole bunch of libtard fukwads are ignoring the salient issues. As expected. This is why I open by setting expectations that dialogue is pointless. You libtards have nothing to offer.
Well, that evaded my point entirely unless these individuals were heads of states undermining Germany's head of state. I'm not sure how Germany's political system works (will look into it tomorrow morning---promise ) but I would imagine that it would shatter their hope for unity in the eyes of outsiders.
