Netanyahu's Speech to Congress

Oh, your criticizing the Obama admin without offering a plausible alternative approach.

Seems just like old times on the politics thread, which you're making this into. Shocking.

 

With Israel though it's way different. They aren't just buying U.S. warplanes from private contractors, they are deeply involved in the procurement process from day 1. They are also given U.S. war planes and equipment. We are sharing technology back and forth. They are us, essentially.

If Israel fought a war with Iran where the U.S. tried to stay out of it, even IF* countries in the region believed that, whats going to happen at U.S. embassies in the region the 1st time an "Israeli" plane or helicopter or ground vehicle or drone or missile or radio device, etc. etc. gets shot down or taken over and it has a bright, beautiful U.S. flag on it? You think that's safe for us? You think we will be able to stay out of it then?

There's a reason Israel briefs us before they do things, why U.S. influence is like a cloud over them, because we developed such close ties over the years we are in it together no matter what!

 

You are an anti-Semite. Thanks for clearing that up. "bunch of Jews" really? If I were a mod I would ban you.

First of all we share intelligence with the Israelis, who have the best intel in that whole region.

Second, we have a great deal of interests tied up in that region beyond Israel. As a practical matter today, Israel helps us better deal with those issues, so it is in our national interest to be allied with them.

The relation between Christianity and Judaism is much more significant than with any other religion. My own view is that as a Christian the Jews are like our older brothers. Same family. Sure we have some disagreements, but we are still in the same family.

This is also a cultural and political issue. Democracies should find commonality as allies given all the bad players in the world. It is in the interest of all who desire peace and stability for democracies to support each other.

But ftr I don't think that means we give any of our allies a blank check to do whatever they feel like.

 

No, Isreal really has offered no alternative approach. The sanctions have had a limited effect. They have served to bring Iran to the negotiating table, but not to a belief that they have to give up everything Israel wants them to. To cut a deal something has to be in it for them. An awareness of this reality is what strikes me as being singularly lacking in Bibi's position. He hates Iran with good reason, but in so hating he fails to see what it feels like to be in their shoes.

I really hate Iran too. I can't understand people who do not see them for what they are. But the US in the past has negotiated with the Soviet Union, with North Vietnam, with any number of bad players who nonetheless are not irrational. I am not prepared to say Iran is completely irrational.

The alternative to negotiating a deal with Iran must be made clear. it is not more sanctions. It is not even military strikes at their nuclear facilities. The only real alternative is a war with Iran leading to regime change.

 

Hehe. BB. Good times.... I've missed you so. We have this quality while I'm home mending. Busted up in an accident eight weeks ago - that should please you.

Shredding the current proposal is a pretty decent next step. You can read further down the thread and see what I think may be the only remaining "acceptable" deal we could work out of this bungled mess. AT LEAST get rid of the sunset clause. But this is the kind of lousy negotiating position you get yourself into when your chief negotiator is the same woman who led our negotiations with North Korea. You know, that huggy-kissy appeasement deal that shut down North Korea's nuclear program and missile development for seven minutes? We had no right to expect any different result. The good part, though, is that nothing has been finalized. We can still fix this and the president can STILL get the credit he craves so dearly.

 

I think sunlight works best on that one. It's sort of cartoony antisemitism.

ETA: Besides which, I can't figure out how the banning system works anymore.

 

I thought it was the WOPS that decided Christ's fate?

_

 

I say we stay out of it and simply...

 

If you ask FOX News, they'll say Obama was responsible.

 

I do a little work with an Iranian national, but it's funny - he refers to himself as "Persian," which I've always thought was really interesting. He'll say that he's "originally from Iran," but how he self-identifies is sort of cool.

 

Yeah, the couple of people I have met from Iran prefer to call themselves Persians.
A) I think it sounds cooler B) Territorially wise, I think Persia was that region before Iran existed so they are more inclined to go with that.
Ton's of history there

Did find this:
The names Iran and Persia are often used interchangeably to mean the same country. Iran is the legal name. Persia, was an ancient kingdom within Iran. Iran came to be known as Persia in the West thanks to classical Greek authors during whose time Persia was the dominant kingdom in Iran. To call all of Iran 'Persia', would be like calling all of Britain 'England'.

 

Same here- I worked with a woman who calls herself Persian as well, even though her family is originally from Iran. I always thought it was because she is Jewish though and obviously not a fan of Iran, hence the Persian reference. But maybe it's common for most Iranian expats to use the term

 

I do corporate finance and before we can enter into any deal we need to clear all parties to make sure they aren't from countries/persons/etc. that have run afoul of OFAC.

It's funny when you look at the OFAC regs, a US person/corp/partnership/instrumentality/etc. cannot transact any business with Iran, with one exception.

You can do "floor coverings". And I thought that weird until I realized that's where Persian rugs come from

Nice lobby they have going there.

_

 

What evidence do you have that a better deal could be had?

Again, the logic of Bibi's speech was regime change, not a deal with a country that could never ever be trusted. Why talk about any deal if that is the case?

 

Feel better, Jack.

Here is why shredding the current proposal is not a good idea.

First of all you don't know what the deal is, so there's that. Yes I have heard about the ten year sunset. But there's nothing necessary about that that ties our hands. We can merely reinstitute sanctions as the sunset approaches if the Iranians seem poised to go for nuclear weapons production at that point. Your next point is ad hominem and does not speak to this deal.

The logic of the ten year provision is it helps the Iranian negotiators sell their deal internally, as does every term that is short of what the Israelis say they want. Again, this is a negotiation, not a take it set of terms or if you leave it Schock and Awe is in Teheran tomorrow. Do I like making concessions to Iran? No. But concessions have to be made in order to reach a deal.

 

And here's what really bothers me about the politics of this whole situation, that Boehner invited a foreign leader to appear in Congress to actively criticize and oppose the US President's efforts to pursue foreign policy.

Imagine if as Bush was arguing for invading Iraq the Dems had invited someone like Jacques Chirac to speak at a joint sesssion of Congress, against what Bush was proposing in regard to Iraq. How would the GOP have reacted?

I dont think they would have approved. So why is it okay for them to do what they just did?

This is really an awful precedent for bipartisanship in foreign policy, but it is also just a horrible process to bring into US foreign policy.

 

it is

people are not proud of being called Iranian

 

Oh boo hoo here's what bothers me about the speech: a foreign leader clearly loves America 100x more than our own President.