Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Bibi's speech today

ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 11:18:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
What do you guys think of it. On the whole, I thought it was excellent. It was convincing. It was bold.

The only thing I'm iffy about - which happens to be the major ideological source of contention between Obama and Netanyahu - is whether or not Obama's planned concessions to Iran will create better, more peaceful relations between the two and their respective allies. If the Iranian economy becomes freer to develop and prosper, will they resort to augmenting their terror so-to-speak, or will they turn into a better, "normal" country as Bibi put it?

For Bibi's case, he mentions that Iran has always had bad intentions for 36 or so years, and so "unshackling" Iran will only bring more disaster in the future. Some will claim that appeasing Iran would be an act of good faith since the United States is viewed as an imperial power that is widely responsible for the mess Iran is in.

What are your thoughts, DDO?
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 9:30:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 9:06:43 PM, ben2974 wrote:
Nothin? o.o

I think he shouldn't have been invited to come.
Tsar of DDO
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 10:41:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 11:18:57 AM, ben2974 wrote:
What do you guys think of it. On the whole, I thought it was excellent. It was convincing. It was bold.

The only thing I'm iffy about - which happens to be the major ideological source of contention between Obama and Netanyahu - is whether or not Obama's planned concessions to Iran will create better, more peaceful relations between the two and their respective allies. If the Iranian economy becomes freer to develop and prosper, will they resort to augmenting their terror so-to-speak, or will they turn into a better, "normal" country as Bibi put it?

For Bibi's case, he mentions that Iran has always had bad intentions for 36 or so years, and so "unshackling" Iran will only bring more disaster in the future. Some will claim that appeasing Iran would be an act of good faith since the United States is viewed as an imperial power that is widely responsible for the mess Iran is in.


What are your thoughts, DDO?

Idiocy. Bibi has been making incorrect prediction about Iran's nuclear capabilities for over a decade. I think that part of this is him posturing for political reasons, part of it is the Republicans posturing for political reasons, and part of it is an attempt to undermine a dialogue between Iran and the US which could introduce some degree of parity into our role as a mediator (laughable at this point) when it comes to Israel.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 10:19:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 10:41:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/3/2015 11:18:57 AM, ben2974 wrote:
What do you guys think of it. On the whole, I thought it was excellent. It was convincing. It was bold.

The only thing I'm iffy about - which happens to be the major ideological source of contention between Obama and Netanyahu - is whether or not Obama's planned concessions to Iran will create better, more peaceful relations between the two and their respective allies. If the Iranian economy becomes freer to develop and prosper, will they resort to augmenting their terror so-to-speak, or will they turn into a better, "normal" country as Bibi put it?

For Bibi's case, he mentions that Iran has always had bad intentions for 36 or so years, and so "unshackling" Iran will only bring more disaster in the future. Some will claim that appeasing Iran would be an act of good faith since the United States is viewed as an imperial power that is widely responsible for the mess Iran is in.


What are your thoughts, DDO?

Idiocy. Bibi has been making incorrect prediction about Iran's nuclear capabilities for over a decade. I think that part of this is him posturing for political reasons, part of it is the Republicans posturing for political reasons, and part of it is an attempt to undermine a dialogue between Iran and the US which could introduce some degree of parity into our role as a mediator (laughable at this point) when it comes to Israel.

In the speech I think Netanyahu said he would be willing to act alone if he must, which indicates to me that if he has to he'll use military force to break down Iran's nuclear infrastructure, in the case that the deal takes place and Iran is allowed to advance its nuclear program. And I also don't think that Netanyahu necessarily cares for how well developed or how close Iran is to getting a nuke. He simply does not want Iran to ever acquire its own nukes, so long as Iran continues to speak with hostility towards Israel. For Bibi it doesn't matter how far they are in acquiring a nuke; he was actually quite explicit in this regard when he spoke of the sunset clause and comparing the timelines of politics, children, and nationhood.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 10:17:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 10:19:18 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 10:41:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/3/2015 11:18:57 AM, ben2974 wrote:
What do you guys think of it. On the whole, I thought it was excellent. It was convincing. It was bold.

The only thing I'm iffy about - which happens to be the major ideological source of contention between Obama and Netanyahu - is whether or not Obama's planned concessions to Iran will create better, more peaceful relations between the two and their respective allies. If the Iranian economy becomes freer to develop and prosper, will they resort to augmenting their terror so-to-speak, or will they turn into a better, "normal" country as Bibi put it?

For Bibi's case, he mentions that Iran has always had bad intentions for 36 or so years, and so "unshackling" Iran will only bring more disaster in the future. Some will claim that appeasing Iran would be an act of good faith since the United States is viewed as an imperial power that is widely responsible for the mess Iran is in.


What are your thoughts, DDO?

Idiocy. Bibi has been making incorrect prediction about Iran's nuclear capabilities for over a decade. I think that part of this is him posturing for political reasons, part of it is the Republicans posturing for political reasons, and part of it is an attempt to undermine a dialogue between Iran and the US which could introduce some degree of parity into our role as a mediator (laughable at this point) when it comes to Israel.

In the speech I think Netanyahu said he would be willing to act alone if he must, which indicates to me that if he has to he'll use military force to break down Iran's nuclear infrastructure, in the case that the deal takes place and Iran is allowed to advance its nuclear program. And I also don't think that Netanyahu necessarily cares for how well developed or how close Iran is to getting a nuke. He simply does not want Iran to ever acquire its own nukes, so long as Iran continues to speak with hostility towards Israel. For Bibi it doesn't matter how far they are in acquiring a nuke; he was actually quite explicit in this regard when he spoke of the sunset clause and comparing the timelines of politics, children, and nationhood.

Smoke and mirrors. Iran isn't some crazy country that cares nothing for its own people, welfare, or survival. Yes, they hate Israel, but they know that a nuclear strike would mean their own complete and utter annihilation.

Israel simply wants to maintain animosity between the US and its enemies in the Middle East, because with any sense of parity introduced they lose a considerable diplomatic edge, as well as nigh unconditional military support. So they paint a phantom menace lurking on the horizon, and justify their own bellicose declarations with feigned trepidation over the actions of a caricature.

And if Israel does attack Iran, I hope it provokes a new regional war, and I hope that we withdraw support, because they will have, by their ridiculous provocation, thoroughly earned the beating that they will receive when Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey join forces. Israel needs to learn that it isn't the center of the world, that it isn't entitled to unlimited diplomatic and military aid from its allies, and that it needs to negotiate, compromise, and stop breaking international law.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 10:45:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 10:17:07 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/4/2015 10:19:18 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 3/3/2015 10:41:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/3/2015 11:18:57 AM, ben2974 wrote:
What do you guys think of it. On the whole, I thought it was excellent. It was convincing. It was bold.

The only thing I'm iffy about - which happens to be the major ideological source of contention between Obama and Netanyahu - is whether or not Obama's planned concessions to Iran will create better, more peaceful relations between the two and their respective allies. If the Iranian economy becomes freer to develop and prosper, will they resort to augmenting their terror so-to-speak, or will they turn into a better, "normal" country as Bibi put it?

For Bibi's case, he mentions that Iran has always had bad intentions for 36 or so years, and so "unshackling" Iran will only bring more disaster in the future. Some will claim that appeasing Iran would be an act of good faith since the United States is viewed as an imperial power that is widely responsible for the mess Iran is in.


What are your thoughts, DDO?

Idiocy. Bibi has been making incorrect prediction about Iran's nuclear capabilities for over a decade. I think that part of this is him posturing for political reasons, part of it is the Republicans posturing for political reasons, and part of it is an attempt to undermine a dialogue between Iran and the US which could introduce some degree of parity into our role as a mediator (laughable at this point) when it comes to Israel.

In the speech I think Netanyahu said he would be willing to act alone if he must, which indicates to me that if he has to he'll use military force to break down Iran's nuclear infrastructure, in the case that the deal takes place and Iran is allowed to advance its nuclear program. And I also don't think that Netanyahu necessarily cares for how well developed or how close Iran is to getting a nuke. He simply does not want Iran to ever acquire its own nukes, so long as Iran continues to speak with hostility towards Israel. For Bibi it doesn't matter how far they are in acquiring a nuke; he was actually quite explicit in this regard when he spoke of the sunset clause and comparing the timelines of politics, children, and nationhood.

Smoke and mirrors. Iran isn't some crazy country that cares nothing for its own people, welfare, or survival. Yes, they hate Israel, but they know that a nuclear strike would mean their own complete and utter annihilation.

Arguable.


Israel simply wants to maintain animosity between the US and its enemies in the Middle East, because with any sense of parity introduced they lose a considerable diplomatic edge, as well as nigh unconditional military support. So they paint a phantom menace lurking on the horizon, and justify their own bellicose declarations with feigned trepidation over the actions of a caricature.

Why wouldn't you want to maintain the best security possible? If I'm edgy when it comes to my neighbor, I'd like my friend to have my back to make me feel more comfortable. I wouldn't want my friend to get soft with my sketchy neighbor. Whether or not you (the friend, or, say, a 3rd neighbor) think the neighbor is sketchy is not relevant. If you think you're in danger, you have the right to take precautionary steps.

And if Israel does attack Iran, I hope it provokes a new regional war, and I hope that we withdraw support, because they will have, by their ridiculous provocation, thoroughly earned the beating that they will receive when Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey join forces. Israel needs to learn that it isn't the center of the world, that it isn't entitled to unlimited diplomatic and military aid from its allies, and that it needs to negotiate, compromise, and stop breaking international law.

I hope that Israel would attack, too, and that Bibi's speech wasn't all rhetoric. Although, an "attack" might simply consist of destroying Iranian nuclear infrastructure. I wouldn't think such an attack would draw war on such a scale you described above.
Does Israel actually think it's the center of the world? Maybe the UN does, with its focus on criticizing every action Israel takes on anyone and anything.

I'm not saying I know what the right move is here. All I'm saying is that Bibi makes a point and that his position is understandable. I don't know enough about the state of Iran and its relations with Israel and others to be able to make a legitimate call.
omanjoka
Posts: 37
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 10:40:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It was both a bold and stupid speech overall. He basically fear mongered that in a few weeks, Iran would use a nuke to destroy Israel, even though he has no evidence that they are building a bomb. The I.A.E.A. is the watchdog of nuclear energy, and has reported that all the uranium in Iran is used for their power grid. The peace deal would lift sanctions off of the country as long as they don't enrich their uranium for weapons grade plutonium. Bibi doesn't want Iran to have any nuclear energy. whicch is BS.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
-Epicurus.