"The deal of the century for Iran" while the rest of us lose -- Netanyahu

[Manatee]

Yeah, 'cause the sanctions have been working so well at keeping hardliners out of power in Iran. It's past time to try something new. As for Bachmann...who care what that nutjob has to say?

Yup. What I find so curious is that Americans are opposed to adopting UN resolutions that my limit our freedom, but we've got no problem telling another sovereign state how to live.

There will come a time when America is vulnerable and we won't have a friend in the world.

As far as Israel is concerned…..I really don't care. I have a lot of respect for the spirit of their armies and special forces but I also know that their cultural problems will never be solved.

 

[Jludo]

"Barack Obama and Amhedinejad" is starting to sound too much like two figures from the not-so-far distant past, i.e Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler. We all know what that kind of policy ended up costing the world in terms of destruction and loss of life. Maybe our current leaders think the lessons of history are no longer relevant?

After all, nobody expected Hitler to invade Poland either.

Godwin's law
Also that is just a terrible comparison. Hitler was building a first rate army capable of taking over Europe, Iran is not. Germany had a long and storied history of trying to take over Europe, WWII made the 3rd time in just the last 100 years a German army invaded France. Iran on the other hand hasn't attacked another country in two centuries and is not currently threatening to attack anyone.

 

[Jludo]

So you think Iran is just minding their own business, just wants to develop a peaceful nuclear energy program, Iran is a "nice guy" and means no harm to Israel?

Ya Iran is a 'nice guy' my vote is we go pick daisies in a field with him. Maybe go catch a ball game, he's just an all around nice guy.


Iran is a rational state actor that knows it would be the end of their country to use a nuclear weapon or to allow a nuclear weapon to fall into the hands of a terrorist group.
If you have actual proof they intend to harm Israel, by all means share. They don't like Israel, we've all established that. But someone make the case that they intend to make the jump from 'dislike' to 'nuking them'

 

[pudly]

Iran has just received the first major benefit of the new deal: Reports: U.S. Unfreezes $8 Billion in Iranian Assets

 

[88GT]

Nobody has a problem with Israel, we just don't have a problem with Iran either. Iran hasn't attacked anyone in two centuries and no one has demonstrated their intent to attack anyone now. Its their problem, let them sort it out.
My only position is to keep the US out of any military action and do away with sanctions. People fabricating quotes isn't helping anything.

On the contrary, there is quite the obvious opposition to Israel.

What complete BS, mistranslating and perpetuating a blatant lie. and then calling it semantics when you're called out for it? Come on. You can't keep saying they avow to 'wipe Israel off the map' and then "well they didn't literally say it, but that's what they mean"

Called out for what? I'm not translating anything. I'm not perpetuating a lie. I have provided several examples wherein Iran via any one of its proxies has stated that the existence of Israel is a problem and it needs to be solved. I'm simply asking if the deniers are trying to argue that Iran doesn't want to annihilate Israel or whether they're just arguing that Iran didn't say it in a specific choice of words?

It's one thing to desire intellectual honesty in translation. If those words weren't the ones said, then fine. But if you are expanding that fact to justify a position that it necessarily means Iran does not have ill intent toward Israel, then that's a different argument. So which one are you arguing? That Ahmedinajad never said a specific string of words or that Iran doesn't have desires to "wipe Israel off the map?"

 

[88GT]

Ya Iran is a 'nice guy' my vote is we go pick daisies in a field with him. Maybe go catch a ball game, he's just an all around nice guy.


Iran is a rational state actor that knows it would be the end of their country to use a nuclear weapon or to allow a nuclear weapon to fall into the hands of a terrorist group.
If you have actual proof they intend to harm Israel, by all means share. They don't like Israel, we've all established that. But someone make the case that they intend to make the jump from 'dislike' to 'nuking them'

Straight from the horse's mouth no longer counts as proof? Or are we not to believe what comes from Iran's leaders? And if we aren't to believe what comes from mouths of Iran's leaders, why should we believe they'll uphold their end of the bargain?

You're right on one point: at this point in time, Iran knows that any overt action against Israel is fraught with more risk than benefit. Rest assured when that reality changes--or when Iran thinks it does--their "rational" will suddenly lead them down a different path.

 

[Jludo]

I have provided several examples wherein Iran via any one of its proxies has stated that the existence of Israel is a problem and it needs to be solved.

Since when does, the Iraeli-Palestinian conflict needs to be solved translate into Iran wants to destroy Israel?

 

[Jludo]

You're right on one point: at this point in time, Iran knows that any overt action against Israel is fraught with more risk than benefit. Rest assured when that reality changes--or when Iran thinks it does--their "rational" will suddenly lead them down a different path.

Name a scenario in which Iran would think it had a military hand up on Israel. Israel is a non-signatory the non-proliferation treaty in possession of untold hundreds of nukes, biological and chemical WMD's. Iran has stated no intention to build a bomb and hasn't attempted to build a bomb.

 

[jamil]

Name a scenario in which Iran would think it had a military hand up on Israel. Israel is a non-signatory the non-proliferation treaty in possession of untold hundreds of nukes, biological and chemical WMD's. Iran has stated no intention to build a bomb and hasn't attempted to build a bomb.

Source?

 

[Jludo]

Source?

Reuters last year :
"The United States still believes that Iran is not on the verge of having a nuclear weapon and that Tehran has not made a decision to pursue one, U.S. officials said on Thursday."

U.S. still believes Iran not on verge of nuclear weapon | Reuters

 

[printcraft]

....... Iran has stated no intention to build a bomb and hasn't attempted to build a bomb.

 

[Jludo]

Where's the proof they tried to build a bomb?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

It's a shame that these people are all but guaranteeing that we will see a nuclear weapon used maliciously in our lifetime. More than likely it'll be used against our allies in the area.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It's one thing to desire intellectual honesty in translation. If those words weren't the ones said, then fine. But if you are expanding that fact to justify a position that it necessarily means Iran does not have ill intent toward Israel, then that's a different argument. So which one are you arguing? That Ahmedinajad never said a specific string of words or that Iran doesn't have desires to "wipe Israel off the map?"

So which is it?

Reuters last year :
"The United States still believes that Iran is not on the verge of having a nuclear weapon and that Tehran has not made a decision to pursue one, U.S. officials said on Thursday."

U.S. still believes Iran not on verge of nuclear weapon | Reuters

And in other news, the Benghazi attacks were all over a controversial youtube video insulting the image of Mohummad and the White House is still claiming the NSA is not collecting data in your emails and phone conversations...

Over to you Jim. What's the travel weather looking like for Thanksgiving?

 

[printcraft]

Where's the proof they tried to build a bomb?

Probably nothing to worry about.

 

[88GT]

Since when does, the Iraeli-Palestinian conflict needs to be solved translate into Iran wants to destroy Israel?

Since the only acceptable solution to the Iranians is the destruction of Israel. You are grasping at straws if you think that Iran is content with anything less. You are also willfully blind to reality. I cannot convince you of what you refuse to believe. But suffice it to say that your inability to read between the lines and understand the intention in spite of the double speak doesn't change reality.

Name a scenario in which Iran would think it had a military hand up on Israel.

Who would have thought in 1919 Germany that in less than 20 years it would be a nation intent on, and arguably capable of, dominating Europe and most of western Asia? Who knows what will change tomorrow, next month, next year. Can you say with any degree of certainty that Iran will always find the current stays on its ambitions so limiting?

Israel is a non-signatory the non-proliferation treaty in possession of untold hundreds of nukes, biological and chemical WMD's. Iran has stated no intention to build a bomb and hasn't attempted to build a bomb.

Iran has its own agenda and you are continuing on the ridiculous (long past foolish) if you honestly believe that it has not intentions of weaponizing its nuclear capability. Though I seriously doubt you have any inside information on the goings-on of Iranian efforts with regards to acquisition of a working bomb. Every nation that has had the opportunity to weaponize nuclear power has done so. Why would Iran be any different?

 

[jamil]

... Iran has stated no intention to build a bomb and hasn't attempted to build a bomb.

That's a pretty matter of fact statement.

Source?

I asked for the source of your certainty.

Reuters last year :
"The United States still believes that Iran is not on the verge of having a nuclear weapon and that Tehran has not made a decision to pursue one, U.S. officials said on Thursday."

U.S. still believes Iran not on verge of nuclear weapon | Reuters

Then you link what a news agency reports what the US says they think. So if that's all you got I'm still left wondering about the source of your confidence.

Where's the proof they tried to build a bomb?

You're the one who stated they hadn't attempted to build a bomb.


Now, I don't know if they're trying or not. Iran doesn't tell me what they're up to these days. But I suspect they'd really like to have one, and I'd be less surprised if they're working on getting one.

 

[j706]

Holy cow! INGO members actually sticking up for Iran. Unreal!!!

 

[caverjamie]

Always thought this quote summed things up very well:

"The truth is that if Israel were to put down its arms there would be no more Israel. If the Arabs were to put down their arms there would be no more war. - Benjamin Netanyahu"

 

[SeaCaptain49]

Where's the proof they tried to build a bomb?

Where is the proof we sent Jews to concentration camps - Hitler 1940