Netanyahu Calls On World To Halt Iran's March Of Conquest And Terror

DavidRamsay99

Netanyahu pointed out that Iran threatens to choke both the Persian Gulf at the straits of Hormuz and the Red Sea at Yemen. He also pointed out that Iran controls four Arab capitals - Baghdad, Damascus, Beiruit and Sana'a.
He warned of Iran's global network of terror which extends across the world.

A complete transcript of his speech can be found here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/03/03/full-text-netanyahus-address-to-congress/

johnnyskeleton

Do you have a view on the issue yourself?

DavidRamsay99

My view is that Netanyahu is calling a spade a spade.
A nuclear Iran is not an option.
Not only Israel but the entire world is under threat from such a prospect.
The Muslim world is dominated by two ideologies.
The Islamic State and the Islamic Republic who are competing from supremacy of militant Islam and wish to impose an Islamic empire on the region and then on the world.

Timberrrrrrrr

DavidRamsay99 wrote: »

My view is that Netanyahu is calling a spade a spade.
A nuclear Iran is not an option.
Not only Israel but the entire world is under threat from such a prospect.

So what should be done about it?

DavidRamsay99

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So what should be done about it?

Iran should be prevented from getting nuclear arms of course.

Timberrrrrrrr

DavidRamsay99 wrote: »

Iran should be prevented from getting nuclear arms of course.

By whom?

How should the world go about this? Is this like Saddams nuclear arms and chemical weapons?

R P McMurphy

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So what should be done about it?

use nuclear weapons on them before they develop nuclear capabilities and use them without the slightest hint of irony

listermint

DavidRamsay99 wrote: »

My view is that Netanyahu is calling a spade a spade.
A nuclear Iran is not an option.
Not only Israel but the entire world is under threat from such a prospect.
The Muslim world is dominated by two ideologies.
The Islamic State and the Islamic Republic who are competing from supremacy of militant Islam and wish to impose an Islamic empire on the region and then on the world.

So let me guess you want to break up Iran? Very few countries left in the region that are keeping a lid on the head cutters.

And your solution is to do what again?

Nathan ya Hoo is a big warmonger. And like most warmongers talks out of his hole.

DavidRamsay99

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

By whom?

How should the world go about this? Is this like Saddams nuclear arms and chemical weapons?

The alternative to the bad nuclear deal with Iran is a much better deal obviously. Keep the restrictions on Iran until their aggression ends.

No option should be off the table including military force.

Appeasing Iran as Obama is doing to supposedly prevent war will only hasten war as Iran acquires nuclear weapons and threatens the world.

Arsemageddon

Netanyahu lied to the UN general assembly about Iran's nuclear capability-
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/23/leaked-spy-cables-netanyahu-iran-bomb-mossad

His policy toward Iran has publicly been criticised by former head of Mossad Meir Dagan
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/02/israeli-spy-chief-slams-netanyahu-iran-handling-150227151525381.html

His fear-mongering among European Jews following the Charlie Hebdo and Danish attacks is out of any proportion to the actual threat. His electioneering stunt in visiting the US congress could potentially cause serious long term damage to Israel's relationship with the US.

He has put his own ego and narrow world view above any other consideration. I sincerely hope he isn't re-elected, but I don't hold out much hope for this.

IMO he is the worst ever leader that Israel has ever had

Sand

Iran cant realistically be prevented from getting nuclear weapons if it chooses to pursue that path at any cost. Nuclear weapons are 1950s black and white tv technology. Christ, there was that Swedish guy who created a mini-nuclear reactor in his kitchen and only came to the attention of authorities because he thought maybe it would be wise to ask law enforcement if it was legal to have your own DIY nuclear reactor.

All the rest of the world can do is impose costs on Iran should they choose to pursue that path, and make those costs outweigh the benefits. Constant sabre rattling and threats to attack Iran make a nuclear deterrent priceless. So Netanyahus threats actually hinder efforts to dissuade Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons because they present Iranian hardliners with a concrete threat that nuclear weapons would (nominally) protect them from.

Maybe some military action might ultimately be required to prevent a belligerent, nuclear armed Iran going biblical in the middle east, but *all* diplomatic options should be exhausted first. Netanyahu is going straight for the stick...

DavidRamsay99

listermint wrote: »

So let me guess you want to break up Iran? Very few countries left in the region that are keeping a lid on the head cutters.

And your solution is to do what again?

Nathan ya Hoo is a big warmonger. And like most warmongers talks out of his hole.

Iran are the warmonger, screaming death to America and death to Israel while arming terrorists like Hezbollah and Hamas who have attacked Israel repeatedly.

Even if Israel has to stand alone Israel will stand.

Simple as that.

But America also stands with Israel so Israel does not have to.

Eugene Norman

Does Iran really control 4 Arab capitals? I didn't notice them invade.

DavidRamsay99

Sand wrote: »

Iran cant realistically be prevented from getting nuclear weapons if it chooses to pursue that path at any cost. Nuclear weapons are 1950s black and white tv technology. Christ, there was that Swedish guy who created a mini-nuclear reactor in his kitchen and only came to the attention of authorities because he thought maybe it would be wise to ask law enforcement if it was legal to have your own DIY nuclear reactor.

All the rest of the world can do is impose costs on Iran should they choose to pursue that path, and make those costs outweigh the benefits. Constant sabre rattling and threats to attack Iran make a nuclear deterrent priceless. So Netanyahus threats actually hinder efforts to dissuade Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons because they present Iranian hardliners with a concrete threat that nuclear weapons would (nominally) protect them from.

Maybe some military action might ultimately be required to prevent a belligerent, nuclear armed Iran going biblical in the middle east, but *all* diplomatic options should be exhausted first. Netanyahu is going straight for the stick...

Goodness knows carrots haven't worked have they? :rolleyes:

Sand

DavidRamsay99 wrote: »

Iran are the warmonger

How many wars have they started recently?

Jesus the last big war they were in, they were the ones attacked weren't they?

Arsemageddon

DavidRamsay99 wrote: »

The alternative to the bad nuclear deal with Iran is a much better deal obviously. Keep the restrictions on Iran until their aggression ends.

You seem incapable of seeing the world in anything but black and white terms. The Iranian's and their allies (Hesbollah and the Assad regime) are currently engaged in the fight against ISIS. Do you really think it would be a good idea to get them to change sides

No option should be off the table including military force.

Who do you think is going to carry out this military action? The US and the west have no stomach for it, and if they did anything the blowback would be enormous

Appeasing Iran as Obama is doing to supposedly prevent war will only hasten war as Iran acquires nuclear weapons and threatens the world.

The only country Iran threatens is Israel. Israel have submarines armed with Nuclear missiles. If Iran launched a nuclear attack against Israel then Israel would be able to launch a counterstrike. There is also the fact that an Iranian nuclear strike would also wipe out the Palestinians, you know, the people Iran are trying to save. You don't think that might be a bit counterproductive?

DavidRamsay99

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Does Iran really control 4 Arab capitals? I didn't notice them invade.

The Iranian proxy, Hezbollah, control Southern Lebanon and are better armed than the Lebanese government in Beirut. When they say jump the Lebanese say how high.

Yemen was recently conquered by pro-Iranian Shiite rebels who deposed the Sunni government. Yemen sits on the entrance of the Red Sea into the indian Ocean and straddles one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world.

The Assad regime in Damascus is backed by Iran as it slaughters the Syrian people with impunity.

Since the American pullout the government in Baghdad takes its orders increasingly from Teheran rather than Washington.

listermint

DavidRamsay99 wrote: »

The Iranian proxy, Hezbollah, control Southern Lebanon and are better armed than the Lebanese government in Beirut. When they say jump the Lebanese say how high.

Yemen was recently conquered by pro-Iranian Shiite rebels who deposed the Sunni government. Yemen sits on the entrance of the Red Sea into the indian Ocean and straddles one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world.

The Assad regime in Damascus is backed by Iran as it slaughters the Syrian people with impunity.

Since the American pullout the government in Baghdad takes its orders increasingly from Teheran rather than Washington.

What about the Israeli proxys who tortured and murderers two Irish soldiers in cold blood.

Disgusting war mongering that is all his "speech" was. He has form.

mrsoundie

So, a right wing politician meets a gang of right wing politicians to talk up the chance of a war in advance of an election, that he needs to win, but get more money from the same right wing gentlemen. All built on a perceived threat, which when exposed is a paper tiger which will lead to thousands of deaths, by the people who weren't sure what was happening in the first place as they where so busy just trying to live their lives.

I could be wrong though. :rolleyes:

DavidRamsay99

Arsemageddon wrote: »

You seem incapable of seeing the world in anything but black and white terms. The Iranian's and their allies (Hesbollah and the Assad regime) are currently engaged in the fight against ISIS. Do you really think it would be a good idea to get them to change sides

Iran and Hezbollah are only interested in Shiite Islamic supremacy in the region and one day globally. They are no friends of Israel or America but are simultaneously plotting against both.

Who do you think is going to carry out this military action? The US and the west have no stomach for it, and if they did anything the blowback would be enormous

What would the blowback be like if Iran had nukes?

The only country Iran threatens is Israel.

Iran have missiles that can reach far beyond the middle east into the heart of Europe.



Do you want those missiles armed with nukes?

Israel have submarines armed with Nuclear missiles. If Iran launched a nuclear attack against Israel then Israel would be able to launch a counterstrike.

Israel would not survive an Iranian first strike if those missiles got through.

There is also the fact that an Iranian nuclear strike would also wipe out the Palestinians, you know, the people Iran are trying to save. You don't think that might be a bit counterproductive?

The Iranians wouldn't care less if the Palestinians perish as long as they destroyed Israel.

Eugene Norman

DavidRamsay99 wrote: »

The Iranian proxy, Hezbollah, control Southern Lebanon and are better armed than the Lebanese government in Beirut. When they say jump the Lebanese say how high.

Yemen was recently conquered by pro-Iranian Shiite rebels who deposed the Sunni government. Yemen sits on the entrance of the Red Sea into the indian Ocean and straddles one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world.

The Assad regime in Damascus is backed by Iran as it slaughters the Syrian people with impunity.

Since the American pullout the government in Baghdad takes its orders increasingly from Teheran rather than Washington.

So no. Iran didn't invade anywhere. Local Shiite groups are in control in some places because of the vacuum caused by neo-con invasions and holding back the ISIS guys who you both hate and support ( the Assad regime slaughters it's people).

You want more death and destruction over there so plucky little israel can surround itself with failed states which might be bad for christians, secularists, religious minorities, women and children etc but good for Zionism

DavidRamsay99

Eugene Norman wrote: »

So no. Iran didn't invade anywhere. Local Shiite groups are in control in some places because of the vacuum caused by neo-con invasions and holding back the ISIS guys who you both hate and support ( the Assad regime slaughters it's people).

You want more death and destruction over there so plucky little israel can surround itself with failed states which might be bad for christians, secularists, religious minorities, women and children etc but good for Zionism

How could ISIS be good for Zionism? :rolleyes:

rockatansky

DavidRamsay99 wrote: »

How could ISIS be good for Zionism? :rolleyes:

You've clearly a lot to learn.

Eugene Norman

DavidRamsay99 wrote: »

How could ISIS be good for Zionism? :rolleyes:

I haven't seen them stop their beheadings of grannys to march on Jerusalem. Saddam was a threat. Assad is a threat. Of sorts. Jumped up hooligans not so much.

Israel and its U.S. propagandists want to get rid of the "nasty dictators" and don't care about the consequences for the people in the region. A sane anti-ISIS policy would involve Iran and Assad and Iraqi Shiites.

If ISIS were a threat to israel Yahoo might have mentioned them in his speech to congress. They aren't so he didn't.

DavidRamsay99

Eugene Norman wrote: »

I haven't seen them stop their beheadings of grannys to march on Jerusalem. Saddam was a threat. Assad is a threat. Of sorts. Jumped up hooligans not so much.

Israel and its U.S. propagandists want to get rid of the "nasty dictators" and don't care about the consequences for the people in the region. A sane anti-ISIS policy would involve Iran and Assad and Iraqi Shiites.

If ISIS were a threat to israel Yahoo might have mentioned them in his speech to congress. They aren't so he didn't.

I suppose the Jews were behind 9/11 too were they? :rolleyes:

Arsemageddon

DavidRamsay99 wrote: »

Iran and Hezbollah are only interested in Shiite Islamic supremacy in the region and one day globally. They are no friends of Israel or America but are simultaneously plotting against both.

Iran and Hezbollah are pretty much interested in being left alone. The US appears to have finally stopped sulking about getting kicked out of Iran in 1979, and about time too.

What would the blowback be like if Iran had nukes?

Iran have missiles that can reach far beyond the middle east into the heart of Europe.

Do you want those missiles armed with nukes?

Israel would not survive an Iranian first strike if those missiles got through.

Everyone knows that a nuclear war is unwinnable. That's why nuclear armed countries have never gone directly head to head in an all out war. You should look up MAD - mutually assured destruction

The Iranians wouldn't care less if the Palestinians perish as long as they destroyed Israel.

Maybe, maybe not, I'm pretty sure they would like to avoid an Israeli nuclear counterstrike.

Gatling

listermint wrote: »

What about the Israeli proxys who tortured and murderers two Irish soldiers in cold blood.

Disgusting war mongering that is all his "speech" was. He has form.

The same isrealis who killed 34 US Navy personal during the 6 day war when they repeatedly attacked the USS Liberty in international waters

Timberrrrrrrr

DavidRamsay99 wrote: »

The alternative to the bad nuclear deal with Iran is a much better deal obviously. Keep the restrictions on Iran until their aggression ends.

No option should be off the table including military force.

Appeasing Iran as Obama is doing to supposedly prevent war will only hasten war as Iran acquires nuclear weapons and threatens the world.

I have honestly lost count of all of the countries you would like to see military action take place. All Middle eastern too. Coincidence?

happy_knome

Arsemageddon wrote: »

You seem incapable of seeing the world in anything but black and white terms. The Iranian's and their allies (Hesbollah and the Assad regime) are currently engaged in the fight against ISIS. Do you really think it would be a good idea to get them to change sides



Who do you think is going to carry out this military action? The US and the west have no stomach for it, and if they did anything the blowback would be enormous



The only country Iran threatens is Israel. Israel have submarines armed with Nuclear missiles. If Iran launched a nuclear attack against Israel then Israel would be able to launch a counterstrike. There is also the fact that an Iranian nuclear strike would also wipe out the Palestinians, you know, the people Iran are trying to save. You don't think that might be a bit counterproductive?

if iran launched a nuke against israel , before it landed , the usa would rain down hundreds of nukes on iran itself , iran has not intention of attacking israel but their is a fairly high chance of israel attacking iran

netenyahu probably delivered the speech as a way of trying to boost GOP chances in 2016 , the american electorate is uncondtionally pro israel and their is this absurd notion out there that obama doesnt assume the possition strongly enough when it comes to israel

in truth obama has been every bit as uncondtionally pro israel any of his predescessors

johnnyskeleton

just a gentle reminder that this is the main politics forum, not the cafe. Play the ball not the man, and try to engage constructively with other posters instead of sarcastic responses please

DavidRamsay99

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Iran and Hezbollah are pretty much interested in being left alone. The US appears to have finally stopped sulking about getting kicked out of Iran in 1979, and about time too.

Iran and Hezbollah have an apocalyptic world view. They believe in the return of the hidden Imam which will lead to a final war with the infidels.

Everyone knows that a nuclear war is unwinnable. That's why nuclear armed countries have never gone directly head to head in an all out war. You should look up MAD - mutually assured destruction

The Iranian government are not rational. They are religious fundamentalist lunatics who want to bring about the apocalypse.

Maybe, maybe not, I'm pretty sure they would like to avoid an Israeli nuclear counterstrike.

No they don't. If they can destroy Israel they don't care how many Iranians will die in a counterstrike. Iran is ultimately a death cult.