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

Paleface

Sarcastic but not at all far from the truth!

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2015/03/04/pot-warns-congress-about-kettle-being-black/

Karl Stein

All this Netenyahu rhetoric isn't really about Iran's non-existent nukes but Israel preserving its theatre dominance. Netenyahu wants the sanctions retained to prevent Iran from developing into the pre-eminent regional power. The more Iran develops as a regional power the less Israel can knock the **** out of its neighbours without consequences.

Even if Iran did have a nuke the idea they would commit 'nuclear suicide' by attacking Israel with it is absolute fantasy.

Un Croissant

I've never seen a Congress get up out of their seats so frequently. Every 2-3 minutes.

hatrickpatrick

DavidRamsay99 wrote: »

So you think the world would be really a better place with a nuclear armed Shia Islamic fundamentalist theocracy? :rolleyes:

If the threat of nuclear retaliation prevented Western interference in the internal affairs of non-Western countries, yes absolutely.

Icepick

Bringing down the fascist religious regime in Tehran would be great new for most Iranians and the rest of the world.
Hopefully, after Khamenei dies, the revolution won't be brutally stopped.

hatrickpatrick

Icepick wrote: »

Bringing down the fascist religious regime in Tehran would be great new for most Iranians and the rest of the world.
Hopefully, after Khamenei dies, the revolution won't be brutally stopped.

And hopefully the next time Iran has a popular, democratically elected government like it did in 1953, the West won't decide that it has the right to interfere with such a government if it doesn't decide to give its resources away for nothing.

Gringo180

Un Croissant wrote: »

I've never seen a Congress get up out of their seats so frequently. Every 2-3 minutes.

It would remind you of a bunch of teenage girls at a One Direction concert. Embarrassing stuff altogether, Aipac have Congress well and truely bought off.

hatrickpatrick

Gringo180 wrote: »

It would remind you of a bunch of teenage girls at a One Direction concert.

That's an appalling thing to say about the United States Congress.
One Direction fans have far more dignity.

jank

Karl Stein wrote: »

All this Netenyahu rhetoric isn't really about Iran's non-existent nukes but Israel preserving its theatre dominance. Netenyahu wants the sanctions retained to prevent Iran from developing into the pre-eminent regional power. The more Iran develops as a regional power the less Israel can knock the **** out of its neighbours without consequences.

Even if Iran did have a nuke the idea they would commit 'nuclear suicide' by attacking Israel with it is absolute fantasy.

On a practical level I would gather most reasonable people would prefer that Israel would be the most dominant military power in that region (after the US of course) seen as its the only democracy worth talking about in the Middle East. Wishing for a strong Iran to counter this, given what we know Iran is capable of is ideological anti-western hippy pub talk. Very easy to be the hurler on the ditch.

WakeUp

any attack on Iran will draw in the Chinese and Russians. good luck with that.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

On a practical level I would gather most reasonable people would prefer that Israel would be the most dominant military power in that region (after the US of course) seen as its the only democracy worth talking about in the Middle East. .............

Rather laughable, when you consider Israel's activities, particularily since 1967. Saying they're the "only democracy" is supposed to coat them in respectability, is it? How democratic is it in the West Bank?

jank

For for a start Israel don't execute you for being Gay... Iran on the other hand...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/12/iran-s-new-gay-executions.html

jank

mulbot wrote: »

Is there such a bomb that would land in Israel,explode and wipe out everything in it's path but run out of puff at the borders? Just hoping wondering

See, this is one of the reasons why Israeli's are fearful of a strong nuclear Iran......

Just a little Samba

So let me get this straight, in this thread we have a group of right wing erm, thinkers (?) (for lack of a less flattering word),spouting rethoric and nonsense, who have presented absolutely no credible evidence of an Iranian Nuclear Weapons Programme, but want the west to destroy said imaginary programme because a man with a history of lying and ignoring even his own intelligence agencies, says it's a good idea, despite all of the contrary evidence?

The IAEA say that there is no evidence of Iran diverting materials or enrichment past 20%.
The CIA, Shin Bet, Mossad and every other intelligence service on the planet say that there is no evidence of Iran having a secret nuclear weapons programme, no governmental plans for such a programme, no diversion of enriched materials, no enrichment past 20%, an actual reduction and dilution of the existing of 20% enriched stock, 1000 man days per year of IAEA inspections all over Iran, Iranian government offer to cap enrichment at 5% in exchange for fuel rods, etc etc...

But because Netenhayoo says they're up to something, we have to go in there and stop the tricksy liars?

This isn't about Iran's non-existent nuclear weapons programme, it's about Israel not wanting Iran's economic sanctions to be lifted because the idea of a stable, wealthy Iran making Israel the short arse at the end of the bar with small man syndrome instead of the regional power, and the only thing that scares the living crap out of the fundamental zionists in Lukid more than an actual military threat is being irrelevant.


Please excuse me while I chortle into my mid day coffee at the "genius" of the hard right's groupthink.

jank

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/02/us-iran-nuclear-iaea-idUSKBN0LY0UV20150302

"We have asked questions and the questions are clear, so (Iran) can answer."

The Islamic Republic has yet to address two outstanding issues relating to alleged explosives tests and other measures that might have been used for nuclear bomb research which it should have explained away by last August.

Iran have not been as open and co-operative as some would suggest.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

For for a start Israel don't execute you for being Gay... Iran on the other hand...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/12/iran-s-new-gay-executions.html

Ahhh, "pinkwashing". Great man.

jank

An inconvenient truth perhaps but the truth none the less.

jank

jank wrote: »

An inconvenient truth perhaps but the truth none the less.

Are you gearing up for a run at being the next pope?

listermint

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.

100% agree. people always throw there toys out of the pram when they don't get things their way. It's grandstanding of the highest degree. Going over to a presidents town and calling him out, too bad. Sure lots of officials didn't turn up to greet him, the most important of which was Obama. "here boss, yer man Yahoo is outside waiting to see ya".. "ah tell em I'm busy and let him gab on to anyone who has a free hour in the main hall"... Lovely stuff"!!!

What about the Israeli influence all over the world. Sure tons of orthodox jews stood in protest at his visit, his ideology is perpetuating fear and warmongering.

The Corinthian

The entire thing is really about regional politics in the Middle East, between the three main players; Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia. This means that it is governed by Realpolitik with each looking after their own interests and very little interests in starting any real war - a cold war, certainly; be it through espionage, black opps or using proxies (Hamas, etc), but a full blown war is in no one's interests. The Cold War between the USA and USSR was the same; lots of rhetoric, lots of espionage, black opps and proxies (Sandinistas, Contras, etc), but no one wanted a real war.

To begin with Iran is an undemocratic theocracy seeking to develop (we presume as apparently they've been on the cusp of developing them for over 20 years) nuclear weapons and exercising influence in a number of regional nations. Yet despite having been attacked a number of times they've never directly struck first at anyone else in over 30 years; same cannot be said of Israel or even Saudi Arabia.

Israel, on the other hand has nuclear weapons - it's most open secret out there and has a history for first strikes against it's neighbors (so have it's neighbors against Israel, but not since 1973), so I'm not too sure why no one has a problem with their having nuclear capabilities. On the other hand they are the most democratic nation there, the most liberal - although still theocratic by Western standards.

And of course you have Saudi Arabia; possibly the most theocratic and undemocratic of all. They're the guys that through their funding of mosques around the World have been the principle promoters of Salafism - the conservative school of Islam that gave us Al-Qaeda and ultimately IS. Yet, they're 'good guys' - at least so long as the Al-Saud family stays in power.

Honorable mention goes to the Palestinians; on the short end of history's stick and gravely wronged. At the same time, a handy political football and basket case, failed crypto-state who would resemble Somalia were it not for the Israelis keeping them from killing each other.

Basically, if you see what's going on in the Middle East as some sort of conflict between good and evil, then you're an idiot who'll swallow such narratives faster than a 40-dollar blowjob. It's just one bunch of Semites, trying to screw over another bunch of Semites (yes, I know that Iranians are not technically Semites) - read the Bible or Koran, it's not like they've not been doing this to each other for a long time.

Netanyahu's speech was about Israeli regional interests and goading the US to do their dirty work for them, while stirring the pot because it'll give him a bump in the polls. This is not to suggest that any of the others are any better - indeed my point is that none of them are.

Timberrrrrrrr

jank wrote: »

An inconvenient truth perhaps but the truth none the less.

We could start listing the illegal things that Israel does but that would be a long list and take the thread completely off topic.

Gringo180

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

We could start listing the illegal things that Israel does but that would be a long list and take the thread completely off topic.

Would I be correct in saying they have violated more UN resolutions than any other western "democracy" :rolleyes:

They need to have a good look at themselves in the mirror before pointing the finger at others.

NIMAN

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.

From what I see, Israel seems to do a lot of damage with the weapons it has at its disposal, perhaps we should remove their nuclear capability.

cerastes

The Corinthian wrote: »

To begin with Iran is an undemocratic theocracy seeking to develop (we presume as apparently they've been on the cusp of developing them for over 20 years) nuclear weapons and exercising influence in a number of regional nations. Yet despite having been attacked a number of times they've never directly struck first at anyone else in over 30 years; same cannot be said of Israel or even Saudi Arabia.

Israel, on the other hand has nuclear weapons - it's most open secret out there and has a history for first strikes against it's neighbors (so have it's neighbors against Israel, but not since 1973), so I'm not too sure why no one has a problem with their having nuclear capabilities. On the other hand they are the most democratic nation there, the most liberal - although still theocratic by Western standards.

And of course you have Saudi Arabia; possibly the most theocratic and undemocratic of all. They're the guys that through their funding of mosques around the World have been the principle promoters of Salafism - the conservative school of Islam that gave us Al-Qaeda and ultimately IS. Yet, they're 'good guys' - at least so long as the Al-Saud family stays in power.

Honorable mention goes to the Palestinians; on the short end of history's stick and gravely wronged. At the same time, a handy political football and basket case, failed crypto-state who would resemble Somalia were it not for the Israelis keeping them from killing each other.

Basically, if you see what's going on in the Middle East as some sort of conflict between good and evil, then you're an idiot who'll swallow such narratives faster than a 40-dollar blowjob. It's just one bunch of Semites, trying to screw over another bunch of Semites (yes, I know that Iranians are not technically Semites) - read the Bible or Koran, it's not like they've not been doing this to each other for a long time.

Netanyahu's speech was about Israeli regional interests and goading the US to do their dirty work for them, while stirring the pot because it'll give him a bump in the polls. This is not to suggest that any of the others are any better - indeed my point is that none of them are.

As much as I dislike the idea of a theocracy, who are we to say what country should follow what political path? Western democracy doesnt seem to suit them very well, its not like its very democratic in the west anyway. What right do we have to impose our own failed systems on other countries? why is democracy touted as the be all and end all.
Israels democracy seems very partial, democracy for some and not for others.

Im agreeing with you though, but it does seem strange that certain western countries back or even put into power some very undemocratic individuals and govts in very undemocratic ways against the popular democratic will of the people of those nations, South American ones comes to mind, but pick a continent really. To top it, point the finger at which countries have a right to determine their own path and call it undemocratic after how they have behaved???

Scofflaw

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

We could start listing the illegal things that Israel does but that would be a long list and take the thread completely off topic.

Yes it would. And jank could also with advantage cut back on the use of abstract whataboutery.

moderately,
Scofflaw

The Corinthian

cerastes wrote: »

As much as I dislike the idea of a theocracy, who are we to say what country should follow what political path? Western democracy doesnt seem to suit them very well, its not like its very democratic in the west anyway. What right do we have to impose our own failed systems on other countries? why is democracy touted as the be all and end all.

Nooooo! You said Jehovah! Heritic! Anti-Semite! Misogynist!

Icepick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And hopefully the next time Iran has a popular, democratically elected government like it did in 1953, the West won't decide that it has the right to interfere with such a government if it doesn't decide to give its resources away for nothing.

We know that it won't happen this time so no need for this whataboutism here.

cerastes

jank wrote: »

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/02/us-iran-nuclear-iaea-idUSKBN0LY0UV20150302

Iran have not been as open and co-operative as some would suggest.

Israel is hardly the best country to be pointing out the rights or flaws of Iran, given its own behaviour in this regard.

Icepick wrote: »

We know that it won't happen this time so no need for this whataboutism here.

Yes, it was thoroughly stamped out and when legitimate or moderate options are eliminated, its hardly a surprise what comes next is more cruel and brutal at each incarnation. Iran at least presents a view of stability in the region, or are shahs and wandering executioners better suited to other nations agendas?

Timberrrrrrrr

Icepick wrote: »

We know that it won't happen this time so no need for this whataboutism here.

Why wont it happen this time?

Icepick

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Why wont it happen this time?

Because the world has changed.