Quote:After years of blocking U.N. efforts to pressure Israelis and Palestinians into accepting a lasting two-state solution, the United States is edging closer toward supporting a U.N. Security Council resolution

Link

So now the White House is getting its diplomatic ideas from "House of Cards." What's next, Michelle as a recess appointment as UN Ambassador?

(03-19-2015 08:06 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

Quote:After years of blocking U.N. efforts to pressure Israelis and Palestinians into accepting a lasting two-state solution, the United States is edging closer toward supporting a U.N. Security Council resolution

Link

So now the White House is getting its diplomatic ideas from "House of Cards." What's next, Michelle as a recess appointment as UN Ambassador?

Another example of when Obama doesn't get his way, he acts like a petulant child. How DARE Bibi win his election? Didn't he get the memo that he wasn't supposed to win because Obama didn't want him to?

The nerve of some people.

We shouldn't have been blocking the UN in the first place.

No rules apply to Barry Soetoro.

Screw Congress.

Screw a fair election in another country.

It's all about Barry... and the racists that oppose him.

If we get much closer to Iran, we are going to start getting some truly frosty reactions from the Arab countries.

Iran is not truly an existential threat to Israel, not for decades, maybe never. Even after it gets nukes, Iran will be a long way from being able to go toe to toe with Israel's nuke arsenal. And even the mullahs aren't THAT crazy.

A nuclear Iran IS an existential threat to the Arab countries. That is Iran's goal, to recreate the Persian Empire, from Istanbul to Kabul to Aden to Cairo. They didn't change their name to "Empire of the Aryans" for no reason. The Arabs will want Israel to strike Iran. Bibi wants to strike Iran. If we pull out of the region, Israel will strike Iran ASAP thereafter. Therefore we should pull out of the region.

Per Obama, Islamic terrorist theocracy > Jewish secular democracy.

(03-19-2015 02:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If we get much closer to Iran, we are going to start getting some truly frosty reactions from the Arab countries.

Iran is not truly an existential threat to Israel, not for decades, maybe never. Even after it gets nukes, Iran will be a long way from being able to go toe to toe with Israel's nuke arsenal. And even the mullahs aren't THAT crazy.

A nuclear Iran IS an existential threat to the Arab countries. That is Iran's goal, to recreate the Persian Empire, from Istanbul to Kabul to Aden to Cairo. They didn't change their name to "Empire of the Aryans" for no reason. The Arabs will want Israel to strike Iran. Bibi wants to strike Iran. If we pull out of the region, Israel will strike Iran ASAP thereafter. Therefore we should pull out of the region.

They dont have to go toe to toe. They will just hand the bomb off to someone else to do their bidding. It's how Iran has operated for years.

(03-21-2015 12:25 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 02:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If we get much closer to Iran, we are going to start getting some truly frosty reactions from the Arab countries.

Iran is not truly an existential threat to Israel, not for decades, maybe never. Even after it gets nukes, Iran will be a long way from being able to go toe to toe with Israel's nuke arsenal. And even the mullahs aren't THAT crazy.

A nuclear Iran IS an existential threat to the Arab countries. That is Iran's goal, to recreate the Persian Empire, from Istanbul to Kabul to Aden to Cairo. They didn't change their name to "Empire of the Aryans" for no reason. The Arabs will want Israel to strike Iran. Bibi wants to strike Iran. If we pull out of the region, Israel will strike Iran ASAP thereafter. Therefore we should pull out of the region.

They dont have to go toe to toe. They will just hand the bomb off to someone else to do their bidding. It's how Iran has operated for years.

And they won't like what they get back in return.

(03-19-2015 02:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If we get much closer to Iran, we are going to start getting some truly frosty reactions from the Arab countries.

Iran is not truly an existential threat to Israel, not for decades, maybe never. Even after it gets nukes, Iran will be a long way from being able to go toe to toe with Israel's nuke arsenal. And even the mullahs aren't THAT crazy.

I think you are missing the whole picture here.

Iran has already been at war with Israel for decades thru these terrorist groups they have help fund and build from the ground up. Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, ISIS and many other smaller groups all have been funded and supported by Iran and in many cases, supported by Iran in key areas over the last 40+ years. Sometimes these groups were funded and supported openly, other times it has been by more sinister means thru 3rd and 4th parties. So many different groups are roaming and working now that they can even use the Iranian military to attack and destroy parts of these groups as an excuse to take DIRECT control of huge parts of Iraq and make morons in Europe and the West think we are allies against these terror groups. Iran has been working behind the scenes with different groups in Yemen, Egypt, Libya & others and many of these groups have now taken power in those countries. This thing is WAY deeper along than people realize. Only an Empire forged of many countries could confront Israel.

I don't think there is any danger of Iran nuking Israel directly, though they openly threaten to do so quite often and make no doubt that Israel is their moral enemy. I think the obvious danger is Iran giving small nuclear arsenals to terror groups, who would use them in many ways, including setting off nukes from inside the US, many of our allies and many Muslim nations who do not play ball with them. Terror has become an effective way of swaying elections as well.

(03-21-2015 12:32 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 02:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If we get much closer to Iran, we are going to start getting some truly frosty reactions from the Arab countries.

Iran is not truly an existential threat to Israel, not for decades, maybe never. Even after it gets nukes, Iran will be a long way from being able to go toe to toe with Israel's nuke arsenal. And even the mullahs aren't THAT crazy.

I think you are missing the whole picture here.

Iran has already been at war with Israel for decades thru these terrorist groups they have help fund and build from the ground up. Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, ISIS and many other smaller groups all have been funded and supported by Iran and in many cases, supported by Iran in key areas over the last 40+ years. Sometimes these groups were funded and supported openly, other times it has been by more sinister means thru 3rd and 4th parties. So many different groups are roaming and working now that they can even use the Iranian military to attack and destroy parts of these groups as an excuse to take DIRECT control of huge parts of Iraq and make morons in Europe and the West think we are allies against these terror groups. Iran has been working behind the scenes with different groups in Yemen, Egypt, Libya & others and many of these groups have now taken power in those countries. This thing is WAY deeper along than people realize.

I don't think there is any danger of Iran nuking Israel directly, though they openly threaten to do so quite often and make no doubt that Israel is their moral enemy. I think the obvious danger is Iran giving small nuclear arsenals to terror groups, who would use them in many ways, including setting off nukes from inside the US, many of our allies and many Muslim nations who do not play ball with them.

I agree. Iran would never launch a nuclear rocket at Israel. The danger is Iran giving a nuke to a group that has a boat in the harbor at Tel Aviv ... or New York.

(03-21-2015 01:02 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I agree. Iran would never launch a nuclear rocket at Israel. The danger is Iran giving a nuke to a group that has a boat in the harbor at Tel Aviv ... or New York.

Yup. or even smaller bombs they can sneak in and then assemble.

I'm sure they already have ideas we aren't even considering yet.

(03-21-2015 12:32 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 02:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If we get much closer to Iran, we are going to start getting some truly frosty reactions from the Arab countries.
Iran is not truly an existential threat to Israel, not for decades, maybe never. Even after it gets nukes, Iran will be a long way from being able to go toe to toe with Israel's nuke arsenal. And even the mullahs aren't THAT crazy.

I think you are missing the whole picture here.

I don't think so. I think I'm several levels deeper into it.

Quote:Iran has already been at war with Israel for decades thru these terrorist groups they have help fund and build from the ground up. Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, ISIS and many other smaller groups all have been funded and supported by Iran and in many cases, supported by Iran in key areas over the last 40+ years. Sometimes these groups were funded and supported openly, other times it has been by more sinister means thru 3rd and 4th parties. So many different groups are roaming and working now that they can even use the Iranian military to attack and destroy parts of these groups as an excuse to take DIRECT control of huge parts of Iraq and make morons in Europe and the West think we are allies against these terror groups. Iran has been working behind the scenes with different groups in Yemen, Egypt, Libya & others and many of these groups have now taken power in those countries. This thing is WAY deeper along than people realize.
I don't think there is any danger of Iran nuking Israel directly, though they openly threaten to do so quite often and make no doubt that Israel is their moral enemy. I think the obvious danger is Iran giving small nuclear arsenals to terror groups, who would use them in many ways, including setting off nukes from inside the US, many of our allies and many Muslim nations who do not play ball with them.

Israel is not Iran's objective, although it is a significant tangent. Iran's objective is to recreate the ancient Persian Empire, which ran roughly from Istanbul to Kabul to Aden to Cairo. Where Israel fits is that Iran expects some considerable blowback from Arabs who don't care to part of an Aryan empire. So, we'll find a common enemy in Israel and we will have our surrogates attack them with our backing, to show you that we are your friends. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, right? I thought there was a very interesting double entendre in Netanyahu's comment, "the enemy of my enemy is my enemy."

I could see a scenario where Iran would at some point be drawn to attack Israel. I can see a scenario where they would never dare take on Israel's nuke arsenal directly, because it will significantly outnumber their own for decades to come, and would instead leave Israel standing and build their empire around Israel. It is using surrogates now, just like the Arabs have done ever since they found out that Israel had nukes.

Iran wants nukes because nukes give it the upper hand in any diplomatic exchanges with the Arabs. There's an argument to be made that once they have nukes, they don't have to worry as much about public opinion, and a nuclear Iran might even be less inclined to try to bloody Israel's nose. I wouldn't bet that way, but it's there as a real possibility.

(03-21-2015 01:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Israel is not Iran's objective, although it is a significant tangent. Iran's objective is to recreate the ancient Persian Empire, which ran roughly from Istanbul to Kabul to Aden to Cairo. Where Israel fits is that Iran expects some considerable blowback from Arabs who don't care to part of an Aryan empire. So, we'll find a common enemy in Israel and we will have our surrogates attack them with our backing, to show you that we are your friends. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, right? I thought there was a very interesting double entendre in Netanyahu's comment, "the enemy of my enemy is my enemy."

I could see a scenario where Iran would at some point be drawn to attack Israel. I can see a scenario where they would never dare take on Israel's nuke arsenal directly, because it will significantly outnumber their own for decades to come, and would instead leave Israel standing and build their empire around Israel. It is using surrogates now, just like the Arabs have done ever since they found out that Israel had nukes.

Iran wants nukes because nukes give it the upper hand in any diplomatic exchanges with the Arabs. There's an argument to be made that once they have nukes, they don't have to worry as much about public opinion, and a nuclear Iran might even be less inclined to try to bloody Israel's nose. I wouldn't bet that way, but it's there as a real possibility.

As I stated, I think you are missing a big part of the picture here, including the religious aspects.

But we will just have to agree to disagree. I'm ok with that.

We just see this very differently.

(03-21-2015 01:39 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(03-21-2015 01:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Israel is not Iran's objective, although it is a significant tangent. Iran's objective is to recreate the ancient Persian Empire, which ran roughly from Istanbul to Kabul to Aden to Cairo. Where Israel fits is that Iran expects some considerable blowback from Arabs who don't care to part of an Aryan empire. So, we'll find a common enemy in Israel and we will have our surrogates attack them with our backing, to show you that we are your friends. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, right? I thought there was a very interesting double entendre in Netanyahu's comment, "the enemy of my enemy is my enemy."
I could see a scenario where Iran would at some point be drawn to attack Israel. I can see a scenario where they would never dare take on Israel's nuke arsenal directly, because it will significantly outnumber their own for decades to come, and would instead leave Israel standing and build their empire around Israel. It is using surrogates now, just like the Arabs have done ever since they found out that Israel had nukes.
Iran wants nukes because nukes give it the upper hand in any diplomatic exchanges with the Arabs. There's an argument to be made that once they have nukes, they don't have to worry as much about public opinion, and a nuclear Iran might even be less inclined to try to bloody Israel's nose. I wouldn't bet that way, but it's there as a real possibility.

As I stated, I think you are missing a big part of the picture here, including the religious aspects.
But we will just have to agree to disagree. I'm ok with that.
We just see this very differently.

And I think you are missing the ethnic parts. Most Americans don't understand that piece. I've never seen it well explained here. But you don't spend much time there without coming to understand it. I understand the religious part, it's just that I understand both the religious and the ethnic parts, and you have to understand both. My brother and I will fight my cousin, my cousin and I will fight the world, and Isaac and Ishmael were brothers.

Overall, I don't think we disagree as much as you seem to think we do. But I'll agree to disagree if that makes you happy.

(03-21-2015 02:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And I think you are missing the ethnic parts. Most Americans don't understand that piece. I've never seen it well explained here. But you don't spend much time there without coming to understand it. I understand the religious part, it's just that I understand both the religious and the ethnic parts, and you have to understand both. My brother and I will fight my cousin, my cousin and I will fight the world, and Isaac and Ishmael were brothers.

Overall, I don't think we disagree as much as you seem to think we do. But I'll agree to disagree if that makes you happy.

Well I don't see why it has to get personal with the snarky " if YOU think we disagree" and "if it makes you happy". No need for that. All I said is we disagree and I explained why in detail.

I'm well aware of the complexities of the region and Iran. The ethnic differences in Iran and within the Muslim religion itself are not a big secret these days. The information is at most peoples fingertips now.

But if you don't see Iran creating, funding and using multiple terrorist groups that are now surrounding Israel and waging proxy wars against them for 40+ years now, then you are missing a big part of this. If you don't see the power and influence they now have in Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, parts of Syria, if you don't see they way they have played their hand to help bring about the Arab Spring and many different fundamentalist groups throughout the region then I think you are missing a big part of the picture. You see Israel as a tangent of their movement. I see it a main objective, alongside establishing an empire. They go hand and hand. Everyone wants to establish and empire, that is not unique to Iran. Not everyone has a religious based 15+ century blood feud against the Jews, but many Muslims do.

Again, we just see this differently.

I remember asking one of my Iranian friends if horses were something that was a big part of the culture there. The reaction reminded me of the time I said the word "Mexican" around a Columbian woman I used to work with, and got a pretty good earful explaining that she was not from Mexico (and I could tell that from her accent, if not from her looks).

Religion, Ethnic, Tribal differences in that region seem such that they could be schoolmates, dinner guests one week, and beheading each other on youtube the next.

(03-21-2015 03:25 PM)I45owl Wrote:  I remember asking one of my Iranian friends if horses were something that was a big part of the culture there. The reaction reminded me of the time I said the word "Mexican" around a Columbian woman I used to work with, and got a pretty good earful explaining that she was not from Mexico (and I could tell that from her accent, if not from her looks).

Religion, Ethnic, Tribal differences in that region seem such that they could be schoolmates, dinner guests one week, and beheading each other on youtube the next.

And the survivors dinner guests again the following week.

(03-21-2015 03:23 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  But if you don't see Iran creating, funding and using multiple terrorist groups that are now surrounding Israel and waging proxy wars against them for 30+ years now, then you are missing a big part of this. If you don't see the power and influence they now have in Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, parts of Syria, if you don't see they way they have played their hand to help bring about the Arab Spring and many different fundamentalist groups throughout the region then I think you are missing a big part of the picture.

No, I see all that. All I am saying is that it is ALL part of their goal to recreate the Persian Empire. Their end goal is not destruction of Israel, in fact that may not even be a goal at all, except in an incidental way if it furthers their overarching purpose.

I believe that their primary objective in supporting surrogates to attack Israel is trying to work the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" angle to soften Arab resistance to Aryan domination (and Shia domination in the case of Sunni Muslims). That resistance will be stronger among the ruling classes, therefore the more unrest they can bring about in Arab countries, the better. Arab Spring played right into Iran's hands. As did our knocking off Saddam, and helping knock off Qaddafi, and acquiescing in the overthrow of Mubarak by the MB, and whatever it was that we did in Syria. We've pretty much been the anti-Midas over there--we've screwed up everything we've touched for decades.

As I say, I'm not really sure where you think we have this disagreement.

(03-21-2015 03:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  No, I see all that. All I am saying is that it is ALL part of their goal to recreate the Persian Empire. Their end goal is not destruction of Israel, in fact that may not even be a goal at all, except in an incidental way if it furthers their overarching purpose.

I believe that their primary objective in supporting surrogates to attack Israel is trying to work the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" angle to soften Arab resistance to Aryan domination (and Shia domination in the case of Sunni Muslims). That resistance will be stronger among the ruling classes, therefore the more unrest they can bring about in Arab countries, the better. Arab Spring played right into Iran's hands. As did our knocking off Saddam, and helping knock off Qaddafi, and acquiescing in the overthrow of Mubarak by the MB, and whatever it was that we did in Syria. We've pretty much been the anti-Midas over there--we've screwed up everything we've touched for decades.

As I say, I'm not really sure where you think we have this disagreement.

You just stated it in your first paragraph. lol

I could go on again but anything further at this point would just be repeating the same things for the 3rd time.

Oh well, we'll just have to agree to disagree that we disagreed.

Agreed?

(03-21-2015 03:48 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  You just stated it in your first paragraph. lol
I could go on again but anything further at this point would just be repeating that same things for the 3rd time.
Oh well, well just have to agree to disagree that we disagreed.
Agreed?

So you think their goal is simply the destruction of Israel and not the restoration of the Persian Empire?

There are a lot of Arab leaders who hope you are right, but don't believe that you are.

I guess I would ask then, why are they stirring up so much unrest in Arab countries? And why the name change from Persia?