Ten hours later...

The Full Profound Speech From Israeli PM Netanyahu

A real leader.....

(03-03-2015 03:24 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Now, being the CHILD that he is, Obama is cutting intelligence sharing with Israel as a result of the speech.

What a scumbag POS.

At least one review of Netanyahu's speech talked about how it seemed carefully crafted to not divulge information about the current negotiations or deal on the table.

I wonder if on the one hand, Obama set up Netanyahu to "not offer anything new" (because that would inevitably divulge information about the what is currently offered) so that he could subsequently rebuke him for doing what he demanded, while all the time planning on this intelligence shutout.

It seems in Obama's capricious nature.

(03-03-2015 03:26 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Last time I watched a speech to Congress, it was Tony Blair's address in June 2003. Agree or disagree with the substance of what he said, but simply as a speech, it was a masterpiece.

I agree that Blair's speeches to Parliament and Congress are among the greatest political speeches that I have ever seen (at least live).

(03-03-2015 03:28 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Netanyahu wants the U.S. to do what's best for Israel, regardless of any impact on the U.S.

The same is true of any other foreign leader, and it's true of what the US President wants other countries to do. The exception is Obama and his attitude toward America.

(03-03-2015 04:00 PM)Niner National Wrote:  My girlfriend's sister got her medical degree in Israel and spent 5 years living there (came back to the states in 2012). We've talked extensively about her time there. She said the majority of the people she met in Israel were "ethnically Jewish" but they weren't practicing Jews. They were Jewish in the same way people who celebrate christmas here but don't go to church are christians. Those people make up the majority of Israel and they are not fans of Netanyahu.

It is not the same - being Jewish means (1) ethnicity, (2) religion, and (3) you follow Jewish tradition and rituals. Secular Jews don't believe or follow the religious aspects but will still identify with both the ethnic and traditional aspects of being Jewish. The ethnic aspect of Jewishness has no corollary for Christianity or Islam.

Israel was essentially founded by secular Jews and their early politics especially were dominated by secular Jews.

(03-03-2015 04:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 03:40 PM)Niner National Wrote:  Great post. Destabilization in Arab nations is a great thing for Iran. Saddam gone was also a great thing for them as it allows them more influence in Iraq than they had before.

Our actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan greatly assisted Iran's ambitions

Probably lost in all of the recent discussion about negotiations with Iran were the fact that in a number of ways, Iran both co-operated and undermined the United States in both Iraq and Afghanistan - more cooperation in Afghanistan and more undermining in Iraq (post-2003, obviously they wanted Saddam gone).

(03-03-2015 05:18 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Iran is the largest sponsor of terrorism on the planet Tom.

In Iran's case, terrorism is just a tool of foreign policy, and it's cheaper than sending their own troops to fight in another country... consider terrorists analogous to mercenaries. That's not to minimize the depravity, just to put it in context as a means of foreign policy. After all, war is diplomacy by other means.

(03-03-2015 10:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 02:44 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 02:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here's my take on what's going on. Don't have a link, except to 45 years of experience dealing with the region in the military, on the job, and for holidays.
Iran's ultimate objective is not the destruction of Israel. Iran's ultimate objective is the restoration of the Persian Empire, from Istanbul to Kabul to Aden to Cairo. Now, Arab leaders aren't exactly onboard with that idea, particularly since they would lose their jobs in the process. But if Iran can unite the Arab in the streets against a common enemy--Israel--then they have a means to overthrow unwilling Arab leaders from within. If Israel attacks Iran, they will do so with the blessing of most Arab leaders, and probably with at least covert assistance from many of them. But the Arab general population will not lean the same way. And that is potentially very destabilizing to the entire area.
I have heard suggestions that Obama has decided to forge an alliance with Iran and is siding with them as a result. I don't know whether that is true or not, but it certainly explains some acts that are hard to understand otherwise.

I hardly disagree....but please explain why we shouldn't let them duke it out and deal it with it downstream?

I tend to favor letting them duke it out and dealing with it downstream. But there's one problem--oil. We don't really get that much from the region, but it's more than none. Get rid of our dependence on their oil, and we could severely reduce our profile in the area. Let China, India, and Japan take care of it.

Cut back consumption as much as we can, meet those consumption needs with green energy as much as possible, and to the extent that we have to rely on traditional sources, get that energy as cheaply and safely and securely as we can. That's why Keystone makes sense. But it's not going to happen until this administration is gone--if then.

I think more en macro so let me address from that perspective...

oil = money and control.....there is no doubt about the premise

who is controlling the region is why there are so many scared raghead/chicken heads running around and cutting the heads off

we are dealing with an uncivilized culture that has been trained to act like dogs.....and that 'goldmine' lies beneath their little toes

yet, there are those other than the mighty US that are waiting to pounce...and 'we' let 'them' back inside....I still want to shoot at Dwight's grave for not doing what he should have tried to accomplish what he was trained to do! There is only one reason he was elected.....and it was the wrong reason....

this is nothing more than a chess match....

the problem with the masses is that all media stories are developed whilst preying (self inflicted a pat-on-da-back with that pun) based on some belief pattern that involves "UTOPIA"......I've worked the equations out.....and I have yet to publish

hint: collateral damage is a non-issue

therein lies the overall issue IMO (being able to handle the being able to differentiate between 'matter')

disclaimer: I apologize if that's a tad arcane.....we see the same thing

kudos and

(03-04-2015 12:01 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  The Full Profound Speech From Israeli PM Netanyahu

A real leader.....

YEP! What a leader!

FLASHBACK: Netanyahu Said Iraq War Would Benefit The Middle East

How'd that work out for us?

(03-04-2015 08:46 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 03:24 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Now, being the CHILD that he is, Obama is cutting intelligence sharing with Israel as a result of the speech.

What a scumbag POS.

At least one review of Netanyahu's speech talked about how it seemed carefully crafted to not divulge information about the current negotiations or deal on the table.

I wonder if on the one hand, Obama set up Netanyahu to "not offer anything new" (because that would inevitably divulge information about the what is currently offered) so that he could subsequently rebuke him for doing what he demanded, while all the time planning on this intelligence shutout.

It seems in Obama's capricious nature.

(03-03-2015 03:26 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Last time I watched a speech to Congress, it was Tony Blair's address in June 2003. Agree or disagree with the substance of what he said, but simply as a speech, it was a masterpiece.

I agree that Blair's speeches to Parliament and Congress are among the greatest political speeches that I have ever seen (at least live).

(03-03-2015 03:28 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Netanyahu wants the U.S. to do what's best for Israel, regardless of any impact on the U.S.

The same is true of any other foreign leader, and it's true of what the US President wants other countries to do. The exception is Obama and his attitude toward America.

(03-03-2015 04:00 PM)Niner National Wrote:  My girlfriend's sister got her medical degree in Israel and spent 5 years living there (came back to the states in 2012). We've talked extensively about her time there. She said the majority of the people she met in Israel were "ethnically Jewish" but they weren't practicing Jews. They were Jewish in the same way people who celebrate christmas here but don't go to church are christians. Those people make up the majority of Israel and they are not fans of Netanyahu.

It is not the same - being Jewish means (1) ethnicity, (2) religion, and (3) you follow Jewish tradition and rituals. Secular Jews don't believe or follow the religious aspects but will still identify with both the ethnic and traditional aspects of being Jewish. The ethnic aspect of Jewishness has no corollary for Christianity or Islam.

Israel was essentially founded by secular Jews and their early politics especially were dominated by secular Jews.

(03-03-2015 04:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 03:40 PM)Niner National Wrote:  Great post. Destabilization in Arab nations is a great thing for Iran. Saddam gone was also a great thing for them as it allows them more influence in Iraq than they had before.

Our actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan greatly assisted Iran's ambitions

Probably lost in all of the recent discussion about negotiations with Iran were the fact that in a number of ways, Iran both co-operated and undermined the United States in both Iraq and Afghanistan - more cooperation in Afghanistan and more undermining in Iraq (post-2003, obviously they wanted Saddam gone).

(03-03-2015 05:18 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Iran is the largest sponsor of terrorism on the planet Tom.

In Iran's case, terrorism is just a tool of foreign policy, and it's cheaper than sending their own troops to fight in another country... consider terrorists analogous to mercenaries. That's not to minimize the depravity, just to put it in context as a means of foreign policy. After all, war is diplomacy by other means.

C'mon. Democrats get ridiculed if they don't do what Netanyahu wants, but what he wants has nothing to do with what's best for the U.S. Same as everybody else, including Obama. Obama wasn't the one that invaded Iraq for god knows what reason, since it changed every week. He pulled out and now that a different group of people (other than Saddam) is killing and torturing people, now it's our fault. And Saddam was our buddy for quite a while, even while using chemical weapons on people. And yet you claim that Obama is the only one that doesn't want what makes sense for his own country. You can disagree with him, but he still does have more info at his disposal than we do.

It was a political speech for those back in Israel. However, once Susan Rice was trotted out there last weekend, it became twisted in our political machine. Great speech, but zero effect for those of us here.

(03-03-2015 12:45 PM)ARandomHerdFan Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 12:27 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 12:21 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 12:15 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 11:59 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Easy to see why Obama threw such a fit over this speech. A REAL leader gave a speech that wowed everyone, including Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. The Dems that boycotted this speech are squirming now. It will not go well for them.

He would make an incredible President. He is a pro vs. the community organizer.

His religious focus aside, Netanyahu represents perhaps another iteration of the world leaders that perpetuate the conflicts we see all around the "hot conflict zones" today, just like Iran's Supreme Leader and the Saudi royal family.

Yea, Israel is the one attacking their neighbors first and unprovoked. I swear your Jew hating liberals never cease to amaze me at how dense you are on Israel. Your love of radical Muslims and Palestinian terrorists is just too much for you to overcome.

Would you care to provide an example of where a liberal on this board said that they hated Jewish people?

Apprently, the answer to that question is "no".

(03-05-2015 10:24 AM)ARandomHerdFan Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 12:45 PM)ARandomHerdFan Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 12:27 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 12:21 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 12:15 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  He would make an incredible President. He is a pro vs. the community organizer.

His religious focus aside, Netanyahu represents perhaps another iteration of the world leaders that perpetuate the conflicts we see all around the "hot conflict zones" today, just like Iran's Supreme Leader and the Saudi royal family.

Yea, Israel is the one attacking their neighbors first and unprovoked. I swear your Jew hating liberals never cease to amaze me at how dense you are on Israel. Your love of radical Muslims and Palestinian terrorists is just too much for you to overcome.

Would you care to provide an example of where a liberal on this board said that they hated Jewish people?

Apprently, the answer to that question is "no".

They really hate it when you destroy their memes.

(03-05-2015 10:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 10:24 AM)ARandomHerdFan Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 12:45 PM)ARandomHerdFan Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 12:27 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 12:21 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  His religious focus aside, Netanyahu represents perhaps another iteration of the world leaders that perpetuate the conflicts we see all around the "hot conflict zones" today, just like Iran's Supreme Leader and the Saudi royal family.

Yea, Israel is the one attacking their neighbors first and unprovoked. I swear your Jew hating liberals never cease to amaze me at how dense you are on Israel. Your love of radical Muslims and Palestinian terrorists is just too much for you to overcome.

Would you care to provide an example of where a liberal on this board said that they hated Jewish people?

Apprently, the answer to that question is "no".

They really hate it when you destroy their memes.

As counterpoint, would you care to provide an example of where a conservative on this board said that they hated African-Americans?

The point is that no one, would ever post a comment like that. It doesn't mean that they don't hate Israel or AFs.

(03-03-2015 05:37 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  A class I had in college presented in the exact opposite. Sunni's more modern. Shia fundamentalists. This actually surprises me quite a bit that you present it the way you do.

I tend to see it that was as well. The Turkish girl I dated was sunni so I mainly learned about that stuff from that perspective. Pretty sure there are traditionalist/fundamentalist on both sides though.

He had no business being in our congress or speaking to them. The right hates Obama for ignoring rules, decorum, and the like but celebrate themselves when they do it. Hypocrisy at its finest!

I think what difficult to appreciate is that America really has multiple options across the entire spectrum, from doing nothing and reacting when Iran goes sideways to pitting multiple states against one another or invading and destroying Iran's physical capacity for nuclear warfare.

With the negative reception that America's overseas presence has been getting of late, I'm quite content with pulling back and focusing on the US intercept capacity until we're politely asked to come back out and 'patrol the streets.'

(03-05-2015 12:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  He had no business being in our congress or speaking to them. The right hates Obama for ignoring rules, decorum, and the like but celebrate themselves when they do it. Hypocrisy at its finest!

What would the right's reaction have been if the President of France was brought in to address Congress about Bush not getting us involved in the Iraq war?

(03-05-2015 12:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 12:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  He had no business being in our congress or speaking to them. The right hates Obama for ignoring rules, decorum, and the like but celebrate themselves when they do it. Hypocrisy at its finest!

What would the right's reaction have been if the President of France was brought in to address Congress about Bush not getting us involved in the Iraq war?

It already happened... George Galloway spoke in front of a joint session of Congress about precisely that (5/7/05), and the left absolutely adored him after the speech....

Bush didn't try to stop it... and he didn't whine about how it wasn't "right" to have him there.

So pardon me for thinking the lefties need to shut the hell up with their whining about Netanyahu.

(03-05-2015 01:19 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 12:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 12:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  He had no business being in our congress or speaking to them. The right hates Obama for ignoring rules, decorum, and the like but celebrate themselves when they do it. Hypocrisy at its finest!

What would the right's reaction have been if the President of France was brought in to address Congress about Bush not getting us involved in the Iraq war?

It already happened... George Galloway spoke in front of a joint session of Congress about precisely that (5/7/05), and the left absolutely adored him after the speech....

Bush didn't try to stop it... and he didn't whine about how it wasn't "right" to have him there.

So pardon me for thinking the lefties need to shut the hell up with their whining about Netanyahu.

2005? The Iraq war started in 2003.

And Galloway was a member of the British Parliament and he testified at a Senate hearing led by a Republican regarding the Oil for food scandal. He didn't address a joint session of Congress. And the testimony took place on May 17th.

But hey...you spelled his name right. Geez.

(03-04-2015 04:26 PM)fsquid Wrote:  It was a political speech for those back in Israel. However, once Susan Rice was trotted out there last weekend, it became twisted in our political machine. Great speech, but zero effect for those of us here.

Maybe it's just me, but wouldn't it have served Obama better to give that little speech himself, rather than have Rice give it?

(03-05-2015 01:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:19 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 12:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 12:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  He had no business being in our congress or speaking to them. The right hates Obama for ignoring rules, decorum, and the like but celebrate themselves when they do it. Hypocrisy at its finest!

What would the right's reaction have been if the President of France was brought in to address Congress about Bush not getting us involved in the Iraq war?

It already happened... George Galloway spoke in front of a joint session of Congress about precisely that (5/7/05), and the left absolutely adored him after the speech....

Bush didn't try to stop it... and he didn't whine about how it wasn't "right" to have him there.

So pardon me for thinking the lefties need to shut the hell up with their whining about Netanyahu.

2005? The Iraq war started in 2003.

And Galloway was a member of the British Parliament and he testified at a Senate hearing led by a Republican regarding the Oil for food scandal. He didn't address a joint session of Congress. And the testimony took place on May 17th.

But hey...you spelled his name right. Geez.

And he went off on a rant about how we shouldn't be in Iraq, Tom.... Hell, that was his entire 'argument' that the US govt was "acting for oil companies by being in Iraq". (Remember, he accused the US GOVERNMENT of stealing $8.8Bn dollars from Iraq?) Cause FOX news pretty much ripped into him, while MSNBC defended him after the speech.

That was the major dividing line when FOX news and MSNBC both actually drew up their political stances, and refused to budge on their opinions.

Oh wow.. i missed the date by 10 days... Woe is me!!!

And you're right, he was called to testify in front of the Senate not the entire Congress (although it got as much news-coverage as the PM's speech did).

(03-05-2015 12:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  He had no business being in our congress or speaking to them. The right hates Obama for ignoring rules, decorum, and the like but celebrate themselves when they do it. Hypocrisy at its finest!

I actually have no problem with it. Even if it was a democrat controlled congress wanting to call in someone. We have 3 branches of government for checks and balances. I think the legislative branch which makes laws has just as much a right to invite foreign diplomats to speak as the executive branch does. I don't think we should hold the executive branch to some higher standard in this regard.

(03-05-2015 01:37 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 12:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  He had no business being in our congress or speaking to them. The right hates Obama for ignoring rules, decorum, and the like but celebrate themselves when they do it. Hypocrisy at its finest!

I actually have no problem with it. Even if it was a democrat controlled congress wanting to call in someone. We have 3 branches of government for checks and balances. I think the legislative branch which makes laws has just as much a right to invite foreign diplomats to speak as the executive branch does. I don't think we should hold the executive branch to some higher standard in this regard.

Bringing in a foreign leader in the way they did weakens the systems of checks and balances.

Foreign policy is entirely in the realm of the President, not Congress.

Bringing people like this in just politicizes a process outside of Congress' direct control. That isn't good for our government. The framer's specifically put foreign policy in the hands of the executive so that our foreign policy wouldn't be politicized.

The Republicans were wrong on this one, in just about every way. Celebrating them for it shows great disregard for the system of checks and balances you mentioned.