Obama's Iran talks

[Valsuelm]

How is Israel trying to get the goyim to work for it news?

 

Well, most goyim don't even realize what they are.

 

That said, what recently happened is news. Bibi's speech is nothing new, but the circumstances the speech was given under, and the divide, whether real or manufactured for political theater, is unusual.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Rostere]

 

 

Ah, yes... The speech famously known as the "Looney Tunes speech" for the cartoonish imagery.

 

 

[The Israelis] themselves had a useful relationship with Iran up until the Iranian revolution, and they know the country well. Whatever Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu might tell journalists, I don’t think he actually believes that he can permanently prevent some degree of American-Iranian rapprochement. He may, however, be demanding a bribe for his eventual acquiescence: All right, you will have a deal with Iran. Now, what are you going to give me in return? More West Bank settlements, more and cheaper armaments, more intelligence-sharing?

 

Source: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/warming-to-iran/383512/

 

I absolutely *DO NOT* object to the latter two, especially as it pertains to actual existential threats to Israel, but if it undermines the first, then forget it.

 

The truth is that illegal settlement construction, forced relocation on an ethnic basis and land confiscations is already at an all-time high, Obama can't give Netanyahu anything in that regard...

 

Yea... it remains to be seen if alienating much of his base with his endorsement of Romney and Israel will hurt or help him more.

 

I went to see Ron Paul speak last year. The crowd of course was made up almost entirely of people who like what he says. He got lots of applause over the course of his speech and some standing ovations. On two issues only, he got a lukewarm at best response from the crowd. One was his discussion of the issue of abortion and 'a woman's right to choose', and the other was his son. The crowd was more receptive to the former. Each of the few times he tried to promote his son the crowd's applause level shank very noticeably. Prior to Rand coming out for Romney or Israel that would not have happened. And in fact it is a great point of consternation for many Ron Paul fans that Rand doesn't have his father's integrity and/or views.

 

So Rand has likely lost a lot of votes with his pandering. Will he get more than he lost from the pandering? We'll find out next year.

 

Rand Paul is running for president. He's pandering. Expect more pandering until he wins the republican nomination or fails to obtain it.

 

Here is a must-read article about this article about Rand Paul's "Israel Problem". Apparently Paul "only gave a Citizen Kane applause", "clapped to slowly", "appeared unenthusiastic" and is thus completely blowing his chances of Republican donor support. He defends himself by saying that he gave "Netanyahu 50 standing ovations". Apparently that's not enough.

 

I can't help but feel sorry for the Republican party being hostage to such a narrow and dangerous special interest group. Following this, Republican candidate in 2016 will be someone who has at least said implicitly that they will take military action against Iran - and there's not much anyone can do about this, unless they have .

 

Yeah so he should suck the **** of the man who prefers to support the country that wants to destroy his country. That's ludicrous. Anyone who defends  any pro Iran stance is evil. This is a country who publicly declares theya re going to wipe other countries off the map.  They should be treated exactly the way NK is not worth negoiations.  The US has made about a billion 'deals' with Iran and Iran has basically laughed at every single of them more than willing to break them. They'll do the same with the current deal about to be agreed on.

 

Let's not twist words. The original quote about "wiping off the map" means just that in the same sense that Reagan wanted to "wipe East Germany off the map". You can see here how the Iranian government erected a monument to the Iranian Jews who died fighting for Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. Iranian influence throughout the Middle East is actually rather positive if we compare to countries like Saudi Arabia who is constantly leaking money to headchoppers seemingly by the amount of minorities they want to kill/enslave. We have Hezbollah (which much to the dismay of Lebanese Sunni have been in a very successful coalition with Lebanese Christians since 2005), we have Iranian influence in Afghanistan acting as a "moderating and stabilizing force" as per Western media, and Iran and the US are de facto allies in the fight against ISIS. The only dividing issue is the status of the Palestinian people. Plus the fact that Iran is also an ally of Assad, who is a crackpot dictator.

 

Open trade and diplomatic relations with Iran instead.

 

Yes, I think this is inevitable, but it also a matter of quite some time. I've always found the idea that the US has an amicable relationship with Saudi Arabia but not Iran to be laughable, considering the influences of their respective countries. Iran is clearly a country that represents a traditionally secular part of the Muslim world, which has sadly come under the rule of a very religious movement. The revolution in Iran against the Shah (who was put on the throne in a Western-supported coup) was made by both socialists, Shia Islamists and republican nationalists. As with all violent revolutions, the power is often in the end grabbed by the most motivated group, in this case the Islamists (who also had the most support in rural parts). The illusion that the other secular factions would get any say disappeared soon. Still, there exists divisions to this day - firstly within the clerical establishment (of course), and between the Basij militia (IMO the dangerous component of Iranian politics) and the political class. Crucially, the protests after the 2009 elections must be viewed in the light of Basij putting down protests against their pet candidate Ahmadinejad. As such I think Iran is on the right path now, and it's only a question of time before they will produce an Iranian Gorbachev, at which point we much hope that the Basij militia's influence is not too strong.

 

EDIT: Oh, and everybody should see this:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv7tK2JD6Gg

Edited March 4, 2015 by Rostere

[HoonDing]

I googled that pic because I thought it had to be shopped... yeah.

[Rostere]

"The Republican Love Affair with Bibi Netanyahu"

 

"I’m afraid the issue here is war and peace…  I didn’t hear him once offer a sound proposal besides war. Because all he said was you can’t cut a deal, any deal is bad. He basically said that. You can’t get a better deal! He treats us like rubes. You don’t think we’re not trying to get the best possible deal, come on!…

 

I think it was a terrible precedent. I tell you, This is going to be remembered. This is going to be remembered as a very dark day for American democracy when you bring a foreign leader in to try and displace the American leader. Obama sets our foreign policy, not Netanyahu."

 

All I'm thinking about is how awful it must be to be a Republican sympathizer in this age of Sheldon Adelson. Seeing the reactions to this speech, any Republican presidential candidate in 2016 will be for the use of force (i.e. war) against Iran. A pity if you like the economic side of their politics.

[Namutree]

"The Republican Love Affair with Bibi Netanyahu"

 

"I’m afraid the issue here is war and peace…  I didn’t hear him once offer a sound proposal besides war. Because all he said was you can’t cut a deal, any deal is bad. He basically said that. You can’t get a better deal! He treats us like rubes. You don’t think we’re not trying to get the best possible deal, come on!…

 

I think it was a terrible precedent. I tell you, This is going to be remembered. This is going to be remembered as a very dark day for American democracy when you bring a foreign leader in to try and displace the American leader. Obama sets our foreign policy, not Netanyahu."

 

All I'm thinking about is how awful it must be to be a Republican sympathizer in this age of Sheldon Adelson. Seeing the reactions to this speech, any Republican presidential candidate in 2016 will be for the use of force (i.e. war) against Iran. A pity if you like the economic side of their politics.

They don't have to be for war with Iran. They can just ignore what he said. I think you are overestimating the importance of this speech and the republican reaction to it. They just want to be seen as pro-Israel as possible. Most of them know better than to start a war with Iran.

[Guard Dog]

Comrade Obama continue deliver lulz for us

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/191966#.VPRDdUmaXQd

 

Obama Threatened to Shoot Down IAF Iran Strike

 

 

Win of US elections by Obama is a best operation of KGB/FSB forever.

I KNEW it! 

[Rostere]

I'd agree with that based on common sense, but history tells me otherwise.

[Namutree]

I'd agree with that based on common sense, but history tells me otherwise.

War with Iran is not politically viable. They won't try it. Put your fears to rest.

[Namutree]

Rand Paul trying to spin this as a call for more negotiation.

[Guard Dog]

That "letter" was a stupid thing to do. We have our quibbles here at home. We've even resorted to shooting at each other in the past and probably will again in the future. But goddamit when it comes to dealing with a foreign government we put up a untied front behind the President. Even if he is an incompetent jackass. You don't publically cut his legs out like that. 

 

Of course the Dems were all just as happy a pigs in ---- when Teddy Kennedy did it to Regan with the USSR.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Or Bonyer and Kerry with Sandanistas, or a dozen other examples. Obola stated he's going to ignore Congress when making a treaty, a direct violation of the Constitution. The letter is a result of that. Anyway, negotiating a nuclear treaty with Iran is much like negotiating a nuclear treaty with Al Qaeda or IS.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Republicans taking a dig at Obama to please their Israeli masters allies isn't surprising at all, but that letter sucked because it read like it was written by high school girls. Is it too much to ask for our politicians to put some effort into their insults?

[Hurlshort]

 Anyway, negotiating a nuclear treaty with Iran is much like negotiating a nuclear treaty with Al Qaeda or IS.

 

I certainly don't trust Iran, but that is a ridiculous thing to say.  It's up there with the folks who compare the US to an Imperial power of the 19th century.

[Volourn]

No, it isn't.  How many nuclear deals have the US and Iran agreed to already? A dozen/ How many of them have actually  done anything worthwhile? ZERO. Or else we wouldn't be talking about them making yet another deal. Plus, Iran is a country that mass murders their own  citizens,  have their hands in so many meat pies (probably just as much as the Great Satan in the ME), the fact they want to wipte entire nations off the map, etc., etc. Iran  gov't 9as opposed to the people) is pure garbage. Throw them in the garbage with NK, ISIS, and AQ.

 

Bottom line is that any deal 'made' with them will be broken by them or be so twisted that it will be completely infectual.

[Wrath of Dagon]

@Hurl What's ridiculous about it? You don't know Iran is number one terror sponsoring state, and their ideology is the same as AQ and IS, except it's the Shiite variety? Edit: It'll work about as well as the N Korean nuclear negotiations.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Wrath of Dagon

[BruceVC]

No, it isn't.  How many nuclear deals have the US and Iran agreed to already? A dozen/ How many of them have actually  done anything worthwhile? ZERO. Or else we wouldn't be talking about them making yet another deal. Plus, Iran is a country that mass murders their own  citizens,  have their hands in so many meat pies (probably just as much as the Great Satan in the ME), the fact they want to wipte entire nations off the map, etc., etc. Iran  gov't 9as opposed to the people) is pure garbage. Throw them in the garbage with NK, ISIS, and AQ.

 

Bottom line is that any deal 'made' with them will be broken by them or be so twisted that it will be completely infectual.

 

 

@Hurl What's ridiculous about it? You don't know Iran is number one terror sponsoring state, and their ideology is the same as AQ and IS, except it's the Shiite variety? Edit: It'll work about as well as the N Korean nuclear negotiations.

 

No you guys are horribly misinformed if you really consider Iran the same as ISIS or Al-Qaeda, there are many differences that include 

 

• Firstly Iranians aren't even Arabs, they are Persians
• Iran is a sovereign  and internationally recognized country, it has its own boarders and political aspirations. ISIS and AQ have none of these
• Iran like every country has moderates and hardliners in its government. There are people in Iran that want peaceful  Uranium enrichment and an end to sanctions
• ISIS and AQ have no reasonable political objectives that any government will agree to  

 

I'm not saying that Iran is is peaceful and benign country, there history and current activities have clearly demonstrated this is not the case

 

 But they really should  not be considered a country of irreconcilable Islamic extremists  because that view would be unhelpful to important peace negotiations 

 

The reality is you can negotiate with Iran and find compromise, you cannot negotiate with the likes of ISIS or AQ 

[Zoraptor]

The number 1 terror sponsoring state is Saudi Arabia, and by a fair distance. Which is jolly inconvenient, so generally ignored.

[BruceVC]

The number 1 terror sponsoring state is Saudi Arabia, and by a fair distance. Which is jolly inconvenient, so generally ignored.

 

I wish you would stop saying that, these types of posts imply that the current Saudi government is actively funding terrorism. Wealthy Saudis support and fund different types of extremism  but that's not the same thing as the Saudi government supporting them

 

Saudi Arabia has been an ally to the West in fighting Islamic extremism, they have arrested hundreds of extremists within there own country and given the West information about extremist plots. And yes its not because Saudi Arabia loves the West its about self-preservation as the House of Saud is also a target of the ideological objectives of AQ and ISIS

 

So in summary Saudi Arabia is a friend to the West in the War on Terror even though it may not seem like it is at times 

Edited March 11, 2015 by BruceVC

[Namutree]

 

No you guys are horribly misinformed if you really consider Iran the same as ISIS or Al-Qaeda, there are many differences that include 

 

• Firstly Iranians aren't even Arabs, they are Persians

I don't see the importance of this particular difference. 

[BruceVC]

 

 

No you guys are horribly misinformed if you really consider Iran the same as ISIS or Al-Qaeda, there are many differences that include 

 

• Firstly Iranians aren't even Arabs, they are Persians

I don't see the importance of this particular difference. 

 

 

People think that Iran is the same ethnic group as other countries in the  Middle East, they aren't. They are Persians and do see themselves historically different and they have there own political agenda which is understandable 

 

So for example if you look at the original 9/11 hijackers not one of them was Iranian, this should tell us that when it comes to Iran we can't see them as following the same ideology as ISIS or AQ. That's why it is significant 

[Meshugger]

 

 

No you guys are horribly misinformed if you really consider Iran the same as ISIS or Al-Qaeda, there are many differences that include 

 

• Firstly Iranians aren't even Arabs, they are Persians

I don't see the importance of this particular difference. 

 

 

French, German, same difference. 

[Rostere]

This new letter from Republicans implicitly addressed at the Iranian opposition (the people who do not endorse a deal), is ridiculous. It's like if Cold War Republicans had addressed SU hardliners, saying that it was no point negotiating with Kennedy about putting nukes on Cuba. Suddenly the charade that they actually want to solve a problem drops. When they make common cause with the most hardline nationalist forces in Iran, you know something is seriously wrong.

Pro-Western secular Iranians: Want an agreement on nuclear power.
Moderate Iranians: Want an agreement on nuclear power.
Hardline Nationalist Iranians: Want to sabotage the agreement on nuclear power.
Republicans: Want to sabotage the agreement on nuclear power.
Democrats: Want an agreement on nuclear power.

 

Great job Republicans.

OK, wait. It's unfair to lump all Republicans together. The culprits (who might already have thought about how stupid this letter was) are bought and paid for by the same guys who have repeatedly advocated bombing Iran in the past and originally advocated the Iraq war. The pro-Israel lobby, a.k.a. the "war on everything in the Middle East" mafia. When will people ever learn?
 

French, German, same difference.

 
The difference is more like between, say, Arabs and Greeks.
 

@Hurl What's ridiculous about it? You don't know Iran is number one terror sponsoring state, and their ideology is the same as AQ and IS, except it's the Shiite variety? Edit: It'll work about as well as the N Korean nuclear negotiations.

 

Oh boy.

[HoonDing]

 

 

No you guys are horribly misinformed if you really consider Iran the same as ISIS or Al-Qaeda, there are many differences that include 

 

• Firstly Iranians aren't even Arabs, they are Persians

I don't see the importance of this particular difference. 

 

Persians are Aryans.

[BruceVC]

Pro-Western secular Iranians: Want an agreement on nuclear power.

Moderate Iranians: Want an agreement on nuclear power.

Hardline Nationalist Iranians: Want to sabotage the agreement on nuclear power.

Republicans: Want to sabotage the agreement on nuclear power.

Democrats: Want an agreement on nuclear power.

 

 

 

This is an accurate  breakdown of the various political groups and there vested interests in the outcome of  the Iranian negotiations 

Edited March 11, 2015 by BruceVC

[Guard Dog]

Bruce, I honestly do not think Obama cares is Iran gets nuclear weapons or not. He just wants to be seen doing "something" about it. It makes no difference to him if the deal he agrees to is weak, non-binding, or if Iran is duplicitous. He just does not want history to say he did nothing. Obama is a perfect example of the modern bureaucratic dysfunction of the process being more important than the outcome.