Page 8 of 14 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 201

Thread: Netanyahu Addresses Congress

  1. #106
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Te Whanganui a-Tara, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,870
    Quote Originally Posted by Duellist View Post
    I wasn't aware that the adversarial system of politics in a parliamentary system includes getting foreign leaders in to undercut the PM...

    In fact, the Westminster system is almost an elected dictatorship, as the executive and legislature are fused. By contrast, the American system offers greater political autonomy to its' components- at the expense of frequent gridlock. I'm not seeing an imperial Presidency here, just a partisan attempt to embarrass and undermine a Democratic President.
    So UKIP, Labour and even the SD's don't take every opportunity to undermine the 'Conservative' party that currently holds treasury? That's what you seemed to be implying in your previous post.
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

    Leibniz

  2. #107
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Te Whanganui a-Tara, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,870
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis View Post
    Well that's reassuring I suppose. Good to know everything's well with the world.
    Just to let you know, you're talking with someone (Officer of Engineers) who was specifically tasked with doing precisely that.
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

    Leibniz

  3. #108
    Regular
    Join Date
    09 Feb 14
    Location
    Essex, UK
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    So UKIP, Labour and even the SD's don't take every opportunity to undermine the 'Conservative' party that currently holds treasury? That's what you seemed to be implying in your previous post.
    Not by invoking a foreign leader to inject himself into domestic debate.

  4. #109
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Te Whanganui a-Tara, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,870
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

    Leibniz

  5. #110
    Regular
    Join Date
    06 Aug 14
    Location
    New Zealand.
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by GVChamp View Post
    Why wouldn't I lose sleep? They have attacked us for decades and we caught them red-handed trying to make nukes. Story, End of. We're already giving them a chance to comply with safeguards, and that assuages any moral concerns I have.
    As for the Pacific: who cares? You need us more than we need you.
    Winning friends and influencing people.

  6. #111
    Regular
    Join Date
    06 Aug 14
    Location
    New Zealand.
    Posts
    87
    Look I'm not a hippie. I get nukes are part of the real world. Some people have that as their job, such is life. And I've read this board for years, I know who he is- I read his commentary with interest. But you don't have to go too far down the right wing rabbit hole before the old "turn them into a sheet of glass" comment comes up. It's disturbing when people can be so relaxed about destroying an entire nation and poisoning the Middle East and destroying the entire world order in a nuclear holocaust.

  7. #112
    Senior Contributor GVChamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    26 Aug 06
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,628
    I like my rabbit hole! Iran is a nation of 75 million people that has continually attacked me and mine. We caught them in violation of nuclear safeguard agreements and secretly operating nuclear sites. The IAEA says they were trying to build a bomb. This is all on the record. They've had more than a DECADE to comply with the international community on this issue. I am not concerned because Iran is a rogue state that refuses to verify it ain't building nukes and has no problem killing the boys in red/white/blue. So why would I have a problem killing them? And why would I feel bad using the best weapons for the job, that I am legally allowed to use because they violated the NPT?
    "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

  8. #113
    Global Moderator Defense Professional JAD_333's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 07
    Location
    Corpus Christi, Texas
    Posts
    11,214
    Had to remind myself this morning of the title of this thread.

    It was set up so could discuss the likely outcome of Bibi's oratory before Congress the other day.

    As for the ins and outs of the invitation itself, while they are worthy of discussion, they don't have much bearing on the outcome of negotiations. But, hey, we always live with the tendency for discussion to slip sideways a bit. A little is okay, but it would be good to come back to the main question.

    Bibi says the proposed agreement is really just a pathway for Iran to obtain nukes, that Iran will simply pick up where it left off in 10 years time and have a bomb within a year.

    This, of course, presupposes that we won't be watching to see if that happens and take action to prevent it. But, by that time, Bibi argues, Iran's economy will have recovered and it won't be so easy to deter her from building a bomb.

    So, there's one question: How do we deal with an Iran that 10 years later starts building nukes? What could we do about it?

    Bibi's thinking reflects exposure to statecraft Middle-East style. Israel may be isolated within the ME, but it is not ignorant of the ways of ME politics. Bibi's speech the other day communicated (as nice as he could) that Obama and the west in general is rather naive about the ME ways, and thus it follows that an agreement with Iran fashioned by powers outside the US is a fool's bargain. You get the rug, but you pay twice the price.

    But Obama and other world leaders cannot be that naive, can they? They have advisers, intelligence assets and scholars around them to explain to them the Arab-Persian mindset and to steer them in the right direction. So, how can Bibi claim to see what we don't see?

    Anyway, here's what is likely to happen. Iran will agree to a deal, with some provisions now known and some not (Obama hinted at that). Obama, in accordance with the constitution, will submit it to the Senate for 'advice and consent'. The Senate will send it to committee. Hearings will ensue. Meanwhile pro and con organizations will take their case public. The media will have a field day. Senators will wear a path to the White House for meetings with the president.

    In the end, the Senate will consent to the treaty. Why? Here are some of the reasons one comes across reading articles and speeches:
    1) Russia, China and perhaps other countries will very likely withdraw support for sanctions;
    2) Iran is already major player in the ME and won't change even if sanctions continue;
    3) the alternative may be war with Iran which would further deteriorate US influence in the ME;
    4) Iran has rights under the NPT like all other member nations and to deny them would cause them to quit the NPT leaving us more blind to their refinement activities;
    5) Iran may increase its support for groups threatening Israel and US interest in the ME;
    6) and generally Iran will become more of the problem and less of the solution in striking a balance of power in the region

    There are probably more reasons. Add to them if you know others and knock down those you think are weak or ridiculous. Explaining your reasons would be good, too.
    Last edited by JAD_333; 07 Mar 15, at 23:09.
    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

  9. #114
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    14,142
    JAD,

    you're right, time to get back to the thread...

    Netanyahu Doubles Down Against Obama With PowerPoint On Perils Of Affordable Care Act

    WASHINGTON—In what is being regarded as a further provocation on top of his already controversial address before Congress, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu doubled down against President Obama Tuesday with a PowerPoint presentation on the perils of the Affordable Care Act. “As you’ll see here in this chart, Obamacare restricts freedom of choice for people who were previously insured through their employers, while simultaneously causing insurance companies to raise their premiums,” said Netanyahu, who according to witnesses had finished his original speech criticizing Obama’s opposition to further Iran sanctions and immediately announced he would be discussing the president’s “fatally flawed and unconstitutional” health care overhaul. “Now, if we click over to the next slide, we see that the individual mandate forces many Americans to purchase insurance policies they cannot afford or simply don’t want. Why should the government be making our health care decisions for us?” At press time, Netanyahu was asking if he might have a few more minutes for an abbreviated version of his PowerPoint on the troubling unanswered questions that still surrounded Benghazi.







    Netanyahu Doubles Down Against Obama With PowerPoint On Perils Of Affordable Care Act | The Onion - America's Finest News Source
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  10. #115
    Global Moderator Defense Professional JAD_333's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 07
    Location
    Corpus Christi, Texas
    Posts
    11,214
    Asty:

    May I ask my esteemed colleague from the great County of Arlington, if he meant that as ridicule toward my plaintive call for us to focus on a serious issue facing this great nation, and indeed the whole world. Or was he merely awaiting an opportunity to inject some humor into the discussion. In either case it does not speak well of a member of this great body. But I have to say, it was pretty damn funny.
    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

  11. #116
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by GVChamp View Post
    Why wouldn't I lose sleep? They have attacked us for decades and we caught them red-handed trying to make nukes. Story, End of. We're already giving them a chance to comply with safeguards, and that assuages any moral concerns I have.
    As for the Pacific: who cares? You need us more than we need you.
    To be fair, we attacked them first in the 50s by toppling over a democratically elected government and installed a power crazy dictator who had a fondness of torturing people and when they toppled that dictator, we encouraged the next door dictator to punish Iran and kill as many people as he could.

  12. #117
    Idiot Mode [ON] OFF Senior Contributor YellowFever's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 Jul 06
    Posts
    6,094
    Quote Originally Posted by JAD_333 View Post
    Asty:

    May I ask my esteemed colleague from the great County of Arlington, if he meant that as ridicule toward my plaintive call for us to focus on a serious issue facing this great nation, and indeed the whole world. Or was he merely awaiting an opportunity to inject some humor into the discussion. In either case it does not speak well of a member of this great body. But I have to say, it was pretty damn funny.


    Oh, come on, JAD.

    A dick measuring contest between Obama and Bibi was brought up as a retort, not to mention goat sacrifices in the Oval Office.

    This couldn't possibly become any more dumber.

    You're asking too much when you ask for a serious conversation.
    Last edited by YellowFever; 08 Mar 15, at 00:20.

  13. #118
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    10,514
    Quote Originally Posted by JAD_333 View Post
    It was set up so could discuss the likely outcome of Bibi's oratory before Congress the other day.
    Still too early to tell. i don't know if there will be an agreement by this month or not. in which case it goes up to the end of june or not. Its already on an extension to this month end.

    How do we deal with an Iran that 10 years later starts building nukes? What could we do about it?
    if the first ten years go as planned then the next ten years won't be an issue. What Iran wants to do is covered by the NPT anyway. The big question is will they have earned the trust of the world or not. I can't say how the deal will go so wondering what happens ten years out is out fo range.

    Bibi's thinking reflects exposure to statecraft Middle-East style. Israel may be isolated within the ME, but it is not ignorant of the ways of ME politics. Bibi's speech the other day communicated (as nice as he could) that Obama and the west in general is rather naive about the ME ways, and thus it follows that an agreement with Iran fashioned by powers outside the US is a fool's bargain. You get the rug, but you pay twice the price.
    lets see if the deal can be made first. This deal btw is already ten years over due. It should have been finished when Khatami was in office.

    Anyway, here's what is likely to happen. Iran will agree to a deal, with some provisions now known and some not (Obama hinted at that). Obama, in accordance with the constitution, will submit it to the Senate for 'advice and consent'. The Senate will send it to committee. Hearings will ensue. Meanwhile pro and con organizations will take their case public. The media will have a field day. Senators will wear a path to the White House for meetings with the president.

    In the end, the Senate will consent to the treaty. Why? Here are some of the reasons one comes across reading articles and speeches:
    1) Russia, China and perhaps other countries will very likely withdraw support for sanctions;
    2) Iran is already major player in the ME and won't change even if sanctions continue;
    3) the alternative may be war with Iran which would further deteriorate US influence in the ME;
    4) Iran has rights under the NPT like all other member nations and to deny them would cause them to quit the NPT leaving us more blind to their refinement activities;
    5) Iran may increase its support for groups threatening Israel and US interest in the ME;
    6) and generally Iran will become more of the problem and less of the solution in striking a balance of power in the region

    There are probably more reasons. Add to them if you know others and knock down those you think are weak or ridiculous. Explaining your reasons would be good, too.
    I hope iran will agree. I hope what the americans offer amounts to more than diamonds in exchange for peanuts.

    nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
    That's a pretty high bar to meet. what is everything ? This same terminology has condemned israel & the pals to never succeeding with agreements because they can never agree on what 'everything' is.

    An all or nothing approach is the biggest obstacle in the way of any agreement to me. Course if there is success then its a major achievement. it builds a lot of momentum to sustain the deal. its harder to derail.

    As far as your points go...
    1) yeah, if it wasn't for the ukraine lose-lose for everybody this would still be an option. Don't forget with oil prices halving its like you've already imposed another set of sanctions without doing anything more. prices are unlikely to rise for at least another five years.
    2) depends on the amount of change. more coordination in containing Da'ish is possible. But the bigger problem is military only goes so far. the non-military which the arabs don't seem to want to do means Da'ish is going to keep coming back. The Iranians have not been very effective at stopping them.
    3) not war, just another extension of status quo for ten years. the place is already a mess, taking on a regime that controls its borders is a recipe for more chaos. nobody wants that.
    4) they won't quit, they'll just try to rough it out. iran is no NK, they crave legitimacy, desperately. The mullahs play for keeps.
    5) likely
    6) that they already are and it been growing since the last couple of years. not because they want to but because they have to or its open season on shias across the region.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    To be fair, we attacked them first in the 50s by toppling over a democratically elected government and installed a power crazy dictator who had a fondness of torturing people and when they toppled that dictator, we encouraged the next door dictator to punish Iran and kill as many people as he could.
    And later you removed two major irritants on their borders at your own cost in blood & treasure.

    Yet still you can't see eye to eye (!)
    Last edited by Double Edge; 08 Mar 15, at 01:37.

  14. #119
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    And later you removed two major irritants on their borders at your own cost in blood & treasure.

    Yet still you can't see eye to eye (!)
    I know. I am just being realpolitik about it unless like Netanyahu and those who supports him blindly and putting things into perspective.

  15. #120
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Te Whanganui a-Tara, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,870
    Another perspective i find interesting

    The battle for control of America’s foreign policy goes back to the country’s founding.
    When Speaker of the House John Boehner invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, it was seen by many as an unprecedented politicization of American foreign policy. Wasn’t the president the guy in charge of that? Weren’t politics supposed to stop “at the water’s edge”?

    In truth, however, Boehner’s insertion of the Republican-led Congress into the realm of international diplomacy and the Obama administration’s wounded accusations of partisanship obscured an ongoing tug-of-war regarding what role Congress should play in shaping foreign policy. Political scientists seeking some pattern based on principle would love to claim that one Party usually defers to the presidency, and the other to Congress. History shows, however, that even though modern Americans consider the President Mr. Foreign Policy, in Washington, partisanship has traditionally trumped principle. Whoever occupies the White House says the Constitution puts the president in charge, while those controlling Congress often trust Congress to lead.

    The confusion comes from the Constitution itself: the Framers’ checks and balances mandated such messes. Having rebelled against England’s king and fearing presidential power, the Revolutionaries aimed for fragmented power and overlapping responsibilities. As a result, the Constitution empowered Congress to fund the government and to declare wars, which the president leads as Commander-in-Chief. Likewise, the Senate must approve treaties the president negotiates as chief diplomat.

    Throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, Congress and the president went back and forth in this ongoing Constitutional game of rock, paper, scissors. In 1812, the Canadian-hungry War Hawks, led by Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun, pushed a reluctant President James Madison into what became the disastrous War of 1812 that left the White House burning. In 1919, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge blocked Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations. The senator accused the president of sacrificing America’s independence for the sake of empty ideals. “I have loved but one flag,” Lodge thundered, “and I cannot share that devotion and give affection to the mongrel banner invented for a league.”
    continues
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

    Leibniz

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. PM Netanyahu at the UN
    By Minskaya in forum International Politics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 28 Sep 12,, 11:33
  2. Netanyahu vs. Livni
    By Ironduke in forum International Politics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 21 Feb 09,, 02:17
  3. Al-Qaeda Addresses The Jihad-Versus-Resistance Conflict
    By Ray in forum International Politics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 19 Sep 06,, 17:42
  4. e-mail addresses
    By canadian boy in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 28 Dec 05,, 03:10

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •