but Bibi had no business addressing Congress and embarrassing the President. He could have handled it differently, now he has pissed off Obama and the deal will go through. I think he hurt Israel
The idea that he would allow an ally's arch-rival to go nuclear (or at least have a clear path to do so) out of spite is almost too fanciful to entertain outside of talk radio. I don't like his foreign policy and I think he could stand to treat our allies better than he occasionally does our enemies, but I don't buy that.
I'm pretty sure they share intelligence regarding Iran. I also think behind the scenes there was Israeli input that was considered. I also think more could
have been gotten with cooperation rather than grandstanding. Just my opinion
RE: RE: I'm as a huge supporter of Israel as a Jew
The idea that he would allow an ally's arch-rival to go nuclear (or at least have a clear path to do so) out of spite is almost too fanciful to entertain outside of talk radio. I don't like his foreign policy and I think he could stand to treat our allies better than he occasionally does our enemies, but I don't buy that.
Are you still talking about Israel or did we switch to Saudi Arabia? :=)
what I did say it was a dumb play on Bibi's part that didn't influence the negotiations. He could of not granstanded and discussed his concerns and Israeli concerns that might of come into play, but he kind of shot himself in the foot as far as having a voice behind the scenes. Dumb move, Israel gains 0
From Jan. 20, 2009 on, the attitude shown towards the Israel by the current administration strongly suggests that Bibi never would have had a voice behind the scenes. The wisdom of his speech to Congress can be debated, but he would have been shut out even if he hadn't made it. About the only real result was that the door that would have been closed anyway was slammed shut.
what I did say it was a dumb play on Bibi's part that didn't influence the negotiations. He could of not granstanded and discussed his concerns and Israeli concerns that might of come into play, but he kind of shot himself in the foot as far as having a voice behind the scenes. Dumb move, Israel gains 0
From Jan. 20, 2009 on, the attitude shown towards the Israel by the current administration strongly suggests that Bibi never would have had a voice behind the scenes. The wisdom of his speech to Congress can be debated, but he would have been shut out even if he hadn't made it. About the only real result was that the door that would have been closed anyway was slammed shut.
For better or worse, his speech also brought a much bigger spotlight to the negotiations and potentially got the Obama admin to hold firmer on some points.
what I did say it was a dumb play on Bibi's part that didn't influence the negotiations. He could of not granstanded and discussed his concerns and Israeli concerns that might of come into play, but he kind of shot himself in the foot as far as having a voice behind the scenes. Dumb move, Israel gains 0
Bibi's speech to Congress might've been the tipping point, but his relationship with this admin had gone south well before then.
Sort of dovetailing our previous discussion on the rise of antisemitism in Europe and US academia.
what I did say it was a dumb play on Bibi's part that didn't influence the negotiations. He could of not granstanded and discussed his concerns and Israeli concerns that might of come into play, but he kind of shot himself in the foot as far as having a voice behind the scenes. Dumb move, Israel gains 0
From Jan. 20, 2009 on, the attitude shown towards the Israel by the current administration strongly suggests that Bibi never would have had a voice behind the scenes. The wisdom of his speech to Congress can be debated, but he would have been shut out even if he hadn't made it. About the only real result was that the door that would have been closed anyway was slammed shut.
For better or worse, his speech also brought a much bigger spotlight to the negotiations and potentially got the Obama admin to hold firmer on some points.
I'd say that was more Menendez and Schumer. It got Menendez indicted with evidence DOJ had had for 3-4 years.
what I did say it was a dumb play on Bibi's part that didn't influence the negotiations. He could of not granstanded and discussed his concerns and Israeli concerns that might of come into play, but he kind of shot himself in the foot as far as having a voice behind the scenes. Dumb move, Israel gains 0
From Jan. 20, 2009 on, the attitude shown towards the Israel by the current administration strongly suggests that Bibi never would have had a voice behind the scenes. The wisdom of his speech to Congress can be debated, but he would have been shut out even if he hadn't made it. About the only real result was that the door that would have been closed anyway was slammed shut.
Hilarious. Same crap the conservatives have said about every single thing they don't like. This weird fantasy world where Obama is a hardliner on one hand and soft as jelly on another.
Parliamentary system. 75+% of voters cast their ballots for a party that WASNT Bibi's. And he had a very, very hard time forming a coalition government with just a 1 vote margin (meaning any one of the 5 coalition parties and 61 coalition members of Knesset can topple the Israeli government).
But in any event, I think the loser comment was about this Iran deal. I have really mixed feelings on Bibi. If I was in Israel I might vote for him. But his power play against a sitting American president is baffling. And was very, very poorly executed. He has really forgotten that he needs Obama a lot more than Obama needs him. And by public challenge and policies that -- right or dumb -- are making Israel look bad internationally, he's not doing a whole lot to curry the favor of the American president. Now he may not care, but if he was better at his job he would have had private influence on this Iran deal, rather than a ticket to the peanut gallery.
and he took the election and took a victory for himself. Now what? He has been marginalized and how is helping Israel today? It was good for him to what end other than keeping his job you would have to explain to me when you stop shaking your head
what I did say it was a dumb play on Bibi's part that didn't influence the negotiations. He could of not granstanded and discussed his concerns and Israeli concerns that might of come into play, but he kind of shot himself in the foot as far as having a voice behind the scenes. Dumb move, Israel gains 0
From Jan. 20, 2009 on, the attitude shown towards the Israel by the current administration strongly suggests that Bibi never would have had a voice behind the scenes. The wisdom of his speech to Congress can be debated, but he would have been shut out even if he hadn't made it. About the only real result was that the door that would have been closed anyway was slammed shut.
Hilarious. Same crap the conservatives have said about every single thing they don't like. This weird fantasy world where Obama is a hardliner on one hand and soft as jelly on another.
Fantasy? He's hard on domestic enemies and people he thinks he can push around (Israel) and he's soft on Russia, China and Iran. It's blatantly obvious.
American conservatives defend Bibi more than their own
be blamed for the deterioration of this relationship. I am a big Obama supporter but at times he's acted childish here. Netanyahu addressing Congress was an asinine stunt and a blatant spitting in the face of an ally that you simply don't do on their soil. Buford I don't bother addressing most of your talking points, however on Bibi being "not shy about sticking up for Israel" give it a rest. Bibi is about sticking up for Bibi and doing whatever it takes and pandering to whomever necessary in his country to stay in power. His brother is a true hero, and I respected much of what he has done in his politial career in Israel and his service and dedication to that country. However these past 8-10 years he's become a disgusting pandering sell-out to the far right especially on the settlements and now this. What has it landed the Israelis today vis a vi Iran? nothing. bupkus.
Some of yall ever get tired of having the same ultra-partisan
I'm all for good debate and disagreement but damn this shit is like WWI with both sides hunkered down in the trenches trying to avoid the other's artillery over and over and over no matter the topic..
But I put that more on John Boehner and the crazies who run Congress.
You mean of course, Wasserman, Wax, and Pelosi. I agree with
you, they are crazies.
Well, Pelosi opposed it. Waxman is retired. And Debbie was so so on it. I don't get your post, but knowing you, I shouldn't be surprised.
It was a tremendous slap in the face of the administration. You don't invite a foreign leader to come to your country and speak before Congress and piss all over the current president.
In US foreign policy is the Munich syndrome and the Vietnam syndrome. We like these vehicles because they simplify things down to a digestible sound bite but they usually over simplify complex problems.
Despite right wing fantasies to the contrary, there is no practical way for the US to stop Iran from exercising a powerful influence in an area of the world where they've exercised a powerful influence over for 2000+ years. It's also obvious we have no ability to keep Iran from getting a bomb eventually if they really want one. They are not Iraq or Afghanistan and we fucked up even trying to control those two. And who on here would not try hard for a bomb if they were running Iraq? Everybody knows what happens to Muslim countries who argue with the US in that part of the world and don't have one.
Not a big Obama fan and I've been underwhelmed with his foreign policy in general but this deal is the result of reason and realism.
Are you suggesting that a President of USA should be kissing Bibi's butt?
Quote:
My my, we can't have that! The horror!
Are you suggesting that a President of USA should be kissing Bibi's butt?
Kissing his butt? No. Showing him the respect of a close ally? Yes.
The idea that he would allow an ally's arch-rival to go nuclear (or at least have a clear path to do so) out of spite is almost too fanciful to entertain outside of talk radio. I don't like his foreign policy and I think he could stand to treat our allies better than he occasionally does our enemies, but I don't buy that.
have been gotten with cooperation rather than grandstanding. Just my opinion
The idea that he would allow an ally's arch-rival to go nuclear (or at least have a clear path to do so) out of spite is almost too fanciful to entertain outside of talk radio. I don't like his foreign policy and I think he could stand to treat our allies better than he occasionally does our enemies, but I don't buy that.
Are you still talking about Israel or did we switch to Saudi Arabia? :=)
From Jan. 20, 2009 on, the attitude shown towards the Israel by the current administration strongly suggests that Bibi never would have had a voice behind the scenes. The wisdom of his speech to Congress can be debated, but he would have been shut out even if he hadn't made it. About the only real result was that the door that would have been closed anyway was slammed shut.
Quote:
what I did say it was a dumb play on Bibi's part that didn't influence the negotiations. He could of not granstanded and discussed his concerns and Israeli concerns that might of come into play, but he kind of shot himself in the foot as far as having a voice behind the scenes. Dumb move, Israel gains 0
From Jan. 20, 2009 on, the attitude shown towards the Israel by the current administration strongly suggests that Bibi never would have had a voice behind the scenes. The wisdom of his speech to Congress can be debated, but he would have been shut out even if he hadn't made it. About the only real result was that the door that would have been closed anyway was slammed shut.
For better or worse, his speech also brought a much bigger spotlight to the negotiations and potentially got the Obama admin to hold firmer on some points.
Quote:
what I did say it was a dumb play on Bibi's part that didn't influence the negotiations. He could of not granstanded and discussed his concerns and Israeli concerns that might of come into play, but he kind of shot himself in the foot as far as having a voice behind the scenes. Dumb move, Israel gains 0
Bibi's speech to Congress might've been the tipping point, but his relationship with this admin had gone south well before then.
Sort of dovetailing our previous discussion on the rise of antisemitism in Europe and US academia.
Quote:
In comment 12371099 Headhunter said:
Quote:
what I did say it was a dumb play on Bibi's part that didn't influence the negotiations. He could of not granstanded and discussed his concerns and Israeli concerns that might of come into play, but he kind of shot himself in the foot as far as having a voice behind the scenes. Dumb move, Israel gains 0
From Jan. 20, 2009 on, the attitude shown towards the Israel by the current administration strongly suggests that Bibi never would have had a voice behind the scenes. The wisdom of his speech to Congress can be debated, but he would have been shut out even if he hadn't made it. About the only real result was that the door that would have been closed anyway was slammed shut.
For better or worse, his speech also brought a much bigger spotlight to the negotiations and potentially got the Obama admin to hold firmer on some points.
I'd say that was more Menendez and Schumer. It got Menendez indicted with evidence DOJ had had for 3-4 years.
Quote:
what I did say it was a dumb play on Bibi's part that didn't influence the negotiations. He could of not granstanded and discussed his concerns and Israeli concerns that might of come into play, but he kind of shot himself in the foot as far as having a voice behind the scenes. Dumb move, Israel gains 0
From Jan. 20, 2009 on, the attitude shown towards the Israel by the current administration strongly suggests that Bibi never would have had a voice behind the scenes. The wisdom of his speech to Congress can be debated, but he would have been shut out even if he hadn't made it. About the only real result was that the door that would have been closed anyway was slammed shut.
Hilarious. Same crap the conservatives have said about every single thing they don't like. This weird fantasy world where Obama is a hardliner on one hand and soft as jelly on another.
Parliamentary system. 75+% of voters cast their ballots for a party that WASNT Bibi's. And he had a very, very hard time forming a coalition government with just a 1 vote margin (meaning any one of the 5 coalition parties and 61 coalition members of Knesset can topple the Israeli government).
But in any event, I think the loser comment was about this Iran deal. I have really mixed feelings on Bibi. If I was in Israel I might vote for him. But his power play against a sitting American president is baffling. And was very, very poorly executed. He has really forgotten that he needs Obama a lot more than Obama needs him. And by public challenge and policies that -- right or dumb -- are making Israel look bad internationally, he's not doing a whole lot to curry the favor of the American president. Now he may not care, but if he was better at his job he would have had private influence on this Iran deal, rather than a ticket to the peanut gallery.
Quote:
In comment 12371069 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
My my, we can't have that! The horror!
Are you suggesting that a President of USA should be kissing Bibi's butt?
Kissing his butt? No. Showing him the respect of a close ally? Yes.
How about Bibi showing some respect? Lecturing Obama in front of the press back in 2010?
Quote:
Already making a lot of money on the international market and buying arms from Russia and China? Is that what you're telling me?
enriching uranium and buying arms. They were already doing both things, fairly successfully.
And now they have money to do more of both.
Which is why they re-elected him days later when he was projected to lose. SMH.
Quote:
In comment 12371099 Headhunter said:
Quote:
what I did say it was a dumb play on Bibi's part that didn't influence the negotiations. He could of not granstanded and discussed his concerns and Israeli concerns that might of come into play, but he kind of shot himself in the foot as far as having a voice behind the scenes. Dumb move, Israel gains 0
From Jan. 20, 2009 on, the attitude shown towards the Israel by the current administration strongly suggests that Bibi never would have had a voice behind the scenes. The wisdom of his speech to Congress can be debated, but he would have been shut out even if he hadn't made it. About the only real result was that the door that would have been closed anyway was slammed shut.
Hilarious. Same crap the conservatives have said about every single thing they don't like. This weird fantasy world where Obama is a hardliner on one hand and soft as jelly on another.
Fantasy? He's hard on domestic enemies and people he thinks he can push around (Israel) and he's soft on Russia, China and Iran. It's blatantly obvious.
I wish I was surprised, but I'm not.
I'm all for good debate and disagreement but damn this shit is like WWI with both sides hunkered down in the trenches trying to avoid the other's artillery over and over and over no matter the topic..
And when?
Hope all's been well with you, sir.
You mean of course, Wasserman, Wax, and Pelosi. I agree with
you, they are crazies.
Quote:
But I put that more on John Boehner and the crazies who run Congress.
You mean of course, Wasserman, Wax, and Pelosi. I agree with
you, they are crazies.
Well, Pelosi opposed it. Waxman is retired. And Debbie was so so on it. I don't get your post, but knowing you, I shouldn't be surprised.
It was a tremendous slap in the face of the administration. You don't invite a foreign leader to come to your country and speak before Congress and piss all over the current president.
Same email address?
Hope all's been well with you, sir.
And, if I'm not mistaken, they still have weapons grade plutonium from then. LBJ keeps on giving.
Quote:
We supplied materials for their first research reactor in '67, no?
Hope all's been well with you, sir.
And, if I'm not mistaken, they still have weapons grade plutonium from then. LBJ keeps on giving.
Huh? We were in bed with Iran until '79 when the Shah was deposed. But totally-LBJ is so to blame. Damn him for not seeing the future!
The manner in which you asked makes me suspect the answer is Israel.
Yup, Obama is Chamberlain. This is Munich all over again.
And this is why your party has lost 5 out of the last 6 popular votes in the presidential election.
Same email address?
Yep. My name at gmail. Would love to hear from you.
Quote:
And what other nation gave significant help on this subject?
The manner in which you asked makes me suspect the answer is Israel.
Wasn't it the Germans who started Bushehr? I know the Russians completed it.
The downside of historical consciousness is the tendency to see phantoms everywhere.
Deal - ( New Window )
Not a big Obama fan and I've been underwhelmed with his foreign policy in general but this deal is the result of reason and realism.
Quote:
And what other nation gave significant help on this subject?
The manner in which you asked makes me suspect the answer is Israel.
Looks like you might have guessed right. Link covers relationship when the Shah was in power. Have no idea how accurate.
Did Israel help start Irans nuclear program - ( New Window )
If you don't think Iran will cheat, and cheat big time on this deal, there is a bridge in Brooklyn I'll sell you.
In my field we have a saying: bad data is worse than no data. To paraphrase: a bad deal is worse than no deal.
If you don't think Iran will cheat, and cheat big time on this deal, there is a bridge in Brooklyn I'll sell you.
In my field we have a saying: bad data is worse than no data. To paraphrase: a bad deal is worse than no deal.
you did read the terms of the deal right?