Netanyahu Address

[pkt77242]

Not once did I mention war or military action of any kind, so go shove that one. It is dangerous and naive to allow Iran and its leaders of a 9th century mindset to continue its nuclear program the way it is. Also, good luck during your negotiations in finding common ground with said 9th century leaders...they'd dance in the streets if you were killed. A country with nuclenuclear capability that wants to destroy Israel and the US isn't fear mongering. It's reality of the world we live in.

My plan? For now...money talks. Economic sanctions work. Put more on them. Do NOT strike a deal allowing them to do whatever they deem "reasonable." And remind them that any attack against an ally of the US will be met with appropriate response.

How bout you?

Economic sanctions work? Not really, so nice try. Look we have tried economic sanctions with many countries recently and they have generally not worked (Iran, Cuba, North Korea, etc). This idea that they work is not true. Hell when Obama first came into office we increased economic sanctions against Iran and yet 6 years later nothing has changed. How about we actually try to negotiate with them. The truth is all that our economic sanctions to Iran have done is, harm their poor, give them more of a reason to dislike us, and maybe most importantly has helped them and China to grow closer which probably isn't the best thing for us.

BBC News - Analysis: Do economic sanctions work?
Why Economic Sanctions Rarely Work - Businessweek
http://web.stanford.edu/class/ips216/Readings/pape_97%20%28jstor%29.pdf

I can link significantly more articles about how economic sanctions don't work if you would like.

Also I mention war, because that is what Netanyahu will eventually call for, he wants to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, which would probably start a war between Iran and Israel and you had better believe that if that happens the US will get drawn into it in some capacity.

My answer is to give negotiations a try. It is that or go to war, and so negotiations it is for me. It would have to include some way for us to verify their nuclear facilities such as unannounced visits how ever often we want too along with numerous other things.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Thing is, the sanctions have worked, especially in concert with the fall in world oil prices. That's what's brought the Iranians to the table. Waiting longer doesn't make sense as a policy matter, because once oil prices start climbing again the sanctions are going to lose some of their bite, especially if we can't get our European allies to stay the course. If there was ever a time for negotiations, it is right now.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Give it a rest Lep. According to you, he was supposed to fix immigration, close GITMO, end two wars, stop global warming, cure cancer, smooth over centuries of sour race relations ... everything except try to fix healthcare, which was the worst thing any president has ever done in the history of the world, even though 10 million more people have healthcare today than they did prior to ACA. How much shit do you think can get done in a two year span when you have a bunch of assholes on the other side continuously throwing up roadblocks because "Our number one priority is to ensure the president does not get a second term." Anything he would have gotten done in those two years you would have said were the beginning of the end of our civilization, and you would be condemning him for it.

Stop getting so much so wrong and I'll give it a rest. I didn't say anything about what he was expected to do...I said he could've done whatever he wanted with no resistance.

ACA: stop. Why is it you never mention the millions who LOST their plans?

 

[Woneone]

Thing is, the sanctions have worked, especially in concert with the fall in world oil prices. That's what's brought the Iranians to the table. Waiting longer doesn't make sense as a policy matter, because once oil prices start climbing again the sanctions are going to lose some of their bite, especially if we can't get our European allies to stay the course. If there was ever a time for negotiations, it is right now.

Wait a second....

So, the sanctions are working because of oil prices.

One of the leading factors of the oil price drop is Saudi Arabia giving the old "F U" and cutting cost instead of production, thought is one reason is to hurt Iran.

So our response should be to negotiate to give them freaking nuclear capabilities? Gee, wonder how Iran will respond after they get the capability....

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Economic sanctions work? Not really, so nice try. Look we have tried economic sanctions with many countries recently and they have generally not worked (Iran, Cuba, North Korea, etc). This idea that they work is not true. Hell when Obama first came into office we increased economic sanctions against Iran and yet 6 years later nothing has changed. How about we actually try to negotiate with them. The truth is all that our economic sanctions to Iran have done is, harm their poor, give them more of a reason to dislike us, and maybe most importantly has helped them and China to grow closer which probably isn't the best thing for us.

BBC News - Analysis: Do economic sanctions work?
Why Economic Sanctions Rarely Work - Businessweek
http://web.stanford.edu/class/ips216/Readings/pape_97%20%28jstor%29.pdf

I can link significantly more articles about how economic sanctions don't work if you would like.

Also I mention war, because that is what Netanyahu will eventually call for, he wants to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, which would probably start a war between Iran and Israel and you had better believe that if that happens the US will get drawn into it in some capacity.

My answer is to give negotiations a try. It is that or go to war, and so negotiations it is for me. It would have to include some way for us to verify their nuclear facilities such as unannounced visits how ever often we want too along with numerous other things.

I say sanctions carry more weight here because of who we're dealing with: 9th century nutjobs who want you, me and Israel dead. Gone. Good luck with those negotiations. That is naive.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Wait a second....

So, the sanctions are working because of oil prices.

One of the leading factors of the oil price drop is Saudi Arabia giving the old "F U" and cutting cost instead of production, thought is one reason is to hurt Iran.

So our response should be to negotiate to give them freaking nuclear capabilities? Gee, wonder how Iran will respond after they get the capability....

Literally laughed out loud

 

[IrishinSyria]

Wait a second....

So, the sanctions are working because of oil prices.

One of the leading factors of the oil price drop is Saudi Arabia giving the old "F U" and cutting cost instead of production, thought is one reason is to hurt Iran.

So our response should be to negotiate to give them freaking nuclear capabilities? Gee, wonder how Iran will respond after they get the capability....

I have no idea what you're driving at here. That the Iranians will nuke the Saudis because of overproduction? That's beyond dumb.

Anyway, the whole point of the negotiations is to keep the Iranians from getting a nuke. We have more leverage now than we will in the future. A basic principle of negotiating is that you want to strike a bargain when you have more leverage.

 

[IrishinSyria]

I say sanctions carry more weight here because of who we're dealing with: 9th century nutjobs who want you, me and Israel dead. Gone. Good luck with those negotiations. That is naive.

9th century nutjobs with a firm grasp of nuclear physics... makes sense.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

So our response should be to negotiate to give them freaking nuclear capabilities? Gee, wonder how Iran will respond after they get the capability....

The deal isn't to "give them... nuclear capabilities". Iran would agree to scale back enrichment and continue allowing inspections for the next decade in exchange for an end to sanctions and security guarantees.

If these negotiations fail, it's virtually guaranteed that Iran will kick the inspectors out and fast-track its program. They'd be nuclear within months then. No one wins in that scenario.

 

[Buster Bluth]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rzXS3tmZrcU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Worth watching.

 

[Rhode Irish]

If you value Israel as an ally and the longterm health of our relationship and the safety of Israel are important to you, you should be furious about what happened yesterday.

 

[pkt77242]

I say sanctions carry more weight here because of who we're dealing with: 9th century nutjobs who want you, me and Israel dead. Gone. Good luck with those negotiations. That is naive.

You would be wrong again. If they really are the nutjobs that you claim then sanctions are less likely to work, as non-rational actors generally don't care about sanctions. Also if you think that Iran is a bunch of 9th century nutjobs, what do you think of Saudi Arabia?

 

[kmoose]

I could make a strong argument that Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and Dick Nixon diminished the office of the presidency more than any other presidents in my lifetime.

You could. No argument here. Except that Reagan is generally considered a successful President, and you would find few people that would refer to his term(s) as "embarrassing".

A president not able to fulfil his presidential promises in the face of the competing party's opposition is hardly on the same level.

No. What's embarrassing is that Obama told us, over and over, how HE was the guy who could reach across the aisle and get Republicans to compromise. And he has failed, miserably, at it.

Is the use of executive orders an embarassment?

No. But the use of Executive Orders because you cannot get Congress to to go along with you(which is something that you promised Americans that you COULD do), after bitching about previous Presidents doing it, is embarrassing to the office.

It is simply intellectually dishonest to suggest that keeping GITMO open was Obama's doing.

No it's not. He flat out said, on 60 Minutes, that he promised to do it and that he was going to follow through on that promise. He also acknowledged that he could do it by Executive Order. So who else is to blame?

 

[DillonHall]

If you value Israel as an ally and the longterm health of our relationship and the safety of Israel are important to you, you should be furious about what happened yesterday.

In all seriousness, I don't get the big deal. Can you elaborate on your stance?

 

[kmoose]

If these negotiations fail, it's virtually guaranteed that Iran will kick the inspectors out and fast-track its program. They'd be bombed back to the Stone Age by Israel.

FIFY

 

[Whiskeyjack]

If you value Israel as an ally and the longterm health of our relationship and the safety of Israel are important to you, you should be furious about what happened yesterday.

Nah, bro. I personally think it's awesome that American and Israel and are so involved in each other's politics. I mean, all of our politicians are paragons of virtue and rationality; and despite the occasional heated debate, they're always ready to set ideology aside in the interest of the Common Good. What could go wrong? World War III? LOL!

 

[GoIrish41]

Stop getting so much so wrong and I'll give it a rest. I didn't say anything about what he was expected to do...I said he could've done whatever he wanted with no resistance.

ACA: stop. Why is it you never mention the millions who LOST their plans?

I do not mention it because it is an inaccurate GOP talking point. Losing insurance and having to change to a policy that meets the standards of the law are not the same thing. This is of topic though so let's get back on topic. Boener broke the law, period.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I say sanctions carry more weight here because of who we're dealing with: 9th century nutjobs who want you, me and Israel dead. Gone. Good luck with those negotiations. That is naive.

I think your entire argument depends on this being true. Are they rational actors or ideologues?

If our State Department thinks they are rational and can be negotiated with, they have my full support. Detente with Iran would be the biggest IR event since the Cold War ended.

I don't think a government asserting itself as the leading power of the Middle East by out maneuvering the Saudi/American alliance in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and now possibly Yemen are incompetent ideologues. The last few decades sorta say to me that they're pretty damn intelligent and rational. Furthermore, if acquiring nuclear weapons for the destruction of Israel were their primary goal, I'm of the opinion that it would have happened already. They are exponentially more capable than North Korea or Pakistan, yet haven't built the bomb for a reason. If I were to guess, they're 50/50 on getting the bomb because then Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt would swiftly move to do the same and that would threaten their objectives.

Do they want nuclear weapons so they can drop a bomb on Jerusalem (and simultaneously be turned to dust by the Israeli/American response), or do they want nuclear weapons because then the US can't push them around at all. You can look at Pakistan and how the US treated it after 9/11 and see the benefits of having a nuclear stockpile at your disposal, or really look at any nuclear power and see how they are treated legitimately.

I guess I really don't know. But neither do you. Statements about eviscerating Israel from Presidential candidates don't mean as much to me as they must to you. I've seen plenty of politicians say plenty of useless shit to garner support for their general movement.

 

[Rhode Irish]

In all seriousness, I don't get the big deal. Can you elaborate on your stance?

The singularly unique relationship between Israel and the U.S. has been built on the foundation non-partisanship and the steadfast refusal by both sides to get involved with each others' politics, under the idea that the relationship is above the politics of the moment. The relationship is likely strong enough to survive one political stunt like this, but it could potentially be a first step down a road that could alter the nature of the relationship, which could seriously endanger Israel. It will not work if either country only has a productive relationship with one political party in the other country.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

FIFY

Israel would handily win any bilateral conflict in the region, but Iran is 4x the size of Iraq and much better armed. Such a conflict would not be pretty, regardless of the eventual winner.

But setting the costs of the conflict aside, what would that do to regional stability? With Iran marginalized and Assad overthrown (which would quickly follow the end of Iranian aid to Syria), Israel and our Sunni allies would have no local rivals anymore. But unless we're going to tolerate genocide, there will still be millions of Shia Muslims in the region who are now suddenly more vulnerable than ever and open to radicalization. Is that a recipe for stability?

The enemy you know is almost always preferable to the enemy you don't. Iran is at least a rational state with whom we can deal. Anyone rooting for more war in the Middle East is insane.

 

[IrishLax]

The issues with the speech can be separated into 3 broad categories:

1: The invitation. I have yet to see a cogent defense of the way this was handled. For the speaker of the house to go around the President and the State Department's back to invite a head of state to speak is unprecedented.

Frankly, I find this the most illegitimate gripe. It's well within Congress' rights and powers to invite anyone to come speak.

It's funny to me that most of the people* complaining about Congress "going behind the President's back" are the same ones that applaud Obama taking unilateral action and circumventing Congress when it fits his ends. At best, this is extremely hypocritical.

*I have no idea if you fall into this category, which I think I need to state outright since I'm quoting your post and don't want to put words in your mouth.

2: The content of the speech itself. Netanyahu didn't say anything he hasn't been saying for at least 20 years. It's tough to see what his endgame is outside of committing American troops to a ground war in Iran. If that's what people want, then ok, but it's probably best if we don't let a foreign leader make that decision for us.

In no way, shape, or form is he "making that decision for us." And I really question how anyone at this point thinks Iran is "reasonable" and that a diplomatic solution will work.

3: The reaction of Congress to the speech. THIS is what has me bothered, and this is what my original post was about. There was nothing dignified about the atmosphere displayed. Congressmen and women were tripping over each other to be the first up at every applause line in the speech, to shake Netanyahu's hand, to enthusiastically show their support each time he made a point they like. The Democrats get no pass from me on this: Pelosi's attempts to visually manifest her disgust every time she disagreed with him were almost as bad.

This, by far, is the most legitimate complaint here, IMO. It seems incredibly reasonable to critique everything about the actual event itself relative to Congress' handling of it.

In short, it looked more like a campaign rally than it did a policy speech. Given that Netanyahu's up for reelection in 2 weeks, that's exactly what it was. And the vast majority of our Congress- the elected representatives of the most powerful nation the world has ever known- played right into the charade. They treated a foreign head of state like he was a conquering hero. And the ones who didn't CLAP LOUD ENOUGH (Rand Paul) are being attacked for their failure to show enough enthusiasm. This bothers me. When the President bowed before the Saudi King, I didn't care one bit. That was a common show of respect from one head of state to another in the host's country. This was something altogether different.

It's really fucking weird how it seems that the vast majority of politicians everywhere in the world truly prioritize their own power/re-election over everything else.

 

[Grahambo]

And what if I said Iran does not need a nuke and is using these negotiations, etc as a ruse? What if I told you there's something else they are after?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

And what if I said Iran does not need a nuke and is using these negotiations, etc as a ruse? What if I told you there's something else they are after?

Spill it, Morpheus.

 

[IrishinSyria]

In no way, shape, or form is he "making that decision for us." And I really question how anyone at this point thinks Iran is "reasonable" and that a diplomatic solution will work.

So, just to be clear, is it that you don't believe a diplomatic solution can work now or that you don't think a diplomatic solution will ever work?

 

[Grahambo]

Spill it, Morpheus.

Definitely thought I hit the 30 for 30 with that.

 

[GoIrish41]

And what if I said Iran does not need a nuke and is using these negotiations, etc as a ruse? What if I told you there's something else they are after?

Worst 30 for 30 teaser ever

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Maybe Iran is stalling for time until Thanos captures the Infinity Gauntlet?

 

[Grahambo]

Worst 30 for 30 teaser ever

I'd like to meet the guy. Always wondered what the face behind the voice looked like and see if it matched up.

 

[GoIrish41]

I'd like to meet the guy. Always wondered what the face behind the voice looked like and see if it matched up.

Same

 

[IrishLax]

So, just to be clear, is it that you don't believe a diplomatic solution can work now or that you don't think a diplomatic solution will ever work?

I don't think that you can have a permanent diplomatic solution that ensures 1) regional stability 2) no weapons of mass destruction as long as the country is headed by a guy with religious/racial beliefs akin to Hitler.

You either need regime change to a secular government or at least an Ayatollah that does not harbor overtly bigoted, hateful, and genocidal attitudes towards Israel and frankly all non-Muslims.

The best you can hope for is appeasement and stop-gaps that after an indeterminate period of time will return you to a similar or worse situation.

A diplomatic solution is plausible... but if and only if current variables change.