• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Bibi gives a lesson — thanks Obama

RJ,

To the first part, name the terrorists or groups Bibi created with his rhetoric. And, I'm simply pointing out that Isreal, by your logic, must be a terrorist organization by merely existing. It's simply a fact because Israel will always fight against the Palestinians, Iranians, or any other enemy that wants to end them. We can argue about a 2-state solution with Palestine if you want, but it seems like you don't want that fight.

Point #3 was meant to demonstrate that we shouldn't take these reports at face value, nothing more. We've been lied to for many years, why open the trust dam now unless your playing partisan politics?

The next part references BS talikng points designed to ostracize those who disagree. Post credible sources expressing solely RW hate of this deal, preferably Israeli sources.

Kim's no clown and I addressed the "honable" part in posts on the Korean War thread.
 
Last edited:
I said creates terrorism not new groups. His actions embolden terrorist groups and actions by existing groups. The State of Israel was created like most countries in the Middle East by Western caveat. It's not a terrorist organization. An independent Palestine would lessen terrorist actions. By his actions, it is quite clear Bibi has no interest in peace.

You have no proof of what you say in #3, thus it's total bullshit. Whether in Iraq or Iran, IAEA reports have not been proven to be wrong. It's only those whose hawkish who bring up the strawman that the IAEA could be wrong. They haven't been in the past fifteen years.

As to only RWers in the US and Israel don't like the agreement, this is proven by the fact that the rest of world (and especially our allies in Europe and adversaries in China and Russia) all think it's an excellent deal.
 
RJKarl said:
I said creates terrorism not new groups. His actions embolden terrorist groups and actions by existing groups. The State of Israel was created like most countries in the Middle East by Western caveat. It's not a terrorist organization. An independent Palestine would lessen terrorist actions. By his actions, it is quite clear Bibi has no interest in peace.

You have no proof of what you say in #3, thus it's total bullshit. Whether in Iraq or Iran, IAEA reports have not been proven to be wrong. It's only those whose hawkish who bring up the strawman that the IAEA could be wrong. They haven't been in the past fifteen years.

As to only RWers in the US and Israel don't like the agreement, this is proven by the fact that the rest of world (and especially our allies in Europe and adversaries in China and Russia) all think it's an excellent deal.
Click to expand...

For 40 years we have listened to this toxic misapprehension of the actual conditions and facts on the ground
 
RJKarl said:
I said creates terrorism not new groups. His actions embolden terrorist groups and actions by existing groups. The State of Israel was created like most countries in the Middle East by Western caveat. It's not a terrorist organization. An independent Palestine would lessen terrorist actions. By his actions, it is quite clear Bibi has no interest in peace.

You have no proof of what you say in #3, thus it's total bullshit. Whether in Iraq or Iran, IAEA reports have not been proven to be wrong. It's only those whose hawkish who bring up the strawman that the IAEA could be wrong. They haven't been in the past fifteen years.

As to only RWers in the US and Israel don't like the agreement, this is proven by the fact that the rest of world (and especially our allies in Europe and adversaries in China and Russia) all think it's an excellent deal.
Click to expand...
Great post, RJ.
 
BiBi made the same types of totally false and outrageous statements about Iraq's nukes before the immoral Iraq War to push America into that fiasco. Now, Bibi has a moron, who refuses to do any actual homework or believe anyone who doesn't kiss his ass, to push in his own extremist ways.
 
Totally unsurprising.

Totally.

He’s not of the temperament of the kind of stable, thoughtful person we need as a leader. His imagination must not be married to real power.
Click to expand...
 
RJKarl said:
I said creates terrorism not new groups. His actions embolden terrorist groups and actions by existing groups. The State of Israel was created like most countries in the Middle East by Western caveat. It's not a terrorist organization. An independent Palestine would lessen terrorist actions. By his actions, it is quite clear Bibi has no interest in peace.

You have no proof of what you say in #3, thus it's total bullshit. Whether in Iraq or Iran, IAEA reports have not been proven to be wrong. It's only those whose hawkish who bring up the strawman that the IAEA could be wrong. They haven't been in the past fifteen years.

As to only RWers in the US and Israel don't like the agreement, this is proven by the fact that the rest of world (and especially our allies in Europe and adversaries in China and Russia) all think it's an excellent deal.
Click to expand...

Creates terrorism/recruits terrorists for Hamas, or does it extend to remnants of ISIS, Iran or any other disaffected country in the region? If Hamas was given full governance over the West Bank and Gaza Strip, what does that do? Does it “lessen” terrorist activity? How much territory needs to be ceded for peace?

I know the UN created this, but decades later we have to deal with the real-world consequences. I’ll ask again, tell me how a 2-State solution works? Despite Obama’s attempt to unseat Bibi, and you can go to WaPo for that, it’s clear that the Israeli’s voted for what they’re getting. You don’t like it, I’m willing to bet they do.

To point #3, I’ll just say left-leaning The Hill and right-leaning National Interest, among others, have a lot problems with the Iran deal. I read a lot to be informed. Not going to list all the material I read, but it takes a lot more than MSM outlets and a few searches to form my opinion. I’ll just say I have problems with the trustworthiness of the IAEA here and believe the deal sucks.

Finally, love this part, “... this is proven by the fact that rest of the world (and especially our allies in Europe and adversaries in China and Russia) all think it’s an excellent deal.”

Did Trump write that for you?
 
What are some of your problems with the deal?
 
PhDeac said:
What are some of your problems with the deal?
Click to expand...
A lot of hawks in US / Israel do lot like the limited nature of the deal (i.e - does not address Iran's missile program or support for terrorist organizations).

Unfortunately Russia and China are essential for any sanctions regime (Iran's oil will mostly be sold in Asia) and they absolutely will not agree to any deal that is broader than the violations related to Iran's signatory obligations under the NPT and related sanctions.

That's a circle that simply cannot be squared in the way US / Israel hawks want it to be. At least not in a single clean package.

There's additional issues with Iran's entanglement with France's nuclear agencies (France was the country that initiated negotiations for this deal) but the USA broke a fucking ton of arms and pissed off our EU allies enormously to get this done in the first place.
 
Final note - Israel is not a signatory to the NPT (India, Pakistan, South Sudan are the other 3 who have not signed - North Korea left the treaty).

They have no dog in this fight other than to put political pressure on the USA. They could sign the NPT and participate directly, but that would mean allowing IAEA inspectors to disclose their nuclear weapons program, which they obviously will not do.

Anything that comes out of Israel has to be viewed though that lense (and remember, Israel participated in proliferation when they assisted South Africa with their program before apartheid ended).
 
Biggus Deacus said:
Creates terrorism/recruits terrorists for Hamas, or does it extend to remnants of ISIS, Iran or any other disaffected country in the region? If Hamas was given full governance over the West Bank and Gaza Strip, what does that do? Does it “lessen” terrorist activity? How much territory needs to be ceded for peace?

I know the UN created this, but decades later we have to deal with the real-world consequences. I’ll ask again, tell me how a 2-State solution works? Despite Obama’s attempt to unseat Bibi, and you can go to WaPo for that, it’s clear that the Israeli’s voted for what they’re getting. You don’t like it, I’m willing to bet they do.

To point #3, I’ll just say left-leaning The Hill and right-leaning National Interest, among others, have a lot problems with the Iran deal. I read a lot to be informed. Not going to list all the material I read, but it takes a lot more than MSM outlets and a few searches to form my opinion. I’ll just say I have problems with the trustworthiness of the IAEA here and believe the deal sucks.

Finally, love this part, “... this is proven by the fact that rest of the world (and especially our allies in Europe and adversaries in China and Russia) all think it’s an excellent deal.”

Did Trump write that for you?
Click to expand...

You have shown me ZERO facts to support your position. I've presented history as well as current, ongoing actions that support my position.

As part of the agreement, each uranium mine in Iran is monitored 24/7 for all activities. Let me guess, they have hidden mines.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
The Hill is a left-leaning organization?
Click to expand...

Seems like The Hill is considered pretty neutral. They publish left leaning opinion pieces, but are willing to cover worthy news stories that most left leaning outlets stray away from if it doesn't match their pre-existing agenda.
 
The Hill is similar to the Economist or the Telegraph in the UK (which makes sense because it's first editor was from the Telegraph) - it's right leaning editorially on economic/business issues and centrist(ish) on social issues.

If you live a worldview where The Hill is left leaning to you, you are pretty much so far down the rabbit hole that you can't see the entrance anymore.
 
WFcatamount22 said:
Seems like The Hill is considered pretty neutral. They publish left leaning opinion pieces, but are willing to cover worthy news stories that most left leaning outlets stray away from if it doesn't match their pre-existing agenda.
Click to expand...

Sure - most partisan/ideological groupings/rankings of media outlets place The Hill center or slightly center right. It's by no means a "left-leaning organization" relatively speaking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top