[Plantagenet]

I hate it when Nancy Pelosi cries. You just want to reach out and give her a hug and say there there little girl--- it will be all right

[Sixstrings]

I changed the thread title to: "Israel and US gov disagree on Iranian nuclear negotiations."

Less inflammatory, but the issue is the same.

Obama administration is making a deal with Iran that's going to let them get nukes.

If anyone would like to have a serious foreign policy discussion about the Iranian nuke deal, then I can do that. But I'm guessing that nobody wants to have that discussion. Because Democrats in Congress, and the administration, don't want to talk about it either. It's pretty much indefensible and that's why they want to keep it hush hush and not talk about it.

P.S. Iran getting nukes is related to hydrocarbon geopolitics in the middle east.

Regional nuclear exchange over there would bring on "peak oil" real fast.

[Sixstrings]

I hate it when Nancy Pelosi cries. You just want to reach out and give her a hug and say there there little girl--- it will be all right

Liberals only freak out like this when they know they are wrong about something they can't actually defend, in any kind of discussion or debate.

So they really freak out.

They act this way when they're stuck on some far left socialist thing that just makes no sense at all, if they actually were to have discussion or debate about it, but yet for some reason they're stuck on it and can't give it up.

[Plantagenet]

It won't be long until the Saudis figure out that if Shia Iran gets nukes then the Sunnis need bombs too

Look for WWWIII to start in the ME 10 ca ten years now

[Shaved Monkey]

Im sure Iran disagrees with Israel and the US Govs nuclear negotiations too when Israel was building their reactor,but probably werent asked to the table.

[Sixstrings]

Im sure Iran disagrees with Israel and the US Govs nuclear negotiations too when Israel was building their reactor,but probably werent asked to the table.

Israel is trusted with the bomb, but yes, it's bad enough they have it but AT LEAST they are a democracy.

What you are equivocating about is that it would be okay for the muslim dictatorships and kingdoms to start getting the bomb, too. Thanks to socialist European diplomats, and this socialist liberal Obama administration, and frickin' CHINA is in there in the negotiations too. MEANWHILE RUSSIA sends Iran those missiles! For crying out loud!

No, Shaved Monkey, your view is okay for other places in the world, but any red blooded American ought to have enough common sense to know that no -- you cannot let anyone have nukes just as a sunni shia regional war has really already started.

Republicans look out for Israel, Republicans have some common sense -- that YES it's okay for Israel to have the bomb but NO the rest of them over there shouldn't. It's just not a good idea, to say the least.

edit: this stuff is just maddening, this is like the Russia discussions. IF Israel has "the bomb," then they've had the darn thing since the 70s at least and they maybe have one or two -- that is all speculated by the way, it's not known for sure.

But guess what. Israel can be trusted. Guess what. IRAN cannot.

IF IRAN HAS NUKES -- then they will have COVER and an umbrella to then expand across the middle east. Netanyahu was right, the enemy of our enemy is our enemy too. Obama admin is working with Iran a bit on ISIS -- folks, guess what will happen when we do defeat ISIS (as we need to) -- Iran will just be stronger and then we'll have a big massive war with Iran.

Iran and ISIS are just fighting over who is gonna lead the new caliphate jihad thing, it's not that Iran are the good guys.

This is a serious, serious problem, and it's concerning that nobody wants to be bothered about it. Nobody on this forum. Nobody in our Congress, nobody in the Obama admin. Just make a "deal," push it off for a few years for Jeb Bush to deal with, that's all Obama admin is doing is just pushing it off until after his term is over but really they are just making the problem much worse.

[Sixstrings]

Don't want to flood the thread, but just to add some news links for resource on the topic:

Wow! Democrats LASH OUT at Netanyahu, Tell Him to Go Home, Call Him “a Child”


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/03/wow-democrats-lash-out-at-netanyahu-tell-him-to-go-home-call-him-a-child/

Netanyahu: Nuclear Deal ‘Paves Iran’s Path To The Bomb’
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/03/03/netanyahu-we-must-all-stand-together-to-stop-irans-march-of-conquest/

Obama pointedly didn't attend the speech and scheduled a meeting while it was going on.

Obama says he read a transcript of Netanyahu's speech Tuesday. He says "there was nothing new" in the speech.

Obama says Netanyahu made almost the same speech when he warned against the interim deal reached with Iran. Obama says that deal has resulted in a freeze and rolling back of Iran's nuclear program.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_ISRAEL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-03-03-13-51-36

I think it's really OUR PRESIDENT that has politicized this. Obama admin and Democrats are going after Netanyahu as if he were an American Republican. One Democratic congressman called him "a Dick Cheney." The reality is that even the liberal left -- in Israel -- is on the same page with Netanyahu. His criticism back home is that he shouldn't have angered Obama. But they think the same as Netanyahu on the issue here, that it's insane to let Iran get nuclear weapons.

Kelly O'Donnell ✔ @KellyO
Follow
.@Nancypelosi has appeared distressed in body language and facial expressions for extended time during this speech.

Nancy Pelosi Turns Back On Netanyahu During His Speech To Congress
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rD_6qI670Q

Pelosi: 'I Was Near Tears Throughout' Netanyahu Speech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym6hC55sP34

Pelosi is just wrong. She talks about condescension but look folks -- conservatives THINK SHE AND OBAMA are WRONG on their foreign policy! Nobody can throw people under a bus while claiming to love you, as good as Democrats can, and that's what Israel is worried about. Getting thrown under the bus.

On the issue of the deal itself -- basically sanctions get dropped, and all restrictions on Iranian nuke program drop after ten years. It's just nuts. But anyhow, Iran promises to turn the power switch off on a couple things. And they promise to agree with monitoring, even though they have cheated and evaded monitoring already this whole time.

The "deal" is jut a big waste of time. The "deal" is just a treaty piece of paper that is really COVER for Iran to continue its nuke program.

[Shaved Monkey]

There no use trying to find a moral answer, its about which team gets the most money,power and resources.
Nothing changes just the teams we are born into dictate who we support.

From Russia's prospective they dont owe the West any favours and them doing what they are doing is in their interests just like the West dabbling in the Ukraine is in the Wests interests.
I dont want anyone to have the bomb.
but
I would imagine Iran feels a little threatened too and probably wouldnt mind a nuclear power industry so it doesn't need to burn oil for power and it could sell more oil and gas.
(which isnt in the Wests interests that they get richer and more powerful)
Probably watching North Korea negotiating above its weight is a bit of an incentive to get one too.

but has any nation with the bomb dropped it on innocent civilians so far ?

The solution may be in the salt technology reactor

Nixon banished a reactor that was virtually meltdown-proof, left comparatively little long-lived waste, made it more difficult to fashion a bomb from the waste, ran at friendlier atmospheric pressure instead of the potentially explosive pressurized environments of conventional reactors, and ran at much higher temperatures, making it more cost-effective as an electricity generator.

The U.S. is helping China build a novel, superior nuclear reactor
http://fortune.com/2015/02/02/doe-china ... r-reactor/

or China will build it for them
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/new ... r-reactors

[Timo]

Bibi wants war with Iran. Anything else is not acceptable. I say goa ahead. If you're so intent on going to war with Iran, you have nukes. You can make the entire Middle East uninhabitable for decades to come. Israel will become extinct in the process of that war, but the underlying premise still stands. War is the only acceptable outcome for Netanyahu.

[Keith_McClary]

IF Israel has "the bomb," then they've had the darn thing since the 70s at least and they maybe have one or two -- that is all speculated by the way, it's not known for sure.

Cumulative stockpile (Usable and Not) estimated 80–400 warheads[2][3][4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_w ... and_Israel

[Plantagenet]

Is obama crazy? Why would anyone in their right mind do anything that would allow the Islamist religious nuts of the Islamic State or the Islamic Republic to get the bomb?

[Sixstrings]

President Obama seems very angry at Netanyahu, we rarely see him this angry:

Obama: 'Nothing new' in Netanyahu speech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyGrnGxCjyk

The following would be nice:

1) If our President had talked to the American PEOPLE about the deal he and John Kerry are making. Instead of just an angry rebuttal to a Netanyahu speech they tried to prevent to start with.

2) Our President should talk to us MORE about this deal, not hide it and keep it secret and trying to keep Congress out of it.

3) IT WOULD BE NICE if the President could get so angry about islamic extremism, as he is at our ally Netanyahu.

Would be nice if he could get as angry at Putin, as he is at Netanyahu.

Things just don't make sense or add up anymore. He doesn't speak up for Christians. I guess he won't stand up for Jews, either?

I dunno guys, things just don't make sense anymore.

I am very seriously open to voting Jeb Bush if he's the R nominee, I don't recognize this kind of America. Where we get angry at our allies, while we enable and kiss up to our enemies. That just take advantage of us anyway, and trick us and fool us. Just makes no sense.

[Sixstrings]

Is obama crazy? Why would anyone in their right mind do anything that would allow the Islamist religious nuts of the Islamic State or the Islamic Republic to get the bomb?

Plant, here's what the administration is saying: "well what is your plan then, Netanyahu." That's almost a direct quote.

They're just "doing something," to "do something."

I saw Diane Feinstein on CNN, she was supposed to be defending the administration. But then the reporter asked her "but do YOU think it's a good deal?"

And THEN she says, that actually if it was up to her then the "breakout time" for them to get the bomb she be like 15 years and that 10 years is too soon. !!!!!!!

So okay. Call me a rabid right winger just because I agree with Diane Feinstein, Christ, at least make it a 15 year deal.

The whole thing is just silly. I don't even understand it. How is it okay for Iran to get the bomb 10 years from now if it's not okay today? So what happens in ten years, they just get the bomb then and then they get to say "well you made a deal, a deal's a deal?"

Netanyahu: This is what the Iran deal should be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK-7pZ4jkc4

[Shaved Monkey]

Isnt Iran the new ally against Muslim extremists now ?

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/01 ... .html?_r=0

[Sixstrings]

Isnt Iran the new ally against Muslim extremists now ?

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/01 ... .html?_r=0

Honestly, I wondered about that before I actually saw Netanyahu's speech. That at least Iran fights ISIS. And by the way, the US gov won't admit to it but it really sort of looks like maybe there is coordinated fighting between US air strikes and Iranian Revolutionary Guard, on the same side against ISIS.

So anyhow, in the his speech, Netanyahu explains that Iran controls like 5 capitals now in the middle east. They're on the march. On the move. So wtf happens once ISIS is defeated? And then Iran gets the bomb?????????

Won't we just have a problem with an expanding Iran at that point, that now has the bomb, and has some kind of deal a past president signed that says it's okay -- and then we'll just have a really big problem on our hands, maybe 10 years from now when the deal "expires" -- or maybe just 3 years from now if Iran cheats on the deal, right?

So anyhow I found that persuasive, how he explains that it's not just ISIS that's a threat but Iran is expanding their control over the middle east too and it's a battle between the two of them. But while ISIS has "butcher knives," Obama is actually negotiating a deal that will see Iran get nukes.

Shaved Monkey -- the answer is that O shouldn't have totally pulled out of Iraq, in the first place, because that's what caused both ISIS to move in and also Iran to get control of the other half.

Here's Netanyahu's speech, by the way:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Address to Joint Meeting of Congress
http://www.c-span.org/video/?324609-2/israeli-prime-minister-benjamin-netanyahu-address-congress

I don't deny the whole thing is a massive clustermess over there, but that doesn't mean Iran getting nukes somehow makes that all better.

And it's also not wise for the USA to be eschewing all its old allies, either, for people that are not our friends.

[Shaved Monkey]

Shaved Monkey -- the answer is that O shouldn't have totally pulled out of Iraq, in the first place, because that's what caused both ISIS to move in and also Iran to get control of the other half.

The wiser move might be to not have gone to Iraq at all or helped the Mujahideen against the Russians in Afghanistan or Install the Shah of Iran and maybe have a more balanced world view on Israel and Saudis behaviour and we may not have the terrorist threat we have now ?

[Sixstrings]

The wiser move might be to not have gone to Iraq at all or helped the Mujahideen against the Russians in Afghanistan or Install the Shah of Iran and maybe have a more balanced world view on Israel and Saudis behaviour and we may not have the terrorist threat we have now ?

Okay first of all, you can't reach back into the cold war to re-argue that.

USSR was adversary #1 and had to be prevented, at all costs, from ever getting proxies and control in the middle east. Every Soviet WWIII battle plan called for taking middle east oil fields, first.

So let's keep the discussion post cold war, it's irrelevant to argue about the Shah and such. We had to keep the Soviets out. Iran going islam fundy crazy was preferable to a communist Iran (communism was in the revolutionary air, too, in the Shah days)

Ok, now Iraq.

You say better to have never gone into Iraq. You may be right. But we actually did win that war. It was only lost because we completely pulled out and did not leave a residual force. And also, while there, we should HAVE NOT allowed Iran to get control over the government we had just had a war with and won a war against.

You're talking about blowback SM, and the past, while the issue at hand is the future.

ISIS must be defeated, but not in at the cost of nukes for Iran in trade for their Revolutionary Guard fighting ISIS.

This thread is about FUTURE blowback:

If the US signs this nuclear deal, and works with Iran to defeat ISIS, and lifts the sanctions and helps Iran grow and become stronger and expand their power in the region -- and then in 10 years they are just very strong and sanction free and then legally allowed to do whatever nuke program they want to -- then THAT is blowback, SM. Today we fight ISIS, tomorrow we'll have to fight a nuclear Iranian terrorist caliphate.

Do you see the point there?

That Obama and European socialists are setting the stage for a really horrible regional shia sunni war -- with nukes maybe -- down the road?

Who will be able to stop Iran, once they have nukes? Nobody! Which is exactly why they want the nukes!

[Sixstrings]

I'll say this much -- yes, ISIS is worse than Iran.

Having said that, we can't allow Iran to grow and get strong and push on our jewish and sunni allies either.

ISIS are batsh*t terrorist crazy, and disgusting. But a nuclear Iran could cause regional war, and millions dying. It could cause the whole region to pursue nukes.

All I'm saying here is that if Iran has somehow become a friend and ally, then that should be more apparent than what it is. The ayatollah's crazy "death to Israel" tweets should have stopped. There should have been some kind of tangible progress in Iran. Something. Just the fact they fight ISIS really just means they are expanding their own Islamic Revolution vs. ISIS's brand of caliphate.

This is all just needs to be explained to people, a lot more, and the Obama admin has been sayin' nothin' about it.

And really -- if there has to be a deal, why can't we just let it go for now and maybe a Jeb Bush can be the one to "go to China" and make the deal in '17. I'd trust a Republican negotiating on it, more than this administration, that's for sure.

[Plantagenet]

Petulant Obama apparently just cut off high level intelligence ties between the US and Israel.

So much for Obama pretending he didn't want to influence the Israeli elections.


Don't mess with me........

[Shaved Monkey]

Ok, now Iraq.

You say better to have never gone into Iraq. You may be right. But we actually did win that war.

Do wars have a beginning and end ?


or do you just get the next generation angry


re cold war
The reason Communism was an enemy was if the ME went commo (or even Noregian Democratic Socialist)and the people owned their own resources that would serve as a model for all resource rich countries
It would have resulted in a less rich and powerful West,because they couldnt get such easy access to their resources
and maybe a more safe and sustainable world today ???

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.