Althouse: "To be Jewish in this world is to always be concerned. When enemies make threats, take them seriously."

March 3, 2015

"To be Jewish in this world is to always be concerned. When enemies make threats, take them seriously."

"When evil begins its work, don’t give it another chance."

223 comments:

1 – 200 of 223 Newer› Newest»

Larry J said...: When someone says he's going to kill you, it's always a good idea to take him seriously.; 3/3/15, 7:15 AM
Rusty said...: Just to emphasize what Larry said. As with people so with countries. Never assume the gun is unloaded.; 3/3/15, 7:21 AM
Quayle said...: Multitudes, multitudes,
in the valley of decision!
For the day of the Lord is near
in the valley of decision.

For then, in those days and at that time, when I restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem, I will gather all the nations and bring them down to the valley of Jehoshaphat, and I will enter into judgement with them there, on account of my people and my heritage Israel [not the present so-named nation, the 12 tribes - the sons of Jacob], because they have scattered them among the nations.

(Joel 3); 3/3/15, 7:22 AM
exhelodrvr1 said...: We just need to give jobs to all the anti-Semites.; 3/3/15, 7:27 AM
David said...: Evil's work never stops. It just seems to work a lot harder where the Jews are concerned.

The stakes are amazingly high here. If we let the Jews be subject to another holocaust, the moral authority of Western Civilization is forever undermined.

That sounds dramatic and alarmist, but it is true. If we allow this to occur again, what would we not allow?; 3/3/15, 7:35 AM
Fandor said...: The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles.

Ayn Rand from "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal".; 3/3/15, 7:38 AM
Curious George said...: "To be Jewish in this world is to always be concerned. When enemies make threats, take them seriously."

Particularly true with Obama in the White House.; 3/3/15, 7:43 AM
Rae said...: Much evil is abetted by the moral relativism of Western progressive elites. They simply do not believe old-fashioned evil exists. The whole "Jobs for Jihadis" kerfluffle is the best example.

The Israelis don't have the luxury of an ocean and illusions to protect them from the Jihadists. The Jihadists are right in their back yard, literally.; 3/3/15, 7:50 AM
Robert Cook said...: "If we let the Jews be subject to another holocaust,the moral authority of Western Civilization is forever undermined."

We--to the extent we represent the supposed "moral authority of Western Civilization"--have already erased any such moral authority with our half-century of post-WWII intrusion into and interference with the the affairs of other countries, with violence being among our most-used tools, all in service to our goal to make America the dominant nation on earth, to insure that "what we say, goes," and to gain as complete a control over oil resources as possible.; 3/3/15, 7:51 AM
Brando said...: The Jews have always made a convenient scapegoat for any group that couldn't understand the source of their own misery and had to channel it on some easy target. Economy crashes? Blame Jewish rich speculators, or Jewish communists, depending on your politics. Crop fails? Jewish black magic. Plague? Jewish intrigue. Live in a backward dictatorship with no rights or prospects of a better life? Jewish Zionists.

Had the Jews never existed--or died out a couple thousand years ago--who would everyone have been able to use as such a universal scapegoat?; 3/3/15, 7:51 AM
Robert Cook said...: This is not to say we weren't up to such skullduggery prior to WWII, as General Smedley Butler points out in his brief 1935 booklet, WAR IS A RACKET. It just accelerated after WWII, in the power-vacuum caused by the destruction of much of the world.; 3/3/15, 7:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Had the Jews never existed--or died out a couple thousand years ago--who would everyone have been able to use as such a universal scapegoat?

Witches...

Gypsies...

TBD...; 3/3/15, 7:55 AM
Michael said...: David:

What would we not allow? Why, we would not allow Tutsis to be massacred. Ancient statues to be blow up. People to be beheaded in religious snuff films. And so on.

Robert Cook:

Sigh; 3/3/15, 7:57 AM
Brando said...: I knew the game was rigged when the Romans executed Christ and somehow the Jews got blamed for it.; 3/3/15, 7:57 AM
Brando said...: The Jews are right not to count on the U.S. to save them. Hell, we and our allies only stopped the Nazis because they invaded other countries--saving Jews was never a priority in that war, despite our having evidence of what was going on. Israel is better off not being dependent on the U.S. and weighing its own options for defense.; 3/3/15, 8:02 AM
dreams said...: I wouldn't count on this Jewish person, Diane Feinstein.

"California Senator Dianne Feinstein says Israel's prime minister is arrogant and doesn't speak for her as a Jewish person."

http://www.foxwilmington.com/story/28232117/senator-diane-feinstein-calls-netanyahu-arrogant; 3/3/15, 8:06 AM
Tank said...: @Brando

While, largely, you are correct, the reality is that we Jews are a problem. I mean that we, as a group, are for some reason drawn to socialism, multiculturalism, speech codes, the Democrats, big government, and most of the leftist lunacy. We, as a group, deserve a great deal of criticism.

==============================

Meanwhile, Zero and his cronies are actively trying to undermine a not-yet-made speech that they swear he won't watch. In addition, he has asked the Black Caucus not to attend, and they have agreed to boycott Bibi. What would people say if the White Caucus (OK LOL) were to very publicly boycott a speech by a black president of an African nation? What would people say about that? Never forget that blacks, as a group, are the most bigoted, most prejudiced, group in America. So it is not surprising that the "blacks" are, as a group, boycotting the "Jew."; 3/3/15, 8:11 AM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: Robert Cook just can't get over the interference of the US with Soviet expansion.

Sorry Bobby, your side lost the cold war.; 3/3/15, 8:28 AM
Gahrie said...: Christ Cook...this is the 21st century, not the 1980's, Communism failed...get over it.; 3/3/15, 8:29 AM
MadisonMan said...: California Senator Dianne Feinstein says Israel's prime minister is arrogant and doesn't speak for her as a Jewish person

Maybe -- just maybe -- she would change her mind if she moved to Tel Aviv.

It's easy to complain from the comfort of the USA.; 3/3/15, 8:30 AM
Shanna said...: When someone says he's going to kill you, it's always a good idea to take him seriously.

Yes. It's crazy to do otherwise.; 3/3/15, 8:31 AM
MayBee said...: I can't believe how peevish Obama is being about this.; 3/3/15, 8:32 AM
dreams said...: "The Israelis don't have the luxury of an ocean and illusions to protect them from the Jihadists. The Jihadists are right in their back yard, literally."

We're not going to have the luxury of an ocean much longer thanks to multiculturalism, we are increasingly surrounded by neighbors who are in reality our enemies.; 3/3/15, 8:33 AM
traditionalguy said...: The State Department is as usual our leading anti-semitic institution. They are so twisted that the only answer they ever come up with is that we are entitled to sell out the Jews to please the other nations.

Obama is evil.; 3/3/15, 8:34 AM
furious_a said...: who would everyone have been able to use as such a universal scapegoat?

Diaspora Chinese. Tutsis. Koch Bros.

Cookie -- the sanctimonious faculty-lounge bullsh*t is strong with this one.; 3/3/15, 8:34 AM
MayBee said...: Obama issued a statement about how Netanyahu was wrong about what would happen with Iran sanctions.

President "Yemen is our Model of Success", President "Isis is the JV Squad" is calling out someone else for poor judgement.
Hilarious.; 3/3/15, 8:35 AM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: I can't believe how peevish Obama is being about this.

Why? Has something he ever said led you to think more highly of him?; 3/3/15, 8:35 AM
furious_a said...: The reason Jews are a problem nowadays is that they have universal conscription and Merkavas and F-16s. And nukes.

Jews were so much more sympathetic back-in-the-day when they'd line up meekly for the eastward-bound cattle cars.; 3/3/15, 8:39 AM
Skipper said...: "Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics,
And the Catholics hate the Protestants,
And the Hindus hate the Muslims,
And everybody hates the Jews."

Tom Lehrer; 3/3/15, 8:40 AM
Eric the Fruit Bat said...: Isn't Mr. Wiesel supposed to be the guy who said that the opposite of love is not hate but indifference?

How smart could he be?; 3/3/15, 8:40 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: Obama likes having his achievements named after him. Therefore: Obamacaust.

I am Laslo.; 3/3/15, 8:43 AM
Brando said...: "While, largely, you are correct, the reality is that we Jews are a problem. I mean that we, as a group, are for some reason drawn to socialism, multiculturalism, speech codes, the Democrats, big government, and most of the leftist lunacy. We, as a group, deserve a great deal of criticism."

That's the problem with collective guilt--Jews who happen to be leftists don't speak for Jews who don't, and there was always something particularly sinister about how people latched onto the Jewishness of leftists (or moneymen, if the critic was himself on the left). I suppose it's the age-old tendency of "othering".

"Meanwhile, Zero and his cronies are actively trying to undermine a not-yet-made speech that they swear he won't watch. In addition, he has asked the Black Caucus not to attend, and they have agreed to boycott Bibi. What would people say if the White Caucus (OK LOL) were to very publicly boycott a speech by a black president of an African nation? What would people say about that? Never forget that blacks, as a group, are the most bigoted, most prejudiced, group in America. So it is not surprising that the "blacks" are, as a group, boycotting the "Jew.""

Fear of criticizing blacks (a sort of bigotry of low expectations) has enabled a lack of accountability. Look at how an obvious bigot like Sharpton can be hosting Saturday Night Live, which makes as much sense as having David Duke host (except Duke I don't think ever caused anyone's death). Of course, in this case the CBC claims their boycott is because of Netanyahu's insult to Obama. It's about out-victiming the other side, and in today's America the blacks hold the special prize (consider the outrage at no actors from "Selma" getting nominated for Oscars, because it's not enough that black actors win some years--they must win all the time, forever, to expunge the racism of yesterday). None of this will be good for black America or white America, but if Jews have to be stepped on to achieve this self-flogging by white America, that's the price the Left is willing to pay.; 3/3/15, 8:44 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: The 'deal' with Iran would allow them to resume their nuke activities, just a little more down the road, i.e. under a different President.

The balls on Valerie Jarrett.

I am Laslo.; 3/3/15, 8:46 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: The Europeans are (again) taking care of their Jewish problem, the Iranians will take care of Israel: when and if the Worst happens the only Jews left alive will be those in the US that voted for Obama.

I am Laslo.; 3/3/15, 8:49 AM
traditionalguy said...: For the Islamic mind this is all strategic. It is about their evil god's rule over sacred territory that the Jews will not surrender to them.

Ergo: it is the Muslim's duty to exterminate Jews who rule over their Old City of Jerusalem.

The 1949 Armistice lines give them that. It is the demand Obama gave to Netanyahu, calling it the "pre-1967 lines."; 3/3/15, 8:50 AM
Freder Frederson said...: It's posts like these that I miss the insight of Cedarford most.

(This is sarcasm, in case any of you are so dense not to recognize it); 3/3/15, 8:51 AM
furious_a said...: It's not the blatant bigotry of the Congressional Black Caucus, it's the ingratitude. What group of non-black Americans (besides the Union Army) did more for the Civil Rights Movement than Jews?

The allegory of Dr. King's speech at the Mall was the wandering Israelites, and him as Moses likely not to cross over into the Promised Land. Now it's Al Sharpton inciting mobs in Crown Heights and madmen at Fredy's Fashion Mart. And President Stuttering Clusterfuck giving the Iranians the time and diplomatic cover to build warheads and the missiles to carry them.

I hope Mr. Netanyahu knocks it out of the park. I can't wait to see the State Dept's Dipsy Bobbsy twins' rebuttal hashtags afterwards.; 3/3/15, 8:58 AM
Matt said...: Robert Cook, which nation would you prefer as the dominant cultural political and military force?; 3/3/15, 9:08 AM
BarrySanders20 said...: Fredor, why don't you share your reasons why certain Jews are overreacting to the threats, or alleged threats, if you prefer.

Meanwhile we will speculate why Obama is overreacting to the alleged overreaction.; 3/3/15, 9:09 AM
Paul said...: History is replete with instances of leaders of countries saying they will make genocidal war on other countries , races, and religions. And they carried out their threats quite often (as the Jewish people have found out at great cost.)

If I say I am going to kill you, festoon myself with weapons, and murder others in your presence, then it's a fact the mean to do what they say.

In that case you do not have to wait for them to actually carry out their deeds.

Israel, no ifs, ands, or buts, can strike Iran any time in complete justification.; 3/3/15, 9:22 AM
furious_a said...: Shorter Freder: has to explain lame joke to nobody cares.; 3/3/15, 9:29 AM
Matt said...: Why should there be a dominant nation?

That's reality!; 3/3/15, 9:33 AM
Matt said...: I see you bravely deleted that dopey response...; 3/3/15, 9:34 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Robert Cook, which nation would you prefer as the dominant cultural political and military force?"

Why should there be any nation be "the dominant cultural, political, and military force?" Any such nation would be a danger to the world.; 3/3/15, 9:35 AM
Robert Cook said...: Matt, I deleted and reposted with an edit to correct the phrasing of one sentence.; 3/3/15, 9:36 AM
tim maguire said...: Robert Cook said...Why should there be any nation be "the dominant cultural, political, and military force?" Any such nation would be a danger to the world.

And...Robert Cook once again shows his ignorance of history as he argues for a position exactly the opposite of where the facts point.; 3/3/15, 9:38 AM
Matt said...: Fair enough and my recollection of the deleted post is that its content was consistent with the new one.

Follow up question: What do you think the world would be like had the US been isolationist post WW2?; 3/3/15, 9:39 AM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: Obviously Robert Cook would have preferred that Soviets run roughshod over the globe.

I don't even know why you guys are bothering to ask him.; 3/3/15, 9:41 AM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: Any such nation would be a danger to the world.

Does that include the Soviets, whose propaganda you spout?

What do your words mean if nobody could counter the Soviets?

Easy, they mean Soviet domination, which is what you want.; 3/3/15, 9:43 AM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: I find it especially funny that Freder, who can't defend any statement he makes beyond the first objection, characterizes people on this forum as "dense."; 3/3/15, 9:45 AM
Brando said...: "Why should there be any nation be "the dominant cultural, political, and military force?" Any such nation would be a danger to the world."

Danger to the world or not, it's been historical reality that one civilization tended to dominate most of the civilized world--whether the Romans, British, French or Americans. Now, it's us, and while we're not perfect we're objectively better than the alternatives. Arguably, many of the things that make us better are also the things that ensured our dominance.; 3/3/15, 9:45 AM
cubanbob said...: Robert Cook said...
"Robert Cook, which nation would you prefer as the dominant cultural political and military force?"

Why should there be any nation be "the dominant cultural, political, and military force?" Any such nation would be a danger to the world.

3/3/15, 9:35 AM"

How about an adult response instead of a childish complaint?; 3/3/15, 9:48 AM
I Callahan said...: all in service to our goal to make America the dominant nation on earth, to insure that "what we say, goes," and to gain as complete a control over oil resources as possible.

So, it's all about oil? Is that really your contention?

See, this is why I think leftism is a brain malfunction of some sort - mental illness, chemical imbalance, etc. How can someone with the obvious intelligence level as Cook believe in something that is so weapons-grade stupid?; 3/3/15, 9:52 AM
cubanbob said...: Freder Frederson said...
It's posts like these that I miss the insight of Cedarford most.

(This is sarcasm, in case any of you are so dense not to recognize it)

3/3/15, 8:51 AM"

I generally don't agree with you but as a long time reader of this blog I appreciate this piece of sarcasm. I'm sure Cedarford has become a leading thinker and commentator at some Storm Front site.; 3/3/15, 9:52 AM
Robert Cook said...: Matt, I don't know, frankly. We have been a pernicious influence in the world post-WWII, so I think it's at least possible the world might be better off had we been less intrusive.; 3/3/15, 9:52 AM
Meade said...: Live blog ofLive blog of Netanyahu speech.; 3/3/15, 9:54 AM
tim maguire said...: Significant periods of peace and prosperity always include a dominant power. The horrors of war happen among competing powers.

Mr. Cook may still be dreaming of the Cold War, when there was something for everyone--lovers of freedom and lovers of oppression alike--but it was a tense unpleasant time with plenty of suffering and war around the periphery.

And there's plenty less of both since the US became the sole superpower, but more is creeping back in as the left works to weaken the US like a bunch of anti-Vaxxers who have forgotten what real pestilence looks like.; 3/3/15, 9:56 AM
Robert Cook said...: "'Any such nation would be a danger to the world.'

"Does that include the Soviets, whose propaganda you spout?"

The Soviets don't exist anymore. Do you mean the Russians? Yes, of course, any one nation that dominated the world militarily and politically would be a malign influence in the world.

I don't know what the Soviet--or the Russian--perspective might have been or is, so I don't know how I can be spouting their propaganda.; 3/3/15, 9:57 AM
I Callahan said...: Why should there be any nation be "the dominant cultural, political, and military force?" Any such nation would be a danger to the world.

The world has always been a dangerous place. And it always will be a dangerous place, to some extent. Because there will ALWAYS be a dominant nation. That is human nature as much as relieving one's self in the morning.

Those who don't see that are being either ridiculously idealistic or hopelessly naive.; 3/3/15, 10:00 AM
Matt said...: By "pernicious" are you contending the US has had a net negative effect on the world post WW2?

I would agree that the US should have been less intrusive insofar as the US has not behaved perfectly. However, perfection is an awfully high standard.

I believe that had the US withdrawn from the world stage after WW2 that Soviet influence would have expanded tremendously and the world would currently be dominated by a Russo-Sino alliance. Coupled with that would be the genocidal tendencies that walk hand-in-hand with Communism.

I think the world is better off in our current state than risking the possibility that my speculation would have come to pass. What do you think?; 3/3/15, 10:00 AM
Annie said...: I wouldn't count on this Jewish person, Diane Feinstein.

Feinstein is about as much a Jew as my Catholic behind is.; 3/3/15, 10:00 AM
Annie said...: While, largely, you are correct, the reality is that we Jews are a problem. I mean that we, as a group, are for some reason drawn to socialism, multiculturalism, speech codes, the Democrats, big government, and most of the leftist lunacy. We, as a group, deserve a great deal of criticism.

Practicing Jews tend to be conservative.

"The Torah is not a left-wing document. It opposes abortion and opposes same-sex marriage. It does not believe in a grand welfare system, but in private charity. It dictates belief that Israel was promised to the Jews, and that the Jews have a responsibility to live ethically according to a set of specific behavioral guidelines. Judaism is conservative, in the modern parlance. Those who pretend to back both Judaism and left-wing values are betraying Torah Judaism. Which is why while Jews vote three to one for Democrats, Orthodox Jews vote nearly two to one for Republicans."

http://tinyurl.com/nofnfa8; 3/3/15, 10:07 AM
Robert Cook said...: "I believe that had the US withdrawn from the world stage after WW2 that Soviet influence would have expanded tremendously and the world would currently be dominated by a Russo-Sino alliance. Coupled with that would be the genocidal tendencies that walk hand-in-hand with Communism.

"I think the world is better off in our current state than risking the possibility that my speculation would have come to pass. What do you think?"

You're positing an either/or situation, which I don't. You're assuming either that we dominated the world in just the way we have, or that we stayed out of world affairs entirely. I posit that a union of nations working together, (a United Nations, if you will), would be a means to negotiate relations between nations, but one not controlled to a great degree by a single, dominating power.

I don't necessarily think the world would otherwise be dominated by a Russo-Sino alliance. After all, had we not acted in the world as we have for the past 70 years, the world would be a different place in ways that we can't imagine. The wings of a butterfly, and all that.; 3/3/15, 10:13 AM
I Callahan said...: I posit that a union of nations working together, (a United Nations, if you will), would be a means to negotiate relations between nations, but one not controlled to a great degree by a single, dominating power.

Oh, that's worked out well. Example: countries like Cuba and Iran on the UN Human Rights Committee.

The problem with such exclusive dictator clubs like the UN is this: the majority of countries do NOT have freedom, so the leaders of those countries will not make freedom a centerpiece of any such organization. Today's UN is a great example.; 3/3/15, 10:16 AM
Matt said...: But we have a UN, yet we don't have your preferred situation. What is wrong with the UN that it does not accomplish what you think it should?

I agree that today we would not necessarily be dominated by Russia and China. WW3 would have happened by now had that path been taken.; 3/3/15, 10:18 AM
hawkeyedjb said...: It's comforting to live in Robert Cook's world, where there is a readily available answer to everything: It's America's Fault.

"A United Nations, if you will..."

If it were not for America's veto and military power, that corrupt nest of vicious Jew-hating vipers would long ago have done its best to make the world Judenrein.; 3/3/15, 10:23 AM
Robert Cook said...: Matt, the UN is controlled to a great extent by the US, as I alluded to in my remark. We ignore UN obligations with impunity, yet we castigate and sometimes punish other nations for doing the same. If the UN were more of an actual cooperative, collaborative organization, without the distorting influence of one dominant power, it might better serve the interests of all.

Or it might not. One cannot know.; 3/3/15, 10:23 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: Meade said...
Live blog ofLive blog of Netanyahu speech.

Damn. I was hoping the remarks would've begun with 'Bombing runs have currently commenced, and we pray that US Forces do not shoot down our planes as I stand here before you..."

I am Laslo.; 3/3/15, 10:29 AM
Amichel said...: It's really amazing that Netanyahu is such a better speaker than Obama. Obama should be taking notes.; 3/3/15, 10:31 AM
cubanbob said...: Cook has a problem with reality. He just can't understand why it keeps intruding into his historical fantasies. Why how awful of the US to keep such good and kindly leaders such as Uncle Joe Stalin, Mao The Great Helmsman, Uncle Ho Chi Minh, Pol "Year Zero" Pot, Fidelito and other such luminaries from fully bringing peace, justice and enlightenment to the world. Yes a United Nations composed of enlightened regimes tirelessly working in harmony for the betterment of humanity. Of course Cook also overlooks those pesky Arabs and Muslims with their blind spot of Jew hatred that would oppose the existence of the abomination called Israel who would also be part of the Great Governing Wise Council he would envisage running his fantasy world.; 3/3/15, 10:32 AM
Matt said...: Actually, we can know...

http://blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2013/11/25/this-years-22-unga-resolutions-against-israel-4-on-rest-of-world/; 3/3/15, 10:33 AM
David said...: Cook loves the power of the American government when it is directed at our citizens, or at least some aspects of that power. American government power directed at people outside the US does not appeal to him quite so much.; 3/3/15, 10:36 AM
Robert Cook said...: Cubanbob,

You assume that reality would be just as it has been if we had not acted in the world as we have these past 70 years. You forget the principle of action and reaction. If we had behaved differently, world events would also have been different, in ways we can't know.; 3/3/15, 10:38 AM
JAORE said...: UN collaborative.... as in one nation, one vote? The only thing that keeps the UN intact, and a bit less abhorrent than it is, is the veto power of the US.

Resolution after resolution against Israel but barbaric countries left unmentioned. Human rights groups headed by some of the world's greatest offenders. The most ineffective, oft-destructive of innocents, "armies" in history.,,, sigh.

Yeah, what could go wrong?; 3/3/15, 10:39 AM
Robert Cook said...: David,

You make an assertion without facts in evidence. I am certainly no fan of how our government behaves domestically.; 3/3/15, 10:39 AM
Bryan C said...: "have already erased any such moral authority with our half-century of post-WWII intrusion into and interference with the the affairs of other countries"

Moral authority is a meaningless concept. It's an imaginary construct that indifferent and frightened people use to justify inaction in the face of danger.

By that standard, did the British Empire, after centuries of "intrusion" into much of the word, have any moral authority left to kill Axis soldiers in WWII? I guess it didn't matter, since they went and did it anyway.; 3/3/15, 10:47 AM
Matt said...: If we cannot reasonably deduce alternate histories, then how can you criticize US actions? You do not know what the alternative could possibly have resulted in thus you cannot reasonably criticize the status quo. You are holding those of us who disagree with you to a different standard from yourself.

You are saying we cannot reasonably argue that the US as the dominant nation was a net positive because we cannot know the alternative yet you can say US dominance have been a net negative without knowing what the alternative would have been either. Do you not see a disconnect in your argument?

Either we can present an argument as to why the alternative was bad or you cannot say that the world would have been better without the US as the dominant force. It can’t be both as your position and those who disagree are based on a speculative alternate reality.; 3/3/15, 10:52 AM
Matt said...: At least those of us who support the US as dominant force are presenting evidence as to why the alternative might be worse. Your only supporting argument is that you don’t like the current situation.

What would the world be like if the US were not the dominant force? If your answer is still that one cannot know then what is your basis for believing it would be a better world?; 3/3/15, 10:57 AM
I Callahan said...: Do you not see a disconnect in your argument?

He can't see the disconnect because his first premise is that the U.S. is at fault. See my comment about brain malfunctions for an explanation of believing that premise first.; 3/3/15, 10:57 AM
Curious George said...: Robert Cook said...
If the UN were more of an actual cooperative, collaborative organization, without the distorting influence of one dominant power, it might better serve the interests of all."

If the queen had balls she would be king.

It's not. Never has been. Never will be. Ever. It's not the nature of man. You are too dumb do realize that, despite all of history telling you so.; 3/3/15, 10:58 AM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: I don't know what the Soviet--or the Russian--perspective might have been or is, so I don't know how I can be spouting their propaganda. - Robert Cook

Well your stone cold ignorance of world events explains a lot Robert.

What you are basically saying is that, without evidence, the US guess wrong about Soviet intentions and also without evidence, that the Soviet threat would never have emerged absent US provocation.

You have a right to your **OPINION** but to come on here and argue your **OPINION** as if it were a factual foundation for your further **OPINIONS** is just weak-minded.; 3/3/15, 10:58 AM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: Next Robert will explain to us how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.; 3/3/15, 10:59 AM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: The US hardly had an army prior to WWI, then disbanded it again and hardly had an army prior to WWII.

So what we did was get other countries to raise huge armies and build empires so that at just the right moment, after they had made tremendous gains, we would snap our fingers and materialize a superior army, invent nuclear weapons, and finalize our dastardly plans.

The above is what Robert Cook, believes.; 3/3/15, 11:02 AM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: Arguing this stuff is so much easier on blogs where opposing voices are quickly banned, eh Robert?; 3/3/15, 11:03 AM
Robert Cook said...: Matt,

I am holding those who disagree with me to no standard at all. You are free to disagree with me...as you do. I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm merely stating my viewpoint.; 3/3/15, 11:11 AM
Robert Cook said...: I don't know, Tim. I don't argue this stuff anywhere else. It certainly wouldn't be fun if there were no opposing voices. That's the reason I do it...for the fun of it.; 3/3/15, 11:13 AM
Bob Ellison said...: I just watched Netanyahu's speech before Congress.

Several leftist members of Congress, including one with which I share a name, Keith Ellison, boycotted the speech, extravagantly.

Great, Keith. Thanks for making my last name a thing of ridicule. You're an idiot. It'll be a long time before my descendants can revive from that kind of stupidity.; 3/3/15, 11:16 AM
Matt said...: Robert Cook,

Is that it? Is that the extent of your response? I expected more…

Did the link I posted alter your belief in the wisdom of the UN as the world power? They seem inordinately interested in one country whose citizens tend to share one particular faith… Doesn’t that seem odd and disproportionate? Does it indicate that the UN as the dominant power would be more likely to prevent genocide or cause it?

As to what you did reply to… yes, you are holding those who is agree with you to a different standard. You have suggested that we cannot reasonably believe that the world would be worse if the US were not the dominant force. Yet, you have, with equivalent certainty, expressed a belief that the world is worse because of US dominance.

You have been presented with reasons and evidence that point towards the world being worse off without US dominance yet you have offered none (beyond your personal distaste) to support your viewpoint.; 3/3/15, 11:29 AM
cubanbob said...: Robert Cook said...
Cubanbob,

You assume that reality would be just as it has been if we had not acted in the world as we have these past 70 years. You forget the principle of action and reaction. If we had behaved differently, world events would also have been different, in ways we can't know.

3/3/15, 10:38 AM"

I don't assume pollyanish assumptions. I assume based on actual facts and capabilities and prior behavior. A Soviet Union with 500 plus divisions and atomic weapons unchecked in Europe is a scenario only a communist envisages as harmless. You assumption is totally contrary to any plausible version of reality for anyone who isn't a true believing communist. We reacted to a world situation that came about precisely because communist actions prior to the second world war.; 3/3/15, 11:33 AM
Bob Ellison said...: The reasonable response to Robert Cook is to simply exit society. Leave. Don't try. Just stop. Go on top of the hill and become a hermit.; 3/3/15, 11:34 AM
Bob Ellison said...: John Yarmuth (D), Kentucky Congressman, is now upholding the idiocy of leftism. "This speech was straight out of the Dick Cheney playbook."

This man looks like a person of some age, maybe 58-ish.; 3/3/15, 11:37 AM
traditionalguy said...: Why do the heathen rage? That's easy. They are jealous of the Jew's Messiah and can't kill him, so they go after his brothers.; 3/3/15, 11:39 AM
n.n said...: Jews were and are at the nexus of civilizations. They adopted or invented what may have been the first religion or moral philosophy that recognized individual dignity and intrinsic value. This did and does cause discomfort to people who indulge in libertine fantasies and narcissistic delusions.

That said, not all Jews are created equal. The competition between different sects of Judaism and its liberalized offshoots can be brutal and betrayal is not uncommon.; 3/3/15, 11:44 AM
Robert Cook said...: Matt,

I don't have the time right now to review your links and amass my own links to counter yours, so that will have to be my response for now. I will follow up later.; 3/3/15, 11:47 AM
hombre said...: Wow! Take a look at the Dem attack dogs responding to Netanyahu.

They will fulfill all your lowest expectations.; 3/3/15, 11:51 AM
Matt said...: That's fair. Thank you for acknowledging my comment.; 3/3/15, 11:52 AM
hombre said...: Freder: "(This is sarcasm, in case any of you are so dense not to recognize it)"

No one who posts here is incapable of seeing through the nonsense you post, Freder.; 3/3/15, 11:58 AM
mtrobertsattorney said...: Iran cannot be trusted to keep an agreement, any agreement. Therefore the only way to deal with Iran is ????????????.; 3/3/15, 11:59 AM
MadisonMan said...: Freder, I laughed at your comment. It was perfect.

Where is CFord? He would be awesome on this thread!; 3/3/15, 12:05 PM
Michael said...: My first father-in-law was very much a Robert Cook sort, a perpetual smart sophomore. It was his role in life, his gift, to be able to spot bad things and point them out. He never had a solution to any problem just another question or statement that pointed out something else, perhaps unrelated, that was also bad. He viewed this as a gift , his ability to name that which everyone already knew.

My first father-in-law was keen to observe that the bad should be replaced with the good, that violence was not good. He had a stack of platitudes as high as the moon.; 3/3/15, 12:16 PM
cubanbob said...: Michael said...
My first father-in-law was very much a Robert Cook sort, a perpetual smart sophomore. It was his role in life, his gift, to be able to spot bad things and point them out. He never had a solution to any problem just another question or statement that pointed out something else, perhaps unrelated, that was also bad. He viewed this as a gift , his ability to name that which everyone already knew.

My first father-in-law was keen to observe that the bad should be replaced with the good, that violence was not good. He had a stack of platitudes as high as the moon.

3/3/15, 12:16 PM"

Let me guess, your first apple didn't fall far from the tree.; 3/3/15, 12:38 PM
buwaya said...: From Mein Kampf - maybe the fundamental WHY he hated the Jews. Consider the nature of internet arguments in this light -

"The more I debated with them the more familiar I became with their argumentative tactics. At the outset they counted upon the stupidity of their opponents, but when they got so entangled that they could not find a way out they played the trick of acting as innocent simpletons. Should they fail, in spite of their tricks of logic, they acted as if they could not understand the counter arguments and bolted away to another field of discussion. They would lay down truisms and platitudes; and, if you accepted these, then they were applied to other problems and matters of an essentially different nature from the original theme. If you faced them with this point they would escape again, and you could not bring them to make any precise statement. Whenever one tried to get a firm grip on any of these apostles one's hand grasped only jelly and slime which slipped through the fingers and combined again into a solid mass a moment afterwards. If your adversary felt forced to give in to your argument, on account of the observers present, and if you then thought that at last you had gained ground, a surprise was in store for you on the following day. The Jew would be utterly oblivious to what had happened the day before, and he would start once again by repeating hisformer absurdities, as if nothing had happened. Should you become indignant and remind him of yesterday's defeat, he pretended astonishment and could not remember anything, except that on the previous day he had proved that his statements were correct. Sometimes I was dumbfounded. I do not know what amazed me the more--the abundance of their verbiage or the artful way in which they dressed up their falsehoods. I gradually came to hate them."

For the sake of everyone getting along, I suggest the value of staying away from each other and not having occasion to get into arguments.; 3/3/15, 12:49 PM
tim maguire said...: buwaya, Hitler was probably arguing with socialists, among whom were many Jews. What he describes here is standard leftist debate tactics.; 3/3/15, 1:00 PM
tim maguire said...: Patterico once described it thus:

Liberal asserts A
Conservative uses facts and logic to show how A is wrong
Liberal ignores the response and asserts B
Conservative uses facts and logic to show how B is wrong.
Liberal ignores the response and asserts C
Conservative uses facts and logic to show how C is wrong
Liberal asserts A; 3/3/15, 1:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Robert Cook: Matt, I don't know, frankly. We have been a pernicious influence in the world post-WWII, so I think it's at least possible the world might be better off had we been less intrusive.

The rest of the world? Hell, I just wish "we" went in for meddling or not meddling based on a concept of "national interest" that had something to do with the "us" that "our" government is alleged to be serving.

If the UN were more of an actual cooperative, collaborative organization, without the distorting influence of one dominant power, it might better serve the interests of all.

Or it might not. One cannot know.

Actually, one can. The answer is "it would not".; 3/3/15, 1:04 PM
buwaya said...: No, these are standard debate tactics, typical of political argument always and everywhere, going back to the Greeks and Romans at least, and not just limited to leftists or Jewish leftists. The same sort of stuff has always gone on in any parliament.

The problem I think is that he was losing debates, or rather losing the political argument on rhetorical points, not just the substantive one he imagined he was having. That made him angry.

In any argument there are winners and losers, and the losers, if sufficiently powerful, are likely to feel aggrieved.
In the old days people tended to fight more for substantial reasons - power, land, resources - and relatively rarely over ideas, because people of very different ideas were usually very far apart and rarely had such arguments. Its easier to feel benevolent towards an exotic stranger when you have no idea just how differently he thinks.

In the modern world we are thrown together in such a way that argument is inevitable regardless of distance, and regardless of whether there is anything substantial to fight about. Consider Iran, far from Israel and not subject to Israeli economic competition and not having even to defend fellow Shiites from Israel, there being very few in Israel.; 3/3/15, 1:16 PM
Stephen said...: Ahmadinejad, 2012: "The Zionist regime and the Zionists are a cancerous tumour. Even if one cell of them is left in one inch of (Palestinian) land, in the future this story (of Israel's existence) will repeat.
The nations of the region will soon finish off the usurper Zionists in the Palestinian land."

Supporters of Israel need better marketing. They just need to call such statements microaggressions and Progressives will beat a path to their door.; 3/3/15, 1:24 PM
Rusty said...: The UN will protect the Jews!!; 3/3/15, 1:30 PM
traditionalguy said...: The question is does the Jewish State have a protector in heaven[ and if so, what is He waiting for.

Obama's magic cannot enchant the Archangel Michael like it has so much of the MSM.; 3/3/15, 1:39 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Robert Cook said...Why should there be any nation be "the dominant cultural, political, and military force?" Any such nation would be a danger to the world.

Robert, this is distressingly close to simply saying "but it's not fair, it's not faaaaaaaair, waah!" The People's spokesmen, men of steel, really ought to have a harder response, no?; 3/3/15, 1:47 PM
wildswan said...: I thought Netanyahu made a great speech because he pulled all the arguments together. He made it clear that atomic war is a consequence of letting Iran go on in the way that Obama is promoting. He made it clear that the rest of the Middle East will arm if Iran does. He made it clear that Iran will not change if we make it richer. He made it clear that we are facing destruction if we don't act.

Obama says otherwise. Well, just remember, this other Obama saying: "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."

And think also about this. How many friends of Obama has Obama thrown under the bus? How good has Obama been for the Democrats? He really doesn't care about his friends, does he?; 3/3/15, 1:54 PM
Dr Weevil said...: Robert Cook begins his first comment in this thread "We--to the extent we represent the supposed 'moral authority of Western Civilization'". He needn't worry: there's no danger anyone will ever include him among those who represent the moral authority of Western Civilization. He's on the other side.; 3/3/15, 2:07 PM
David said...: Robert Cook said...
Matt, the UN is controlled to a great extent by the US, as I alluded to in my remark. We ignore UN obligations with impunity, yet we castigate and sometimes punish other nations for doing the same.

Cook, you should check your facts, but you rarely do.

The UN imposes a ceiling on the operational contribution in order to keep any one nation from dominating the UN's budget. The ceiling is 22%.

The United States contribution to the UN budget is (surprise) 22%, the maximum allowed.

My quick search found that our support was $6.9 billion in 2009. I did not immediately find dollar figures for later years but the percentages above are current.

Over half the financial support for the UN comes from USA, Japan, France, Germany and England. China is sixth and provides about 5% of the budget (a price for that Security Council vote.)

At the insistence of Congress or at behest of the executive branch, the US has sometimes cut or eliminated funding for certain UN agencies. But the overall funding remains at 22%.; 3/3/15, 2:13 PM
Michael Fitzgerald said...: Robert Cook, that must be some of the "trenchant political critique" you were bragging about the other day. LOL! You are a simple silly demagogue.; 3/3/15, 2:27 PM
MeatPopscicle1234 said...: @David
Evil's work never stops. It just seems to work a lot harder where the Jews are concerned.

The stakes are amazingly high here. If we let the Jews be subject to another holocaust, the moral authority of Western Civilization is forever undermined.

That sounds dramatic and alarmist, but it is true. If we allow this to occur again, what would we not allow?

3/3/15, 7:35 AM

The problem is that Western Civilization has already failed to stop larger, more deadly kill-offs since WW2, and no one seems to be losing sleep over it. The United Nations is a joke, and the US has renounced its place as world leader. Not to mention that its foretold in Revelations that the Jews are in for a really bad time during the last days. Not sure at this point if there is anything that can be done to stop what is coming.; 3/3/15, 2:30 PM
MeatPopscicle1234 said...: @Skipper

"Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics,
And the Catholics hate the Protestants,
And the Hindus hate the Muslims,
And everybody hates the Jews."

Tom Lehrer

Should have added the line:

And the Hindus hate the Muslims,
...And the Muslims hate everyone...
And everybody hates the Jews."; 3/3/15, 2:36 PM
Dr Weevil said...: A simple argument to show just how contemptible the U.N. is:

1. The League of Nations is universally agreed to have been a pathetic failure.

2. The League of Nations actually expelled Stalin's USSR in 1939 for invading Finland, and was so hostile to other dictatorships that Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and Imperial Japan all withdrew before they could be expelled.

3. As far as I know, the U.N. has never expelled anyone except (shamefully) Taiwan (1971). Not North Korea, not Hoxha's Albania, not Pol Pot's Cambodia, not . . . I could list dozens more. Sukarno's Indonesia is the only country ever to withdraw (1965-66) and that was out of pique: they were in no danger of being expelled.

4. Ergo: the U.N. is a far more pathetic failure than the League of Nations ever was. Or maybe we should say it's been quite a success when it comes to encouraging evil regimes to do evil things, but a failure at all things decent.; 3/3/15, 2:40 PM
jr565 said...: We went into the deal trying to contain Iran so it didnt' develop nukes.
Now Obama is having trouble negotiating a 10 year framework after which we wont even have inspectors anymore. And allowing Iran to keep its centrifuges and continuing enriching while we still have discussions.
And Iran wont even agree to that.

Let me say again, went into the deal trying to contain Iran so it didnt' develop nukes

This by the way is one of the reasons I was for the Iraq war. We always talk about containment, but then we end up letting the dictator dictate the terms.

Why don't we just build the reactors for them while we're at it?; 3/3/15, 2:42 PM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: We have the simple experiment of Korea to see the "pernicious" influence of the West. On the one hand, we have an enlightened communist dictatorship providing social justice and comfort for all, and on the other side we have a seething den of evil capitalism maintaining their brutal boot on the neck of a hapless population.

It couldn't be any clearer than if it were expressed in one of Robert Cooks mathematical history equations.; 3/3/15, 2:44 PM
jr565 said...: "Robert Cook said...Why should there be any nation be "the dominant cultural, political, and military force?" Any such nation would be a danger to the world."
Its not as if other countries haven't tried. Remember Nazism? Or Communism?
WE needed an army there as a defense from those belligerent nations.
And even now, it's not as if Russia is not flexing its military might, or Iran isn't flexing its military might through proxy wars against Israel.; 3/3/15, 2:50 PM
jr565 said...: You give an inch they take a mile. No enriching of uranium. Oh, you're enriching uranium? Well no more enriching uranium. Oh, you're still enriching uranium?
Well, can we at least monitor you for 10 years to make sure you aren't up to no good, pretty please?
No? Ok, well can we sell you some centrifuges?

It should have gone like this
No enriching of uranium. oh, You're enriching uranium? SMACK!
Oh you're still enriching uranium? SMACK! SMACK!

This capitulation to Iran is disgusting.; 3/3/15, 2:53 PM
jr565 said...: How on earth are liberals suggesting that this is "smart diplomacy" Since when did smart diplomacy mean give our enemies exactly what they want?; 3/3/15, 2:56 PM
jr565 said...: and dems and libs wanted to boycott Netenyahu for telling the truth about Iran. AND our obligations to not let Iran get nukes. That's the whole point of us monitoring them. Why did we waste the effort if, at the end of the day we're going to let them get nukes.

Netenyahu has to look out for Israel. He's let the boy president pretend to negotiate while giving Iran everything it asks for, but he's willing to send in the bombs. If he does, lets not hear liberals comppain about his warmongering. He woudnt' have had to if Obama had even a semblance of a functioning brain and/or testosterone.; 3/3/15, 3:01 PM
furious_a said...: SHUT UP, said the Democrats, b-b-b-ecause Christians lied to nuclear inspectors during the Crusades.; 3/3/15, 3:04 PM
J. Farmer said...: And so we all get to behold the spectacle of American citizens tripping over themselves to lick the backside of a foreign leader of a client state as he does his best to sabotage a key piece of American foreign policy. There's not much point in trying to argue with the people who believe that Obama is a clandestine Muslim or is working for the benefit of Iran.

But let's leave the big O out of this for a moment. For all of the Netanyahu fanboys here, what do they make of the criticism of the PM offered by Meir Dagan?; 3/3/15, 3:07 PM
furious_a said...: I posit that a union of nations working together, (a United Nations, if you will), would be a means...

"...to, say, protect Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica or Tutsis from Hutus in Kigali."

There, fixed it for you.; 3/3/15, 3:11 PM
furious_a said...: Sorry, J. Farmer, it's just that Mr. Netanyahu is so much more coherent in his second language than Mr. Obama is in his first.

Not one mention of the Crusdades, did you notice that?; 3/3/15, 3:12 PM
J. Farmer said...: @furious_a:

Over 20 years of failed predictions about the imminence of an Iranian nuclear weapon is not much of a record in any language.

But you ignored my question. What do you make of Meir Dagan's criticism?; 3/3/15, 3:16 PM
buwaya said...: Why should he not be permitted to make his case here ?
Everyone else does.
Heck, the US has let its very enemies go to the UN in New York to speak against the US.
And client states lobbying and making their case is as old as the Roman empire. Cleopatra was sent to Rome as a lobbyist. Madame Chiang made quite a splash in Washington. So did Quezon, who spent the 1920's and 30's wheeling and dealing everywhere. Etc. ad infinitum.
The real problem with Netanyahu is that he is a political embarrassment to the administration.; 3/3/15, 3:20 PM
buwaya said...: "Over 20 years of failed predictions about the imminence of an Iranian nuclear weapon"

There was nearly as long a spate of predictions of a Pakistani nuclear weapon, and lo and behold, now they have them. Same with the North Koreans. If these people can have nuclear weapons so can the Iranians. The Iranians have more in the way of resources for this than these other people.

And there is the fact that the enrichment process they have, which are well known and acknowledged, the famous batteries of centrifuges, are pointless for commercial nuclear fuel. There is no need to enrich LWR uranium rods to this degree, and nuclear fuel of this sort is not difficult to get. Tehre are plenty of countries with power-generating nuclear reactors that did not need to set up such enrischment facilities.

What they are doing is only necessary for making material for nuclear weapons. Everyone knows this. Denying it is absurd.; 3/3/15, 3:28 PM
Bob Ellison said...: Iran will have nukes eventually. Netanyahu can only play for time, hoping that sane people will take over in Iran.

Obama behaves like a child who does not know what the game is. Or like an atheist who does not care what comes after he's gone.; 3/3/15, 3:38 PM
J. Farmer said...: @buwaya:

So when the Mossad under a Likkud government conclude that Iran has not taken the steps towards obtaining a nuclear weapon and have not yet made a decision on the matter, are they lying? Do they not know as much as you? Why the disconnect?

@Bob Ellison:

Assuming you're an adult who does know how the game is played, what do you propose? Invasion and occupation? How many US troops would it take to occupy and stabilize a country that is four times larger than Iraq and has more than twice the population? How many young American men and women do you think would end up dead in such an operation?; 3/3/15, 3:51 PM
Dr Weevil said...: J. Farmer:
When someone alleges that Mossad has concluded something-or-other that sounds blatantly unlikely on the face of it, and fails to provide any link or other means of verifying the remarkable statement, I conclude that he is very likely lying.; 3/3/15, 3:55 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Dr Weevil:

This story has been in the news for sometime, and your ignorance of it is not evidence of anything on my part. It has been reported in a number of media outlets, but here is a link to a recent Financial Times:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/291a2ab0-c0e0-11e4-876d-00144feab7de.html#axzz3TMWmMv4p; 3/3/15, 3:59 PM
YoungHegelian said...: @J Farmer,

Okay, I'll bite.

For one thing, if you'd like a question to be taken seriously, and it refers to an outside article, it's just courtesy to provide that link so ALL of us don't have to google it. Here's the link to Dagan's quote.

Dagan's worry is that Netanyahu's visit is pissing off the Americans in some terminal fashion. Dagan, unlike Netanyahu, doesn't understand American politics. The Republicans are thrilled to see Netanyahu, from the grass roots to the Senate Majority Leader. So, this isn't a Republican problem at all, because the various groups that make up the Republican coalition are basically pro-Zionist.

It's the Democrats who have a problem, and it's a big one. Matter of fact, Bibi just grabbed the balls of the Democratic Party & squeezed hard. Let me explain.

There are major wings of the Democratic coalition (e.g. blacks & the left wing) who either don't like Israel or are anti-Semitic or both. But, strangely, enough at least 40% (some estimates run as high as 60%) of the Democratic Party's money comes from Jews. If Bibi's visit forces the huge divide among the Democrats on the "Jewish Question" into the open, it means that every American Jew now has to face the issue of "What are you first --- a Democrat or a Jew?". Many, many, will answer "Democrat", but many won't, and others will continue to vote D., but will pull back in their giving. Jews are only 2% of the population, so Bibi doesn't need to stir up too much dissent among them to cause trouble. If he succeeds, he has done major damage to the Democratic Party's pocketbook, and with a major election just over the horizon.

These are bad times for the Jews. Antisemitism is on the rise in Europe, with French & British Jews openly discussing the need for mass emigration out of Europe. Iran has stated multiple times its intent to nuke Israel. Fifteen years ago, American Jews would have not felt that they were staring at a life or death choice for the Jewish people. Today, for those of them who care about the Jewish people at all, it's looks like they are staring into the abyss.; 3/3/15, 4:10 PM
jimbino said...: Any country that allows its citizens to threaten Amerikans with persecution, decapitation, torture, etc., on account of their speech or religion, should be condemned, boycotted and ultimately eliminated. That includes those "friendly" countries like Saudi Arabia that threaten our Amerikan atheists, among others.; 3/3/15, 4:13 PM
jimbino said...: Any country that allows its citizens to threaten Amerikans with persecution, decapitation, torture, etc., on account of their speech or religion, should be condemned, boycotted and ultimately eliminated. That includes those "friendly" countries like Saudi Arabia that threaten our Amerikan atheists, among others.; 3/3/15, 4:13 PM
jr565 said...: Iran nuclear program history:

http://www.iranintelligence.com/program-history

"The IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano stated on March 2, 2015, that Iran had recently slowed their pace of cooperation with the IAEA and P5+1, raising concerns that a deal may not be reached by the end of March. According to the IAEA Iran had still not implemented two sets of transparency measures that they were required to have implemented by August 2014.

"The National Coalition of Resistance of Iran, an Iranian dissident group with ties to the nuclear program who had in the past reported claims of hidden nuclear sites, claimed in late February 2015 that the Iranians had been hiding an undisclosed uranium enrichment facility under the suburbs of Tehran since 2008. The NCRI claimed that the site, known as "Lavizan-3," had been used for the past number of years for enrichment with advanced IR-2m and IR-4 centrifuge machines. Accusations by the NCRI are taken seriously, since in the early 2000's NCRI claims assisted in exposing the now public Natanz uranium enrichment facility and Arak heavy water facility. The NCRI has officials working in the Iranian government and with the nuclear program within their ranks, and released their discovery of the hidden site following years of intelligence gathering"

and

A report prepared by the IAEA and released by Reuters on February 19, 2015, claimed that Iran was and still is stalling the United Nations nuclear inquiry and deliberately complicating efforts to reach a deal with the P5+1. Included in the report was evidence that Iran was continuing to refuse cooperation with two aspects of the long-running nuclear investigation; aspects that Iran committed to have completed by August 2014. In the report, IAEA officials stated that “Iran has not provided any explanations that enable the agency to clarify the outstanding practical measures,” referring to the scope of Iranian explosive tests and other allegations. A new round of talks between Iranian and US officials began on February 20, 2015"

February 20,2015 is how many days ago?
They are not cooperating at, and our not holding them to account gives them time to continue to enrich.
This has got to stop.; 3/3/15, 4:16 PM
CWJ said...: I think this is an appropriate thread in which to mention this. I just went over to my Yahoo home page and saw a headline that Iran has declared the Administration's terms unacceptable.

So no deal at this point. Not even a bad deal. Obama plays Charlie Brown to Iran's Lucie and we're supposed to think that Bibi is the problem. Somehow I don't think it's Bibi who's unhinged. Somebody get Obama and umbrella.; 3/3/15, 4:18 PM
J. Farmer said...: @YoungHegelian:

If the Israelis feel threatened by Iran, they are more than welcome to do something about it. If they can't, that's their problem.

What would you like us to do about it? If you want the US to invade and occupy Iran to secure the state of Israel, then make the case.; 3/3/15, 4:19 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
And so we all get to behold the spectacle of American citizens tripping over themselves to lick the backside of a foreign leader of a client state as he does his best to sabotage a key piece of American foreign policy. There's not much point in trying to argue with the people who believe that Obama is a clandestine Muslim or is working for the benefit of Iran.

If he isn't working for Iran he sure has a way of enacting foreign policy that helps Iran achieve its goals.
You want to say he's not actively in the employ of Iran. Ok then, he's a useful idiot for them. We shoudn't have a president who is so beholden to his limp wrists.; 3/3/15, 4:24 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
f the Israelis feel threatened by Iran, they are more than welcome to do something about it. If they can't, that's their problem.

What would you like us to do about it? If you want the US to invade and occupy Iran to secure the state of Israel, then make the case.

The false choice from the liberal appeaser. If we dont have this framework then we have nothing. How about a framework that holds Iran accountable for continuing to enrich uranium? How about one that tightens restrictions rather than loosens them?
THat is the whole point of containing Iran, you know. To actually contain them.; 3/3/15, 4:26 PM
YoungHegelian said...: @J Farmer,

Now, it's you who are changing the topic. I responded to your question on Dagan's quote, and now you're moving the goalpost. Notice also, from the link I provided, that Dagan himself is not some analytic bystander, but is also involved in an Israeli "reform" (read Leftist) movement.

As to what needs to be done, if it seems that Iran is serious about going nuclear, I support whatever American force is necessary to stop it from happening. Why do I support such drastic means? Because 1) leadership of the Iranian regime has repeatedly stated in public that they will nuke Israel the first chance they get, and if 10 million of the Ummah has to die because of it, well, there will still be 1.79 billion Muslims left & a lot fewer Jews & 2) every Arab state in the Gulf has stated that if Iran goes nuclear, they will all do their damnest to purchase nuclear weapons from whomever will sell them.

A nuclear Iran is the beginning of, at best, massive proliferation by regimes who we don't want having nuclear weapons, or, at worst the beginning of nuclear Armageddon.

When you see the Saudis covering for the Israelis in public don't you finally start to wake up & smell the coffee & think "Holy shit! Something big is up..."; 3/3/15, 4:33 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
What would you like us to do about it? If you want the US to invade and occupy Iran to secure the state of Israel, then make the case.

As CWJ just mentioned IRan just rejected our proposal to have 10 years of monitoring. So what would YOU like us to do about it? Make it 5 years? Make it 1 year? You are aware that its Iran that is in the wrong here,not us.
And that negotiations don't involve us giving them endless time to enrich uranium and not cooperate with containment.; 3/3/15, 4:33 PM
J. Farmer said...: @jr565:

"liberal appeaser"

Your reliance on boring talk radio tripe to make sense of the world is probably why you have difficulty processing nuance or subtlety. This is not just Obama and the Iranians. The Russians, Chinese, British, French, and Germans are all involved. Are they all liberal appeasers? Are they all Iranian useful idiots?; 3/3/15, 4:35 PM
jr565 said...: Young Hegelian wrote:
A nuclear Iran is the beginning of, at best, massive proliferation by regimes who we don't want having nuclear weapons, or, at worst the beginning of nuclear Armageddon.

So funny. Back in the 80s nuclear proflifieration was a bad thing. We needed to stop nuclear production. Now the libs get mad if we dont extend endless opportunies to regimes like Iran to enrich uraninium. And as you say, if Iran gets nukes, then so too will everyone else. Do libs really want to have another nuclear arms race?; 3/3/15, 4:39 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
Your reliance on boring talk radio tripe to make sense of the world is probably why you have difficulty processing nuance or subtlety. This is not just Obama and the Iranians. The Russians, Chinese, British, French, and Germans are all involved. Are they all liberal appeasers? Are they all Iranian useful idiots?
If they are charged with holding Iran to account to not get nukes, and they are in fact allowing them to do so right under their noses, then they are appeasers, or in the employ of or complete suckers. Pick your poison.; 3/3/15, 4:40 PM
J. Farmer said...: @YoungHegelian:

"leadership of the Iranian regime has repeatedly stated in public that they will nuke Israel the first chance they get"

No, they haven't. You are badly misinterpreting something that Rafsanjani said in 2001.; 3/3/15, 4:42 PM
jr565 said...: Russia, China, France, Germany. The same 4 countries that actively went out of their way to undermine containment in Iraq.
Coincidence?; 3/3/15, 4:42 PM
Dr Weevil said...: I was not surprised to find that J. Farmer's link does not work - not for me anyway, on Firefox.

Nor am I surprised that J. Farmer pretends that the only alternatives are U.S. invasion and occupation of Iran and letting them build a bomb. As if we couldn't (e.g.) help the Israelis come up with a newer and better Stuxnet (and keep it out of the papers this time) or actively encourage the Iranians to overthrow the Mullahs, or do some other things short of all-out invasion. There's a lot of space between invasion and doing nothing.

Of course, J. Farmer's sneer at the 20 years of Israeli warnings is very careful not to mention that the Israelis have been trying very hard to delay the Iranian bomb program with things like Stuxnet, which has naturally slowed the process considerably. How long would it have taken for Iran to build a working bomb if Israel and every U.S. president before Obama had not spent a lot of time and effort trying to prevent it? A lot less than 20 years, that's for sure. A warning is not the same as a "failed prediction".; 3/3/15, 4:42 PM
J. Farmer said...: @jr565:

The Mossad does not believe that Iran has taken the steps necessary to obtain nuclear weapons and have not made an ultimate decision on the matter. The Mossad are also appeasing Iran?; 3/3/15, 4:44 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Dr Weevil:

"actively encourage the Iranians to overthrow the Mullahs"

The Greens that people were urging us to support and stand with just a few years ago are massively in favor of Iran maintaining a domestic nuclear capacity.

"Of course, J. Farmer's sneer at the 20 years of Israeli warnings"

I was not talking about the Israelis writ large. I was talking about the numerous times Netanyahu has said that Iran was just about to get the bomb. Saying in 2012, never mind what he was saying in 1992 and 1995, that Iran was "only a few months, possibly a few weeks before they get enough enriched uranium for the first bomb.” As much spin control as you may want to provide for Bibi, that was a prediction, and it was wrong.; 3/3/15, 4:50 PM
jr565 said...: HOw Obama is giving Iran a nuclear arsenal:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414741/how-obama-giving-iran-nuclear-arsenal-robert-zubrin; 3/3/15, 4:52 PM
jr565 said...: Forgot to include the quote:
"We should note that the current cost of natural uranium is about $100 per kilogram, while the cost of one SWU is about $140. Therefore, if all Iran wanted was 4-percent-enriched reactor fuel, it could buy the 100,000 kilograms of natural uranium for $10 million, and have France or Russia enrich it for them at a cost of another $8 million, for a total price that is insignificant compared with the cost that current international sanctions are imposing on the country. It should therefore be clear that there is only one reason Iran needs the enrichment capability it is insisting on: so it can quickly turn reactor-grade material into a powerful nuclear arsenal.; 3/3/15, 4:55 PM
Bob Ellison said...: J. Farmer, what would you propose?

This is a strange line of reasoning. I said Obama is behaving like a child. You asked what I would propose. I'm not the President of the United States.

You, like Obama, are reasoning like a child. You display lack of understanding of the factors in play.; 3/3/15, 4:56 PM
J. Farmer said...: @jr565:

"Depriving Netanyahu of His Raison D’Être"
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/depriving-netanyahu-of-his-raison-detre/

"The Stunt and the Dysfunctional U.S.-Israel Relationship"
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-stunt-and-the-dysfunctional-u-s-israel-relationship/

"Walker’s 'Existential Threat' Alarmism About the Nuclear Deal"
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/walkers-existential-threat-alarmism-about-the-nuclear-deal/

How do you reconcile the views of the paleocons? More liberal appeasers? Cheerleaders for Obama?; 3/3/15, 4:57 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Bob Ellison:

So you have no preferred course of action that you would like to see the US take?

I have stated my point of view regarding Iran multiple times in comment threads to this blog. I don't care about the Israelis and believe it is up to them to defend their country. Iran does not pose a risk to the US, and I am not worried about them.; 3/3/15, 5:00 PM
tim maguire said...: buwaya said...
No, these are standard debate tactics, typical of political argument always and everywhere, going back to the Greeks and Romans at least, and not just limited to leftists or Jewish leftists.

You and I clearly have different debate experiences (and we read about different Greeks and Romans). I have only ever found this tactic among people who feel passionately about something they don't understand. People who have good reasons for believing what they believe have no need for it.; 3/3/15, 5:05 PM
Bob Ellison said...: There you go again!; 3/3/15, 5:05 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
How do you reconcile the views of the paleocons? More liberal appeasers? Cheerleaders for Obama?

It's my ecact problem with the Ron Paulians. Their foreign policy view is even worse than Obama's.; 3/3/15, 5:06 PM
Dr Weevil said...: The Iranian mullahs have in fact threatened to nuke Israel (J. Farmer's 4:42pm talking point was refuted years ago), and are busy building the means to do so. They call Israel "The Little Satan" and the U.S. "The Great Satan". Anyone who can write "Iran does not pose a risk to the US" is therefore either a liar or a fool or a madman, or some combination of the three.; 3/3/15, 5:06 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
Iran does not pose a risk to the US, and I am not worried about them.

YOu dont think that if Iran got nukes that it's neighbors wouldn't clamor to get nukes right away? ANd you don't think an arms race in the ME would be detrimental for the US?; 3/3/15, 5:07 PM
YoungHegelian said...: No, they haven't. You are badly misinterpreting something that Rafsanjani said in 2001.

No, actually, I was referring to a speech given at a mosque on a Muslim holy day by Khamenei, which I can't find right now. However, other fun stuff from Khamenei from Wikipedia will do the trick:

In a September 2009 sermon, Khamenei was quoted as saying, "the Zionist cancer is gnawing into the lives of Islamic nations." "Israel is on the steep path of decline and deterioration" said Khamemei in February 2010 and continued: "God willing, its destruction will be imminent." He returned to the theme in a speech on 3 February 2012, when he referred to Israel as a "cancerous tumour that should be cut and will be cut". In another report of the same speech, he stated: "From now onward, we will support and help any nations, any groups fighting against the Zionist regime across the world, and we are not afraid of declaring this..."

In a speech before 50,000 soldiers on 20 November 2013, he lamented that the zionist leaders are called humans. On the same day, Khamenei went further to say that France had genuflected to Israel. In another report, Khamenei called Israel a "rabid dog". France was guilty of "kneeling" before Israel, Khamenei said, while Israel was led by people unworthy of the "title human". On 21 March 2014, Khamenei used a morning speech marking Nowruz, the Persian New Year, to call into question the Holocaust. He said, "the Holocaust is an event whose reality is uncertain and if it has happened, it's uncertain how it has happened"

And various links from lower Iranian officials threatening violence of various sorts against Israel.

This isn't a question of a mistranslation of one Iranian official, and you know it.; 3/3/15, 5:07 PM
Lydia said...: I guess J. Farmer's not familiar with the Ayatollah Khamenei's 9-point plan to destroy Israel that he put out last November. And tweets like “This barbaric, wolflike & infanticidal regime of #Israel which spares no crime has no cure but to be annihilated".

But I'm sure he'd never use nukes. /sarc; 3/3/15, 5:08 PM
jr565 said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/3/15, 5:08 PM
jr565 said...: LYdia, you are not interpreting his 9 point plan the right way. He doesn't really mean what he says. Just ask J Farmer.; 3/3/15, 5:09 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Dr Weevil:

"either a liar or a fool or a madman, or some combination of the three."

Or it could just be someone not easily impressed by bluster.

You said, "leadership of the Iranian regime has repeatedly stated in public that they will nuke Israel the first chance they get."

What's your evidence for this?; 3/3/15, 5:10 PM
Dr Weevil said...: I don't doubt that the Iranian "Greens . . . are massively in favor of Iran maintaining a domestic nuclear capacity". I just think the non-crazy non-mullahs who constitute the viciously oppressed majority of the Iranian people would be willing (once the mullahs are gone) to accept the kind of actual inspections that would allow them to build nuclear power plants without allowing them to build nuclear bombs.

It seems deeply dishonest to pretend that 'wanting nuclear energy' is the same thing for mullahs and Greens.; 3/3/15, 5:10 PM
YoungHegelian said...: Oh, and by the way, Farmer, does your disposition to let our allies swing in the breeze when it comes to challenges to their existence as states extend to our NATO & SEATO allies, too? Because Russia could take Poland or Lithuania, and what effect would that have in Peoria? Why none at all, really. Except for the fact that countries that are morally worth a shit stand by their allies & their word.; 3/3/15, 5:13 PM
J. Farmer said...: @YoungHegelian:

You're absolutely right. I am not willing to ask my fellow countrymen to die for Poland or Lithuania. I think NATO is an anachronistic waste of our time and should be disbanded. If the Europeans are worried about Russia, they have more than enough wealth and power (and nuclear capability) to defend themselves.; 3/3/15, 5:17 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
You're absolutely right. I am not willing to ask my fellow countrymen to die for Poland or Lithuania. I think NATO is an anachronistic waste of our time and should be disbanded. If the Europeans are worried about Russia, they have more than enough wealth and power (and nuclear capability) to defend themselves.

so allies, go f yourselves.; 3/3/15, 5:18 PM
Dr Weevil said...: Now J. Farmer tries the old "What's your evidence?" gambit. This was fully discussed on the web years ago, and the people who claimed that the Iranian threats were all just misinterpretations of one speech of one Iranian were decisively refuted. As I recall, there were in fact threats to destroy Israel on the official Iranian government website, in official Iranian-government English translations. Yet J. Farmer drags out the old talking point again.

Making people prove something over and over again by repeatedly asserting something that has been refuted is a standard tactic of common trolls.; 3/3/15, 5:19 PM
J. Farmer said...: @jr565:

So if Russia invades Estonia, you want to go to war with them? Good luck with that.; 3/3/15, 5:20 PM
jr565 said...: Hezbollah has allies in Iran. Russia can ally with Syria. But we shouldn't ally with anyone.
Not even our actual allies.; 3/3/15, 5:21 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
So if Russia invades Estonia, you want to go to war with them? Good luck with that.

again, the only solution isn't war, is it? But you've just given Russia carte blanche to go to war with Estonia. Don't see why they are so free, and we are so shackled.; 3/3/15, 5:23 PM
jr565 said...: WHat would your stance on WWII have been? Let Germany rape Europe?; 3/3/15, 5:24 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Dr Weevil:

Now you're really flailing. I drug out an old talking point? You're referring to the "wipe Israel off the map" speech that Ahmadinejad gave in 2005, and there was a case of mistranslation in that circumstance.

You declared that "leadership of the Iranian regime has repeatedly stated in public that they will nuke Israel the first chance they get."

Yet, you cannot give a name, a place, or a time. You cannot give these for one simple reason. It has not been said. Iran has threatened Israel for sure; that is not in dispute. But the notion that the "leadership of the Iranian regime has repeatedly stated in public that they will nuke Israel the first chance they get" is wrong. It's okay to admit. Nobody will think any less of you.; 3/3/15, 5:25 PM
YoungHegelian said...: @Farmer,

Okay, Farmer, then disband NATO & SEATO & leave them on their own. But, until that happens, we are bound by treaty to defend them.

But, you don't seem to think that countries should be bound by their oaths when they become inconvenient. And, the thing about is, you probably see your politics as somehow "moral" in spite of it.; 3/3/15, 5:27 PM
J. Farmer said...: @jr565:

Germany declared war on us. Most of our effort in the second world war was concentrated in the Pacific. Most of the credit for the defeat of Germany in the European theatre should probably go to the Soviets. It's telling that you have to keep returning to the well of Hitler/Nazis/Germany/WWII to defend why the US should be attacking countries that do not pose any significant threat to us.

Estonia is a member of NATO. We are bound by treaty to come to their defense in the event that they are attacked by an outside power. I think that is terminally idiotic.; 3/3/15, 5:29 PM
J. Farmer said...: @YoungHegelian:

Just stick to criticizing the arguments I make instead of trying to see into my mind about what I "probably see." Yes, I believe NATO should be disbanded. If you think it's a good idea that the US is bound by treaty to go to war on Estonia's behalf, then you and I have very different ideas of what is in America's interest. There has not been a SEATO since the late 1970s, so I am not sure what you are talking about there.; 3/3/15, 5:32 PM
jr565 said...: Obama said recently that Iran must halt its nuclear work for a decade:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/02/us-usa-obama-idUSKBN0LY2GA20150302

"“If, in fact, Iran is willing to agree to double-digit years of keeping their program where it is right now and, in fact, rolling back elements of it that currently exist ... if we’ve got that, and we’ve got a way of verifying that, there’s no other steps we can take that would give us such assurance that they don’t have a nuclear weapon,"

I'm operating therefore under a pretense that Obama thinks its imperative to make sure Iran doesn't get nukes. And that his proposal in fact does that. They just decided to not agree to Obama's terms. So what now?
If Iran poses no threats, why is Obama going through the pretense of holding them to a 10 year restriction on getting nukes?
Shouldn't he say, what's the big whoop, J Farmer?
Nuclear shmuklear.
Instead he's suggseting a deal that will curtain Iran's production (which as stated would appear to be in our interset).
So is Obama right, or is Netenyahu right?
Well, Iran just decided to not go along with the 10 year framework. I would think then that Obama wouldn't attack people who said the framework was a stupid idea, since of course, it hasn't been agreed to.; 3/3/15, 5:32 PM
jr565 said...: This is like the view of Iraq under Clinton and under Bush. Both say Iraq poses a threat, both propose regime change. Bush achieves regime change. If all sides are in agreement then the issue is, how best to achieve the result.
J Farmer of course doesn't agree. But then he's arguing for a state of affairs that simply does not exist in the present time.

THERE IS NO INSTANCE WHERE WE ARE NOT HOLDING IRAN TO ACCOUNT FOR PURSUING ITS NUCLEAR PROGRAM. We've already gone down that road. Ok, J Farmer?
THere is no hands off policy when we are in the middle of containmwent. THere is simply a matter of determining whether containment works or doesn't work.
If you want to renegotiate the argument that we shouldn't be holding Iran to accoutn for its nukes,then you shouldnt be defending Obama offering up frameworks that, supposedly do exactly that.; 3/3/15, 5:37 PM
Dr Weevil said...: The story that the Iranian nuclear threat to Israel is not just a mistranslation of a single statement by a single official "has been", as a (now and then, purely by accident) wise man once wrote, "in the news for sometime [sic], and your ignorance of it is not evidence of anything on my part".

As I wrote, this was refuted years ago. I saw it happen in real time. If I had realized that lying weasels would be bringing up the refuted talking point many years later as if it had not been refuted, I would have kept copies of the proofs, but it never occurred to me that anyone would be so dishonest. Nor will I bother to prove what has already been proven, any more than you could be bothered to proved what you alleged about Mossad. (I still can't open your link, and YoungHegelian doesn't seem to have found it particularly impressive.)

In any case, I'm not too worried about the disapproval of someone who finds genocide perfectly acceptable as long as it doesn't involve anyone he knows.; 3/3/15, 5:37 PM
J. Farmer said...: @jr565:

I know you are eager to paint me as some kind of big Obama supporter, since that seems to be your simpleminded view of the world, but I have disagreed with the majority of foreign policy decisions the President has made. Granted, I think McCain certainly and Romney most likely would have made even bigger blunders. But that's life in a two-party state.; 3/3/15, 5:40 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Dr Weevil:

Still throwing punches in the air, I see.

"If I had realized that lying weasels would be bringing up the refuted talking point many years later as if it had not been refuted, I would have kept copies of the proofs, but it never occurred to me that anyone would be so dishonest."

You brought this up. Not me. I knew the person you were referring to, and the year it happened. You had none of those details. You made a claim about what the "Iranian leadership" supposedly said. Again, you cannot tell me who said it, when it was said, or where it was said. But you know it was said! So, in short, your evidence is: trust me.; 3/3/15, 5:43 PM
jr565 said...: I"m operating under the premise that not letting Iran get nukes is a good policy. Because Iran is an evil country.
But, apparently the Obama administration agrees with me, and not J Farmer.
Then the question is, how do you go about achieving the result.Obama is failing.
He and his followers keep positing the argument that the only deal possible is the one that he proposed.
Then why is he bothering to go through the pretense of containing Iran?
If you put down a red line, and when someone steps over it you put down another red line at a certain point you have to recognize that putting down red lines is stupid and a waste of time.
Are you actually trying to achieve what you say you are, or are you simply going through a pretense to waste our time until the next adminstration has to deal with a nuclear Iran.
We "contained" Iran a long time ago. And they are a lot further with their nukes now then they were when we "contained" them.
Surely Obama shouldn't expect no criticism when he's bad mouthing people who also want containment for saying his idea isn't in fact working?; 3/3/15, 5:45 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
I know you are eager to paint me as some kind of big Obama supporter, since that seems to be your simpleminded view of the world, but I have disagreed with the majority of foreign policy decisions the President has made.

My guess is you would have disagreed with containing Irans nuclear ambitions in the first place. So in that regard, you are worse than Obama.; 3/3/15, 5:46 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
You brought this up. Not me. I knew the person you were referring to, and the year it happened. You had none of those details. You made a claim about what the "Iranian leadership" supposedly said. Again, you cannot tell me who said it, when it was said, or where it was said. But you know it was said! So, in short, your evidence is: trust me.

Trust is is exactly Iran's argument. Even though, as I laid out, they have done many things that proved they are not in fact trustworthy.; 3/3/15, 5:48 PM
J. Farmer said...: @jr565:

"But, apparently the Obama administration agrees with me, and not J Farmer."

You're absolutely right. And I am just fine with that. I do not need anybody to agree with me to feel confident in the positions I have taken.; 3/3/15, 5:48 PM
J. Farmer said...: @jr565:

"Trust is is exactly Iran's argument. Even though, as I laid out, they have done many things that proved they are not in fact trustworthy."

That has nothing to do with anything I was talking about. I was addressing my comment to "Dr Weevil" regarding a claim he made.; 3/3/15, 5:49 PM
jr565 said...: and since you used the word trust I applied it to our negotiations with the regime. They haven't earned trust.
And for all the talk about how they havne't really said they'd wipe israel off the map,theyve' been waging a proxy war against Israel using Hezbollah and Hamas.
They are all too happy to pump money and weapnos into their hands to fight a continual war.; 3/3/15, 5:55 PM
buwaya said...: What Israel has gotten from the US -
- An embargo, which the US can enforce, to a degree, but Israel cannot, that has damaged Iran severely. This has hurt their military ambitions as well. The Iranians are, consequently, relatively ill equipped. They have also been unable to expand oil production or upgrade their own refining infrastructure. This is strategic warfare that affects broad sectors. The fact that the Iranians are unwilling to give up their nuclear ambitions in the face of this is very telling about their commitment.
- US cooperation in Israels ongoing covert campaign of sabotage vs Iran. The Iranian nuclear and missile programs have been stuck by a remarkable series of disasters, "accidents" - really massive explosions in critical sites, etc. And the Stuxnet virus attack, plus various assassinations and organized defections of key people. It seems this cooperation ended some time ago according to some chatter. Stuxnet for instance was probably developed in 2008 and activated in 2009, though only discovered in 2010. There has been no new Stuxnet or similar thing since.; 3/3/15, 5:56 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
You're absolutely right. And I am just fine with that. I do not need anybody to agree with me to feel confident in the positions I have taken.

If your position is we should let Iran get nukes and not do a single thing to stand in their way you are bat shit insane.; 3/3/15, 5:57 PM
YoungHegelian said...: Yoo-hoo, Farmer,

Regarding the nuclear programme, in parallel to its denial of any intention to develop nuclear weapons, senior officials in the Iranian regime argue that there is justification for countries of the Moslem world to develop such weapons as a counter-weight to Israel’s nuclear force. A statement in this matter was expressed by former Iranian President Rafsanjani in December 2001. ‘If one day the Moslem world acquires weapons of the kind currently possessed by Israel, the strategy of the imperialists will come to a dead end. Because the activation of even a single nuclear bomb in Israel will destroy everything, while such a bomb will only cause damage to the Moslem world.’

Rafsanjani expressed this idea even earlier, in a speech in Tehran in October 2000. He clearly stated that Iran believed it would come out the winner of a nuclear war. ‘In a nuclear duel in the region, Israel may kill 100 million Muslims’, the former Iranian president said. ‘Muslims can sustain such casualties, knowing that, in exchange, there
would be no Israel on the map.’

Banners with the slogan, ‘Israel must be wiped off the map’ in both Farsi and English, were hung from the Shahab-3 missiles put on a military parade in September 1999.

Link here.; 3/3/15, 5:59 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:

You're absolutely right. And I am just fine with that. I do not need anybody to agree with me to feel confident in the positions I have taken.

ANd at any rate, you have offered up a defense of the Obama cotainment strategy. As in, we can't get any better with our containment.
Sure we could.; 3/3/15, 5:59 PM
J. Farmer said...: @YoungHegelian:

Yoo-hoo, this was my first response to your claim...

"@YoungHegelian:

No, they haven't. You are badly misinterpreting something that Rafsanjani said in 2001."

This is a link to Rafsanjani's full speech, translated from the Persian:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2001/011214-text.html; 3/3/15, 6:04 PM
YoungHegelian said...: Farmer,

Your link has only the 2001 Al-Quds Day speech, and the line from the 2001 speech in my excerpt is the same word for word as from your link. It doesn't read any sweeter.

The 2000 speech by Rafsanjani isn't even covered by your link ("even with the loss of 100 million muslims...."). Is it, too, a bad translation that has the same words as your translator of choice?; 3/3/15, 6:14 PM
Lydia said...: From J. Farmer's link to the 2001 Rafsanjani speech:

Of course, that is very important. If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.

I fail to see how that differs in substance from the translation provided above by Young Hegelian @5:59 p.m.:

If one day the Moslem world acquires weapons of the kind currently possessed by Israel, the strategy of the imperialists will come to a dead end. Because the activation of even a single nuclear bomb in Israel will destroy everything, while such a bomb will only cause damage to the Moslem world.; 3/3/15, 6:14 PM
buwaya said...: What the US has provided the world -
The Pax Americana, where, across most of the world, since 1945 overwhelming US power has largely prevented any would be "great powers" from trying to dominate their region and, most importantly, to interfere substantially with international trade. This has led to the fastest rate of economic growth ever seen, and volumes of trade likewise never seen. Living standards for most people in most places has also improved to unprecedented levels, in spite of all the minor errors, local exceptions and constant whining. This all is a very good thing.

This is breaking down. Symptoms are, among others, China trying to use its military to dominate the South China Sea and threatening to effectively blockade Japan, Russia recovering its old empire under cover of its European energy monopoly, etc. A nuclear arms race among second-tier countries like Iran, Saudi, Turkey, etc. would likely put an final end to US abilities to keep the lid on.

The alternative to the Pax Americana is the restoration of the "great powers", and most likely a series of wars among now-developed, highly dangerous countries right where they can interrupt the global economy and start another cycle of wars. Modern wars among developed countries are likely to be deadly beyond all previous experience.

The price of isolationist fantasies is likely to be extremely high.; 3/3/15, 6:17 PM
J. Farmer said...: @YoungHegelian:

This has nothing to do with translation. I knew what you were referring to when you first said it. That is why I mentioned Rafsanjani. Your response...

"No, actually, I was referring to a speech given at a mosque on a Muslim holy day by Khamenei, which I can't find right now."

I conceded that Iran has threatened Israel. That is uncontroversial. But you wrote: "leadership of the Iranian regime has repeatedly stated in public that they will nuke Israel the first chance they get."

No, they have not. Rafsanjani was talking about the balance of power effects that would result from a Muslim nation possessing nuclear weapons vis-a-vis the Israelis.; 3/3/15, 6:19 PM