Israel's Netanyahu: We Will Not Let Iran Get Nukes Even if We Stand Alone

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by mocgator, Oct 1, 2013.

  1. Lawdog88
    Offline

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,469
    Likes Received:
    548
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,938

    Of course, that is from the Islamic perspective that sees nation-states as merely extensions of some underlying religion . . . because that is exactly how they see themselves.
  2. GatorBen
    Online

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,862
    Likes Received:
    444
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,863
    While the idea that the US's primary motivating goal in the Middle East peace process is to bulldoze Al-aqsa is nonsense (as is the idea that Iran is trying to destroy the world so the Twelfth Imam will come out of hiding, that was more or less my entire point), the idea that it plays some role in driving the politics of it certainly isn't without factual basis. And I don't think it's in any way dependent on nation-states and religions being indistinguishable.

    There certainly is a group of quite vocal politically active dispensationalists in the US whose support for Israel is to a large degree based on Christian Zionism, notwithstanding the fact that the US government is distinct from their faith. But ascribing a desire to fulfill end times prophesy as being the primary driving goal of, and a reason to be inherently distrustful of, an entire complex national government, either the US or Iran's, is silly in my opinion.
  3. Lawdog88
    Offline

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,469
    Likes Received:
    548
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,938

    It only matters if it matters to those who actually control the government of Iran.

    That there may some modern, hip citizens out there who may even actually prefer Western-influenced culture, is actually . . . kind of irrelevant.

    That's what's silly.
  4. G8trGr8t
    Offline

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    14,551
    Likes Received:
    1,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,357
    we buy no Iranian oil and have sanctions set up to penalize most who would except the countries that this admin gave waivers to. Waivers were granted out of fear that the removal of Iranian oil from the market would potentially disrupt the world economy.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/06/us-usa-iran-sanctions-idUSBRE9850YD20130906

    No good reason to be granting these waivers other than trying to keep the price of oil down but SA has indicated several times that they have the reserve capacity to meet demand if needed. Eliminating these waivers would be a much more effective way of forcing Iran to give up on nuclear weapons than waiting for push to come to shove and have Israel bomb them.

    Iran could give a nuke to one of their proxies and let them deploy it via container ship with little to no fear that anybody could/would retaliate with nukes because they would not have proof positive that Iran was the source of the weapon. The concept of mutually assured destruction goes out the window when you cannot track the source of the weapon.

    The more nukes there are in the world, the harder it becomes to define who was responsible. Are you willing to risk the destruction of NY or DC or any other port city on the chance that Iran might be afraid that we might find out who did it? Remember that you are not dealing with rational people here.
  5. orangeblueorangeblue
    Offline

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,079
    Likes Received:
    596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,879
    Again, the black-and-white scare mongering is insulting. We have more nuclear weapons than almost any other country on Earth. Just because "we" are "we" does not mean that "we" are all good, right and faithful and "they" are all bad, evil and treasonous.

    A sovereign nation is a sovereign nation. We have as much right to tell another country what it can and cannot develop as they have over us.

    Let us not forget that the bulk of the chemical weapons in Syria today were manufactured by Great Britain and sold directly or funneled to Iraq. Should we also forcibly shut down Great Britain's nuclear programs due to the risk?
  6. gatorev12
    Online

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,684
    Likes Received:
    281
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,510
    The US govt foreign policy and "Christian Zionist" goals are pretty distinct and distinguishable from one another (though there is some degree of overlap, admittedly).

    There is no such distinguishing separation among Iranian rulers and Shia goals. Iran's ultimate authorities are the same people who essentially head up the religion. So when the religion is predicated on the return of the Mahdi to usher in an era of peace and a global caliphate...and the rulers appear to focus on little else besides religious matters (for darn sure they haven't concentrated on economic matters, Iran's economy and population life standards have regressed since the revolution)...kinda not something to be flippant about.

    Plus, if this is so "silly"...please explain Iran's focus on Israel over the past 30 years?
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Lawdog88
    Offline

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,469
    Likes Received:
    548
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,938
    I personally expect an attack on a public place, such as the mall attack in Kenya, will occur on USA soil before the Jihadist Muslims will be able to sneak a nuke into the country.
  8. GatorBen
    Online

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,862
    Likes Received:
    444
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,863
    The actual supreme religious leaders have pretty much uniformly adopted a "waiting" approach to Mahdiism, essentially that the rule of the Shi'ia is to pray and that Allah will cause the Mahdi to reappear on his own time frame.

    Ahmadinejad certainly politicized Mahdiism, but it's not an approach that Rowhani appears to embrace (while Ahmadinejad was president Rowhani complained about how Iran was growing too "superstitious" to function), and it's one that the Ayatollahs have discouraged.
  9. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    33,058
    Likes Received:
    2,518
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,560
    Really?
    • Like Like x 1
  10. orangeblueorangeblue
    Offline

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,079
    Likes Received:
    596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,879
    Yes.
  11. gatorev12
    Online

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,684
    Likes Received:
    281
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,510
    You're missing how the religious council has spent millions on religious quests to find the Mahdi...sponsoring scholars and researchers to scour the ME for him; and the active funding and arming of proxy groups all over the ME and Arab states.

    Why do any of that if they want peace and stability? It doesn't jive with what you're posting here.

    And while I agree that their current president is a moderate and frowns on such rhetoric, don't forget that it wasn't Ahmadinejad's public pronouncements that got him in hot water, it was his attempt to challenge the religious council's power.
  12. leogator
    Online

    leogator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,416
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Melbourne, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +158
    What??? Is this Breitbart's version of events. Iraq in no way could have invaded Saudi Arabia.
    Is this some secret treaty that we don't know about and only you are privy to it?

    BTW I was talking about Gulf War I and II.
  13. GatorBen
    Online

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,862
    Likes Received:
    444
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,863
    I don't know if it was explicit treaties, but that is the entire basis of the Carter Doctrine and Reagan Corollary.

    I suggest you look up the 1990 Operation Desert Shield. When the US deployed to Saudi Arabia at the request of King Fahd after Saddam had troops on the Kuwaiti-Saudi border and started talking publicly about how the Saudi government was illegitimate and an unfit guardian of Mecca and Medina, and the dispute between Saddam and the Saudis over whether he was going to repay loans the Saudis had made during the Iran-Iraq War.
  14. g8rjd
    Offline

    g8rjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    7,243
    Likes Received:
    262
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Tallahassee, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +391
    Yes, I know you were. And it reflects the very limited understanding of American-Middle East relations many Americans have.

    So, let's start at the beginning of your post. No way Iraq could have invaded Saudi Arabia, huh? Let's ask President George H.W. Bush:

    Address to Joint Session of Congress of September 11, 1990

    Are you telling me George H.W. Bush lied?

    As far as a secret treaty, no it's not a "treaty" in the legal form, but the arrangement is not particularly secret.

    The United States's relationship with Saudi Arabia resulted from the limited ability to obtain oil from Mesopotania. Saudi King Abdel Aziz granted a concession to the U.S. company, Standard Oil, which allowed them to explore for oil in the country's Eastern Province. The company eventually became known as the Arabian-American Oil Company (Aramco). Its predecessor company, Standard Oil, eventually became Exxon and Cheveron.

    For financial concessions, Aramco received exclusive rights to mine, produce and export oil, free of Saudi taxes and duties. The agreement was modified over the years and, in 1950, Saudi Arabia and Aramco agreed to a 50-50 profit-sharing arrangement.

    In 1951, President Truman offered concessions to Saudi Arabia in the form of the mutual defense agreement, where we would train the Saudi military and maintain an American military base in Saudi Arabia. This became the 1951 mutual defense agreement.

    As Rachel Bronson of the nonpartisan Chicago Counsel of Global Affairs explains in "Thicker Than Oil: America's Uneasy Partnership with Saudi Arabia":

    Americans certainly have an interest in having a stable democracy in the Middle East in the form of Israel. However, if you think that Israel is the motivation for our involvement in Iraq, you are sorely mistaken. It should be pretty obvious that Saudi oil security is of paramount concern to the United States, as it is directly relevant to our national security to ensure we can keep oil flowing in a major national or international crisis. However, it was confirmed by Wikileaks as well.
    • Like Like x 1
  15. gatorman_07732
    Online

    gatorman_07732 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    31,226
    Likes Received:
    2,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    The Irish Riviera
    Ratings Received:
    +4,276
    Very nice post jd
    • Like Like x 1
  16. wargunfan
    Offline

    wargunfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
    Messages:
    4,567
    Likes Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Inside your head.
    Ratings Received:
    +189
    The difference is that when the chips are down Netanyahu will act unlike the pretender in the WH. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see that Obama has abandoned Israel. Netanyahu all but said so.
  17. AmericaFirst
    Offline

    AmericaFirst Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2012
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +13


    Netanyahu has been saying that Iran was going to build a nuke since the 90s and he hasn't done one damn thing about it. They will never attack Iran. Netanyahu is a crazy lunatic and his act has gotten old. Typical of the Israelis, there's a new President in Iran that is talking about peace and he wants to derail it like the evil scumbag he is. He wants a war against Iran and he wants us to fight it for him. He is the epitome of scum.



    It's still hilarious to listen to that scumbag talk about nuclear weapons when Israel has nuclear weapons, has never allowed the UN to see their facilities, and won't sign a treaty like Iran already has.
  18. HallGator
    Offline

    HallGator Administrator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    43,587
    Likes Received:
    935
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Outer Limits
    Ratings Received:
    +3,690
    Let's try to keep our posts aimed at the topic rather than the poster.
  19. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    33,058
    Likes Received:
    2,518
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,560
    Linky?
  20. orangeblueorangeblue
    Offline

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,079
    Likes Received:
    596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,879
    There are tons of them, this is largely common knowledge:

    http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...nen Bergman, The Secret War with Iran&f=false

    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ronald_Reagan/Irangate_Israel_TICC.html

Share This Page