Netanyahu Speaks To Congress - Live

Sanguine

Fri, Mar 06 2015, 8:39 am

marina wrote:

It's way more complex than just saying: DUH, BAD PEOPLE DON'T GET NUCLEAR WEAPONS or OBAMA IS SO STOOOPID MAN. Both sides have valid points and it's an interesting complex issue. Most people are being so simplistic about it.

Marina it's always the same story with you. You're never willing to accept that the Arab problem is simple. They're a very strong religion (just like Judaism is). You won't convince me to eat pork and you won't convince muslims to give up Jihad. The simple people are the ones who assume that there's one moral code in the world. Islam believes in killing anyone who's not like them and they draw no boundaries at how many they'll kill to reach their goal. Face it. They won't act responsible with nuclear weapons. They wouldn't lose a minute's sleep over nuking Israel, or America (the big Satan) either if they could get way with it. Their goal is to take over the world and make it all one big Islamic world and they'll kill anyone who gets in their way.

America is very liberal and moral but the Middle East is run by a different type of people. Unfortunately Israel has to understand it well in order to exist with our neighbors.

Clarissa

Fri, Mar 06 2015, 9:34 am

Sanguine wrote:

This attitude is one of several reasons why there’s little to no hope for peace.

PinkFridge

Fri, Mar 06 2015, 11:53 am

Clarissa wrote:

This attitude is one of several reasons why there’s little to no hope for peace.

Do you mean "Marina you ignorant slt" (sorry, Sanguine, but I'm afraid that's how some people are reading it) or the concerns that someone who lives in E"Y and faces the threat on a very immediate basis has? Because I very much appreciate said concerns and have grave reservations about coming to terms with Iran.

Sanguine

Sat, Mar 07 2015, 12:32 pm

PinkFridge wrote:

I'm saying there are some people who are so liberal that they refuse to accept reality.

marina

Sun, Mar 08 2015, 12:55 am

Sanguine wrote:

Do you understand that both Obama and Netanyahu agree with the bolded? Do you understand that this discussion is NOT about whether Iran should have nuclear weapons? That both sides DO NOT WANT Iran to have nuclear weapons?

Here's one problem. People make up their mind on a controversy when they have no idea what it is about. At least 6 people liked your post. That means 7 people who read this thread actually think this discussion is about whether Iran should or should not have nuclear weapons.

NO ONE THINKS IRAN SHOULD BE TRUSTED WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS. THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY DISAGREE ABOUT.

DrMom

Sun, Mar 08 2015, 3:13 am

Obama has absolutely no idea how to negotiate, and is completely out of his league when it comes to the Middle Eastern political mindset. His policies in this part of the world over the past 6 years have been unmitigated disasters. His naïveté is dangerous.

Therefore, I do not trust his assessment of the predicted positive outcomes of the deal he is proposing with Iran.

The fact that he is eager to push the deal though without Constitutionally mandated Senate ratification is disturbing on many levels.

This supercedes politics -- I don't think every policy of Obama's has been awful -- this is my assessment of what I and many others see as a life-and death situation for Israel, the home to >6 million Jews.

etky

Sun, Mar 08 2015, 3:36 am

DrMom wrote:

All this is very true, however there might be something potentially more dangerous to Israel afoot - a realignment of US interests in the region, aspects of which we glimpsed during last summers' operation in Gaza. I don't know which analysis is more disturbing: naivete or realigment, but both can have disasterous implications for Israel and the world.

Sanguine

Sun, Mar 08 2015, 6:19 am

I'm definitely not a liberal. Maybe I'm a racist, but I don't think so. What I never understand is this bending over backwards to give the benefit of the doubt to people who prove again and again that they have no respect for human life. We're not talking about people who just want to protect themselves. We're talking about people who are similar to Nazis Y"Sh and want to control the world by killing all the infidels (that includes Americans too). Iran is no different than ISIS. They both have the same moral code.

Jewish law tells us to give up our own life before we kill others or worship idols. Their law tells them to kill anyone who doesn't worship as they do (anywhere).

America stands on separation of church and state. Every man can worship as he pleases. The Islamic law doesn't believe that. "Do what they do or die!!" So America keeps saying "They don't really mean that". Guess what! They mean it. They can't be trusted for anything.

marina

Sun, Mar 08 2015, 9:26 am

5mom wrote:

Marina is right that the United States doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons. She's wrong in thinking that the current proposal will prevent that from happening. That's Netanyahu's point, and a good part of the congress agrees.

I don't know who is right. It may be that Obama's administration is right and that walking away from the table will just result in Iran working on the bomb without even the chance of any oversight, increasing the chance of an attack exponentially. That's a pretty important concern, not something to just flippantly dismiss. Or it may be that Netanyahu is right and trying to control Iran with incentives and sanctions will ultimately backfire as well. I have no idea because I haven't analyzed Iran's history with nuclear weapons or its negotiations history or- critically - the history of whether Iran lends itself to control via sanctions or agreements with countries.

But hey, all of you know the answers. They are super simple for you. That's great. You are all political geniuses. YAY for you!

Last edited by marina on Sun, Mar 08 2015, 9:48 am; edited 2 times in total

marina

Sun, Mar 08 2015, 9:28 am

DrMom wrote:

This is the typical frum position that I have seen. I trust Netanyahu, Obama is an idiot and so I will go with Netanyahu on this even though I personally have not done any research on this. Just basing my decisions on which leader I like best.

Also, there is no constitutional mandate here. Many presidents used the executive agreement concept to address arms deals and scotus has upheld these agreements. So if you're worried about Obama's using this executive agreement power, I hope you had the same concerns about Reagan and Bush. Probably not though.

marina

Sun, Mar 08 2015, 9:37 am

Sanguine wrote:

Again, this whole diatribe has nothing to do with the current disagreement. Please, please learn about the issue at hand before spouting off. Thx.

The bolded is not the Obama administration's position. You just pulled that out of your ***.

Barbara

Sun, Mar 08 2015, 9:46 am

In December 2014, a Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control report by Lincy and Milhollin based on International Atomic Energy Agency data concluded that Iran could produce enough weapons-grade uranium for one nuclear warhead in 1.7 months.

What that means is that, in the absence of a deal, if Iran wanted to, it could take out Tel Aviv before the summer.

That doesn't say "sanctions are working great" to me. That doesn't say "sanctions are protecting Israel," or anyone else.

But maybe all of you Obama haters think differently. Maybe you figure "pheh, it's just one, who cares about Tel Aviv anyway." But understand, if Iran wants nuclear weapons, in the absence of an agreement, it will have them.

rosehill

Sun, Mar 08 2015, 10:18 am

marina wrote:

As ordinary citizens, we can't all know all the intricate details of every agreement and legislation, and be privy to all the advice and understand all the intended and unintended consequences. Nor would it make for a smooth democracy if we did.
So we elect leaders who are supposed to represent us when it's time for these decisions to be made.
When it comes to the security of Israel, Netanyahu has lived in that neighborhood for all his life. He has fought in uniform for the safety of his country, and has sustained the loss of his brother in that very pursuit. He has been involved in the policy end of these issues for about 3 decades.
However thankful I may be to President Obama for funding Iron Dome, for diffusing the situation at the Israeli embassy in Cairo, etc, he simply does not have Mr Netanyahu's experience or priorities.
So, yeah, when it comes to the security of the State of Israel, I'll trust Netanyahu over Obama every time, your disapproval of my simplicity notwithstanding.

marina

Sun, Mar 08 2015, 10:37 am

camp wrote:

Sorry Marina, the "typical frum person" can actually think and have an opinion. That opinion doesn't have to agree with you. No matter how much you BOLD your comments and insult us.
For that alone I cant really take you seriously, its not the way us "frum people" debate. I personally keep it respectful and intelligent.

I'm sure the typical frum person can. There's nothing wrong with their intelligence. And they do think and they do have an opinion. It's not one based on research, often, just trust or group think. So it's hard for me to take them seriously. It's not a problem limited to the frum world by any means. I think most people are like this. They go along with what someone in authority tells them. Their minister or their educated cousin or whoever.

As an aside, there are people who have done research and have come up with conclusions very different than mine. I'm fine with that.

Last edited by marina on Sun, Mar 08 2015, 11:32 am; edited 2 times in total

marina

Sun, Mar 08 2015, 10:39 am

rosehill wrote:

Right, so in short, you are not analyzing this for yourself. You are just deciding based on whom you trust more. I think that's limited and that you deserve better. Like I said five times already, I have no idea who is right but I'm not going to make my decision on which politician I trust best.

We typically give over control and just go with "trust" when we aren't educated enough to research the issue on our own. Like with medical issues or kashrus. Do you think this political discussion is like that? Do you think you can't actually do the research and make a decision on your own?

rosehill

Sun, Mar 08 2015, 2:05 pm

marina wrote:

Marina, maybe you have security clearance, but I do not. All I have available to me are newspapers and other media, and frankly, I find it difficult to find unbiased information on either side.

What I do have is a relatively good relationship with some of my elected officials. I recently attended a small breakfast gathering with the Representative from a neighboring district, where he discussed these issues. He repeated the phrase that a bad deal is worse than no deal, and what's currently on the table is a bad deal.
He's a Republican, so we can dismiss his comments as partisan posturing. But he then said he recently appeared at an event with Senator Charles Shumer, a senior, well respected member of the Democratic Party. He said there was not one word Mr Shumer said about the Iran deal that he disagreed with. Problem is, Mr Shumers views are not the foreign policy of this White House.

So as someone who does not have access to the actual verbiage of a potential agreement, I have no choice but to trust, or at least consider, the opinions of those with more intimate knowledge of the details than I.
And I'll repeat, when it comes to the safety and security of the State of Israel, I'll trust Mr Netanyahu over Mr Obama any day of the week.

It's a free country. You don't have to do the same.