Bibi

So... Did you see the speech?

It's good to see that John Boehner, Fox News and the GOP siding with and showing more respect for a foreign head of state than the President of the United States.

Giving a fascist warmonger a blow job was very patriotic of them.

Speaking of history, here's a good one, jack:

“If you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region…the test and the great opportunity and challenge is not merely to effect the ouster of the regime, but also transform that society and thereby begin too the process of democratizing the Arab world.”- Benjamin Netanyahu

Scorpion wrote:

So... Did you see the speech?

No, just listened to a bunch of excerpts.

Scorpion wrote:

So... Did you see the speech?

No, I just listened to excerpts.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

So... Did you see the speech?

No, I just listened to excerpts.

Ah so then if you had read your own sources (above) you would obviously know that that Bibi is full of shit and is nothing more than a warmongering blowhard, yes?

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

   

Giving a fascist warmonger a blow job was very patriotic of them.

This "fascist warmonger" is the leader of a nation which lies in an area surrounded by other nations whose people want nothing more than to see his nation wiped from existence. A leader who is attempting to ensure the survival of his people can hardly be called a warmonger; the war is being brought to him, not vice versa.

War is exactly what Bibi wants. He uses it as an excuse to steal Palestinian land and occupy it. That makes him fascist warmonger.

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

   

Giving a fascist warmonger a blow job was very patriotic of them.

This "fascist warmonger" is the leader of a nation which lies in an area surrounded by other nations whose people want nothing more than to see his nation wiped from existence. A leader who is attempting to ensure the survival of his people can hardly be called a warmonger; the war is being brought to him, not vice versa.

War is exactly what Bibi wants. He uses it as an excuse to steal Palestinian land and occupy it. That makes him fascist warmonger.

If Palestine were to lay down their guns tomorrow, there would be no war. If Israel were to lay down theirs, there would be no Israel - Benjamin Netanyahu



As true today as it was when he first said it.

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

   

Giving a fascist warmonger a blow job was very patriotic of them.

This "fascist warmonger" is the leader of a nation which lies in an area surrounded by other nations whose people want nothing more than to see his nation wiped from existence. A leader who is attempting to ensure the survival of his people can hardly be called a warmonger; the war is being brought to him, not vice versa.

War is exactly what Bibi wants. He uses it as an excuse to steal Palestinian land and occupy it. That makes him fascist warmonger.

If Palestine were to lay down their guns tomorrow, there would be no war. If Israel were to lay down theirs, there would be no Israel - Benjamin Netanyahu



As true today as it was when he first said it.

It's a nice straw man argument.

happy jack wrote:

Straw man argument, my ass. Since you are accusing him of being a war monger for merely defending his country in a war not of his initiation or choosing, then it's completely relevant to this discussion.

LOL, please explain to me how stealing Palestinian land with armed force, killing Palestinian men, women and children, and then occupying that land is, "merely defending his country in a war."

Netanyahu Soundly Defeats Chief Rival in Israeli Elections



By JODI RUDORENMARCH 17, 2015

TEL AVIV — After a bruising campaign focused on his failings, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel won a clear victory in Tuesday’s elections and seemed all but certain to form a new government and serve a fourth term, though he offended many voters and alienated allies in the process.
With 99.5 percent of the ballots counted, the YNet news site reported Wednesday morning that Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud Party had captured 29 or 30 of the 120 seats in Parliament, sweeping past his chief rival, the center-left Zionist Union alliance, which got 24 seats.
Mr. Netanyahu and his allies had seized on earlier exit polls that showed a slimmer Likud lead to create an aura of inevitability, and celebrated with singing and dancing. While his opponents vowed a fight, Israeli political analysts agreed even before most of the ballots were counted that he had the advantage, with more seats having gone to the right-leaning parties likely to support him.



.... and Barry the Overly-Sensitive is not amused.

Bibi is not only a far right fascist warmonger but also a lying asshole.


Netanyahu Says No to Statehood for Palestinians

JERUSALEM — Under pressure on the eve of a surprisingly close election, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel on Monday doubled down on his appeal to right-wing voters, declaring definitively that if he was returned to office he would never establish a Palestinian state.

The statement reversed Mr. Netanyahu’s endorsement of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a 2009 speech at Bar Ilan University, and fulfilled many world leaders’ suspicions that he was never really serious about peace negotiations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/world/middleeast/benjamin-netanyahu-campaign-settlement.html?_r=0

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

Netanyahu Says No to Statehood for Palestinians

JERUSALEM — Under pressure on the eve of a surprisingly close election, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel on Monday doubled down on his appeal to right-wing voters, declaring definitively that if he was returned to office he would never establish a Palestinian state.

The statement reversed Mr. Netanyahu’s endorsement of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a 2009 speech at Bar Ilan University, and fulfilled many world leaders’ suspicions that he was never really serious about peace negotiations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/world/middleeast/benjamin-netanyahu-campaign-settlement.html?_r=0

The Israeli people have spoken, and they have gotten what they want.
Or are you gonna start counting hanging chads, and inspecting Diebold machines?

No not at all.
This serves as a great wake up call for 2016 in this country. If the GOP gets control of the White House, the House and the Senate, we'll be at war with Iran doing Bibi's dirty work, just like with the Iraq fiasco.
Is that what you want? I don't.

Fuck that and fuck your boy Bibi.


GOP Iran Letter Was A Push For A Regime Change War And Defense Industry Profits

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/03/11/gop-letter-push-regime-change-war-defense-industry-profits.html

U.S. to 're-evaluate' peace process Netanyahu’s disavowal of a “two-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict upends U.S. policy, White House says.

Quote :

President Barack Obama will call Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to congratulate him on Tuesday’s election victory in the coming days, his spokesman said. But he suggested the conversation is likely to go downhill after the “mazel tov.”

In light of Netanyahu’s vow that there would be no Palestinian state during his tenure, the United States will “re-evaluate our approach” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict said Press Secretary Josh Earnest on Wednesday.

“It has been the longstanding policy of the United States that a two-state solution is the best way to address this conflict,” said Earnest during a press gaggle aboard Air Force One. The president still holds that view, he added.

A good start would be cutting back on their foreign aid.

http://observer.com/2015/03/president-obama-must-not-complete-a-disastrous-deal-with-iran/

President Obama Must Not Complete a Disastrous Deal With Iran
Forget Churchill—Obama Isn't Measuring up to Neville Chamberlain

By The Editors | 03/31/15 3:32pm

With the US on the brink of signing an agreement that will lift the crippling economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for alleged guarantees that Iran will limit its nuclear ambitions to peaceful means, the Observer urges President Obama not to place his personal hunger for a legacy issue ahead of his most solemn duty – protecting America’s national security.
Barack Obama has been compared to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain , who concluded the ill-fated Munich Pact with Hitler in 1938. But Chamberlain acted out of a sincere belief that he was avoiding a greater evil. Chamberlain was not thinking of his place in history. He was thinking only of the Britain that he loved, a Britain that was all but disarmed, exhausted, and vulnerable. He was dealing with a nation that had been decimated by the Great War, a nation whose “best and brightest” five years earlier had declared in the infamous Oxford Oath that they would not fight for king or country, and a nation that was as materially unprepared for war as Germany was prepared to fight. Chamberlain dealt from a position of weakness, one that Hitler continually exploited in the negotiations, even by changing the time and place to make it more inconvenient for the British leader to attend them.
In sharp contrast, Mr. Obama is acting out of personal aggrandizement. He believes he is replicating President Richard Nixon’s historic opening of China. For Mr. Obama, the Iranian nuclear arms deal is about his place in history. Mr. Obama is dealing from a position of strength that he refuses to use. The sanctions have hurt Iran. Falling oil prices only add to Iran’s vulnerability. Instead of using the sanctions to pursue his original promise that Iran would not get the bomb, Mr. Obama has moved the goal post. Iran would not get the bomb immediately. It would be permitted to enrich uranium well beyond the 5 percent need for generating nuclear energy and be left with a breakout capacity to create a bomb.
Meanwhile, Iran is refusing surprise inspections, the hallmark of any such agreement, and has ruled its military facilities, such as the enrichment plant at Fordo, off limits to any inspections, period. Iran continues to showcase public displays of Israel being obliterated by an Iranian nuclear bomb, and even in the midst of negotiations government-orchestrated mass rallies cry out, “Death to America.”
If Chamberlain possessed America’s strength and was dealing with Iran’s weakness, would he be negotiating as Mr. Obama is? Would he be more concerned about a Jew building an extra bedroom in Jerusalem than an Iranian building a bomb at Fordo?
Before becoming prime minister, Chamberlain held two ministerial portfolios. He was considered a thoughtful and effective cabinet member. Upon becoming Prime Minister in 1940, Winston Churchill appointed Chamberlain to the new War Cabinet.
History has debated whether Chamberlain was the reckless appeaser that he is stereotyped as or the man who dealt from a position of extreme weakness against a foe he was unprepared to go to war against and who sacrificed part of Czechoslovakia to buy Britain time to rearm. Even Churchill, who filleted Chamberlain with his famous “choice between war and dishonor and now will get both” zinger, understood that Chamberlain was acting in good faith and kept his vanquished predecessor in his War cabinet.
It is unrealistic to hope that Mr. Obama could emerge as a modern Churchill in this chaotic and dangerous chapter in human history. But even Chamberlain would not have made the disastrous agreement that Mr. Obama seems so eager to conclude.

Mr. Obama is an amateur who is enthralled with the sound of his own voice and is incapable of coming to grips with the consequences of his actions. He is surrounded by sycophants, second-rate intellectuals, and a media that remains compliant and uncritical in the face of repeated foreign policy disasters. As country after country in the world’s most dangerous region fall into chaos—Libya and Yemen are essentially anarchic states, even as Syria and Iraq continue to devolve—Mr. Obama puzzlingly focuses much of his attention and rhetoric on Israel, childishly refusing to accept the mandate its people have given their prime minister in an election that, by the way, added three additional seats to the country’s Arab minority.
We can debate whether we should ever have been in Iraq, but Mr. Obama’s hasty withdrawal to make good on a campaign promise created the power vacuum filled by the Islamic State. In Syria, he vacillated over the enforcement of red lines and whom to arm. There too, he created a vacuum filled by the Islamic State.
In Egypt, he withdrew support for President Hosni Mubarack, who for thirty years kept the peace with Israel and turned Egypt into a stable and reliable ally. Obama permitted the tyrannical Muslim Brotherhood to come to power failing to realize that one election, one time, resulting in a tyranny is not democracy.
In Libya, President Muammar al-Gaddafi, once an international pariah, had reversed course as far back as 1999 and attempted to reenter the community of nations, even giving up his nuclear program. Libya was a stable dictatorship that was willing to engage in economic and diplomatic relations with the West. Its revolutionary ambitions of pan-Arabism and its expansionist tendencies had abated. When revolutionary forces rose up against Gaddafi, Mr. Obama not only verbally supported the revolutionaries, he sent NATO war planes to assist them. Gaddafi was defeated and murdered. Libya is now in chaos and another hot house for Islamic extremism.

The deal with Iran follows in the wake of these foreign policy disasters. Among our traditional Sunni allies in the region, it is seen as a betrayal not simply because it advances Iran’s nuclear ambitions but also because it encourages Iran’s support for the Houthi Shiite militia in Yemen and Iran’s adventurism in Iraq. The lifting of sanctions means more resources for Iran to transfer to its meddlesome proxies like Lebanon’s Hezbollah, the assassin of Lebanon’s democratic aspirations.  The nuclear deal gives Iran an unacceptable nuclear umbrella that will compel the Gulf State Sunnis to launch their own nuclear programs, setting off a disastrous proliferation in the region.
The Iran deal is a march toward the nuclear abyss hand-in-hand with the world’s largest exporter of terrorism– the patron of Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthi militias in Yemen, Shiite militias in Iraq, and operatives killing Jews in Argentina. Regrettably, a naïve, petulant President Obama sees this as a crowning part of his legacy and nothing will stand in his way.
Until Mr. Obama released a 1987 classified report detailing Israel’s nuclear program, we believed that the president’s Iranian policy was motivated by a different vision of America’s interests in the Middle East. Admittedly, it is one that would be difficult to dissect, let alone to explain.
But Mr. Obama’s latest petulant act shows that this is not a president motivated by policy but by personal feelings. He sacrificed the security of our close ally and its seven million citizens because he felt slighted. How else does one explain that Israel’s nuclear program is made public while the report’s description of the programs of our NATO partners is redacted?
We might call for Mr. Obama to find his inner Churchill and walk away from this tragedy, but we would be happy if he would simply find the character of the “real” Neville Chamberlain, who when dealing from a position of America’s strength would never have signed a deal with the devil. Ultimately, this deal will come back to haunt Mr. Obama’s legacy far more than Munich haunted Chamberlain’s.

happy jack wrote:

http://observer.com/2015/03/president-obama-must-not-complete-a-disastrous-deal-with-iran/

President Obama Must Not Complete a Disastrous Deal With Iran
Forget Churchill—Obama Isn't Measuring up to Neville Chamberlain

By The Editors | 03/31/15 3:32pm

That's funny, a 34 year old snot-nosed real estate developer giving advice about foreign policy.

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

http://observer.com/2015/03/president-obama-must-not-complete-a-disastrous-deal-with-iran/

President Obama Must Not Complete a Disastrous Deal With Iran
Forget Churchill—Obama Isn't Measuring up to Neville Chamberlain

By The Editors | 03/31/15 3:32pm

That's funny, a 34 year old snot-nosed real estate developer giving advice about foreign policy.

It's the best our house troll could come up with. Op-Ed for an empty head.

Netanyahu slips, Reveals reason for Opposition to Iran Deal

Quote :

So what is really going on? Netanyahu let it slip in an interview on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday:

Quote :

Secondly, Iran is going to have sanctions lifted, including crippling sanctions, pretty much up front. And that’s going to have billions and billions of dollars flow into the Iranian coffers, not for schools or hospitals or roads, but to pump up Iran’s terror machine throughout the world.

And it’s a military machine that’s now engaged in conquest throughout the world in Iraq and Syria and Yemen, around the borders of Israel elsewhere.

In other words, Netanyahu wants to keep Iran poor and undeveloped. He wants to make sure that “crippling” sanctions aren’t lifted. He wants to keep Iranians in grinding poverty.

Is it true that the Iranian state would not spend the money that it garnered through a lifting of sanctions on schools or hospitals?
Look, I am no fan of the Islamic Republic or its system of government or its censorship and authoritarianism. But let us say that Netanyahu, in standing for permanent military rule over 4 million stateless Palestinians, and in launching disproportionate military campaigns with disregard for non-combatant life, is not obviously superior.

And, as far as social spending goes, Iran is in principal as progressive as Israel, though not as rich per capita. The Iranian state has built enormous numbers of schools since 1979, especially in rural areas, and [pdf] has brought literacy among the over-15 population from 65% in 1990 to 90% today. In the 15-25 age group, literacy is fully 98% and there are nearly 4 million university students. Iran has done better in educating its women than most other Middle Eastern countries, and a majority of Iranian college students is women.

Literacy rates were low in the 1970s and relatively few Iranians went to university then. You can’t produce an impressive change in literacy that way without investing substantially in schools.

The crippling sanctions on Iran that make Netanyahu’s mouth water so much have badly hurt the 60,000 Iranian students studying abroad, making it difficult for them to transfer money and causing the value of the riyal to plummet. Those students are not politicians and ought not to have their futures held hostage to geopolitics.

As for health care, Iran has universal health care, unlike the USA, and it is mandated in the Iranian constitution. The Islamic Republic has spent substantial sums making it more available to the population, including in previously neglected rural areas. Crippling sanctions over the long term would certainly pose severe health risks to ordinary Iranians.

So it simply is not true that the Iranian state does not spend on schools and hospitals, as Netanyahu alleged. His purpose in making this false claim is to deflect an obvious critique of “crippling” sanctions, which is that they harm ordinary people, not just the state.

His allegation that an Iranian commander pledged to destroy Israel is unlikely to be true. The Iranian leadership doesn’t like Israel, but they have a no first strike policy and don’t have the slightest intention of attacking anyone with conventional military forces. Iran is too far away to attack Israel and it would be madness to strike at a nuclear power. Typically Iranians say things like “the Occupation regime must end,” and people like Netanyahu interpret that to be a threat to roll tanks (Iran has actually made no such threats, whatever you have been told).

As for his charge that Iran is using its oil money to spread terrorism or conquer the Middle East, this claim is mostly also for the most part not true. Netanyahu counts a national liberation organization that fought Israeli occupation such as Lebanon’s Hizbullah as a “terrorist organization.” What he really means is that it interfered with Israel annexing 10% of its neighbor Lebanon’s territory (which it held 1982-2000). He counts Iran’s help to Iraq in fighting Daesh (ISIL or ISIS) as a “conquest” of Iraq! in all this verbiage, the major legitimate knock against Iran with regard to its foreign activities is that Iran has helped the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria to survive, something it has done through odious practices such as barrel-bombing its own population. But Netanyahu doesn’t even say anything about that except to complain that Iran is active near Israeli borders with Syria.