# Netanyahu's Speech



## Simple Civilian (Mar 3, 2015)

Good evening, Ladies and Gentlemen.  I seek your feedback on Netanyahu's address to Congress today.  What are your perspectives?


----------



## racing_kitty (Mar 3, 2015)

I'll confess to not having watched it.  I was asleep when he took the stage.  I've seen a few blog headlines here and there, but not enough to form my opinion just yet.  From what I understand, it wasn't exactly widely broadcast on the major networks.


----------



## Simple Civilian (Mar 3, 2015)

We are watching the news (at the moment, The News Hour on PBS) to get some idea of how the media is reporting it.  Personally, I think this will actually be more interesting than Netanyahu's speech.  I agree with the observations so far that Netanyahu said nothing new today, but that he gave a concise and strong summary of modern history re: Iran, the West in general, the U.S. and Israel.  It was, IMHO, a strong speech in that regard.


----------



## Brill (Mar 3, 2015)

racing_kitty said:


> I'll confess to not having watched it.  I was asleep when he took the stage.



Wasn't he on at noon or 1 o'clock eastern?


----------



## racing_kitty (Mar 3, 2015)

lindy said:


> Wasn't he on at noon or 1 o'clock eastern?



All times being EST, that means he went on at the latest 30 minutes before I got out of bed.  That's the life you lead when you work 1600-ooo1 and then stay up for a few hours after that.  Remember, I am an insomniac.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 4, 2015)

Netanyahu says any deal with Iran is a deal with the devil. But our administration is determined to appease the Iranians and the President denounced the speech as nothing new. Bibi is a big nasty burr under Obama's saddle because he's right and Obama is _fucking wrong_. Of course Iran wants the Bomb, has always wanted the Bomb, the Bomb scares the shit out of people and every ambitious country wants one...and the Iranians will negotiate, prevaricate, stall, lie, deceive and fiddly-fuck around through years of negotiations while they work to acquire weaponized nukes and become a scary regional and Islamic power.

Years ago Lyndon Johnson tried to make a deal with Ho Chi Minh by offering him billions in infrastructure projects,  roads, dams, power grids, hospitals, schools blah blah blah...if only he would cease and desist and leave SVN alone. It was like the Tennessee Valley Authority project for the Red River Delta. Ho wiped his ass with it, as if to say, who the fuck do you think I am, some shitkickin congressman from Podunk? That's the way I view our present administration's naivete when it comes to Iran and it's pretty clear Netanyahu must have similar thoughts.

I mean, after dealing with an idiot like John Kerry what else can you think?


----------



## Simple Civilian (Mar 4, 2015)

" Netanyahu's motives in accepting this invitation were undoubtedly part political, but I believe he's genuinely alarmed at the direction the US is taking with regard to the world's bad guys (i.e. Cuba's running a flourishing arms trade with North Korea and yet Obama wants to restore diplomatic relations?). Netanyahu knows a fool when he sees one and he must see an empty head of hair in Kerry and a local community organizer promoted far above his level of competence in Obama."

This.

I am new here and treading softly.  Surely I do not want to put words in anyone's mouth, and furthermore, I am here to listen rather than to pontificate.

I have been mouth agape ever since Beyonce' and JayZ's much flaunted trip to Cuba.  WTH?  I have not one problem with the people of Cuba (I do suspect that our politics would diverge quickly) but *the folks running the show in Cuba are the same people who accepted nuclear missiles from Russia and pointed them at my house, in my lifetime.* *Those people are still there, they are still in charge, they are still calling the shots.*

Yes, I'm that old.  And these are the things that make me go "Hmmm?" because Obama and I are about the same age.  Obama was on this earth as well during the Cuban Missile Crisis.  I guess it wasn't his problem because he and his family weren't residing on the CONUS?  ???  I don't know. 

Even though I do not have cognitive memories of the actual events I do rather take the Cuban Missile Crisis personally.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the people in charge in Cuba probably still don't like us. 

Furthermore, we are late to the party in terms of the carrot rather than the stick.  TPTB in Cuba have embraced just enough capitalism and trade to compensate for the loss of the gravy train from the fallen Soviet Union.  Cuba does not need us.  We will see that as time goes on, I suspect.  Any concessions to Cuba are "free milk and the cow."

I have the same feelings about Iran.  Iran does not need us.  Iran is a modern day Russian client state.  The powers that be in the former Soviet Union do not have much in terms of gravy train to offer client states these days but there is still huge influence, and, I imagine if one is so inclined to throw one's lot in with the former Soviet block, some perks.  Any concessions with Iran once again ring of "free milk and the cow."

I look at the entirety of what appears to be this administration's foreign policy (such that it is) and it seems to be one of alienating historical allies (except for France) and appeasing historical enemies.  I guess this is part of "fundamentally transforming America."  We get new BFFs!

Alternately (and generously, but hey, why not go there?  since we are already there, apparently) I could posit that Obama is trying on a whole new approach.  The "old way" isn't working (or it isn't getting results that Obama considers wins) so he's trying a whole new approach.

From a purely academic standpoint, I can see some merit with trying something new.  We will never know unless we try, right?  But from a practical point of view, it seems that in the process of "trying something new" we are also throwing out decades of hard earned wisdom and strong allies.  "Trying something new" doesn't mean ignoring facts on the ground and alienating friends.

It's scary as hell when another head of state has to come to your country to warn your Congress of the folly of your sitting president.  That's some scary stuff right there.  (Can I say "hell" on Shadowspear?) 

And as far as relations with Russian client states go, if Obama is matching wits with Putin and trying to steal friends and influence client states, I am reminded of Ralph Peter's paraphrasing of A.E. Housman's verse in relation to Obama early in Obama's first term:

"The Russian Bear is huge and wild,
He has devoured the infant child,
The infant child is not aware,
He has been eaten by The Bear."

Just my opinion, but I see nothing out of Obama so far that convinces me that he is any match for Putin.

OK I said too much. 

Your turn.  :)


----------



## Gunz (Mar 6, 2015)

Simple Civilian said:


> ...Alternately (and generously, but hey, why not go there?  since we are already there, apparently) I could posit that Obama is trying on a whole new approach.  The "old way" isn't working (or it isn't getting results that Obama considers wins) so he's trying a whole new approach...


 

Obama's foreign policy seems to be based loosely on the flawed progressive/socialist world view that everyone can be reasoned with, that all countries want what's best for their people, and that sanctions are scary. :whatever: It's not new, it's trying to leverage your adversaries with bribes or hollow threats...pay ransom, in other words, to make them do what you want. IMO the Iranians and the Russians are probably two of the worst possible subjects upon which to try this kind of approach.


----------



## Simple Civilian (Mar 6, 2015)

Ocoka One said:


> Obama's foreign policy seems to be based loosely on the flawed progressive/socialist world view that everyone can be reasoned with, that all countries want what's best for their people, and that sanctions are scary. :whatever: It's not new, it's trying to leverage your adversaries with bribes or hollow threats...pay ransom, in other words, to make them do what you want. IMO the Iranians and the Russians are probably two of the worst possible subjects upon which to try this kind of approach.



I am not well-versed in the particular history that I'm about to reference, but didn't we (and most of the west) get backed into this corner with North Korea as well?  I seem to remember some period of time in which we were giving North Korea a certain amount of humanitarian aid for complying with nuclear inspections.  (Again, I say, I am thin and shallow on this subject- if I've got it wrong, please correct me.)  And then, it seemed, North Korea reversed the psychology and started demanding more aid or it would stop cooperating.  And then, if I recall correctly, aid stopped, was curtailed or merely not increased- I don't remember- and North Korea withdrew from nuclear treaties, refused inspections and went ahead with its nuclear program, subsequently conducting yet another nuclear test.  Do I have this timeline more or less right?

Bottom line, if a country insists on being a bad actor on the world stage, appeasement doesn't tend to dissuade it.  At least not historically.  As much as I can recall, although I will freely admit that I am not a scholar.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 7, 2015)

Nothing suggests weakness and fear more than trying to buy your enemies to leave you alone. Sanctions are window dressing, hollow and usually ineffective, they can be used as propaganda against you (see Saddam Hussein), or to rally resistance among your own people. They can hurt your economy, create hardship, but don't have much effect if the leadership doesn't give a shit about the common folk (see North Korea). And even if sanctions start to hurt you, there's always somebody out there willing to do business with you, (see Rhodesia et al.)

There is no iron in appeasement. And as we inexorably approach the 10-billion mark in population and the world gets smaller and more crowded, armed conflict will only increase. The world becomes a more dangerous place with each passing day. In another century people may be killing each other over food, living space and potable water. The pie-in-the-sky view of progressive/socialists that we can all live in perfect peace and harmony is fantasy. It'll *never *happen.

Netanyahu gets it. The man who draws the line in the sand gets it. Fuck with me and your country dies. Keep playing your dangerous game and we will pre-emptively blow your shit to Jupiter. That's the kind of arithmatic they understand.


----------



## Simple Civilian (Mar 7, 2015)

Ah, yes, resource wars.  This is literally the stuff of my nightmares and daymares, although when considered, almost all wars are resource wars at least in some capacity.  If conflicts begin over ideology, at some point at least part of the conflict becomes focused on resources.  This is as old as Napoleon's supply lines and older. 

But you are right: as the planet becomes more crowded and stressed and resources become thin, we'll see more conflicts.  Simply having more people in less space leads to conflicts.  As we drain dead dinosaurs lower and lower we'll see even more strain on global relations.  Alternative energies are good and fine; I'm a huge fan and I see no reason not to develop them.  To the best of my knowledge, however, there is no energy platform other than nuclear that even begins to approximate the cargo carrying capacity of oil and coal.   That will be an ever growing source of conflict in itself.

I will never forget the moment when an acquaintance, a person much younger than me incidentally who, as I recall, did not live through this conflict, pointed out that the Vietnam war was as much about French rubber plantations as it was about communism.  The light bulb that went off over my head was blinding.  Of course!  WWI ushered in The Industrial Revolution.  WWII brought us the modern assembly line and ubiquitous car ownership.  Beyond cheap gas and quick, cost effective manufacturing that creates a product affordable for the masses, we need- TIRES.  Wow.

Changed the way I look at conflict, it did. 

Anyway, yes, I agree, Ocoka- appeasement is temporary at best.  It can be used to by time, I guess, but to what end?  Is that what this administration is doing- buying time?  Giving the benefit of the doubt in this argument, just to be the devil's advocate and to think of the situation from another perspective.  If this administration is buying time, to what end?  (I'm not saying that's the strategy- just trying to puzzle through what we are seeing here.)


----------



## pardus (Mar 11, 2015)

Simple Civilian said:


> * WWI ushered in The Industrial Revolution.  WWII brought us the modern assembly line *



That is not correct at all.


----------



## Simple Civilian (Mar 11, 2015)

pardus said:


> That is not correct at all.



OK, I will admit to being sloppy with the timeline, but I am interested in your perspective.

Tell me how this is incorrect.

I'm excited- I'm going to learn something today.  :)   (I say that with sincerity, not snark. )


----------



## pardus (Mar 11, 2015)

Simple Civilian said:


> OK, I will admit to being sloppy with the timeline, but I am interested in your perspective.
> 
> Tell me how this is incorrect.
> 
> I'm excited- I'm going to learn something today.  :)   (I say that with sincerity, not snark. )



Why don't you do a 2 minute google search and tell me why what you wrote is incorrect.


----------



## Simple Civilian (Mar 11, 2015)

OK, let me try again.  The Industrial Revolution et. al. began in about 1760 and stretched until about 1840.  The Second Industrial Revolution began about 1840 and stretched into WWI.  My point was not to nail down the dates as much as to point out that WWI was the first truly mechanized war powered by combustion engines.

Henry Ford's production lines began in 1913.  WWI started in 1914.  Yes, technically, "the production line" was born before WWI and made much of the mechanization of WWI possible, as well as and along with the combustion engine.  But the production line as a modern entity, producing the mass amount of supplies needed for modern warfare (everything from munitions to arms to parachutes to uniforms to MREs) was the stuff of WWII, not WWI.

Per above, the production line was born in 1913, but only after it was done with pushing out WWII did it turn toward domestic production in a big way.  Ubiquitous car ownership happened post WWII, when the production lines were dedicated to cars and other items for domestic consumption and foreign trade.

A car in every driveway and the development and flight to the suburbs increased demand for rubber for tires.  And the French had rubber plantations in Vietnam.

Now I'm really reaching into the dark corners of the brain (I haven't thought about this stuff in years) but didn't Ho Chi Minh approach the United States initially seeking sponsorship for independent statehood, with a constitution based on the U.S Constitution?  IIRC we declined his petition for sponsorship because of our treaty agreements and alliance with France.

Ho Chi Minh then approached Russia for sponsorship again IIRC, and that's where my memory goes foggy, but this was the beginnings of Soviet involvement in Vietnam and the subsequent Vietnam conflict, which was a proxy war for the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the U.S.

It's easy, probably too easy, to say that we missed a chance there with Vietnam, but I am not a scholar in this area.  I don't know what was truly asked in terms of sponsorship, or what we were free to do or not based on treaties, or what would have happened had we offered sponsorship and supported Vietnam in its quest to end French colonial rule.  Furthermore, it is not a given that the Soviets simply waltzed into a vacuum left by our refusal, and it was as simple as that.

Not a scholar, furthermore, rather absorbed in my own domestic duties (March is an interesting month around here for various reasons) so no, I have not and probably will not dig deeply into it with Google at this particular moment.


----------



## Simple Civilian (Mar 11, 2015)

... and somehow we've done enough historical and rhetorical gymnastics to get from Netanyahu to Ho Chi Minh.  That's not something you see every day.  :)


----------



## Simple Civilian (Mar 11, 2015)

... via WWI and WWII I might add. :)


----------



## pardus (Mar 12, 2015)

Simple Civilian said:


> OK, let me try again.  The Industrial Revolution et. al. began in about 1760 and stretched until about 1840.  The Second Industrial Revolution began about 1840 and stretched into WWI.  My point was not to nail down the dates as much as to point out that WWI was the first truly mechanized war powered by combustion engines.
> 
> Henry Ford's production lines began in 1913.  WWI started in 1914.  Yes, technically, "the production line" was born before WWI and made much of the mechanization of WWI possible, as well as and along with the combustion engine.  But the production line as a modern entity, producing the mass amount of supplies needed for modern warfare (everything from munitions to arms to parachutes to uniforms to MREs) was the stuff of WWII, not WWI.
> 
> ...





Simple Civilian said:


> ... and somehow we've done enough historical and rhetorical gymnastics to get from Netanyahu to Ho Chi Minh.  That's not something you see every day.  :)





Simple Civilian said:


> ... via WWI and WWII I might add. :)



So I'll start by saying that you love to talk, and be heard, and talking shit is part of your game.
You like to talk a lot to make yourself look knowlegeable, that will win you nothing but scrutiny on this site. 

You have been proven to talk shit (lies, untruths) already. I suggest you adjust, in a major way your interaction on this site, or never come here again again, because I promise you, every lie you tell, we will correct. 
Understood?


----------



## CQB (Mar 12, 2015)

I'll be devils advocate for a minute: Does Bibi cock on about Iran because Israel has nukes and Iran doesn't? Changes the playing field a bit when over yonder has a big toy too, one you've had for a while.


----------



## Simple Civilian (Mar 12, 2015)

Third time's the charm, right?  :)

OK.  I'm not sure where the disagreement lies, so I'm just going to guess that it has to do with either

a. My statements about Ho Chi Minh or
b. My statements about rubber plantations in Vietnam or
c. Both.

To clarify:

The OSS, the precursor to the CIA, worked closely with Ho Chi Minh toward the end of WWII.  During this time, Lt. Col. Archimedes Patti worked one on one with Ho Chi Minh.   He also worked with Major Allison Thomas, who commanded the Deer Team and who worked closely with Ho Chi Minh.  Lt. Col Patti worked with Ho Chi Minh's on Minh's early drafts of the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence.  (I apologize, I referred to it as the constitution earlier.  My mistake.  As I said, I haven't thought about this stuff in years.)  Patti offered several corrections and observed that Minh had written the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence to almost exactly mirror the United State's Declaration of Independence.  Archimedes Patti later said that the Vietnam War was avoidable.  He sent several position papers on Vietnam to the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House via Julia Child (yes, that Julia Child) in 1945.  Upon his retirement he discovered that the documents had never been opened by any of the recipients.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes_Patti

Ho Chi Minh continued to try to communicate with the United States.  He wrote several letters to Truman, pleading for the United State's help in Vietnam's quest for independence from France:

"Ho Chi Minh was two things. He was a Communist and he was a Nationalist. He wanted independence and he led this great movement of people. Some of them were Communists. Most of them were not. But they all wanted independence from France. Ho Chi Minh wrote — and this is in the Pentagon Papers — Ho Chi Minh wrote many letters to Harry Truman. Roosevelt died in the spring of '45. Truman took his place, and Ho Chi Minh, at the end of 1945, wrote — I counted in the Pentagon Papers 14 communications from Ho Chi Minh to President Truman — saying, "Remember the pledge of the Atlantic Charter. You promised us our independence. We want it now. Keep the French out."

"According to the Pentagon Papers, not one of those communications was answered.

No answer.

That told the story. The United States set out, starting in 1945 slowly, but more and more firmly, to put the French back into power in Vietnam, and the British collaborated.

And so the French came back in 1945, and they faced this independence movement; and in the Pentagon Papers, one of the remarkable things that appears [is] a document which is the Declaration of Independence that Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnam and independence movement drew up in 1945."

http://www.pbs.org/pov/camden28/special_zinn_02.php

http://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/todays-doc/?dod-date=228

http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/vietnam-bf3262-interview-with-archimedes-l-a-patti-1981

Was Ho Chi Minh sincere in his overtures to the United States?  I can't answer that question.  Opinions about whether Ho Chi Minh was more of a nationalist or a communist seem to be mixed.  It was a subject of some debate in 1944-1945.  "Ho apparently thoroughly convinced the Deer Team commander of his sincerity. In an effort to further dispel OSS or U.S. government concerns about Ho, Thomas emphatically wrote in the report: "Forget the Communist Bogy. VML [Viet Minh League] is not Communist. Stands for freedom and reforms from French harshness." - See more at: http://www.historynet.com/ho-chi-minh-and-the-oss.htm#sthash.2RLcT43U.dpuf

"In other reports to the OSS, Thomas had raised a number of political concerns, from Ho's allegiances, to Indochina's struggle with the French, Vichy, Japanese, Chinese and the British. In a July 27 report, Thomas had stated that Ho's league was an amalgamation of all political parties that stood for liberty with "no political ideas beyond that." Thomas added, "Ho definitely tabooed the idea that the party was communistic" since "the peasants didn't know what the word communism or socialism meant—but they did understand liberty and independence." He noted that it was impossible for the French to stay, nor were they welcome since the Vietnamese "hated them worse than the Japs….Ho said he would welcome a million American soldiers to come in but not any French." - See more at: http://www.historynet.com/ho-chi-minh-and-the-oss.htm#sthash.2RLcT43U.dpuf

A lot of people appear not to know this, but Ho Chi Minh lived abroad for about 30 years, including living and working in the United States.  He also lived, worked and studied in France, Britain, the Soviet Union and China.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh

But on the other hand, there is this perspective as well:

"Washington decision makers were wrong to think of Ho Chi Minh as a puppet of Moscow or Beijing, but they were not wrong about the danger of Communist aggression. Furthermore, they were right to be concerned about the fate of those Vietnamese in the South who opposed a Communist takeover, many of whom had fled from the North to escape it. We cannot know with certainty what would have happened to them if the United States had delivered them to Hanoi under the fiction of a neutralized government, but there was reason to expect the worst. After all, Communism in the Soviet Union had killed more Soviet citizens than even Hitler did. Mao began his murderous Cultural Revolution not on Moscow's orders but to achieve his own purposes."

https://www.nytimes.com/books/99/08/08/reviews/990808.08matlot.html

I am NOT an apologist for Ho Chi Minh.  I am merely trying to respond to replies to my previous posts.

As far as the French rubber plantations, that's easily researched.  The largest exports from Vietnam under French colonial rule were rice and rubber.  Michelin owned and operated the largest rubber plantation in Vietnam from 1925 through the Vietnam war.  "The plantation was an important source of revenue for the South Vietnamese Government and it was believed that the Michelin Company paid off the Vietcong in order to keep the plantation operating during the war. US forces were obliged to compensate Michelin for damage caused to the rubber trees during operations in the plantation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelin_Rubber_Plantation

I should have said that the genesis of the war in Vietnam was about French colonialism vs. Vietnamese independence vs. communism.  I will admit, I have not been able to find any documentation online that points to the United State's refusal to support Vietnam's bid for independence directly linked to tire production in French Colonial Vietnam.  Got me there.  My previous reference to tires was based on a conversation with another person and I can't find any supporting evidence online at this time.

For some reason the United States decided to ignore Ho Chi Minh's initial and subsequent overtures, as well as position papers from one of its senior OSS/Army officers.   Was it due to alliances with France and from benefitting from the French colonial exports from Vietnam?   I don't know, but the above linked interview about the Pentagon Papers indicates that the U.S. began trying to put France back in power in Vietnam in 1945 with collaboration by the British.  On the other hand, Lt. Col. Patti stated that they'd received orders not to assist the French.  He said that they had notably NOT received orders about stopping the French either, so they simply stayed out of the French forces way.   Link posted again for clarity:

http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/vietnam-bf3262-interview-with-archimedes-l-a-patti-1981

Other theories are that we'd just fought in two world wars and we were done with foreign involvements.  We just wanted to bring our troops home.

We may never agree, or even know for sure, if we missed an opportunity to avoid the Vietnam war, and if we did, why.

And that's a long way from Netanyahu.

I apologize for offending you, Pardus.  It was not my intent.


----------



## Brill (Mar 12, 2015)

CQB said:


> I'll be devils advocate for a minute: Does Bibi cock on about Iran because Israel has nukes and Iran doesn't? Changes the playing field a bit when over yonder has a big toy too, one you've had for a while.



I don't believe Israel would (or could) ever allow a nuclear capable Iran.


----------



## Simple Civilian (Mar 12, 2015)

One more thing about Ho Chi Minh:  I am, I repeat, NOT a Ho Chi Minh apologist.  There are those who believe that both Patti and Thomas were sincere but out of their depth;  Ho was charming but a brilliant strategist who told Westerners what they wanted to hear in service to his ultimate goals.  There are many who believe to this day that Ho was a Leninist communist and furthermore, a dedicated agent to and from the Soviets. 

At any rate, no matter what Ho's true convictions, he wasn't a benevolent leader of Vietnam or a fun time for the United States.  I'm not a fan. 

I can't help but wonder, as do others, if at least exploring some option with his early correspondence could have lead to a different outcome- but I'm not a fan.


----------



## pardus (Mar 13, 2015)

Simple Civilian said:


> Third time's the charm, right?  :)
> 
> OK.  I'm not sure where the disagreement lies, so I'm just going to guess that it has to do with either
> 
> ...



Bullshit is not charm.

The "disagreement" is that you are talking shit about what I quoted from you.

Clearly you didn't do what I suggested you do and google the untrue statements that you spouted on here. Instead you went on a side tracked long winded blather about Ho Chi Minh. 

DON'T Highjack the thread, keep it on topic. Understood?

Let me clarify things as you seem incapable of comprehending the obvious in this case.

1st point. The Industrial Revolution was long over before WWI even started.

2nd point. The modern assembly line started in 1913. That is pre WWI, NOTHING to do with WWII.

That is the bullshit, untruths you were trying to spread here. 
Don't do that! 
Understood?

You're not offending me, you're pissing me off by breaking the house rules of posting bullshit, and highjacking a serious thread, and just blathering on like someone in the early stages of senility when called out about doing so.

Stop it!


----------



## Gunz (Mar 14, 2015)

CQB said:


> I'll be devils advocate for a minute: Does Bibi cock on about Iran because Israel has nukes and Iran doesn't? Changes the playing field a bit when over yonder has a big toy too, one you've had for a while.


 

I think it goes a bit deeper than just nuclear parity, although that's got to be part of it. I agree with Lindy. Given the rhetoric Iran's been spewing for decades about obliterating Israel, the fear must be real.


----------



## CQB (Mar 16, 2015)

Shas...(irony there guys)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-threat-us-policymakers-admit-iran-is-defending-itself/5436937


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 16, 2015)

CQB said:


> Shas...(irony there guys)
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-threat-us-policymakers-admit-iran-is-defending-itself/5436937


Interesting topic.  I'll set this aside for later reading.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 16, 2015)

CQB said:


> Shas...(irony there guys)
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-threat-us-policymakers-admit-iran-is-defending-itself/5436937


 
The Rand Corporation seems to have a lot more confidence in Iran's Revolutionary Guards than Netanyahu does. The fact that they've done a bang-up job containing Iran's arsenal of WMDs so far doesn't mean they'll be so restrained once they have a nuclear backbone. At the heart of the IRG is _jihad. _Dealing with Iran depends, I think, upon how you interpret its reliability.


----------



## Phoenix15 (Mar 24, 2015)

Heard an interesting opinion from a high level executive at a commodity trading firm in regards to Iran and their quest for nukes. He believes Iran's primary desire for the nuke is far from destroying Israel. He thinks oil fields, pipelines, and refineries of surrounding Arab countries would be the first targets.

A few questions for anyone willing to give feedback: 
- Is this actually Iran's primary reason for nuclear development?
- How would the United States and allies react to Iranian nuclear strikes? Likelihood of direct intervention? 
- Would Iran actually be able to benefit from this? (would such a sudden drop in supply deem international sanctions ineffective because of countries lacking other buying options?)

Reason for posting: I'm a student with an extreme interest in geopolitics and energy (about to enter the industry as a trader). These forums provide great insight by people who have a much greater understanding behind militaristic motives than some CEO. I understand the nature of these forums and I'm half expecting responses to be inline with "piss off kid, do some googling" but any feedback would be greatly appreciated. 

*Intro post completed two years ago and have avidly followed ever since.


----------



## Centermass (Mar 24, 2015)

What it all boils down to quite simply is Iran, the threats they've made in the past, their ties to terrorists. And those, are the last ones on earth, who ever need to get their hands on a nuke, regardless of whether or not you agree or disagree with Bibi. And FWIW, it's not the people of Iran, it's those in their government, who say one thing on a given day and flip flop on it the next. They've long established the same sword wielding and saber rattling as NK and others. If it ever stops, and they begin to show consistency, more than likely it will be because they now have a nuke or........have a change in regime to something and someone more moderate. 

Unless something changes, Iran will always be a threat and should be treated as such.


----------



## Brill (Mar 24, 2015)

Their belief that Middle East turmoil will predicate the Mahdi's arrival is troubling.  Shia's want the Mahdi to come...in order for him to show up, there must be trials and tribulations, fire and brimstone, etc...an irradiated Israel and following warfare would SURELY cause his arrival.

That is scary.


----------



## AWP (Mar 24, 2015)

Phoenix15 said:


> Heard an interesting opinion from a high level executive at a commodity trading firm in regards to Iran and their quest for nukes. He believes Iran's primary desire for the nuke is far from destroying Israel. He thinks oil fields, pipelines, and refineries of surrounding Arab countries would be the first targets.
> 
> A few questions for anyone willing to give feedback:
> - Is this actually Iran's primary reason for nuclear development?
> ...


 
Nations (and people) don't always act in their self interest. It doesn't matter WHY Iran wants the bomb it only matters IF they have the bomb. Possessing nukes is a game changer for a number of reasons. Using a nuke ANYWHERE would cause the West to collectively lose its mind and bomb, bomb, bomb. Iran would cease to exist and even a conventional response would result a decent amount of Persian population control. Let's be honest, Syria's use of WMD didn't cause any great alarm, but a nuke? That's Pandora's box. Benefit from using a nuke? Land would be a buyer's market in the deploying country.

I don't think Iran wants a nuke to use, it wants a nuke for deterrence, pride, and dick measuring.


----------



## Phoenix15 (Mar 25, 2015)

lindy said:


> Their belief that Middle East turmoil will predicate the Mahdi's arrival is troubling.  Shia's want the Mahdi to come...in order for him to show up, there must be trials and tribulations, fire and brimstone, etc...an irradiated Israel and following warfare would SURELY cause his arrival.
> 
> That is scary.





Freefalling said:


> Nations (and people) don't always act in their self interest. It doesn't matter WHY Iran wants the bomb it only matters IF they have the bomb. Possessing nukes is a game changer for a number of reasons. Using a nuke ANYWHERE would cause the West to collectively lose its mind and bomb, bomb, bomb. Iran would cease to exist and even a conventional response would result a decent amount of Persian population control. Let's be honest, Syria's use of WMD didn't cause any great alarm, but a nuke? That's Pandora's box. Benefit from using a nuke? Land would be a buyer's market in the deploying country.
> 
> I don't think Iran wants a nuke to use, it wants a nuke for deterrence, pride, and dick measuring.



Ok, I'm with you on the multifaceted "why" but still interested in the likelihood of deployment of nuclear weapons if acquired. With the Shia's desire to usher in the apocalypse, how long do you think they sit on their nukes as deterrents? And lets say one of their terror proxy groups deploys it, does that change the Western response or would we still swiftly bring them the brimstone and fire they desire?


----------



## AWP (Mar 25, 2015)

Phoenix15 said:


> Ok, I'm with you on the multifaceted "why" but still interested in the likelihood of deployment of nuclear weapons if acquired. With the Shia's desire to usher in the apocalypse, how long do you think they sit on their nukes as deterrents? And lets say one of their terror proxy groups deploys it, does that change the Western response or would we still swiftly bring them the brimstone and fire they desire?


 
I'd like to think that if Jesus deployed a nuke we'd level Bethlehem.

Going back to your oil field theory, I don't think their designs matter. With a nuke they believe they'll sit at the adult's table and that provides them with greater leverage politically, economically, and domestically. They'll have to rattle the sabre's just enough so we think they'll use it, but not enough to warrant a military response.

Even if they did use the nuke to further some crazy-assed end game we couldn't stop it and that's why killing the program now matters. I think we'll end up with a version of the PK- India situation but with less peace of mind.


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 26, 2015)

Phoenix15 said:


> Ok, I'm with you on the multifaceted "why" but still interested in the likelihood of deployment of nuclear weapons if acquired. With the Shia's desire to usher in the apocalypse, how long do you think they sit on their nukes as deterrents? And lets say one of their terror proxy groups deploys it, does that change the Western response or would we still swiftly bring them the brimstone and fire they desire?


Nothing in Shia orthodoxy says that they want to hasten the return of the Mahdi.  They wait and prepare themselves, but they don't believe that their personal actions can bring about the Mahdi's return.


----------



## Phoenix15 (Mar 26, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Nothing in Shia orthodoxy says that they want to hasten the return of the Mahdi.  They wait and prepare themselves, but they don't believe that their personal actions can bring about the Mahdi's return.



Good to hear. If I remember correctly, this is in contrast to Sunni doctrines that believe they'll actively usher it in? (ISIS fought hard to obtain and now control plains in Western Syria where they believe they'll meet the armies of Rome and begin the apocalypse)


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 26, 2015)

Both Sunni and Shia believe in the Mahdi.  "Mahdi" just means "Guided", though it's used in reference to *some* kind of messianic figure at the end of days.  It's a pretty central concept to Islamic eschatology, along with the second coming of Jesus, and the antichrist, and a few others I can't remember.  The five main schools of Sunni jurisprudence believe that the Mahdi has yet to be born, and they're not in any hurry for it to happen.  Shia believe that the Mahdi is the 12th Imam, Muahmmad al-Mahdi (sometimes called "The Hidden Imam"), who supposedly went into hiding a little over 1000 years ago.  There are somewhere between 10 and 75 signs, both major and minor, that supposedly herald the coming of the Sufyan (some kind of Muslim tyrant from Damascus) and then the Mahdi right before the final battle.  There are some that you would kind of expect from apocalyptic portents, such as "Estrangement of Islam" and "Mecca will be attacked and the Kaaba will be destroyed".  Some are just strange, like "The Euphrates will uncover a mountain of gold" and "A man obeys his wife and disobeys his mother; and treats his friend kindly whilst shunning his father".  Not really sure what those are about, but they all come from the Hadith.  

I remember some new piece last year about ISIS expressing a desire to destroy the Kaaba, which is one of the portents.  I don't know if that's their intent, but that would be a super stupid thing to do.  If I recall, the report was also unverified, so who knows?


----------



## Brill (Mar 26, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Nothing in Shia orthodoxy says that they want to hasten the return of the Mahdi.  They wait and prepare themselves, but they don't believe that their personal actions can bring about the Mahdi's return.



You sure about that?  Why does ISIL fly the black flag?

I'm going to link that shit here but youtube is FULL of propaganda videos that mujahids from Khorasan will carry the black banner of tawhid to Al Quds.  A nuke would allow an enemy army "to be swallowed by the earth" and poof: Mahdi is up in here!


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 26, 2015)

lindy said:


> You sure about that?  Why does ISIL fly the black flag?
> 
> I'm going to link that shit here but youtube is FULL of propaganda videos that mujahids from Khorasan will carry the black banner of tawhid to Al Quds.  A nuke would allow an enemy army "to be swallowed by the earth" and poof: Mahdi is up in here!


ISIL isn't Shia.  Like, not even close.

EDIT: Okay, I see what you mean.  The black flag obviously has historical precedence, but references in the Hadith are usually considered "weak" or "inaccurate" due to problems within the isnad.  Are you referring to a specific Hadith?  The only one I could find rated as "authentic" came from a Sunni Hadith collection.


----------



## Brill (Mar 26, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> ISIL isn't Shia.  Like, not even close.



Argh...made corrections but Chrome crashed and since this is about Islam, I've lost interest.

The black flag will come from Khorasan, Ummah will be at war with itself, Syria will be in ruins, Iraq in chaos, then "it" happens.  These dipshits believe we are IN the end days.

Shit right out of Ghostbusters.


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 26, 2015)

lindy said:


> Shit right out of Ghostbusters.


Oh totally.  Part of the problem with typifying Salafi groups is that they can kinda define themselves however they feel. They don't have a school of jurisprudence (well, sort of) and outright reject Hadith Science (Ilm al-Hadith).


----------



## pardus (Mar 26, 2015)

Hadith "Science" Interesting term...


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 26, 2015)

pardus said:


> Hadith "Science" Interesting term...


Yeah, it's not often that you hear "Islam" and "science" mentioned in the same breath.  For its day it was pretty novel, though.  See, the early followers of old Mo really liked him.  Like, really liked him.  His followers passed down stories of his (non-revelatory) words and deeds orally for years after his death.  These could be anything, like how he decided to pray or what clothes he decided to wear.  Since his followers believed he was infallible and worthy of emulation, they told stories about practically everything that he did.  After a while, Uthman (the 3rd caliph) was like "Hey, we should probably write these down and, you know, verify them."  So he and his followers did just that for around 200 years.  They went all around the empire and collected stories of Muhammad, along with the chain or narrators or what they call the _Isnad_.  The chain of narrators usually went like "Ali heard Yusuf say that he saw the Prophet do ......" and so on.  Sometimes the chain was 15 dudes deep.  Sometimes it was just one person.  This was important to these Hadith scientists because it aided them in establishing the validity of Hadith passages (which they called _sunna_).  They reasoned that the smaller the chain of transmission, and the closer the people in the chain the people were to the inner circle of the prophet, the more likely the story was to be true.  Extenuating circumstances, such as certain people in the chain being known to lie, or having faulty memory served as evidence against the particular _sunna_.  Essentially, they rated each _sunna_ as either "Strong", "Good", or "Weak".  Both "strong" and "good" _sunna_ are usable for religious directives.  A _sunna_ might be rated as "weak" for a variety of reasons which are too numerous to list.  Scholars also attach a bunch of other qualifiers to denote what part of the _sunna_ makes it less valid.  There's a big list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_terminology
In a way, they're kind of like modern classification markings.

Eventually, around 932 the first Hadith collection was printed by Muhammad al-Bukhari.  He apparently collected over 300,000 stories during his travels, and pared them down to a little over 7,000.  Though of those 7,000, only about 4,000 were unique (scholars included multiple tellings of the same story for the sake of completeness).  This method of evaluating Hadith, along with the collection of the Quran, formed the basis for _shariah_.  There's a bunch more stuff that went into the various forms of _shariah _(there's no single type of _shariah_)_,_ but that's enough for today.


----------



## Brill (Mar 27, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> See, the early followers of old Mo really liked him.  Like, really liked him.  His followers passed down stories of his (non-revelatory) words and deeds orally for years after his death.  These could be anything, like how he decided to pray or what clothes he decided to wear.  Since his followers believed he was infallible and worthy of emulation, they told stories about practically everything that he did.



I missed the part of walking on water, water to wine, raising the dead.  Yawn, what else ya got Mo?

My prophet's army can beat your prophet's army.
Meet me on the Har Megiddo after school mf'er and let's settle this.

This made me chuckle:


----------



## pardus (Mar 27, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Yeah, it's not often that you hear "Islam" and "science" mentioned in the same breath.  For its day it was pretty novel, though.  See, the early followers of old Mo really liked him.  Like, really liked him.  His followers passed down stories of his (non-revelatory) words and deeds orally for years after his death.  These could be anything, like how he decided to pray or what clothes he decided to wear.  Since his followers believed he was infallible and worthy of emulation, they told stories about practically everything that he did.  After a while, Uthman (the 3rd caliph) was like "Hey, we should probably write these down and, you know, verify them."  So he and his followers did just that for around 200 years.  They went all around the empire and collected stories of Muhammad, along with the chain or narrators or what they call the _Isnad_.  The chain of narrators usually went like "Ali heard Yusuf say that he saw the Prophet do ......" and so on.  Sometimes the chain was 15 dudes deep.  Sometimes it was just one person.  This was important to these Hadith scientists because it aided them in establishing the validity of Hadith passages (which they called _sunna_).  They reasoned that the smaller the chain of transmission, and the closer the people in the chain the people were to the inner circle of the prophet, the more likely the story was to be true.  Extenuating circumstances, such as certain people in the chain being known to lie, or having faulty memory served as evidence against the particular _sunna_.  Essentially, they rated each _sunna_ as either "Strong", "Good", or "Weak".  Both "strong" and "good" _sunna_ are usable for religious directives.  A _sunna_ might be rated as "weak" for a variety of reasons which are too numerous to list.  Scholars also attach a bunch of other qualifiers to denote what part of the _sunna_ makes it less valid.  There's a big list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_terminology
> In a way, they're kind of like modern classification markings.
> 
> Eventually, around 932 the first Hadith collection was printed by Muhammad al-Bukhari.  He apparently collected over 300,000 stories during his travels, and pared them down to a little over 7,000.  Though of those 7,000, only about 4,000 were unique (scholars included multiple tellings of the same story for the sake of completeness).  This method of evaluating Hadith, along with the collection of the Quran, formed the basis for _shariah_.  There's a bunch more stuff that went into the various forms of _shariah _(there's no single type of _shariah_)_,_ but that's enough for today.



Thanks for writing all that down. I appreciate it. 

The fact that they call it science though is comic and intellectually insulting though. 
One guy makes up a bunch of unverifiable stories, convinces and butchers people until they buy into these stories, then a couple of hundred years later, Bingo! Science! Umm yeah, NOT quite.


----------



## Brill (Mar 28, 2015)

Oh, this is gonna leave a mark.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...range-one-outlet-is-wondering-if-its-revenge/


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 28, 2015)

lindy said:


> Oh, this is gonna leave a mark.
> 
> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...range-one-outlet-is-wondering-if-its-revenge/


It looks shady as hell upon first inspection, but one of the most important details is buried at the bottom of the article:


> The Forward reported that the report was released following a Freedom of Information Act application three years ago by American journalist Grant Smith, an outspoken Israel critic.
> Due to the long wait time following his application, Smith followed up with a lawsuit.  A D.C. judge compelled the Pentagon to address his request, the Forward reported.



The article leaves out a few key details, such as when the report was actually released (early-mid February) and the fact that the DoD actually reached out to Israel

This article from January gets technical: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/l...rt-on-israeli-nukes-nears-end/article/2558386
*



			Legal battle to publish unclassified DOD report on Israeli nukes nears end
		
Click to expand...

*


> Defense officials are fighting a three-year-old request under the Freedom of Information Act to release a 1987 report supposedly discussing Israel’s nuclear technology.
> 
> Grant Smith of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy filed the request in 2012 and raised the issue in court after he said the request “went nowhere” for several years. He has been a critic of many U.S. policies related to Israel and of what he believes to be the inordinate influence of Israel in the American government.
> 
> ...


For whatever reason, I can't seem to merge those two quote blocks above.

It's hard to tell why no media outlets touched this story until now.  RT, known as a paragon of journalistic integrity and totally not a Russian propaganda mouthpiece, reported on it as early as February 13th (http://rt.com/usa/232203-us-israel-nuclear-weapon/) as did Iranian government-owned Press TV (http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/02/14/397502/US-helped-Israel-build-hydrogen-bomb).

The timing does look suspect, sure, but when you consider how many steps the US took to block the release of the report, as well as their invitation for Israel to review the report, it doesn't immediately seem like it was done out of spite.  Alternatively, the DoD could have made those efforts to block the report when relations with Israel were still rosy, and then when it became apparent that Netanyahu was meddling in our negotiations, Obama could have directed the DoD to stop fighting the release.  When you consider all of these details, it's very difficult to tell, though I suspect that most Americans saw the headline and already had their minds made up.


----------



## Brill (Mar 29, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> The timing does look suspect, sure, but when you consider how many steps the US took to block the release of the report, as well as their invitation for Israel to review the report, it doesn't immediately seem like it was done out of spite.  Alternatively, the DoD could have made those efforts to block the report when relations with Israel were still rosy, and then when it became apparent that Netanyahu was meddling in our negotiations, Obama could have directed the DoD to stop fighting the release.  When you consider all of these details, it's very difficult to tell, though I suspect that most Americans saw the headline and already had their minds made up.



An unclassified report but other articles say it's TS and an NDA in the same sentence...I'm confused.  I thought the report was classified...but it's not?

Something fishy is going on here.


----------

