Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Who’s better qualified to talk to Congress about the risks of terrorism posed by a nuclear-armed Iran?
- Books written by Benjamin Netanyahu.
- Books written by Barack Obama.
Joe Doakes
Or to put it another way:
Either way…
.
Israeli hawks are actually lucky that the US is around otherwise they would have to moderate their behavior in ways that would threaten their ultimate goal of a greater Israel. Something Israeli’s might want to keep in mind is that those right-wing American hawks that pander and flatter them are not so much interested in Israel per se despite their over blown rhetoric. They are interested in using Israel as a device to intimidate domestic political opposition and solidify their hawkish credentials.
“goal of a greater Israel”? You fucking anti-Semitic fuck! Go kiss Franken’s ring!
Bizarre analysis by Emery. I’m tempted to say those second and third sentences are the stupidest I’ve ever read on this blog but that is a high hurdle to clear given some of our other commenters liberal lunacy. But as far as misunderstanding “right wing hawks” regarding Israel – wow
admit it Emery you believe Dear Leader is the Light Bringer and you’re here to carry his water. Thats the only justification for such a blatant antisemitic comment.
btw Emery’s “analysis” sounds very much like some drivel I heard on the BBC.
How times have changed. American right wingers in the 1930s tolerated, if not actually supported, the Nazis. Today it is the looney left that supports Nazis, while right wingers like me support the socialist left leaning Israelis. But I am old school liberal. I believe in democracy and civil rights. And capitalism.
Blood Libel arguement is coming up next in the follow up post by EmeryTheAntiSemite.
Emery, yes, Israel as a whole, dove and hawk alike, is lucky that the U.S. supported them historically. Otherwise the Soviet-armed neighbors would have had an even greater material advantage in 1967 and 1973.
And sorry, but your comment ranks right up there with Doggone’s in terms of stupidity, as the Holocaust denial conferences hosted not that long ago in Teheran demonstrate that, metaphorically speaking, Haman’s got his old job back in Persia. We would be nuts to allow them nukes.
(Happy Purim, JPA!)
Israel has (depending on what unclassified source you use) from 80 to 200 nuclear weapons–many deployed in its nuclear triad. For Mr. Netanyahu to claim to face an existential threat from anyone, is laughable. Not only is his behavior contemptible, his excuse is a fraud.
How fucking moronic are you, EmeryTheAntiSemite? It’s the geography, stupid! Iran only needs one nuclear first strike to annihilate everyone in Israel – Jew and arab alike.
And I thought I escaped antisemitic soci@ist pigs when I left Russia. Just to find one right here in Minnesota. You are a contemptible filth.
Sorry Mitch for venting, but EmeryTheAntiSemite reminds me of Russian intelligentsia supporting Stalin’s policies. The worst kind, that can justify anything, including murder of 10s of millions of their own citizens. Been there, done that, and EmeryTheAntiSemite is a flashback, a really bad one. But hey, USA is still a free country and EmeryTheAntiSemite is free to exercise his first amendment right, no matter how hateful, un-American and contemptible his views may be. I just pray it does not become state-sanctioned like at the hell I escaped from.
BB – thanks! My wife makes the best hamentashen!
just to save you the puzzlement Emery, Israel in the size of New Jersey, while Iran is the size of Alaska. Geography makes a difference. And you begrudge the Jews 21,000 sq km of homeland? How much should they give up to satisfy you?
Don’t be a shmok JPA. As long as Israel has real enemies the relationship with America will persist. Perhaps not as self-adoring as it was before but a relationship more pragmatic and practical and less a romantic or sentimental flirtation.
That’s rich Kel! I almost blew my coffee out through my nose.
And this is EXACTLY what I mean. Instead of confronting facts, EmeryTheAntiSemite switches to nonsequiturs.
Emery, the point that ought to be made to you is that it takes only one Iranian nuke to make Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, where most Israelis live, into a ghost town, and the mad mullahs are inviting a Holocaust with their theology. Hence the classic equation of deterrence that kept the relatively sane people in the USSR (except for killing 50 million of their own people) at bay does not appear to be in play here.
Moreover, I don’t believe Israel has a nuclear triad; they are said to have nuclear weapons, but the delivery system is not ballistic missiles, whether land or submarine based, to my knowledge. Hence Mr. Obama’s reputed threat to shoot down Israeli planes on their way to destroy Iran’s capabilities greatly blunts any deterrence.
I would like to believe that your position is from ignorance, not malice, Emery, but given history, I cannot blame JPA for being concerned about Haman’s kingdom to the east of Iraq.
JPA
“Instead of confronting facts, EmeryTheAntiSemite switches to nonsequiturs.”
Emery labors under the misconception that he’s the smartest person in the room so when he’s taken to task he reverts to non-sequitur hoping that we’ll all mistake it for a display of intelligence.
Israeli hawks are actually lucky that the US is around otherwise they would have to moderate their behavior in ways that would threaten their ultimate goal of a greater Israel.
Ultimate goal of a “greater Israel?”
Please elaborate. As Israel has never expanded beyond the Golan and Sinai – areas they’d have ever military reason and historical right to seize – despite opportunities to drive to Cairo in ’67 and Damascus in ’73, and since there is no region closer than, say, Miami Beach that’s demographically amenable to being annexed to a “greater Israel”, I’d like to have an idea what you’re talking about.
Something Israeli’s might want to keep in mind is that those right-wing American hawks that pander and flatter them are not so much interested in Israel per se despite their over blown rhetoric. They are interested in using Israel as a device to intimidate domestic political opposition and solidify their hawkish credentials
a) So says you.
b) So what?
More to the point: You make no constructive suggestions, you merely throw out insults.
It’s a mistake to single out Iran. What characteristics make Iran so much worse than North Korea, Pakistan, or Russia or whichever is the next nation that chooses to invest in this capability? A solution that centers around Iran misses the bigger question: As proliferation becomes harder to contain, how should we extend the lessons of the bipolar cold war to a multi–polar mix of many nations with nuclear capabilities?
Who shall fight this war? There is no war camp in either the house or senate of any size. Attack an Iran which has committed no nuclear sin beyond developing a nuclear capability. There is no support for such wars of aggression.
Where is the willingness for reciprocal disarmament? Has Israel signaled its desire to disarm if Iran does? What about its neighbor Pakistan if India does? How about the original 5 powers, all upgrading their arsenals currently? No, they all feel a strategic necessity for their nuclear weapons. It’s nice to think that yesterday’s treaties and safeguards will prevent proliferation, but to believe that they will do anything but slow the process down is naïve. The interesting questions are how the world will change when a few cities are violently removed from the map. The question is what institutions, alliances and technologies need to be developed to deal with a world containing dozens of nuclear powers, and a few nuclear terrorist organizations.
What will a world look like if, on average, a nuclear weapon goes off in a city somewhere in the world once every few years, wars aside? I suspect the popularity of living in some of today’s global urban centers of power will wane and the joys of the low density countryside will wax as the chances of a nuclear detonation in a given city rise according to its size and global significance.
Emery, the constructive suggestion here is to simply insist that Iran open up their facilities to inspection and limit the concentration of refining to commercially and medically useful levels, or else give the green light to whoever wants to deal with the issue. You’re really getting confused here–thinking that the approach to Iran needs to have every t crossed and every i dotted. No, the Mossad is already dealing with this as lead Iranian nuclear scientists have this habit of disappearing and dying.
Or to use another reality, a quick blockade of Iran would bring them to their knees, as they cannot refine their own gasoline and diesel fuel.
And the comparison with North Korea? Yes, they’re nuts, but they fear death. You can reason with them if you’ve got a big enough stick. Iran appears to be different.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
It’s a mistake to single out Iran. What characteristics make Iran so much worse than North Korea, Pakistan, or Russia or whichever is the next nation that chooses to invest in this capability?
You truly is a fucking moron, EmeryTheAntiSemite. Did Pakistan, NoRk or Russia ever said they want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth and wage a proxy war against Israel via Hezbolah? You are not only a fucking moron, but an ignorant fucking moron.
I would like to see a single coherent example of how the USA’s supposed “alliance” with Israel benefits the USA in a tangible and concrete way. No, vague statements about “shared values and interests” don’t count. Trading and economic ties? Ours with Mexico, Japan, and Canada are much bigger. Simply put, Israel is a dependent client state.
The fact that Iran can do some things right does not change the fact that its government does many things wrong. Just as the fact that Israel does many things right does not change the fact that it does some things wrong.
The sort of utterly simplistic black/or/white view you take the of world (and not just on this issue) is simply out of touch with reality.
Benefits of alliance with Israel:
1. Jews protect Jews from anti-semitism and we don’t end up in wars with other nations to avoid another Holocaust.
2. Our military hardware is tested in battle.
3. Middle East has an example of how good things can be in a democracy–they’re not perfect (socialism and all), but they beat the heck out of their neighbors.
4. Middle East has an example of human rights–let’s not forget how the old Harem system was fueled.
5. Middle East has people who observe carefully what goes on there for their own survival. Probably a far better source of information than the CIA.
I can quibble over whether we ought to be spending billions in foreign aid there–I think there is a better way–but to act as if there are no reasons to support Israel is just to show ignorance of that part of the world at best.
Yes, those are all good points. While I don’t disagree that proliferation carries with it many dangers, delaying or even stopping Iran’s progress towards nuclear weapons (assuming that such a thing is possible) does not change anything outside Iran. The end of the bipolar cold war world is what is the driving force towards proliferation, together with the fact that this is a mature technology understood by many. In a world where there are no guarantees that you are firmly under the US or the USSR’s nuclear umbrella, there are any number of countries that desire the assurance of nuclear weapons. Take Saudi Arabia: In the best of all possible worlds, Iran is going to publicly abandon their quest for nuclear weapons, but will still coyly hint that they will never be more than a year or two from having them from this point on. Saudi Arabia will almost certainly feel the need to have the same capability, or a greater one. I would be shocked if the Saudis are not actively pursuing or purchasing nuclear technology today.
So I don’t think Iran having a few bombs changes anything because I think that proliferation is inevitable and unavoidable, no matter the outcome in Iran. In the end, nobody wants to be Quaddafi, murdered in a sewer pipe because he lacked a deterrent to NATO.
Emery, you’re showing your ignorance again. Some of the supplies for refining uranium are pretty specialized and require a certain degree of metallurgy tools and expertise to create. That’s why Iran is using German and Russian technology to get where they’re going, after all.
So no, proliferation is not inevitable. If we had political will to do so, we could shut down their refining operations in a week or so.
We seem to be of differing opinions and I’m fine with that. Thank you for your thoughtful replies.
Mr. Netanyahu is selling fear and hatred. His pitch is that the world is everybody in the world is out to kill us, the status quo is the best situation Israel will ever have, and that Israel has the ability to preserve that status quo. Fear and hate the other; let them fear and hate you. He offers no hope or path to the future. His predictions in the past, made to inspire fear, have proven vastly overblown.
In reality, Israel under Netanyahu does not stand still. It moves backwards, as the world changes around it. A Netanyahu-led Israel will find itself occupying a Palestine full of ISIS recruits. Yes, there are risks in trying for a settlement in the occupied territories. But Netanyahu’s path is certain to fail. His path only leads to darkness.
You pitiful Antisemitic ignorant piece of puss! What kind of doublethink and doublespeak is this piece of drivel? You had to have cribbed it from somewhere else – it is the ultimate man bites dog non-sequitur:
The fact that Iran can do some things right does not change the fact that its government does many things wrong. Just as the fact that Israel does many things right does not change the fact that it does some things wrong.
Israel has voted for paranoid religious nationalists who openly campaigned against a racial minority, reject any plan for peace in the occupied territories, and favor an expansionist policy for settlements. These policies are a mix of apartheid and ethnic cleansing. Israelis are free to make that choice, but they should be judged based on their choices.