BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: robomatic
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 05:23 PM

Hamas was in fact set up with backing from Israel as a way of undermining the effectiveness of Fatah. It proved rather more effective at that than may have been anticipated.

That's crazytalk! I believe in letting a thousand voices be heard, not a thousand conspiracy theories.

I believe that the other thing Hamas had going for it was it was perceived, (rightly or wrongly I do not know) as being less corrupt than Fatah.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 09:51 AM

Hamas was in fact set up with backing from Israel as a way of undermining the effectiveness of Fatah. It proved rather more effective at that than may have been anticipated.

"Working for" is sound bite language. However it appears fair to say that for those within the Israeli government who are opposed to any settlement that could be accepted by most Palestinians, Hamas is effectively a partner.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 08:09 AM

Hamas at least is not selling the Palestinians out. And they're not keeping any agreements from happening, either. They have said that if the Palestinian people voted in a referendum to accept a two state solution and to recognize Israel, they, Hamas, would not stand in the way of it.

The people who are keeping agreements from happening are the ones who are trying to get the Palestinians to agree to things that they would not agree to themselves if they were in the Palestinians' shoes (that would be the governments of Israel and the US).

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: Peter T.
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 07:33 AM

The Palestinians themselves used to call Arafat "the walking catastrophe", but the logic here isn't that great. You might just as well say that Hamas is working for the Israeli government because it is keeping any agreements from happening.

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 02:12 AM

Let's say that the $300,000,000 (if in fact he actually took that much, which I have not seen any credible evidence of) was Arafat's pay for being willing to be corrupt on Israel's behalf.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 02:10 AM

Israel sure didn't mind that Arafat was taking money from the Palestinians. Arafat agreed to a lot of things that weren't in the Palestinians' interest. Oslo was one of them. And then, when he set up his security apparatus, it wasn't for the purpose of protecting Palestinians. It was for the purpose of policing Palestinians on behalf of the government of Israel... essentially, doing Israel's job for it. If that's not working for the government of Israel, I don't know what is.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: Peace
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 01:01 AM

So, uh, Israel ended up with the $300,000,000 that Arafat stole from the Paslestinians?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: Peace
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 01:01 AM

"It was because he [Arafat] was essentially working for the Israeli government, and doing their bidding."

This gets better and better.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: Peter T.
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 12:53 AM

"working for the Israeli government"?

Delusion seems to be working both sides of the political street.....

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 09:52 PM

And I am including the one against Arafat as well as the one against me. Arafat certainly was not an effective advocate for his people, but it's not because he wasn't willing to make compromises. It was because he was essentially working for the Israeli government, and doing their bidding. However, he was still standing at the negotiating table when Israel walked away from it, so it was Israel that torpedoed the last round of peace talks.

The reason the Hamas was elected, however, was because Fatah ran two candidates rather than one, which split the vote three ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 09:43 PM

FOX NEWS wouldn't accept me because they are promoting the same exact line on the Middle East as the person who is suggesting that I should work there.

However, there are very few people making sure the disenfranchised people in this discussion have an opportunity to be heard. I will continue to work hard to make sure they get a chance, whenever possible. If someone thinks they can silence people who do this by making slimy smears against them like the one immediately following my last post, they are mistaken.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 09:32 PM

At least the speech got Ahmadinejad elected, if it didn't do anything else.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: Peter T.
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 08:53 PM

Fox? Openminded? in which alternative universe?

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: Bill H //\\
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 07:29 PM

I was going to stay out of this morass but, let's face it, there is an outside threat---I believe Syria, Hamas, and Iran are serious. Does Israel have internal problems---sure.

All the more reason for Netanyahu to be flexible and for people (all people) respect the fact that Obama is practicing diplomacy. Something that has not been in done in quite a few years--well at least 8.

It is also good to recall that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did make some progress but much of it torpedoed by Arafat and now his group has lost much credulity with their own people who seem to favor Hamas. Hamas, I believe, we all realize is set on the destruction of Israel---a 2 state solution is not something they want. Should their efforts prevail you can find another rogue state in the are while now we have 2 allies (perhaps 3) there who trust in a democratic governance.

As to Carol C. What can I say. It is always the same story and, frankly, how much time is wasted in these diatribes that would be highly paid if she had a contact at Fox or some other openminded netweork or paper.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 04:40 PM

I disagree with the idea that the Arab proposal is not credible (if that is what is being suggested). There is no reason to think that.

Israel's populace, I'm sure, believes in the idea of existential threats coming from outside sources. The government knows better. Their leaders at various times in Israel's history have said as much. They say that it's necessary to make their people believe that their existence is under threat in order to make them want to do the bidding of the government (of course, they are hardly unique in that regard). They have also, at various times, said that the borders of the Jewish state are the business of the Jews and no one else. The real existential threat, of course, comes from within. The longer Israel holds out on relinquishing the lands it took in 1967, the more likely Israel and occupied Palestine will end up being a single democratic state of all of its people. In other words, the two state solution will be dead, and the one state solution will resolve itself like South Africa.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: Peter T.
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 04:30 PM

My point was not that Israel was right about its possible extinction, it was that there were some grounds -- not realistic -- given the toxicity of the region. The willingness of Arab governments to recognise Israel's existence is worth about as much as Iran's statements about its nuclear plans.

I note that Ha'aretz published a poll today that showed that 1 out of 5 of the Jewish population of Israel (Arab Israelis not counted) were worried about a nuclear Iran. Hardly panic in the streets. It's all just to keep eyes off of the illegal settlements (also worth noting that in Netanyahu's speech today he still has nothing to say about the settlements).

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 04:13 PM

By the way, my avoidance of naming people is not a tactic. It's a rule that has been imposed on me by the head of the Mudcat police. It's not a choice that I would make myself, and it does make things a lot more confusing for everyone, but there it is. There's nothing I can do about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 04:10 PM

Nice try. No cigar.

I'm not implicitly doing any such thing. More dishonest twisting of my words. No counter arguments have been offered for any of the points made in any of the sources I have provided, and I have been very consistent in pointing this out. But the two articles that the above poster is trying to ignore are important because all of them provide supporting documentation. Ignoring some of the documentation altogether and making ad hominem attacks on the other two as not being supported (because some of the supporting documentation is being ignored) is totally dishonest, and doesn't work.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: robomatic
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 03:46 PM

CarolC: You are implicitly admitting that my critique of the two I cited was justified, you can't go back to them with any confidence so you 'spread the manure' so to speak. And you originally referred to them as "documentation" which is maybe how you think of them (talk about deluded!) but they are far from that.

I like your tactic of avoiding naming folks. Sort of like McCain going "that one!"

I think it will meet with similar success.

this person

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 03:24 PM

Another bit of dishonesty I note on the part of the person who is making ad hominem attacks on my sources without actually debating them is the fact that they are only acknowledging two of the sources of documentation I provided, rather than all four of them.

For instance, one of the two Haaretz articles I provided links to provides quite a bit of official documentation in support of what Shlomo Sand says in his book. The reviewer's main complaint about Sands' book is that it is suggesting that what he is saying about the history of the Jews is not already common knowledge among academics. This reviewer shows that the academic community has long known what Sands is proposing to present to readers for the first time. And the reviewer provides examples with sources to back up his claims.

The other article I posted that this person appears to be trying to pretend I never posted provides a lot of archaeological evidence that comes from reputable Israeli archaeologists.

The fact that this person would think people can be fooled by these kinds of tactics is pretty astonishing, but certainly says a lot about their mindset and overall world view (ie: seriously deluded and extremely dishonest).

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 03:07 PM

No counter arguments have been presented against any of the arguments that have been made in the links I posted. No specific point made in those links has been examined with any credible refutation of those points. If someone wants to dispute a point in an argument, they need to specify which point they are disputing, and they need to present some sort of credible source of information that refutes that point. That has not been done. The only thing that has been offered so far is opinions about the credibility of my sources. That is not an argument, it is a non-argument and nobody is fooled by it.


On the subject of Israel defending itself - all of the Arab countries have said they would recognize Israel within its internationally recognized borders, and they have offered this as a proposal to Israel. Israel has refused to even consider this proposal, because Israel wants to hold on to land that it has taken by conquest. This is not self-defense, it is expansionism.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: robomatic
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 02:55 PM

Carol:
Now Now. I DID answer your posting regarding your sources, which you referred to as "documentation". One of them was a debunking of something that was never asserted, a Roman exile. This has no impact on history in any sense, other than to sow confustion. The other was a book review in HaAretz about one man's theory of Jewish origins. It is you who like to put up the straw man, in fact for you I'll make it a verb, You were 'straw-manning' a rather pointless argument, seeking to de-legitimize Israel's existence by positing that the current Jewish inhabitants of Israel who moved in from Europe were somehow not linked to the ancient Israelites. I refuted your "documentation" (although they remain your (inadequate) sources, of course).

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: Peter T.
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 02:20 PM

I think that's hardly fair. Israel may be doing all these things, but (a) it is surrounded; and (b) there is a very strong theme in Arab countries that Israel's existence is illegal, and that they should be wiped off the face of the earth. In traditional wars, that usually means you only have to lose once. I can see the mindset that propels Israel towards "offensive defence" -- again, given the past history (cf. the Holocaust), but given that Israel has over a hundred nuclear weapons, its existence is not seriously threatened. It is the disconnect between its existing power and its psychology (not exactly enhanced by suicide bombers) that has got them into today's situation where they are essentially operating unethically in defence of themselves.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 02:14 PM

Some news outlets are now blaming the election results in Iran on Obama's speech in Cairo.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 01:45 PM

Ad hominem attacks on my sources are not arguments. I see that once again, the poster attacking my sources has not actually offered any counter arguments to any of the arguments made by the sources I've linked to, they've only attacked the whole idea that my sources could possibly be credible. First of all, we have no reason to accept this person's opinion about the credibility of my sources, and secondly, the lack of any counter arguments is proof that this person is just making stuff up as they go along. If they actually had any legitimate counter arguments, they would have presented them by now.

Israel is not defending itself. None of the wars Israel has participated in has been a defensive war except the 1973 war. In every other war, Israel has been on the offensive. In most of the wars Israel has participated in, it has sought to increase the size of its territory. It currently is waging an illegal (under international law) occupation of land that does not belong to it (under international law). Israel has called for and helped to accomplish the destabilization and fragmentation of other countries in the region (and it is continuing to do so) in order to ensure that it would be the only major power in the region. I would say that anyone who tries to argue that Israel is not trying to aggrandize an empire is the one whose interpretation is severely skewed.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: Peter T.
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 01:25 PM

As usual, Glenn Greenwald pins people like Charles Krauthammer to the wall, responding to the same absurd column:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/12/self_absorption/index.html

He is absolutely right. The sheer childishness and bigoted narrowmindedness of the American right wing are astonishing.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: robomatic
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 08:11 AM

Carol:

You went a long way around the bush to beat yourself up. Your assertion without argument that Ashkenazim and Sephardim are not genetically related to Israelites is precisely the kind of thing you argue by linkage, where you link to rather outlandish partisans. They don't know what they're talking about, but they say it anyway. They are not state-of-the-art scientists nor historians, they are fools with theories. But they say it in English, you link to them, and act as if you've made an argument because you have 'sources'. Thus your judgement comes into question.

Israel as an independent country has a right to defend itself. That is not linked to anything else. It stands by itself. If you don't believe it you have no problem with me, you have a problem with the concept of nationhood. As to whether or not one of the smallest nations in the Mideast is trying to aggrandize an empire (as opposed to defending its borders) I think your interpretation is severely skewed.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: DougR
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 05:27 PM

For an interesting take on why the Israelis are a bit cool to the speech, read the op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal written by Judea Pearl (yes the father of Daniel Pearl who had his head severed from his body by Islamic extremists). I'd provide a link (though I doubt many of you will read it anyway) but I haven't bothered to become schooled in the process. Very interesting article though.

I also could recommend Charles Krauthammer's column in today's edition of the Washington Post, titled, "Obama fails to realize all wrongs aren't equal."

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 02:18 PM

I Can't Wait until Cheney gives his speech in Cairo....

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 07:52 AM

Apologies for the mixed tenses.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 07:40 AM

I'm not sure I understand the last comment directed at me. Looks to me like random shooting from the hip though.

However, let's dissect the comments previously made about my sources, now that I have a little time to do it...

The first comment is meaningless. It says that, first of all, I cannot determine the validity of my sources (this is a non-criticism that is more verbal sleight of hand than an actual argument, because it doesn't actually dispute any specifics or offer counter arguments about those specifics, it just generally smears the whole idea that I could even have any legitimate sources, based on arbitrary criteria that the person making the comment reserves the right to enforce), and it attempts to use this sort of blanket sliming as a way of invalidating every reference I ever supply, now and in the past and the future. I expect that someone who would make such an argument has such an exalted view of their own intellect, they can't even imagine that anyone not like them could possibly see through it. I would inform this person that their intellect is not as superior as they think, because anyone not sharing their world view can see arguments like this one for what it is... an attempt to manipulate peoples' perceptions using verbal sleight of hand. In other words, typical hasbara self-aggrandizing, bullshit.

Secondly, it attempts to suggest that there is not any first hand information or a background of study that would allow me to distinguish between bulk and bunk. If we were to follow these criteria every time we attempt to determine which arguments are valid and which are not, we would not ever be able to make any arguments at all, since no-one in the world has the first hand information or background of study to be able to rely entirely on these things. Every argument anyone ever makes on historical subjects relies on the work of others, and relies on making decisions about which other people's work can stand up to the rigors of critical examination. In other words, more typical hasbara self-aggrandizing bullshit.

Thirdly, this person's suggesting that since they are not aware of any assertion of a Roman exile of the Jews, that means that no-one in the history of this issue has ever made the assertion of a Roman exile of the Jews. There are two very serious flaws with this line of reasoning. The first is that this argument is incredibly solipsistic (ie: more typical hasbara self-aggrandizing bullshit), and secondly, the person making this argument has failed to specify what they mean by "Roman exile of the Jews". Do they mean Jews exiled from Rome, or do they mean Jews exiled from the holy land by Romans?

Then, they try to obfuscate by suggesting that there being historical evidence of Jews in the area of what is now Israel and Palestine somehow proves that the Ashkenazim are the descendents of the people whose suggested by this historical evidence. The point of the work described in the links I provided shows that, while such people did live in the area, 1. they are not the ancestors of the Ashkenazim, and 2. the biblical account of the history of the nature of their society and its size relative to other groups in the area, is false.

Not sure what point is being made in reference to the Babylonian exile.

Which Ha'aretz article is being criticized by this person? I posted links to two Ha'aretz articles.

Then this person attempts to obfuscate by saying that there is genetic research going on, and they even admit that there is no actual credibility to any theories that have so far been articulated based on this research, and tries to use this in a rather bizarre way to try to smear my use of material that is accepted as valid by the majorities of experts on these subjects. (In other words, more typical hasbara self-aggrandizing bullshit.)

They also try to smear my arguments by saying that I cite all arguments (a false assertion), that and that this weakens my arguments, and they further try to smear them by calling them 'partisan'. This one is a real gem. I would inform the person making this argument that their attempt to insult my intelligence with this one has backfired: it's an insult to their own intelligence for them to think that this sort of slimy attempt to manipulate the discussion would ever work. There is nothing wrong with any of the sources I've provided, other than the fact that person using these tactics finds it inconvenient that they effectively dismantle this person's arguments. If this person actually had any legitimate counter arguments for any of the specific information presented in my sources, they would provide those arguments. They have not done so - because they haven't got any. (In other words, more typical hasbara self-aggrandizing bullshit.)

This person then uses a straw man to try to invalidate my arguments. I have never said that modern Jews are not linked by ancestral habitation to the Mideast (and this person knows it). I have said that Ashkenazim and Sephardim are not linked by ancestral habitation to the Mideast. There is a very big difference between these two things (and this person knows it). And then they try to use this straw man as a springboard for introducing a new subject into the debate: the question of whether or not Israel has a right to defend itself against an antagonistic population which seeks to destroy them. This question is fallacious in several respects. First of all, Israel is not attempting to defend itself against an antagonistic population that is trying to destroy it. It is attempting to establish an ever growing empire in the Middle East, and waging serial wars of aggression as well as covert acts of aggression in service to this agenda. Secondly, under international law and agreements they have signed, they do not have the right to do this, nor do they have the right to make itself unique if doing so entails abridging the rights of the other peoples in the region.

I have already addressed the last comment.

As I have said several times before, these kinds of hasbara verbal sleight of hand manipulative smears and non-arguments do not work. People can see right through them. Obi-wan was a fictional character. It really is not possible to fool people by using the Jedi trick of telling them lies and expecting those lies to become the listener's inner truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: robomatic
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 10:50 PM

The people of Iran have had some interesting publicized debates and will be voting insofar as the religious authorities let them. Let's see how the election falls out and how the fallout from the election falls out.

Carol, I noticed that you backed off of your sources of Jewish origins and defauilted to a simple statement of your version of things.

I think one of the main problems in the Mideast as well as in some of the forum threads is a simple refusal to acknowledge Jews as Palestinians.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 02:59 AM

Straw man argument there. Changing the subject from the accusation that Iranian leaders have called for destroying other countries to trying to make it look like the subject is whether or not the leaders of Iran are angels.

As I've said many times before, the people of Iran want to be allowed to deal with their problems without outside interference. The current drive coming from some quarters, to try to whip up support for an attack on Iran by either Israel or the US is not what the people of Iran want. Continuing to spread lies about the intentions of the leaders of Iran, like for instance, the lie about calling for Israel's destruction, does not help those women who are being arrested, and aren't being allowed to stand in elections. Quite the opposite. The more of that sort of rhetoric people in the US, Israel, and the rest of the West engage in, the more the hardliners in the Iranian government are strengthened.

This is all for a purpose, however. For Israel (as was said at the recent AIPAC conference) Ahmadinejad is the gift that keeps on giving. The longer he stays in office, the more they believe they will be able to convince people of the need to attack Iran (something that the people of Iran most definitely don't want, human rights abuses of their leaders notwithstanding). The people who are working so hard to whip up negative emotions toward Iran want Ahmadinejad to remain in power, and they are doing everything they possibly can to see that he wins the election. The last thing in the world they want to see is a moderate win the election. This is because they don't really give a crap about human rights in Iran. All they care about is creating a pretext for attacking Iran and destroying it as a regional power.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 02:37 AM

Yeah. Iran is led by fuckin' angels.

From Amnesty International's site:

'"All 42 women who registered as candidates for the elections have, along with a large number of male candidates, been barred by Iran's Council of Guardians from standing in the elections on grounds of 'suitability'.

Jelveh Javaheri, a prominent member of the women's rights Campaign For Equality was arrested at her home on 1 May by security officials acting without an arrest warrant. She has been charged with "acting against national security through membership in the One Million Signatures Campaign and with the aim of disrupting public order and security." The CFE is collecting signatures on behalf of its campaign for women's rights. Last year dozens of women's rights campaigners were detained, interrogated and some tried for their peaceful activities, including up to 10 who were sentenced by lower courts to prison terms and, in at least two cases, flogging. Meanwhile, the influential women's magazine 'Zanan' was forcibly closed down during 2008, while women's rights websites are regularly blocked.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 02:05 AM

The leaders of Iran have not ever said they want any other country destroyed, either.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 07:23 PM

So how does what you said there, bruce, add up to grounds for assuming that the people of Iran, or the government they elect, is that different in these respects from the people of Israel and the government they find themselves electing? Pretty unpleasant governments in some respects at times, in both cases, but that's how it goes in other places as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 06:54 PM

The Israeli's actions have spoken even louder than their words in that respect, BB. They are the single most aggressive power in the Middle East, and the one that has repeatedly shown its willingness to invade and attack other people, occupy their land, and steal portions of their land for settlement by Israelis.

The reasons they have not used atomic weapons on anyone yet are:

1. It would be far too costly in terms of the after-effects and the general world reaction...they would become an international pariah if they did.

2. It might trigger a Third World War among major powers which would probably result in the destruction of Israel as well as a hell of a lot of other people.

3. It has not been necessary. They can easily win military victories without the use of their nuclear weapons.

They would have to be both stupid and insane to use nuclear weapons. I don't think they're stupid. As to whether they're insane...well...no, probably not. Just bloody arrogant and besotted with their own sense of historical victimhood and entitlement, that's all.

McGrath - That assumption you allude to, the "assumption that the people (or leaders) of Iran are insane, murderous and suicidal and that the people (or leaders) of Israel are not" is based on one simple thing:

It's based upon the desire to have an excuse to justify a massive first strike on Iran by Israel or the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 06:38 PM

The fact that Israel has had nuclear weapons for forty years, and never declared that they wanted any other country to be destroyed.

The fact that Iran signed the NPT, then violated it, demonstrating that Iran does not honor it's treaty obligations.

Noone said that "the people of Iran are insane, murderous and suicidal "- Just that their leaders are.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 06:34 PM

I really am puzzled by the assumption that the people of Iran are insane, murderous and suicidal and that the people of Israel are not.

That clearly seems to be an assumption held by some people, but what on earth is it based on?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 08:19 PM

DougR:

You probably cannot see how your postulate of those who cannot be trusted leads, through a domino series of resistance and enforcement, to the exact conditions it predicts should be avoided.

Iranians, like other humans, relish self-determination, not dependency. It costs them nothing to shoot off their mouths and make a show.

One sure path out of this mess--which was largely brought about by your kind of thinking--is Obama's promotion as hard as possible on nuclear disarmament.

I am sure that also makes little sense to you.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: Peter T.
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 07:21 PM

I don't recall that the Iranian government has recently agreed to the obliteration of all Iranians.   The Iranians are not about to commit suicide. It's just rhetoric. The Soviet Union (remember them?) continually threatened to obliterate America -- never happened. Why? Because they didn't want to die. Same with the Iranians.   The whole Iranians threatening Israel is nonsense. Nuclear weapons are a deterrent (hello?).   What the Israelis and the Americans are unhappy about is that the Iranians would have a little freedom to manoeuvre, threaten, pontificate, etc. Meanwhile, the Israelis -- and the American government right now -- are actually threatening the Iranians ("nothing is off the table" continues to be reiterated), because they can.   They don't want to lose the right to threaten the Iranians. The Iranians of course have no right to threaten anyone.   

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: DougR
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 06:37 PM

Not complicated to me, Peter. Iran's government cannot be trusted NOT to use the bomb, particularly against Israel. Also, Iran cannot be trusted NOT to provide the bomb to terrorists (Oops...I don't suppose we are supposed to call them that anymore, not sure what the latest Obama adjective is considered appropriate).

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: Peter T.
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 07:27 PM

The question of whether Iran should have nuclear weapons is, of course, complicated. The main problem is that nuclear weapons appear to be the only deterrent to invasion (if Saddam Hussein really had nuclear weapons, do you think he would be dead now? I doubt it) if the countries who do have nuclear weapons are allowed to do what they please with the fate of other countries. That is why the Bush administration was so poisonous: by assuming the right to do what they pleased, they were the ones who pushed Iran into its current activity. Anyone who knows anything about the last eight years knows that the Americans refused time and again to respond to very serious appeals by the Iranians to link up with the Americans. The bullheaded stupidity of the Bush administration is responsible if Iran does get nuclear weapons.

The graver problem is the fact that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, everyone else in the neighbourhood will have them -- here I mean Saudi Arabia, friend and gallant ally. Obama and everyone else knows this.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 07:23 PM

"will not officially admit that it has the bomb, and it won't say how many it has, and it armed itself in secrecry."



You mean like North Korea, Iran, and who knows who else?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 06:27 PM

I also object to anyone having the bomb. Unfortunately, it's very hard to get countries to give up any weapons they already have. I would prefer that everyone who had the bomb begin dismantling their bombs by stages until none were left.

BB - The problem with Israe that differs from France or England is this: Israel will not officially admit that it has the bomb, and it won't say how many it has, and it armed itself in secrecry.

If any other country in the world were doing that or had done that, the USA would consider it to be intolerable. Israel benefits from a double standard in a way that no other country in the world is allowed to benefit.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 06:11 PM

sorry- that was me.


LH,

" I assume, though, from your post you have no objection to them having the bomb."

No more than I object to the French or English having the bomb.- ALL developed it BEFORE the NPT.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 05:49 PM

You REALLY think Israel will be content merely developing nuclear power plants, Doug?   I assume, though, from your post you have no objection to them having the bomb.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: DougR
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 05:13 PM

You REALLY think Iran will be content merely developing nuclear power plants Peter? I assume, though, from your post you have no objection to them having the bomb.

Amos: By inference. If Iran was content to only construct power plants they have had lots of opportunities. Even Russia offered to supply them with the "know how" and supply the necessary ingredients to build power plants. If Iran had agreed to inspections they would probably have had their power plants up and operating by now. Wonder why they did not agree to inspections? Huh? Of course, maybe you join Peter as one who sees no problem with Iran building the bombs.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 01:33 PM

Doug, he gave Iran the go-ahead to develop its own nuclear power stations for generating electrical power. That is not a go-ahead to develop nuclear weapons. I see no reason on Earth why Iran should not have the right to build nuclear power stations if they wish to...same as any other country that is a signatory to the NNPT.

To treat the Iranians differently from the way you treat everyone else in the world is the height of hypocrisy, but that's what you do when you've already basically decided that another nation is "bad" and therefore it doesn't have the same rights you or your friends (like Israel) do.

Israel, as a matter of fact, apparently has a right that no one else does. They can secretly build several hundred nuclear weapons and delivery systems...pretend they don't even have them...refuse to officially admit to having them...and the USA doesn't say "boo" about it...and no one does anything about it.

Hypocrisy, Doug. Sheer, total, hypocrisy on the part of the USA policy-makers of the past. You would think they were all paid employees of the Israeli government, in fact. Obama is simply trying to treat everyone in a fair and even-handed way now...while dealing with that sort of entrenched prejudice and hypocrisy...and I wish him the best of luck in reversing a totally unfair and ridiculous situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 10:42 AM

DougR,

You are twisting his words badly, I fear. HE gave no such go-ahead.


A