BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Jun 09 - 10:36 PM

In reference to the response to my request for information about why Seham was being called a "nutball", I can understand why someone might not agree with everything she said. I agree with some of it, and I haven't made up my mind yet about the rest of it. But I really don't see anything in what she said that qualifies her as a nutball. Nevertheless, her perspective on the speech is hardly unique to her. It's a fairly common perspective among people with a similar background. And if healing the relationship between the US and people with her ethnic background and establishing a dialogue with them is the goal, I really don't see how that goal is served by calling them names because of the perspectives they articulate, or even denying the validity of their perspectives.

One thing I like about Obama (who, by the way, I campaigned for and voted for in both the primary and the general election) is that when people say things he doesn't necessarily agree with, he never belittles them or invalidates their feelings.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Jun 09 - 10:38 PM

But the point is that a lot of people who are in the stated targeted audience don't agree that he was being fair minded. Suggesting that they should take it or leave it, and not allowing them the room to disagree, sure sounds like a continuation of the Bush policies on the Middle East, only with a fancy bow on to make it look nicer.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: number 6
Date: 05 Jun 09 - 10:42 PM

Right on Carol .... so true.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Jun 09 - 10:43 PM

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jun 09 - 10:45 PM

For my part, Carol, I have no problem with her reciting her own history or the history of others in her tribe or whatever; but the voice that refuses to make any reach at all to overcome the past is not the voice of reason. Using the past as motivation for future hatred is very unwise.

This is not a matter of sides; it is unwise for humans generally.

What ideal scenario do you think the Arabs and Jews of Jordan, Israel, Palestine and Egypt should be striving for. then?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jun 09 - 10:56 PM

Jews moving in from Europe and constructing housing in Palestinian territories is a lot like Mexicans coming across the border, illegally, in the US, and sucking onto the welfare system. Personally, given what I've been through, I don't blame them a bit for being pissed off.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Jun 09 - 11:02 PM

WHY cannot we have ONE thread about Obama, current events or hope for peace without these predictable diversions into hurling of self-serving minutae on the entire history of the Mid-East?

GIVE IT A REST!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Jun 09 - 11:03 PM

At the very least a public recognition of the Nakba, and an admission that what was done to the Palestinians was wrong. And then actually being an honest broker in the Middle East rather than being Israel's lawyer. This would mean that Israel doesn't get an automatic veto in the UN from the US, and also that Israel would be held to the same standards as the Palestinians. If US recognition of the elected Palestinian government should have strings attached based on its adhering to international law, recognition of the state of Israel, and ending violence, then so should US recognition of the elected Israeli government be dependent on the government of Israel doing the same (and recognizing the state of Palestine within the internationally recognized borders of where that state is supposed to be). If economic aid to the Palestinians (in particular, the Palestinians in Gaza) is conditional upon their fulfilling the terms of the roadmap, ending violence, and recognizing Israel, then economic aid to Israel should be conditional upon their doing the same and recognizing the state of Palestine withing the internationally recognized borders of where that state should be.

The US should also end its participation in the blockade of Gaza and should assist the Gazans in getting the things they need into Gaza.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Jun 09 - 11:04 PM

gee....I forgot to say "pretty please, with sugar on it.."

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Jun 09 - 11:04 PM

,,,but obviously, I didn't say it fast enough

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

BECAUSE THE SPEECH WAS ALL ABOUT THE MIDDLE EAST AND ABOUT MUSLIMS AND PALESTINIANS. THAT'S WHAT THE SPEECH WAS ABOUT. WE ARE DISCUSSING OBAMA'S SPEECH THAT WAS ABOUT THE MIDDLE EAST, ABOUT MUSLIMS AND ABOUT PALESTINIANS.

ANYONE WHO CANNOT COMPREHEND WHAT THIS MEANS MAYBE OUGHT TO FIND ANOTHER OBAMA THREAD TO POST TO.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Jun 09 - 11:09 PM

No, it was not... you heard only what you wanted to hear.

goodnight.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Jun 09 - 11:15 PM

The stated purpose of the speech was to try to heal the relationship between the US and the people in the Muslim parts of the world and the people of the Middle East, and to start a dialogue with them.

Therefore, it is entirely in keeping with the subject of the speech to discuss the impact that the speech had on the people who the Obama administration stated were the intended targets of the speech.

Anyone who thinks this is not reasonable is the one who is only hearing what they want to hear.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: heric
Date: 05 Jun 09 - 11:40 PM

Fair enough that nutball isn't a nice word, but it is difficlut enough, if not impossible, address ~legitimate~ grievances by way of unpalatable compromises. This is his stated goal (and I think it's sincere.) With great effort, great skill and a lot of luck, he might achieve some of that in some measure. The first thing he needs is a sufficient level of support from a sufficent number of affected people. So his target audience is not everyone. We all know in advance that many people will reject his requests or refuse his suggestions.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Jun 09 - 11:48 PM

Oh, I agree that the job in front of him is huge and extraordinarily difficult. But listening to what the people he was addressing have to say about the speech is an important part of what needs to be done to make it work. Listening is always half the job. Obama has said this many times himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Jun 09 - 02:54 AM

People who hear only the people who don't like what was said - for whatever reason - need to cast a wider net.

Perhaps it is necessary to go into all the nuances of what was said and what was left unsaid but it isn't what I wanted out of this thread.

In my opinion, some people forget the tremendously large and complicated task that President Obama has before him. If, as it appears to me, the President is picking carefully at the tapestry in order to reweave the damaged parts without causing irreparable damage to what could ahve been. I admire his skill and insight, concerned about the brinksmanship in all parties concerned (in the mideast and, it seems, just about everywhere) and cautiously optimistic for the future.

And again, I say, Bravo, Obama!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Jun 09 - 06:31 AM

Some people seem to think that the inclusion of viewpoints that are critical of the speech suggests that those who provide those viewpoints hear only the people who don't like what was said.

First of all, this is a rather large assumption (and in incorrect one, at that). Secondly, it shows that there are people who think that only one side of the issue should be allowed to be expressed. While I have provided an alternative point of view, unlike quite a few other people in the thread, I have not suggested that other people should not provide any other perspectives besides the ones I have provided.

Personally, I am aware of all of the different perspectives on the speech. But the response from many of the people who were the intended targets of the speech is as important as any other, and should be included in this discussion.

I understand that a lot of people might find those perspectives to be a bit of a buzz kill, but it's not really about them after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jun 09 - 07:55 AM

I didn't hear the entire speech but I have heard some of it and heard the views of some folks whoes opinions (David Broder, E. J. Dione) on NPR and what does seem to be the best part about the speech is that Obama successfully changed the tone of the of the debate/discussion... If he achieved nothing else, this is a major step forward...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: Peter T.
Date: 06 Jun 09 - 08:24 AM

I like Ebbie's metaphor of reweaving damaged threads. You can see throughout the speech the threads of everyone's narrative, everyone's agenda, but with an attempt at reweaving them. Perhaps the most important aspect of the speech is the acknowledgment that everyone in the region has a story to which they cling, and which gives them meaning, and that these stories intersect for worse and better. Even just acknowledging in the open that everyone's story has partial validity, and is also partially wrong, is a pretty big deal.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jun 09 - 09:28 AM

I suppose it's a matter of whether Obama's is holding a half-empty glass or a half-full glass.   But when you put it in the context of a previous history where the glass has been completely empty, with the bottom knocked out, and it's being waved around as a jagged-ended weapon, either way is a welcome advance.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Jun 09 - 10:02 AM

Or it will be if something actually changes for the better for the ones most severely effected.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: robomatic
Date: 06 Jun 09 - 03:29 PM

so CarolC it sounds like you are coming somewhat around to the view that it is not ONLY poor defeated deprived Palestinians who have the legitimate reactions to Obama's speech.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Jun 09 - 03:31 PM

Everyone's entitled to their opinion. Although I find some opinions more reprehensible than other, but that's my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: pdq
Date: 06 Jun 09 - 05:31 PM

At least Obama got E Pluribus Unum correct, unlike Al Gore...


"Well, back in 1994 then-Vice President Gore gave a little-known speech ruminating on the meaning of the melting pot. This is what he said:

'We can build a collective civic space large enough for all our separate identities, that we can be E Pluribus Unum—out of one, many.'

Latin students everywhere know that E Pluribus Unum means 'Out of many, One'--precisely the opposite of what Gore said."

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

Gore probably knows it too, and simply mispoke at the time. At least, I would hope so. But anything is possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: robomatic
Date: 07 Jun 09 - 03:56 PM

"One for Many" and "Many for One"?

(You do go ON, D'Artagnon)

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jun 09 - 05:02 PM

First cousin to d'Artagnan?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: robomatic
Date: 07 Jun 09 - 06:18 PM

Carol:

This post of yours:

More documentation that the Bible's historical account of Jewish history is largely fiction...

http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/2007/07/no-rivkele-there-wasnt-roman-exile-of.html

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/966952.html

In this popular refutation of the book described in the above link, the only thing that is being disputed is the idea that Israeli historians didn't already know about what the author said in his book...

is indicative of your frequent references to 'sources' of which you cannot determine any validity, because of your lack of first hand information and of a background of study that would allow you to distinguish between bulk and bunk. I don't mind it especially, because you are a good retriever of interesting sites (just not necessarily cogent sites to your purpose).

What I found so interesting about the first reference, an effort to debunk the 'Roman Exile of the Jews' is that I'm not aware of any assertion of a Roman Exile in the first place. The Bar Kochba revolt is not biblical in any event, and it is historical. But the history indicates the Romans soundly defeated this revolt and killed many if not most of the revolters. There is plenty of historical evidence of Jews in the area, the Dead Sea Scrolls and Masada.

The Babylonian exile is a staple of Jewish self-definition, it occurred much earlier, yet is long long after the events of the Five Books of Moses.

Your reference to the HaAretz article is simply some guy's theory with no corroboration that I'm aware of. It's interesting stuff, it's a long way from playing out. It seems to be a cognate of the well-known theory of Koestler's about European Jews originating from a Turkic tribe called Khazars. After over a generation, it certainly has not been proven (it may even have been disproven).

There's plenty of genetic research going on, my understanding is it indicates that European Jews and modern Arabs bear the cousinly markers that indicate a relationship closer than European Jews and European tribes. But it's not something I'm going to lean on, as I am a lot more careful about distinguishing fact from theory than you appear to be by your eager sourcing.

You seriously weaken your arguments when you readily cite this stuff, because you appear not to cite the strongest arguments to your partisan position, you cite ALL arguments.

You've also failed to make a logical argument that even if it were true (which it isn't) that modern Jews are not linked by ancestral habitation in the Mideast, why several million Israelis with a going democratic nation should not defend their interests against an antagonistic population which seeks to destroy them. They forged a nation the way any nation gets created, and they have all the rights that go with any nation making itself unique, including the very nation we live in.

The fact that there are Palestinians at all now is because the Arab nations made it a policy to not resettle them, as opposed to Israel's policy of resettling the Jewish refugees and displaced persons from the rest of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jun 09 - 10:38 PM

Okay, robomatic, so Al Gore is a major dumbass, then. ;-D

Now what?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: Peter T.
Date: 07 Jun 09 - 11:06 PM

It's interesting that Obama has picked "e pluribus unum" -- Garry Wills wrote a whole book about how Abe Lincoln picked out "All men are created equal" as his radical version of the American legend -- the Declaration of Independence, and not the Constitution.   

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jun 09 - 11:43 PM

Before people assert that my sources have no credibility, people really ought to bother to take the time to actually read them.

I did not address the issue of Israel as an ongoing concern, because that assertion was not made, and I would not have had any reason to correct it even had it been made. My reason for providing the evidence of most Jews' origins being Europe, and not the Middle East, was to correct the misinformation posted about it earlier in the thread, which is used quite often as an attempted justification for the continuing oppression, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and genocide of the Palestinians.

The Jews who live in Israel are there, and I would not advocate moving them to anywhere else. However, European Jews are not in a position to use their holy books as evidence of having more of a right to live in the area that is now Israel and Palestine than the non-Jewish indigenous people do. They do not have their origins in that area, and have no historic claim to it.

If, by saying that there would be no Palestinians had the Arab countries been willing to resettle them is one of the more ridiculous arguments I think I've ever seen. The people in Gaza are Palestinians. Most of the people in the West Bank not living in Jewish settlements are Palestinians. The non-Jewish Israeli Arabs are Palestinians. And the people who fled what is now Israel during the Nakba - who are the indigenous people of that area, and their descendents, are Palestinians. Whether or not they were settled by other countries would not change the fact that they are Palestinians.

But I can understand why the poster asserting their lack of existence would want to do so. It's not enough to try to get rid of them physically. Genocidal people sometimes also need to remove any cultural trace of a people as well. Wouldn't want any reminders of their dirty deeds bothering their precious consciences (if they actually have any). By the way, the term for the practice of denying the existence of a people is 'cultural genocide'.

On the other hand, maybe the person making these arguments is only joking. If so, that person has a really sick sense of humor.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jun 09 - 11:56 PM

The assertion was made earlier in the thread that the Jews were forced out of what is now Israel and occupied Palestine a long time ago, and then they returned. I was addressing this assertion specifically. It entirely factually incorrect. The people who became the people who call themselves Palestinians are the descendants of Christians and Jews who were indigenous to the region. The Ashkenazim and Sephardim originated in Europe and not the Middle East.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: DougR
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 01:31 AM

Considering he essentially gave Iran the "go-ahead" to produce nuclear weapons it's a bit of a puzzlement to me why so many of you are so accepting of the speech, but wha the hey? What else is new?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's astonishing speech in Cairo
From: Peter T.
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 07:12 AM

And why aren't the Iranians allowed to develop nuclear weapons if they choose? The Israelis did. The Pakistanis did. The Russians did. Now let's see if we can name three countries that are very near to Iran.....

But of course America and Israel get to decide, because they are good nations, and would never do any harm to anyone.

(The only objection I can see to the Iranians doing what they please is that they are actual signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, unlike certain nations. Oh yes, and other nations that signed the Treaty pledged to work towards the elimination of their nuclear weapons, and how is that going?)

yours,

Peter T.

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

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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: CarolC
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 02:05 AM

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