- This topic has 193 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 9 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
ubiq: What I’m saying is that you should defer your views to the views of the military leadership on military questions and to the political leadership on national security questions that you are not privy to national security secrets to. Especially if it is unanimous. And in Israel it is virtually unanimous that this treaty is bad for Israel’s security. (Yes, compared to no treaty/status quo.)
Joseph
” What I’m saying is that you should defer your views to the views of the military leadership on military questions and to the political leadership on national security questions that you are not privy to national security secrets to.”
I hear if you mean lemaaseh, if Obama called me and asked me what I thought (and Im entitled only to the information I have now) I probably would defer to them.
But we are hocking that is all. Pleas make no mistake about it. This conversation is completly insignificant. I dont understand how a thinking person can say I say “you should defer your views”
Even in the Obama calling me scenario, I STILL would think what I think now. As a thinking individual I cant “defer my views” I probably would defer my ACTION, but “views”? Never. That is a terrible thing to suggest
That said,
Is it possible I’m wrong?
Of course! Certainly you have the insight to appreciate that it is possible that YOU are wrong (along with “military leadership”)
Ubiquitin, attacking is an option. Just there some people who don’t like going down that path,
Sorry coffee addict, I will go off topic a little but it is relevant because part of the reason we distrust the Iranian deal is because we distrust it’s main supporter, Obama.
In response to ubiq,
You mentioned being a “fact supporter” and not a “Obama supporter” and listed about 7-8 rumors???, unflattering stereotypes that people use to describe Obama.
Basically, I have never ascribed to any of those stereotypes, partly because I don’t think they are true and partly because they give fuel to people like you, who profess “rationality” and “facts.”
In truth, most of what we see, either positive or negative about Obama, is what the media wants/permits us to see. Our own leanings and prejudices account for what, how much, or if we do or don’t accept what they show us.
One thing I believe about Obama is that his plan/vision of America is different from what I (and people like former Mayor Giuliani) have grown to believe in. How about you? Was his plan what you believed in?
I saw this on PJMedia in a comment by a reader called reedville on an op-ed titled “Obama’s World” by Richard Fernandez, that was written after the Iran deal. I will post it here and state that it mainly represents (In contrast to the comment, I feel he is a skilled speaker, even if he does sometimes use teleprompters) how I, also, feel about Obama. It does not include any of those stereotypes that you wrote about him previously.
“People spend a lot of time trying to figure out what informs and motivates Obama’s thinking and purposes. Is he purely a radical leftist, is he a Reverend Wright/Saul Alinsky sock puppet, is he a radical anti-western anti-colonialist, is he an incompetent teleprompter pot-head, is he an arrogant, egotistical maniac, a narcissistic fantasist, a man in search of a legacy at any cost? No doubt he is all of these things. And all of these things are simply about power in search of a validating narrative. But the thing that is really disturbing is that all of these represent only political abstractions at best. Facts have nothing to do with any of them. Ominously, real people and their well-being are utterly irrelevant, and in most cases an impediment, to any of these formulations. Obama is as stone cold as you can get and we are all expendable in his calculations as this blog has previously demonstrated. We are dealing with pure evil here, and I wonder how many people still can’t wrap their heads around that.
(reedville’s comment to Belmont Club’s Richard Fernandez’s op-ed “Obama’s World)
For me, obviously not for you yet, unfortunately, there has been enough evidence to support me to have this reaction to him. I wouldn’t buy a used car from the man, let alone trust him with the fate of my country (either of them).
Wake up already!
tirtza
You give yourself away
“because we distrust it’s main supporter, Obama.”
“I have never ascribed to any of those stereotypes, partly because I don’t think they are true and partly because they give fuel to people like you, who profess “rationality” and “facts.”” In other words you do partly think they are true!
The quote you provided is more of the same. You claim it doesnt include any of the stereotupes, but it includes others
“”Is he purely a radical leftist, is he a Reverend Wright/Saul Alinsky sock puppet, is he a radical anti-western anti-colonialist, is he an incompetent teleprompter pot-head, is he an arrogant, egotistical maniac, a narcissistic fantasist, … he is all of these things. …stone cold … we are all expendable … pure evil here”
All this is coloring your view of the deal (and if you beleive any of it how can it not?). Like Lindsey Graham, Bohner, and the Isralei leadership I’ll bet you formulated an opinion on the agreement before knowing what was in it (I specify bohner and Graham becasue they outright said they didnt know what was in the agreement but they opposed it) Such disagreement isnt based on “rationality” or “facts” It is based on a knee-jerk reaction to anything from Obama. I for one do not much care for Obama I have had enough of him and sometimes long for the ISraeli sytem where we can get rid of a head of govermnment mid-term once weve had enough, but we are stuck with him for the next year and a half or so.
Please note nowhere in my comments to you or joseph did I make any appeal to authority or any emotional argument. This is strictly factual/logical. And I have yet to hear a viable alternative.
mdd
So it is not an option. Why is this hard for you to get? You keep repeating yourself. Bottom line is war is not an option either because “some people dont want ot go down that path” or because the “liberal elite” or like the mossad says it wouldnt be effective. period. not an option you keep agreeing yet formulating like a disagreement
ubiq,
We all repeat ourselves with the facts and you claim that your facts are better, less tainted with your so-called “knee-jerk” reaction than ours. All you keep saying is the deal is better than none and no other plan will work.
At least I’m honest (to you and most importantly to myself) about my opinions being just what they are opinions.
Why bother to attend that rally, it’s to protest the deal, you support it.
Tirtza
“We all repeat ourselves with the facts and you claim that your facts are better, less tainted with your so-called “knee-jerk” reaction than ours.”
you havent provided too many facts. The only solid fact Ive seen is “because we distrust it’s main supporter, Obama.”
“All you keep saying is the deal is better than none and no other plan will work.”
Um yes because that is a concise synopsis of my opinion on the matter. Thank you for putting it so succintly.
“At least I’m honest (to you and most importantly to myself) about my opinions being just what they are opinions.”
I’ll do you one better, I’m honest enough to admit that not only is this just an opinion but I can be wrong. See last paragraph of this post http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/iran-bomb/page/4#post-576737
“Why bother to attend that rally, it’s to protest the deal, you support it.”
1) I may be wrong
2) I dont “support” the deal. (Though this doesnt address your point since I dont protest it either)
3) As I mentioned to Joseph opinion and action are different
4) ??????????, ??????? ????????????, ????????, ????????? ???.?
Ubiquitin, you’ve got to be kidding. There is a big difference between a situation where an attack is impossible or can not be successful al pi derech ha’tevah and a situation where it is totally executable and it is just the president and his friends hate doing it. What is not clear?
Ubiquitin, the way you argue you seem to be very sure of your opinion and suddenly — “I can be wrong.”.
Ubiq:
Go back a page and you’ll see the facts(or as I stated above “filtered facts”, Definition:”facts”that we ALL use, subject to our exposure to certain media, situations) that I presented, also others.
What is that saying by Edmund Burke?
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
mdd
bottom line is attack on IRan is impossible. period. As to why it is impossible there are many reasons, some you correctly identified. As to wether it would be effective. The Mossad says no. I’m inclined to beileve them, but I cant be sure. But some say it would be effective.
You were late to the party. From the get -go I made clear the gist of my argument is thta there is no alternative. As to what will happen with the current plan? Nobody can possibly know. I made this clear from the start, this wasnt a later addition
Quick mussar: Never be too sure of yourself you can always be wrong! Being willing to constantly reevaluate your opinions (even firmly held ones) is a mark of strength not weakness
“”All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” “
Precisly! I am not suggesting doing nothing, that was you! (CA and Joseph said it deirectly and you agreed with them!
seeoption #3 here http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/iran-bomb/page/2#post-575997
Ubiquitin, stop with the demagoguery. The bottom line is that an attack on Iran is possible and there is an alternative. Period.
Ubiq: I knew that would be your reply, but the evil of “doing nothing” is doing nothing against the DEAL. The doing nothing of not implementing a bad deal and keeping sanctions is a WEAK WAY of doing something, not preferred, but INFINITELY BETTER than all the things we’ve listed are negative about this deal.
In response to:
ubiq:”2) I dont “support” the deal. (Though this doesnt address your point since I dont protest it either)
OK, I’ll leave it to others, I have a weak constitution.
Shalom
mdd
You are hacking ah cheinek, bottom line is like you acknowledged 3 times it isnt. The US population doesnt have the stomach for a 3rd war in 2 decades especially when the same pretense was already used in what turned out to be false. Whether theoretically if Iran where to do something crazy like attack the US or the political landscape would change overnight, would it be possible? yes. Would it work Doubtful, given the MOssad’s assesment butsome analysts say it could.
As things stand today July 21 2015 Attacking Iran is not an option period.
I’m not sure why this confuses you you have it right in your posts ” there some people who don’t like going down that path,”the liberals lack the will and the stomach even for a limited, mostly air campaign against Iran”
Thus it is impossible and not an option.
I’m sorry youve been tricked when Obama said “Every option is on the table” He was lying, he knew it, Netanyahu knew it, Kahmeni knew it and most pundits knew it. Ive often wondered who he was fooling…
Tirtza
You accused me of supporting doing nothing. I’ll grant CA’s point that continuing the sanctions isnt really doing nothing. (debatable). But certainly trying this deal isnt doing nothing?! I hope it’ll work I’m sure you do too.
“OK, I’ll leave it to others, I have a weak constitution.
Shalom”
All the best! I hope you have an easy fast especially given your weak constitution
Btw, what do you mean by the Mossad assessment? Meir Dagan statements? I don’t trust that left-winger.
Anyhow, with the deal it will be much more difficult for the Israelis to launch an attack.
mdd
“I don’t trust that left-winger.”
I see. Mostly becasue it isnt what you want to hear?
That isnt my main point though
“Anyhow, with the deal it will be much more difficult for the Israelis to launch an attack.”
So do it today. What are they waiting for? Netanyahu has been saying that Iran is close to the bomb for over 20 years now! If the thought of Iran getting a bomb is so unacceptable, and attacking is possible and would be effective, attack now and deal with the consequences. What choice is there? ITs what we did with Iraq, (Remember how pleased Heilege Reagan was? oh wait…)
CA
Nuch besser! The US doesnt have the stomach for a 5th war in 2 decades (though Bosnia it has been more than 2 decades since Bosnia, and I’m surprised to hear you say we ar at war with ISis,the standard party-line is that Obama has been ignoring ISIS)
Ubiquitin, quit it already. I take offence at your words. Meir Dagan supports withdrawing from the territories also. Once I know that, his don’t attack Iran opinion is unreliable in my eyes.
Netanyauhu wants the least international opposition possible to an attack. He has to deal with Obama and EU. With the deal, it is more difficult.
Anyhow, it still seems to me that you are just trying to pull everyone’s leg here. You also ignored the poll results that the CA brought down.
CA
meh, most polls I’ve seen support an agreement. Its cheating to only use polls with data you like. and besides:
see the wikipedia page on the subject.
Its one thing to support attack, how long do you think support would last, and and what cost increased oil prices? how many casualties? What about terrorism at home? a draft? How many of the above have been considered by those responding to the poll?
mdd
his 2nd comment went up after mine. I never ignore. (Oh and I dont quit)
Look I dont know if an attack would be succesful, I suspect it wouldnt as if it would the ISraelis wouldve done it already otherwise the anonymous white house source is right about Netanyahu. But that is a side issue, since on this I agree with Joseph I dont know if it will work or not.
“He has to deal with Obama and EU. “
Not when your very lives are at stake and we are nearing the point of no return! (as we have been since 94′ according to him)
Heres a good one:
CBS march 2015 (more recent than yours)
“Which of these comes closest to your opinion? Iran’s nuclear program is a threat to the United States that requires military action now. Iran’s nuclear program is a threat that can be contained for now. Iran’s nuclear program is not a threat to the United States at this time.””
Requires military action now – 29%
can be contained for now – 45%
Not a threat at this time – 18%
unsure 7%
This was further broken down by party, though even then not even half of republicans supported military action
Which draft, Ubiquitin? That is pure fantasy. The US has a 400,000 strong army.
mdd
It is a very real possibility if a prolonged war with IRan ensues. IRan is quite big and could raise a large army. I am not saying it will happen, just a possibility albeit a far-fetched one.
If you think it is too far-fetched to even be considered, feel free to ignore it and answer the other 3 questions in that comment.
CA
lol though 2015 -1995 = 20 (However it ended in December so it has been less than 20 years)
Ubiquitin, I don’t think it would last long or would be a big deal. Just bomb their facilities for two days.
I know I said I dropped out but I just wanted to post this reference.
Former Ambassador Michael Oren is a lot smarter than me and much more eloquent.
If you want to read why he thinks it was a bad deal and the alternative(which is the same as most members suggested here) please refer to the article posted today, July 22 on Arutz7.
“‘Americans, This Deal Imperils Your Families'” by Ari Yashar.
mdd
Youve got to be kidding. Iran has an air force, anti-aircraft defenses, missle capability of hitting US bases in the mideast and probably Europe, capability of attacking ISrael etc etc. We are not talking about a two day operation.
Thanks Tirtza I will definitely read
Ubiquitin, the only serious concern on that list it their ability to attack the US bases in the Middle East. They could attack Israel? Oh, that must concern Obama so much. He is more worried than the Israelis. Give me a break.
mdd
I dont mean concern to Obama I mena to the American public. Terroism in the US is also a concern as are military casualties. How many do you think the American public would support? 1000? 10000? 1000000? How many could be expected
“He is more worried than the Israelis. Give me a break.”
I dont get what you mean. The Israleis arent attacking either. Obama isnt MORE concerned, both are concerned at that very real possibility
I think 10,000 is quite a remote possibility. Netanyahu is not totally free to act as you may understand.
mdd
If Israel is facing as an existential crises as he claims, and point of no return is imminent (as he it has been for 20 years now), and an attack would prevent that What choice does he have?
I mean that that many servicemen would be lost.
Ubiquitin, oh, please! You must understand that one can be close to point of no return by 10 miles or 0.5 mile. I think if it were o.5 mile, Netanyahu would have ordered an attack. And I was talking about US servicemen. And indeed at a certain point Israel does not have a choice.
mdd
Ok So lets file this conversation away, and revisit it at a to be determined point in time. At what point with Israel still not having attacked will you say I was right. 1 yr? 2? 5?
Even the US experts say that if Iran wanted now to go for the bomb it would need 2-3 months. If Iran were to go there, Israel would have 1.5 months (to be safe)to act. Not too much math for you?
Sorry Mdd I dont follow. So if in 1.5 months Israel doesn tact you will admit you have no clue what you are talking about?
My question for you is straight-forward. You said “I think if it were o.5 mile, Netanyahu would have ordered an attack.” At what point, with no attack are you wrong?
Ubiquitin, stop your aggressive demagoguery, will you? I am not wrong. Before the interim deal Iran was 2-3 months away from the bomb, then they stopped. This is where they are now but the program has been in a freeze.
First you say that you are not sure you are right and then you ask me when I will admit to being wrong.
mdd
This conversation has been pretty long youre confusing my comments on various things.
Let me back up, since you joined the party late.
The thread began a few months ago by CA saying that “if ten years ago i told you the US would let Iran have the bomb you would think i was crazy.”
I replied that In fact I had predicted that for over ten years now.
Someone mentioned Torah codes and the next several comments were regarding that side issue.
Then CA reclaimed his thread by asking “i wonder how charlie would defend this [this being the deal]
I replied to put it in the excelent way tirtza put it “the deal is better than none and no other plan will work”
I will repeat it again since this is the MAIN point of the thread:
the deal is better than none and no other plan will work
and a third time for emphasis:
the deal is better than none and no other plan will work.
On this I freely admit I am not sure perhaps there is another plan that I havent thought of. Plus it is impossible to predict how this will all play out.
What I am certain of is that nobody will attack Iran. Talk of military option is just that talk. You believe it is a real option,on this point you are dead wrong.
My question then is straight forward You believe (rather strongly that:
a) The plan wont work which means that b) Iran will get a bomb and that this c) poses an existential threat to Israel which can d) be stopped by an attack
(I labeled them a-d so you can tell me which point I you dont agree with) Assuming you accept all 4 points there doesnt seem to be any othe r option than attack. So if at a certain point, when an attack doesnt happen. If you are honest you have to accept that you were wrong on one of those points above.
I’ll let you decide on the time frame
I believe there is no point in continuing this conservation with you.
All the best
I’ll bump this in a year or so. PErhaps youll be more willing to revealuate your posisition or answer a simple direct question
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.