TToI:‘"Sparks fly"’ over US policy on Iran at meeting between Netanyahu and US envoy

[Gibbsisgod2006]

I didn't say Israel started the conflict. I said in her many wars, Israel struck first more often than not. Israel would always say their actions were necessary, or in a reaction to some provocation. If Israel attacks Iran tomorrow, they will say it was provoked. That is all neuanced. What is not neuanced is who attacked whom first. which is all my metric was trying to highlight.

---------- Post added September-5th-2012 at 02:58 PM ----------



We don't typically deploy 3 aircraft carriers for a "show" of force.

---------- Post added September-5th-2012 at 03:01 PM ----------



One of the things that makes us so uneasy about Iran getting nukes is the poliferation angle. If Iran got nukes, Saudi, Egypt would certainly follow suit and get a nucular arsanal of their own.
Iraq, Syria and Jordan wouldn't be far behind.

Yes that is very true. Another angle is that Iran would provide there proxies like Hezbollah with weapons to carry out attacks too.

[JMS]

If I change my license I can't vote and I'm not sure if I will wait until the election or just say **** it.

Do you really think the Romney/Ryan ticket isn't absurd, but one with Paul is?

I independely know four professional GOP, politicians who work on the hill. At different times over the last three months all have exclaimed to me that Mitt Romney has no chance to be president in fits of dispare. The latest one was just three weeks ago before the GOP convention at a bar in St. Michaels. I said dude, why do you say that, he's statistically in a dead heat with the president? The guy who is a senate staffer says to me, can you name three issues which Mitt truely believes in. When I didn't answer right away, he says... Nobody can.

---------- Post added September-5th-2012 at 09:25 PM ----------

Yes that is very true. Another angle is that Iran would provide there proxies like Hezbollah with weapons to carry out attacks too.

Well if Iran gave hezbollah a nuke, and hezbollah used it.... We would definitely hold Iran responsible, It's not like you can hide where those things are made.

[zoony]

I'm trying to think of 3 firm beliefs of any successful politician. Like a wise man once said, politics is the art of the possible. Unwavering beliefs don't allow for success

[Hubbs]

I can't be the only one who's more than a little amused by the mental image of a top Republican snapping at someone for misrepresenting Obama's position on something. And the same will be true in six months if a top Democrat does it for hypothetical President Romney. (I suppose I should add that I'm also slightly encouraged. It'd be nice if, when visiting other countries, our politicians adopted somewhat of a sibling rivalry mentality, as in an "I'm the only one who's allowed to beat up on my brother" sort of thing.)

[Gibbsisgod2006]

I independely know four professional GOP, politicians who work on the hill. At different times over the last three months all have exclaimed to me that Mitt Romney has no chance to be president in fits of dispare. The latest one was just three weeks ago before the GOP convention at a bar in St. Michaels. I said dude, why do you say that, he's statistically in a dead heat with the president? The guy who is a senate staffer says to me, can you name three issues which Mitt truely believes in. When I didn't answer right away, he says... Nobody can.

---------- Post added September-5th-2012 at 09:25 PM ----------



Well if Iran gave hezbollah a nuke, and hezbollah used it.... We would definitely hold Iran responsible, It's not like you can hide where those things are made.

Yes you can hold Iran accountable but they could easily say that they were stolen or something to that effect in order deflect blame. It's another fear that you have to worry about with a nuclear Iran.

[JMS]

I'm trying to think of 3 firm beliefs of any successful politician. Like a wise man once said, politics is the art of the possible. Unwavering beliefs don't allow for success

Ronald Reagan, (1) Pro Life, (2) Anti-communist, (3)stronger on defense, (4)smaller less attrusive government, (5)deregulation, (6)pro life.
George Bush Sr, (1) Strong Foreign policy (2) Increased federal spending for childcare/ education, (3) Immigration reform (4) Against N. Korea getting the bomb.
Bill Clinton, (1) Pro choice, (2) Support for Head Start (3) fiscal restraint, (4) Era of big government done, (5) Pay as we go government.
George Bush Jr. (1) Pro Life (2) Cut taxes (3) Increase Military Spending (4) No Child Left Behind

Romney (1) ?

[Predicto]

Yes that is very true. Another angle is that Iran would provide there proxies like Hezbollah with weapons to carry out attacks too.

Yes you can hold Iran accountable but they could easily say that they were stolen or something to that effect in order deflect blame. It's another fear that you have to worry about with a nuclear Iran.

I really do not think this is at all true. It's scare mongering. If you have nukes, you watch them like a hawk and don't let them out of your sight. I don't care how much you want to support your proxies, you don't give away nukes to them and lose control over them. One mistake, one change in leadership, one infiltrator - and that nuke could be going off in Tehran rather than in Tel Aviv. Plus, if any nukes go off, you are going to get blamed, and the mullahs know it.

We have reasons to not want Iran to get nukes, but this is not one of them. I have heard this claim made many times, but I have never read a credible argument by a credible person to support it. It is just some sort of assumption, like "Hey Iran is bad, so anything bad we can think of, they will likely do." Fact is, Iran is run by human beings and has a huge self preservation instinct (which is why they are trying to get nukes in the first place - because we have them and the Israelis have them).

---------- Post added September-6th-2012 at 10:14 AM ----------

Yes that is very true. Another angle is that Iran would provide there proxies like Hezbollah with weapons to carry out attacks too.

Ronald Reagan, (1) Pro Life, (2) Anti-communist, (3)stronger on defense, (4)smaller less attrusive government, (5)deregulation, (6)pro life.
George Bush Sr, (1) Strong Foreign policy (2) Increased federal spending for childcare/ education, (3) Immigration reform (4) Against N. Korea getting the bomb.
Bill Clinton, (1) Pro choice, (2) Support for Head Start (3) fiscal restraint, (4) Era of big government done, (5) Pay as we go government.
George Bush Jr. (1) Pro Life (2) Cut taxes (3) Increase Military Spending (4) No Child Left Behind

Romney (1) ?

Romney (1) Being President would complete my resume.

[Gibbsisgod2006]

I really do not think this is at all true. It's scare mongering. If you have nukes, you watch them like a hawk and don't let them out of your sight. I don't care how much you want to support your proxies, you don't give away nukes to them and lose control over them. One mistake, one change in leadership, one infiltrator - and that nuke could be going off in Tehran rather than in Tel Aviv. Plus, if any nukes go off, you are going to get blamed, and the mullahs know it.

We have reasons to not want Iran to get nukes, but this is not one of them. I have heard this claim made many times, but I have never read a credible argument by a credible person to support it. It is just some sort of assumption, like "Hey Iran is bad, so anything bad we can think of, they will likely do." Fact is, Iran is run by human beings and has a huge self preservation instinct (which is why they are trying to get nukes in the first place - because we have them and the Israelis have them).

---------- Post added September-6th-2012 at 10:14 AM ----------




Romney (1) Being President would complete my resume.

This is a quote from an article written by Ehanaeh Sadr of Middle East Policy "This is particularly true given that Hezbollah, as a non-state actor with no cities to defend, has less to lose from nuclear retaliation and might, therefore, be more inclined to take risks" .Many like to think that the only reason that the Iranians want Nukes is for self preservation but the real reason is that they want to be the Regional hegamon this dates back to the time when the shaw was in power.

[Predicto]

This is a quote from an article written by Ehanaeh Sadr of Middle East Policy "This is particularly true given that Hezbollah, as a non-state actor with no cities to defend, has less to lose from nuclear retaliation and might, therefore, be more inclined to take risks" .Many like to think that the only reason that the Iranians want Nukes is for self preservation but the real reason is that they want to be the Regional hegamon this dates back to the time when the shaw was in power.

Of course they want to be the regional hegemon. Giving away your nukes to uncontrollable proxys does not make you a regional hegemon. It makes you a people at risk from the explosion of uncontrolled nukes.

No one gives away nukes. We wouldn't give them to England after WWII. The Soviets wouldn't give them to Cuba or East Germany. Pakistan hasn't given them away to its proxy terrorist fighting against India.

The only people that I have ever seen suggest that Iran would just give away a nuke to a terrorist group are neo-cons, and they never back up that claim with any reasoning.

[JMS]

I have heard this claim made many times, but I have never read a credible argument by a credible person to support it. It is just some sort of assumption, like "Hey Iran is bad, so anything bad we can think of, they will likely do." Fact is, Iran is run by human beings and has a huge self preservation instinct (which is why they are trying to get nukes in the first place - because we have them and the Israelis have them)..

That's funny actually, not that you are wrong, I think you are correct. But we have heard this exact argument used against Iraq in justifying our invasion primarily because of their (1) nonexistant ties to international terrorists (Al Quada). (2) nonexistant ties to attacks on us interests via those Iraqi backed terrorists. (Al Quada) (3) Iraq's non existant nuclear program.
No less than Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Dick Cheney, even George Bush at times made this same exact argument.

So while I don't disagree with you, it is funny and even striking to hear.

[twa]

the idea is more to prevent the spread of nukes and having them in the hands of unstable govts.

Do Pakistan's or NK's bother you in case of coups or insurrections?

[Predicto]

the idea is more to prevent the spread of nukes and having them in the hands of unstable govts.

Do Pakistan's or NK's bother you in case of coups or insurrections?

I agree with you, and yes, that definitely bothers the hell out of me.

To put it another way, Iran is never going to give a nuke to Hezbullah. But Iran might collapse someday, and if it does, there will be a terrifying scramble to control the nukes that it has. Agree 100 percent.

[Gibbsisgod2006]

Of course they want to be the regional hegemon. Giving away your nukes to uncontrollable proxys does not make you a regional hegemon. It makes you a people at risk from the explosion of uncontrolled nukes.

No one gives away nukes. We wouldn't give them to England after WWII. The Soviets wouldn't give them to Cuba or East Germany. Pakistan hasn't given them away to its proxy terrorist fighting against India.

The only people that I have ever seen suggest that Iran would just give away a nuke to a terrorist group are neo-cons, and they never back up that claim with any reasoning.

You said that they want the nukes for self preservation no they want the nukes so they can be the regional hegamon. When has Hezbollah been out control for Iran? Though I agree that Iran would not give nukes to Hezbollah I just pointed out that there are people who are out there that suspect that Iran would do this.

[visionary]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8851DK20120906

Congressman confirms high-level U.S.-Israel spat over Iran

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu blew up at the U.S. ambassador last month because he was "at wit's end" over what he sees as the Obama administration's lack of clarity on Iran's nuclear program, a congressman who was at the meeting said.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, a Republican, made his first public comments about the late August meeting in Israel in an interview with Michigan's WJR radio on Tuesday.

His disclosure comes only hours before President Barack Obama will at the Democratic National Convention to accept the party's nomination as its candidate in the November election, in which the level of the Obama administration's support for Israel has become a contentious topic.

"Right now the Israelis don't believe that this administration is serious when they say all options are on the table, and more importantly neither do the Iranians. That's why the program is progressing," Rogers said.

[Predicto]

You said that they want the nukes for self preservation no they want the nukes so they can be the regional hegamon. When has Hezbollah been out control for Iran? Though I agree that Iran would not give nukes to Hezbollah I just pointed out that there are people who are out there that suspect that Iran would do this.

They want nukes for lots of reasons. The biggest reason is that so no one can tell them what or what not to do - not even the superpower USA. That is not a good thing.

My only point is that they are not going to give nukes away to proxies. That is a scare tactic argument.