Benjamin Netanyahu for US President

Post Reply New Topic

Did Netanyahu make this trip expecting the next president to be Republican? He knew there was a possibility of pissing off Obama who is in his last term anyway.

wrong then wrong now

Israel should do it themselves and face whatever consequences there are for agressively going to war with another nation

You mean there is a point?
Like Netan-yahoo can be our president?


Yes of course, I'm a southern fried Christ-o-facist. Just ask anyone that knows me.


We Christian right-ers arent antisemitic when we can play them off of the Islamics.



Foreign policy Raptor style.

Any questions?

Here I fixed your image for you (301 redirect)

I know better, but if you want to play to that stereotype be my guest. One thing you are definitely not is Jeffersonian.

Thing is firepower and military resources isn't winning asymmetric or hybrid wars, you simply can't "win" those by conventional means, you have to sort of manage them and hope that they fizzle out. Any state including the US could have an insurgency, that is one of the problems of being a state (and why ISIS as a state is a flawed concept). Thing is that lesson should have been learned in Vietnam, and you only just learning in now...very gradually.

True, though one of the reasons why Iran started its programs and had incentive is becuase Iraq did have a program which was destroyed by in 1991, and the nuclear material came from South Africa and it was known about in the west (as Saddam was an ally for a time). Iraq had this program becuase, it had previously attacked Iran and so may Iranians died in that conflict, it knew that the Iran could seek revenge.

Saddam didn't have a program after that, but he bluffed not becuase of Israel, but becuase of Iran. Iran conventional military capability was much stronger in the 00s than in 80s, therefore could have gone head to head with Saddam.

Unlike Afghanistan, Iraqis have always had skilled military personnel, just that they are very sectarian, as it the whole of the Middle East, much of Central Asia, and North Africa.

Wouldn't policy makers and diplomats have known that Saddam was bluffing against Iran, and that that was the reason he did not allow inspectors in? I remember it was often brought up by politicians and news people the question "If he has nothing to hide, why does he not let in inspectors? ----> he must have something." But this must have been known back then by the experts?

My father was a diplomat and he didn't think Saddam was bluffing (he was retired by then but this was his view). I think they knew it was a possibility, but didn't want to call the bluff.

My father was in the South Africa during the 80s (I was born there), and there was something going with South African government and various countries, but as our relation with South Africa were strained at time, I wasn't that clear until it was known that Saddam had a program, which he made known to Iran, that is when the South Africa connection was established.

My view is what ever they had before 2003, it wasn't an imminent threat to US or UK. They did actually have weapons you could class to WMD, the allies bought these secretly from third parties looking for quick cash. These were not long range or a sexed up imminent threat to us.

It is not as if Saddam didn't have a track record of using chemical weapons on his people, but like I said existential obsessed, sectarian nutjobs are a dime a dozen in the region.

If Netanyahu becomes the US President, he will make sure that most of the US resources to be sucked by Israel.

Iraq did not have any WMDs post the first Gulf War, any chemical weapons they had(which the US likely helped them attain) were useless and inert long before our invasion. We've killed millions of Iraqis based on completely false pretenses, we had killed 500,000 Iraqi children just during as a result of our sanctions. It is no wonder why ISIS has risen from these people, the US is responsible for their growth in so many ways. It was all for nothing, it was a genocide against the Iraqi people, it is truly an unforgivable mistake that no one will ever be held accountable for. The one thing we can do is learn from it but it seems we're destined to repeat this same mistake over and over again, the US has killed and terrorized far more people than any terrorist group or even Saddam ever has.

If Iran was working towards a nuclear weapon which there is no evidence that they are then it would make total sense, not because they want to attack Israel or some sectarian conflict with Saudis but to guard themselves from imminent American invasion which has loomed over their head since 1979. Iran has been "months away" from producing a nuclear weapon since like 1993, its a lie based on propaganda. Israel is not a trustworthy ally, they're an undeclared nuclear weapon state who often holds the world hostage, they're a pariah and should be treated as one, what happened to the Jewish people in the past does not accuse the actions of the state of Israel now. Neoconservatives and the plain dull in this country seem to take the word of Netanyahu was the word for the entire state of Israel and Jewish people when he is not even particularly popular in his own country. Netanyahu is basically the equivalent of having John McCain be president here, I often thank god that Obama won in the 2008 if only for the fact we may of had the most deranged bloodthirsty member of congress as president instead.

The US has a real problem with this Israel lobby and these crazy evangelicals, most of the Jews in this country I believe are largely unimpressed with warmongering that goes on with Israel. There is an element of this country that are as crazy religiously as anyone in the world, they think that Israel is a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy of the end times. They literally want to bring about the end of the world, they take the Bible as literal proof and think they can take an active hand in a fulfilling it. There are many in this country whose loyalty would go to Israel before it would the US, sucking all of our resources is right. Israel is a terrible ally and parasite on the US, we shouldn't take sides in their conflict. Maybe if we applied to pressure against Israel that we have against their enemies thru sanctions then maybe they'd start to see peace as much more advantageous. Israel is the country at fault for expanding its borders thru these settlers and war, their the aggressive expansionist power with undeclared weapons.

Are you talking about before 2003?

yes during the 90s

Madeline Albright said the price was worth it for regime change in Iraq

I agree with much of what you said, but take exception to you saying that the US was responsible for those deaths, as if nobody else was responsible, or even directly responsible. This is not a proportional basis to attribute responsibility, and based on faulty logic. Genocide has a specific meaning, and Saddam committed genocide against the Kurds, by gassing them.

I really do not tolerate this kind rhetoric unchecked, becuase such thing have be used by tyrants/warlords to excuse all manner of evil and shift the blame, and even justified under "anti-colonial" measures.

When a regime, or an insurgency uses a tactic of civilian deaths or through negligence, regardless of the merits any any foreign policy, it is the person that directly causes the deaths that is the most responsible.

Saddam was embezzling a huge amount of aid.

Iraq was not a poor country in term of resource, even with sanctions.

The point is that sanctions are an act of war and punish the very people we claim to care about it, sanctions don't hurt the ruling elite but rather poor and vulnerable. The hope is that we can more life so insufferable and tragic for these people that they will overthrow their governments and it is not something I can support, their are consequences for every action we take overseas and we do share responsibility for what has happened. The US is responsible for more deaths in Iraq than Saddam who don't get me wrong was an evil man but he also was a man that we aided into power so we share responsibility for his regime as well. We have to anticipate that everything we do overseas whether or not it serves our strategic interests or whatever lofty ideas of human rights and democracy have consequences, we stand ourselves on a pedestal and can't see that what we do causes even more pain and suffering no matter how well intentioned it may be. I don't think someone's whose family was killed in a drone strike cares too much about how the US was doing it to spread democracy.

See this is why I still take large exception to what you said, becuase you throw around a figure like 500, 000 like you have some way of actually quantifying that or knowing the how many would have died without sanctions, and make it sound like all the blame lies with he US. When actually it clearly doesn't. If you were talking about the Iran/Iraq war you might have a point.

It is very important that this sort of rhetoric doesn't prevail because it is this kind or rhetoric used by tyrants, terrorists groups, who cause misery themselves then blame others for them pulling the trigger, they very effectively use the politics of victimhood, except they don't empathize with their victims.

What the South African did in Angola with American support, arguablely prolonged the civil war by a decade, so it would be reasonable to say that they had some responsibility for the deaths as there was material support for them, but same goes for the USSR and Cuban on the other side.

The UN came up for those figures, Madeleine Albright answered it



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_ ... _sanctions

I think you may have point in terms of sanitation and food, and sanctions should have been more targeted. On they other hand you have to weight that up with the 100k Kurds, and the first Persian gulf war 500k Iraqi that died and 1 million for Iran and the fact that Saddam had penchant for using chemical weapon on his own people.

I do concede US was less concerned about the impact on them immediate region, at least until the late 90s.