• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Netanyahu ‘spat in our face,’ White House officials said to say[W:223]

Objective Voice said:
But they don't. And so your your irrational fear-mongering is irrelevant. That same fearful argument was used against Iraq when Saddam was in power (only he used Scud missiles, not nukes - because he didn't have any) and continues to be used for Iran (which still doesn't have nukes).

I get that none of these nations with anti-Christian leaders/governments should have WMDs, but when people such as yourself insist on a single solution approach to resolve problems you leave no room for anything else. Not even Ronald Reagan was so blind as to think non-negotiations was a cure-all for every situation.
Click to expand...

however, that is exactly what supporters of this farce are doing...
 
JANFU said:
OP Ed piece but sums it up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/24/o...jamin-netanyahu-playing-politics-on-iran.html

Normally, the visit of a world leader to the United States would be arranged by the White House. But in a breach of sense and diplomacy, House Speaker John Boehner and Ron Dermer, Israel’s ambassador to Washington, have taken it upon themselves to invite Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel to Congress to challenge President Obama’s approach to achieving a nuclear agreement with Iran.
In a recent Washington Post op-ed article, the foreign ministers of Britain, France, Germany and the European Union also implored Congress to hold off on new sanctions. Similar messages have come from scores of other experts, including two former American national security advisers, Brent Scowcroft, a Republican, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Democrat. According to Secretary of State John Kerry, even Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, warned Congress that new sanctions would scuttle the talks, saying it would “be like throwing a grenade into the process.” Mossad later tried to paper over any perceived differences with Mr. Netanyahu.
Click to expand...



:naughty


Despite a story in Bloomberg News claiming the Mossad has gone rogue on Iran, Israel's spy agency is not opposed to additional Iran sanctions. On 19 January 2015, Mossad Chairman Tamir Pardo met with a delegation of American Senators. The meeting took place at the Senators’ request, and with the Prime Minister’s approval. Contrary to the report, the Mossad Chairman did not say that he opposes additional sanctions against Iran. In the meeting, the Mossad Chairman emphasized the unusual effectiveness of the sanctions imposed on Iran a number of years ago in bringing Iran to the negotiating table.

The Mossad Chairman pointed out that the negotiations with Iran must be conducted using ‘carrots and sticks,’ and the ‘sticks’ are currently missing. The Mossad Chairman pointed out that without strong pressure, it will not be possible to bring about significant compromises on the Iranian side. The Mossad Chairman did not relate to the use of the term ‘hand grenade’ with respect to the imposition of sanctions, because in his eyes, these are the ‘sticks’ that will help to obtain a good agreement. He used this term to describe the possibility of creating a temporary breakdown in the talks, at the end of which the negotiations will be restarted under better conditions.

The Mossad Chairman explicitly pointed out that the agreement that is being reached with Iran is bad, and may lead to a regional arms race.....snip~

The Jewish Press » » Despite Democrats’ Claims, Mossad Chief Favors Additional Iran Sanctions
 
MMC said:
:naughty


Despite a story in Bloomberg News claiming the Mossad has gone rogue on Iran, Israel's spy agency is not opposed to additional Iran sanctions. On 19 January 2015, Mossad Chairman Tamir Pardo met with a delegation of American Senators. The meeting took place at the Senators’ request, and with the Prime Minister’s approval. Contrary to the report, the Mossad Chairman did not say that he opposes additional sanctions against Iran. In the meeting, the Mossad Chairman emphasized the unusual effectiveness of the sanctions imposed on Iran a number of years ago in bringing Iran to the negotiating table.

The Mossad Chairman pointed out that the negotiations with Iran must be conducted using ‘carrots and sticks,’ and the ‘sticks’ are currently missing. The Mossad Chairman pointed out that without strong pressure, it will not be possible to bring about significant compromises on the Iranian side. The Mossad Chairman did not relate to the use of the term ‘hand grenade’ with respect to the imposition of sanctions, because in his eyes, these are the ‘sticks’ that will help to obtain a good agreement. He used this term to describe the possibility of creating a temporary breakdown in the talks, at the end of which the negotiations will be restarted under better conditions.

The Mossad Chairman explicitly pointed out that the agreement that is being reached with Iran is bad, and may lead to a regional arms race.....snip~

The Jewish Press » » Despite Democrats’ Claims, Mossad Chief Favors Additional Iran Sanctions
Click to expand...

They are there so what does passing a new waiting list of sanctions prove?
What are the positive- negatives?
 
JANFU said:
They are there so what does passing a new waiting list of sanctions prove?
What are the positive- negatives?
Click to expand...

Well, first Team BO thinks Netanyahu spat in their face. Yet this was after BO sent the Team of Senators to talk to the Mossad. Which guess who gave his approval to that?


The meeting took place at the Senators’ request, and with the Prime Minister’s approval.....snip~


Why, because Iran hasn't come thru with Parchin, nor their Ballistics. Already Clapper testified in 2013 that Iran has the ballistic missile capability. Throughout this time, they have continued to enrich. They also have continued to procure Illegal Parts for their Arak Facility.

To top it off they are in violation of the Treaty over Ballistics just for this last year alone. While negotiating. BO still let two deadlines pass. Didn't put back on any Sanctions.

Iran just kept using the time.....and still are. Legislation with reinstating sanctions and imposing others shows Iran all are serious about their compliance. If they meet certain deadlines. No problem.....they don't suffer the consequences of your own actions.
 
Say negotiation fail. What happens then?
 
j-mac said:
Aw, poor, fragile administration hacks....They are all hurt that Bibi plans to talk to congress after being invited...Who the hell do they think they are, that Netanyahu has to "ask their permission? What a joke...I guess they should expect this after all the snubs that Obama regularly shows Israel...Like making Netanyahu wait while he went up and ate dinner....
Click to expand...

We owe nothing to Israel. They owe us everything.
 
Objective Voice said:
But they don't. And so your your irrational fear-mongering is irrelevant. That same fearful argument was used against Iraq when Saddam was in power (only he used Scud missiles, not nukes - because he didn't have any) and continues to be used for Iran (which still doesn't have nukes).

I get that none of these nations with anti-Christian leaders/governments should have WMDs, but when people such as yourself insist on a single solution approach to resolve problems you leave no room for anything else. Not even Ronald Reagan was so blind as to think non-negotiations was a cure-all for every situation.
Click to expand...

I wasn't the one who brought nukes into the discussion, but since it was introduced, I thought that I'd at least use it to make a very valid point that many people so often tend to either overlook, when debationg this issue.
 
j-mac said:
Nope....Israel should be able to count on us as an ally, not watch over their shoulder for the bus coming at them....
Click to expand...

Why do we owe Israel anything?
 
Objective Voice said:
But they don't. And so your your irrational fear-mongering is irrelevant. That same fearful argument was used against Iraq when Saddam was in power (only he used Scud missiles, not nukes - because he didn't have any) and continues to be used for Iran (which still doesn't have nukes).

I get that none of these nations with anti-Christian leaders/governments should have WMDs, but when people such as yourself insist on a single solution approach to resolve problems you leave no room for anything else. Not even Ronald Reagan was so blind as to think non-negotiations was a cure-all for every situation.
Click to expand...

j-mac said:
however, that is exactly what supporters of this farce are doing...
Click to expand...

I disagree completely.

We're using drone strikes in areas where military/special forces can't easily get into.

We're using special forces to provide ground surveillance, coordinate air strikes and train foreign combatants how to "take the fight to a common enemy".

We're using our political and economic influence (soft power) in an attempt to force rouge countries (Russia, North Korea, Iran) into compliance moreso with UN/NATO resolutions/treaties.

Political persuasion to bring Arab nations to the table to "collective" resolve this regional problem called ISIS.

While I would agree that the Obama Administrations foreign policy agenda where the Middle East is concerned does seem to be inconsistent if not incoherent to some, but when you don't have willing partners in the region who are willing to take matters into their own hands and fight for their own freedom AND your fellow countrymen are really tired of fighting AND your "all volunteer force" is tired of constantly being thrown into the meat grinder for wars/military campaigns that don't seem to have an end-game, do you think it wise to pursue a single-minded military option as the only solution to the Middle-East problem especially since no other U.S. President before Obama was able to fix the problem? Oh, wait! The problem wasn't exacerbated until The Bush Doctrine went into affect. My bad! :roll:

My point here is simply this: STOP TAKING THE IDEOLOGICAL VIEW to all things. The ME in particular isn't a one size fits all situation. It's far more complicated that you might think.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
I didn't say we did, but we are an ally...Shouldn't you be able to count on your allies?
Click to expand...

Ron according to Ron Paul and his isolationist supporters. They still live in the 19th century and think America can survive as an island.
 
j-mac said:
I didn't say we did, but we are an ally...Shouldn't you be able to count on your allies?
Click to expand...

There is a difference between being able to count on them and being reliant.
 
MMC said:
effectiveness of the sanctions imposed on Iran a number of years ago in bringing Iran to the negotiating table.


The Jewish Press » » Despite Democrats’ Claims, Mossad Chief Favors Additional Iran Sanctions
Click to expand...

After he was told to say this by Netanyahu.
And before he said these new sanctions would be like "throwing a grenade into the process".
You keep leaving that part out MMC.

As always, the GOP still thinks it owns foreign policy and should be doing the work of the President.
They'd rather start new wars versus the 'No Drama Obama' doctrine .
 
Objective Voice said:
I disagree completely.

We're using drone strikes in areas where military/special forces can't easily get into.

We're using special forces to provide ground surveillance, coordinate air strikes and train foreign combatants how to "take the fight to a common enemy".

We're using our political and economic influence (soft power) in an attempt to force rouge countries (Russia, North Korea, Iran) into compliance moreso with UN/NATO resolutions/treaties.

Political persuasion to bring Arab nations to the table to "collective" resolve this regional problem called ISIS.

While I would agree that the Obama Administrations foreign policy agenda where the Middle East is concerned does seem to be inconsistent if not incoherent to some, but when you don't have willing partners in the region who are willing to take matters into their own hands and fight for their own freedom AND your fellow countrymen are really tired of fighting AND your "all volunteer force" is tired of constantly being thrown into the meat grinder for wars/military campaigns that don't seem to have an end-game, do you think it wise to pursue a single-minded military option as the only solution to the Middle-East problem especially since no other U.S. President before Obama was able to fix the problem? Oh, wait! The problem wasn't exacerbated until The Bush Doctrine went into affect. My bad! :roll:

My point here is simply this: STOP TAKING THE IDEOLOGICAL VIEW to all things. The ME in particular isn't a one size fits all situation. It's far more complicated that you might think.
Click to expand...

You're taking the ideological view to all things.
 
I'm quite frankly pissed at both sides of this stupid fabrication of oneupsmanship.

Obama's coolness toward Israel, a valuable ally, since the day he took office has really concerned me. He clearly hates Netanyahu on a personal and visceral level, and the feeling is clearly mutual. Both of them have been and are being childish, dangerous, and completely unstatesmanlike on all levels. The "Netanyahu spat in our face" comment was completely unnecessary and outrageous. Heads should roll.

That being said, shame, shame, shame on Boehner and the GOP for secretly pulling this despicable public "gotcha" on the president of the damned United States, no matter what their problems with his ideology might be. No excuse for it, none whatsoever. I do not blame Netanyahu for gleefully accepting... and potentially even orchestrating... this idiotic "coup"; it serves him well and he hates Obama with a pink-and-purple passion. I blame Boehner and the GOP. They have globally declared war on their president, making clear their intention to mock him, ridicule him, and sabotage him in the court of international public opinion... and they have decided to obstruct his administration's policies, goals, and diplomatic negotiations in the most debasing manner possible.

A pox on all their damned houses. :2mad:
 
DiAnna said:
I'm quite frankly pissed at both sides of this stupid fabrication of oneupsmanship.

Obama's coolness toward Israel, a valuable ally, since the day he took office has really concerned me. He clearly hates Netanyahu on a personal and visceral level, and the feeling is clearly mutual. Both of them have been and are being childish, dangerous, and completely unstatesmanlike on all levels. The "Netanyahu spat in our face" comment was completely unnecessary and outrageous. Heads should roll.

That being said, shame, shame, shame on Boehner and the GOP for secretly pulling this despicable public "gotcha" on the president of the damned United States, no matter what their problems with his ideology might be. No excuse for it, none whatsoever. I do not blame Netanyahu for gleefully accepting... and potentially even orchestrating... this idiotic "coup"; it serves him well and he hates Obama with a pink-and-purple passion. I blame Boehner and the GOP. They have globally declared war on their president, making clear their intention to mock him, ridicule him, and sabotage him in the court of international public opinion... and they have decided to obstruct his administration's policies, goals, and diplomatic negotiations in the most debasing manner possible.

A pox on all their damned houses. :2mad:
Click to expand...

Congress is in no way obligated to clear with The President, anything that goes on within the chamber.

The three branches of government are co-equal. The Legislative Branch, in no way, operates by The Executive Branch's leave.
 
I think Bibi should respect our leader, because we give him a lot in financial aide. Bibi prefers for us to have Neo Conservative presidents because they like going to war in the ME, and that benefits Bibi. We have to worry about our own country and our budgetary issues, and I don't think he respects that.

j-mac said:
Aw, poor, fragile administration hacks....They are all hurt that Bibi plans to talk to congress after being invited...Who the hell do they think they are, that Netanyahu has to "ask their permission? What a joke...I guess they should expect this after all the snubs that Obama regularly shows Israel...Like making Netanyahu wait while he went up and ate dinner....
Click to expand...
 
apdst said:
Congress is in no way obligated to clear with The President, anything that goes on within the chamber.

The three branches of government are co-equal. The Legislative Branch, in no way, operates by The Executive Branch's leave.
Click to expand...

Bibi is running for election- Speaking to a topic where 5 nations are involved. The Republicans disagree with how negotiations are going- inviting Bibi in to speak is BS.
If negotiation fail, you will have more sanctions and possibly war as well.
Why come on over and vote.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/215132-p5-1-iran-nuclear-negotiations.html
 
NIMBY said:
After he was told to say this by Netanyahu.
And before he said these new sanctions would be like "throwing a grenade into the process".
You keep leaving that part out MMC.

As always, the GOP still thinks it owns foreign policy and should be doing the work of the President.
They'd rather start new wars versus the 'No Drama Obama' doctrine .
Click to expand...


point.gif



The Mossad Chairman pointed out that the negotiations with Iran must be conducted using ‘carrots and sticks,’ and the ‘sticks’ are currently missing. The Mossad Chairman pointed out that without strong pressure, it will not be possible to bring about significant compromises on the Iranian side. The Mossad Chairman did not relate to the use of the term ‘hand grenade’ with respect to the imposition of sanctions, because in his eyes, these are the ‘sticks’ that will help to obtain a good agreement. He used this term to describe the possibility of creating a temporary breakdown in the talks, at the end of which the negotiations will be restarted under better conditions.....snip~

Got anything on that Netanyahu told him to say something? Like always..... you come with nothing but your own interpretation of reality.

its your usual with the try-n-carry OF BO peep and his lost sheeps' Water. Not even reading what is up in front of your face.

But then it does gives us on the Right.....something to chuckle about.
 
As far as I can tell, Netanyahu got an invitation to speak to congress and accepted it. Why are people beating him up? Isn't congress allowed to have guest speakers? Didn't they just invite the prez to do a state of the union speech?
 
fmw said:
As far as I can tell, Netanyahu got an invitation to speak to congress and accepted it. Why are people beating him up? Isn't congress allowed to have guest speakers? Didn't they just invite the prez to do a state of the union speech?
Click to expand...

A foreign head of state bypassing the POTUS is a serious breach of protocol.
 
SheWolf said:
I think Bibi should respect our leader, because we give him a lot in financial aide. Bibi prefers for us to have Neo Conservative presidents because they like going to war in the ME, and that benefits Bibi. We have to worry about our own country and our budgetary issues, and I don't think he respects that.
Click to expand...

In terms of U.S. foreign aid, Israel is and has just about always been the biggest welfare queen on earth. You would think that would come with a little humility on Bibi's part. Yet he will come here as an insult to our president and have no problem having their lobby here cup in hand just the same.
 
Kobie said:
A foreign head of state bypassing the POTUS is a serious breach of protocol.
Click to expand...

He didn't bypass anybody. Congress did. I'm sure he will be happy to visit the white house when comes, if they invite him. So he shouldn't have accepted because the invitation came from congress instead of the white house. What if a University had invited him to speak? Same thing there? This is ridiculous.
 
fmw said:
He didn't bypass anybody. Congress did. I'm sure he will be happy to visit the white house when comes, if they invite him. So he shouldn't have accepted because the invitation came from congress instead of the white house. What if a University had invited him to speak? Same thing there? This is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

The responsibility here does lie more with Congress, yes. However, Bibi damn well knows the protocol. He also knows he's more likely to get everything he wants times two from Congress.

A university is not a government body that has any say over the billions we hand him for free.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom