Israel Threatened By Iranian Nukes

And just for the record, I didn't vote for Reagan or Bush.

 

What's your point? I can post a link to an Israeli who supports the deal (guardedly and with reservations) for every Israeli who opposes it. Kind of a weak basis for claiming Obama is some sort of dangerous, rabid anti-Semite, which is what you suggested in your original post.

Your only other evidence that he's anti-Israel or anti-Jewish or whatever your point is (goalposts keep shifting) are statements made not by him, but by his freakin' former preacher, and not on his behalf. Oh yeah -- you also reference his statement that Israel-Palestinian negotiations begin with the 1967 borders as a starting point. Here's the actual quote: "We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states." He may be the first to explicitly say it, but this has basically been U.S. foreign policy under something like the last 8 presidents. And it's something a significant number of Israelis -- and those American Jews who don't see the world as a Leon Uris novel -- agree with.

Anyway, aspects of the deal have me frightened too. I don't particularly like it. But it's something. It's certainly less frightening than no deal -- which would put the U.S. on its own in terms of imposing sanctions, which will render them meaningless, AND as I said before, without even the inspection and enforcement mechanisms that this deal does bring. These are things the deal's most vehement critics do not address at all.

 

Yeah da man ... You need to come to grips with the fact that the existential threat faced by Israel's just one of many things we need to weigh. Israel's factoring that in so prominently is just a sign of political immaturity. Good thing the grown ups are in charge.

 

That's one laughably horseshit "if" you're hanging on there. There's no real evidence that Wright "calibrated Obama's moral compass", and it's entirely unfair to make that claim in the absence of such evidence. God help us if it now becomes fair game to impute to a person the beliefs of anyone and everyone they've ever come into contact with. If you're gonna claim that our president is anti-Jewish/Israel then you better back it up with evidence rooted in his own words and actions, not something some other guy said.

And not that I dispute you, but could you please remind me of precisely what Anti-Israel/Jewish comments by Wright your referencing here, because I honestly don't remember.

 

Iran is not going to nuke Israel because it would mean the end of Iran. I do understand the arguments that the deal paves the way for billions of dollars to be pumped into the Iranian economy that it would in turn use to fund Hizbollah and Hamas. But what I don't understand is how rejecting the deal would prevent that -- rejecting the deal means that the U.S. is the only country still enforcing sanctions.

 

Other than Obama himself telling that to the Chicago Tribune.

Obama says that rather than advising him on strategy, Wright helps keep his priorities straight and his moral compass calibrated. -- Chicago Tribune, Jan. 21, 2007

As for Wright, this is from CNN.com, March 28, 2008:

 

Oh for cripes sake, do you honestly not see what an absurdly tenuous and unfair basis that is for accusing our president of being anti-Jewish? First of all, I'd note that what you've cited is not even Wright's words, much less Obama's. Instead they were comments from articles "reprinted from other sources" in the church "bulletin" where Wright was pastor. So you're going to make these accusations against our president because he once attended a church whose bulletin once reprinted comments from some wacky ass articles with wacky ass views? Nevermind the fact that there's no evidence whatsoever that Obama ever read that bulletin or knew about the articles, and that upon being notified of them years later, condemned those articles as being "outrageously wrong." Seriously? My lord, that's a level of irrational guilt by association-ism far beyond the now-condemned McCarthyism insanity of the 50s.

Again, if you're gonna do what you've done on this thread, which, let's be blunt, is imply that our president is an anti-Semite, then you better be able to produce evidence rooted in his own words or actions, not somebody else's. If you can't do that, then just shut up.

 

#grownups

 

We made deals with the Soviets at a time when they were en route to possessing close to 40,000 nuclear weapons.

And people are going nuts about a deal with Iran, which maybe someday might have one or two.

Screeching for the sake of screeching.

 

I think the difference there is, the Soviets already had their nukes and also had good reasons not to actually use them. We also had good reasons to keep an eye on each other.
The Iranians don't have their nukes yet, and have expressed an interest in popping off one or two -- or perhaps cutting deals with allies who would. They're also in a part of the world that tends to be unstable and is littered with people who would take advantage of that instability to achieve goals that are in no one else's interests. Iran also seems to view nuclear weapons as less of a deterring measure and more of a shiny new toy to show off.
Maybe it's impossible to keep the lid on the bottle -- hell, that we've been able to do it for 70 years is amazing -- but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

 

That's all well and good, but it's kind of foolish, IMO, to think we can deny a nation access to something which 1) legitimately strengthens their defense capabilities and 2) which other countries possess, simply on the basis of "Well, we think you're in the Axis of Evil, so no nukes for you!"

The fact that it's an unstable region gives Iran all the more reason to say, "This is why we need one."

 

I agree, but please explain to me how this deal signifies that we're not trying?

The terms are directed precisely the opposite direction--dismantling Iran's nuclear capacity in exchange for lifting economic sanctions. Seems to me the Netanyahu crowd's problem is not about Iran's nuclear capacity--hell, the deal's actually directed toward reducing that--but instead it's simply about their intolerance of the notion of the US dealing amicably with Iran on any terms, doing anything that might alleviate Iran's economic plight, or doing anything that suggests we see Iran as anything other than an unconditional enemy.