Foreign Relations - the Chicago Way

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

"In a development that has largely been missed by mainstream media, the Pentagon early last month quietly declassified a Department of Defense top-secret document detailing Israel's nuclear program, a highly covert topic that Israel has never formally announced to avoid a regional nuclear arms race, and which the US until now has respected by remaining silent.

Right! Not a soul knew they had nukes until the Pentagon opened their big mouth!

"But by publishing the declassified document from 1987, the US reportedly breached the silent agreement to keep quiet on Israel's nuclear powers for the first time ever, detailing the nuclear program in great depth."

That'll teach Bibi to speak to Congress without permission, much less daring to get himself re-elected!

Yes, it will. It also paints a clear picture of Netanyahu's true concerns about the possibility of an Iranian weapons program. If Israel isn't the only nuclear power in the neighborhood, it'll be a bit harder for them to be the bully.

So, we're de-classifying info about Isreali nukes, and we're helping Iran go nuclear.

What a stupid thing to say!

And the "Chicago style" trope is so, so tired!

But, if you want to use it, try being fair. Wouldn't you say that the letter from the 47 traitors, the invitation to Netanyahu to come over here and trash the President and the Republican's collusion with Israel over the P5+1 spying intel were pretty "Chicago style"

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

What a stupid thing to say!

And the "Chicago style" trope is so, so tired!

But, if you want to use it, try being fair. Wouldn't you say that the letter from the 47 traitors, the invitation to Netanyahu to come over here and trash the President and the Republican's collusion with Israel over the P5+1 spying intel were pretty "Chicago style"

Truth hurts, doesn't it? Even Senate Dems are complaining about how the Iran deal is proceeding, how it spells trouble in the Middle East. The Saudi's, who have been interested in nukes for a while, are reportedly ramping up talks with Pakistan for nuclear technology. And if you think the Turks are going to sit by and watch their neighbors nuke up, you're in for a surprise.

As far as the "47 traitors", get over it. You lost the argument about whether there was a violation of the Logan Act. Continuing to call them "traitors" is akin to the old saw about "repeating a lie often enough..." Besides, a who buncha Dems showed up to hear Bibi speak. Are they traitors too?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

Truth hurts, doesn't it? Even Senate Dems are complaining about how the Iran deal is proceeding, how it spells trouble in the Middle East. The Saudi's, who have been interested in nukes for a while, are reportedly ramping up talks with Pakistan for nuclear technology. And if you think the Turks are going to sit by and watch their neighbors nuke up, you're in for a surprise.

As far as the "47 traitors", get over it. You lost the argument about whether there was a violation of the Logan Act. Continuing to call them "traitors" is akin to the old saw about "repeating a lie often enough..." Besides, a who buncha Dems showed up to hear Bibi speak. Are they traitors too?

So, you cut out everything in my reply having to do with Israel because you don't have a response. And you don't have a response because your whole premise is absurd on its face.

Then you spun out fantasies about a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Apparently, you're doubling down on your assertion that Obama is desirous of the Iranians acquiring nukes but you still can't back it up.

The betting is over. Show your cards.

And I never mentioned the Logan Act, violations of which don't constitute treason. Neither did I mention the Netanyahu speech. The 47 traitors actions go far beyond merely engaging in diplomacy. They deliberately attempted to sabotage the P5+1 negotiations and preemptively any other international negotiations the Obama Administration might choose to engage in.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

So, you cut out everything in my reply having to do with Israel because you don't have a response. And you don't have a response because your whole premise is absurd on its face.

No response is required to your standard anti-Israel blather because the blather is "absurd on its face."

Originally Posted by Boreas

Then you spun out fantasies about a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Apparently, you're doubling down on your assertion that Obama is desirous of the Iranians acquiring nukes but you still can't back it up.

The betting is over. Show your cards.

What do you want me to "back up"? Do you deny that the Saudis have been wanting to get into the nuke game? Do you deny that the Sunn- Saudi regime would be concerned about an imbalance of power in their own backyard if Shiite Iran got the bomb?

Originally Posted by Boreas

And I never mentioned the Logan Act.

The hell you didn't.

Originally Posted by Boreas

Bibi and Dermer's next move.

As far as I'm concerned, the entire Republican caucus of both houses should be impeached for treason and for violating the Logan Act. (I know, "dream on".)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_6830308.html

John

Dude, you're becoming unhinged if you can't remember what you said from one day to the next.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

What do you want me to "back up"?

That Obama wants the Iranians to get "the bomb" would be a start.

Do you deny that the Saudis have been wanting to get into the nuke game?

Nope!

Do you deny that the Sunn- Saudi regime would be concerned about an imbalance of power in their own backyard if Shiite Iran got the bomb?

Nope!

First off, the Saudi interest in nuclear weapons is nothing new and instigated by the fact that Israel, as everyone knows, has them. So, yes, the potential for a "Shia Bomb" is of concern to them but I think they're a great deal more concerned that Israel has a bunch of them.

Secondly, no country that wants an H bomb wants it so they can use it. It's the old MADD game. Any country that launched a first strike would be obliterated in a matter of hours. The Iranians and the Saudis... and even the Israelis... know this and none of these countries is suicidal.

Third, the idea is to create a multi-polar Middle East. Nobody in the region likes the idea that there's only one country in the region with Nuclear capabilities. (Okay, they probably REALLY hate it because it happens to be Israel.) Getting a bomb changes the calculus, shifts regional hegemony away from Israel. That's why these countries want nukes and why Israel is so apoplectic about it.

Fourth, Iran is a signatory to the NNPT. Israel isn't.

The hell you didn't (mention the Logan Act).

Sheesh! You know what I meant! I didn't mention the Logan Act in the post you were responding to!

http://politicalchat.org/showpost.ph...10&postcount=7

Dude, you're becoming unhinged if you can't remember what you said from one day to the next.

Oh, I remember alright. I also remember that I separated the charges of committing treason from violating the Logan Act because, you know, they're different. And "from one day to the next"? Try March 9th.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

That Obama wants the Iranians to get "the bomb" would be a start.

Might help if you read what I wrote. I have no clue if Obama "wants the Iranians to get the bomb". The objective has - at least as stated - to keep the Iranians from EVER having the bomb. The reports so far suggest that we're prepared to offer a moratorium in exchange for lifting sanctions - a chance in policy that Iran's most recent behavior fails to justify. A moratorium with Iran - based on their past behavior - seems rather pointless. Also, there's no question that we've given them cover to continue what they allege is a nuclear energy program, and no one really believes that Iran's nuke program is all about energy.

Originally Posted by Boreas

So, yes, the potential for a "Shia Bomb" is of concern to them but I think they're a great deal more concerned that Israel has a bunch of them.

Bull Shiite. The Saudis know that the Israelis have nukes for defensive purposes. THIS is why the Saudis want nukes:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-10139229.html

In 2012 the Saudi Arabian government threatened to acquire nuclear weapons were neighbouring regional power Iran ever to do so.

“Politically, it would be completely unacceptable to have Iran with a nuclear capability and not the kingdom,” a senior Saudi source told The Times newspaper at the time.

The United States and other Western allies say a deal with Iran on its nuclear programme is possible. Iran denies it is building nuclear weapons.

Originally Posted by Boreas

Secondly, no country that wants an H bomb wants it so they can use it. It's the old MADD game. Any country that launched a first strike would be obliterated in a matter of hours. The Iranians and the Saudis... and even the Israelis... know this and none of these countries is suicidal.

The history of mankind is replete with examples autocrats and dictators who fail to pay attention to rationality or the lessons of history.

Originally Posted by Boreas

Third, the idea is to create a multi-polar Middle East. Nobody in the region likes the idea that there's only one country in the region with Nuclear capabilities. (Okay, they probably REALLY hate it because it happens to be Israel.) Getting a bomb changes the calculus, shifts regional hegemony away from Israel. That's why these countries want nukes and why Israel is so apoplectic about it.

Baloney. See quoted article above.

Originally Posted by Boreas

Fourth, Iran is a signatory to the NNPT. Israel isn't.

So what? Iran certainly isn't behaving like its gives a rat's ass about the NNPT.

Originally Posted by Boreas

Sheesh! You know what I meant! I didn't mention the Logan Act in the post you were responding to!

http://politicalchat.org/showpost.ph...10&postcount=7

What, so I'm not supposed to remember your comments in prior posts? If memory serves, multiple prior posts??

[Ike Bana]

Hey thanks whell.

In other related stories from the examiner.com:
-Social media questions why Michelle Obama has gone bald
-Two teenage girls join ISIS, become pregnant, and are now begging to come home
-Jessica Biel hits beach: Actress doesn't wear bikini during beach stroll (Holy shit! how did I miss this???)
-Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty uses graphic speech to emphasize good and evil

It's blogs, whell. By their own admission there is absolutely no editoral review of articles by the management of examiner.com. "They're blogs. They don't get edited. We don't give any direction to people on what to write in their blogs. And that's standard operating procedure." - Jim Pementel, Executive Director of Examiner.com.

PS - So who released this intel. The Pentagon? The Obama administration? The Pentagon as ordered by their Commander in Chief?

PSS - WTF does somebody from Detroit know about the "Chicago Way" other than what he's heard from lifelong Chicagoans like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity?