“You people”? What do you mean by “you people”?
Yes, it’s over-the-top to say that congressmen who attended the speech were being treasonous. I think their actions are damaging to the interests of the United States but that does not make them treasonous.
I hope, by the way, you don’t mean to imply that support for Netanyahu and support for Israel are identical positions.
Idiots. I see you recognized the reference.
Regards,
Shodan
“Imply”? Imply is for the weak and uncertain.
You’re missing the point. The NY Post’s article is not over-the-top, but your reaction to and characterization of it was.
That’s what I found amusing - the suggestion that Netanyahu gave a better speech than Obama could have, or even (horrors) that Netanyahu is right and Obama is wrong, sends you into spasms.
You know how your father-in-law looks to you? That’s how you look to people of rational mind.
Regards,
Shodan
Spoken like someone with multiple Pit threads dedicated to what an insipid twat he is.
You misspelled “rationalizing”.
The Iranian leader who supposedly said that, Ahmadinejad, is out of office. In any case, “the Iranian threat” is almost entirely fictitious, and it really ought to be more remarkable that people are falling for the same nonsense once again.
Are you serious? If so, I invoke Godwin, and you lose.
I’m not personally invested in notions of treason per se, because I think that notions of right and wrong should obviously take supremacy over arbitrary national boundaries. With that said, Israel is a foreign power, with foreign policy priorities that do not necessarily jibe with (and are often directly contrary to!) those of the United States, nor with basic human decency. Israeli governments have a habit of trying to manipulate the US into doing their bidding, and sometimes they’re successful.
Netanyahu is a war criminal (like Obama, of course), and I thought everyone knew that the NY Post is a comedic tabloid. The corporate media is bad overall, but things like the NY Post are beyond the pale.
See above, though I myself am quite partial to the idea that principles matter much more than presidents and countries, and I would definitely lean towards Spear of the Nation, among others!
Ah, but this one is about you.
You seem to have grossly over-reacted to the idea that Netanyahu’s speech was better than Obama’s SotU speech of a few weeks back. Is this a symptom of mental disease or defect, or are you using habit-forming drugs?
Regards,
Shodan
In your case, it might well be a step in the right direction.
There can be broad agreement that a non-nuclear Iran is better than a nuclear Iran. That does not imply that war with Iran is the best way, or a good way at all, to approach the issue. Like many other observers, I believe that the most likely consequence of following Netanyahu’s policy recommendations on this matter would be war between the US and Iran. In that sense, he is a warmonger.
Netanyahu invoked the spectre of the Holocaust to make his point, which is a relevant analogy if and only if you believe that a) the Iranians are comparable to the Nazis not just in intent but also in capacity to do harm, and b) that the Iranian regime is literally suicidal. Because I view both A and B as absurdities, the analogy strikes me as irrelevant and serves only as an appeal to emotion and a way to take his policy disagreement with Obama outside the realm of rational debate. In that sense, he is a demagogue.
As someone said, those who overlearn the lessons of the past are destined to make the opposite mistake. Viewing every foreign crisis through the lens of the Sudetenland has proven time and again produce very poor policy recommendations, because it is so rarely a fitting analogy to the circumstances.
Republicans love to portray Obama as an empty suit who gives great but meaningless speeches. Then they praise Netanyahu for giving a meaningless speech with no concrete proposals, but gee such passion, such words, such talk talk.
Useless, seditious, treasonous cunts.
On the contrary, I don’t object to the idea that he gave a “better” speech–however so defined–than Obama’s SoTU address, which unlike Netanyahu’s I didn’t even watch. I have spent 6 years saying that Obama’s oratorical career peaked in 2004. His supposed golden tongue is much over-rated in my opinion; if anything, he’s often proven to be a pretty lousy communicator. Netanyahu is a very effective orator, which is no doubt why he’s been so successful politically despite demonstrating such consistently poor judgment on foreign policy over a multi-decade period.
My objection is to the comical extravagance of likening such a self-serving demagogue as Netanyahu to Moses, and the Post’s gross exaggeration of the substantive merits of the speech, as well as their silly fixation on Obama’s refusal to say “Radical Islam,” those Magic Words that they so long to hear him speak.
Of course, for all we know Moses was a self-serving demagogue, too. The source material on this is pretty sparse.
Well we at least know that Moses didn’t bring up the Nazis every time he tried to make a point.
He didn’t think much of his own speaking skills:
Then why did you bold the sentence in the article referring to it, and choose that as a particular example of something that drove you insane? Or possibly “more insane”.
Regards,
Shodan
What I find to be over-the-top about the Post’s coverage of this particular event is the totally misplaced hero-worship and uncritical adulation they insist on heaping on someone who deserves none of it. I am sure it must be very pleasing to Netanyahu’s considerable ego to be compared in certain corners to Moses or Churchill, but that doesn’t make it any less true that he’s a petty man who’s made a brilliant career out of perennial threat-inflation.
But if it makes my meaning more clear, allow me to be more precise in my bolding:
The speech was a “triumph” only for those who believe that important policy decisions should be made on the basis of appeals to emotion, gross distortions of geopolitical reality, and exaggerated threats.
The speech may have contained something of “surpassing importance” if Netanyahu had made a constructive, realistic policy proposal instead of merely trotting out ill-fitting historical analogies and misrepresentations of regional dynamics.
The speech in its very conception was without grace, and is reflective of the sort of insolence that makes Israel under Netanyahu, far from being a trusted and valuable ally, one of our most troublesome clients. The only individuals in this sorry Iran affair who’ve shown an ounce of statesmanship and political courage are President Obama and PM Cameron, with a special shout-out to those Congressmen who decided to pass on spending their morning as extras in an Israeli campaign ad.
This just in: Shodan, an inept blindly ideological cum-sock.
Nonsense.
He’s quite competent at being a blindly ideological cum-sock.
Please omit the comma after his name, though. That will make it look like a headline, with an implied predicate, rather than an unfinished sentence.