Netanyahu at the UN: “Red lines don’t lead to war; red lines prevent war”

posted at 4:01 pm on September 27, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

Speaking in front of the United Nations in New York on Thursday afternoon, Israeli Prime Minister eschewed a lot of the normal platitudinous dithering that goes on in that august body and instead struck a more “peace through strength”-tone in laying out the Iranian nuclear situation. He got quite specific in defining the dangers that Iran’s activities present to the world at large, even using an idiot-proof chart and everything:

“The red line must be drawn on Iran’s nuclear enrichment program,” Netanyahu said. “I believe that faced with a clear red line, Iran will back down.” …

“Throughout our history the Jewish people have overcome all the tyrants who sought our destruction,” he said. “The Jewish people have come home. We will never be uprooted again.” …

“Make no mistake: a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained,” Obama said. “It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy. It risks triggering a nuclear-arms race in the region, and the unraveling of the non-proliferation treaty. That’s why a coalition of countries is holding the Iranian government accountable. And that’s why the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

The Obama administration has steadily resisted publicly announcing a precise “red line” on Iran’s nuke program, insisting that they’ve been standing tough with diplomacy and sanctions, but Netanyahu was plenty frank in relaying that he doesn’t think that’s quite good enough. It’s too bad President Obama didn’t have any time to discuss all this “noise” with Netanyahu while he’s in the country this week — but I’m sure he’ll be looking forward to the president’s phone call on Friday.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

How about this?!

Shy Guy on September 27, 2012 at 4:03 PM

“Red lines are drawn around red states. I don’t like red states.”
/SCOAMF

Bitter Clinger on September 27, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Netanyahu at the UN: “Red lines don’t lead to war; red lines prevent war”

NEWS FLASH FOR Netanyahu: Jimmy Carters don’t prevent wars, they lead to wars.

SWalker on September 27, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Muslims to riot…3..2..1

Electrongod on September 27, 2012 at 4:08 PM

How pathetic. Trying to get everyone else to do his dirty work. If Israel feels threatened and wishes to attack Iran, that’s her business. Quit trying to get citizens of other countries to do it for you. Iran is a sovereign nation as well that has every right to pursue nuclear energy and weaponry, especially when other sovereign nations speak openly of attacking her.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Netanyahu is an attractive man. there, i said it.

GhoulAid on September 27, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Whatever Israel does militarily, I hope it can wait till the end of January. I don’t think Obama will lift a finger to help Israel, even with real-time intelligence. Would Rev. Jeremiah Wright lift a finger to help Israel? Not on your life. That’s the side Obama is comfortable with.

RBMN on September 27, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Quite telling in reading the leftist sites today and seeing that they are more offended with Netanyahu’s drawing of a bomb than they are with Iran’s actual bombs.

Eschelon on September 27, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Can Bibi run for POTUS after he’s done as Prime Minister?

Please?

crazy_legs on September 27, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Bibi is one smart man who loves his country dearly and wants nothing but the best for her. Bibi and others in Israel will do what is needed to protect themselves from those who want the country off the face of the earth. And the very sad fact, precious few nations will help Israel! And it sure the heck won’t be bho!

Hang in Bibi, a vast numbers of American’s are trying with all we have to get bho the boot and see to it you have a friend in the WH in Jan. 2013!

God be with you Israel.
L

letget on September 27, 2012 at 4:11 PM

How pathetic. Trying to get everyone else to do his dirty work. If Israel feels threatened and wishes to attack Iran, that’s her business. Quit trying to get citizens of other countries to do it for you. Iran is a sovereign nation as well that has every right to pursue nuclear energy and weaponry, especially when other sovereign nations speak openly of attacking her.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:08 PM

See no evil, hear no evil.

Bitter Clinger on September 27, 2012 at 4:12 PM

When I first saw the bomb chart, my first thought was of the old Mohammed as a bomb cartoon…

d1carter on September 27, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Anti-Semitic rant rant rant dirty jews rant rant rant only Ron Raul would know what to do rant rant rant…

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:08 PM

SWalker on September 27, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Zionists oh my!

wargamer6 on September 27, 2012 at 4:14 PM

I don’t think Obama will lift a finger to help Israel, even with real-time intelligence. Would Rev. Jeremiah Wright lift a finger to help Israel? Not on your life. That’s the side Obama is comfortable with.

RBMN on September 27, 2012 at 4:10 PM

We should not intervene in the affairs of foreign nations, nor should we seize wealth from our citizens and hand it over to a foreign government or send our citizens off to die for another country.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Hmmm, let me guess. Obama’s State Department minions in the UN American delegation didn’t walk out on Iran’s Ahmedinejad speech filled with lies and Jew-hatred.

But I’ll bet that Obama instructed them to walk out on Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech on behalf of Israel, America’s unwavering ally in the Middle East.

I hope that within my lifetime the world will wake up and realize that Jews, Christians and Hindus are the world’s salvation against Islamic tyranny.

CatchAll on September 27, 2012 at 4:15 PM

How pathetic. Trying to get everyone else to do his dirty work. If Israel feels threatened and wishes to attack Iran, that’s her business. Quit trying to get citizens of other countries to do it for you. Iran is a sovereign nation as well that has every right to pursue nuclear energy and weaponry, especially when other sovereign nations speak openly of attacking her.

I suppose you thought the USA should go it alone in Iraq. Or were you on the “we need the worlds blessings to attack”?

lakeman on September 27, 2012 at 4:15 PM

I suppose you thought the USA should go it alone in Iraq. Or were you on the “we need the worlds blessings to attack”?

lakeman on September 27, 2012 at 4:15 PM

No, the USA should never have gotten involved in the first place. Iraq did not attack us.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:16 PM

We should not intervene in the affairs of foreign nations, nor should we seize wealth from our citizens and hand it over to a foreign government or send our citizens off to die for another country.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:14 PM

So what you’re saying is we should have left Hitler alone since the Germans didn’t attack us.

Bitter Clinger on September 27, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:08 PM

I don’t think Bibi is looking for your approval.

Mitsouko on September 27, 2012 at 4:17 PM

SWalker on September 27, 2012 at 4:13 PM

aaaawwwwwwww SNAP!

Laura in Maryland on September 27, 2012 at 4:18 PM

I listened to the whole thing. It was quite good….very specific and rational. Made his points in a logical fashion. Sounds to me like he’s moved the timelines back a bit till next spring,..hoping Mitt wins and we’ll give assistance when the time comes.

a capella on September 27, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Dumbazz on September 27, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Really, Dante? That’s what you understand from Bibi’s speech?

Look, Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon is not occurring in a vacuum. Other countries are providing material assistance. I understood the P.M. to be encouraging other nations to exert all economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran, including tacit pressure on those countries assisting Iran.

Dante, you think nuclear armed Mullahs are a good thing?

BigAlSouth on September 27, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Netanyahu is an attractive man. there, i said it.

GhoulAid on September 27, 2012 at 4:09 PM

I agree. The 180 I.Q. doesn’t hurt, either.

Mitsouko on September 27, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:08 PM

What part of “nuclear-armed al-Qaeda” did you not understand? Are you seriously delusional to the point where you think the US could not be attacked with nuclear weapons on her own soil?

America needs to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions, for America. Getting the benefit of Israeli intelligence and co-operation is just icing on the cake.

solatic on September 27, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Dante, you think nuclear armed Mullahs are a good thing?

BigAlSouth on September 27, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Dante doesn’t care, and if the US has nukes he thinks it’s fair that other folks can have them.

sharrukin on September 27, 2012 at 4:23 PM

And that’s why the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

but first,
PAAARTAYY PAARTAAYY
:o

burrata on September 27, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Dante on September 27, 2012

…I know he’s been here a long time…but after 9/11…he went from idiot…to vile!

KOOLAID2 on September 27, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Dante, you think nuclear armed Mullahs are a good thing?

BigAlSouth on September 27, 2012 at 4:20 PM

He sure does. In his mind, dead Jews are always a good thing.

wargamer6 on September 27, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Netanyahu shoulda used a green line … ’cause we know that all of the flea-bitten, feral countries around Israel respect a green line.

OhEssYouCowboys on September 27, 2012 at 4:24 PM

As if it was not obvious he’s an entertainer more so than a statesman. When Israelis kick him out of office he’d fit well on Glenn Beck’s new show. On the other hand, since Daffy is gone, Chavez is mostly bedridden and A’jad made his final appearance, world should be on lookout for new “leaders” to get the annual circus going next year.

lester on September 27, 2012 at 4:24 PM

So what you’re saying is we should have left Hitler alone since the Germans didn’t attack us.

Bitter Clinger on September 27, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Correct.

Interventionist foreign policy is the foreign policy of progressives, begun by Teddy Roosevelt. Wilson was looking for a reason to go to war, and goaded Germany into attacking. Documents proving as much were kept secret until 1940ish. The harsh conditions placed upon Germany following WWI created the economic landscape that gave rise to Nazism and Hitler.

Interventionism is immoral, for it depends upon the seizure of property from citizens and the transference of that property to a foreign government, (in other words, wealth redistribution) as well as depending upon a foreign citizenry expending materials and lives to defend a region or a political boundary beyond its sovereign borders. It is empire building.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Dante, you think nuclear armed Mullahs are a good thing?

BigAlSouth on September 27, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Dante, besides being a Anti-Semitic Ronulan has the intelligence of a Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal.

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal

The Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal is a creature that hails from the planet of Traal, and will eat anything, especially Vogon grandmothers. The beasts are impossible to kill. To deal with a beast, one should wrap a towel around one’s own head. This creature is so mind-bogglingly stupid that it assumes that if someone cannot see it, then it cannot see the person.

He honestly believes that as long as we ignore the nuclear weapon armed Mullahs/Terrorists they will likewise ignore us.

SWalker on September 27, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Since Iran is arguably the biggest threat to our own national security, and their stated aims are wiping us and Israel off the map, destroying western civilization and installing a global Islamic caliphate, I think it is in our own interests to deny Iran the bomb and overthrow the regime.

And Obama could have done it during the Green revolution of 2009 by declaring his support of the protesters and blockading the country.

Instead, he chose to embrace the mullahs and then throw Mubarak – an American ally of 30 plus years – under the bus and give us Iran on the Nile.

Yeah. Israel must go it alone. /s

Rixon on September 27, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Dante, you think nuclear armed Mullahs are a good thing?

BigAlSouth on September 27, 2012 at 4:20 PM

He thinks it’s none of our business. He’s an isolationist. No bases in Europe, no bases in Japan, no patrolling the oceans to keep sea lanes open, no powerful military, no overseas wars unless we’re directly attacked by another nation’s military (terrorists from another country dont’ count), and even then war is only permissible with a formal declaration of war by Congress in response.

Doomberg on September 27, 2012 at 4:26 PM

So what you’re saying is we should have left Hitler alone since the Germans didn’t attack us.

Bitter Clinger on September 27, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Correct.

Interventionist foreign policy is the foreign policy of progressives, begun by Teddy Roosevelt. Wilson was looking for a reason to go to war, and goaded Germany into attacking. Documents proving as much were kept secret until 1940ish. The harsh conditions placed upon Germany following WWI created the economic landscape that gave rise to Nazism and Hitler.

Interventionism is immoral, for it depends upon the seizure of property from citizens and the transference of that property to a foreign government, (in other words, wealth redistribution) as well as depending upon a foreign citizenry expending materials and lives to defend a region or a political boundary beyond its sovereign borders. It is empire building.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:24 PM

You are a complete clown.

Like I said before, “see no evil, hear no evil” is your mantra.

Bitter Clinger on September 27, 2012 at 4:27 PM

We should not intervene in the affairs of foreign nations,

What part of “globalized economy” do you not understand?

nor should we seize wealth from our citizens

What part of “anarchy sucks” do you not understand?

and hand it over to a foreign government

What part of “global stability” do you not understand?

or send our citizens off to die for another country.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:14 PM

What part of “American interests” did you not understand?

solatic on September 27, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Netanyahu knows he is alone. He’ll do what he must.

Only fools, the leftist Jews, don’t get it.

Schadenfreude on September 27, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Look, Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon is not occurring in a vacuum. Other countries are providing material assistance. I understood the P.M. to be encouraging other nations to exert all economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran, including tacit pressure on those countries assisting Iran.

Dante, you think nuclear armed Mullahs are a good thing?

BigAlSouth on September 27, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Of course it isn’t occuring in a vacuum. It is surrounded by nuclear weapons and nuclear powers, and other nation states openly talk of attacking her. Additionally, she has been subjected to warfare such as cyber attacks, black ops, military aircraft invading her territory. Of course she’s seeking to acquire nukes; they’ll be a deterrant.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Fool. What do you think? Saddam was contained and his nuke program would never have developed weapon? And surely you must admit that Iran is closer to a nuke that Saddam ever was. What do you think? Iran and Iraq possessing a nuke would be a determent between the Arabs and Persians?

Were it not for the armed intervention of the U.S. military, Saddam would have a nuke weapon by now. And probably would have used it. Screw your ilk’s WMD argument.

BigAlSouth on September 27, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Dante has no moral compass. It is all theory and intellectual gamesmanship to him.

Mitsouko on September 27, 2012 at 4:31 PM

solatic on September 27, 2012 at 4:27 PM

I understand the words of the statist and the hegemonist all too well. That is the argument you are making.

And anarchy does not suck. Anarcho-capitalism is the most moral system there is. An ideology based on freedom, voluntary relationships, and the non-aggression principle. Anarchy means without ruler, not without rules.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:32 PM

So what you’re saying is we should have left Hitler alone since the Germans didn’t attack us.

Bitter Clinger on September 27, 2012 at 4:17 PM

I was thinking the exact same thing. Looks like we have another Neville Chamberlain in our midst.

search4truth on September 27, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Interventionism is immoral, for it depends upon the seizure of property from citizens and the transference of that property to a foreign government, (in other words, wealth redistribution) as well as depending upon a foreign citizenry expending materials and lives to defend a region or a political boundary beyond its sovereign borders. It is empire building.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:24 PM

What part of America sending American troops constituted transference of property to foreign governments, exactly?

What part of “sovereignty” did you not understand when Hitler violated the sovereignty of, ummm, non-Germanic Europe and American troops helped restore that sovereignty? How can you, on the one hand, hold sovereignty on one pedestal and, on the other pedestal, hold empire building that seeks to destroy the sovereignty of other nations?

Also, which empire did America build in post-WW2 Europe again?

solatic on September 27, 2012 at 4:32 PM

He thinks it’s none of our business. He’s an isolationist. No bases in Europe, no bases in Japan, no patrolling the oceans to keep sea lanes open, no powerful military, no overseas wars unless we’re directly attacked by another nation’s military (terrorists from another country dont’ count), and even then war is only permissible with a formal declaration of war by Congress in response.

Doomberg on September 27, 2012 at 4:26 PM

I am a non-interventionist, not an isolationist. I favor diplomatic relations and trade relations with nations. I am for a strong defense that belongs at home, not abroad, defending OUR border, not someone else’s. I am against U.S. military bases in other countries. We were not created to be an empire, no matter how much we act like one and no matter how much you desire it.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Interventionism is immoral, for it depends upon the seizure of property from citizens and the transference of that property to a foreign government, (in other words, wealth redistribution) as well as depending upon a foreign citizenry expending materials and lives to defend a region or a political boundary beyond its sovereign borders. It is empire building.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:24 PM

So according to you the United States was wrong to fight the Barbary pirates who were raiding US shipping?

Was the US wrong to expand beyond the 13 colonies? Was it even wrong to seize wealth from citizens through taxation in fighting the British (the colonial militias were funded by taxes raised by colonial legislatures)?

sharrukin on September 27, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Of course it isn’t occuring in a vacuum. It is surrounded by nuclear weapons and nuclear powers, and other nation states openly talk of attacking her. Additionally, she has been subjected to warfare such as cyber attacks, black ops, military aircraft invading her territory. Of course she’s seeking to acquire nukes; they’ll be a deterrant.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Translation: Man I sure Hope Iran obtains nuclear weapons and finally completes Mine Fuhrer’s final solution to those dirty Jews.

SWalker on September 27, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Fool. What do you think? Saddam was contained and his nuke program would never have developed weapon?

BigAlSouth on September 27, 2012 at 4:30 PM

The isolationist viewpoint is that if we pull up our tentpegs and go home everywhere, no one will ever attack us, and if we do get attacked, it will be we deserved it because of some historical crime we committed 50+ years ago when we deviated from the correct path of isolationism. It’s fairly close to the leftist foreign policy view in actual application, if not theory.

Doomberg on September 27, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Of course it isn’t occuring in a vacuum. It is surrounded by nuclear weapons and nuclear powers, and other nation states openly talk of attacking her. Additionally, she has been subjected to warfare such as cyber attacks, black ops, military aircraft invading her territory. Of course she’s seeking to acquire nukes; they’ll be a deterrant.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Aww, poor Iran. They’ve never hurt a fly.

Except to:
- Attack our embassy and hold 52 hostages for 444 days
- Threaten Israel’s existence
- Kill American troops in Iraq (oh yeah, they shouldn’t have been there, so that’s on us)
- Provide material support to Hamas and Hezbollah (they’re such nice guys)
- Attempt to prop up a murderous thug is Syria

Really, I don’t know why we haven’t seen what angels the Mullahs have been.

Bitter Clinger on September 27, 2012 at 4:36 PM

What part of America sending American troops constituted transference of property to foreign governments, exactly?

What part of “sovereignty” did you not understand when Hitler violated the sovereignty of, ummm, non-Germanic Europe and American troops helped restore that sovereignty? How can you, on the one hand, hold sovereignty on one pedestal and, on the other pedestal, hold empire building that seeks to destroy the sovereignty of other nations?

Also, which empire did America build in post-WW2 Europe again?

solatic on September 27, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Foreign aid is wealth redistribution. Our taxes – seized property – pay for our troops and their equipment. Germanic Europe was not a part of the United States. It was none of our business. Let other nations do as they wish. If a nation violates another nation’s sovereignty, that’s between them. If they wish to find allies and aid, let them do so, but don’t look to us. It is none of our business.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Interventionism is immoral,
Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Care to add some caveats to this absolute statement?

chemman on September 27, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Interventionism is immoral

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:24 PM

And who are YOU to judge morality?

Really–who the frack do you think you are?

Liam on September 27, 2012 at 4:36 PM

It’s fairly close to the leftist foreign policy view in actual application, if not theory.

Doomberg on September 27, 2012 at 4:35 PM

It called Cranial-Rectal Foreign Policy.

SWalker on September 27, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Did anyone boo? Walk out?

SouthernGent on September 27, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Of course she’s seeking to acquire nukes; they’ll be a deterrant.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:29 PM

They say they ARE NOT acquiring nukes. In fact, consider nukes “unislamic”

Are you saying they are not being truthful ?

Jabberwock on September 27, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Interventionism is immoral

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:24 PM

It’s not like YOU are somehow a priest, are you? A minister, maybe? How about a Buddhist monk?

Are you even so much as an Imam?

On WHAT do you presume to base your self-presumed ‘higher moral authority’?

You’re just another common liberal. At a dime a dozen, people like you are quite overpriced.

Liam on September 27, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Fool. What do you think? Saddam was contained and his nuke program would never have developed weapon? And surely you must admit that Iran is closer to a nuke that Saddam ever was. What do you think? Iran and Iraq possessing a nuke would be a determent between the Arabs and Persians?

Were it not for the armed intervention of the U.S. military, Saddam would have a nuke weapon by now. And probably would have used it. Screw your ilk’s WMD argument.

BigAlSouth on September 27, 2012 at 4:30 PM

You think history began in 2001 or 2003?

No. Iraq invaded Kuwait and we intervened militarily. Kuwait, as you may not know, is not part of the United States.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Aww, poor Iran. They’ve never hurt a fly.

Except to:
- Attack our embassy and hold 52 hostages for 444 days
- Threaten Israel’s existence
- Kill American troops in Iraq (oh yeah, they shouldn’t have been there, so that’s on us)
- Provide material support to Hamas and Hezbollah (they’re such nice guys)
- Attempt to prop up a murderous thug is Syria

Really, I don’t know why we haven’t seen what angels the Mullahs have been.

Bitter Clinger on September 27, 2012 at 4:36 PM

The response you’re going get is that the Islamic Republic would be a friendly nation if not for the CIA’s involvement with Mossadegh’s overthrow. It’s essentially identical to the old leftist point of view that the Soviets HAD to conquer Eastern Europe because they felt “threatened” by America.

Doomberg on September 27, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Foreign aid is wealth redistribution. Our taxes – seized property – pay for our troops and their equipment. Germanic Europe was not a part of the United States. It was none of our business. Let other nations do as they wish. If a nation violates another nation’s sovereignty, that’s between them. If they wish to find allies and aid, let them do so, but don’t look to us. It is none of our business.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:36 PM

You know, I once briefly latched onto this Libertarian foreign policy notion. Then, I realized how naive and stupid I was being. This would be a great notion if all nations/people were rational, civilized entities. However, they’re not. Evil exists in the world. It must be confronted and stopped whenever possible.

Bitter Clinger on September 27, 2012 at 4:42 PM

No. Iraq invaded Kuwait and we intervened militarily. Kuwait, as you may not know, is not part of the United States.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:39 PM

You think it was wrong to defend Kuwait?

the_nile on September 27, 2012 at 4:42 PM

If a nation violates another nation’s sovereignty, that’s between them. If they wish to find allies and aid, let them do so, but don’t look to us. It is none of our business.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Let me rephrase this so the peons on this site can understand your personal philosophy: “If a person violates another person’s sovereignty, that’s between them. If they wish to seek help, let them do so, but don’t look to me. It is none of my business.”

chemman on September 27, 2012 at 4:42 PM

So according to you the United States was wrong to fight the Barbary pirates who were raiding US shipping?

No, that wasn’t an example of interventionism.

Was the US wrong to expand beyond the 13 colonies? Was it even wrong to seize wealth from citizens through taxation in fighting the British (the colonial militias were funded by taxes raised by colonial legislatures)?

sharrukin on September 27, 2012 at 4:34 PM

It is always wrong to seize property through coercion and force. I don’t find theft to be moral, including state-sanctioned theft, do you?

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:43 PM

No. Iraq invaded Kuwait and we intervened militarily. Kuwait, as you may not know, is not part of the United States.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:39 PM

The more you gibber, the weaker you make your own and the rest of the liberal case.

There’s a reason for the term, “Silence is golden.”

I imagine you’re too ‘intellectual’ to grasp such basic concepts.

Liam on September 27, 2012 at 4:45 PM

And anarchy does not suck. Anarcho-capitalism is the most moral system there is. An ideology based on freedom, voluntary relationships, and the non-aggression principle. Anarchy means without ruler, not without rules.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Yeah, the Iranians, the Chinese, the Nazis, the Soviets, etc. are/were all about following the rules.

Bitter Clinger on September 27, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Let me rephrase this so the peons on this site can understand your personal philosophy: “If a person violates another person’s sovereignty, that’s between them. If they wish to seek help, let them do so, but don’t look to me. It is none of my business.”

chemman on September 27, 2012 at 4:42 PM

You are incorrect. We are talking about nation states, not individual people. If someone initiates force against another, then I have the choice to defend or aid that person, which I would do in most instances.

But in regards to personal decisions that do not involve force, then yes, it is none of my business what other people do so long as it does not affect my life, liberty, or property.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Yeah, the Iranians, the Chinese, the Nazis, the Soviets, etc. are/were all about following the rules.

Bitter Clinger on September 27, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Non sequitur.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Wilson was looking for a reason to go to war, and goaded Germany into attacking. Documents proving as much were kept secret until 1940ish. The harsh conditions placed upon Germany following WWI created the economic landscape that gave rise to Nazism and Hitler.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Holy retarded donkey punch batman!

Are you seriously saying that ‘we’ goaded Germany into attacking by subjecting them to terms of surrender because they lost a war that they freaking started (WWI)and that they were perfectly within their rights to attack other sovereign nations because of the punishment meted out on them?

So a kid gets into a fight with his brother, Dad breaks it up and sends the kids to their rooms and takes their iPods away. Dante thinks it’s well within reason for the kid to run up and punch Dad in the ear and that we should be cool with that because clearly Dad ‘goaded’ the kid by taking away said iPod.

This level of intelligence is ASTOUNDING.

StompUDead on September 27, 2012 at 4:46 PM

You think it was wrong to defend Kuwait?

the_nile on September 27, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Absolutely it was wrong.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:46 PM

If a nation violates another nation’s sovereignty, that’s between them. If they wish to find allies and aid, let them do so, but don’t look to us. It is none of our business.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Let me rephrase this so the peons on this site can understand your personal philosophy: “If a person violates another person’s sovereignty, that’s between them. If they wish to seek help, let them do so, but don’t look to me. It is none of my business.”

chemman on September 27, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Dante doesn’t get it’s pragmatic to defend allies.

the_nile on September 27, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Are you seriously saying that ‘we’ goaded Germany into attacking by subjecting them to terms of surrender because they lost a war that they freaking started (WWI)and that they were perfectly within their rights to attack other sovereign nations because of the punishment meted out on them?

StompUDead on September 27, 2012 at 4:46 PM

No.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:47 PM

IRAN (like N Korea before) is NOT AFRAID of either the US or Israel. They will get their nuke unless with OCCUPY them. Air strike won’t damage their many underground nuclear facilities. It may delay them a little bit but they will end up with the nuke just like N Korea.
We know what Obama will do: Nothing because he will not start another war.
What will Romney do besides giving green light to Israel to strike (which is authorizing an attack on Iran)? Is Mitt Romney ready to tell Americans that he will attack Iran? Is America ready for another war in the Middle East?

Nuclear weapons are used as detergent by countries that acquire them because they know they will be wiped out if they EVER use it. India, Pakistan, N Korea, Israel are all using their nuclear capabilities for prevention, not aggression. It will be the same for Iran. Iranians know that Israel has nuke and the rich countries in the Golf can all BUY Nuke is needed. So they won’ dare use it against any country….None of these countries will give their nuke to terrorists because they could use it against them too (if it was that easy, Pakistan would already do it).
So is it worth going to war with Iran to prevent them from acquiring a nuke they will never use? There is no other alternative: it’s war or isolation (N Korea example)

jules on September 27, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Was the US wrong to expand beyond the 13 colonies? Was it even wrong to seize wealth from citizens through taxation in fighting the British (the colonial militias were funded by taxes raised by colonial legislatures)?

sharrukin on September 27, 2012 at 4:34 PM

It is always wrong to seize property through coercion and force. I don’t find theft to be moral, including state-sanctioned theft, do you?

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Yes actually. I do think the United States should exist and I do think it was a good and moral thing to fight to make that happen.

If your ideology was in force throughout American history the United States would not exist, the 13 colonies would never have expanded beyond the Atlantic seaboard, the Third Reich would take the place of the EU, and most of the Asian littoral would belong to Japan.

sharrukin on September 27, 2012 at 4:48 PM

You know, I once briefly latched onto this Libertarian foreign policy notion. Then, I realized how naive and stupid I was being. This would be a great notion if all nations/people were rational, civilized entities. However, they’re not. Evil exists in the world. It must be confronted and stopped whenever possible.

Bitter Clinger on September 27, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Yes, evil does exist, but it is equally evil to seize property from a citizenry and give it to another, or to force your citizens into fighting and dying for another country.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:48 PM

and the non-aggression principle.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:32 PM

What non-aggression principle is that? If it really existed you wouldn’t even need to have those rules you speak of.

chemman on September 27, 2012 at 4:48 PM

You think it was wrong to defend Kuwait?

the_nile on September 27, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Absolutely it was wrong.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Do you know what the Iraqis under Saddam did to those people?

Liam on September 27, 2012 at 4:48 PM

If your ideology was in force throughout American history the United States would not exist, the 13 colonies would never have expanded beyond the Atlantic seaboard, the Third Reich would take the place of the EU, and most of the Asian littoral would belong to Japan.

sharrukin on September 27, 2012 at 4:48 PM

That’s not true at all. For example, we acquired the Louisiana territory through trade, not force.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:49 PM

How pathetic. Trying to get everyone else to do his dirty work. If Israel feels threatened and wishes to attack Iran, that’s her business. Quit trying to get citizens of other countries to do it for you. Iran is a sovereign nation as well that has every right to pursue nuclear energy and weaponry, especially when other sovereign nations speak openly of attacking her.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:08 PM

The islamic terrorist regime in Iran is a threat to the entire world and not just Israel… It is a deadly threat to our interest and allies… Iran nuclear bomb is very much our business, it goes into the heart of our national security…

mnjg on September 27, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Absolutely it was wrong.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:46 PM

You think Saddam would have stopped at kuwait?

You think Hitler just wanted Sudetenland and nothing more?

the_nile on September 27, 2012 at 4:49 PM

“I believe that faced with a clear red line, Iran will back down.” …

Good luck with that Bibi.
These aren’t the sane people you’re looking for.
Move along…the timeline.

OTTO on September 27, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Prime Minister Netanyahu described the very real danger that Israel faces very clearly and slowly and even provided a helpful picture that any second grader would be able to understand.

And yet 70% of the American Jewish community will likely vote to re-elect Barack Obama.

Sadly more Americans probably watched Obama providing “eye candy” on The View, than saw Bibi Netanyahu’s presentation.

Israeli citizens should be calling every member of the American Jewish community they know to help them understand why voting for Obama would be a complete disaster for Israel.

wren on September 27, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Dante,

I read through your posts on this thread, besides to my earlier reply to you I want to say that you are either incredibly naive, or totally stupid, or an anti-Israel fool, or all of the above… Which is it?…

mnjg on September 27, 2012 at 4:51 PM

How pathetic. Trying to get everyone else to do his dirty work. If Israel feels threatened and wishes to attack Iran, that’s her business. Quit trying to get citizens of other countries to do it for you. Iran is a sovereign nation as well that has every right to pursue nuclear energy and weaponry, especially when other sovereign nations speak openly of attacking her.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Then STFU when Israel attacks in order to defend itself.

itsspideyman on September 27, 2012 at 4:52 PM

You think it was wrong to defend Kuwait?

the_nile on September 27, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Absolutely it was wrong.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Do you think it was wrong for the French to help fight for our Independence?

OTTO on September 27, 2012 at 4:53 PM

You think it was wrong to defend Kuwait?

the_nile on September 27, 2012 at 4:42 PM

.
Absolutely it was wrong.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:46 PM

.
LOOK, EVERYONE !
You heard it . . . . . right out of the horse’s mouth.
.
.
Thank you for proving our point. : )

listens2glenn on September 27, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Interventionism is immoral

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Ask the French that in 1942.

itsspideyman on September 27, 2012 at 4:54 PM

I am enjoying this expose of the libertarian mindset. Fascinating and horrible in equal measure.

Mitsouko on September 27, 2012 at 4:55 PM

How pathetic. Trying to get everyone else to do his dirty work. If Israel feels threatened and wishes to attack Iran, that’s her business. Quit trying to get citizens of other countries to do it for you. Iran is a sovereign nation as well that has every right to pursue nuclear energy and weaponry, especially when other sovereign nations speak openly of attacking her.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Yeah, because Lord knows the Iranians will be satisfied with making Israel into a crater and then shut ‘er all down and go back to making doilies.

I’d ask if you were really that out to lunch, but why ask questions I know the answer to.

kim roy on September 27, 2012 at 4:55 PM

You think it was wrong to defend Kuwait?

the_nile on September 27, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Absolutely it was wrong.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:46 PM

You said that “an ideology based on freedom, voluntary relationships, and the non-aggression principle”. Well, we had a voluntary relationship with Kuwait where we bought oil from them. Iraq violated the non-aggression principle and invaded Kuwait thereby fouling up that volumtary relationship. Yet, you say we should stand idly by. I hope you never have any friends who get attacked by a thug in your presence. Your response would be that it would be wrong to intervene while your friend gets the crap beat out of him/her.

Bitter Clinger on September 27, 2012 at 4:57 PM

I am enjoying this expose of the libertarian mindset. Fascinating and horrible in equal measure.

Mitsouko on September 27, 2012 at 4:55 PM

I’m starting to wonder if libertarians are just cheap liberals, but honest about wanting to keep their money.

kim roy on September 27, 2012 at 4:57 PM

That’s not true at all. For example, we acquired the Louisiana territory through trade, not force.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Actually the threat of war and the knowledge they couldn’t defend it induced France to sell.

Jefferson disliked the idea of purchasing Louisiana from France, as that could imply that France had a right to be in Louisiana. Jefferson believed that a U.S. President did not have the authority to make such a deal: it was not specified in the Constitution. He also thought that to do so would erode states’ rights by increasing federal executive power. On the other hand, he was aware of the potential threat that France could be in that region and was prepared to go to war to prevent a strong French presence there.

sharrukin on September 27, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Care to add some caveats to this absolute statement?

chemman on September 27, 2012 at 4:36 PM

There are no caveats.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:58 PM

kim roy on September 27, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Didn’t you hear Dante, he said it’s none of our buisness.

The stupid is strong in this one.

D-fusit on September 27, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Nuclear weapons are used as detergent by countries that acquire them because they know they will be wiped out if they EVER use it. India, Pakistan, N Korea, Israel are all using their nuclear capabilities for prevention, not aggression.

Detergent? I recommend something off the shelf. ;)

On a more serious note: Yes, Iran would use them as deterrent. It is beyond stupid to think that Russians and Chinese would help Iran get nukes to use them right away. You are also correct that they wouldn’t give them to terrorists. They never did so with chemical weapons they had. Hell, they didn’t even shoot them back at Saddam when he was gassing the Iranians.

The real threat of Iran getting nukes is that their government are already pricks. They’d get a million times worth in all their domestic and foreign policies once they feel nuclear confident. Israel and us would of course be the biggest targets of their harassment. That’s why they shouldn’t get nukes.

lester on September 27, 2012 at 4:58 PM

And who are YOU to judge morality?

Really–who the frack do you think you are?

Liam on September 27, 2012 at 4:36 PM

What a strange question.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:58 PM

I’m starting to wonder if libertarians are just cheap liberals, but honest about wanting to keep their money.

kim roy on September 27, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Essentially yes. They are just liberals who don’t want to pay their taxes.

sharrukin on September 27, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Do you think it was wrong for the French to help fight for our Independence?

OTTO on September 27, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Heh.

the_nile on September 27, 2012 at 5:00 PM

What a strange question.

Dante on September 27, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Why would that be? Because no one ever asked it of you before?

Pffft!

Liam on September 27, 2012 at 5:01 PM

I hope that within my lifetime the world will wake up and realize that Jews, Christians and Hindus are the world’s salvation against Islamic tyranny.

CatchAll on September 27, 2012 at 4:15 PM

You forgot the Sikhs who actually LIVE what they believe in by sharing what they have daily with the less fortunate and anyone who is in need…

Scrumpy on September 27, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Essentially yes. They are just liberals who don’t want to pay their taxes.

sharrukin on September 27, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Wow, I never knew Charles Rangel and Tim Geithner were libertarians. You learn something new everyday.

Bitter Clinger on September 27, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3