Digg

"It's 1938 and Iran is Germany" - Speech by Netanyahu watch!

thoughtsbysteve.blogspot.com — "My wife and I stopped at a restaurant in NY. A man walks up to our table, with a 12 year old boy. 'This is my son. He's very excited to see you. Can you give him one sentence to take to his classmates in social studies?'"

Bury

Indyanna 112 days ago

52 diggs
digg it

BransonFan, on 05/16/2008, -5/+16I've always liked Netantyahu...he never pulls any punches and is a straight talking kind of guy. Thanks for sharing!
drz130, on 05/16/2008, -3/+13The real shame is that his brother Yoni died at Entebbe. Israel could use a real hero to take on the bureaucratic appeasers running the country. I doubt they would have the balls to even attempt a rescue operation like Entebbe these days.
GodzGurl59, on 05/16/2008, -4/+12Please send us someone like him. Or Golda Mier or Maggie Thatcher or Churchill. Anyone but who we have.................sigh.
Zacktopia, on 05/16/2008, -6/+12Netanyahu is right. Whatever can be done to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions MUST be done. The negative consequences of stopping them are nothing compared to the horrific consequences of not stopping them.
StarWarsFan, on 05/16/2008, -8/+9NO DIGG.

There is absolutely no comparison between Iran and Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany had an army that proved itself capable of taking over almost all of Europe, and an air force that laid waste to Great Britain, and a navy that dominated the Atlantic with submarine warfare, and concentration camps that killed millions of people in a systematic manner. Nazi Germany was a military superpower. Iran is not.

BransonFan, this video is not "straight talk". It's warmonger propaganda. If you want straight talk, read these words of Ron Paul:

"I believe that when we overdo our military aggressiveness, it actually weakens our national defense. I mean, we stood up to the Soviets. They had 40,000 nuclear weapons. Now we're fretting day in and day and night about third-world countries that have no army, navy or air force."

"As I said last week on the House floor, speculation in Washington focuses on when, not if, either Israel or the U.S. will bomb Iran – possibly with nuclear weapons. The accusation sounds very familiar: namely, that Iran possesses weapons of mass destruction. Iran has never been found in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and our own Central Intelligence Agency says Iran is more than ten years away from producing any kind of nuclear weapon. Yet we are told we must act immediately while we still can! This all sounds very familiar, but many of my colleagues don’t seem to have learned much from the invasion of Iraq. House Democrats strongly criticized the Iraq troop surge after the president’s announcement, but then praised the president’s confrontational words condemning Iran. Many of those opposing a troop surge are not calling for a withdrawal of our troops from the Middle East, but rather for “redeployment.” Redeployment to where? Iran?

We need to return to reality when it comes to our Middle East policy. We need to reject the increasingly shrill rhetoric coming from the same voices who urged the president to invade Iraq.

The truth is that Iran, like Iraq, is a third-world nation without a significant military. Nothing in history hints that she is likely to invade a neighboring country, let alone America or Israel. I am concerned, however, that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin-type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran.

The best approach to Iran, and Syria for that matter, is to heed the advice of the Iraq Study Group Report, which states:

'… the United States should engage directly with Iran and Syria in order to try to obtain their commitment to constructive policies toward Iraq and other regional issues. In engaging with Syria and Iran, the United States should consider incentives, as well as disincentives, in seeking constructive results.'

In coming weeks I plan to introduce legislation that urges the administration to heed the advice of the Iraq Study Group. Dialogue and discussion should replace inflammatory rhetoric and confrontation in our Middle East policy, if we truly seek to defeat violent extremism and terrorism."
- Indyanna, on 05/16/2008, -2/+5re: … the United States should engage directly with Iran and Syria in order to try to obtain their commitment to constructive policies toward Iraq and other regional issues.
  
  That's what Neville Chamberlain thought, too, when he signed the Munich Agreement. And this was Churchill's response in the House of Commons:
  
  "We have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat...you will find that in a period of time which may be measured by years, but may be measured by months, Czechoslovakia will be engulfed in the Nazi régime. We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude...we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road...we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies: "Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting". And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time."
  
  Who was right? Chamberlain, or Churchill? I don't pretend to know the future, but I do know what has happened in the past. And to ignore the lessons of the past is the height of foolishness.
  - StarWarsFan, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4That quote might be relevant if there was a threatening nation as powerful as Nazi Germany on the rise. But there's not. Nazi Germany was a military superpower. Iran is not. I will say it again: Iran has a tiny military and no hope of acquiring nuclear weapons for at least ten years.
    
    Claiming that Iran is as big of a threat as Nazi Germany was is foolish.
    
    I don't pretend to know the future, but I know the past. In the past, hopeless and unnecessary wars have always stemmed from making mountains out of a molehill.
    
    President Johnson told us that the communist movement in Vietnam was a serious threat to the national security of the United States, and that if we didn't defeat communism in Vietnam, the entire world would fall under communist rule, like one domino hitting the rest. He was wrong.
    
    President Bush told us that Iraq posed a serious threat to the United States with weapons of mass destruction. He was wrong.
    
    In both of these cases, we have all paid the price, with years of war with no end in sight, and hundreds of thousands of causalities.
    
    Now the Neoconservatives are saying the same thing about Iran - saying that Iran poses a serious threat to the United States weapons of mass destruction. The Neoconservatives were wrong. Why in the world would we believe them now? Haven't you ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?
    
    We must deal with Iran in a level-headed and realistic manner. If Iran did acquire nuclear weapons, it could indeed be a serious threat to Israel and the United States. But we must not be so quick to go to war with Iran as we were going to war with Iraq, lest we find ourselves hopelessly submerged in another five year conflict with no end in sight. We must be levelheaded and realistic, facing threats as they truly are - not making a mountain out of a molehill. Most of all, we must understand that we cannot simply go prancing around the world like a global policeman, overthrowing dictators as we please with no consequences. There are ALWAYS consequences for our military actions. We should have learned that from Iraq, and we should have learned that from Vietnam, but unfortunately it seems we try very hard as a society not to learn.
    - Indyanna, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3StarWars - First of all, thanks for the response. I do appreciate the time and effort you took to reply. This is one of those situations where I'd love to sit down and have a cup of coffee with you, 'cuz I think we'd have a good conversation. :-)
      
      I'm going to deliberately pick just a few points that you made, that I think are most relevant. Would love to discuss the others, but I'm afraid we'd be here for awhile.
      
      Re: "Iran has a tiny military and no hope of acquiring nuclear weapons for at least ten years."
      
      IPlease understand that 'm not being smart aleck here, when I ask, at what point does the US and/or Israel do something? Five years from Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons? Three years? One? Isn't it better to stop it early in the game, rather than wait till there's only a few minutes left on the clock?
      
      Also, if a country's one military goal is to wipe out another country, and if it has enough nuclear weapons to accomplish that goal, what need does it have for an army, navy, or air force? To build up and maintain a military force would only drain away the resources it wants/needs to accomplish its goal of annhilating the enemy.
      
      Re: "But we must not be so quick to go to war with Iran as we were going to war with Iraq, ,,,"
      
      The US did not go into Iraq on a whim, or on short notice. Iraq (Hussein) was warned repeatedly, and knew from the Gulf War that the US would and/or could act. In addition, the US took *months* presenting the case against Iraq to the UN. The decision to go to war with Iraq was definitely level-headed, and most definitely not quick.
      
      Re: "...lest we find ourselves hopelessly submerged in another five year conflict with no end in sight."
      
      I could not disagree more strongly with your characterization of the war as hopeless, and no end in sight. I believe with every fiber of my being that the situation is exactly the opposite.
      
      As far as the 'five-year conflict' remark goes, when it comes to war, five years is not unusual or even unacceptable. When it comes to war, any war, it's not over till it's over. It's not one of those things you can put a time limit on - not if you want to accomplish your goals and see it through to the end, anyway. Just one example: the Allied occupation of Japan after WWII didn't end until 1952. So, beginning with the attack on Pearl Harbor, the whole shebang lasted more than 10 years. And to put the cost of casualties of the Iraq War in perspective, the Battle of Iwo Jima alone resulted in a total of 27,000 dead.
      
      Re: "...we should have learned that from Vietnam..."
      
      I'm not getting on you personally, but I kinda get tired of the constant comparisons to Vietnam - as though it is the only war that has ever been fought. Vietnam was just one of many. Are there lessons to be learned from it? Yes, absolutely yes. But there are other lessons to be learned from other situations as well.
    - StarWarsFan, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3At what point does the US and/or Israel do something? It depends on what you mean by "do something". The United States and Israel should not attack Iran militarily until all attempts to resolve the situation peacefully have been exhausted. If we are certain that Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons for use against Israel, the United States, or any other nation, then we must stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons before they acquire them. But remember... the intelligence reports that led us to go to war in Iraq claimed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was building more. Those intelligence reports were wrong, which means we must examine future intelligence reports with more scrutiny.
      
      I have little doubt that Ahmadinejad would use nuclear weapons against Israel if he had them (even though doing so would be total suicide - Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons of their own, after all). But if Iran isn't going to be capable of making nuclear weapons for ten years, then there is absolutely no reason to go to war with Iran now. A lot can happen in ten years, and a peaceful resolution is still possible, even if Ahmadinejad is a madman. We prevented war with the Soviet Union even when war seemed inevitable. War with Iran should be the last straw, not something anyone should be eager to rush into, especially now, when our military already has it's hands full in Iraq.
    - Indyanna, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Star Wars - reading through here, I think we're not that far apart.
      
      You said "War with Iran should be the last straw" and I couldn't agree more. But as to what the 'last straw' might be, and how long Ahmadinejad can be allowed to continue in the direction he's currently going - I suppose that's where things get tricky.
- grahamjj, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3I hope we engage Iran all right. My son dug up Iranian bomb parts two years ago in Iraq as part of army bomb specialists. They determine the explosives used and where the bombs came from. I'ld like to see that we return some explosives to there home.
- victorypup, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3The comparison depends on your perspective. If you choose to ignore the inevitable, and the fact that Iran is a foremost representative of George Bush's "great religion of peace", which has an agenda of world conquest, then yes you are correct, there is no comparison of Iran's military capabilities to German forces. On the other hand, as a terrorist band of cowards with nuclear weapons, Iran can very much be compared to Hitlers Germany where the Middle East is concerned. Iran's military, should we choose to engage them, will fall like flies in a fog of pesticide, so that much I will agree with you on, there is no comparison to the German forces.
- Jeff82, on 05/20/2008, -2/+1Dude, get your head out of the Star(sWars)!
  As far as an army goes, they've got 1 BILLION+ muslims ready to go (when the time is right for them)!
grahamjj, on 05/16/2008, -4/+4Netanyahu for president 2008
O to bad he's not running here.
uriman, on 05/17/2008, -6/+5Unlike Nazi Germany, the ambitions Iran's government and religious elite do not mesh with its young population. The youth have many protests and push the limits of their "religious conservatism" there. Nazi Germany was in a recession and everyone wanted someone to bring that Germany back into the world's limelight and to make up for the concessions of WWI.

This is warmongering propaganda. This is an excuse for the US to start another war to keep the public discourse away from more important topics such as the economy, education and healthcare. This is an excuse to for Israel to insure that they remain the dominant regional power.
fairley7, on 05/17/2008, -5/+4Give me a break. Germany had the most powerful military in the world. Iran's military spending ranks 25th in the world according to Wikipedia, behind Israel among many others. The $6 billion they spend represents less than 1 percent of world military spending. Even Israel believes they have 0 nuclear weapons, compared to several hundred for Israel and thousands for its ally the US.

If you want to draw a parallel to Nazi Germany, then the obvious candidate is the US, which currently spends more money on the military than the rest of the world combined, and who has used false pretenses to launch a war of aggression.
rapcrap187, on 05/17/2008, -6/+2this video disgusts me, yeah lets bomb iran because a fake country we created 60 years ago thinks we should......Hey now arnt we about creating a democracy then leaving it alone? 60 years later were still Israel's bitch.... wtf
yellowcakewalk, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Milikowski/Netanyahu is ready to start WW III at the drop of a hat, and have the USA do most of the bleeding and all of the paying.

Remember that "Clean Break" paper from 1996, authored by Israeli spies Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, and David Wurmser?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_ ...
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

"It's 1938 and Iran is Germany" - Speech by Netanyahu watch!

Login or register to add a comment