History, Politics And Current Affairs

Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
It is currently Wed Oct 18, 2017 1:26 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 6:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:02 am
Posts: 15682
Location: Planet Earth, Milky Way, Universe
This is how Iran plans to spend the $150 Billion gift from Kerry and Hillary -



israpundit.org

August 30, 2015
Iran orders 500 attack military airplanes from China and Russia to reach Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel.

Iran won’t buy weapon from USA as they consider them as enemy and won’t take the risk of weapon parts supply cut. The Iranian people probably will be the last one to be supported by this big “gift”.

FOUR references confirm each other data: One by ibtimes second by Defense World, third by Conspiracy out post (all three confirm Debka’s data below) and Debka:

ibtimes.com

defenseworld.net

conspiracyoutpost.com

and debka.com

1st reference: Iran ordered 500 attacking military airplanes from China and Russia debka.com

The details on the Debka article: “Iran is about to conclude a transaction with China for the purchase of 150 Chengdu J-10 multi role jet fighter….our sources report that it is virtually a replica of the Lavi, the super-fighter developed by Israel’s aerospace industry in the second half of the 80s…..

Iran has additionally weighing the purchase in Moscow of 250 highly-advanced Sukhoi-Su-30MK1 twin jet multi-role air superiority fighters…”
Iran ordered also 100 air refueling tankers to reach any target in the middle east, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel.

2nd reference: China And Iran Weigh $1 Billion Deal To Swap Chengdu J-10 Fighter Jets For Major Oil Field

By Christopher Harress @Charressc.harress@ibtimes.com on August 06 2015

ibtimes.com

“China and Iran are mulling a $1 billion deal that would see China trade 24 Chengdu J-10 fourth-generation fighter jets in exchange for control of Iran’s biggest oil field for two decades, a report in the Taiwanese newspaper Want Daily said Thursday. ……..”

3rd Reference:

Iran Has Ordered 100 Russian Refueling Aircraft, Claims DEBKAfile

Source : Our Bureau ~ Dated : Wednesday, July 22, 2015

conspiracyoutpost.com

Iran has ordered 100 Russian IL78 MKI Tanker Aircraft to extend its air force’s range up to 7,300 km….. These tanker planes can simultaneously refuel six to eight warplanes. Their acquisition brings Israel, 1.200km away as well the rest of the Middle East within easy range of Iranian aerial bombardment…..”

4th reference:

Sanctions are lifted, Iran orders; 250 highly-advanced Sukhoi-Su-30MK1 fighters, 150 J-10 fighter jets and 100 in flight refueling planes.!!

Started by Primus Cura, 30 July, 2015

Iran is to purchase from China the Chengdu J-10 multirole jet fighter, known in the West as the Vigorous Dragon. Beijing has agreed to sell Tehran 150 of these sophisticated jets, Tehran has ordered 250 highly-advanced Sukhoi-Su-30MK1 fighters as well as 100 in-flight refueling planes. The scale of Iran’s multibillion acquisitions from China and Russia indicates that Tehran’s top spending priority for funds released by the lifting of sanctions is a spanking new air force.

* Also, according to figures reaching debka.com file in March, Iran is spending an estimated $6-8 billion per year – to keep six armed forces fighting in four Middle East war campaigns for expanding its sphere of influence.

Reference: DEBKA.com Expose April 24, 2015 debka.com

_________________
I am Charlie


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 6:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:02 am
Posts: 15682
Location: Planet Earth, Milky Way, Universe
The Democrats Now Own Iran. They’ll Soon Wish They Didn’t

Jonathan S. Tobin
09.02.2015 - 1:30 PM
commentarymagazine.com

This morning, President Obama got what he’s been working toward all year. With Senator Barbara Mikulski’s announcement that she will vote to support the Iran nuclear deal, the administration got its 34th vote in the Senate, thus assuring that the president will have enough support to sustain a veto of a resolution of disapproval of the pact. Mikulski was just the latest of a number of Senate Democrats to throw in with the president on Iran. The only suspense now is whether Obama will get to 41 and thus have enough for a filibuster and prevent a vote on the deal from even taking place. Leaving aside the terrible damage the deal does to U.S. security and the stability of the Middle East, the most far-reaching effect of the deal is that from now on Democrats own Iran. From this moment forward, every act of Iranian-sponsored terrorism, every instance of Iranian aggression and adventurism as well as the Islamist regime’s inevitable march to a nuclear weapon can be laid at the feet of a Democratic Party. With a few exceptions, the Democrats fell meekly behind a president determined to prioritize détente with Iran over the alliance with Israel and the need to defend U.S. interests. By smashing the bipartisan consensus that had existed on Iran up until this year, the Democrats have, in effect, become the hostages of the ayatollahs. This is a decision that will haunt them in the years to come.

In analyzing the struggle that was ultimately won by Obama, it must first be acknowledged that the outcome was determined primarily by a mismatch in terms of the relative power of the two sides.

Though the Iran deal is a threat to U.S. security as well as to the interests of moderate Arab regimes who are as afraid of Tehran as Israel, the pro-Israel community, and AIPAC led the fight against the agreement. Though AIPAC can generally count on bipartisan support on any issue it cares about, it never had a prayer of beating an administration that was prepared to do and say anything to get its way. Once the president made clear that he considered the nuclear deal to be the centerpiece of his foreign policy legacy, the chances that even the pull of the pro-Israel community could peel away enough Democrats to sustain a veto override were slim and none. In order to achieve that victory, Obama had to sink to the level of gutter politics by smearing his critics as warmongers and slam AIPAC with the same sort of language that earned President George H.W. Bush opprobrium. But the president’s ability to pressure most of the members of his own party to back him was never really in doubt. It was a defeat for AIPAC but not one that should impact its ability to continue to be effective on Capitol Hill.

It must also be noted that this outcome was only made possible by the utter stupidity and cowardice of key Republican leaders — especially Senator Bob Corker — that led to their agreement to a bill that reversed the treaty ratification process. The Corker-Cardin bill that gave Congress the right to vote on the deal was represented at the time as a bipartisan triumph but the Democrats were laughing up their sleeves the whole time. Instead of demanding that the president present the deal to Congress as a treaty, which would have required a two-thirds vote of approval, Obama was able to ram this awful deal down the throats of a reluctant country and Congress by only being able to have enough votes to sustain a veto. It would have been better for the country had the GOP stood on its ground on the treaty issue since that would have left Obama to pursue his original plan, which was to treat the deal as a simple agreement that required no Congressional action at all. At least then the deal would have been seen as another end run around the Constitution by a lawless president. Instead, he gets to pretend that Congress has ratified the deal when, in fact, large majorities oppose it in both the House and the Senate.

But the most important point to be gleaned from Obama’s seeming triumph is that he and his party now bear complete responsibility for Iran’s good conduct as well as its nuclear program.

Let’s remember that, up until this past winter, it could be argued that Congressional Democrats were as ardent about stopping Iran’s nuclear ambitions as the Republicans. Sanctions on Iran — that were opposed by the Obama administration — got overwhelming Democratic support with members of the party like Senator Robert Menendez leading the fight for them. Even tougher sanctions that were also opposed by the president last year also had the support of the vast majority of the Democratic caucuses in both the House and the Senate. Nor was there much enthusiasm among Democrats for the string of concessions that Obama made to Iran in the negotiations led up to the deal.

But once the president got close to achieving his goal of an entente with Iran, he set about the business of peeling away Democrats from that consensus position. To date only two in the Senate — Menendez and New York’s Chuck Schumer — resisted the pressure and even Schumer promised not to try and persuade other Democrats to join him. The power of the presidency and the threat of unleashing a wave of slander and perhaps primary opposition from the president’s left-wing admirers was enough to force Democrats into his camp.

The statements of support from each Democrat betrayed their lack of enthusiasm for a deal that all admitted wasn’t the triumph that Obama was crowing about. They know it doesn’t achieve the administration’s stated goal when the negotiations began of stopping Iran’s program. At best it postpones it for a decade or 15 years. Meanwhile Iran is allowed to continue research and keep its advanced infrastructure as well as the right to go on enriching uranium.

Just as important, the deal did nothing to rein in Iran’s support for terrorism, halt its ballistic missile building program (which shows that the U.S. and Europe are as much Tehran’s target as Israel) or halt its push for regional hegemony.

Obama and the Democrats now say they will get behind Israel and strengthen its defenses even though the deal makes Iran a threshold nuclear power almost immediately. That renders talk of preserving Israel’s qualitative military edge over potential foes meaningless.

But what this means is that every act of Iranian terror, every instance of Hamas and Hezbollah using Iranian funds and material to wage war against Israel or moves against Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states must now be seen as having been enabled not just by Obama but also by his party.

If Iran cheats its way to a bomb before the deal expires or uses the wealth that Obama is lavishing on it to get them to agree to this deal to undermine regional stability it won’t be possible in the future for Democrats to say that this was simply Obama’s folly. No, by docilely following his lead for a deal that few of them were eager to embrace, the entire Democratic Party must now pray that the president is right and that Iran will seek to “get right with the world” rather than pursuing a religious and ideological agenda of conflict with the West and Israel.

Obama got his deal despite the opposition of the majority of Congress and the American people. But the Democratic Party now gets the responsibility for Iranian terror and hate. By making Iran a partisan issue in this manner, Obama saddled his party with the blame for everything that will happen in the coming years. Munich analogies are often inappropriate but when Rep. Patrick Murphy (the likely Democratic nominee for the Senate seat Marco Rubio is vacating next year) said the deal gives us “peace in our time,”his channeling of Neville Chamberlain was no ordinary gaffe. In the years to come when Obama is retired and Iran uses the deal to make new mischief and atrocities, Democrats may regret giving in to the president’s pressure. But, like the appeasers of the 1930s, the legacy of the pro-Iran deal Democrats is now set in stone.

_________________
I am Charlie


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 6:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:02 am
Posts: 15682
Location: Planet Earth, Milky Way, Universe
Surrendering To Iran Is Not A ‘Jewish Value,’ Mr. President
Dear Obama: Stop pretending you're a rabbi

By David Harsanyi
SEPTEMBER 2, 2015
thefederalist.com

President Obama has an ugly habit of goy-splaning Jewish values to Jews in an effort to push his political agenda. Now, if Judaism wasn’t so intimately, and destructively, chained to political liberalism in the United States, the president’s absurd reading of ‘Jewish values’ would almost certainly offend those who take faith, culture and security seriously.


Jeffrey Goldberg once made the case the Obama was the first Jewish-American president. This is mostly predicated on the idea that no other president had traveled in far-left Jewish circles of academia and politics quite as much. This seems to have convinced Obama (who’s mentioned Goldberg’s formulation) that he’s the modern Rashi.

Take this week’s interview with the obsequious editor-in-chief of The Forward(“You have been generous in explaining the Iran deal to all sorts of people…”) which is part of a campaign to shore up Jewish support for the Iranian deal. Now, it’s annoying enough that Obama ends the interview telling us he favors a “schmear of cream cheese” on a poppy bagel. (Schmearand bagels? On the Upper West Side? He totally gets the Jews! Let’s give Iran ballistic missiles and insure its nuclear capability.) But political pandering is one thing; it’s expected. It’s his contention that pro-Iranian policies comport in some way with the tenets of Jewish faith—a claim he makes nearly every time he is forced to allay the fears of a Jewish publication or group—is preposterous. And the president does this all the time.

In The Forward, Obama tells us that he is a follower of his own fictitious philo-morality:
These are hard issues, and worthy of serious debate. But you don’t win the debate by suggesting that the other person has bad motives. That’s I think not just consistent with fair play; I think it’s consistent with the best of the Jewish tradition.
1 – You don’t win the debate. Nearly every poll shows a majority oppose the deal.

2- There has been no “serious”—or at least, consequential—debates surrounding the Iran deal. There’s been a lot theatre. Now that Bob Casey has signed on, nearly every Senator supposedly weighing the deal have backed Obama. (No one liked being called a traitor, after all.) It’s always been inevitable that congress would be unable to overcome a veto. Republicans haven’t done anything tangible to stop the deal. In fact, though Obama wasn’t going to permit any genuine checks and balances to get in the way of his empowering Iran, the GOP leadership helped him by putting the imprimatur of law and order on the deal.

3 –Obama’s claim that questioning the motivations of the opposition is outside the boundaries of fair play and “Jewish tradition” is a pretty odd when one considers the tone of his entire presidency—but, more specifically, when we scrutinize how often he has schmeared the intentions of the Iran-deal opponents. Obama advocates has reliably painted opponents as a gaggle of traitorous #warmongers. The president himself claimed that opposition was unduly influenced by money and lobbyists and, at the same time, making common cause with the radical Islamists. Is that a reflection of fair play within the Jewish tradition?

4 –Most important, what Jewish tradition is Obama talking about? He never says. Is it the now-broken, centuries-old unwelcome tradition of sitting around powerlessly and praying that nothing horrible will happen? That is essentially the argument for this Iran deal.

In a wide-ranging interview with Goldberg a little while back, we learn that is worried about the state of the Jewish soul: “Obama talked about what he called his love for the Jewish state; his frustrations with it when it fails to live up to both Jewish and universal values.” When does it fail? When it is reluctant to enter into agreements that strengthen the hand in unapologetic anti-Semites? Or is this just perfunctory position the president trots out every time some Jewish group challenges him?

For a clue, read the president didactic speech honoring American Jewish Heritage month—a talk he, naturally, used to sell a deal that puts millions of Jews in danger:
I came to know Israel as a young man through these incredible images of kibbutzim, and Moshe Dayan, and Golda Meir, and Israel overcoming incredible odds in the ’67 war. The notion of pioneers who set out not only to safeguard a nation, but to remake the world. Not only to make the desert bloom, but to allow their values to flourish; to ensure that the best of Judaism would thrive.
What values were those? Perhaps Obama prefers the one-party socialist economy of the early modern Israel, but the idea that the Jewish State was interested in remaking the world is rubbish. It was interested in protecting Jews from the real world. And the theory that Golda Meir or Moshe Dayan would be any more acquiescent to his untenable demands than Benjamin Netanyahu isn’t backed by any valid reading of history.

Yes, Israel overcame great odds in 1967, and yet Obama has long advocated that Israel return to the same precarious pre-war position. The president mythologizing of Jewish values is only meant to undermine today’s government. He says, “I care so deeply about the state of Israel … that I feel a responsibility to speak out honestly about what I think will lead to long-term security and to the preservation of a true democracy in the Jewish homeland.” A true democracy. Not the kind Likud is fostering. Obama may be awed by the values of a Labor government that had Arab Israelis living under military rule (and this was the case until 1967), but the nation is, by any standard, freer today. Since Likud’s victories in the mid-70s, a truly competitive multi-party system that’s allowed capitalism to flourish, sweeping away some of the corrupt unionism and cronyism that undermined that country’s growth.

In his speech about Jewish values, Obama praised the role American Jews played in supporting the civil rights movement. This is most often brandished as the ultimate Jewish value. It was certainly a moral endeavor. But no more a Jewish value that bombing Osirak or any of the countless missions or wars Israel has undertaken to ensure its safety. Today, Jews (and Christians) are still targeted and Obama can’t even mention the name of theology that has a near-monopoly on that violence. Instead, he keeps claiming that surrendering to some of the proponents of this theology is a mitzvah.

Put it this way, not even the leading advocates of Tikkun olam – “world repair”— that malleable nugget of Jewish mysticism (literally) that the Left has excavated to always align faith with progressive social justice aims, can’t make a case Obama’s conception of Judaism when it comes to Iran. The ADL opposes the Iranian deal. So can someone please ask the president what Jewish values are, where they come from, and what they entail? I certainly don’t consider myself any kind of theologian, but even after spending the better part of my youth in a Yeshiva, I have trouble placing where Obama gets his ideas about Judaism.

David Harsanyi is a Senior Editor at The Federalist. Follow him on Twitter.

_________________
I am Charlie


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 5:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:37 pm
Posts: 7297
Location: BM-9, BB-30
Eric wrote:
….our sources report that it is virtually a replica of the Lavi, the super-fighter developed by Israel’s aerospace industry in the second half of the 80s…..


Aaaaand there goes all of the credibility of this piece down the toilet.

_________________
RLBH wrote:
I'm sorry, but I prefer to carpet-shark my enemies. Much more mayhem, though it must be admitted that the laser-guided shark is cheaper.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group