|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 03 2015 14:36 MoltkeWarding wrote:
The historical 19th century is not identical to the chronological 19th century. Historians generally refer to the former as the period between the Peace of Paris and the outbreak of the First World War.
Can you source this? I've never heard of this and it frankly sounds like a stupid and ridiculous way to do things. If you say "19th century", most people would reasonably assume you're referring to the years 1801-1899. I could give you a little leeway if we're talking about the years 1800 or 1900 if they're strictly "19th century", but that's not what you're talking about.
I think you're talking about "the Concert of Europe", so I see where you're going with it, but I'd be pretty surprised if anyone actually calls that the "19th century". Also, please source for calling it "the longest stretch of general world peace" in the modern age. It could be true but I'm curious to read about other comparative time periods. As you've listed the wars, it seems to have been a very unstable and bloody period. Nowhere near the suffering of the world wars, of course, but hardly peaceful.
|
On March 03 2015 17:54 coverpunch wrote:Back to politics, NYT does a hit piece on Hillary Clinton: Show nested quote + Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.
Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.
It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. All told, 55,000 pages of emails were given to the department. Mrs. Clinton stepped down from the secretary’s post in early 2013.
Her expansive use of the private account was alarming to current and former National Archives and Records Administration officials and government watchdogs, who called it a serious breach. Show nested quote +Mr. Merrill, the spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, declined to detail why she had chosen to conduct State Department business from her personal account. He said that because Mrs. Clinton had been sending emails to other State Department officials at their government accounts, she had “every expectation they would be retained.” He did not address emails that Mrs. Clinton may have sent to foreign leaders, people in the private sector or government officials outside the State Department. Show nested quote +The existence of Mrs. Clinton’s personal email account was discovered by a House committee investigating the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi as it sought correspondence between Mrs. Clinton and her aides about the attack.
Two weeks ago, the State Department, after reviewing Mrs. Clinton’s emails, provided the committee with about 300 emails — amounting to roughly 900 pages — about the Benghazi attacks. It's a problem for both ends, that her e-mail may not have been secure and thus open to breach by hackers but it also allows her to selectively hide e-mails that might be embarrassing or damaging.
See what happens when you let Grandma on the internets...?
Seriously though, I hope they come up with something better than she figured 'they' had it covered. It's a weird way for Benghazi to come back to bite her on the ass. I just desperately hope the address gets reported and it's something hilarious.
As it was clearly a political move, I presume she had her ass covered in some way? If not, she's worse than I thought.
|
On March 03 2015 18:06 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2015 14:36 MoltkeWarding wrote:
The historical 19th century is not identical to the chronological 19th century. Historians generally refer to the former as the period between the Peace of Paris and the outbreak of the First World War.
Can you source this? I've never heard of this and it frankly sounds like a stupid and ridiculous way to do things. If you say "19th century", most people would reasonably assume you're referring to the years 1801-1899. I could give you a little leeway if we're talking about the years 1800 or 1900 if they're strictly "19th century", but that's not what you're talking about. I think you're talking about "the Concert of Europe", so I see where you're going with it, but I'd be pretty surprised if anyone actually calls that the "19th century". Also, please source for calling it "the longest stretch of general world peace" in the modern age. It could be true but I'm curious to read about other comparative time periods. As you've listed the wars, it seems to have been a very unstable and bloody period. Nowhere near the suffering of the world wars, of course, but hardly peaceful.
It's pretty common. He's right.
|
On March 03 2015 18:47 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2015 18:06 coverpunch wrote:On March 03 2015 14:36 MoltkeWarding wrote:
The historical 19th century is not identical to the chronological 19th century. Historians generally refer to the former as the period between the Peace of Paris and the outbreak of the First World War.
Can you source this? I've never heard of this and it frankly sounds like a stupid and ridiculous way to do things. If you say "19th century", most people would reasonably assume you're referring to the years 1801-1899. I could give you a little leeway if we're talking about the years 1800 or 1900 if they're strictly "19th century", but that's not what you're talking about. I think you're talking about "the Concert of Europe", so I see where you're going with it, but I'd be pretty surprised if anyone actually calls that the "19th century". Also, please source for calling it "the longest stretch of general world peace" in the modern age. It could be true but I'm curious to read about other comparative time periods. As you've listed the wars, it seems to have been a very unstable and bloody period. Nowhere near the suffering of the world wars, of course, but hardly peaceful. It's pretty common. He's right.
Oh good, it shouldn't be hard at all to find a source then...
|
Zurich15325 Posts
On March 03 2015 18:06 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2015 14:36 MoltkeWarding wrote:
The historical 19th century is not identical to the chronological 19th century. Historians generally refer to the former as the period between the Peace of Paris and the outbreak of the First World War.
Can you source this? I've never heard of this and it frankly sounds like a stupid and ridiculous way to do things. If you say "19th century", most people would reasonably assume you're referring to the years 1801-1899. I could give you a little leeway if we're talking about the years 1800 or 1900 if they're strictly "19th century", but that's not what you're talking about. I think you're talking about "the Concert of Europe", so I see where you're going with it, but I'd be pretty surprised if anyone actually calls that the "19th century". Also, please source for calling it "the longest stretch of general world peace" in the modern age. It could be true but I'm curious to read about other comparative time periods. As you've listed the wars, it seems to have been a very unstable and bloody period. Nowhere near the suffering of the world wars, of course, but hardly peaceful.
There are all kinds of more or less arbitrary definitions of "long" and "short" 19th centuries. Which one is the most helpful really depends on the subject discussed. Even from a (mostly) European perspective there are several takes on just the "long" 19th century: Starting from the French revolution, the 7 years war, the American revolution and ending in the outbreak of WW1, the end of WW1, the Fin de siècle, or even later at more or less arbitrary dates in the 1920s. Again, this largely reflects a European perspective. These dates are pretty much as meaningful or meaningless than the chronological year 1800 from a say East Asian perspective.
What is of course true is that the chronological years 1800 and (less so) 1900 are really not very helpful in historical context. On January 1st 1800, it really wasn't even 1800 in most parts of the world, and not even in some European countries. 1900 is more significant in that in large parts of the world there was for the first time a common feeling of a turn of century.
|
On March 03 2015 18:06 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2015 14:36 MoltkeWarding wrote:
The historical 19th century is not identical to the chronological 19th century. Historians generally refer to the former as the period between the Peace of Paris and the outbreak of the First World War.
Can you source this? I've never heard of this and it frankly sounds like a stupid and ridiculous way to do things. If you say "19th century", most people would reasonably assume you're referring to the years 1801-1899. I could give you a little leeway if we're talking about the years 1800 or 1900 if they're strictly "19th century", but that's not what you're talking about. I think you're talking about "the Concert of Europe", so I see where you're going with it, but I'd be pretty surprised if anyone actually calls that the "19th century". Also, please source for calling it "the longest stretch of general world peace" in the modern age. It could be true but I'm curious to read about other comparative time periods. As you've listed the wars, it seems to have been a very unstable and bloody period. Nowhere near the suffering of the world wars, of course, but hardly peaceful.
It's true but it's an european centrist view (there were tons of small conflicts exactly like today). The biggest nation were rarely at war - almost never if you put aside the 1870 franco prussian war that didn't lasted much - but that's not really because the nation refused to fight or had no desire to take over land. It's just that there was an equilibrium in power that all nation tried to break at one point (mostly the french) but eventually preserved in order to satisfy their new ideology - which was the liberalism.
There is a clear continuity between the 19th century and the 1rst and second WW, just like there is a continuity between the behavior of the USSR before and after the 2nd WW : it's the 19th century that created the world wars. Cutting history in pieces and make it seem like the 19th century was a beautiful place of peacefulness and respect between nation is amazingly wrong. Today's world is actually really close to the XIXth century : small conflicts between small nations with the irregular implication pf strong and unopposed forces ; valorisation of pragmatism, technicism and realpolitik that hide the ideological aspects of international politic.
|
Authentic pluralism of interests among whom? If you asked the south Asian peoples whether there was an authentic pluralism of interests governing them as a colony of the crown you would be hard pressed to make a case. That is, the British Raj was a "monolithic entity" at least insofar as there ever was a "monolithic entity," and I am presuming here that you think the "American interests" that have dominated world affairs since 1945, and even more so since the 1980s, qualifies. If you want to wax on about the beautiful European symphony being played on a "world stage" amongst and between colonies, continents, and countries, you would be ignoring more than half the world's population, who were essentially captive peoples to these imperial powers. The supposed differences and pluralisms likely went unnoticed in the alien assault on the local cultures. Comparing colonial gamesmanship to a congress with elections is ridiculous. The colonies didn't choose their colonial overlords. Unlimited independence in the lives of "small nations" means what here? Certainly not nations with a small population. It appears you only mean those nations that were worst at waging war against the brutal Europeans.
British India was not a colony, it was ruled by the British East India Company until 1858, and subject to direct rule thereafter. There was no “popular sentiment” or “national consciousness” in the modern sense until the later phases of the Raj. Among traditional Hindu society, caste was more important than political allegiance. British domination in the 19th century did not come about as a consequence of ideology or planning, but by a gradual historical process which was inherited from generation to generation. Prior to the War of the Austrian Succession, European East India Companies had no interest in acquiring territory, and generally accepted the sovereignty of the Mughal state. Then came the weakening of Mughal hegemony over India, the rise of the Mahratta confederacy, the Mahratta attack on the Carnatic coast, triggering intervention of European trade companies, at first more in a bid for survival than a desire to interfere in local affairs. British victory over the French in the Carnatic wars allowed them to install their own allies in the Carnatic and Hyderabad. British hegemony in the southeast came by default in the power vacuum which emerged.
British acquisition of Benghal followed a similar process: The French allied themselves with Surajah Dowlah, who attempted to push the British East India Company out of the Benghal. The British in Calcutta were captured and thrown in the infamous “black hole” When the British returned, a civil war had broken out in the Benghal, and in accordance with the elementary rules of politics, the British aligned themselves with the anti-Dowlah faction. The Anglo-Indian alliance beat the nawab of Benghal at Plassey, and the British candidate ascended the throne. However, the rule of Mir Jafar in Benghal was insecure, and he was thereafter dependent on British protection from Moslem incursions, Oudh and the French. Once again, the British role in Benghal was inherited by her military supremacy in a power vacuum, in which the British became the indirect rulers of the Benghal. In achieving this military supremacy, the British East India Company largely acted on its own initiative, with minimal interference from the British government. Communications in the eighteenth century were too primitive and spartan, and the East India Company essentially became an indigenous actor in the local scene, owing formal allegiance to a European state.
The British came into actual hegemony over the subcontinent with the defeat of the Mahratta confederacy half a century later.
As John Seeley once remarked, the British seemed to have “conquered half the world in a fit of absence of mind.” De facto British hegemony in India, the long process through which she came to inherit such a position, ought not be confused either in the motives or processes during the later, self-conscious land rushes of the late-Victorian period. It was plainly speaking, “Imperial Expansion” only in the sense of its consequences, but not in the sense of its motives or aims. The British East India Company was interested in commerce and dividends, not in temporal power. On her path to protect her commerce, she accidentally came into it.
The transition from indirect company rule to direct rule was in response to an attempt to place India under proper administrative government, and political responsibility, and an effort to stamp out the Company’s misrule in India.
On the whole, this attempt to draw some kind of systematic parallel between the British in India and the Americans in Europe falls flat.
In India, British hegemony replaced another foreign hegemony, not a pluralistic power system, although without European involvement, it is very likely that India would have eventually become dominated by another Indian state after a long period of anarchy and wars. Contrary to the resentful insinuations of modern Indian nationalism, India was not a nation when the British came in. The postcolonial narrative of resentment has to take as its focal point the myth of British infringement on Indian nationhood, or on the particularism of the many Indias. The former is a retrospective fabrication. The latter has to take into account that such particularism was historically accustomed to paternalistic relations with a hegemonic power. As for British “assault” on Indian culture, I have no idea what is meant by this. For the most part, Indian culture remained intact during British rule, and India until today remains one of the most conservative societies in the world.
Implying that the “colonies” could have chosen their political overlords can be argued one of two ways. In making themselves the allies and protectorates of European powers, indigenous powers did indeed “choose” their political overlords, and this paradigm occurred not only in India, but everywhere from Tanzania to Egypt to Cambodia. These decisions were made by local chieftains largely seeking allies or protection against rivals. If on the other hand, it implies that the British ought to have held popular elections in India, or Egypt or among the bushmen of the Cape, it is simply an ahistorical projection of contemporary ideology.
Having said all this, the question of British rule in India as a historical epoch (rather than a Hegelian proposition) is irrelevant to the original point, which focuses on Europe. Pluralism for European Powers in the 19th century was de facto pluralism in the world. Of the five great powers, only the UK was owed her great power status to any extent on overseas colonies, and even without her Empire, the UK would have been a European power in her own right.
I am rather indifferent to Imperial history, and, for that matter, to the culture and civilisation of the non-West. While denying that foreign nations have any obligation to adopt Western attitudes and mores, I deny by the same impulses that I am obligated to regard Hindu or Pashtun or Bantu civilisation as equally worthy of my attentions or respect. If that is the kind of statement you are seeking to squeeze out of me, I offer it to you freely and without hesitation.
Finally, I have to address this implication (or at least selective obsession) of yours that the primary consequence of the Vienna state system was the distribution of colonial territories. The purpose of the Congress system was to maintain peace in Europe, and colonial congresses became subject to the general system. Colonial expansion would have occurred with or without the 19th century state system. The system existed to prevent the outbreak of general wars over any issue, domestic, European or colonial.
1. Meltiyukhov's sources are completly different from Suvorov : it's based on archives (most notably classified archives). Meltiyukhov is a russian historian and a specialist on the subject, Suvorov was just an ex soviet secret agent bound on defending his new home in the west during the cold war.
2. Meltiyukhov adress the point about the breakdown. The Soviet never really forecasted an attack on the USSR from Germany (just like Germany never forecasted Stalin's plan to attack on the US). There are even plan on the USSR invasion on Germany, division by division (140 or 160 division to run throughout eastern europe against the 100 nazi division stationned on the way).
3. Really your view on Barbarossa is quite funny. So basically the nazi and the USSR wage war against each other on some... misunderstanding ? The german misread the USSR desire to attack them ? And strategically reacted ? And the entire 2nd WW is a complete misunderstanding too right ? The german just wanted to be free and happy in their little garden ? In your head, it seems like without the US the nazi and the USSR would have come to a peaceful settlement... Like really ? At some point you've got to look objectively at reality. I'm all for imagination and utopia, but they're here to make things possible, not to blindly lure yourself into a shithole. Your entire vision is defined by the modern situation, and not by what happened at that time. Fighting dominating powers by idealizing old dominating powers is the best way to make history repeat itself.
My question is: does Meltiyukhov provide any evidence of a genre apart from that provided by Suvorov, or what is already generally known? We know that contingency planning existed for a German-Soviet war, and as contingency plans tend to be formulated, they take the assumption of offense, rather than defense. What I want to know is whether Meltiyukhov provides any evidence for the political decision to attack Germany. Without such evidence, and in view of copious evidence against this, there is no reason to accept such a narrative.
I am sorry to say, that the great historical events occur as the accumulation of processes, not as manifestations of ideas. As a historian, one quickly comes to learn that there are multiple motivations for every great decision, and events rarely proceed with the cleanliness of a logical proposition.
The Soviet-German war broke out because Hitler’s thinking on his relationship to Russia changed in the summer of 1940-41. Stalin’s annexation of the Baltics and Bessarabia during the French campaign was one aspect of it. His inability to come to a permanent accord with the Soviets at the end of 1940 was another. His desire to bring the British to the peace table was another. And perhaps too, there was his atavistic feeling of discomfort with alignment with the Soviet Union (as he related to Mussolini after the declaration of war.) There were probably deeper psychic undercurrents in Hitler’s mind which have left no historical record. It’s impossible to come to a total understanding of any historical event.
I don’t see the necessity of groping for argument, as if the alternative to the thesis that German’s war aims were anything other than “world domination” implies that she desired to be an isolationist power. I really don’t see much dignity in imitating oneofthem’s favourite tactic of the dialectic of sarcasm.
There is a clear continuity between the 19th century and the 1rst and second WW, just like there is a continuity between the behavior of the USSR before and after the 2nd WW : it's the 19th century that created the world wars. Cutting history in pieces and make it seem like the 19th century was a beautiful place of peacefulness and respect between nation is amazingly wrong. Today's world is actually really close to the XIXth century : small conflicts between small nations with the irregular implication pf strong and unopposed forces ; valorisation of pragmatism, technicism and realpolitik that hide the ideological aspects of international politic.
In the broader sense, the logic of cause and effect mandates by its circular reasoning that anything that preceded something caused the thing that succeeded it. Heat causes cooling, coldness causes heat. Boredom causes activity, overexercise causes calm. Racists cause anti-racism, political correctness causes extremism. In that vein, the Great Peace of the 19th century did cause the Great War of the 20th century, but there's not much more to it than that.
|
On March 03 2015 23:29 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote + 1. Meltiyukhov's sources are completly different from Suvorov : it's based on archives (most notably classified archives). Meltiyukhov is a russian historian and a specialist on the subject, Suvorov was just an ex soviet secret agent bound on defending his new home in the west during the cold war.
2. Meltiyukhov adress the point about the breakdown. The Soviet never really forecasted an attack on the USSR from Germany (just like Germany never forecasted Stalin's plan to attack on the US). There are even plan on the USSR invasion on Germany, division by division (140 or 160 division to run throughout eastern europe against the 100 nazi division stationned on the way).
3. Really your view on Barbarossa is quite funny. So basically the nazi and the USSR wage war against each other on some... misunderstanding ? The german misread the USSR desire to attack them ? And strategically reacted ? And the entire 2nd WW is a complete misunderstanding too right ? The german just wanted to be free and happy in their little garden ? In your head, it seems like without the US the nazi and the USSR would have come to a peaceful settlement... Like really ? At some point you've got to look objectively at reality. I'm all for imagination and utopia, but they're here to make things possible, not to blindly lure yourself into a shithole. Your entire vision is defined by the modern situation, and not by what happened at that time. Fighting dominating powers by idealizing old dominating powers is the best way to make history repeat itself. My question is: does Meltiyukhov provide any evidence of a genre apart from that provided by Suvorov, or what is already generally known? We know that contingency planning existed for a German-Soviet war, and as contingency plans tend to be formulated, they take the assumption of offense, rather than defense. What I want to know is whether Meltiyukhov provides any evidence for the political decision to attack Germany. Without such evidence, and in view of copious evidence against this, there is no reason to accept such a narrative. I am sorry to say, that the great historical events occur as the accumulation of processes, not as manifestations of ideas. As a historian, one quickly comes to learn that there are multiple motivations for every great decision, and events rarely proceed with the cleanliness of a logical proposition. The Soviet-German war broke out because Hitler’s thinking on his relationship to Russia changed in the summer of 1940-41. Stalin’s annexation of the Baltics and Bessarabia during the French campaign was one aspect of it. His inability to come to a permanent accord with the Soviets at the end of 1940 was another. His desire to bring the British to the peace table was another. And perhaps too, there was his atavistic feeling of discomfort with alignment with the Soviet Union (as he related to Mussolini after the declaration of war.) There were probably deeper psychic undercurrents in Hitler’s mind which have left no historical record. It’s impossible to come to a total understanding of any historical event. I don’t see the necessity of groping for argument, as if the alternative to the thesis that German’s war aims were anything other than “world domination” implies that she desired to be an isolationist power. I really don’t see much dignity in imitating oneofthem’s favourite tactic of the dialectic of sarcasm.
Yes he does. As I said, Meltiyukhov is just another exemple : MOST historian agree that Stalin had plan to attack Germany as early as 1939.
The simple fact that you name it "contingency" show that you are biased on the subject. It's not a contingency plan : Meltiyukhov specifically note that it was only a plan for offense and not defence. And which "copious evidence" do you have that the USSR had no intend to assert its dominance over europe ? Really you have none aside from some anecdotal evidences based on political discourse rather than political act. You make it seem like we can trust Hitler's Mein Kampf but not Meltiyukhov's historical work... Amazing.
Show nested quote +There is a clear continuity between the 19th century and the 1rst and second WW, just like there is a continuity between the behavior of the USSR before and after the 2nd WW : it's the 19th century that created the world wars. Cutting history in pieces and make it seem like the 19th century was a beautiful place of peacefulness and respect between nation is amazingly wrong. Today's world is actually really close to the XIXth century : small conflicts between small nations with the irregular implication pf strong and unopposed forces ; valorisation of pragmatism, technicism and realpolitik that hide the ideological aspects of international politic. In the broader sense, the logic of cause and effect mandates by its circular reasoning that anything that preceded something caused the thing that succeeded it. Heat causes cooling, coldness causes heat. Boredom causes activity, overexercise causes calm. Racists cause anti-racism, political correctness causes extremism. In that vein, the Great Peace of the 19th century did cause the Great War of the 20th century, but there's not much more to it than that.
Again, that is only your (in my opinion quite flawed) vision of the XIXth century. For exemple, read the well known The Great Transformation from K. Polanyi : the subject is exactly about how the XIXth lead to facism (and the first chapter is called "The Hundred Years' Peace" just to point out how it is exactly spot on).
Your vision of the XIXth century is only possible if you put aside reality (which is mostly discontent in the population, inequalities, social escheat and radicalisation during the entire XIXth century, with global political unstability) and focus on the history of treaties and political declaration (the beautiful world of progress made by - and for - the bourgeoisie). It's history without politics.
|
On March 03 2015 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2015 17:54 coverpunch wrote:Back to politics, NYT does a hit piece on Hillary Clinton: Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.
Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.
It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. All told, 55,000 pages of emails were given to the department. Mrs. Clinton stepped down from the secretary’s post in early 2013.
Her expansive use of the private account was alarming to current and former National Archives and Records Administration officials and government watchdogs, who called it a serious breach. Mr. Merrill, the spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, declined to detail why she had chosen to conduct State Department business from her personal account. He said that because Mrs. Clinton had been sending emails to other State Department officials at their government accounts, she had “every expectation they would be retained.” He did not address emails that Mrs. Clinton may have sent to foreign leaders, people in the private sector or government officials outside the State Department. The existence of Mrs. Clinton’s personal email account was discovered by a House committee investigating the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi as it sought correspondence between Mrs. Clinton and her aides about the attack.
Two weeks ago, the State Department, after reviewing Mrs. Clinton’s emails, provided the committee with about 300 emails — amounting to roughly 900 pages — about the Benghazi attacks. It's a problem for both ends, that her e-mail may not have been secure and thus open to breach by hackers but it also allows her to selectively hide e-mails that might be embarrassing or damaging. See what happens when you let Grandma on the internets...? Seriously though, I hope they come up with something better than she figured 'they' had it covered. It's a weird way for Benghazi to come back to bite her on the ass. I just desperately hope the address gets reported and it's something hilarious. As it was clearly a political move, I presume she had her ass covered in some way? If not, she's worse than I thought.
Boring.... it's HDR22@CLINTONEMAIL.COM
|
On March 03 2015 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2015 17:54 coverpunch wrote:Back to politics, NYT does a hit piece on Hillary Clinton: Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.
Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.
It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. All told, 55,000 pages of emails were given to the department. Mrs. Clinton stepped down from the secretary’s post in early 2013.
Her expansive use of the private account was alarming to current and former National Archives and Records Administration officials and government watchdogs, who called it a serious breach. Mr. Merrill, the spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, declined to detail why she had chosen to conduct State Department business from her personal account. He said that because Mrs. Clinton had been sending emails to other State Department officials at their government accounts, she had “every expectation they would be retained.” He did not address emails that Mrs. Clinton may have sent to foreign leaders, people in the private sector or government officials outside the State Department. The existence of Mrs. Clinton’s personal email account was discovered by a House committee investigating the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi as it sought correspondence between Mrs. Clinton and her aides about the attack.
Two weeks ago, the State Department, after reviewing Mrs. Clinton’s emails, provided the committee with about 300 emails — amounting to roughly 900 pages — about the Benghazi attacks. It's a problem for both ends, that her e-mail may not have been secure and thus open to breach by hackers but it also allows her to selectively hide e-mails that might be embarrassing or damaging. See what happens when you let Grandma on the internets...? Seriously though, I hope they come up with something better than she figured 'they' had it covered. It's a weird way for Benghazi to come back to bite her on the ass. I just desperately hope the address gets reported and it's something hilarious. As it was clearly a political move, I presume she had her ass covered in some way? If not, she's worse than I thought.
Really? You think this was a political move? Rather than a move from complete ignorance of how technology works?
Having worked in various sectors of IT for all of my adult life, I can assure you that the most mindnumbingly stupid things are done out of ignorance and false expectations of how things work... and this really doesn't sound any different. That's not to excuse the stupidity: there should have been at least someone in the department to tell her that she really had to use the work email for work stuff, and either the work environment was wrong and her aides didn't dare to speak up about that, or she just ignored it, either of which is a problem. However, mismanagement is FAR more likely than this being a political move to hide evidence.
|
On March 04 2015 01:20 RCMDVA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2015 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 03 2015 17:54 coverpunch wrote:Back to politics, NYT does a hit piece on Hillary Clinton: Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.
Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.
It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. All told, 55,000 pages of emails were given to the department. Mrs. Clinton stepped down from the secretary’s post in early 2013.
Her expansive use of the private account was alarming to current and former National Archives and Records Administration officials and government watchdogs, who called it a serious breach. Mr. Merrill, the spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, declined to detail why she had chosen to conduct State Department business from her personal account. He said that because Mrs. Clinton had been sending emails to other State Department officials at their government accounts, she had “every expectation they would be retained.” He did not address emails that Mrs. Clinton may have sent to foreign leaders, people in the private sector or government officials outside the State Department. The existence of Mrs. Clinton’s personal email account was discovered by a House committee investigating the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi as it sought correspondence between Mrs. Clinton and her aides about the attack.
Two weeks ago, the State Department, after reviewing Mrs. Clinton’s emails, provided the committee with about 300 emails — amounting to roughly 900 pages — about the Benghazi attacks. It's a problem for both ends, that her e-mail may not have been secure and thus open to breach by hackers but it also allows her to selectively hide e-mails that might be embarrassing or damaging. See what happens when you let Grandma on the internets...? Seriously though, I hope they come up with something better than she figured 'they' had it covered. It's a weird way for Benghazi to come back to bite her on the ass. I just desperately hope the address gets reported and it's something hilarious. As it was clearly a political move, I presume she had her ass covered in some way? If not, she's worse than I thought. Boring.... it's HDR22@CLINTONEMAIL.COM
So is anyone else now willing to entertain my proposition that Hillary is not going to be democrat nominee?
|
I just wish we could wait until next year to talk about nominees. The new congress only came in 2 months ago, can't we at least pretend to try getting some governing in?
|
Yes he does. As I said, Meltiyukhov is just another exemple : MOST historian agree that Stalin had plan to attack Germany as early as 1939.
Since you don’t really provide the concrete arguments for why you believe in the “Master Plan,” I will have to intervene as best as I can from my personal knowledge on the subject.
The original argument derives its authority from Considerations on the Strategic Deployment Plan of the Soviet Armed Forces, drafted in May 1941 which envisages a pre-emptive attack against a German attack in the East. This was the final iteration of a series of deployment plans along the same lines. The author of the May 1940 draft was Vassilevsky, chief of staff to Zhukov, and according to whom, the plan was presented to Stalin. Those who believe that Stalin not only initiated the plans, but also intended to carry them out make several assumptions: that these plans owe their existence to not only direction by Stalin, but that they, taken in isolation, reflected his foreign policy. And on that still hinges the central question. There is not one iota of evidence from Stalin’s interviews, speeches or public acts in May-June 1941 that he had any intention to attack the Germans, and plenty of indications to the contrary. Until such evidence can be furnished, and a direct link drawn between the Zhukov plans and the decision to carry them out as a matter of policy, there is simply no proof of the argument you are asserting. Incidentally, the entire hypothesis is more popular among military historians than among diplomatic and political historians, because it requires a direct inference that military planning is reflective of political decision-making to really accept the argument.
Again, that is only your (in my opinion quite flawed) vision of the XIXth century. For exemple, read the well known The Great Transformation from K. Polanyi : the subject is exactly about how the XIXth lead to facism (and the first chapter is called "The Hundred Years' Peace" just to point out how it is exactly spot on).
Your vision of the XIXth century is only possible if you put aside reality (which is mostly discontent in the population and radicalisation during the entire XIXth century, with global political unstability) and focus on the history of treaties and political declaration.
Your objections are astonishing in view that I have not represented any general view of the 19th century. The 19th century was the century of Revolutions, not wars. It was the century of the Book, the century of Progress, the century of Science, the century of Optimism, the century of Industry, the century of Money, the century of Liberty, the century of the Nation, the century of History, the century of Reform. Looking at the 19th century through the lens of ideological abstraction is unhealthy. I focus on the history of diplomatic paradigms, because that is the subject of my writing, not some abstract idea of the 19th century.
The definition of Fascism as all authoritarian non-Communist regimes of the 20th century and as promogulated in 20s Soviet jargon, and modern Frankfurt schoolers is historically inaccurate and potentially misleading. Fascism was an Italian phenomenon, not a universal phenomenon. National Socialism, Falangism, not to mention military Juntas of South America do not belong under the aegis of the title. The entire term, implying some genetic link between National Socialism and Fascism because Hitler and Mussolini became allies after 1936 is retrospective rationalisation. It must ignore, for instance, the hostility between “Nazis” and “Fascists” in Austria in the 30s, and “Nazis” and other authoritarian right-wing governments of the 30s. The inflated use of the word “Fascism” is now being indiscriminately assigned to Metexas’ Greece, Pilsudski’s Poland, the Polish triumvirate which succeeded Pilsudski, Salazar’s Portugal, Horthy’s Hungary, the interwar regimes in the Baltics.
Before I even address this subject, I want to clarify what I specifically mean by Fascism.
Historically, Fascist ideas grew out of the futurist movement of the early 20th century, as incarnated by Filippo Marinetti. Futurism was a specifically Italian variant of cultural vitalism, in which the values of energy, speed, novelty, originality, and violence were elevated. The Italian variant of cultural vitalism was closely aligned with Italian concept of life itself, as a “flexible, quick, anti-intellectual, fiery, sensuous” process which expended itself in energetic self-expression, and which suffered constant decay and renewal. Although it was merely commonsensical that life is about decay and renewal, what was important to the futurists was man’s responsibility for acceleration. It believed in life as a work of art: aggressive, provocative and violent and short.
The merger of Futurism as an artistic movement, and Fascism as a political movement also came into fruition in the conditions of post-risorgimento Italy. The national cause, championed mid-century by liberals like Verdi, became the cause of the educated elite by the end of the 19th century. Because Italy was more socially primitive than Western Europe, there was a large gulf between the educated idealists and the mass of illiterate peasants who were the substance of the nation. In the end, most educated Italians supported Italian entry into the First World War (including the former Anarcho-Syndicalist Mussolini, who broke with the Socialists on the war) not only for territorial aggrandisement, but as a social experiment to complete the Risorgimento, and complete the Italian nation. In that sense, we can trace the emergence of Fascism in the following factors: 1) The backwardness of Italian society 2) The military ineffectiveness of Italian armies during the wars of liberation 3) The political corruption of the Liberal era 4) The weakness of the Italian bourgeoisie 5) The inherent contradiction between idealism and parliamentary politics 6) The sense of the Risorgimento, in contrast to Bismarck’s “satiated state” as an ongoing historical process.
Italy went to war against Austria in 1915 because that was what the opinionated classes in Italy wanted. Whether the liberal parliamentary state in Italy would have survived if Italy had remained neutral is an academic question. However, under the guise of the war, the creed of neo-vitalism and futurism, already having a stranglehold on the nation, became the national ideology. Poets like Gabriele d’Annunzio became the incarnation of the spirit of the Italian nation (a heroic Byronic archetype.)
This provides a decent summary I think, on my thoughts of the genesis of Fascism. Saying that Fascism can be traced to the 19th century is like saying that a dog can be traced to its tail, and therefore the tail is the essence of dogs. The 19th century was the century of the National ideal. The question is: which kind of national ideal? How did it manifest itself? Bismarck, the German liberals, Garibaldi, Gambetta, Boulanger, Verdi, Wagner, Herder, Hegel, Fichte, Mann, D’Annunzio were all “nationalists” in one form or another. Yet the politics and culture which emerged from them were vastly different.
|
On March 04 2015 01:50 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2015 01:20 RCMDVA wrote:On March 03 2015 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 03 2015 17:54 coverpunch wrote:Back to politics, NYT does a hit piece on Hillary Clinton: Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.
Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.
It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. All told, 55,000 pages of emails were given to the department. Mrs. Clinton stepped down from the secretary’s post in early 2013.
Her expansive use of the private account was alarming to current and former National Archives and Records Administration officials and government watchdogs, who called it a serious breach. Mr. Merrill, the spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, declined to detail why she had chosen to conduct State Department business from her personal account. He said that because Mrs. Clinton had been sending emails to other State Department officials at their government accounts, she had “every expectation they would be retained.” He did not address emails that Mrs. Clinton may have sent to foreign leaders, people in the private sector or government officials outside the State Department. The existence of Mrs. Clinton’s personal email account was discovered by a House committee investigating the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi as it sought correspondence between Mrs. Clinton and her aides about the attack.
Two weeks ago, the State Department, after reviewing Mrs. Clinton’s emails, provided the committee with about 300 emails — amounting to roughly 900 pages — about the Benghazi attacks. It's a problem for both ends, that her e-mail may not have been secure and thus open to breach by hackers but it also allows her to selectively hide e-mails that might be embarrassing or damaging. See what happens when you let Grandma on the internets...? Seriously though, I hope they come up with something better than she figured 'they' had it covered. It's a weird way for Benghazi to come back to bite her on the ass. I just desperately hope the address gets reported and it's something hilarious. As it was clearly a political move, I presume she had her ass covered in some way? If not, she's worse than I thought. Boring.... it's HDR22@CLINTONEMAIL.COM So is anyone else now willing to entertain my proposition that Hillary is not going to be democrat nominee?
I'm really not understanding the issue, or at least how it could be entirely blamed on her. Someone in IT or security or something needs to be fired. Even just being an engineer at a tech company, there are people whose entire job is to keep shit safe and make sure people are doing things right. I think you are riding the hype train just like everyone was with Benghazi. I'm just not seeing a scandal, more so a really stupid idea that security people should lose their job over for not bringing the hammer down on. And I still think she'll get the nomination. Sanders is a joke, Warren is a joke, basically the entire democratic party is a joke besides Clinton, who happens to be a powerhouse. I don't think this email account stuff is going to be anywhere close to enough to sink that ship.
edit: I would also say that this coming out so far from the election helps a lot. It's not a full on scandal by any means. It's just the kinda thing to dip her numbers a bit.
|
On March 04 2015 01:50 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2015 01:20 RCMDVA wrote:On March 03 2015 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 03 2015 17:54 coverpunch wrote:Back to politics, NYT does a hit piece on Hillary Clinton: Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.
Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.
It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. All told, 55,000 pages of emails were given to the department. Mrs. Clinton stepped down from the secretary’s post in early 2013.
Her expansive use of the private account was alarming to current and former National Archives and Records Administration officials and government watchdogs, who called it a serious breach. Mr. Merrill, the spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, declined to detail why she had chosen to conduct State Department business from her personal account. He said that because Mrs. Clinton had been sending emails to other State Department officials at their government accounts, she had “every expectation they would be retained.” He did not address emails that Mrs. Clinton may have sent to foreign leaders, people in the private sector or government officials outside the State Department. The existence of Mrs. Clinton’s personal email account was discovered by a House committee investigating the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi as it sought correspondence between Mrs. Clinton and her aides about the attack.
Two weeks ago, the State Department, after reviewing Mrs. Clinton’s emails, provided the committee with about 300 emails — amounting to roughly 900 pages — about the Benghazi attacks. It's a problem for both ends, that her e-mail may not have been secure and thus open to breach by hackers but it also allows her to selectively hide e-mails that might be embarrassing or damaging. See what happens when you let Grandma on the internets...? Seriously though, I hope they come up with something better than she figured 'they' had it covered. It's a weird way for Benghazi to come back to bite her on the ass. I just desperately hope the address gets reported and it's something hilarious. As it was clearly a political move, I presume she had her ass covered in some way? If not, she's worse than I thought. Boring.... it's HDR22@CLINTONEMAIL.COM So is anyone else now willing to entertain my proposition that Hillary is not going to be democrat nominee?
Unless something the size of 'the lost emails were not lost' thing shows up I dont see how this will have any impact whatsoever. Emails were supplied when they were asked for by the Benghazi investigation so backups seem to exist.
It should not have happened, lets be clear on that. official business should have happened on the official emails but I dont see why this would damage her Presidential bid.
|
Bisutopia19231 Posts
Was anyone else inspired by Netanyahu's speech? I thought he delivered a clear, concise argument that left nothing ambiguous. This is one of the moments in American history where party alignment truly has to be set aside and congress needs to utilize the brilliant minds they all have in making a decision on how to go forward with Iran. That's all American citizens could ask for.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2D9U4ai.png)
I mean, it's like going over to your best friend's house after an argument and kicking his dog. That's not how you make nice.
It actually disgusts me. Okay, I get that the US and Israel have a long standing relationship and plenty of mutual interests. It doesn't mean that this guy who isn't even an American citizen, let alone a member of our government, and who pretty much owes his country's continuing welfare to our tax dollars can come in and try and dictate what we do. The fucker has been sabotaging the Iran negotiations and who who knows what else just for political gain.
|
WASHINGTON — It was all but inevitable, and Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) finally cut his losses on Tuesday, telling House Republicans he will allow a vote on legislation to fund the Department of Homeland Security without any immigration restrictions.
The "clean" DHS funding bill could come up as early as Tuesday. It is expected to pass with overwhelming support from Democrats and enough House Republicans.
Boehner laid out three paths to his members in a weekly meeting, according to a source in the room: shutting down DHS, another short-term stopgap bill, or the Senate-passed clean DHS bill. He said the first two weren't good options.
"With more active threats coming into the homeland, I don’t believe that’s an option," Boehner said of a shutdown. "Imagine if, God forbid, another terrorist attack hits the United States."
It effectively ends the Republican threat to use a potential shutdown of DHS to overturn President Barack Obama's executive actions on immigration, which Boehner promised to fight "tooth and nail" last year with the new GOP majorities in both chambers.
Many House conservatives are furious over the immigration actions and intend to defect on the bill. They dealt Boehner a humiliating defeat last Friday by scuttling a three-week extension of the DHS deadline, only to end up with a one-week extension with help from Democrats.
Boehner's move to embrace the "clean" DHS bill is a devastating blow to conservatives, who had hoped to use their new majorities to confront Obama by tying their priorities to essential government bills. They feared that caving in the DHS battle would set the tone in Congress for the next two years.
Source
|
On March 04 2015 02:19 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2015 01:50 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2015 01:20 RCMDVA wrote:On March 03 2015 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 03 2015 17:54 coverpunch wrote:Back to politics, NYT does a hit piece on Hillary Clinton: Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.
Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.
It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. All told, 55,000 pages of emails were given to the department. Mrs. Clinton stepped down from the secretary’s post in early 2013.
Her expansive use of the private account was alarming to current and former National Archives and Records Administration officials and government watchdogs, who called it a serious breach. Mr. Merrill, the spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, declined to detail why she had chosen to conduct State Department business from her personal account. He said that because Mrs. Clinton had been sending emails to other State Department officials at their government accounts, she had “every expectation they would be retained.” He did not address emails that Mrs. Clinton may have sent to foreign leaders, people in the private sector or government officials outside the State Department. The existence of Mrs. Clinton’s personal email account was discovered by a House committee investigating the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi as it sought correspondence between Mrs. Clinton and her aides about the attack.
Two weeks ago, the State Department, after reviewing Mrs. Clinton’s emails, provided the committee with about 300 emails — amounting to roughly 900 pages — about the Benghazi attacks. It's a problem for both ends, that her e-mail may not have been secure and thus open to breach by hackers but it also allows her to selectively hide e-mails that might be embarrassing or damaging. See what happens when you let Grandma on the internets...? Seriously though, I hope they come up with something better than she figured 'they' had it covered. It's a weird way for Benghazi to come back to bite her on the ass. I just desperately hope the address gets reported and it's something hilarious. As it was clearly a political move, I presume she had her ass covered in some way? If not, she's worse than I thought. Boring.... it's HDR22@CLINTONEMAIL.COM So is anyone else now willing to entertain my proposition that Hillary is not going to be democrat nominee? I'm really not understanding the issue, or at least how it could be entirely blamed on her. Someone in IT or security or something needs to be fired. Even just being an engineer at a tech company, there are people whose entire job is to keep shit safe and make sure people are doing things right. I think you are riding the hype train just like everyone was with Benghazi. I'm just not seeing a scandal, more so a really stupid idea that security people should lose their job over for not bringing the hammer down on. And I still think she'll get the nomination. Sanders is a joke, Warren is a joke, basically the entire democratic party is a joke besides Clinton, who happens to be a powerhouse. I don't think this email account stuff is going to be anywhere close to enough to sink that ship.
First, not hilarious but even at CLINTONEMAIL.COM she had to add numbers to her name. That's at least a little comical. Second, sounds like this has been set up for a while yet after she become SoS so her technical advisers likely knew exactly what was going on. I'm sure she left herself with plausible deniability though.
The thing about this "discovery" is that you know she sent emails to Republicans/Democrats among others from that email. People had to of noticed?
I have noticed that the "liberal media" is hitting her pretty hard on this, contrary to what Republicans would have people believe.
On March 04 2015 02:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON — It was all but inevitable, and Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) finally cut his losses on Tuesday, telling House Republicans he will allow a vote on legislation to fund the Department of Homeland Security without any immigration restrictions.
The "clean" DHS funding bill could come up as early as Tuesday. It is expected to pass with overwhelming support from Democrats and enough House Republicans.
Boehner laid out three paths to his members in a weekly meeting, according to a source in the room: shutting down DHS, another short-term stopgap bill, or the Senate-passed clean DHS bill. He said the first two weren't good options.
"With more active threats coming into the homeland, I don’t believe that’s an option," Boehner said of a shutdown. "Imagine if, God forbid, another terrorist attack hits the United States."
It effectively ends the Republican threat to use a potential shutdown of DHS to overturn President Barack Obama's executive actions on immigration, which Boehner promised to fight "tooth and nail" last year with the new GOP majorities in both chambers.
Many House conservatives are furious over the immigration actions and intend to defect on the bill. They dealt Boehner a humiliating defeat last Friday by scuttling a three-week extension of the DHS deadline, only to end up with a one-week extension with help from Democrats.
Boehner's move to embrace the "clean" DHS bill is a devastating blow to conservatives, who had hoped to use their new majorities to confront Obama by tying their priorities to essential government bills. They feared that caving in the DHS battle would set the tone in Congress for the next two years. Source
lol.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 04 2015 02:28 BisuDagger wrote:
Was anyone else inspired by Netanyahu's speech? I thought he delivered a clear, concise argument that left nothing ambiguous. This is one of the moments in American history where party alignment truly has to be set aside and congress needs to utilize the brilliant minds they all have in making a decision on how to go forward with Iran. That's all American citizens could ask for.
doesn't take a lot to inspire nowadays. from what i've seen maybe 50% of it there is absolutely nothing new with his stuff and it's the same bullshit
here's fp's take on the speech.
12:03 p.m.
It’s difficult to see whomever wrote Netanyahu’s address to Congress winning any awards for speechwriting. Between the mixed metaphors and trite language, the speech was one marked more by clunkers than soaring rhetoric. In arguing against a nuclear deal in Iran, Netanyahu fell back on a few lines of poetry that, in the context of an address to Congress on the risks posed by Tehran, was utterly cliched. Misquoting the famous American poet, Netanyahu said that one doesn’t have to know Robert Frost to understand that “the difficult path is usually the one less traveled” to make the case or what Netanyahu described as a better agreement, one that would impose more strict restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program.
11:56 a.m.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress was long on rhetoric and saber-rattling but short on new details on a potential nuclear deal with Iran — and U.S. willingness to negotiate with it.
Making his case against a nuclear deal between world powers and Tehran, Netanyahu said Iran must first stop threatening its neighbors, and Israel, and cease its support of extremist groups. As it stands, he said, the potential agreement “will only change the Middle East for the worst.”
He said Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei intends to build 190,000 centrifuges — necessary not just to enrich uranium to power Tehran’s nuclear program, but to build an atomic weapon. Currently, Iran has 19,000 available centrifuges, and world powers have said they will not allow Tehran to harness enough power to use for potential weapons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
