I don't think it speaks volumes. Presidents speak to all kinds of groups every day of the year. If you think AIPAC is bad, didn't Bush speak at Bob Jones U? Presidents speaks to pro/anti abortion groups, NRA, all kinds of special interest groups.
It's not just Israel or the U.S., none of Iran's neighbors or the rest of the world want it to have or trust it with nuclear capabilities. Iran voluntarily signed the Additional Protocol and agreed to other controls and conditions to which no other NPT members are subject.
I don't have a problem with some of your underlying points, but I think some of your logic is off:
You argue #1 that U.S., etc. sanctions killed 500,000 Iraqi children, but then in #3 you say that "The Baath Party in Iraq in the 1990s squirreled away billions of dollars." You clearly realize that there was enough wealth within Iraq to feed its children, the goverment just had other priorities. Sanctions may have killed the middle class, but it was the Iraqi government spending on weapons, palaces, luxury cars and Swiss bank accounts that killed Iraqis. That U.S. sanctions, with full UN approval, designed to punish Iraq for non-compliance and keep its aggressive war machine down, killed even 1 Iraqi is a total myth.
"Wide-ranging and deep sanctions can bleed over into being a sort of blockade... FDR’s decision to stop oil sales to Japan helped precipitate Pearl Harbor." The sanctions helped precipitate the war only so far in that an imperialist and militarist state (Japan), which had already invaded a dozen neighbors, launched a sneak attack on the U.S. Ethically and morally there should be nothing wrong with sanctions, as the poster above argues, because what are the alternatives: going to war immediately, doing nothing, or making empty pronouncements. A different argument can be made that sanctions can be counterproductive, but the burden should be on the aggressor (Japan, Iraq, Iran), not the aggrieved.
And don't be so easily deceived about Iran's history and intentions. Iran may not have launched an overt war in over a century, but that doesn't make them a pacifist country. They have regularly interfered, attacked via proxy and supported armed movements in all of their neighbors and around the world. They tinker in Iraq and Afghanistan with the intention of killing U.S. troops. Hezbollah and Imad Mugniyeh in their heyday of attacking embassies and community centers could not use the bathroom without IRGC approval. So am I impressed that Ayatollah Khamenei, who lies, tortures and beats his own people on a daily basis, wants us to believe that he wouldn't seek a nuclear weapon? NO.
That doesn't mean I think Iran would use a nuclear weapon, because I don't, but that doesn't mean I want them to have one either.
I don't think it speaks volumes. Presidents speak to all kinds of groups every day of the year. If you think AIPAC is bad, didn't Bush speak at Bob Jones U? Presidents speaks to pro/anti abortion groups, NRA, all kinds of special interest groups.
It didn't take me long: http://www.whitehouse.gov/schedule/president/2012-W9
Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - 11:30 AM
The President delivers remarks at the United Auto Workers conference.
It's not just Israel or the U.S., none of Iran's neighbors or the rest of the world want it to have or trust it with nuclear capabilities. Iran voluntarily signed the Additional Protocol and agreed to other controls and conditions to which no other NPT members are subject.
I don't have a problem with some of your underlying points, but I think some of your logic is off:
You argue #1 that U.S., etc. sanctions killed 500,000 Iraqi children, but then in #3 you say that "The Baath Party in Iraq in the 1990s squirreled away billions of dollars." You clearly realize that there was enough wealth within Iraq to feed its children, the goverment just had other priorities. Sanctions may have killed the middle class, but it was the Iraqi government spending on weapons, palaces, luxury cars and Swiss bank accounts that killed Iraqis. That U.S. sanctions, with full UN approval, designed to punish Iraq for non-compliance and keep its aggressive war machine down, killed even 1 Iraqi is a total myth.
"Wide-ranging and deep sanctions can bleed over into being a sort of blockade... FDR’s decision to stop oil sales to Japan helped precipitate Pearl Harbor." The sanctions helped precipitate the war only so far in that an imperialist and militarist state (Japan), which had already invaded a dozen neighbors, launched a sneak attack on the U.S. Ethically and morally there should be nothing wrong with sanctions, as the poster above argues, because what are the alternatives: going to war immediately, doing nothing, or making empty pronouncements. A different argument can be made that sanctions can be counterproductive, but the burden should be on the aggressor (Japan, Iraq, Iran), not the aggrieved.
And don't be so easily deceived about Iran's history and intentions. Iran may not have launched an overt war in over a century, but that doesn't make them a pacifist country. They have regularly interfered, attacked via proxy and supported armed movements in all of their neighbors and around the world. They tinker in Iraq and Afghanistan with the intention of killing U.S. troops. Hezbollah and Imad Mugniyeh in their heyday of attacking embassies and community centers could not use the bathroom without IRGC approval. So am I impressed that Ayatollah Khamenei, who lies, tortures and beats his own people on a daily basis, wants us to believe that he wouldn't seek a nuclear weapon? NO.
That doesn't mean I think Iran would use a nuclear weapon, because I don't, but that doesn't mean I want them to have one either.