Will be the most effective recruiting tool for terrorists while the Sunnis/AQI are surging in Iraq and the Taleban is surging in Afganistan, against US troops, with nary an Israeli on the ground with them.
Who needs friends when you have genocidal ethnic cleansers like the Israelis?
the Israeli argument:
On Iran, Benjamin Netanyahu frames the crisis in nearly the same world-historical terms as his father. “Iran has threatened to annihilate a state,” Netanyahu told me. “In historical terms, this is an astounding thing. It’s a monumental outrage that goes effectively unchallenged in the court of public opinion. Sure, there are perfunctory condemnations, but there’s no j’accuse—there’s no shock.” He argued that a crucial lesson of history is that “bad things tend to get worse if they’re not challenged early.” He continued, “Iranian leaders talk about Israel’s destruction or disappearance while simultaneously creating weapons to ensure its disappearance.”
Amazing how the Zionist media incessantly tries to portray Iran as an aggressor/threat.
Newsflash: Iran hasn't started a war in over 200 ing years.
Iran is not occupying Canada/Mexico, USA is occupying Iraq/Afghanistan.
Israel/USA have threatened to attack Iran, Iran has never threatened to attack Israel. Just a few words by Ahmadinejad (who has no power to declare war) being taken out of context.
Anyway, USA/Iran cooperated in Afghanistan Iraq. Uncle Sam got our back.
That the Mullahs are apocalyptic and suicidal is another overblown, unsubstantiated claim/story.
At the end of the day they care about their own political power only, not wiping another country off the Earth.
Attacking Israel would surely be the end of the Islamic Republic.
Have no idea where all this bull comes from.
Bushleague Zionist propaganda tactics.
you should try the article on for size. claims: bush never supported attacks on Iran. Cites: numerous articles of evidence on Irans intentions with regards to Israel.
also, this "Iran-is-peaceful" view is contradicted by their insistance on acquiring nuclear capabilities
very interesting from the article
Not long ago, the chief of Israeli military intelligence, Major General Amos Yadlin, paid a secret visit to Chicago to meet with Lester Crown, the billionaire whose family owns a significant portion of General Dynamics, the military contractor. Crown is one of Israel’s most prominent backers in the American Jewish community, and was one of Barack Obama’s earliest and most steadfast supporters. According to sources in America and Israel, General Yadlin asked Crown to communicate Israel’s existential worries directly to President Obama.
When I reached Crown by phone, he confirmed that he had met with Yadlin, but denied that the general traveled to Chicago to deliver this message. “Maybe he has a cousin in Chicago or something,” Crown said. But he did say that Yadlin discussed with him the “Iranian clock”—the time remaining before Iran reached nuclear capability—and that he agreed with Yadlin that the United States must stop Iran before it goes nuclear. “I share with the Israelis the feeling that we certainly have the military capability and that we have to have the will to use it. The rise of Iran is not in the best interest of the U.S.
“I support the president,” Crown said. “But I wish [administration officials] were a little more outgoing in the way they have talked. I would feel more comfortable if I knew that they had the will to use military force, as a last resort. You cannot threaten someone as a bluff. There has to be a will to do it.”
On my last visit to Israel, I was asked almost a dozen times by senior officials and retired generals if I could explain Barack Obama and his feelings about Israel. Several officials even asked if I considered Obama to be an anti-Semite. I answered this question by quoting Abner Mikva, the former congressman, federal judge, and mentor to Obama, who famously said in 2008, “I think when this is all over, people are going to say that Barack Obama is the first Jewish president.” I explained that Obama has been saturated with the work of Jewish writers, legal scholars, and thinkers, and that a large number of his friends, supporters, and aides are Jewish. But philo-Semitism does not necessarily equal sympathy for Netanyahu’s Likud Party—certainly not among American Jews, who are, like the president they voted for in overwhelming numbers, generally supportive of a two-state solution, and dubious about Jewish settlement of the West Bank.
When I made these points to one senior Israeli official, he said: “This is the problem. If he is a J Street Jew, we are in trouble.” J Street is the liberal pro-Israel organization established to counter the influence of AIPAC and other groups. “We’re worried that he thinks like the liberal American Jews who say, ‘If we remove some settlements, then the extremist problem and the Iran problem go away.’”
Rahm Emanuel suggested that the administration is trying to thread a needle: providing “unshakeable” support for Israel; protecting it from the consequences of an Iranian nuclear bomb; but pushing it toward compromise with the Palestinians. Emanuel, in our meeting, disputed that Israel is incapable of moving forward on the peace process so long as Iran looms as an existential threat. And he drafted the past six Israeli prime ministers—including Netanyahu, who during his first term in the late 1990s, to his father’s chagrin, compromised with the Palestinians—to buttress his case. “Rabin, Peres, Netanyahu, Barak, Sharon, Olmert—every one of them pursued some form of a negotiated settlement, which would have been in Israel’s own strategic interest,” he said. “There have been plenty of other threats while successive Israeli governments have pursued a peace process. There is no doubt that Iran is a major threat, but they didn’t just flip the switch on [the nuclear program] a year ago.”
Emanuel had one more message to deliver: for the most practical of reasons, Israel should consider carefully whether a military strike would be worth the trouble it would unleash. “I’m not sure that given the time line, whatever the time line is, that whatever they did, they wouldn’t stop” the nuclear program, he said. “They would be postponing.”
It was then that I realized that, on some subjects, the Israelis and Americans are still talking past each other. The Americans consider a temporary postponement of Iran’s nuclear program to be of dubious value. The Israelis don’t. “When Menachem Begin bombed Osirak [in Iraq], he had been told that his actions would set back the Iraqis one year,” one cabinet minister told me. “He did it anyway.”
IN MY CONVERSATIONS with former Israeli air-force generals and strategists, the prevalent tone was cautious. Many people I interviewed were ready, on condition of anonymity, to say why an attack on Iran’s nuclear sites would be difficult for Israel. And some Israeli generals, like their American colleagues, questioned the very idea of an attack. “Our time would be better spent lobbying Barack Obama to do this, rather than trying this ourselves,” one general told me. “We are very good at this kind of operation, but it is a big stretch for us. The Americans can do this with a minimum of difficulty, by comparison. This is too big for us.”
political limitations would not allow Israel to make repeated sorties over Iran. “The Saudis can let us go once,” one general told me. “They’ll turn their radar off when we’re on our way to Iran, and we’ll come back fast. Our problem is not Iranian air defenses, because we have ways of neutralizing that. Our problem is that the Saudis will look very guilty in the eyes of the world if we keep flying over their territory.”
America, too, would look complicit in an Israeli attack, even if it had not been forewarned. The assumption—often, but not always, correct—that Israel acts only with the approval of the United States is a feature of life in the Middle East, and it is one the Israelis say they are taking into account.
I spoke with several Israeli officials who are grappling with this question, among others: what if American intelligence learns about Israeli intentions hours before the scheduled launch of an attack? “It is a nightmare for us,” one of these officials told me. “What if President Obama calls up Bibi and says, ‘We know what you’re doing. Stop immediately.’ Do we stop? We might have to. A decision has been made that we can’t lie to the Americans about our plans. We don’t want to inform them beforehand. This is for their sake and for ours. So what do we do? These are the hard questions.” (Two officials suggested that Israel may go on pre-attack alert a number of times before actually striking: “After the fifth or sixth time, maybe no one would believe that we’re really going,” one official said.)
Another question Israeli planners struggle with: how will they know if their attacks have actually destroyed a significant number of centrifuges and other hard-to-replace parts of the clandestine Iranian program? Two strategists told me that Israel will have to dispatch commandos to finish the job, if necessary, and bring back proof of the destruction. The commandos—who, according to intelligence sources, may be launched from the autonomous Kurdish territory in northern Iraq—would be facing a treacherous challenge, but one military planner I spoke with said the army would have no choice but to send them.
“It is very important to be able to tell the Israeli people what we have achieved,” he said. “Many Israelis think the Iranians are building Auschwitz. We have to let them know that we have destroyed Auschwitz, or we have to let them know that we tried and failed.”
Iran has no intention of starting a war with Israel. That is all.
It is vice versa.
Compared to Israel Iran is ing mother Teresa.
will that be the case if the get nukes? and why pursue them otherwise?
There are legitimate reasons to enrich uranium that has nothing to do with developing nukes. For example, building a nuclear power plant.
But even if they are looking to build a nuke, there's legitimate strategical reasons to do so: The region already has 3 nuclear capable nations (Pakistan, India, Israel), and so only having that capability gives you the same type of leverage those other nations have.
You guys really don't see the danger of a nuclear capable Iran?
Remember, nukes don't have to be delivered by missiles or bombers.
One could just as easily be delivered to Washington DC in the back of a u-haul truck.
*BOOM* when Congress is in session and the Prez/VP are in town and they can literally decapitate the Great Satan government with one stroke.
Now I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing.......but...
Thats more the way these guys think...
Don't kid yourself that they couldn't get a nuke into the US with our porous borders.
And after the *boom*?
It came out of nowhere. The physical evidence is destroyed in the blast. There would be absolutely no sure fire proof that Iran was responsible and no reprisal.
"On Iran, Benjamin Netanyahu frames the crisis in nearly the same world-historical terms as his father. “Iran has threatened to annihilate a state,” Netanyahu told me. “In historical terms, this is an astounding thing. It’s a monumental outrage that goes effectively unchallenged in the court of public opinion. Sure, there are perfunctory condemnations, but there’s no j’accuse—there’s no shock.” He argued that a crucial lesson of history is that “bad things tend to get worse if they’re not challenged early.” He continued, “Iranian leaders talk about Israel’s destruction or disappearance while simultaneously creating weapons to ensure its disappearance.” "
so you attack and kill millions just for a threat????
Israel if they actually do it.
I recently read a book by Vince Flynn (Memorial Day) with that exact plot...
Kill millions? Huh?
A surgical attack on the nuclear facilities with conventional weapons would kill hundreds at the most.
Though I am not for the attack (we would eventually get dragged in), I thought the "millions" statement was a bit hyperbolic.
Ummm, who cares?
What has Israel ever done for the US? them, us subsidizing their existence and their ing problems.
Moreover, Iran wanting nuclear weapons is a no-brainer for them. Why wouldnt they want nuclear weapons? Unstable and totally unpredictable Pakistan has nuclear weapons, why didnt we stop them, too?
Do I *want* Iran to have nukes? Of course not, nuclear proliferation is defintely something you want control over. But for the US to invade them or even a strategic strike?
Dumb...dumb beyond belief. So dumb I almost believe it will happen. If Israel wants to start a war, let them. Hopefully it leads to the eradication of the entire region, one giant headache that just took care of itself with minimal impact on anything important. The entire region produces nothing but weapons and oil. Kill each other and the only thing left over is oil.
Big whoop.
Last edited by DarkReign; 08-12-2010 at 11:29 AM. Reason: Unstable not Instable
, I'll even watch it on CNN with bated breath. Just doing my part and all.
ing middle east...why anyone cares about what they do is beyond me. Not one economic powerhouse, not one redeeming feature, just hate-filled sadists standing on eons-old fairy tales declaring superiorty over one another.
Let the Muslims have their world. I dont see Christians laying claim to the Holy Land like a ing birthright. "Oh, Jesus was here! Noah walked over there! Jehovah spoke over yonder, oh and Moses lead his people that-a-way!"
Grow up. Youre adults. Act like it. Fight or flight, already. Bunch of goddamn pussies if you ask me.
Fight the war. To the victor go the spoils. Its the way its always been and its the way it will always be. It isnt America's fight. We've armed and trained the least populous state, subsidized their inception and existence, parlayed and danced on the world stage appeasing some third rate country in - nowhere for reasons unknown...
Its time to pull the teet out of their mouth. Israel is like a 25 year old, unemployed drunken male child who wont move out. At some point, you have to throw them to the wolves and let them find their own way.
Maybe, just maybe, carving out an existence surrounded by your sworn enemies wasnt such a good ing idea afterall, was it?
So sick of the entire world giving a what happens in the middle east. Just buy the ing oil from whomever controls it this week. We do the same in Africa for rubber and diamonds, dont we?
Im done.
i know it's overused, but...........awesome!
...and if anyone of you dumb SOBs read that and think "anti-semite", youre as dumb as I always thought you were.
I dont give a about their chosen religion, skin color or choice in underwear. What I care about is, last time I checked, they offer nothing of value to the US taxpayers, who by the way, have paid for them to even exist.
I understand alliances with Europe, Asia and elsewhere. But wtf is Israel? Whats their trade deficit with us? How much do we pay them each year so they arent conquered while offering nothing in return except more problems and more bad press?
If the country wasnt Israel, instead it was Guatemala, Id feel the same way. No free rides if I were running this .
we give them money to buy our weapons.
correction: YOU give them money to enrich the already rich.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
