Israel Prodding U.S. To Attack Iran
CBS) Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen leaves Tuesday night on an overseas trip that will take him to Israel, reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin. The trip has been scheduled for some time but U.S. officials say it comes just as the Israelis are mounting a full court press to get the Bush administration to strike Iran's nuclear complex.
CBS consultant Michael Oren says Israel doesn't want to wait for a new administration.
"The Israelis have been assured by the Bush administration that the Bush administration will not allow Iran to nuclearize," Oren said. "Israelis are uncertain about what would be the policies of the next administration vis-à-vis Iran."
Israel's message is simple: If you don't, we will. Israel held a dress rehearsal for a strike earlier this month, but military analysts say Israel can not do it alone.
"Keep in mind that Israel does not have strategic bombers," Oren said. "The Israeli Air Force is not the American Air Force. Israel can not eliminate Iran's nuclear program."
The U.S. with its stealth bombers and cruise missiles has a much greater capability. Vice President Cheney is said to favor a strike, but both Mullen and Defense Secretary Gates are opposed to an attack which could touch off a third war in the region
More
Full Version: Israel Prodding U.S. To Attack Iran
QUOTE (Deke @ Jun 25 2008, 11:28 AM) 
Israel Prodding U.S. To Attack Iran
CBS) Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen leaves Tuesday night on an overseas trip that will take him to Israel, reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin. The trip has been scheduled for some time but U.S. officials say it comes just as the Israelis are mounting a full court press to get the Bush administration to strike Iran's nuclear complex.
CBS consultant Michael Oren says Israel doesn't want to wait for a new administration.
"The Israelis have been assured by the Bush administration that the Bush administration will not allow Iran to nuclearize," Oren said. "Israelis are uncertain about what would be the policies of the next administration vis-à-vis Iran."
Israel's message is simple: If you don't, we will. Israel held a dress rehearsal for a strike earlier this month, but military analysts say Israel can not do it alone.
"Keep in mind that Israel does not have strategic bombers," Oren said. "The Israeli Air Force is not the American Air Force. Israel can not eliminate Iran's nuclear program."
The U.S. with its stealth bombers and cruise missiles has a much greater capability. Vice President Cheney is said to favor a strike, but both Mullen and Defense Secretary Gates are opposed to an attack which could touch off a third war in the region
More
CBS) Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen leaves Tuesday night on an overseas trip that will take him to Israel, reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin. The trip has been scheduled for some time but U.S. officials say it comes just as the Israelis are mounting a full court press to get the Bush administration to strike Iran's nuclear complex.
CBS consultant Michael Oren says Israel doesn't want to wait for a new administration.
"The Israelis have been assured by the Bush administration that the Bush administration will not allow Iran to nuclearize," Oren said. "Israelis are uncertain about what would be the policies of the next administration vis-à-vis Iran."
Israel's message is simple: If you don't, we will. Israel held a dress rehearsal for a strike earlier this month, but military analysts say Israel can not do it alone.
"Keep in mind that Israel does not have strategic bombers," Oren said. "The Israeli Air Force is not the American Air Force. Israel can not eliminate Iran's nuclear program."
The U.S. with its stealth bombers and cruise missiles has a much greater capability. Vice President Cheney is said to favor a strike, but both Mullen and Defense Secretary Gates are opposed to an attack which could touch off a third war in the region
More
It is in all of our interests not to let terrorists have nuclear weapons, but I can't see the US attacking Iran. Our military is too tied down and too depleated by Bush and the Republicans to fight any more wars. This is probably just a bit of political pressure to encourage Iran to behave more like a civilized country.
If The Bush administration caves in to pressure to attack Iran before elections are held in November, I can guarantee two things will happen. One will be a reinstatement of the draft, and another will be that Republicans will lose elections in record numbers, if they are held at all.
LET THE GAMES BEGIN! 
Only Saudi Arabia stands to gain anything from bombing Iran. They gain tighter control over the oil market, higher prices, control over the middle east, the ability to crush anyone in the world. All they have to do is threaten to cut off oil to us and they have us doing their bidding. By 'us' I mean the United States, England, France, even Israel. I wouldn't look to some secret jewish conspiracy as a motivator to driving us to war with Iran. Maybe the Carlisle Group. Definately the country that sent hijackers to motivate us into going to war in the mideast for the sake of restraining the flow of oil..
our good friends Saudi Arabia.
our good friends Saudi Arabia.
I don't think the US will attack Iran of its own volition, pre-emptively. But I think it can easily be drawn in, pushed by politics and special interests. Buckle up.
QUOTE (GCurry @ Jun 25 2008, 11:38 AM)
I don't think the US will attack Iran of its own volition, pre-emptively. But I think it can easily be drawn in, pushed by politics and special interests. Buckle up.
Personally, I don't see the US attacking Iran either, but...could you conceive of a situation(that does not mean agree) where some US policy makers might view access to "easy" oil, or the issue of nuclear proliferation, in US interests?
QUOTE (Viewer @ Jun 25 2008, 09:48 AM)
Personally, I don't see the US attacking Iran either, but...could you conceive of a situation(that does not mean agree) where some US policy makers might view access to "easy" oil, or the issue of nuclear proliferation, in US interests?
Well, in their interests, yes. Don't care about others, yes. And totally misjudging and or not caring about the consequences, yes.
Most of us probably wouldn't have thought the US would suspend habeus corpus either a year or two ago. I have very little confidence in the rationality of our government making policy rationally for the "greater good", although I do believe that special interests will influence policy rationally for their own self interest. Significant special interests are cast as "US interests", but US interests no longer mean "greater good of citizens of the US", and probably haven't for some time, if ever.
A US House of Representatives Resolution effectively requiring a naval blockade on Iran seems fast tracked for passage, gaining co-sponsors at a remarkable speed, but experts say the measures called for in the resolutions amount to an act of war.
H.CON.RES 362 calls on the president to stop all shipments of refined petroleum products from reaching Iran. It also "demands" that the President impose "stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or departing Iran."
Analysts say that this would require a US naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz.
Since its introduction three weeks ago, the resolution has attracted 146 cosponsors. Forty-three members added their names to the bill in the past two days.
In the Senate, a sister resolution S.RES 580 has gained co-sponsors with similar speed. The Senate measure was introduced by Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh on June 2. In little more than a week’s time, it has accrued 19 co-sponsors.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=9377
The Arab world would be “pleased” by Israeli strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.
It the reaction will be positive, privately. I think there’ll be public denunciations but no action
Bolton Comments on Possible Israel Attack on Iran
The Arab world WANTS Israel to attack Iran
It the reaction will be positive, privately. I think there’ll be public denunciations but no action
Bolton Comments on Possible Israel Attack on Iran
The Arab world WANTS Israel to attack Iran
QUOTE (ABQ @ Jun 25 2008, 10:30 AM)
The Arab world would be “pleased” by Israeli strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.
It the reaction will be positive, privately. I think there’ll be public denunciations but no action
Bolton Comments on Possible Israel Attack on Iran
The Arab world WANTS Israel to attack Iran
It the reaction will be positive, privately. I think there’ll be public denunciations but no action
Bolton Comments on Possible Israel Attack on Iran
The Arab world WANTS Israel to attack Iran
The "Arab world" ... I would have thought it was composed of analagous "factions" as the "Western world" or the "Christian world" - nations, parties, peacemongers vs warmongers, the rich vs poor, religious factions, etc. I suspect that some in the Arab world would benefit, in some ways, under an attack scenario, and most would suffer. I hope we're not using the fact that crazies in other nations want this to lend cred to our own crazies.
QUOTE (fairyduster @ Jun 25 2008, 10:26 AM)
A US House of Representatives Resolution effectively requiring a naval blockade on Iran seems fast tracked for passage, gaining co-sponsors at a remarkable speed, but experts say the measures called for in the resolutions amount to an act of war.
H.CON.RES 362 calls on the president to stop all shipments of refined petroleum products from reaching Iran. It also "demands" that the President impose "stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or departing Iran."
Analysts say that this would require a US naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz.
Since its introduction three weeks ago, the resolution has attracted 146 cosponsors. Forty-three members added their names to the bill in the past two days.
In the Senate, a sister resolution S.RES 580 has gained co-sponsors with similar speed. The Senate measure was introduced by Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh on June 2. In little more than a week's time, it has accrued 19 co-sponsors.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=9377
H.CON.RES 362 calls on the president to stop all shipments of refined petroleum products from reaching Iran. It also "demands" that the President impose "stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or departing Iran."
Analysts say that this would require a US naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz.
Since its introduction three weeks ago, the resolution has attracted 146 cosponsors. Forty-three members added their names to the bill in the past two days.
In the Senate, a sister resolution S.RES 580 has gained co-sponsors with similar speed. The Senate measure was introduced by Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh on June 2. In little more than a week's time, it has accrued 19 co-sponsors.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=9377
Any note a to who arethe 19 co-sponsors?
It's a TERRIBLE bill.
Since the USA, sometimes along with Israel, have firmly committed to a state of constant, persistent and ongoing WAR MONGERING against Iran, one wonders why the US public is not being properly prepared for the consequences of such an act.
Clearly, the first outcome of the first bomb to fall on Iran will be $200/bbl oil and gasoline at a minimum of $6.00/gal, if not higher. It is unclear what effect that first bomb will have on food prices, but it's unlikely they will go lower. And, speaking of the dollar, it is already only worth a little more than .60Euro, one has to wonder whether the greenback will remain convertible at all once that first bomb hits Iran.
Almost no attention is given to the issue of whether and how Iran is preparing for the constantly threatened US/Israeli attack? Rarely a week goes by without there being intense speculation as to the date of the imminent attack. In fact, if memory serves me correctly, the last imminent date of attack only just expired a day or so ago. No sooner had that rumored date of attack come and gone and we now have a new threat by the USA and/or Israel to attack Iran brewing.
It is too bad the USA and Israel are not peaceable nations, like Iran is.
Of course, one rational response to persistent threat of attack is to take up arms. After all, the UN Charter itself acknowledges the right of self-defense. At present, the country of Iran is probably the single most eligible country in the world to take up a full scale armaments posture because that country is literally being beseiged by the threat of attack by countries that have very powerful armed forces, including nuclear weapons.
I can think of no country in the world that has a better right to arm itself with any and all weapons it can, than Iran.
Posters agree?
Clearly, the first outcome of the first bomb to fall on Iran will be $200/bbl oil and gasoline at a minimum of $6.00/gal, if not higher. It is unclear what effect that first bomb will have on food prices, but it's unlikely they will go lower. And, speaking of the dollar, it is already only worth a little more than .60Euro, one has to wonder whether the greenback will remain convertible at all once that first bomb hits Iran.
Almost no attention is given to the issue of whether and how Iran is preparing for the constantly threatened US/Israeli attack? Rarely a week goes by without there being intense speculation as to the date of the imminent attack. In fact, if memory serves me correctly, the last imminent date of attack only just expired a day or so ago. No sooner had that rumored date of attack come and gone and we now have a new threat by the USA and/or Israel to attack Iran brewing.
It is too bad the USA and Israel are not peaceable nations, like Iran is.
Of course, one rational response to persistent threat of attack is to take up arms. After all, the UN Charter itself acknowledges the right of self-defense. At present, the country of Iran is probably the single most eligible country in the world to take up a full scale armaments posture because that country is literally being beseiged by the threat of attack by countries that have very powerful armed forces, including nuclear weapons.
I can think of no country in the world that has a better right to arm itself with any and all weapons it can, than Iran.
Posters agree?
QUOTE (Hamoth @ Jun 25 2008, 12:35 PM)
Any note a to who arethe 19 co-sponsors?
It's a TERRIBLE bill.
It's a TERRIBLE bill.
List of sponsors in the House.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hc110-362
QUOTE (jammonius @ Jun 25 2008, 10:43 AM)
Since the USA, sometimes along with Israel, have firmly committed to a state of constant, persistent and ongoing WAR MONGERING against Iran, one wonders why the US public is not being properly prepared for the consequences of such an act.
Clearly, the first outcome of the first bomb to fall on Iran will be $200/bbl oil and gasoline at a minimum of $6.00/gal, if not higher. It is unclear what effect that first bomb will have on food prices, but it's unlikely they will go lower. And, speaking of the dollar, it is already only worth a little more than .60Euro, one has to wonder whether the greenback will remain convertible at all once that first bomb hits Iran.
Almost no attention is given to the issue of whether and how Iran is preparing for the constantly threatened US/Israeli attack? Rarely a week goes by without there being intense speculation as to the date of the imminent attack. In fact, if memory serves me correctly, the last imminent date of attack only just expired a day or so ago. No sooner had that rumored date of attack come and gone and we now have a new threat by the USA and/or Israel to attack Iran brewing.
It is too bad the USA and Israel are not peaceable nations, like Iran is.
Of course, one rational response to persistent threat of attack is to take up arms. After all, the UN Charter itself acknowledges the right of self-defense. At present, the country of Iran is probably the single most eligible country in the world to take up a full scale armaments posture because that country is literally being beseiged by the threat of attack by countries that have very powerful armed forces, including nuclear weapons.
I can think of no country in the world that has a better right to arm itself with any and all weapons it can, than Iran.
Posters agree?
Clearly, the first outcome of the first bomb to fall on Iran will be $200/bbl oil and gasoline at a minimum of $6.00/gal, if not higher. It is unclear what effect that first bomb will have on food prices, but it's unlikely they will go lower. And, speaking of the dollar, it is already only worth a little more than .60Euro, one has to wonder whether the greenback will remain convertible at all once that first bomb hits Iran.
Almost no attention is given to the issue of whether and how Iran is preparing for the constantly threatened US/Israeli attack? Rarely a week goes by without there being intense speculation as to the date of the imminent attack. In fact, if memory serves me correctly, the last imminent date of attack only just expired a day or so ago. No sooner had that rumored date of attack come and gone and we now have a new threat by the USA and/or Israel to attack Iran brewing.
It is too bad the USA and Israel are not peaceable nations, like Iran is.
Of course, one rational response to persistent threat of attack is to take up arms. After all, the UN Charter itself acknowledges the right of self-defense. At present, the country of Iran is probably the single most eligible country in the world to take up a full scale armaments posture because that country is literally being beseiged by the threat of attack by countries that have very powerful armed forces, including nuclear weapons.
I can think of no country in the world that has a better right to arm itself with any and all weapons it can, than Iran.
Posters agree?
Not at all. Iran is a meddlesome right wing religious authoritarian government. I wouldn't live there for a day and wouldn't want to share a border with em either.
QUOTE (fairyduster @ Jun 25 2008, 10:46 AM)
Wow more than 200 cosponsors.
There's a ton of otherwise good democrats on that list. Two from my state!
QUOTE (fairyduster @ Jun 25 2008, 12:26 PM)
[H.CON.RES 362
We had a discussion on this last week. The resolution does not call for military action, it clearly and directly calls for diplomatic and economic action. Ishmael argued that it effectively meant military action. Maybe, but it specifically was not included.In any cases this is the language called for by the UN resolution.
It is a non-binding resolution. It was first proposed about a month or so ago.
QUOTE (Hamoth @ Jun 25 2008, 01:50 PM)
Not at all. Iran is a meddlesome right wing religious authoritarian government. I wouldn't live there for a day and wouldn't want to share a border with em either.
I can think of no better of describing the USA than use of the words "...a meddlesome right wing religious authoritarian government." In fact, I think you've described the USA to a T,hamoth.
Separate and apart from your apparent use of 'projection' onto another the characteristics that best describe the place you live, what right does the USA/Israel have to engage in threatening military gestures, constantly, even if Iran is as you describe it; namely, "meddlesome" and "right wing" and "religious" and "authroitarian government?" Those traits do not bestow upon the USA/Israel (a specifically defined religious state, by the way) any right to engage in constant war mongering, do they?
A Navy blockade of Iran is an act of war.
http://www.aipac.org/Publications/SourceMa.../HConRes362.pdf
How can one easily cross reference the list of supporters for this bill to contributions from AIPAC? Would be interesting to see the return on their investment.
QUOTE (fairyduster @ Jun 25 2008, 02:07 PM)
A Navy blockade of Iran is an act of war.
http://www.aipac.org/Publications/SourceMa.../HConRes362.pdf
http://www.aipac.org/Publications/SourceMa.../HConRes362.pdf
That is correct.
QUOTE (fairyduster @ Jun 25 2008, 01:07 PM)
A Navy blockade of Iran is an act of war.
Well, you'll be happy to know it does not call for a "naval blockade." Res 362 says, along with diplomatic and economic actions:
QUOTE
imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran
But if you interpret that as a naval blockade, blame the UN Security Council, which voted 14 to 0 (Indonesia abstained) to impose tighter restrictions.
Here's an overview: Christian Science Monitor - U.N. Security Council passes more sanctions against Iran.
QUOTE (JaimeFuffunik @ Jun 25 2008, 01:09 PM)
How can one easily cross reference the list of supporters for this bill to contributions from AIPAC? Would be interesting to see the return on their investment.
Actually, it would be very easy. AIPAC does not contribute any money to candidates. It is not a Political Action Committee. It is a registered lobbying group. It doesn't rate or endorse candidates either.It is generally considered, however, a very effective lobbying group. I suspect it gets a good return on its investment.
QUOTE (Viewer)
It is generally considered, however, a very effective lobbying group. I suspect it gets a good return on its investment.
If I were President Barack Obama, and found incontrovertible evidence that Israel pushed Bush to attack Iran, I would cut off every stinkin' penny of aid to Israel.
QUOTE (Viewer @ Jun 25 2008, 01:23 PM)
Actually, it would be very easy. AIPAC does not contribute any money to candidates. It is not a Political Action Committee. It is a registered lobbying group. It doesn't rate or endorse candidates either.
It is generally considered, however, a very effective lobbying group. I suspect it gets a good return on its investment.
It is generally considered, however, a very effective lobbying group. I suspect it gets a good return on its investment.
Ah Ha. I didn't know that. I had been under the impression that they made direct contributions to candidates. So their business is influencing policy and thus contributions?
QUOTE (JaimeFuffunik @ Jun 25 2008, 01:32 PM)
Ah Ha. I didn't know that. I had been under the impression that they made direct contributions to candidates. So their business is influencing policy and thus contributions?
Yes, their business is to try to influence policy, just like I'd guess you are under that impression is because that is what its detractors want people to think.
Every 6 months or so the blogsphere lights up with talk about the US attacking Iran. This has been going on for the last 3 years and yet nothing has happened. I think our collective chains are being pulled. The Bush Administration is beating the fear drum to keep oil prices high.
QUOTE (pestone @ Jun 25 2008, 01:30 PM)
If I were President Barack Obama, and found incontrovertible evidence that Israel pushed Bush to attack Iran, I would cut off every stinkin' penny of aid to Israel.
OK, let me push you a little bit. What do you mean by "pushed"?. Supported, was sympathetic, advised on the impacts? Will you say the same about every country? How about private interests in the US that did so. Would that mean cut off government grants, purchases, tax breaks, incentives?What exactly do you mean? I'm not trying to argue with you (at least yet). Just trying to understand what your statement would mean in implementation.
QUOTE (Starbuck @ Jun 25 2008, 01:39 PM)
Every 6 months or so the blogsphere lights up with talk about the US attacking Iran. This has been going on for the last 3 years and yet nothing has happened. I think our collective chains are being pulled. The Bush Administration is beating the fear drum to keep oil prices high.
Maybe. Might also be to rachet up the pressure on Iran.
QUOTE (Viewer @ Jun 25 2008, 01:19 PM)
Well, you'll be happy to know it does not call for a "naval blockade." Res 362 says, along with diplomatic and economic actions:
But if you interpret that as a naval blockade, blame the UN Security Council, which voted 14 to 0 (Indonesia abstained) to impose tighter restrictions.
But if you interpret that as a naval blockade, blame the UN Security Council, which voted 14 to 0 (Indonesia abstained) to impose tighter restrictions.
Imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran IS a naval blockade. How did you think all those ships and planes were going to be inspected, and who was going to do it?
What do you think the US would do if Russia would impose a condition that every PERSON, PLANE, TRAIN, SHIP, or CARGO would be inspected before leaving or entering the US? The US would go NUTS.
QUOTE (GCurry @ Jun 25 2008, 12:56 PM)
Well, in their interests, yes. Don't care about others, yes. And totally misjudging and or not caring about the consequences, yes.
Most of us probably wouldn't have thought the US would suspend habeus corpus either a year or two ago. I have very little confidence in the rationality of our government making policy rationally for the "greater good", although I do believe that special interests will influence policy rationally for their own self interest. Significant special interests are cast as "US interests", but US interests no longer mean "greater good of citizens of the US", and probably haven't for some time, if ever.
Most of us probably wouldn't have thought the US would suspend habeus corpus either a year or two ago. I have very little confidence in the rationality of our government making policy rationally for the "greater good", although I do believe that special interests will influence policy rationally for their own self interest. Significant special interests are cast as "US interests", but US interests no longer mean "greater good of citizens of the US", and probably haven't for some time, if ever.
Well said.
QUOTE (Stoon @ Jun 25 2008, 01:41 PM)
Imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran IS a naval blockade. How did you think all those ships and planes were going to be inspected, and who was going to do it?
What do you think the US would do if Russia would impose a condition that every PERSON, PLANE, TRAIN, SHIP, or CARGO would be inspected before leaving or entering the US? The US would go NUTS.
I suppose so, just as the Iranian are doing. However let's be clear. It was the UN Security Council (14 to 0) that passed a resolution (1803).
What do you think the US would do if Russia would impose a condition that every PERSON, PLANE, TRAIN, SHIP, or CARGO would be inspected before leaving or entering the US? The US would go NUTS.
QUOTE (Starbuck @ Jun 25 2008, 11:39 AM)
Every 6 months or so the blogsphere lights up with talk about the US attacking Iran. This has been going on for the last 3 years and yet nothing has happened. I think our collective chains are being pulled. The Bush Administration is beating the fear drum to keep oil prices high.
5 years.
QUOTE (jammonius @ Jun 25 2008, 11:00 AM)
I can think of no better of describing the USA than use of the words "...a meddlesome right wing religious authoritarian government." In fact, I think you've described the USA to a T,hamoth.
Your point?
QUOTE
Separate and apart from your apparent use of 'projection' onto another the characteristics that best describe the place you live,
Hello captain assumption.
How do you know why I said that about Iran, or where I live?
QUOTE
what right does the USA/Israel have to engage in threatening military gestures, constantly, even if Iran is as you describe it; namely, "meddlesome" and "right wing" and "religious" and "authroitarian government?" Those traits do not bestow upon the USA/Israel (a specifically defined religious state, by the way) any right to engage in constant war mongering, do they?
Right...and your point is?
By pushed, I mean cajoled, shamed, encouraged, begged, insisted, or merely asked to take any kind of military action against Iran while our resources are so thinly spread in Iraq and Afganistan.
I would cut off Foreign Aid- argue away.
I would cut off Foreign Aid- argue away.
QUOTE (pestone @ Jun 25 2008, 02:35 PM)
By pushed, I mean cajoled, shamed, encouraged, begged, insisted, or merely asked to take any kind of military action against Iran while our resources are so thinly spread in Iraq and Afganistan.
I would cut off Foreign Aid- argue away.
I would cut off Foreign Aid- argue away.
So if asked an opinion, that would count? Afterall, intelligence agencies and analyists often consult one another
What about the other aspects of my question.
QUOTE (Hamoth @ Jun 25 2008, 03:23 PM)
5 years.
Concur. I seem to recall that there was already a disastrous invasion of Iran by the US in April of 1980. The hostage release deal (um, DIPLOMACY) brokered by the collusion of Reagan supporters and Khomeini was quite favorable to the goals of both.
IMO, this is the same situation. US and Israel are trying to sucker their respective sheep to keep their corrupt governments in power.
Until China gives the OK, there will be no attack on Iran. Israel should have cultivated better ties and influence with China if they wanted a real attack to occur. They have to know this; so until I see pressure on China, it's a no-go.
QUOTE (adamquestor @ Jun 25 2008, 02:47 PM)
Israel should have cultivated better ties and influence with China if they wanted ....
Actually China-Israel ties have improved significantly over the past several years.How does this fit into your prognostication?
QUOTE (Viewer)
So if asked an opinion, that would count? After all, intelligence agencies and analyists often consult one another.
What about the other aspects of my question.
What about the other aspects of my question.
My first post was a knee-jerk reaction, I suppose. Why should we fight another destabilzing war in the Middle East, when we have no good reason for being there in the first place? I think we should re-evaluate Foreign Aid ($$$) for all countries, not just Israel. We're up to our asses in debt, why should we feel the need to throw money at countries to keep them peaceful?
QUOTE (pestone @ Jun 25 2008, 03:40 PM)
My first post was a knee-jerk reaction, I suppose. Why should we fight another destabilzing war in the Middle East, when we have no good reason for being there in the first place? I think we should re-evaluate Foreign Aid ($$$) for all countries, not just Israel. We're up to our asses in debt, why should we feel the need to throw money at countries to keep them peaceful?
OK, now you've got a reasonable answer.For what it's worth, money identified as foreign (economic) aid is not a significant portion of the US budget. However I'd argue that foreign assistance is in many budgets (including defense). Much of the aid money is spent in the US as well, requiring purchases made in the US. Our spending is higher than our low foreign aid budget implies. Maybe, or maybe not, spent effectively.
Still, the amount and distributon of foreign aid is a legitimate issue for discussion. Some feel it should be more, some less.
I would add, however, that like or dislike our policies in the Middle East, we do have important considerations there. Those are both economic, poltical and military. The world doesn't end at our borders. Like the gas in your car? You can see an interest we have in a relationship there. (I'm not advocating a particular policy with my comment, only to illustrate that we do have interests.) Want to sell our products somewhere, we have an interest in the economy of others. Do you care about hunger or human rights? Another overseas interest. Want to travel beyond the boders? You get the point, I'm sure.
Is the region stable?
Stability doesn't mean "no US involvement". Iran is perfectly capable of destabilizing the region without the US's help. Sometimes, things go out of stability where the US hasn't even set foot.
I just can't believe people still think Iran is warm and fuzzy.
1. Israel should be wiped of the map.
2. The holocaust is a lie.
3. All Jews should die.
4. Hold on a second, we're going to develop a peaceful nuclear power program... no nuclear weapons... I mean, despite our lying about helping insurgents in Iraq with EFPs and such, we're totally trustworthy.
Come on, sounds fishy to me. I think the US policy of rolling up a newspaper and smacking them on the nose going "BAD, BAD crazy religious radical country! No nukes, how many times have I told you, no nukes for you!" is a good thing, myself.
Stability doesn't mean "no US involvement". Iran is perfectly capable of destabilizing the region without the US's help. Sometimes, things go out of stability where the US hasn't even set foot.
I just can't believe people still think Iran is warm and fuzzy.
1. Israel should be wiped of the map.
2. The holocaust is a lie.
3. All Jews should die.
4. Hold on a second, we're going to develop a peaceful nuclear power program... no nuclear weapons... I mean, despite our lying about helping insurgents in Iraq with EFPs and such, we're totally trustworthy.
Come on, sounds fishy to me. I think the US policy of rolling up a newspaper and smacking them on the nose going "BAD, BAD crazy religious radical country! No nukes, how many times have I told you, no nukes for you!" is a good thing, myself.
QUOTE (Jeff-Fletcher @ Jun 25 2008, 01:53 PM)
I think the US policy of rolling up a newspaper and smacking them on the nose going "BAD, BAD crazy religious radical country! No nukes, how many times have I told you, no nukes for you!" is a good thing, myself.
what exactly should and shouldnt be done and when, is a different discussion and an important one...
what is clear is that the current administration has no credibility with 75% of the American people and an even greater percentage in the world in general, so they cant be the ones doing anything...
QUOTE (Randys @ Jun 25 2008, 04:08 PM)
what is clear is that the current administration has no credibility with 75% of the American people and an even greater percentage in the world in general, so they cant be the ones doing anything...
And that's one of the problems with the Bush administration. They have left the US in a situation where it is much more difficult to react. We are, as a result, less safe. And Bush was warned about this before the war, including by Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.QUOTE (Viewer @ Jun 25 2008, 05:14 PM)
And that's one of the problems with the Bush administration. They have left the US in a situation where it is much more difficult to react. We are, as a result, less safe. And Bush was warned about this before the war, including by Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
I'm laughing my ass off right now.
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/...reaking_bush_a/
Bush intends to ask Congress to take North Korea off of the Terror Watch List. N. Korea is an openly hostile country that the US has been to a very bloody war with, and which actually, ahem, HAS nuclear weapons. So, inexplicably, a REAL threat rather than a MANUFACTURED threat poses no threat - yeah, definitely Republican brain processing at work, here.
I am literally laughing my ass off.
Absolutely NO ONE is going to swallow the BS that Iran is a threat, now. Jeebus, the Republicans are so insane that they have undermined their own bullying tactics against Iran. Who the hell is running the GOP- Ahmedinijad?
QUOTE (JaimeFuffunik @ Jun 25 2008, 01:09 PM)
How can one easily cross reference the list of supporters for this bill to contributions from AIPAC? Would be interesting to see the return on their investment.
AIPAC is not a political action committee, and the organization itself doesn't give a dime in campaign contributions. But its Web site, which details how members of Congress voted on AIPAC's key issues, and the AIPAC Insider, a glossy periodical that handicaps close political races, are scrutinized by thousands of potential donors. Pro-Israel interests have contributed $56.8 million in individual, group and soft money donations to federal candidates and party committees since 1990, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. (By contrast, the center says, pro-Arab and pro-Muslim groups donated $297,000 during the same period.) Between the 2000 and the 2004 elections, the 50 members of AIPAC's board donated an average of $72,000 each to campaigns and political action committees. One in every five board members was a top fundraiser for President Bush or John Kerry.
AIPAC's members often overlap with those of other pro-Israel organizations, some of which are renowned for playing hardball. In 2002, then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon launched Operation Defensive Shield, a military campaign that laid siege to cities in the West Bank to counter a wave of Palestinian suicide bombings against Israeli civilians. Pro-Israel activists here organized letter-writing campaigns, demonstrations and boycotts against media organizations for purportedly distorted reporting of Palestinian casualties. One group, the Committee for Accurate Middle East Reporting in America, demonstrated outside National Public Radio stations in 33 cities and cost WBUR in Boston more than $1 million in contributions.
AIPAC organizes annual trips to Israel where dozens of members of Congress and their staffs often get their first taste of the Holy Land. Rep. Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican who is House majority whip, has taken four AIPAC-sponsored trips to Israel over the years. "The bonding that happens, the understanding of the importance of democracy, the understanding of this miracle in Israel . . . is an incredible thing to watch," he told the organization's annual conference.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1201627_pf.html
QUOTE (Jeff-Fletcher @ Jun 25 2008, 01:53 PM)
I just can't believe people still think Iran is warm and fuzzy.
Who are you talking to?
Most of us don't think Iran is "warm and fuzzy". We just don't think they pose an imminent threat to our well being.
QUOTE
1. Israel should be wiped of the map.
2. The holocaust is a lie.
3. All Jews should die.
4. Hold on a second, we're going to develop a peaceful nuclear power program... no nuclear weapons... I mean, despite our lying about helping insurgents in Iraq with EFPs and such, we're totally trustworthy.
2. The holocaust is a lie.
3. All Jews should die.
4. Hold on a second, we're going to develop a peaceful nuclear power program... no nuclear weapons... I mean, despite our lying about helping insurgents in Iraq with EFPs and such, we're totally trustworthy.
You forgot a religious hegemony,
intolerant,
right-wing theocracy,
culturally hostile and ethnocentric
meddlers
^ Which I already pointed out here and got very little push back on.
QUOTE (Deke @ Jun 25 2008, 11:28 AM)
Israel Prodding U.S. To Attack Iran
CBS) Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen leaves Tuesday night on an overseas trip that will take him to Israel, reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin. The trip has been scheduled for some time but U.S. officials say it comes just as the Israelis are mounting a full court press to get the Bush administration to strike Iran's nuclear complex.
CBS consultant Michael Oren says Israel doesn't want to wait for a new administration.
"The Israelis have been assured by the Bush administration that the Bush administration will not allow Iran to nuclearize," Oren said. "Israelis are uncertain about what would be the policies of the next administration vis-à-vis Iran."
Israel's message is simple: If you don't, we will. Israel held a dress rehearsal for a strike earlier this month, but military analysts say Israel can not do it alone.
"Keep in mind that Israel does not have strategic bombers," Oren said. "The Israeli Air Force is not the American Air Force. Israel can not eliminate Iran's nuclear program."
The U.S. with its stealth bombers and cruise missiles has a much greater capability. Vice President Cheney is said to favor a strike, but both Mullen and Defense Secretary Gates are opposed to an attack which could touch off a third war in the region
More
CBS) Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen leaves Tuesday night on an overseas trip that will take him to Israel, reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin. The trip has been scheduled for some time but U.S. officials say it comes just as the Israelis are mounting a full court press to get the Bush administration to strike Iran's nuclear complex.
CBS consultant Michael Oren says Israel doesn't want to wait for a new administration.
"The Israelis have been assured by the Bush administration that the Bush administration will not allow Iran to nuclearize," Oren said. "Israelis are uncertain about what would be the policies of the next administration vis-à-vis Iran."
Israel's message is simple: If you don't, we will. Israel held a dress rehearsal for a strike earlier this month, but military analysts say Israel can not do it alone.
"Keep in mind that Israel does not have strategic bombers," Oren said. "The Israeli Air Force is not the American Air Force. Israel can not eliminate Iran's nuclear program."
The U.S. with its stealth bombers and cruise missiles has a much greater capability. Vice President Cheney is said to favor a strike, but both Mullen and Defense Secretary Gates are opposed to an attack which could touch off a third war in the region
More
no one is proding anyone into a war , the war has never ended we've been narrow casted. what this really means is that they are alienating all Iranians in the minds of the world. Ask yourself who gains from attacking iran? Big oil will probably get no bid contracts just like bush is getting them in Iraq. Sounds like recent history repeating itself all over again. Oh wait, what is north korea going to do since bush has them next on the list? Peace in the region is achieved by great leaders taking charge of the situation just like John F kennedy. The problem is we have a commander guy, not a real commander in chief. The truth is when the shit hits the fan our military is wasting time stealing the oil in Iraq
exposing our wa of life.
QUOTE (Randys @ Jun 25 2008, 04:08 PM)
what exactly should and shouldnt be done and when, is a different discussion and an important one...
what is clear is that the current administration has no credibility with 75% of the American people and an even greater percentage in the world in general, so they cant be the ones doing anything...
what is clear is that the current administration has no credibility with 75% of the American people and an even greater percentage in the world in general, so they cant be the ones doing anything...
What? Where do you get your statistics from? Are you saying that you have some statistics that show that more than 75% of the world governments or population of the world thinks Bush is less trustworthy than say... Clinton? I'd like to see your sources.
Do you imagine that the world loved America prior to 2000? That countries around the world were jumping up and down and carrying US flags going "we love America! We love America!" Is that what you imagine was going on? I don't remember that world. I know I was here, but I don't remember that world. Now the president of "we'll try any government with an 'ism'" France is even giving us the thumbs up and the world thinks Bush is not credible? Odd. It's like no matter what facts you're presented with, you're determined to think things are a certain way.
Don't get me wrong. I think Bush fumbled the handling of Rumsfeld and the beginning of the war. I think he speaks terribly and sounds like a moron.
QUOTE (Jeff-Fletcher @ Jun 25 2008, 04:53 PM)
Is the region stable?
Stability doesn't mean "no US involvement". Iran is perfectly capable of destabilizing the region without the US's help. Sometimes, things go out of stability where the US hasn't even set foot.
I just can't believe people still think Iran is warm and fuzzy.
1. Israel should be wiped of the map.
2. The holocaust is a lie.
3. All Jews should die.
4. Hold on a second, we're going to develop a peaceful nuclear power program... no nuclear weapons... I mean, despite our lying about helping insurgents in Iraq with EFPs and such, we're totally trustworthy.
Come on, sounds fishy to me. I think the US policy of rolling up a newspaper and smacking them on the nose going "BAD, BAD crazy religious radical country! No nukes, how many times have I told you, no nukes for you!" is a good thing, myself.
Stability doesn't mean "no US involvement". Iran is perfectly capable of destabilizing the region without the US's help. Sometimes, things go out of stability where the US hasn't even set foot.
I just can't believe people still think Iran is warm and fuzzy.
1. Israel should be wiped of the map.
2. The holocaust is a lie.
3. All Jews should die.
4. Hold on a second, we're going to develop a peaceful nuclear power program... no nuclear weapons... I mean, despite our lying about helping insurgents in Iraq with EFPs and such, we're totally trustworthy.
Come on, sounds fishy to me. I think the US policy of rolling up a newspaper and smacking them on the nose going "BAD, BAD crazy religious radical country! No nukes, how many times have I told you, no nukes for you!" is a good thing, myself.
Are you saying they "hate Jews"?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.