Don't forget Iran

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080807/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_striking_iran;_ylt=AtyXqFg8NqSTfAVbzXtNS6Zn.3QA

Looks like this one just wont go away.

I hope Randall is right that it is just sabre rattling.

You did see the headline, didn't you Sherm?

Israel considers military option for Iran nukes

I don't think it's sabre rattling at all. I think Israel will attack unless the US flat out tells Israel if they do they lose US support. I think that's about as likely as Keli voting for Barack Obama.

Maybe Sherm read more than just the headline:

The Jewish state has purchased 90 F-16I fighter planes that can carry enough fuel to reach Iran, and will receive 11 more by the end of next year. It has bought two new Dolphin submarines from Germany reportedly capable of firing nuclear-armed warheads — in addition to the three it already has.

And this summer it carried out air maneuvers in the Mediterranean that touched off an international debate over whether they were a "dress rehearsal" for an imminent attack, a stern warning to Iran or a just a way to get allies to step up the pressure on Tehran to stop building nukes.
According to foreign media reports, Israeli intelligence is active inside Iranian territory. Israel's military censor, who can impose a range of legal sanctions against journalists operating in the country, does not permit publication of details of such information in news reports written from Israel.

I don't know that the US can control what Israel will do in regard to Iran. There were reports that 'high' level government officials strongly disagreed with Isreal's intention to bomb Syria but no one stopped that action from happening. I don't think they can here either.

Stephanie wrote:Maybe Sherm read more than just the headline:

He may have but his intention is clear. He would have the average reader believe that GWB is behind this and is using Israel to do his dirty work.

Personally, I don't think our telling Israel NOT to bomb Iran would do any good, just as it didn't in Syria.

I agree........telling them we don't want them to bomb Iran would do no more good than telling them we don't want them to expand settlements in the West Bank or build that damnable wall has. However, if we start backing up our words with actions....like telling them we won't sent them tanks or money probably would.

"America's ability to take out Iran's nuclear facilities is far superior to Israel's.

Unlike Israel, the United States has cruise missiles that can deliver high-explosive bombs to precise locations and B-2 bombers capable of dropping 85 500-pound bombs in a single run".....

Well I dont suppose either of you would entertain the idea that the U.S. could be involved and just let Israel take the "credit"....

Maybe. But can we stop American corporations from selling them tanks? And if we do, what's to stop them from getting it from another country such as Germany as the did the two submarines?

Yeah, just like we did in Syria, right Sherm.



I'll bet GWB has the same guy's that wrote that fake letter to get us to war with Iraq is planning the operation.

Aaron wrote:Maybe. But can we stop American corporations from selling them tanks? And if we do, what's to stop them from getting it from another country such as Germany as the did the two submarines?

I agree we can't stop American companies from selling them tanks, we shouldn't try. If Israel has all kinds of money to spend on tanks I'd rather they spend it on American tanks than German tanks. The trouble is, we provide them with money to purchase tanks and bombers and submarines and to build nuclear warheads etc.

We provide them with the means to do these things. If we don't want them to attack Iran, because it would be bad for the USA and her people, then we need to make it so Israel can't afford to.

shermangeneral wrote:"America's ability to take out Iran's nuclear facilities is far superior to Israel's.

Unlike Israel, the United States has cruise missiles that can deliver high-explosive bombs to precise locations and B-2 bombers capable of dropping 85 500-pound bombs in a single run".....

Well I dont suppose either of you would entertain the idea that the U.S. could be involved and just let Israel take the "credit"....

Yes, I am Sherm. Randall dismissed the possibility. It would seem that so far the US is using "diplomacy". Now while I disagree with some of the tactics being used and called "diplomacy", it is far preferable than actually bombing the country.

If you're going to stop aid to one country, then you have to stop ALL aid, imo. I don't think you can single out one particular country because you don't like how the spend the money.

BTW, I'm for eliminating ALL foreign aid.

So Steph I cant tell if you agree with me that the US could be more actively involved than people think and just let Israel have the "credit".

On this one issue of Israeli militarism you do seem to be more open-minded to criticism of this bush bunch.

Um, Sherm, you might want to check your bigotry. Obama is a bigger threat to Iran (and Pakistan) then this 'Bush bunch'.

Aaron wrote:If you're going to stop aid to one country, then you have to stop ALL aid, imo. I don't think you can single out one particular country because you don't like how the spend the money.

BTW, I'm for eliminating ALL foreign aid.

Why can't we? I agree with you on ending all foreign aid, but why can't we?

shermangeneral wrote:So Steph I cant tell if you agree with me that the US could be more actively involved than people think and just let Israel have the "credit".

On this one issue of Israeli militarism you do seem to be more open-minded to criticism of this bush bunch.

Sherm,

I don't like George W Bush either. I have stated that numerous times.

I don't think the Bush administration would do it without the consent of the Demcratic leadership in Congress though. I don't think they could sneak such an attack through.....Israel would have to do something to force Iran to attack Israel first. I don't think Bush would unilaterally launch a preemptive strike against Israel without consulting Reid & Pelosi & Co. if that's what you're suggesting. I don't think he's that stupid. He's too sneaky for that.

Stephanie wrote:

Aaron wrote:If you're going to stop aid to one country, then you have to stop ALL aid, imo. I don't think you can single out one particular country because you don't like how the spend the money.

BTW, I'm for eliminating ALL foreign aid.

Why can't we? I agree with you on ending all foreign aid, but why can't we?

Because if you start ending economic and food aid, then you have the bleeding heart liberals crying about how a country with so much has a moral responsibility to give back and bullshit like that.

Militarily, we use arms to advance our agenda. The problem is, our agenda changes every 4 to 8 years which is why we are where we are.

Personally, I say end it all. I honestly don't give a rat’s behind about starving pigmies in Costa Rica or wherever it is we should bless them, or the poor dying babies from aids or any other countries poor and weak. If we're going to take care of the poor and weak, we should start at home. And if some bleeding heart lib wants to feed the starving or cure the sick, let them do it with THEIR money and leave my tax dollars the hell alone.

As for OUR agenda, the way I see it, country wants to be democratic, then they need to do it the same way we did, with their own blood. We need to start protecting our own interest and quit worrying about others. And if someone or some country poses a threat, deal with it accordingly, fast, quick and without mercy. That’s what bombs and missiles are for. As a fine outstanding Marine once said, “Kill em all and let God sort em out.”

Somehow, I think if that was our foreign policy, we wouldn’t have near the problems we do.

Aaron,

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough with my question.

You wrote:

If you're going to stop aid to one country, then you have to stop ALL aid, imo. I don't think you can single out one particular country because you don't like how the spend the money.

Why can't we?

Why can't we single out a country that defies us and stop sending them aid, if they are using that aid to start preemptive wars?

They aren't using that money to feed starving people or fight AIDS.

Stephanie wrote:.......... Israel would have to do something to force Iran to attack Israel first.

And I do't think Israel's IDF is stupid enough to wait until Iran strikes them first ...... or is Militarily capable of striking them first.

Unless you dearly love to be beaten about the head and sholders ........ you had better not let the other guy hit you first if he threatens he is going to.

I was sitting on a bar stool once minding my own business and a fellow came up to me and told me that was what he was going to do ...... and I busted a 3/4s full glass of 7&7 side his head ....... and by the time he got back up off the floor and wiped the blood out of his eyes he had changed his mind about what he was going to do.

cheers

.

Stephanie wrote:Aaron,

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough with my question.

You wrote:

If you're going to stop aid to one country, then you have to stop ALL aid, imo. I don't think you can single out one particular country because you don't like how the spend the money.

Why can't we?

Why can't we single out a country that defies us and stop sending them aid, if they are using that aid to start preemptive wars?

They aren't using that money to feed starving people or fight AIDS.

Because the 'defiance' becomes based on who is occupying the White House so it changes every 4 to 8 years which is pretty much what we have now. You don't like it because none of the former, present or near future occupiers of the White House are willing to abandon Israel. I don't like it because among other things, I think it's a waste of my money to fight AIDS in Africa or to send food to countries knowing it's being taken and sold by ruthless dictators. End it ALL so there's no debate.

End it ALL so there's no debate.

End all foreign aid so there is no debate about what it is being used for. If there is no aid there is no debate about whether it's needed, justified, right or wrong.

Understand now Frank???

If there is no aid there is no debate about whether it's needed, justified, right or wrong.

I seriously doubt that. In the realm of politics, debate knows no bounds.

For example, legal slavery in America ended in the 1860s. But that did not end the debate about slavery.

Whatever you say Frank, whatever you say.