Sen. Hillary Clinton’s vow to “obliterate†Iran if that country uses nuclear weapons against Israel ignores a key point, according to MSNBC: Israel has the sixth-largest arsenal of nuclear weapons on the planet. It’s capable of obliterating Iran itself, even after a first strike — something Iran understands perfectly well.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on ACORN stole election?
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/21
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/21
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/21
- JWink on Will GOP contenders be nice to Obama?
103 Comments
What’s the saying speak softly and carry a big stick. No Hillary care.
Save the big stick for the cons.
National health care NOW!
America needs someone who is willing to attempt diplomacy, capable of being diplomatic and not willing to rush to war.
Since Iran has a primary goal of destroying Israel and the religious leaders are in power, and since they want to die to bring forth the 12th Iman, whether Israel or the US turns them into dust is not a deter ant, as it was with the Russians and Chinese. MADD only works when the people are not mad.
Israel is about 8 times bigger than Sedgwick County, how many nuclear bombs can go off anywhere in the county and still be “acceptable.”
Retaliation does not save any lives, a preemptive strike may be needed.
Jim,
I am assuming you are the same one from the concealed carry forum. This is HobGoblin.
I had been meaning to invite some of you guys over here for some of the heated gun discussions we have.
We have quite a few gun haters here.
A Letter to the Ediotr in this morning’s paper asks an excellent question:
“Beating war drum
It is indisputable that the principal reason the mujahedeen, the Afghanistan insurgents, were able to defeat the Soviets in their invasion was that we supplied the insurgents with Stinger missiles, neutralizing the Russian attack helicopters. And the difference between this and Iran supplying the Iraqi insurgents with improvised explosive devices would be exactly what? Yet President Bush beats the war drum to attack Iran, because it is doing in Iraq exactly what we did in Afghanistan? In the words of the Church Lady from “Saturday Night Live”: “Isn’t that special?”
DOUG MOULD
Wichita”
Linda,
Would this mean you are at least acknowledging that Iran is indeed arming the militias and insrgents against us?
The difference is this:
We were fighting a cold war against the Soviet Union. The USSR was not in Afghanistan to help build a democracy and get rid of a brutal dictator.
Comparing the two actions is absurd.
An easy question Linda. Iran is doing it to us, costing American lives and complicating and prolonging the US presence in Iraq. No one said that Iran is necessarily wrong in supplying insurgents. But they are doing it against us.
National interest is a concept that liberals sometimes have a hard time with.
In order for Hillary to be nominated, she needs to show that she has what it takes to defend this country and its allies in case of attack.
Her words were strong but they established her as a force to be reckoned with.
Females have the unfair disadvantage of being considered weak or timid. Hillary did what she had to do.
And she did it correctly. A pacifist does not belong in the White House.
outlander, I have no problem understanding national interest or protecting Americans and doing our part around the world. War for the sake of war or for personal reasons that have nothing to do with anyone’s security, I do have problems understanding. I think anyone making threats is a bully. Bullying isn’t anything to be proud of in my opinion. Acting strong and being strong are different.
I also don’t see any need for putting any person in a box with a label like “liberal.” No label has ever defined me, I doubt a label would accurately define you either.
outlander, ever hear a great quote about doing unto the least of…? Just wondering since you so easily draw distinctions in who is doing what to whom.
outlander you make a good point. Iran is actively “attacking” the US by supplying our enemy.
Hopefully, any candidate that is elected to office will take the same firm stance against our enemies to prevent violence from escalating against Americans.
” No one said that Iran is necessarily wrong in supplying insurgents. But they are doing it against us. ”
No,
they are doing it in THEIR best interest.
The considered best interests of other countries is a concept that conservatives almost always have a hard time with.
” No one said that Iran is necessarily wrong in supplying insurgents. But they are doing it against us. ”
No,
they are doing it in THEIR best interest.
——————–
Exactly JR. Well, I would add “in their PERCEIVED best interest”. And sometimes national interests clash. And when they do, we have to act in our national interest, not sit and wring our hands and draw moral equivalencies.
Of course, there’s always the option of nuking everything from Turkey south.
Wipe the slate clean and start over . . .
(Heavy sarcasm.)
BTW, Iran said it would allow nuclear inspections if Israel would also.
Of course, Israel will not. So who’s the problem?
Are America’s perceptions always accurate? Other countries could perceive something inaccurately, but not America? Wonder why there are differing opinions and which one would be the one to count on for sure? I think if Americans could learn the merits of agreeing to disagree that would be called diplomacy. Maybe we could spread diplomacy like we attempt to spread Democracy.
BlueJay Posted “National health care NOW!”
Sorry BlueJay, there simply are too few of you without health insurance to make much of a wave.
The vast majority of Americans have health insurance. You must be one of small 12 million described below (half are children). You either are eligible for a handout program – and not enrolled, or you are one of an even smaller population who are not eligible.
How does it feel to part of such a small minority who don’t have the drive, education, or ability to work at a job which provides healthcare? Obviously, either you are doing something wrong, or the other 290 million Americans WITH insurance are.
WHO ARE THE UNINSURED?
One in four of America’s medically uninsured are eligible for public programs but are not enrolled, according to a new report. The National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation, a Washington, D.C. think tank, found about 12 million uninsured people, half of them children, could be enrolled in Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. The study found that people are not enrolled for a variety of reasons: They don’t know about the programs, don’t know how to enroll, or don’t want to be associated with a publicly financed program. The 20-page report “Understanding the Uninsured: Tailoring Policy Solutions for Different Sub-populations,” segments the uninsured according to their eligibility for public programs, income, and whether they are a child, a parent, or a childless adult.
Using 2006 data from the 2007 Current Population Survey provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the foundation’s researchers also described in the report a range of policy options for extending health coverage, including ones for reaching uninsured young adults and older adults not yet eligible for Medicare. The report concluded that more than half of the uninsured are childless adults, but there is little public assistance available to them. Currently, only seven states offer such coverage and Kansas is not among them. The Legislature this session was asked to consider expanding coverage by 2010 to include childless adults earning 100% or less of poverty guidelines, but that proposal by the Kansas Health Policy Authority was rejected.
David Brooks almost always has it wrong, however, he can make some amusing observations. Check this out:
“A few questions in, Clinton rose from her chair and loomed over Stephanopoulos. The country hasn’t seen such a brazen display of attempted middle-aged physical intimidation since Al Gore took a walkabout on the debate stage with George Bush. It was like watching someone get elbowed in a dark alley by their homeroom teacher.”
from today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/opinion/06brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
“Of course, Israel will not. So who’s the problem?”
We need to stop being part of this problem. It’s not our battle. Israel has the means without our continually taking their side.
We put ourself right smack into the middle of the problems when most of the rest of the world smartly sits on the sidelines, and out of the line of fire.
We have enough problems in our country to handle full time, with investing in the problems elsewhere.
“Of course, Israel will not. So who’s the problem?”
We need to stop being part of this problem. It’s not our battle. Israel has the means without our continually taking their side.
We put ourself right smack into the middle of the problems when most of the rest of the world smartly sits on the sidelines, and out of the line of fire.
We have enough problems in our country to handle full time, without investing in the problems elsewhere.
Burning questions for the neocons, today:
*Is it possible to deliver democracy, in the same way one delivers pizza?
*And more importantly, will the Iraqis tip us well, so that we’ll get off their porch?
Inquiring minds would like to know.
Oh, my God. I am agreeing with AmWay. Someone, please call 911…
AmWay your 9:10 a.m. post is exactly right.
What Dr. Scholfield fails to point in his scenario is that Iran would strike out with nuclear weapons first. Israel would only use nuclear weapons as a counter attack.
Rogue countries like Iran, led by dicatator councils that don’t attack accordingly to the will of their people cannot be truste. Israel can be trusted.
Maybe if some of you would stop trying to label everyone with names like “neocon” you might find we have more in common than differences.
I’m no longer far right conservative, never was on the religious right bandwagon, and am disappointed in the republican loss of direction too.
But I’m still guilty of labeling the far left liberals too.
“Israel would only use nuclear weapons as a counter attack.”
Really? I believe the historical record will show many times Israel made pre-emptive attacks. First.
Need examples?
History tends to repeat itself, and the trend indicates Israel will not hesitate to do it again.
I wouldn’t bet money they will hesitate just because they have more lethal weapons.
In fact, I’d venture to guess, the reason our nation really doesn’t want anyone else in the middle east to gain nukes – is BECAUSE we fear what Israel will do.
The one thing you can not say about Israel, is that they practice restraint!
Israel, Iran, and Pakistan should have a non-proliferation treaty if they are serious about fearing a nuclear attack.
It’s just a case of I want it, and I don’t want you to have it.
How many pre-emptive attacks has Iran initiated in the last 60 yrs.? How many has Israel initiated?
One note on Hillary’s bold statement on nuking Iran, she has ensured the USA will be added to the mutually assured destruction a nuclear exchange in the middle east would cause.
Thanks Hill. And you aren’t even in the white house yet. Maybe those superdelegates will now reconsider.
To me she represents the Neocon’s interest in escalating the conflict in Iran. I don’t understand how she can even run as a democrat when she’s obviously a neocon at heart.
What part of ‘nuclear attack’ used first did you not understand American Way?
Say what you will about Hillary but even Barack has acknowledged the need to be tough on national security. Anyone who doubts this should listen to the speech he gave in Indiana Sunday night.
He stressed the need to maintain a strong military, trained and equipped with the latest equipment. Bill Clinton didn’t get this and so we had to re-equip our military, build our numbers back up, etc..
Obama and Hillary both have faced the fact that we are in a global situation that will not allow us to become isolationists and survive.
If we talk the talk we have to be prepared to walk the walk. Hopefully we won’t have to but if push comes to shove we need to be ready.
Randy shame on you! Israel having nukes is a secret, true like Area 51 is a secret but still neither the U.S. or Israel has ever confirmed it! I don’t think Hillary is politically pandering on this one. I think secretly she is still a “Goldwater girl”.
Regular, I don’t understand your question.
You posted:
“Israel would only use nuclear weapons as a counter attack.” and ” Israel can be trusted.”
Did the word “counter” not imply that they would wait for the initial strike and then “counter” with a retaliatory strike?
That was my interpretation. I disagree and see Israel willing and able to strike first. History supports that theme.
What am I missing from your post?
“If we talk the talk we have to be prepared to walk the walk.”
I don’t disagree that Clinton decimated
the military and your comments on the democratic candidates.
But I don’t think we should be waving that big stick all over the planet.
We are 9 trillion in debt. The Euro is mightier than the dollar. We import far more than we export. We provide billions more in foreign aid (which includes military aid) and write bad checks to do so.
We don’t have to be the biggest and baddest power on earth to get along. We should learn to play in the sandbox like everyone else. The dollars we spend on defense are a huge chunk of our national treasure.
We can trade on a world basis – without threatening anyone or trying to overthrow governments and install puppets.
You know, like the REST of the world does.
Truth, history and morality is held by the victor, comparing our assistance of the Afghans during the Russian occupation to our occupation of Iraq. There are similarities, motivation withstanding but there should not be a rush to “obliterate” Iran. If we follow the logic given for it, then Russian had the same moral right to have obliterated the U.S. From a national interest point of view.
But then I did say the victor hold the morality didn’t I ?
If the USA stayed out of the affairs of other nations:
If Iran was to nuke Israel – what specifically would change in your daily life?
If Israel was to nuke Iran – what specifically would change in your daily life?
AmericanWay, great post at 10:08! That’s the America I want to strive to be.
American_Way
Posted May 6, 2008 at 10:00 am | Permalink
Regular, I don’t understand your question.
You posted:
“Israel would only use nuclear weapons as a counter attack.” and ” Israel can be trusted.”
Did the word “counter” not imply that they would wait for the initial strike and then “counter” with a retaliatory strike?
That was my interpretation. I disagree and see Israel willing and able to strike first. History supports that theme.
What am I missing from your post?
——————————-
Common sense?
Israel was attacked by Iraq during the first Gulf War with Scud missiles. They wanted to counter attack, but were convinced by the U.S. and other allies not to do so.
Or are you still confused about Israel using a nuclear attack first on any country?
Name an instance where Israel used a nuclear attack on a country.
If you can’t, then you must concede the argument, because that was my premise.
I stated countries like Iran would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons as a first, unprovoked attack.
Attacking first pre-emptively and attacking with nuclear weapons first are two different issues, you are muddying the waters.
There is a huge difference.
The hypothetical involved (am Iranian first-strike with nukes against Israel) is flawed in every way except for fear-mongering.
No Muslim state would attack Jerusalem; it’s as much a holy city to Islam as it is to Christians and Jews.
Reg. your argument is logically weak. Israel has never used nukes in a pre-emptive strike, thus Israel would never use nukes in a pre-emptive strike.
Iran has not waged a pre-emptive war on its neighbors. But if they had nukes, they would wage a nuclear pre-emptive war.
Hard to follow your reasoning.
Israel can be trusted?
Israel spies on its closest ally.
Middle of the road argument, could you understand Iran wanting nukes? Your closest enemy whom has attacked you and your neighbor without being attack by either. Has a stock pile of Nuclear weapons and makes it clear they are not afraid to use them. In more then one incident they have lunched a preemptive strike against Iraq, Iran and now Syria. They are noted for over kill which has worked well for them in keeping their enemies off guard and wary of moving against them.
Imagine if in your neighborhood there was a neighbor whom owned a shotgun while the rest of you owned a pocket knife. Now there is a neighbor in the next block who 0wns a machine gun and promises to protect the shotgun owner. Whom is promising to protect you from the shotgun owner?
Israel is a warrior nation, it has had to be just to survive in earlier years. Now it is a nuclear nation, with the power to destroy entire countries. Yet it is still a warrior nation and has warrior ways, still hangs the threat of preemptive strike over their neighbors heads but it now has a radioactive emblem on the threat.
The U.S. has become like the best friend of the mean drunk in a bar.
Phantom
Posted May 6, 2008 at 10:50 am | Permalink
Reg. your argument is logically weak. Israel has never used nukes in a pre-emptive strike, thus Israel would never use nukes in a pre-emptive strike.
Iran has not waged a pre-emptive war on its neighbors. But if they had nukes, they would wage a nuclear pre-emptive war.
Hard to follow your reasoning.
Israel can be trusted?
Israel spies on its closest ally.
———————–
Do me a favor Phantom.
Go find the only Western style Democracy in the Middle East that is fully functional. It’s called Israel.
Now, since you have such a great love for Iran, a relgious Muslim state dictated by a council of Islamic Clerics, why don’t you pack up and live in Iran?
if you want to support Iran over Israel, be my guest.
Don’t expect me to further any of your arguments along that cheer on the evil dictatorships of the world.
writerdog
Posted May 6, 2008 at 11:27 am | Permalink
Middle of the road argument, could you understand Iran wanting nukes? Your closest enemy whom has attacked you and your neighbor without being attack by either. Has a stock pile of Nuclear weapons and makes it clear they are not afraid to use them. In more then one incident they have lunched a preemptive strike against Iraq, Iran and now Syria. They are noted for over kill which has worked well for them in keeping their enemies off guard and wary of moving against them.
Imagine if in your neighborhood there was a neighbor whom owned a shotgun while the rest of you owned a pocket knife. Now there is a neighbor in the next block who 0wns a machine gun and promises to protect the shotgun owner. Whom is promising to protect you from the shotgun owner?
Israel is a warrior nation, it has had to be just to survive in earlier years. Now it is a nuclear nation, with the power to destroy entire countries. Yet it is still a warrior nation and has warrior ways, still hangs the threat of preemptive strike over their neighbors heads but it now has a radioactive emblem on the threat.
The U.S. has become like the best friend of the mean drunk in a bar.
—————————–
Or dog, it means that true Democracies succeed and can be trusted to have nuclear weapons for defense.
Calling Israel a ‘mean drunk’ says a lot about your characterization of Israel, the only successful Democracy in the Middle East.
A fan of dictatorships are you?
I would also note that Iran was attacked by a US ally right next door – IRAQ. Remember the US support (’tilt’) for Iraq during that war that the US ally started?
bth
Posted May 6, 2008 at 11:37 am | Permalink
I would also note that Iran was attacked by a US ally right next door – IRAQ. Remember the US support (’tilt’) for Iraq during that war that the US ally started?
——————-
Wrong.
Iraq was never an ally of the United States. Hussein’s reign was merely tolerated and yes the U.S. Helped Iraq against Iran, after what the Iranian Revolutionary Council did to the U.S. in 1978/9.
What is it about Libs and their love affairs with dictatorships?
Regular – it was not ‘libs’ in that meeting between Rumsfield and Saddam. I hated Saddam back then while Reagan was helping arm him.
I swear, the wingnuts of this forum keep attacking like a puppy in a tug-of-war with a hankie. There’s no purpose, there’s no winner, but they keep on growling and snapping.
Jerusalem is a holy city for Muslims. They won’t nuke it. It’d be like nuking Mecca.
The hypothetical — What if Iran nuked Israel? — has as much real-world relevance as if we asked, “What if al Qaeda started sending flying monkeys into combat?”
“Well,” says McBush, “we must immediately give Halliburton a couple of billion dollars to narrow the Flying Monkey gap!” And Hillary will chime in with a funding proposal to train American flying monkeys and that “elitist” Barrack Obama will shake his head and wonder just how foolish Americans can be.
“Attacking first pre-emptively and attacking with nuclear weapons first are two different issues, you are muddying the waters.”
I don’t think these are different items. Israel
started their nation based upon terrorist tactics and waged war to establish their state – in the middle of a land occupied by palistians.
Why? Their independence was at stake.
Israel started the 1967 war with preemptive strike on Eygpt, Jordan, and Syria.
Why? Their independence was at stake?
In 1981 Israel bombed a French built nuclear power plant in Iraq.
In Sept, 2007 Israel bombed a nuclear plant in Syria they said was for making bombs.
Why? Because their security was at stake?
All these cases indicate Israel is willing to strike first in order to protect their security.
Yom Kippur in 1973 proved to Israel that they must always be prepared to attack first. Israel promised never again would they wait to be attacked and declared their RIGHT to preemptive strikes, where their nation is threatened.
Now today, Iran is building a nuclear power plant and is questionably preparing to manufacture nuclear material used soley for the purpose of creating a nuclear bomb. The world provides lip service. The USA, under present leadership, would love to get us involved, but are bogged down in an unpopular wealth draining war in Iraq. In short, there is nothing to stop Iran from proceeding.
Israel has repeatedly been threatened verbally by Iran. Iranian arm shipments to the PLO types is well documented – the deadly foe of Israel.
I don’t think I’m muddying the water.
Israel will not wait to be attacked ever again.
bth
Posted May 6, 2008 at 11:47 am | Permalink
Regular – it was not ‘libs’ in that meeting between Rumsfield and Saddam. I hated Saddam back then while Reagan was helping arm him.
———————-
You know Ben, for a scientist, you have the most befuddled mind when it comes to the realities of the world.
Put aside your hatred of people like Rumsfeld and others on the right for a second. Then start to think clearly about what events in the world had precipitated the events to the Iran/Iraq war.
You are not knowing your history. In 79 the Soviet Union launche a coup d’etat against the Iraqi government.
Before that there was a long dispute about what was Iran and what was Iraq. This goes back to the Ottoman Wars.
History is much more complex than your Rumsfeld hate driven ideological spew there Ben.
Study some history, be informed and understand that not everything duh Libs promote can be put into bumper sticker statements (like the Rumsfeld one) that only invoke rancor and division.
“The hypothetical — What if Iran nuked Israel?”
My point by the above question was not stated. But I believe it would have no impact on my personal daily life if the two nations bombed each other.
No more so than citizens throughout the rest of the world.
We should butt out.
American_Way
Posted May 6, 2008 at 11:58 am | Permalink
“The hypothetical — What if Iran nuked Israel?”
My point by the above question was not stated. But I believe it would have no impact on my personal daily life if the two nations bombed each other.
No more so than citizens throughout the rest of the world.
We should butt out.
——————–
Yeah, a nuked Middle East which supplies most of the world’s oil.
Good thinking there American Way.
I guess all those Americans living in the Middle East that would die would just be their tough luck eh?
American Way, you need to think about what your writing and stop trying to defend an indefensible position of complacency.
It was a dumb, excessive, statement, but one designed to gin up support from the AIPAC etc. types, who are already worried about Obama. You already see some on this thread drooling at the possibility of turning Iran into a smoking hole, so it will probably help her with some voters. And hurt her with others.
She has to a make up a large delegate deficit in a short period of time and, while I think this particular tactic will backfire, I can’t blame her for giving it all she’s got.
P.S. For the record: As an absolute last resort–and even then I’m not sure it’s necessary–we could exercise the Israeli option: a pinpoint air-strike, then get the hell out. Talk of “obliterating” a nation is ugly, inhumane rhetoric, any way you look at it. And unworthy of her.
I guess all those Americans living in the Middle East that would die would just be their tough luck eh?
I thought that was Bush’s idea first.
“Jerusalem is a holy city for Muslims”
Why would Iran be limited to nuking just this city?
“Yeah, a nuked Middle East which supplies most of the world’s oil.”
So you believe ultimately we should be willing to send our men and women to die for oil? If OPEC completely cut us off (not the first time), we should just invade and steal what we need. Japan thought that way too some time ago. We nuked them.
” guess all those Americans living in the Middle East…”
Just like the citizens from ANY nation who are present at the time of a war in that nation. Do we police the world? Besides, when we get involved – we get attacked too. What about all those Americans living in America?
“defend an indefensible position of complacency”
I served this nation in the military for over two decades. I can be a hawk. It is not “indefensible” to abhor war and our involvement throughout our nations history in foreign affairs where our men and now women are killed for causes OTHER than a direct attack on our nation. We can be militarily strong – but stupid drunk with military spending. We can be READY to deploy to every clime and place – without being the aggressor.
Your post indicates there can only be one opinion on the subject matter. That is really sad. This nation blindly sticks up for Israel. They are an ally, but they should not depend upon us for life support.
Since inception we have provided Israel over 100 BILLION (count them) dollars in assistance/aid.
And billions more in military aid and loans, and for the war on terror.
Billions. Yet, we cannot provide healthcare for 12 million at home. Our roads and bridges are crumbling. We are 9 trillion in debt – which our great, great, grandchildren will still be paying off.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/usaid.html
It is only fair in a democracy that we question our involvement in foreign affairs. This isn’t a “lib” thing.
In reality Israel is at best a Middle Eastern concept of Democracy, the people of Israel do not have a Democracy like the U.S. In a sense the difference between a dictatorship and a Democracy is the point of view of those living under it. Member of the Bathis party in Iraq would not have said Saddam was a dictator while the Kurds and Shiite would not have thought of him as anything but a dictator.
Israel treats those that are not Jewish or assigned the term of Israelis much as those do in other Middle eastern countries. Through out the history of the region they are tolerated and at times even treated as a guest. By mean drunk I mean they at times do get their nose bent and look for a fight. They have moved from a small nation whom it would not be in your best interest to be attacking. To one that demands and acts belligerent. They went from the little boy that people learn it is best not to mess with. To the shrimp whom has the biggest boy in class standing behind them and while they bully the rest of their class mates.
That has nothing to do with a Democracy or a Dictatorship, it has to do with the difference between standing up for yourself or being the bully in class.
It’s all talk, people. Wake up. While the President of Iran continues to shoot his mouth off about destroying Israel and the United States, Hillary’s just giving him a dose of his own medicine.
She’s in the running for the highest office in the land – for the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.
Some of you seem to think the purple Barney character would be a better leader. Give me a break.
I LOOOOOOOOOvvvvvveeeeeee Barney! (and he would be a better pres than what we have)
Regular – I know the history – and it does go back long before the Ottomans. Your condescending attitude is rather amusing coonsidering your extreme blindness.
” Hillary’s just giving him a dose of his own medicine.”
Yeah, that’s all our nation needs: A hothead president like the one in Iran.
Billions. Yet, we cannot provide healthcare for 12 million at home. Our roads and bridges are crumbling. We are 9 trillion in debt – which our great, great, grandchildren will still be paying off.
——————–
Let’s try and stay focused okay? We can bring in Indian Treaty Violations, African American Slave reparations and War on drugs if you want, but that’s not the discussion at hand is it?
This nation blindly sticks up for Israel.
Puhleeese…
You need to read some history and understand what has happened in the Middle East.
Your arguments have been irrational thus far, let me know when you get up to the level of mature discussion and stop looking for excuses.
bth
Posted May 6, 2008 at 12:24 pm | Permalink
Regular – I know the history – and it does go back long before the Ottomans. Your condescending attitude is rather amusing coonsidering your extreme blindness
—————–
Fine Ben, then stop using ‘bumper sticker’ arm flailing like “Rumsfeld blah blah” if you truly know the history.
It appears you made a conscious choice with your statement and trying to defend it by backpeddling your stance by intimating I’m condescending about your simplistic use of history.
Try using a reasoned approach to the matter, then perhaps we can discuss the issues in realistic terms instead of ‘bumper sticker’ arm flailing.
“Your arguments have been irrational thus far, let me know when you get up to the level of mature discussion and stop looking for excuses.”
Wow Regular, I’m beginning to understand why some posters have written you off.
Let you in on a little tiny secret. Shhhhh!
(keep this quiet so no one else knows)
Opinions are like assholes – everyone has one and they all stink.
Yours stinks no better nor worse.
writerdog
Posted May 6, 2008 at 12:20 pm | Permalink
In reality Israel is at best a Middle Eastern concept of Democracy, the people of Israel do not have a Democracy like the U.S. In a sense the difference between a dictatorship and a Democracy is the point of view of those living under it. Member of the Bathis party in Iraq would not have said Saddam was a dictator while the Kurds and Shiite would not have thought of him as anything but a dictator.
Israel treats those that are not Jewish or assigned the term of Israelis much as those do in other Middle eastern countries. Through out the history of the region they are tolerated and at times even treated as a guest. By mean drunk I mean they at times do get their nose bent and look for a fight. They have moved from a small nation whom it would not be in your best interest to be attacking. To one that demands and acts belligerent. They went from the little boy that people learn it is best not to mess with. To the shrimp whom has the biggest boy in class standing behind them and while they bully the rest of their class mates.
That has nothing to do with a Democracy or a Dictatorship, it has to do with the difference between standing up for yourself or being the bully in class.
———————————–
You’re sounding pretty much like a Jew hater there dog.
You care to clarify your stance or do you want to continue to use more bar room analogies to further your point?
Yeah, a nuked Middle East which supplies most of the world’s oil.
Good thinking there American Way.
I guess all those Americans living in the Middle East that would die would just be their tough luck eh?
This nation blindly sticks up for Israel.
____________________________________________
So, which side of the fence are you on in this issue, again????
I’m siding with Cap’n on this one. Supposing what reg threw out about supplying most of the world’s oil is actually true (doubt it, but I’m magnanamous–just can’t spell for squat), it isn’t where WE get most of OUR oil from. So it wouldn’t effect US much.
“You’re sounding pretty much like a Jew hater there dog.”
Usually I hear this line from libs – whenever someone disagrees on an issue affecting minorities.
Irregular thinking.
American_Way
Posted May 6, 2008 at 12:30 pm | Permalink
“Your arguments have been irrational thus far, let me know when you get up to the level of mature discussion and stop looking for excuses.”
Wow Regular, I’m beginning to understand why some posters have written you off.
Let you in on a little tiny secret. Shhhhh!
(keep this quiet so no one else knows)
Opinions are like assholes – everyone has one and they all stink.
Yours stinks no better nor worse.
——————–
Not at all American Way. There is an opportunity to explore mature discussion of the subject and not provided excuses for your stance.
If you want to continue to provide excuses for your view, then that’s fine with me. It means that you can’t discuss the region in respect to historical events, realities and international implications.
And of course, you can call me an ass hole if you wish, but it doesn’t change the fact that you haven’t addressed any real issues that have legs to stand up to an argument that has challenges.
People in Israel live everyday with these issues. I have friends in Israel and write to them on occasion. Yes, they get ticked off about their own government was we do ours.
However, the Israelis also know the real history and not the journalistic hype that the agenda driven press perpetuates.
I wonder if the surviving sailors on the USS liberty are pro israel?
“American_Way” suggests –
“We should butt out.”
The key to Osama bin Laden resurrecting al Qaeda was opposition to American female military personnel actually DRIVING in Saudi Arabia! The same nation that hosts Mecca and Medina!!!
Goofy reason for jihad? Yeah. Pretty goofy.
But the underlying reason was how the Saudis and Kuwaitis and other Arab states were permitting “infidels” to maintain armies in “holy” lands.
Just how long do you think the people of, say, Winfield Kansas, would sit back and idly let Libya establish a military base at Strother Field?
The only-est reason Americans are getting killed in Iraq is because Americans are there to shoot at.
And McPain’s answer is to stay there for 100 years?!
“The obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people.” – Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul
If we took the billions of dollars we give away to Israel and instead given it to Mexico, maybe we wouldn’t have a security problem next door.
And our interest lie at home, not protecting biblical Israel. It is time we stop sending our worthless money overseas, and keep it at home. We are a debtor nation.
This is the reality today. It is American history I am concerned about. Not Israeli. But I am again an equal opportunity tightwad. I’d cut off all foreign aid. Israel sticks out because they get a huge portion of it, and have since inception.
Yeah, that’s all our nation needs: A hothead president like the one in Iran.
Yet people ate that melodramatic crap up with spoon after 9-11 or, for that matter, after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. In both instances, pop and junior took a dangerous situation and turned into a cartoonish crusade. And we are worse for it.
The Bush family will be rememembered with contempt by history.
“People in Israel live everyday with these issues.”
Again, not my problem. I’m concerned about American issues.
“Yet people ate that melodramatic crap up with spoon after 9-11″
I don’t recall Bush ever threatening to nuke another nation, during his campaign.
RE:”TomPaine
Posted May 6, 2008 at 12:38 pm | Permalink
I wonder if the surviving sailors on the USS liberty are pro israel?”
Good point- that attack should have been the date of the last Foreign Aid payment ever to Israel.
We need friends like that!
American_Way
Posted May 6, 2008 at 12:46 pm | Permalink
If we took the billions of dollars we give away to Israel and instead given it to Mexico, maybe we wouldn’t have a security problem next door.
And our interest lie at home, not protecting biblical Israel. It is time we stop sending our worthless money overseas, and keep it at home. We are a debtor nation.
This is the reality today. It is American history I am concerned about. Not Israeli. But I am again an equal opportunity tightwad. I’d cut off all foreign aid. Israel sticks out because they get a huge portion of it, and have since inception.
———————–
We already give Mexico billions in foreign aid, fighting drug cartels and in the 1990s the U.S. bailed Mexico out in their IMF fiasco.
Egypt used to be the number two in receiving foreign aid, I’m sure they have been bumped down since the Iraq war.
But again, you’re arguing about everything but what we originally disagreed upon.
I’m guessing you are surrendering your stance, since you can’t appear to defend it.
With pleasure, see I do not see Israel in the terms of religion they could be Jehovah witnesses and still act that way. Israel is a nation nothing more and nothing less, their religion is simply a practice that is of their choosing. The really stupid thing about picking a religious war between one major religion or another is.
ALL major religion worship the same God! Be it Jewish, Moslem or Christian they all worship the God of Abraham. So the fight is not over who’s God is right or wrong, over who’s God is the only God.
It boils down to which direction you face or which knee you bend. Put in that context and to quote “And Jesus weeps”.
To put it simply, the Israelis do not act the way they do because of being Jewish, that act the way they do because they are Israelis.
The whole CUFI idea is to use Israel to trigger Armageddon and thus bring about the Second Coming. In my view this is not really any different from Ahmadenijad’s “to bring forth the 12th Imam” craziness. CUFI also figures to sacrifice Israel on the alter of their end-times theology.
USS Liberty:
Nice try Libs. The United States had admitted to their error being in a war zone in the 1967 War when the incident occurred. Even so, the Israelis apologized for the mistaken identity(they thought the Liberty was an Egyptian cruiser) and has made reparations to the family.
Or do the Libs leave things out like apologies and reparations when they try to re-invent history?
Surrendering? Hell no. Just attacking in another direction.
(bored with arguing with you. we disagree on this)
On July 16, I attended Christians United for Israel’s annual Washington-Israel Summit. Founded by San Antonio-based megachurch pastor John Hagee, CUFI has added the grassroots muscle of the Christian right to the already potent Israel lobby. Hagee and his minions have forged close ties with the Bush White House and members of Congress from Sen. Joseph Lieberman to Sen. John McCain. In its call for a unilateral military attack on Iran and the expansion of Israeli territory, CUFI has found unwavering encouragement from traditional pro-Israel groups like AIPAC and elements of the Israeli government.
But CUFI has an ulterior agenda: its support for Israel derives from the belief of Hagee and his flock that Jesus will return to Jerusalem after the battle of Armageddon and cleanse the earth of evil. In the end, all the non-believers – Jews, Muslims, Hindus, mainline Christians, etc. – must convert or suffer the torture of eternal damnation. Over a dozen CUFI members eagerly revealed to me their excitement at the prospect of Armageddon occurring tomorrow. Among the rapture ready was Republican Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. None of this seemed to matter to Lieberman, who delivered a long sermon hailing Hagee as nothing less than a modern-day Moses. Lieberman went on to describe Hagee’s flock as “even greater than the multitude Moses commanded.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/rapture-ready-the-unauth_b_57826.html
American_Way
Posted May 6, 2008 at 12:58 pm | Permalink
Surrendering? Hell no. Just attacking in another direction.
(bored with arguing with you. we disagree on this)
————————–
Sorry if you mistook me for being a “yes man” American Way. I will argue with anyone on a subject where I find them making erroneous statements.
But since you think I’m an asshole because I called you out and have already branded me as a contemptible, you have to live with your description of me.
I know who I am and know the basis of my arguments. I don’t make it up on the fly, I actually study history and draw conclusions based on those events.
The USS Liberty was a spy ship. It was most likely where it was – in support of Israel. At the time, we were in a bitter cold war and the Soviet Union was backing the other side.
Great pains were taken by the US to avoid a direct conflict with the USSR over the middle east, including deniability when necessary.
Was it a cover-up on the Liberty?
“The conclusions reached in these reports remain controversial, and some veterans and intelligence officials who were involved in the incident continue to dispute the official story”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
Never called you an asshole. I said everyone has one. Again, you focus on something other than the issue.
Your opinion is no better than anyone else’s.
I didn’t take you one way or the other.
I don’t recall Bush ever threatening to nuke another nation, during his campaign.
Nope. He just bombastically and cartoonishly declared an endless war against no one in particular. And then rushed to invade Afganistan, using incediary rhetoric almost the entire time. And then lied the nation into an entirely unnecessary invasion of Iraq.
So I stand corrected. Oh, except Hillary didn’t say anything about using nukes.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/u_s_vows_to_defeat_whoever_it_is
Regular- Regarding the US Liberty- you are parroting the company line. There is plenty of information out there; go see what the actual crew members of the ship had to say about the repeated attacks in CAVU conditions by Israeli forces. First, I suggest you open up your mind before undertaking this endeavor.
P.S. I’m aware you were speaking of Iran’s president (weren’t you?), but I don’t believe his statements were made during his re-election campaign.
bth
Posted May 6, 2008 at 1:03 pm | Permalink
Was it a cover-up on the Liberty?
“The conclusions reached in these reports remain controversial, and some veterans and intelligence officials who were involved in the incident continue to dispute the official story”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
————————
Ben,
The Liberty incident is taught in War Colleges and Battle Seminars as a classic example of communication failure.
As I recall, the U.S. had sent out a signal that “no U.S. ships were withint 300 nautical miles of the area.” This turned out to be false.
Also, under foggy recollection, “The message confirming the identity of the U.S. Warship Liberty, was not passed on to the ‘troops in the field;”
It was a classic “fog of war” incident and is taught to the military what can happen if your communications are imprecise, delayed or confusing.
gster
Posted May 6, 2008 at 1:06 pm | Permalink
Regular- Regarding the US Liberty- you are parroting the company line. There is plenty of information out there; go see what the actual crew members of the ship had to say about the repeated attacks in CAVU conditions by Israeli forces. First, I suggest you open up your mind before undertaking this endeavor.
——————–
I already addressed this to Ben previously.
This incident is taught in ’spades’ throughout the military. It is a classic communication snafu. There were so many screw ups during that episode, it was a tragedy of epic proportions.
It’s not ‘cut and dried’ as you Libs tend to indicate.
The military uses the Liberty incident as a teaching tool of what not to do with communications.
I am guessing that AmWay will get his neocon badge revoked, if he every had one, after his fine posts today.
American_Way
Posted May 6, 2008 at 12:30 pm | Permalink
“Your arguments have been irrational thus far, let me know when you get up to the level of mature discussion and stop looking for excuses.”
Wow Regular, I’m beginning to understand why some posters have written you off.
Let you in on a little tiny secret. Shhhhh!
(keep this quiet so no one else knows)
Opinions are like assholes – everyone has one and they all stink.
Yours stinks no better nor worse.
———————————-
But you did mean what you wrote above didn’t you?
Since you couldn’t argue the issue, you went on the attack.
I don’t expect an apology, wouldn’t want you set aside your misguided pride.
:It’s not ‘cut and dried’ as you Libs tend to indicate.”
How does anger about the attack on an American ship become a Parisian concern?
PS- If you are referring to me, I’m a registered Independent.
I am guessing that AmWay will get his neocon badge revoked, if he every had one, after his fine posts today.
Yeah, funny thing, when people who are presumed to think in lockstep turn out to be individuals.
gster
Posted May 6, 2008 at 1:22 pm | Permalink
:It’s not ‘cut and dried’ as you Libs tend to indicate.”
How does anger about the attack on an American ship become a Parisian concern?
PS- If you are referring to me, I’m a registered Independent.
————————-
Ah, an independent.
Say, tell me…
Do you or Rage get splinters from straddling that fence? :)
Dang Ben, that’s some scary stuff!
Regular – More troll BS and no answer.
Troll over.
Once again, the “experts” on military issues beat their chests. Writing checks and somehow thinking that the troops can cash them. I wish you would listen to the more than 75 Generals (retired and active duty) telling you folks every day that the Military is being stretched too thin. Dubya made his mistakes, damn his stupidity, but that milk has already been spilled. But if you want to put something else on the Military’s plate, then you can march your happy little keester over to the nearest Recruiting Battalion, take the ASVAB, Visit the MEPS and ENLIST LIKE I DID. But then, that is just MY humble opinion.
Do you or Rage get splinters from straddling that fence?
I know I shouldn’t respond (sorry, folks), but I’ll answer that: I’m not straddling any fence. My disillusionment with the Democratic party is well-known here, but the current Republican party has become the servant of pretty much everything evil.
CF2K has said it much better than I can.
WichiWomn – and remember, John McCain sings their theme song – “Bomb Iran”
Clinton Defends Statement about “Obliterating” Iran
In campaign news, Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton spent the weekend campaigning in North Carolina and Indiana ahead of Tuesday’s primary. On Sunday, the candidates appeared simultaneously on competing news shows. On ABC’s This Week, Clinton was asked if she had any regrets over her recent threat to “totally obliterate” Iran if it attacks Israel with nuclear weapons.
Sen. Hillary Clinton: “Why would I have any regrets? I’m asked a question about what I would do if Iran attacked our ally, a country that many of us have a great deal of, you know, connection with and feeling for, for all kinds of reasons. And, yes, we would have massive retaliation against Iran.”
Appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press, Senator Obama said the US should defend Israel after any attack, but he criticized Clinton’s rhetoric.
Sen. Barack Obama: “Well, it’s not the language that we need right now, and I think it’s language that’s reflective of George Bush. We have had a foreign policy of bluster and saber-rattling and tough talk, and in the meantime, we make a series of strategic decisions that actually strengthen Iran.”
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/5/headlines
Report: Bush Authorizes Covert Offensive Against Iran
The website CounterPunch is reporting President Bush has signed a secret finding authorizing a covert offensive against the Iranian regime. Bush’s secret directive covers actions from Lebanon to Afghanistan. Journalist Andrew Cockburn reports the directive is “unprecedented in its scope” and permits the assassination of targeted officials.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/5/headlines
Rage, I have yet to be truly inspired by either party or candidate still in the running. Kermit the Frog anyone?
To all of you who HAVE served before. Disregard. But I wish you would rethink. Just make sure our country isn’t screwing the soldiers.
testing
3 Trackbacks
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
[...] Randy Scholfield wrote an interesting post today on Clintonâ??s overkill on IranHere’s a quick excerptHillary Clinton’s vow to “obliterate” Iran if that country uses nuclear weapons against Israel ignores a key point, according to MSNBC: Israel has the sixth-largest arsenal of nuclear weapons on the planet. It’s capable of obliterating … [...]
[...] george wrote an interesting post today on Comment on Clintonâ??s overkill on Iran by georgeHere’s a quick excerptWhat’s the saying speak softly and carry a big stick. No Hillary care. [...]