Obama Can Stop Israel from Attacking Iran
It's not too late to prevent another war in the Middle East.
Israel's highest officials tell American journalists their air force may attack Iran's nuclear facilities this spring, although Israeli and American intelligence agencies say the Islamic republic has no plan to build a bomb.
The officials might be bluffing, but the threats pose a problem for the Obama administration. In recent weeks there has been much in-person contact between the governments. U.S. officials have reportedly asked Israel to give harsh economic sanctions (and perhaps covert warfare) a chance to take effect.
The problem is that an attack could bring Iranian retaliation against American military forces in the region, including Afghanistan, wreak havoc with the U.S. economy if Iran closes or mines the Strait of Hormuz (through which much oil passes daily), and create pressure for U.S. intervention if Iran strikes Israel.
The Obama administration appears unenthusiastic about a war with Iran in this election year. An oil disruption would shake the fragile economy and jeopardize President Obama's reelection. The administration seems to be betting that the American people are war-weary, which explains its announcement of an ahead-of-schedule mid-2013 combat troop drawdown from Afghanistan. Obama is taking flak from Republicans for declaring that deadline, but his political strategists surely have calculated that more voters will be relieved than concerned.
Seen in that light, war with Iran is the last thing Obama would want this year.
But there is a complication: Israel and its powerful American lobby. Israel's political leaders, though apparently not its military and intelligence chiefs, want to bomb Iran, not because they fear an attack should it acquire a nuke—which would be suicidal for Iran, since Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons—but rather because Iran, now close to Iraq thanks to the U.S. regime change there, could inhibit Israel's ability to have its way with its neighbors and the long-suffering, occupied Palestinians, especially in the blockaded Gaza Strip.
Obama's political problem is that it would be ill-advised, particularly in an election year, for an American president to be at odds with the Israeli government and its lobby here, which is pushing Congress to adopt the harshest measures against Iran's economy.
Thus Obama can't openly tell the Israelis not to strike Iran, though his subordinates are doing this behind the scenes. Reporter Gareth Porter has disclosed that
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey told Israeli leaders Jan. 20 that the United States would not participate in a war against Iran begun by Israel without prior agreement from Washington. …
But the Israeli government remains defiant about maintaining its freedom of action to make war on Iran, and it is counting on the influence of right-wing extremist views in U.S. politics to bring pressure to bear on Obama to fall into line with a possible Israeli attack during the election campaign this fall.
The big questions are (1) Does Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu think this warning is a bluff? and (2) What would Obama do if the prime minister calls it? In other words, if Israel strikes Iran in April or May and Iran retaliates against Israel, would Obama stick to his word and stay out? Or would he try avoid the Israel lobby's and Republicans' inevitable charges of "appeasement" by intervening?
It would take courage hitherto uncharacteristic of this president to withstand that pressure and stay out.
An important consideration in all this is the widely held assessment that Israel alone couldn't do enough damage to Iran's nuclear facilities, major parts of which are deep underground. As The Washington Post's David Ignatius reports, "The Israelis are said to recognize that damage to the nuclear program might be modest, requiring another strike in a few years."
So while Israel insists on its freedom of action, it realizes it would need America's help. This means that the Obama administration holds the upper hand: It is in a position to stop Israel from igniting a catastrophic war in the Middle East simply by declaring publicly that it will not back Netanyahu if he orders an attack—or covertly provokes Iran into firing the first shot.
Americans who oppose war with Iran can best serve peace by demanding that Obama make such a declaration.
Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Va., and author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State. This article originally appeared at The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
They light the match and we fight the fire. Great plan.
We got the bottle, you got the cup, come on everybody, let's get fffff...
looking for the bilover?---datebi*cO'm--- is a site for bisexual and bicurious singles and friends.Here you can find hundreds of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality.sign up for free.
"
http://in-other-news.com/2012/.....ed-in-Iran
Obama has already started more wars than Bush! (and in half the time, too!)
We didn't start the fire!
No we didn't light it!
But we tried to fight it!
I'm not sure the plan isn't to let them fight it out.
Ethan: "Just let the animals wipe each other out?!?"
Denzel: "God willing!"
Poor Iran. 🙁
Israel is like the cop who yells "Stop resisting!" as he beats on an unconscious suspect.
Israel is more like a civilized country backed into a corner by a horde of red-eyed, bloodthirsty savages. If they kick the shit out of every one of their neighbors I would cheer and send 'em cash to buy more bullets.
It's too bad the both couldn't lose.
^THIS^
I fully support you sending all your money to Israel. I am against you sending one dime of tax money though. It is not the job of the US to defend any other nation.
Let's say you did precisely that. Let's say you sent money to rebels in Syria or Lybia or South Sudan. How long before you're at Guant?namo?
Not to Godwin, but you'd have been down with watching the Nazis march into London if only US aid could have prevented it?
"Not to Godwin..." followed by the stupidest fallacy this side of Huffington Post. How many countries has Iran invaded?
He was making a blanket statement, not one limited to Iran.
Ahistorical nonsense. When the Germans had the English at their mercy we were not in any position to do a damn thing about it. The Germans did not deliver the coup de grace. It was never their intent to do anything more than was necessary to neutralize the British from being a factor in what they viewed as the real conflict coming in the East.
Now would I have been down with the mutual assured destruction of both fascist and communist forces as Stalingrad whittling both sides down to a non threat to anyone? Who wouldn't but a bunch of commie Democrats in a Roosevelt administration.
Ahistorical nonsense.
Notice the "if" in my question.
Notice the "if" in my question.
In that instance, I have to agreeyou would have a strong case that it would be in our interest, and I don't see why a declaration of war should not be put up to vote in that instance.
"The Germans did not deliver the coup de grace."
The British Navy, the problems of launching a cross channel invasion (something that took the largest invasion fleet in history to that point just four years later), the lack of German intelligence showing just how weak Britain was in the summer of 1940 had nothing to do with it. Nope it was just the kindness of the Germans' hearts that did it.
Good fucking God where does this shit come from.
I did not accuse them of kindness, you idiot. It was not a sound investment of their time in either the short or long run. At least Night Hawk got that and that is what I was curious about, why would he push a counter history that had no realistic bounds, but you are always going to try to make something out of what is not there.
As for where does this 'shit' come from. Read actual history and not just thrillers that skip over the details that would kill a plotline and you will eventually figure this stuff out.
You clearly don't read actual history. Let me guess, your favorite author is David Irving?
The real history is that Hitler would have loved to have conquered Britain and turned it into a fascist satellite. He thought that British Fascists would do the job for him like they did in Austria. That turned out not to be true. And he didn't have the capability to invade. Hitler wanted Britain fascist. He didn't want to neutralize it. That is just fantasy horseshit.
True that he was an Anglophile in his own way who wanted the British on his side as fascist brothers in arms, there are enough independent collaborations for that view to hold up, but none of his generals shared that belief as a visible one. Neutralization was the only sound goal available, and that is exactly the plan they implemented. Hence the rockets.
At least Night Hawk got that and that is what I was curious about, why would he push a counter history that had no realistic bounds, but you are always going to try to make something out of what is not there.
Again, see the "if" in my question.
I'm not pushing a counter-history. I was asking if, even in the case of a multi-century ally being overrun by totalitarian perpetrators of genocide, we should not "defend any other nation."
See above.
Killazontherun|2.8.12 @ 12:45PM|#
Yeah, we cross posted. We're in agreement on the hypothetical. I think there's a strong case to get a declaration of war to defend England.
You are correct, or more accurately, to state 'the US should never defend any other nation' is incorrect.
First, as a broad statement of strategy, one never limits ones actions, but even specifically in foreign policy, we would have numerous reasons to spend blood and treasure protecting others.
Now in each case, I would expect US interests to be the motivating factor, and I am not saying that that any given war was for good reasons.
I'm only saying that, unless we knew, which we cannot, that we would be forever and ever more powerful militarily than almost the entire world combined, we will have incentive to help other countries in various alliances for sake of common defense alone.
Hooray for Pallywood!
Given the history of various Islamic and/or Arabic Nations with Israel, I find Montani Semper Liberl's comment offensive. He has the right to make it, mind, but I have the right to announce that I think he's bought a load of goods.
As for "starting another war in the Middle East", I think that a strong case can be made that this would be a continuation of a war that has bee fought off and on since May 15, 1948. On balance the Arab/Islamic forces have been responsible for initiation of force more often than not. And on balance the Arab/Islamic forces have done the lion's share of the whining. Further, anyone who takes Iran's word on anything is in urgent need of medication.
It is totally offensive. Why Libertarians seem to always give murderous theocratic dictatorships the benefit of the doubt over a westernized democracy like Israel is beyond me. But they do. During the last war in Lebanon Reason and Dave Weigel in particular practicably put on skirts and pom poms cheering for Hezbollah.
A free market libertarian would be justified in not being a fan of a corporation that would not exist without billions of dollars in federal subsidies, right?
Why then are libertarians horrible people for not being fans of a corporation foreign government that would not exist without billions of dollars in federal subsidies foreign aid?
So you hate Europe and Japan too? Odd how Israel seems to be the only country that standard, or any standard is ever applied to.
not fan != hate
Not to John or the other neocon lurkers here. Anything less than unflagging, unquestioning support for anything Israel does or the US does on its behalf is akin to being a skinhead.
When was the last time you saw a libertarian praising our military bases in Europe and Japan?
If I am not mistaken most libertarians would like to see ALL foreign aid end. Not just Israel.
I also don't see Japan or Europe talking about launching air strikes against their neighbors.
Hurrrrr! Maybe because our neighbors aren't threatening to annihilate us, herp derp!
For now.
Do you see their neighbors talking about wiping them off the face of the earth?
Do you see their neighbors talking about wiping them off the face of the earth?
Empty threats are empty.
So are empty comments.
How are Israel's neighbors going to "wipe them off the face of the earth"?
Seriously.
Israel's got nukes and better conventional war machines than their neighbors.
What are they going to do?
Get nuked first?
How many nukes would it take to end Israel as a going concern?
Does Israel have the same kind of nuclear infrastructure -- in size, geographical diversity, and deployment diversity -- that, say, the US has such that MAD would be a viable deterrent for a rational actor, let alone an irrational one?
It's possible that no one who wants to destroy Israel has nukes and it is possible, I suppose, that they never will. However, to imply that Japan has the same kinds of defense concerns that Israel does is just dishonest.
Not many - 2 or 3?
In the geography of your imagination I'm curious as to where you place North Korea.
During the cold war, we knew with some accuracy the capabilities of the Soviet Union. It was their intent that concerned us most. Israel faces the opposite problem. They know Iran's intent with 100% certainty. It's Iran's capability that concerns them the most.
According to officials high in the Israeli government, Iran's capability most certainly does NOT concern that much at this juncture.
No, but I do see Israel pushing mistranslations of statements made by Iran's leaders.
In the case of Japan and South Korea, yes.
If I am not mistaken most libertarians would like to see ALL foreign aid end. Not just Israel.
THIS
But everyone and their mother immediately comes up with the response "but why you hate Israel?!?"
It's not our fucking job to ensure the safety of another nation just because 6 million of them died 70 years ago.
It isn't our job either to prevent Israel from attacking Iran!
Quibble: 6 million European Jews died 70 years ago. There weren't ANY Israelis that long ago.
Sorry. This is a cop-out. Foreign aid is a legitimate tool of diplomacy and advancing our national interests. At least be honest enough to argue why it's not worth it to send Israel $6 billion a year to help advance American goals in the region.
By the way, I think the US is less concerned about the 6 million who died 70 years ago and the 6 million who could die next year. Wouldn't you agree that if we have the means and opportunity to help prevent that outcome, it would be wrong not to for the sake of a dogmatic attachment to 'no foreign aid'?
Isn't it pretty a standard libertarian stance that Europe could not afford their massive social safety net if the US military didn't provide their defense?
Your straw man needs a blow job.
Go suck it.
Isn't it pretty a standard libertarian stance that Europe could not afford their massive social safety net if the US military didn't provide their defense?
For the past thousand years most of Europe's wars have been against... well, Europe. Unless Tel Aviv's finest launches an attack on Jerusalem's bravest, Israel is not going to experience a similar situation.
I'm amazed how indebted Japan is, considering we've been covering their entire military protection since the war.
The US gives billions in aid to European countries and Japan?
Yes. We pretty much have defended them for the last 70 years. I think that counts as aid. And a hell of a lot more aid than we gave Israel.
Fine. Let's end that, too.
Yes, America gives billions and billions of dollars to Europe and Japan, especially when you factor in defense. Ever heard of this thing called the Marshall Plan?
The Marshall Plan is still going? Huh.
The Marshall Plan is still going? Huh.
Until we stop making payments on the national debt, yup.
Egypt is the number two recipient of US foreign aid, behind Israel.
Why Libertarians seem to always give murderous theocratic dictatorships the benefit of the doubt over a westernized democracy like Israel is beyond me. But they do.
This usually lefitst behavior. When the left engages in it, it's usually based on a few things:
(1) They believe these murderous regimes are only murderous because of our policies. If we simply changed policy X, the entire world would spontaneously breakout into kumbaya.
(2) They secretly sympathize with the ideology put forth by said leaders. This is still seen in the modern day where the left views equivalent dictators different based on ideology (Castro, Pinochet).
(3) PC, this is a racial angle to (1) above. Non-whites can only engage in evil with the assistance of whites. To proclaim otherwise would be racist, just as it would be to declare that a race (except if it's white) has a inherent race-based disposition to be violent.
I think a lot of libertarians get infected with that thinking and it drives me nuts. It is one thing to be an isolationist. It is another thing not to recognize evil.
I should add that it's also a leftist inclination to treat dictators and their opposers as faceless pawns with the same value. Even though we know who the good guys are and who they are not, we still must treat them all as good.
It usually comes from agreeing with the ideology of the oppressor and hence having to defend his every action.
A lot of Libertarians view the Big Bad US Government as the worst thing and blind themselves to even bigger (relative terms) and far badder governments out there.
Yes, and that is very leftist behavior; not the ideal thing to mimic.
Yep, and you, John, and Cytotoxic (sorry if I offended anyone by leaving them off the list) are engaging in very neo-conservative behavior. Not the ideal thing to mimic, either.
Yeah, that was an MSNBC-level echo chamber they had going for a minute, there. Astounding lack of self-awareness.
You mean I am an aging former leftist Jewish guy? That will come as a hell of surprise to my parents.
Or you, when you confront them with it and they admit it. Won't that be a fun time?
Neocon behavior being anything I disapprove of and can be showhorned into that definition of course.
The real yet minimal threats posed by foreign dictators is far less than the real and significant threats posed by American politicians.
I fully expect Iranian libertarians to worry about their own government while I (an American) will worry about mine.
NDAA was not created by an Islamic tyrant. An Islamic tyrant doesn't rub my balls before I get on a plane. An Islamic tyrant doesn't throw me in a cage for lighting up an herbal cigarette. An Islamic tyrant doesn't steal tens of thousands of dollars of my income each and every motherfucking year.
But yeah, the one-and-only threat to my well-being is Islamic tyrants on the other side of the world.
Derp Herp Neo Herp Con Derp.
Point (1) It is actually true. I wouldn't say that kumbaya will break out after 80 years of messing with these people. But no doubt, our policy of funding Israel and offering military support is why these regimes are against us at all. If not, it would be like other places in Africa which we don't care about.
We should STOP sending Israel $5billion per year. We should STOP offering military SUPPORT. Let Israel resolve it however they see it fit and face the consequences of there actions. What do I have to do with Israel? Why should I pay to support any country?
And then there are the neocons, who are all about sending other people to blow up anything and everything to stop anyone from seeing their tiny little microphalluses.
Must we stop at no expense to ensure we see every government in the world as absolutely equivalent to every other?
Is the "neo-con" group the only ones that can make the good/bad guy differentiation?
And just because one makes that differentiation, does that mean they want the bomb the bad side of the equation?
Have I finished explaining all the non-sequiters in question form?
Re: J_L_B,
For me, it's an economic decision. If we have free trade with everyone, we can sell everyone more shit, and buy more shit from them. This increased production at home and encourages economic activity abroad; bringing us more of the cheap shit we all love even cheaper.
Also, as evidenced with our China relations, free trade appears to help other nations drift away from socialist/communist economic and social systems. At least, more so than any war I've seen lately.
Precisely. Rational actors in this global society stand to profit much more from a lack of war than any war would ever produce.
One may have to play by certain rules that society sets and can enforce as a price of admission, but the benefits for being a global player far outweigh the costs of refusing certain rules (so far and for now).
During the last war in Lebanon Reason and Dave Weigel in particular practicably put on skirts and pom poms cheering for Hezbollah.
Remember, Weigel isn't a libertarian, he's a left-wing concern trolling piece of shit who tried pretending that he was a libertarian and even a "conservative" for a little while.
True American libertarians don't give much a crap about foreign wars that don't involve the U.S.
I'll have you know that I am first and foremost a Proactiv enthusiast.
I'll have you know that I am first and foremost a Proactiv enthusiast dead dog's rotting asshole.
I can't speak for "Libertarians", but I at least try not to give either side the benefit of the doubt. I think that on balance, Israel is less fucked than their adversaries, but I don't see any good guy in the conflict. Though I will say (even though I think that war with Iran woudl be a really bad idea for the US) that Iran is all bad as far as it's policy on Israel. Jordan, Syria, Egypt and the Occupied Territories might have a legitimate grievance with Israel, but Iran does not.
While Israel is a western style democracy, it is also full of religious fanatics who think that they are God's chosen people and have the right to take land from anyone who stands in their way. Until they get that shit settled, and stop the settlements, there is no good guy in the conflict.
Pretty much ^^^THIS.
Plus, who let all the neo-cons loose?
Exactly. The problem is too many people have this dualist view of the world. Israel = Good, Iran = Evil. The truth is much more complicated than that, especially when you consider a lot of the citizens in Iran who embrace tolerance and desire freedom, and also consider the number of Israel's who covet their neighbors land and are willing to take it by force. If you want to say Iran is more evil than Israel or even much more evil then ok fine, make that argument. However, you could also argue that the BTK killer is much more evil than Charles Manson, but that doesn't mean that if they're in a prison fight, I'm jumping in to help either. Though I might sell them both high quality shanks manufactured by Asian gangs for some commissary.
but that doesn't mean that if they're in a prison fight, I'm jumping in to help either. Though I might sell them both high quality shanks manufactured by Asian gangs for some commissary.
I like your way of thinking. Ever since the first Gulf War, I've had a little fantasy alternative history playing in my head. In this version, instead of letting Maggie push him around, George Herbert gives her his classic annoyed snarl, gets on his phone in front of her, and calls Saddam up, and asks him, 'Hey Saddam, the Kuwaitis were selling oil to us at $22 dollars a barrel (those were the days!), I understand that you are now in a position to make us a better offer.'
Consider that the State of Israel was created through the international equivalent of eminent domain.
Remind me what the position of libertarians is on that one?
Consider that it was an act of self defense because Palestinian Arabs couldn't restrain themselves from ransacking Palestinian Jews.
Remind me what the libertarian position on self defense is again?
The UN creating the State of Israel because Europe attempted to exterminate Jews was an act of self-defense?
That's a stretch.
It was the Jews who created the state of Israel after their Arab neighbors insisted on constantly attacking them. The UN merely recognized them as a sovereign state but never so much as lifted a fucking finger to help them. Learn 2 history, n00b.
Replace UN with League of Nations and the British through the Balfour Declaration and it's more correct. The LoN granted the British the Mandate over Palestine. Ben Gurion then declared independence after trying to tell the Brits to fuck off.
Israel was essentially created via post WWI colonialism enabled by an international organization, which is analogous to eminent domain.
You mean when the Brits threw their hands up and admitted that they couldn't stop the Arabs from attacking the Jews at every turn?
Maybe this doesn't apply to you, I dunno, but I find it very peculiar how many libertarians are totally cool with virtually unlimited Hispanic immigration (legal or otherwise) to the U.S. and meet any expression of concern with a mocking "Dey tuk ur jawbz!" who manage to simultaneously hold the position that the Palestinian Jews (many of whom were immigrants - legal or otherwise - but many of whom had been there all along) were interlopers who had no business being in Palestine and should have gladly shut up and been slaughtered by such a fine folk as the Palestinian Arabs (many of whom were also immigrants - legal or otherwise).
Jeff,
If you think Jews created Israel out of thin air, without the aid and weight of all the major players at the time, you're a GRade-A fucking retard.
"Remind me what the libertarian position on self defense is again?"
For sure, it's not having the government seize the entire neighborhood of the guy that attacked you, bombing his neighbors to death and sending the survivors to refugee camps.
I'm pretty sure it's a common practice in war to deprive your enemies of the territory they're using to attack you.
Besides, didn't the Palestinian Arabs voluntarily evacuate so that the arrayed forces of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Sudan, etc., etc., could go full bore in their slaughter of the Jews without harming their Arab brethren? Why, I believe they did! I'm sorry if that didn't work out so swimmingly for them.
Did any of you bozos hear of the USS Liberty???
David Weigel is a piece of used dog shit.
Used dog shit? What was it used for?
although Israeli and American intelligence agencies say the Islamic republic has no plan to build a bomb.
Can we have a citation for that?
In presenting the intelligence community's annual "Worldwide Threat Assessment" to the Senate Committee on Intelligence on January 31, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper used language identical to that used in recent years on a number of critical points:
* We continue to assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.
* Iran has the scientific, technical, and industrial capacity to eventually produce nuclear weapons, making the central issue its political will to do so. These [technical] advancements contribute to our judgment that Iran is technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon, if it so chooses.
* We judge Iran's nuclear decision making is guided by a cost-benefit approach, which offers the international community opportunities to influence Tehran.
http://armscontrolnow.org/2012.....-the-same/
That seems to be saying the probably can but we don't know if they will. That is a long ways from saying they have no plan. Why does Reason continually repeat this lie?
How dare you report facts contrary to The Narrative! You are officially BushHittler Wartroll Neocon pig.
Using your argument, we should arrest all women for being prostitutes. After all they probably can, but we don't know if they will.
Leon Panetta, Jan. 8, Face The Nation: "Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they're trying to develop a nuclear capability. And that's what concerns us."
Well yeah, I guess technically one cannot have a weapon's program until one builds the capabilities to have a weapon's program.
While I fervently opposed the Iraq war and I don't see any particular reason for us to go to war with Iran, I'd have to say that Obama should just keep his mouth shut on this one, if nothing else for his own sake.
Interference against Israel would simply be seen as appeasement to radical Islam. Actively supporting an Israeli strike on Iran would be viewed by many as morally wrong.
Can someone remind me which prez candidate wouldnt get us involved in this bullshit?
There isn't one because amazingly enough our enemies get to decide if we go to war or not. I wish Ron Paul would win for no other reason than the educational value to his supporters of watching events drive him to do things as President he would never have supported as a candidate.
John, could you come up to the blackboard and solve this...oh wait, you have a war boner. Just stay in your seat.
Whatever gets you through the night there Epi. If we would only elect Ron Paul all of our enemies would love us and the world would be a peaceful happy place.
It is amazing you guys don't have creepy Hope posters.
I wasn't aware that I had endorsed Ron Paul as the solution to all of our problems, but you go on making shit up like always. Your arguments are as cogent and war boner-y as usual.
So when Iran attacks the US in response to an Israeli attack what would a President Paul do? Attack Israel?
Why do you guys have such a hard time understanding that our enemies get a vote about war too?
Well, golly, I sure am afraid of that massive Iranian carrier group stationed off of Puget Sound!
You're a jingoistic moron, John.
So if they don't hit your house, they can't attack? That makes sense. It is so much more persuasive when you use the word boner.
How about their subs in the Persian Gulf? Or would attacking US naval vessels not be attacking the US?
They didn't need a massive carrier group for Khobar Towers. Your strawman's on fire.
Khobar Towers was on a US military base where it didn't belong!
So when Iran attacks the US
Define "attacks".
I don't recall anyone here saying that if Iran attacked the US that we should not retaliate. The question was that if Israel attacked Iran, should we jump into their war. The answer is no we should not. If you are correct and Iran does attack US FIRST than I have no problem taking care of business.
What AJB said.
JB,
That is what I am saying. And that is why I am really pessimistic about this. You guys think I think this is a good thing. It is not. It sucks. But I feel like events are quickly spiraling out of control and are going to end really badly.
I frankly feel very sick about the future. We are going to war with Iran and it will probably be some kind of wider fucked up conflagration that involves God knows who. I am about as positive about the future right now as the robot in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.
I think our leadership needs to make it clear that the cost to them would be unacceptable to them. Start talking about taking out the supreme council and see what that does to their attitude. At the end of day I think the mullahs are cowards at heart.
Hmm, I don't know: how about not giving Israel (and Egypt) a shit load of arms for free? How about not letting them fly their strike over Iraq or the Gulf? How about not providing tanker support for them, since I don't think they have endogenous tankers and they ain't flying 900 nm+ to the middle of Iran and back without them?
Again, why is it that we are O.K. with Pakistan having nukes, when they are actively providing sanctuary and arms to people shooting at us, and their government is roughly as stable as Demi Moore on a nitrous binge, yet Iran possibly getting them is OMG! Bomb them now!? Hell, when are we striking North Korea's nuclear sites?
Israel does bring a lot of this shit on themselves, due to their treating the non-Jewish minority in a way that Bull Connor would approve. Give the non-Jews full Israeli citizenship and rights and Israel might have more of a moral leg to stand on. (Of course, current Israelis might not like what that Knesset would look like...) Why else do you think Israel's been importing Jews from every corner of the world for the last twenty years?
Israel has sufficient deterrent capability to glass Iran (and the rest of the Gulf states) without any assistance from us. Vanunu claimed they had 100-200 weapons when he got popped. I doubt they've remained at that low level. Anyways, 100-200 multi-stage devices is enough to kill a majority of people in the countries that threaten Israel. I agree with you that Iran is trying to get some nukes, but they aren't to deter Israel; they're to deter the U.S. Israel isn't going to invade them, breathless articles in the Post about Israeli airborne brigade exercise drops aside, but the U.S. just might.
Give the non-Jews full Israeli citizenship and rights and Israel might have more of a moral leg to stand on.
THEY ALREADY FUCKING DO THAT.
+1.5 million
Again, why is it that we are O.K. with Pakistan having nukes,
we are not. There is just not a thing we can do about it.
Israel does bring a lot of this shit on themselves, due to their treating the non-Jewish minority in a way that Bull Connor would approve.
That is just not true. The Arabs hate the Jews. They hated them in 1948. They expelled their Jewish populations as soon as Israel was created. What you say is just a complete lie. The Israelis could give the Palestinians love and roses and the Arabs would still hate them.
And if a nuclear Iran is no threat to Israel, why are the Israelis so worried about it? Are the Israelis just crazy? Maybe but doubtful. Iran has said on numerous occasions they would give up a city or five to destroy Israel. Israel is a tiny country. A few nukes could eliminate it from the face of the earth. Even if they went down fighting, they would still go down.
In the end you are asking Israel to risk its life so we can have peace. Why does Israel owe us that? I can't blame them for wanting to keep Iran from getting nukes.
John, what part of "at least 100-200 multi-stage bombs" did you not understand? Israel can kill everyone in SW Asia if they choose. Not "a city or five". Everyone. Israel isn't stopping at Iran if Tel Aviv should get nuked. I think they'll take the opportunity to get rid of all of their enemies. Wouldn't the U.S. do the same in a similar situation?
Now, if the mullahs decide that loosing more than 75% of the populations of every country around the Gulf is a fair trade for blowing up one or two cities in Israel, then there's not much anybody can do. But that's the calculus you should be doing, not one or two cities in Iran for all of Israel.
Regardless, it's not our fight, and I don't see why it should be. Admittedly, with the U.S. forces leaving Iraq, this should be the perfect fig leaf for the U.S. to see no evil, as Israel flies right over the middle of Iraq on its way to Iran. Not something we could have claimed to ignore with 100,000 troops still there and AWACS 24/7 over the country.
I think the Israelis are unhappy about a nuclear Iran because they can be. All things remaining equal I think Israel would like to be the only state in the region (besides Pakistan, I guess) with nukes. They aren't thrilled at the very small chance that, despite the calculus I laid out above, one of the mullahs with the Button may indeed be that crazy. And they think that, in a close U.S. Presidential election year, they can use their lobby effectively to get U.S. support for a raid, or for us to do the dirty work ourselves. Related to that, I hope TPTB have a good idea where Israel's subs are. Or just what it is in the Straits at any given time.
Again, why is it that we are O.K. with Pakistan having nukes, when they are actively providing sanctuary and arms to people shooting at us, and their government is roughly as stable as Demi Moore on a nitrous binge, yet Iran possibly getting them is OMG! Bomb them now!? Hell, when are we striking North Korea's nuclear sites?
Because those of us who have paid attention have noticed that this particular episode has played twice already. Once when India/Pakistan developed nuclear weapons, and again when North Korea developed (or bought) them. Strangely enough, no nuclear holocaust took place. Therefore, claims that Iran + nuclear weapons = DOOM, tend to fall on deaf ears for some.
And North Korea being a client state of China also has a bit to do with our reluctance in picking a fight with them.
"So when Iran attacks the US in response to an Israeli attack what would a President Paul do?"
Judging from his responses to questions like this, he'd go to Congress and ask them for a Declaration of War against Iran. Ron Paul is not anti-war, he's anti-unconstitutional-war.
And again, the logistics of Iran attacking us become much easier for them when we keep so many juicy targets within easy reach of their second-rate (at best) military.
I agree with you Brian. And that is my point, we get peace only if the Iranians decide to give it to us.
We also get peace if we make it a logistical nightmare for Iran to try to attack us even if they wanted to. Hint: stationing troops and materials in their eastern and western neighbor for years on end makes it easier for Iran to attack us, not harder.
My brother is flying one of those targets about 10 hours a day, about 5 feet outside Iranian airspace, from what I gather. Of course, he can't get too specific.
So basically, his job is to poke at a hornet's nest.
And to cop a line, "But I'm a superstitious man and if some unlucky accident should befall him, if he should get shot in the head by a police officer, or if should hang himself in his jail cell, or if he's struck by a bolt of lightning, then I'm going to blame some of the people in this room. And that I do not forgive."
That would work great, if we could move the straights of hormuz with it.
Straits, dammit! STRAITS!
So when Israel uses yet another anti-American false flag operation (don't deny, even Bush wanted to cut ties over one incident of that bullshit) to get us in the middle of their conflicts, we are suppose to be the usual dolts we are and do their bidding? You fuckers sure have a weird sense of what being a patriot is all about.
For the incredulous fellators embarrassing themselves by proudly waving a foreign flag.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/a.....g?page=0,0
John you are such a stupid shit.
I just wanted to pop in and say I hate reading John argue Iran policy.
I sincerely don't understand what your deal is with EVIL MOOSLIMZ.
I sincerely don't understand what your deal is with EVIL MOOSLIMZ.
If you invoke this as a Talisman and can't even comprehend your opponent's argument, you're just retarded. That's all.
John it seems we are getting used by a foreign power. They send in a dozen planes, blow some shit up and then the Iranians strike out in all directions, forcing us to use hundreds of planes and billions of dollars to swat hornets.
Why would you support that?
I don't think we are being used at all. It is the Iranians who would be attacking us. That is their choice.
No, Iran would be attacking Israel. That is not us. Equating the two is our (your) choice and makes no sense.
No. They would be attacking us. I am not talking about a straight up war between Iran and Israel. That we could avoid. But I don't see it working out that way.
Whatever Israel wants to do is fine with me but we definately do have a choice as to whether we allow ourselves to get dragged into it. If Iran attacked us I would have no problem turning Persia into a sheet of glass but I have no desire to be involved in their 1200 year old war over a small pile of rocks.
We have no control over whether Iran attacks us or not. That is the problem. We are going to be dragged into the war whether we like it or not. If we go to war is Iran's decision not ours.
How is Iran likely to attack the US? And does that necessarily involve us in a war with them? I can certainly see that it is likely, given the people who are likely to be elected, and in some sense it would be justified. But I think that war needs more than moral justification. It must also have a clear outcome that is definitely better than not going to war. Iran woudl be such a clusterfuck that it is hard to imagine an outcome of war with Iran that would be better than not getting involved in a direct war.
How is Iran likely to attack the US?
I think if Israel attacks them, pretty likely. Maybe not. If you think there reason to believe that they wouldn't attack the US in response to an Israeli attack, I would like to hear it.
Sorry, I was unclear. I meant "how" in the sense of by what means, or with what capabilities. I don't doubt that there are circumstances under which they would do something against the US.
And if we would tell Israel to put on the big boy pants and take care of themselves, why exactly would Iran have ANY reason to attack us if they are hit by Israel first?
Because they will be unable to strike back as Israel. But they can strike at the US. And doing that will be the only way to save face among their own people. If Israel wipes out Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran really can't do anything about it. That might be the end of them and lead to a revolution. To prevent that, their only choice would be to start a patriotic war with the US.
Again, I would love to not see them attack us. But I would imagine they will.
I agree with the rest of what you wrote, but how and what are Iran going to strike at? Israel's a good deal closer to Iran than the U.S. Are you referring to U.S. naval assets in the Persian Gulf? Or Centcom/5th Fleet bases around the periphery of Iran? For one thing, the ships in open water are pretty good at taking care of themselves, given decent RoE, and furthermore such an attack would be a green light for at least a U.S. bombing campaign, and maybe an invasion. I can't see the mullahs' regime surviving the latter, and maybe not the former.
As far as a terrorist campaign against U.S. targets, yeah, that does concern me. I would think we are exceedingly vulnerable to that sort of thing, more so than Israel, even given the distance. But given today's attitudes, those acts would trigger the bombing/invasion I mentioned above.
Are you arguing that the Iranians being bombed, either by ourselves or Israel, will mandate to them that they respond with bombs of their own, even if it results in war with the U.S? I see your point, but surely, not bombing the Iranians in the first place stops strikes on the U.S. too?
John, I wanna make this clear. I do not. give. a. shit. about what does or does not happen to Israel or any other country that is not the U.S. or U.S. territory. I do not wish them ill. But if bad things happen to them, it ain't my problem. Signed, a servicemember who is sick of interfering in crap that does not matter to America.
They hate Obama, he either helps them finish off Iran or he looks like he deserted Israel in an election year. I don't support this policy but I do admit that they have STEVE SMITHED our glorious leader.
This is bizarre. The US should tell other countries who they should invade, and when?
I tell my evangelical family members that Ron Paul's plan regarding Israel would be better for Israel because then we wouldn't be telling them how/when to defend themselves. We wouldn't give them, or their enemies, money and we wouldn't pressure them to appease their enemies.
We are not supposed to defend Israel but we should still boss them around?
I agree. It is odd how Reason normally hates all intervention in other country's affairs, but now it is okay to tell Israel how it should defend itself.
The problem is of course that Iran, if Israel attacks, will respond by attacking the US. And there really isn't a damn thing we could do about it. The people on here who think that electing Ron Paul will prevent a war with Iran are kidding themselves.
Really, John? Iran will attack the US? With what? Your paranoia truly is amazing to behold. WAR BONER
If the Israelis attack them, I bet they take the bait and attack US forces in the middle east. What do you want to bet?
Well then maybe we are being prudent in asking the Israelis not to do it, huh?
It's amazing how circular your thinking is.
Well maybe Israel is a sovereign country that can do what it wants? Why should they risk nuclear annihilation for us? I thought you were for leaving other countries alone? Now you want to dictate Israel's self defense policy?
So much for staying out of it.
It's amazing how much you expose just by your bleating here, John. Your boner is so hard that you'll take any reason to fuck with Iran, even if it's provided by a foreign country that is deliberately using us.
How are we being used? Is anyone making Iran attack the US? That is Iran's choice. And yeah, Iran gets to decide if the US gets peace. That is how the world works. You just can't stand that so accuse anyone who breaks up your fantasy a war monger.
I don't want war either. But tough shit, neither I nor you get to control that.
Bullshit that you don't want war. You're salivating for it. Spare us your bullshit, John. Don't you have work to do? Oh, that's right, you don't do any work, but you get paid on our dime. Plus, WAR BONER!
Fuck you Episiarch. You don't have an argument and know you are wrong and hate the shitty reality of the situation, so you call me a war monger.
You are no better than MNG. How fucking dare you tell me what I want. You don't know me and never will. I am one of a few people on this site who might actually face the prospect of having to pay an actual personal price if there is a war. And I would prefer that no happen. But that just change reality. And reality generally sucks.
So go fuck yourself. If you want to live in a fantasy world were everyone who disagrees with you or sees the sorry reality of the situation loves it and wants war, that is your choice. But don't expect everyone else to do the same.
They are using the same ploys against Iran that Lincoln did against the CSA and FDR did against Japan.
Epi is becoming the definition of projection here.
The psychopathic moron doesn't even know what projection mean. Hilarious.
No Epi he is saying you have a war boner because you can't wait to bitch about it and use it as a political club.
WE HAVE A WINNER!!
Sounds like we shouldn't have forces in the Middle East. It is none of our business.
So you do admit that Israel is using US troops as bait to expand the war?
TERRORISM ISN'T A THING!
Wow. Y'all forgot to use "If you hate America so much, you can just git out!" That one's always effective. Y'all seem to have all the rest of the neocon fallacies covered, though.
The history of modern Israel and it's neighbors should be seen a textbook example of why we should not intervene in other countries' affairs.
How so? Israel has spent its entire existence fighting for its life. I don't see Israel trying to conquer Egypt and Iran.
You know, you sound exactly like every other welfare statist when they talk about their favored programs "if you don't support X it's because you hate Y."
No, I just think Y should solve their own problems. If they need help, let it be done voluntarily.
Yeah sure, screw the world. Nothing bad can ever happen from that.
John,
The Israeli army welcomes citizens from other countries that want to fight in their ranks.
You are welcome to join.
You are welcome to send them your own money.
But, frankly, I need my money for battles closer to home and your selfish demands that I give it to you for purposes I care nothing about are getting really annoying...
Pretty sure they ended that program back in the 90's.
I can respect the argument that we shouldn't give Israel money because "we need it at home" or what have you.
It just seems like -- with rare exceptions, such as Ron Paul -- the people making that argument seldom advocate defunding the nations hostile to Israel, too.
Yes. Which also goes back to earlier comment that we have standards for Israel that we don't for any other country. I'm all in favor of ending US funding to Israel; a year after our last check to every other country we finance.
As Zeb pointed out above, if they really wanted peace, they'd have stopped the settlement process a long time ago.
That wouldn't matter to me, except people like you refuse to stop giving them US tax money and weapons, and keep this country involved in crap that's none of our business.
Why would they have gotten peace if they had stopped the settlement process? To say they would have assumes that that Arabs actually care about the Palestinians and change their views accordingly. And that is just not true. And they didn't have peace from the day they were created, long before the settlements. That is just a lie.
Palestinians are better treated by Israel than they are in refugee camps in Arab countries. That is a fact.
I'm sure it would not be sufficient. It sure as hell is necessary, though.
Stopping the settlements may not get them peace by itself. But it would give them some moral high ground. And while I am sure there are plenty out there who just hate Israel and want it destroyed, there are also legitimate grievances against Israel and settling those, I think, must be the first step toward peace. If Israel wants to be the good guy, then they need to honestly assess their own moral situation first.
But it would give them some moral high ground
No it wouldn't. People hate Jews. We are 70 years removed from sticking millions of them in ovens. Nothing Israel does will ever give it moral authority with the world other than dying.
"People hate Jews". Apparently, "people hate Tutsis" too, along with Cambodian intellectuals, Ukranian peasants, Armenians, and several other 6-8 figure groups of people.
I am willing to bet that nobody on this forum was alive during the Jew Killing but everyone was alive during the Tutsi Killing. So why is Tutsi protection not the centerpiece of our foreign policy?
Selective outrage is selectively outrageous.
Hey it worked well in Egypt? Decades of money transfers and weapons sales ended in the newly elected Islamic Brotherhood majority in Parliament. They repaid us by ordering the Army to massacre civiliians-grinding them up under the treads of the M-1 tanks we gave them.
Hey it worked well in Egypt? Decades of money transfers and weapons sales ended in the newly elected Islamic Brotherhood majority in Parliament.
Arab Spring, bitches! A good job, Jimmy Carter, sticking your nose a peace deal it had no business being in.
if they really wanted peace, they'd have stopped the settlement process a long time ago.
Out of curiosity -- if Israel forcibly halted the settlements tomorrow, how long after that would Palestinians stop trying to murder Jews?
Are we talking months, years, decades, or centuries, in your opinion?
I think Israel is thinking they need to attack before the U.S. pulls out of the Middle East so that we can be the back-up team. Based on that the longer Obama keeps American troops there the lesser the likely hood that Israel attacks. On the Same vane I think Iran is waiting for us to pull out before they do anything so again our staying there is once again actually maintaining a peace,that is until Iran becomes nuclear capable then who knows what will happen. Of course our presence is helping to drive Iran's desire for nuclear weapons but they would do that weather we were there or not, it's just the pace is maybe quickened.
it would take courage hitherto uncharacteristic of this president
Nonsense; the President will boldly hew to the course laid out for him by David Axelrod and Valerie Jarret.
i boldley check teh boxs on my memoz!
So you hate Europe and Japan too?
Yup.
Next question?
This is a side-show.
Iran reportedly has 15,000 special troops in Syria right now to help the reluctant Syrian Army slaughter civilians. That is the main event that nobody wants to talk about.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012.....nto-syria/
True. But that says that Assad is really fucked. It also says him going down would be bad for Iran. Here is hoping Iran gets bogged down in a long bitter civil war propping up Assad. Can we start sending arms there?
Russia and/or China would probably jump in either by sending arms or even troops. I see the possibility of some very nasty escalation here.
Not to worry though, Captain Zero has a peace prize, he will save us.
No way would they send troops. That would seriously piss off the Arabs. Turkey would immediately intervene the other way.
This is why I'm more optimistic about the ME than you John. Assad is fucked. Iran and Russia and Hezbollah will see an ally replaced by people that HATE them. Then I think we will start to see 'stirrings' in Iran. Plus, there's the protests in Russia.
Lets hope so. The best solution is for the Iranians to rise up and murder the Mullahs themselves and create a government that doesn't bother anyone.
Looking at Egypt, Tunisia, and possibly Libya (Its still too confused) what will replace Assad will be some form of Islamic government who probably won't like you either. Remember all the western secular parties that the West has supported have lost even in Iraq when the US had a hundred thousand troops on the ground.
So what? That is their business. At least it will be the government they want. If they don't like that, and they won't after a while, they will hopefully get a new and better government. We can't keep propping up dictators and treating Arabs like animals in the zoo.
First you say its their business but then you say the US should arm them? Is there nothing you won't lie about?
Are you retarded? I think we should help the people of Syria get rid of Assad and that will require arms.
But at the same time you hate the Iranian government which seems to be popular with most Iranians and which came about because they overthrew a dictator. There is opposition but the majority still seem to support the government especially against the US and Israel.
And I never said I support dictators, just that I am against supporting the overthrow of dictators because we don't know who will take over. Other popular groups with the voters in the area are Hamas and Hezbollah,
"But at the same time you hate the Iranian government which seems to be popular with most Iranians "
Maybe you missed this but there was a huge uprising in Iran that had to be brutally suppressed mostly using foreign troops. The Iranian government is wildly unpopular and exists only because of its willingness to use violence.
Where do you get this shit? Do you just live in a fantasy world?
What foreign troops in Iran?
The place where foreign troops were used to put down a revolt was in Bahrain when the Saudis sent their army in.
Iran has a long history, going back to the Shah of using Arabs to do the dirty work for the government. A lot of the suppression of the Green movement was done by imported Syrians.
There are Arabs who are Iranians. Iran has many different people in it including Jews. They are not foreigners.
And I never said I support dictators,
That is of course not supporting them requires any effort or admitting that someone besides the US is guilty of something.
You do support dictators. You love them. You have just figured out a great way to rationalize it.
How am I supporting dictators? By not sending arms to rebels? That is not support that is being uninvolved.
So you also hate Syrians since a long civil war will devastate the country. What did Syrians ever do to you that you want them to suffer such a war?
And you also want to use US taxpayer money to pay for arms to create such devastation. You really are the ugly American. Or are you just pretending to be American to make Americans look bad.
I would like to see the Syrians rise up and whack Assad and have a better government. But since the Iranians are involved, that will not happen without a civil war.
Why do you want the Syrians to live under a murderous dictator? Why do you hate Syrians so much and love dictators? Do you think brown people are just animals to keep in line?
You are not just an ugly American, you are a disgusting and immoral human being.
I am not the one hoping for a long civil war, you are. Instead of hoping for a short victorious uprising you want the worse kind of war, a long civil war. I guess you love of brown people does not go very far when it involves these same brown people. And of course such a long civil war could spin out of control and spread across the region even against you butt buddies the Israelis but you hatred does let you even think about that
I would love to have a pony too. I would love to see Assad go quetly an the Iranians let it happens. But that is not reality. The only way Assad goes is through a long civil war.
If you saw Syrians as people rather than players in the morality play that runs in your head, you would understand that.
You are still the one who wanted Syria to have a "long bitter civil war". Giving the choice of hoping that there was a short peaceful overthrow of the Syrian government or a long bitter civil war you went right to the worse thing for the Syrians.
Yeah, you have nothing to do with morals, you just want your enemies and everyone around to have a "long bitter civil war". Even the Israelis will be in danger from such a war but your hatred does not let you realize that.
I beat down that caricature like a bitch!
I would like to see the Syrians rise up and whack Assad and have a better government. But since the Iranians are involved, that will not happen without a civil war.
You do realize that the Syrians are protesting because of various austerity measures and ending certain government handouts, right? The protesters want more free shit. The majority of Syrians want the current government they have.
Hmm. The version of the story on Haaretz only has the Quds commander in Syria, not the 15,000 troops.
Who to believe?
How the fuck did they get there? Syria and Iran don't share a border. Did they just walk through Northern Iraq/Kurdistan? Boat ride through Suez? You'd think we might've noticed a division-sized troop movement at some point... Or the article is complete bullshit meant to drum up support for kicking some Persian and Syrian ass.
Gotta tell you, this wasn't the best time to read about an apocalyptic fuck like Santorum winning three straight primaries/straw polls/caucus lite/whatever the fuck those three states voted on last night.
They flew there. There are daily flights from Iran to Syria. Just put them on planes. And they may have already been there. It is not like Iran hasn't been involved there for years or anything.
Also I would imagine Assad, being a former Soviet client, has mountains of old Soviet equipment laying around just like Saddam did. Pretty worthless if you plan to take on the US or the Israelis. But damned useful for wiping out civilians. So those Iranian troops wouldn't even have to bring their own equipment.
I don't think they arrived in a single convoy.
Isn't Iran's threat to stop tanker traffice through the Strait just bluster? Their Adaban refinery has almost half their daily refining capacity. It is practically on the Persian Gulf. The Iraqis nearly destroyed it in the 1988 war. Don't you think Iran knows that planes from the USS Abraham Lincoln could destroy it again should they try to block the Straits? And Iran's eight other refineries for good measure? These sites aren't hardened underground facilties like the nuclear stuff is.
Who knows. Like most dictatorships, their primary concern is staying in power. When you run a murderous dictatorship, your primary worry is your own people rising up and killing you. If the sanctions affect them too badly and create the possibility of a revolution, they may feel they have no choice but to roll the dice on a war.
So Israel believes Iran has no bomb, and will not get a bomb, but wants to attack Iran so it can "have its way with its neighbors and the long-suffering, occupied Palestinians, especially in the blockaded Gaza Strip."
I'm sure Israel would be glad to know they've "had their way" for the past 70 years. What a crock. Poor analysis, no sources, just anti-Israel tripe.
+100 And Israel wants to start a war that has no way to attack it without nukes even though no one thinks Iran wants them. What do they think Israel wants war for fun? If they wanted that, they could go invade Lebanon not try some Willey Coyote raid on Iran.
The desire for a country like iran to take a teeny tiny pile of rocks and wipe out all of the people who live there seems psychotic to me.
If iran conquers Israel, what then? What do they gain? They will just lose a boogeyman that they currently use to distract their people from the fact that the real bad guys are in Tehran.
Still, they are psychotic, so I would fully expect them to use a bomb if they get it.
Still, they are psychotic, so I would fully expect them to use a bomb if they get it.
If the Iranian regime didn't care about Iran being destroyed, they could attack Israel tomorrow with conventional weapons. Same difference. Gee, why haven't they done that? I mean obviously they're suicidal and all, the teevee said so.
JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS!
(someone had to do it)
I thought it was just assumed at this point.
Sorry I was late.
although Israeli and American intelligence agencies say the Islamic republic has no plan to build a bomb.
LOLWUT? Does Sheldon have even the most tenuous grasp of reality or is he just in a delusional state?
Could we stop Israel from attacking Iran? I doubt it. I think they are more capable than Sheldon lets on and the Arabs would be more than a little happy to see the hit go down.
yeah, that line jumped out at me too. I copied and was going to paste here but see everyone else is snickering about it already.
I had a professed con-man tell me once that one of the ways he protected himself was to be unpredictable. He did that by saying and doing nonsensical things now and then.
Notice that Chavez, Gaddafi, Pelosi, Obama, Castro, Ahmadinnerjacket, and every tyrant there ever was does the same thing. They say crazy stuff and lie like hell.
If Iran says they dont have a plan to get the bomb, you can bet your last dollar they are working feverishly to get one
Suthenboy|2.8.12 @ 11:14AM|#
The desire for a country like iran to take a teeny tiny pile of rocks and wipe out all of the people who live there seems psychotic to me.
Suthenboy|2.8.12 @ 11:28AM|#
Notice that Chavez, Gaddafi, Pelosi, Obama, Castro, Ahmadinnerjacket, and every tyrant there ever was does the same thing. They say crazy stuff and lie like hell.
You forgot McCain, Bush, Cheney, Gingrich and a shit pot of the bible thumpping warmongers.
although Israeli and American intelligence agencies say the Islamic republic has no plan to build a bomb.
This sure isn't what Obama said during his interview with Matt Lauer before the Super Bowl; in fact he said the exact opposite. So clearly either Obama or the intelligence agencies are lying.
"Israel's political leaders, though apparently not its military and intelligence chiefs, want to bomb Iran, not because they fear an attack should it acquire a nuke?which would be suicidal for Iran, since Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons?but rather because Iran, now close to Iraq thanks to the U.S. regime change there, could inhibit Israel's ability to have its way with its neighbors and the long-suffering, occupied Palestinians, especially in the blockaded Gaza Strip."
You mean "long-refusing to negotiate with Israel"? I many not be a fan of the meme that says that everything that has gone on between Israel and the Arabs is the Arabs fault, but saying that Israel's base fear is that they won't be able to slap around its neighbors anymore is beyond stupid and has no place on a website named "reason".
Look, that is totally unfair. Sheldon is no 'Jew conspiracy' guy.
See here; "Israel and its powerful American lobby." ( read joos are the puppet masters of congress )
"and has no place on a website named "reason"."
Mighty early for drinking!
It is never too early for drinking
Not in the South.
(this isn't meant in a derogatory or sarcastic way.)
Why is this our problem? Who made us God of the Middle East? I suppose I somewhat favor Israel, given that they are more liberal and Western in outlook, but I'm pretty sure they can look out for themselves. Even if we must play world cop to some extent, that doesn't mean we have to issue directives or be prepared to intervene militarily if a war breaks out.
I don't see how all of this meddling in the Middle East serves our interests. Especially now that the Soviet Union is long gone.
Because the Arabs are savages Pro L. Anyone who disputes that is clearly an anti-Semite. This shit is obvious.
Well, the Arab governments (and Iran) are more wrong than the Israeli government in my mind, but even if we thought Israel was perfectly good in this, we still don't need to intervene. They're quite capable of protecting themselves.
I'm no fan of Iran's government.
Shit, most of their people can say the same.
But war is rarely the answer.
My wardar is indicating a front of bellirrhea moving in from the east. Probably will hit the East Coast in early summer.
The Arabs are Semite as well. The Iranians however are not. They are Persian.
"Why is this our problem?"
Fuck you. That's why.
(that gag never gets old)
it is okay to tell Israel how it should defend itself.
If I believed for one moment "we" would stand idly by with our hands firmly jammed in our pockets, I would say, "let 'em fight."
We could then enter the field and bayonet the survivors (by which I mean those of BOTH SIDES). Fuck the Semites.
Unfortunately, we will take on a participatory role in a new and even more pointless Middle Eastern quagmire.
"We could then enter the field and bayonet the survivors"
I love it when preachers of what they call the "non-aggression principle" talk like this!
I love it when preachers of what they call substance deliberately take phrases out of context.
So it's cool for people who hate aggression to talk of entering a field after battle and bayonetting the survivors?
Or it was just "out of context" to wish such aggresion?
Or you know, a comment that was not meant to be taken literally.
It's nice to have a comment thread where the FreeRepublicers here drop even the pretence of libertarian ideas and get their warmongering, anti-Islamic freak on.
The JOOOOOSSS Where is Mohl Man?
Here we see the utter poverty of the Likudinian folks; any criticism of their preferred Israeli policy=anti-Semitism.
They really don't have much to stand on...
I never made any pretense about my feelings for savages.
Not averse to tribalism huh?
By which I mean 'not agreeing with me at all times on all things'.
I see what you're saying, but I do think there are genuine libertarians who see coming to the aid of our allies as being aligned with principled freedom and non-aggression.
The truth is always more complicated. This idiotic "Fuck them mooslems let's bomb 'em all" meme doesn't take into account the implications of war (cost, loss of innocent lives, weakening of our ability to defend our borders).
What do you think of Richman's premise? I think it's silly for us to dictate to Israel what they can and can't do.
I think we can make conditions on the money and support we give them. Ideally we just wouldn't give the money and support.
Ideally we just wouldn't give the money and support.
I'd second that with the added qualifier that we don't help anyone else in the region. Apparently, to Team Red this means that you're a vicious anti-semite.
It is nice to see all the fine posters from AIPAC here today.
There are better ways to destroy their arguments than conspiracy theories.
War with Iran should be the defining issue of this election. Paul is the only one offering a choice, Obama has blatantly equated US security and interests with Israel's and the GOP, well, we know how they feel.
Paul should do an add with clips of Obama and the GOP field warmongering, then it should say "after having just fought two disasterous wars costing X lives and Y money, is it really time to enter into another one?" Then cut to Paul saying he will strive to keep us out of war.
There is no diplomacy at work so long as "my big brother is going to beat you up" is a viable alternative.
If Israel needs America so badly in order to survive, then fuck 'em, make them the 51st state. They can abide by our Constitution and our laws, and they can have a voice like any other state--2 senators and a couple of representatives.
"They can abide by our Constitution and our laws"
That stuff about eminent domain, prisoner detainment and such is going to keep many lawyers happy...
It surely is powerful. And then the kid without a violent big brother turns to putting sugar in your gas tank.
Or he goes home and builds a nuclear weapon and tells you and your big brother to go suck a bag of dicks.
I think 'my big brother is going to beat you up' is a pretty powerful diplomatic statement
Don't they already? I refer to it as New York.
The accursed Jews attack the heretic Iranians, dragging in the infidel Americans. Excellent.
Shortly after Israel reams Iran:
Saudi prince: Uh yeah, those fucking Jews. Totally abused our airspace. Couldn't do anything because all our RADAR operators were on lunch. At the same time.
I dont think many of you have been to the ME and dealt with them personally. They are unbelievably, unfucking-bearable. Everyone who has been to yemen, saudi, iran and lebanon for a long time comes home with a white-hot hatred for them. It is rare to find someone who doesnt.
Now someone is going to jump up and say 'nuh-uh. I went and I love clit-cutting, stinky, murderous, lying bastards who like little boys'.
Let he who has never severed a clit or buggered a little boy cast the first stone.
RON PAUL 2012!
Interesting that on a thread with all the FreeRepublicers my spoofer appears...
^spoof
If there's one thing freepers or redstaters hate more than Obama, it's Paul. Which is one of the reasons why I wish he could be the nominee...to see them pull that lever...oh, the lulz.
I forgot to add '...lice infested, ....
Oh come on Suntheboy, they don't like you either. So you're even. Actually, none outside the USA likes the USA. So that doesn't change from UK to Japan at least..
I have been lots of places. Mostly the people on the street like americans. They dont like the american govt, and mostly for the same reasons I dont like the american govt.
You are the unbearable one, I have had good experiences with Arabs. The fact that you are a cunt is probably why people don't like you.
Actually people like cunts.
The fact that I am an asshole is irrelevant.
Why dont you hop on a plane and zip over to Saudi Arabia or Yemen. Come back in a year and we will have this conversation again.
I have not been to Yemen, but have been to Saudi Arabia. The fact is no matter where you go, most people are ok. Either the country is just full of a-holes, or the a-hole is you, I wonder which of the two is more likely ?
I think I clarified that already. I am an asshole.
The people in Saudi are NOT ok. They make me look like mother theresa on valium.
I see all the warmongering right wingers are out in force here. If you love Israel so much, then donate money out you own pockets. To expect people in America to pay tax that goes to another country is ludicrous.
Because not telling Israel to not defend themselves = WARMONGERING. Good God do you people ever think of things to say other than 'warmonger', 'neocon' (a word most people here don't understand), other slurs?
In January 2009, at the close of President George W. Bush's second term in office, Jonathan Clarke, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, proposed the following as the "main characteristics of neoconservatism":
a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms
low tolerance for diplomacy
readiness to use military force
emphasis on US unilateral action
disdain for multilateral organizations
focus on the Middle East
an us-versus-them mentality.
I think we understand what neo-conservative means just fine.
Since George Bush, the ultimate Neocon spent 8 years trying to Diplomatically isolate Japan, went to the UN before invading both Afghanistan and Iraq (although he didn't get approval in the latter case), I would say your definition just proves you are an idiot and "neocon" a meaningless term that is used as an epitaph in lieu of thinking.
I think we can add "resorts to calling others 'idiots' and other petty insults when confronted with opposing viewpoints" to the list of things which define neo-conservatives.
I only called you an idiot after pointing out numerous facts that show you post to be idiotic. Was Bush not a Neocon? Whatever that is. And if so, didn't he spend 8 years trying to diplomatically isolate Iran? Doesn't look like much of a disdain for diplomacy to me. And neither does crawling to the UN for permission to go into Afghanistan and Iraq seem like much of a disdain for international organizations.
Neocon is just a slur. The word doesn't mean anything. Using it just shows that you are an idiot.
You got him down to whining in 1 post. Good work John.
One more think, John. My taxes are paying for you to do a job, not post on this website all day. Get back to work and stop stealing my money.
I seriously doubt you pay taxes.
Everybody pays taxes.
Attacking another country is not "defending yourself". Do you agree, remove all aid to Israel that US payers are against their will forced to pay ?
I do.
Kind of related: does anybody know how to send money to the Free Syrian Army? What amount would piss off Sheldon the most but not be too much?
Sending money to the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood(aka Syrian Free Army)is usually frowned upon by the American government.
Imagine a world without Israel! Oh my God! It's peace!!!
Huh?
Totally!
Make it a world without fkn Jews and we'd have something.
Fkn meddlesome scrotum-mutilators.
I don't see anywhere in the Constitution that the U.S. government is authorized to be the world's policeman.
But chin up, you neocon fucks. Don't worry, you'll get your war. I'm sure the U.S. government will come through for you whether it is in our interest or not. And when the Iranians retaliate by blowing up shit over here you can explain to us how it's keeping us "safe".
First sentence, good point.
Second paragraph, accurate conclusion, false premises.
I'm a baaaaaad boy.
Disgussting!
What is the point of your article?
"Iran.... could inhibit Israel's ability to have its way with its neighbors and the long-suffering, occupied Palestinians, especially in the blockaded Gaza Strip."
You just like Ron Paul think that gaza is a "concentration camp" and the Jews are thereby nazi's and there is a conspiracy by us to get the US to attack Iran so we can keep doing our nasty deeds.
I love reason, and this is the most unREASONable article I have read in years following the site.
Meddling in other nation's affairs is wrong, except when the Jewish Nation is in danger by Iran who wants to wipe her off the face of the planet.
Go jump off a bridge Sheldon Richman
What? You know that the poor palestinians are not frothing-at-the-mouth savages, but are doe-eyed peaceniks who just want to be left alone. They are just people like everyone else.
Please tell me I dont have to spell out that that was sarcasm.
Right on, brother!
"Daniel"... now that's an interesting name. Are you a JOOOOOOOOOOOOO?
Not sure if this is a spoof or not, it has been asked already, does the US constitution have a special clause that says Israel deserves special treatment ?
I dont think it has a special clause for each and every act that the govt does in our interest...no, it doesnt.
I just checked and it also doesnt have any special clauses outlining who are friends or enemies are.
Sending our kids to die for another country's regional disputes is not in our best interest (unless you're a politically-connected defense contractor, that is).
Not true in every case.
Meddling in other nation's affairs is wrong, except when the Jewish Nation is in danger by Iran who wants to wipe her off the face of the planet.
lol'd
PROTIP: Your cognitive dissonance is the source of your anger, not S. Richman.
Let me see if I have this right:
"Israel's political leaders, though apparently not its military and intelligence chiefs, want to bomb Iran ..because Iran ?could inhibit Israel's ability to have its way with its neighbors ?"
Israel lords it over the region. But
"Israel alone couldn't do enough damage to Iran's nuclear facilities ?"
So Israel is too weak to lord it over Iran. Hmmm.
Let me solve the riddle for you, Israel will get a country that has a border with Mexico and Canada to help it out in bombing Iran.
Israel will do whatever it needs to do whenever it can in order to put down threats to its existence. Obama will do whatever is required to ensure his reelection. I have only one dog in this fight, and it sure as hell isn't Obama or Iran.
Iran has more centrifuges than is necessary to power a nuclear power plant and has boasted on several occasions that they plan to nuke Israel and are willing to face a counterstrike in accordance with Islamic law.
Why can't those Jewish pussies take it? So their neighbours are attacking and killing them all the time, so the rest of the world are spitting in their face, so their one supposed ally in the world is telling them they have no right to stop nuclear Armageddon. So freakin' what? Pfff, damn Jews man, damn Jews.
But don't you know threats of annihilation aren't reason enough for Israel to defend itself. Tel Aviv literally has to be a smoking ruin before they're allowed to.
Stop resisting!
When this country goes to war, no matter how stupid or ill-conceived, the President's approval ratings go through the roof. War with Iran will virtually ensure an Obama reelection, as he basks in the honeymoon phase of the war, although I'm sure a lot of Republicans who spewed all sorts of "if you're not with Bush you're an anti-American terrorist sympathizer" rhetoric back in 2003 will suddenly have a change of heart.
1. It isn't our job to support any other nation on the planet.
2. It ALSO isn't our job to tell those same countries what to do to each other.
If they want to attack, fine. Let them start another war. And let them pay for it. Want to send your own money to pay for it? Fine, knock yourself out. Don't force other people's money to go to supporting it.
You're just an isolationist!
/sic.
I don't know. I think we can still use diplomacy to try to discourage war. It may fail, but as an economic superpower, it is in our interest to have world peace, if such a thing is possible. But then again, that's not in the interest of the military contractors that control Washington.
Just because it's not our job doesn't mean it's not (or shouldn't be) an available option. Do you think America's interests are best served by supporting no other countries?
Obama should send just a simple Message to Israel; "DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT".
So what? If Israel starts a war, Israel can finish it. If they fail, tough shit for them. Anyone that tries to eradicate them will get nuked. Worst case scenario, they have to stay on the defense for a while against petty terrorist bullshit.
Israel isn't going to attack Iran due to political geography. They can't fly to Iran w/o going over some areas that will either a) shoot them down (turkey) or b) cause the government to drop all US ties and go full-islamy (Iraq). They're just rattling a saber. I would be stunned, STUNNED, if any attack happened.
p.s. The US is also, no doubt, telling them to put it back in the holster.
Obama and U.S. politicians could stop Israel's warmongering simply by threatening to stop the multi-billion dollar hand out they give to the Jewish state every year. The tax payer dollars the politicians take from American tax payers and give to Israel is the real leverage. However, with the exception of Ron Paul, there is not a politicians with the integrity and guts to do it.
Progress! Bob Johnson
http://www.deism.com
Israel's "warmongering" dates back to well before we started giving them (and their enemies) billions of dollars a year.
American aid to Israel is about 2.5% of their GDP. Its loss is the equivalent of a bad recession (and would quickly and easily be replaced by voluntary remissions by the Jewish diaspora). Israel is not basing its calculations for survival on whether their decisions will preserve tokenistic US aid or not.
Why do the neocons think that Iran is going to nuke land that, to them, is holy land? Are they not aware of the Muslim holy site sited in Jerusalem, or its significance?
Nukes are not what Israel has to worry about anyway. Israel has to worry about demographics. Sooner or later they're going to be a small minority in their own country. That will be deadlier than any bomb.
Tel Aviv isn't holy land to anybody. 100 years ago it was a marsh. Now it's a metropolis of 2.5 million people. It's even more densely populated than 'prison camp' Gaza! Perfect target.
But even if Iran doesn't make the suicidal decision to nuke Tel Aviv, the threat of doing so will be enough to seriously limit Israel's strategic scope for dealing with ongoing threats on its northern (Hizballah) and southern (Hamas) borders.
Demographics are important too: how many Jews will simply leave Israel because they find the Iranian threat intolerable?
When Israelis talk about existential threats, they mean all these things, not just that Tel Aviv might become a smoking crater.
Everyone's got blood on their hands in the Middle East situation. Israel is less autocratic and theocratic than their neighbors, but have a history of provocative actions and human rights violations that have angered the Arab world. I can't necessarily blame Israel for doing what they have to to defend themselves from foreign aggression. However, as the governing Likud Party has a notoriously ichy trigger finger and less interest in diplomacy or negotiation with Palestine or their Arab rivals, it's also hard to blame Iran from wanting the weapons to defend themselves as well.
It's a powderkeg with lots of moral grays and I don't want our military to be involved, because it won't end well one way or another until the two sides stop provoking each other.
We only have Israel's ear. A good start would be to push Israel to make more concessions to grant Palestine full independence. This tips the moral scales in Israel's favor and would temper some of the anger against Israel. The fact that Israel provocatively expanded beyond their legitimate borders into Palestinian territory seems to be the primary sticking point - and Israel needs to either buy the territory from Palestine, or give it back.
I think Palestinian independence opens the door to trade talks with more countries currently at tension with Israel, which would be the single best way to advance peace in the region. Unfortunately, I can't see this happening with Netanyahu.
Yes, because that worked out so well in Gaza. Christ, when it comes to foreign affairs, libertarians sure know how bring the stupid.
Yes, because Gaza is such an independent nation. When Hamas (who are a bunch of dickbags, but who have some legitimate basis for their anger) wins an election, Israel blockades them and causes a humanitarian crisis for the civilians, then launches a full scale military assault on largely residential areas. In retaliation for some minor actions by various terrorist groups, Israeli forces massacre 1000-1500, mostly civilians. 9 Israeli soldiers are killed by the Palestinians. The UN found that the assault was not directed at combatants simply in the name of self-defense, but against the people of Gaza as a whole.
No, you're right. Being a bellicose fuckwad will certainly make you safer and won't have any unintended consequences. Trade is for sissies.
When Hamas (who are a bunch of dickbags, but who have some legitimate basis for their anger) wins an election, Israel blockades them
Unless "wins an election" is some sort of code for "launches military strikes against Israeli territory", your statement is false. Israel didn't blockade Gaza when Hamas won the election; it blockaded them when Hamas started launching missiles into Israel.
Also, who cares if Hamas has cause to be "angry"? People can be angry or not. What makes Hamas a problem is that (a) they have a stated goal of genocide against Israeli Jews and (b) they follow a policy of deliberate murder of noncombatant civilians -- both Israeli and noncooperative Palestinian.
I'm sure you've got a rationalization for why that's peachy-keen too, but why should we listen to it?
No, I don't. I'm not nor have ever defended Hamas (or any radical Islamic group) and especially not their targeting of noncombatant civilians. Their actions are extremely reprehensible, but they don't hold the balance of military power in the situation. Some fuckwads in Hamas shoot some rockets into Israeli territory and Israel is justified flattening whole neighborhoods full of innocent civilians?
"Eye for an eye" may be a biblical form of justice but perhaps Israel shouldn't be surprised when the survivors of Gaza's leveled cities return the favor by killing more Israeli civilians and soldiers.
And why don't you explain where the bloodshed ends? When every Hamas/Hezbollah member and all their vengeful relatives are dead? And I'm the naive/utopian one?
Trade and diplomacy is the only effective way to avoid war between antagonistic parties. We aren't attacking China or Saudi Arabia anytime soon. I'm not sure how Iran or Palestine are any different in this regard. Money talks, bullshit walks.
Some fuckwads in Hamas shoot some rockets into Israeli territory and Israel is justified flattening whole neighborhoods full of innocent civilians?
I see no reason to dignify your straw man with a reply.
"And why don't you explain where the bloodshed ends? When every Hamas/Hezbollah member and all their vengeful relatives are dead?!"
Uh yeah 'killing the bad guys' has a pretty good track record in war. It's something called 'history' doncha know.
Who's a "bad" or "good" guy depends on perspective. Seems to me both sides are pretty devoid of innocence, after several generations of "I strike you because you struck me/provoked me/violated our treaty/etc." Palestine can't control many of their radicalized elements, and Israel's disproportionate and indiscriminate retaliation only radicalizes more Palestinians. I have no horse in the game so I consider both sides belligerents with some justification for what they do, but who commit egregious actions and war crimes that worsen the situation.
And seriously: isn't "killing all bad guys" more naive than "making compromises and initiating independence and trade talks"?
Once again, Sheldon Richman is completely wrong and, as usual, missing the point. If your next door neighbor is mentally unstable and repeatedly threatens your life, does it matter that he or she has only one gun with with just one bullet in it? All it takes is a single gunshot to your head. Israel may have all the nukes but it would take only 1 (one) nuclear device or a dirty bomb to completely devastate the country for good. It would be smart for Israel NOT to take any chances with the Iranian savages.
The article strikes me as intemperate. Lots of ad hominem attacks on Israel and its supporters within the United States, but little in the way of useful substance.
I would like to see this war happen for many reasons, but mainly because it will END all chances of Obama being re-elected again due to the economic effects of a Hormuz mining. People need to stop with the Jew hate on here. Israel aren't the most fair country ever, heck, nor is the US, but I'd sooner trust them than the Muslim Brotherhood or that nutcase Ahmedinajad. There is a DISTINCT difference between Iran and North Korea. Communists are crazy, but they're a rational kind of crazy. Radical Islamists like the Ayatollah are not rational. They think they have virgins waiting at the pearly gates if they destroy Israel. It's a totally different ballgame. If a war happens, I am for supporting Israel, but NOT with troops. Just with saturation bombing, cruise missile strikes, and making sure the straits stay open. We don't need to turn Iran into another Iraq. We just don't. Also, bear in mind, in the wake of an Iran war, the Taliban will make their move, mobilizing their forces in Africa to attack embassies and the remnants of Al Qaeda will likely attempt to strike the US heartland as well. Let's face it guys. This issue with Iran isn't going away and sanctions are not going to work. War seems inevitable right now and we need access to the Straits. (we might not if Osama Bin Barrack Hussein Obama hadn't turned down the Keystone pipeline, but, hey.)
In the wake of an Iran war, the Taliban will make their move, mobilizing their forces in Africa to attack embassies and the remnants of Al Qaeda will likely attempt to strike the US heartland as well
What the living fuck are you talking about? The African Taliban? Do you even understand the difference between the Taliban and Al-Qaeda? Are you aware that relations between Iran and the Taliban are somewhat frosty, to put it mildly?
Christ, if the USA is full of foreign policy experts like you, the country really is doomed.
Prick, the Taliban have active cells in Nigeria. Look it up. If we have foreign policy experts like you, the world is doomed. How did that pride taste?
Boko Haram is not the Taliban.
I also never said Iran would work with that Taliban, but that if a war should arise, the Taliban would have an opening in the chaos. If you can't sound intelligent when quoting incorrectly, don't bother posting.
I also never said Iran would work with that Taliban, but that if a war should arise, the Taliban would have an opening in the chaos. If you can't sound intelligent when quoting incorrectly, don't bother posting.
I also never said Iran would work with that Taliban, but that if a war should arise, the Taliban would have an opening in the chaos.
Also makes no sense.
The United States isn't Sauron, you don't have to draw its eye elsewhere to attack. The Taliban have sufficient support at this point to carry on reconquering Afghanistan regardless of how distracted the US is (barring another huge injection of troops, anyway).
Moreover, an attack on Iran would be likely carried out by Israel without any direct US involvement. (Despite all the anti-Iran rhetoric coming from the Administration, a large chunk of the foreign policy establishment seems to believe that participating in such an attack would be a bad idea.) So I don't even know why your hypothetical would draw any US resources away from Afghanistan and give the Taliban any sort of opportunity.
Also, note how Israel is looking to save its country from nuclear holocaust with a preemptive strike... Obama is looking to get a second term by stopping a preemptive strike. Kind of puts in perspective what an asshole the guy is.
I notice a lot of libertarians take the pacifist stance, and that's cool. I just wish there wasn't this assumption that there is no one out there that would love to take over our country. (and if we just stopped being meanies then they would love us! *sniffle*) But If you are pacifist and you are aware of the significantly greater risk of danger or even dying from pacifism as a national policy, then I respect you.
Of course that applies to Israel's national policy, too. If you don't support anything Israel wants to do, fine. At least admit that you want them eviscerated. Be a man.
Oh STFU. Nobody here wants Israel eviscerated, even if we criticize the way it was created and the way it has conducted itself. Not wanting to get involved in other countries' regional disputes != wanting that country wiped out.
What's the percentage of Yids in the American population?
1%
2%?
So why do they control your foreign policy?
Fkn deport every last one of them. Preferably on trains. And then shut the door to all foreign aid. Fend for yourselves.
Incorrect Information: The Gaza Strip and the West Bank are disputed territory and so there cannot be an "occupation", Israel is in serious peril of an attack if Iran acquires nuclear weapons (not just from Iran but from Hamas and Lebanon), and Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinajad has openly stated that he wishes Israel could be wiped off the map.
This is such a biased article !!
The problem here is not with Iran using the weapon itself,but giving one or more to a surrogate such as Hamas,Hezbolla,The Taliban,or Al Quaida who will certainly use it without discrimination.Iran has been at a proxy war with the west for decades and would not hesitate to proliferate its weapons, once they are acquired,to influenc and dominate the arab world or possibly the west by giving one to Chavez or another Latin American country not friendly to us. For this reason alone,Iran must never be allowed to develop a weapon and should be stopped by any and ALL means necessary.
As far as I can tell, the fear is that some ragtag terrorist group might actually use one of these hypothetical nukes, yes?
If that's the case, what do you think the consequences would be for Iran when the bomb is traced back to them?