An amusing analogy for America

[Big Juan]

Originally Posted by PSD

I tend to agree. I'm not convinced a Jewish homeland in Palestine is tenable much longer. (Get your popcorn folks). Thats not a popular thought, but consider the following.

The rogue extremism of Hamas to her south and Hezbollah to her north; the very wealthy, well-armed, militant Iranians on the verge of becoming a nuclear state; and the way their last incursion into Lebanon played out all seem (IMO) to point to a very vulnerable Israel these days.

Frankly, I dont see Obama supporting any kind of US attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. In fact, with 100k+ US troops in Afghanistan, 35k+ US troops in Iraq, as well as Iranian promises to include attacks on US troops in any type of retaliatory action, I'd think Obama would want to avoid any type of action....but then this...



Anyone see the recent news that we are offering 20 F-35 Stealth fighters to the Israelis as part of a deal for a 90 day extension of the construction freeze? 20 F-35s for 90 days? What am I missing? They expect to solve the Palestinian state issues in 90 days? Or...are we filling a gap they found when they did their 600 aircraft war games....

Next question: can Israel survive an all-out missile barrage from Hezbollah and Iran? Israel is not a large country and Tel Aviv is easily within reach of Iranian missiles...

Now, about that whole idea of Zionism....not so wise...isnt this just another form of Apartheid?

Like I said, get your popcorn and please, civility first....

PSD

Don't worry, I've read the Book. Israel wins!!

[PSD]

Originally Posted by Big Juan

Don't worry, I've read the Book. Israel wins!!

Yeah....I've read Tom Clancy too...now lets talk about reality. Completely different...

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by PSD

Now, about that whole idea of Zionism....not so wise...isnt this just another form of Apartheid?
PSD

Zionism is an aspiration for a Jewish homeland. I don't see that such an idea qualifies as apartheid or racism anymore than Kurds wanting their own country or Palestinians wanting their own country.


re: missile barrage. The first point to ponder is whether Iran would ever see its own interests truly served by an all out attack. An interesting question but it pre-supposes that Iran would want to ever do this, not sure there is enough of an upside. Same with Hamas and Hezbollah. Israel could easily rain bomb storms on Hamas and Hezbollah, so the question again is what makes it worth it to essentially declare all out war?

[Big Juan]

Originally Posted by PSD

Yeah....I've read Tom Clancy too...now lets talk about reality. Completely different...

Lighten up brother!!! Why get yourself so worked up over fantasy. The fantasy that Palestine can be dealt with diplomatically. It does not want peace, never has and never will. Iranian sect religion which runs Iran now calls for destruction as the only way to heaven.

Don't waste your breath. Gary Bussey has more memory than anyone supposing a truce with them. I'm worried about you brother. This very emotional thread has got you ready to blow a valve. I'm picturing you sitting at your computer sweating like Jessica Simpson taking the SAT or how about Shaking harder than Courtney Love in rehab, or..........

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Zionism is an aspiration for a Jewish homeland. I don't see that such an idea qualifies as apartheid or racism anymore than Kurds wanting their own country or Palestinians wanting their own country.


re: missile barrage. The first point to ponder is whether Iran would ever see its own interests truly served by an all out attack. An interesting question but it pre-supposes that Iran would want to ever do this, not sure there is enough of an upside. Same with Hamas and Hezbollah. Israel could easily rain bomb storms on Hamas and Hezbollah, so the question again is what makes it worth it to essentially declare all out war?

Actually, Israel is more valuable to Iran as a foil to keep Hamas and Hezbollah under their thumb.

[Guest053011]

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham outlined his ideas for a preemptive strike on Iran. As I've been told (and correct me if I'm wrong) he is one of the most powerful Republican Senators, and a powerful member on the Senate Armed Services Committee. He a link to a story from a reputable, independent newspaper:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz14jFOiZYL

Republican Senator sparks outrage after calling on U.S. to consider pre-emptive strike to 'neuter' Iran

A Republican Senator has sparked outrage at an international security conference after saying the U.S. should be prepared to launch a military attack on Iran to 'neuter' its hard-line regime.


Lindsey Graham, who represents South Carolina, told surprised attendees at the Halifax International Security Forum that an attack could cripple Iran's nuclear programme and armed forces.


He said that although international sanctions were beginning to work, President Barack Obama should make it 'abundantly clear' that 'all options are on the table'.

Mr Graham, who has been in office since 2003 and serves on the armed services senate committee, said the last thing the world needed was a nuclear-armed Iran.


He said: 'So my view of military force would be not to just neutralise their nuclear programme, which are probably dispersed and hardened, but to sink their navy, destroy their air force and deliver a decisive blow to the Revolutionary Guard.


'In other words, neuter that regime.'


Mr Graham, who also serves in the U.S. military as an active member of the Air Force reserves, added: 'Nobody would like to see the sanctions work any more than I would because I'm still in the military and I get to meet these young men and women on a regular basis.


'I know what it's been like for the last nine years and if you use military force, if sanctions are not going to work, and a year from now it's pretty clear they're not going to work, what do our friends in Israel do?'

Defence Minister Peter MacKay, who was hosting the conference, distanced himself from the remarks and said any military attack on Iran would have negative fallout.


He told a later panel: 'No question there would be a negative reaction to that course of action.


'Although I know that has perhaps provoked some of the hottest discussions in these hallways.'


He added that collective international sanctions could be used to change Iran's thinking and that sanctions were aimed at the regime, not its people.


Democrat Senator Mark Udall, who represents Colorado, said attacking Iran would have 'worldwide repercussions'.


'I'm not willing to put my support behind that step here in a theoretical context, but I think you've to to keep every option on the table and let the Iranian regime know that we're deadly

serious, not just as the United States of America, but as a world community,' he said.

It comes after the U.S. rejected Israeli calls to pursue a credible military threat against Iran.


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told U.S. Vice President Joe Biden yesterday that such a threat was the only way to sway Iran.


Defence Secretary Robert Gates told a news conference in Melbourne: 'I disagree that only a credible military threat can get Iran to take the action that it needs to end its nuclear programme.


'We are prepared to do what is necessary. But at this point we continue to believe that the political, economic approach that we are taking is in fact having an impact in Iran.'


U.S. officials have said that a military strike would not stop Iran pursuing a nuclear bomb if it wanted one.


Concerns have been raised about Iranian attempts to develop nuclear weapons, after it began loading fuel into its first nuclear power plant last month.


The U.S withdrew opposition to the plant after Russia satisfied concerns over how it would be fuelled and the disposal of spent fuel rods.


Worries remain, however, over the uranium enrichment programme because the process can also be used to create weapons-grade material.

Mr Graham, along with former presidential candidate John McCain, urged Canada to maintain its troop presence in Afghanistan past 2011.

[charlestudor2005]

Glad that you are snowed in as this post shows. Welcome back to the thread.

IMHO, Sen. Graham may be powerful, but is also on the lunatic fringe of conservatism. If he takes one step to the right, he'll lose all credibility.

Just so you know, I'm getting ready for the flames: IMHO, we've reached that stage in history where we (the US/Western nations) cannot reasonably expect to control nuclear weapons. Sixty years ago, sure. But the knowledge on how to build one is in a public library now, and the materials can be purchased almost at will. Nothing prevents any third world country from throwing all the effort it can expend into creating nuclear weapons. Our (the US's) attitude in this is somewhat similar to our attitude when we tried to prevent the arming of native Americans with long guns. It just never worked.

[John Bull]

Lindsey Graham is an idiot and will be targeted in the next election he has to run in.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by John Bull

Lindsey Graham is an idiot and will be targeted in the next election he has to run in.

Makes me wish we could vote across state lines.

[discreetgent]

Graham was one of the few Republican senators willing to talk with the Democrats. He is nowhere near where guys like DeMint and Coburn are.

[oden]

Not to be inflammatory, but why do you think it has been so important to have a military footprint in the Persian Gulf other than to counteract Iran? Politics aside, and I know many will accuse Obama of promoting a war to keep himself in office; we have solidified our presence in the Middle East to thwart the Iranian threat.

My hope is that they will back down, otherwise we are well positioned to take care of business.

[Camille]

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham outlined his ideas for a preemptive strike on Iran. As I've been told (and correct me if I'm wrong) he is one of the most powerful Republican Senators, and a powerful member on the Senate Armed Services Committee. He a link to a story from a reputable, independent newspaper:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz14jFOiZYL

Lauren:

Unfortunately, that's not a reputable newspaper. It's a tabloid aimed at the lower middle classes. I know it's hard to find unbiased media coverage on anything these days (infact that's probably an oxymoron) but be just aware that even though they have a large circulation figures, their target market is very specific...

C xx

[PSD]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Actually, Israel is more valuable to Iran as a foil to keep Hamas and Hezbollah under their thumb.

PJ, thats actually one of the better points thats been made here. Sell hate and the haters flock.

[WTF]

I'm not sure if we have solved what should be done with Iran or the Middle East in this thread but we have seen the difference between how a 26 year old would start a thread bashing American diplomacy and how a 40 year old would know better than to!

Chalk one up to experience on that scorecard.

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Our (the US's) attitude in this is somewhat similar to our attitude when we tried to prevent the arming of native Americans with long guns. It just never worked.

Well, lets just hope the results are similiar. Lotta good those long guns did the Natives.

Originally Posted by John Bull

Lindsey Graham is an idiot and will be targeted in the next election he has to run in.

Boy that is one I hope you win.

I heard Mark Levin or M Savage , can't remember which last night tear into Alaskas' moderate Repub's for re-electing Lisa M. Says it politics as usual in Alaska and that means more big government payoffs from that state.! Intresting.

[WTF]

dbl