ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

If you really believe a potential danger, or even what the leadership of a country based upon undisclosed intelligence deems a potential danger, justifies preemptive strikes at another country, then you are essentially saying that the 2003 bombing and invasion of Iraq was a-okay.

0 Replies

Well, I was saving that for the next round, but what the hell! Smile

0 Replies

Our relations with the USSR and China were different. Neither country indicated that it was going to nuke us, as Saddam said numerous times with regard to Israel.

Bush had intell showing that Iraq was no threat. There was no intention on Iraq's part, and it had neither the weapons nor the delivery systems.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Our relations with the USSR and China were different. Neither country indicated that it was going to nuke us, as Saddam said numerous times with regard to Israel.

Hm? Are you saying that the Soviet Union was less of a danger to the United States than Syria is to Israel?

Advocate wrote:

Bush had intell showing that Iraq was no threat. There was no intention on Iraq's part, and it had neither the weapons nor the delivery systems.

Ah. Okay.

So, if the Bush administration claimed that there was enough good intelligence there, even if it was secret and nobody had seen it, would you wish to see the US strike against suspected sites in Syria?

0 Replies

Advocate,
I take it then that you believe that while Israel WAS justified in its attack on the Iraqi reactor, but the subsequent attack on Iraq by the United States was NOT justified because, while Iraq may have presented a threat to Israel, it did not present one to the United States. Is that a correct interpretation of your several statements?

If so then you acknowledge that the strategic interests of the United States are not identical to those of Israel as they relate to nations involved in the middle east confrontations.

0 Replies

What we know today (20/20 to some) about Iraq's WMDs and delivery systems didn't even present any danger to Israel or the US. In support of this factk, the UN Weapon's Inspectors were in Iraq looking for Saddam's weapons when Bush chased them out.

You can't claim on the one hand that Iraq presented a danger to Israel while not to the US when Saddam didn't have the means to be a danger to any country near or far.

0 Replies

Despite your unequivocal assertions, you are dead wrong on that point Cicerone.

During the Gulf War Saddam fired numerous Scud missiles at Israel. We now know he also had the abilty to place chemical warheads on them. We could not exclude the possibility that he might also have had the same ability with respect to biological or radiological contamination weapons. He most definately had WMD capabilities with respect to Israel, even though he had none with respect to the United States (at least by conventional; delivery mechanisms).

0 Replies

As most who were responsible for the inspections between the first Gulf War and the second one, most of Saddam's weapons were destroyed. That's the reason none were found after Bush started his war, and demanded the troops find them. None were found. After two years, they gave up.

0 Replies

Bush warns of nuclear-armed Iran

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 35 minutes ago

LANCASTER, Pa. - President Bush warned Wednesday of a nuclear-armed Iran but did not rule out that the United States would negotiate with its provocative leader if he gives up his suspected nuclear weapons ambitions.

Bush said it's important for the United States to stay engaged in neighboring Iraq to convince the Iranians that the U.S. is committed to democratic reform in the region. "There would be nothing worse for world peace than if the Iranians believed that the United States did not have the will and commitment to help young democracies survive," Bush told businessmen and women where he took questions after a talk on government spending.

"If we left before the job was done, there would be chaos," Bush said about withdrawing U.S. troops prematurely from Iraq. "Chaos would embolden not only the extremists and radicals that would like to do us harm, but it would also embolden Iran. What you don't want is to have a nuclear arms race taking place in the Middle East."

He denounced Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his remarks about destroying Israel.

0 Replies

Since when did the US make it national policy to bring democracy to the world?

0 Replies

The illogic, I mean logic, presented by OE and George is laughable.

The UsA considers Israel a loyal and valuable ally, and supports it as such. Israel is our only real ally in the ME, and essentially serves as a USA outpost there. Every president quickly learns this upon taking office.

I realize that you guys are graduates of Strayer Junior College, but I still think you are wrong.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

The illogic, I mean logic, presented by OE and George is laughable.

The UsA considers Israel a loyal and valuable ally, and supports it as such. Israel is our only real ally in the ME, and essentially serves as a USA outpost there. Every president quickly learns this upon taking office.

I realize that you guys are graduates of Strayer Junior College, but I still think you are wrong.

Advocate, I'd be careful about where these gentlemen graduated from and their "rank" in life, because the real issues are about the Middle East and not about the participants of this thread.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Advocate wrote:
The illogic, I mean logic, presented by OE and George is laughable.

The UsA considers Israel a loyal and valuable ally, and supports it as such. Israel is our only real ally in the ME, and essentially serves as a USA outpost there. Every president quickly learns this upon taking office.

I realize that you guys are graduates of Strayer Junior College, but I still think you are wrong.

Advocate, I'd be careful about where these gentlemen graduated from and their "rank" in life, because the real issues are about the Middle East and not about the participants of this thread.

They should stop ascribing views to me that I have not expressed.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

The illogic, I mean logic, presented by OE and George is laughable.

The UsA considers Israel a loyal and valuable ally, and supports it as such. Israel is our only real ally in the ME, and essentially serves as a USA outpost there. Every president quickly learns this upon taking office.

I realize that you guys are graduates of Strayer Junior College, but I still think you are wrong.

Tell me; actually how has this relationship between Israel and the US been a two way street? It seems to me if Israel was not ever state; half the problems we (US) have in the middle east wouldn't exist. Not that I am saying we should get rid of Israel or anything; just stating a fact.

0 Replies

Revel, your points have been discussed frequently and at some length earlier in this thread. Should you have an open mind, I think you will see that your views are wrong.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Revel, your points have been discussed frequently and at some length earlier in this thread. Should you have an open mind, I think you will see that your views are wrong.

I haven't seen any evidence that there is in fact a 2-way relationship between the countries; that is to say, the US doesn't get much for our 6 billion a year or so.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Advocate wrote:
Revel, your points have been discussed frequently and at some length earlier in this thread. Should you have an open mind, I think you will see that your views are wrong.

I haven't seen any evidence that there is in fact a 2-way relationship between the countries; that is to say, the US doesn't get much for our 6 billion a year or so.

Cycloptichorn

With you, it goes without saying. You are utterly against everything that supports Israel.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Advocate wrote:
Revel, your points have been discussed frequently and at some length earlier in this thread. Should you have an open mind, I think you will see that your views are wrong.

I haven't seen any evidence that there is in fact a 2-way relationship between the countries; that is to say, the US doesn't get much for our 6 billion a year or so.

Cycloptichorn

With you, it goes without saying. You are utterly against everything that supports Israel.

I most certainly am not. I believe implicitly that Israelis should support Israel.

You didn't answer the question, again, b/c you know that you don't have a good answer, Advocate. You know that the US doesn't receive material benefit from our largesse towards Israel.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

The illogic, I mean logic, presented by OE and George is laughable.

The UsA considers Israel a loyal and valuable ally, and supports it as such. Israel is our only real ally in the ME, and essentially serves as a USA outpost there. Every president quickly learns this upon taking office.

I realize that you guys are graduates of Strayer Junior College, but I still think you are wrong.

I don't believe the pervasive view of the U.S. Diplomatic or Military establishments is that Israel is a valuable ally. Indeed the converse is true. Israel is a serious strategic, economic, diplomatic and military burden on the United States, and that is how it is seen by most military leaders (at least when they speak candidly).

However I do agree with you that our support for Israel does indeed reflect the presumption that Israel is a valuable (albeit very expensive) ally. I believe what every President learns, well before taking office, is the political power of the Israel lobby in this country. It truly is a third rail that none so far (except the ever cranky Jimmy Carter) have been willing to touch.

In fact I am a graduate of the Naval Academy and later Cal Tech. How about you?

0 Replies

Bush also has a sterling academic resume, but we know that he is an idiot who can't speak properly, doesn't read, lacks intellectual curiosity, lies constantly, etc.

Please look back in the thread for info on Israel's contributions.

0 Replies

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know