15
   

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

 
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jul, 2009 06:25 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

She has made more than several references to Jews as being the smartest and brightest, and how much Jews have contributed to humanity - and how proud she is of being a Jew.



No. I just said the Jewish culture values certain achievements. Some cultures do not value the same achievements. I am not that proud of being a Jew. I am proud of your not being a Jew.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jul, 2009 06:43 pm
@Foofie,
Oh? Please list for me which cultures do not value their achievements?

I can't be proud or unproud of being a Jew; I was born a Japanese on US soil as were both my parents.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jul, 2009 07:29 pm
@cicerone imposter,
All the Japanese I know reason far more rationally than you do!
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jul, 2009 08:04 pm
@ican711nm,
How nice! But coming from you, I must consider the source.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2009 11:13 am
IS ISRAEL PREPARING AN ATTACK ON IRAN, AND HAS THE USE GIVEN ITS GO AHEAD

While the Obama administration's posture on the Middle East has so far seemed disproportionately to favor Arab interests and to exert unwelcome pressure on Israel (the United States' only ally in the region), we've seen a possible change in U.S. tone over the last few weeks, particularly with regard to Iran. In addition, Israel seems to be laying the strategic groundwork for an attack on the terrorist state's growing nuclear capability.

Here's the background: A few weeks ago, an Israeli Dolphin-class submarine for the first time in years sailed from the Mediterranean through the Suez canal to the Red Sea. This means that apparently Israel has negotiated access with Egypt to pass through the canal to the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea. Since Israel's submarines have the ability to deploy nuclear-tipped and conventional missiles, such access would give Israel convenient (instead of taking the very long route around Africa) second-strike support for an attack on Iran.

Next, we read that Saudi Arabia had given Israel approval to use their airspace for a military attack on Iran. According to the (UK) Sunday Times, Mossad chief Meir Dagan held secret meetings with Saudi officials, who gave their tacit approval to Israel's use of the kingdom's airspace. According to a diplomatic source: "The Saudis have tacitly agreed to the Israeli air force flying through their airspace on a mission that is supposed to be in the common interests of both Israel and Saudi Arabia."

Then last weekend Vice-President Joe Biden said in an ABC interview that Israel has the right to determine its own course of action with regard to the Iranian nuclear threat, regardless of what the Obama administration chooses to do. When asked whether the Obama administration would restrain Israeli military action against Iran, Biden responded: "Israel can determine for itself---it's a sovereign nation---what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else . . . If the Netanyahu government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursued now, that is their sovereign right to do that. That is not our choice."

This sounds as close to a green-light signal as you can get. But given Biden's propensity for shooting his mouth off, it's not entirely clear if U.S. policy toward Iran has changed.

But if Biden is signaling approval, it would be a big shift from Obama's Cairo speech, in which he declared that no one country could determine if another could acquire nuclear weapons. Is Obama now allowing Israel to be the world's nuclear watchdog while he assumes some grand position of neutrality, sitting above the fray and unwilling to assert American military power even if facing a nuclear-armed Iran? If Obama is not going to stand up to Iran himself, it's certainly a good thing indeed to signal that Israel can defend itself and indeed the rest of the region.

Perhaps most importantly, if both Egypt and Saudi Arabia are feeling fearful enough of a nuclear-armed Iran to clear air and sea space for an Israeli attack, it takes the starch out of Obama's contention (and that of many others) that a Palestinian-Israeli peace is the linchpin for securing Arab-Western cooperation. In point of fact, resolution of the Palestinian question has little to do with defusing the Iranian threat or of achieving a greater Middle East peace.

*************

-- factsandlogic.org
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2009 11:55 am
@cicerone imposter,
Your blind and irrational hatred of Israel makes me proud that you are not a Jew.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2009 12:01 pm
@Advocate,
Your being proud I'm not a Jew is a throw-away statement without any value or meaning, but to show "your hatred" for people who would challenge your position on Israel's apartheid. I've also been called "anti-Semite" from those of you who have no idea what my background has been with the Jewish people of the US and Israel. FYI, the first professional job I held after earning my Accounting degree was with Florsheim Shoe Company, and they promoted me to Audit Manager after working as a field auditor for 3.5 years.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2009 12:58 pm
Obama Slouching Towards an Iran War?

July 7, 2009


“The Obama Administration has given Israel a green light to attack Iran.” That was the takeaway reported by leading U.S. news outlets as well the major papers and broadcasters across the spectrum in the Middle East from Sunday’s comments on ABC by Vice President Joe Biden.

A careful read of the Biden interview transcript, of course, makes clear that while the Vice President kept reiterating that Israel was a sovereign state free to act as it deemed necessary in response to perceived threats, and to which the U.S. could not prescribe, he did also make clear " when asked about whether the U.S. would allow Israeli planes to overfly Iraqi airspace " that the U.S. would act in its own national interest on the Iran question. Given that he noted earlier in the same exchange that an attack on Iran was not in U.S. national interests " or Israel’s, for that matter " the media reporting of the exchange may have distorted his meaning. Indeed, the White House rushed to insist Monday that the U.S. position remained unchanged, and Obama himself underscored on Tuesday that he had NOT given Israel any such “green light”, and had instead told it to allow diplomacy to work. Biden, he said, had simply “stated a fact”, i.e. that Israel is a sovereign country that will make its own security decisions. (And the Israelis helpfully came out with reports suggesting that the Netanyahu government won’t ask permission " a frankly fanciful claim.)

. . .

Even if Biden was, in his signature foot-in-mouth way, trying to affirm U.S. opposition to a military strike on Iran, his comments were at best reckless " and disingenuous. The argument that Israel is a sovereign state over which Washington has no control when it comes to mounting an unprovoked and illegal attack on another country using U.S. weapons and transiting U.S. controlled air space is as absurd as it is dangerous. The very fact that his comments have been universally reported as a “green light” to Israel underscore the fact that nobody buys the fig leaf of Israeli “sovereignty” in this instance; Israel will not be in a position to initiate a disastrous war if the U.S. Administration firmly resists it. It’s an open secret that Israel alone lacks the technical capability to make a successful job of wrecking Iran’s nuclear program from the air. (A dubious enterprise, to be sure, because most assessments conclude the setbacks to Iran’s technical capabilities would be temporary, and would almost certainly leave behind a dramatically more dangerous situation.)

The idea that the U.S. can do nothing to stop Israel from attacking Iran, without provocation, in violation of international law and norms, on the basis of a perceived threat, is the equivalent of the U.S. saying that out of respect for Iran’s sovereignty, it couldn’t act to stop Tehran from attacking Israel should it deem such action necessary on the basis of a perceived threat. It’s precisely this absurdity that had most of the Middle East reading Biden’s “sovereignty” comments as a fig leaf for green-lighting an Israeli attack on Iran.

. . .

If this is the playbook the Obama Administration is adopting, it’s going to blunder its way into war. Because the Iranians are unlikely to simply fold in the face of threats, and will instead more likely raise the ante.

As I recently argued elsewhere, the post-election situation in Iran makes it unlikely that the Iranians will be ready to engage with the U.S. any time soon. There’s a high probability that the regime believes its own propaganda about the election debacle having been orchestrated by Western forces, and it is circling the wagons " whatever political compromise may be in the works, its narrative will likely be national unity against foreign designs. Now, it could be that Ahmadinejad had always planned to be the one to “deliver” an honorable accord with the U.S. " which his opponents would not want to block " but it’s equally, or perhaps more likely that the political turmoil rules out any short term engagement with Washington.

Yet Obama is now talking about waiting only weeks or months to see whether Iran is willing to engage, before moving on to escalate sanctions. Already, his Congress (at Ross’ behest) is passing legislation designed to create a blockade on Iran importing petroleum (it imports as much as half of its need, despite being an oil producing country - it’s refining capacity is very limited). And Ross’s people in Washington are putting out the spin that Obama is going to be seeking intensified UN sanctions this fall.

. . .

So, in fact, the urgency proclaimed by those who would escalate things along the road to confrontation this fall is hugely overstated. Combining efforts to engage Iran with escalating sanctions is unlikely to draw a positive response from Iran " although those sanctions are unlikely to happen via the UN, because Russia has no more interest in supporting the Obama Administration on Iran than it had in supporting the Bush Administration on Iran. Dangling the threat of Israeli military action over Iran is more likely to trigger nasty unintended consequences than to help stabilize the Middle East. And when it comes to the question of an Israeli air strike, Obama can profess neither neutrality nor powerlessness.

full text
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2009 01:56 pm
@cicerone imposter,
That is similar to the old line that one of my best friends is a Jew. That has no bearing on your present disgusting lying in putting down Israel.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2009 02:02 pm
@Advocate,
No. My statement just shows not all Jews are alike in their politics or how they view issues. My best friend isn't a Jew; he was Chinese, but passed away about a decade ago from the complications of diabetes. I don't consider any of my current social friends as my best friend, but I have friends all around the world I consider a friend - even in Israel.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2009 02:43 pm
@InfraBlue,
A prolonged Iran war that consists of invasion and occupation of Iran is not required to accomplish the destruction of Iran's nuclear bomb, development capabilities. A very short war is required. A very short war consisting of the equivalent of an air and ground commando-style war will be sufficient. We should pull out as soon as Iran's nuclear bomb development capabilities are totally destroyed. That will require relatively few casualties on both sides.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2009 05:38 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Your being proud I'm not a Jew is a throw-away statement without any value or meaning, but to show "your hatred" for people who would challenge your position on Israel's apartheid. I've also been called "anti-Semite" from those of you who have no idea what my background has been with the Jewish people of the US and Israel. FYI, the first professional job I held after earning my Accounting degree was with Florsheim Shoe Company, and they promoted me to Audit Manager after working as a field auditor for 3.5 years.


I am proud of all your non-Jewish achievements. You might make many a Jewish mother proud to have you as a son.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2009 05:42 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

A prolonged Iran war that consists of invasion and occupation of Iran is not required to accomplish the destruction of Iran's nuclear bomb, development capabilities. A very short war is required. A very short war consisting of the equivalent of an air and ground commando-style war will be sufficient. We should pull out as soon as Iran's nuclear bomb development capabilities are totally destroyed. That will require relatively few casualties on both sides.


I would also air-drop Christmas hard candies to sweeten their political disposition.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2009 05:45 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

No. My statement just shows not all Jews are alike in their politics or how they view issues. My best friend isn't a Jew; he was Chinese, but passed away about a decade ago from the complications of diabetes. I don't consider any of my current social friends as my best friend, but I have friends all around the world I consider a friend - even in Israel.


Can you do any yo-yo tricks?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2009 05:48 pm
@Foofie,
There's an old joke that goes something like this: "Do you know who the best Jewish mothers are?" Answer: "A Japanese mother."

Our immediate family:
Physicians = 5
Attorneys = 3
PhDs = 2
Dentist = 2
Accountant = 2
Masters degree = 2
Educator = 1
RN = 1
cum laude = 3 (that I'm aware of = my wife and our two sons; my wife and our older son graduated summa cum laude and with honors from his masters program)
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2009 12:51 pm
Quote:
JERUSALEM " Israeli combat soldiers have acknowledged that they forced Palestinian civilians to serve as human shields, needlessly killed unarmed Gazans and improperly used white phosphorus shells to burn down buildings as part of Israel's three-week military offensive in the Gaza Strip last winter.


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/71837.html#none

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2009 01:24 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
The silence is deafening!
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2009 01:24 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
And there are as many soldiers who claim the accusations are unfounded. It's sort of like who do you believe? John Kerry and others who testified before Congress of gross military misconduct by his fellow soldiers in SE Asia, or the many who disputed Kerry's testimony even as they exposed the many provable errors in his testimony about his own activities?

Nobody serving with American forces anywhere will say that nobody oversteps his/her authority or acts inappriately or criminally. Nobody serving with the IDF claims that there are no Israeli soldiers who behave badly. The rogue exceptions have to be balanced against the very large majority who do follow the established rules, protocol, and ethics.

Quote:
IDF soldiers refute misconduct claims

Many IDF soldiers refuted the claims made yesterday by some of their colleagues that soldiers acted in violation of the IDF's ethical code during Operation Cast Lead.

"I don’t believe there were soldiers who were looking to kill (Palestinians) for no reason," said 21-year-old Givati Brigade soldier Assaf Danziger, who was lightly injured three days before the conclusion of Operation Cast Lead.

"What happened there was not enjoyable to anyone; we wanted it to end as soon as possible and tried to avoid contact with innocent civilians," he said.

According to Danziger, soldiers were given specific orders to open fire only at armed terrorists or people who posed a threat. "There were no incidents of vandalism at any of the buildings we occupied. We did only what was justified and acted out of necessity. No one shot at civilians. People walked by us freely," he recounted.

A Paratroopers Brigade soldier who also participated in the war called the claims "nonsense". Speaking on condition of anonymity, he said "It is true that in war morality can be interpreted in many different ways, and there are always a few idiots who act inappropriately, but most of the soldiers represented Israel honorably and with a high degree of morality.

"For instance, on three separate occasions my company commander checked soldiers' bags for stolen goods. Those who stole the smallest things , like candy, were severely punished," he said. . . .

. . . .According to the officer, the IDF went to great lengths and employed the most advanced technology to avoid harming civilian population.

"I've seen a few things in my time, but even I was blown away by the level of professionalism displayed by the army," Zuaretz said. "I personally gave my soldiers an order on the day we withdrew from Gaza to leave all of our goodies in the last house we occupied. Some reservists even left an envelope full of money to one Palestinian family."

Knowing the extent to which the IDF goes to avoid harming civilians, claiming that there were widespread violations of its ethical code during Operation Cast Lead strain credibility.
http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2009/03/idf-soldiers-refute-misconduct-claims.html


cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2009 01:27 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxie, The IDF denials can't erase the atrocities of pictures taken.

http://nzagainstthecurrent.blogspot.com/2009/01/israeli-atrocities-in-gaza.html

The picture shows the pictures of children's mutilated bodies.

You Israel apologists are sick!
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2009 01:36 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
And there are as many soldiers who claim the accusations are unfounded. It's sort of like who do you believe? John Kerry and others who testified before Congress of gross military misconduct by his fellow soldiers in SE Asia, or the many who disputed Kerry's testimony even as they exposed the many provable errors in his testimony about his own activities?


Of course there are those who will hold up the 'we do no wrong' line when questioned. War is very difficult and it is necessary for many to see themselves as the 'good guys' in order to protect themselves from the horrors of war. However, I wonder what you think the motive is for the people in the original article to lie? You haven't provided one.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
THE WAR IN GAZA - Discussion by Advocate
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 04/02/2025 at 10:25:02