Romney Comments on Israel

[Omaha 680]

You are avoiding the main point. Would they attempt to destroy Israel while being fully aware that by doing so they would completely destroy themselves?

Because of a fanatical religous belief that they will not be destroyed for doing their part to bring about the coming of the Mahdi. Either that or they will be rewarded in paradise if they die. Why would someone fly a plane into a building? My point is they might not be as rational as you are giving them credit for. Maybe they are and the rhetoric is all an act. I don't know.

Poor analogy.

Do you think Hitler would have exterminated the Jews knowing that if he did so, Germany would be instantly turned to a sea of glass?

Certainly not. But he continued and even excellerated the extermination effort well after it was obvious the war was lost. My point here was the same as above...sometimes you have to assume leaders are telling the truth.

As to your main quesion, I'm probably closer to your position than the hawks. I don't want any part of an invasion, and I hope Israel doesn't strike. I think crippling sanctions combined with continuing sabatoge efforts could be effective. The problem is I don't believe the sanctions will be effective because China/Russia/India probably won't want to go as far as is needed.

[creekster]

Too often Jews and Gentiles alike highlight the tormented and tragic relations between them in history and today while not appreciating the symbiosis between Jews and Gentiles. Really, it's a remarkable example of symbiosis.

Also, Torah can refer to the Old Testament, and this is often the vernacular today:

http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm

Sure, and calling it symbiosis means you have to acknowledge what they brought to the table, which si my point an d which I thought you weren't doing.

On the Torah, maybe sometimes that is how it is used, but I think if you look up the typical definition it means the first five books, but I will grant you that is a technicality.

[Omaha 680]

For those of you in the "let's bomb them now" camp, were you advocating the same strategy to eliminate the North Korean nuclear weapon program which was carried out largely under the watch of George Bush?

If not, what is the difference? If you believe that North Korea is somehow safer or more stable than Iran, I would love to hear the reasons why.

For starters, bombing a country that borders and is a pseudo-ally of China is a little problematic.

A question for you: Why do you think sanctions and negotiations will be effective against Iran when they were such an abysmal failure with North Korea?

[creekster]

You are avoiding the main point. Would they attempt to destroy Israel while being fully aware that by doing so they would completely destroy themselves?

What could possibly be a stronger deterrent than obliteration?



Poor analogy.

Do you think Hitler would have exterminated the Jews knowing that if he did so, Germany would be instantly turned to a sea of glass?

How do you know they would be utterly destroyed? Do you advocate it? Would you accept it? WHat if they think they could get away with destroying israel in exchange for losing one of thier cities. Would they do it? the problem is that no one knows. Thtas the crazy part.

Hitler thought that he would win the war and that eventually everyone would thank him for eliminating the jews. Is it hard to see Ahmadinejad thinking the same sort of thing?

[creekster]

Then why did the US government make such a bid deal about it at the time and why was it such a scandal and embarrassment for Israel?

Do we have any recent documented cases of other close US allies spying on us? England, France, Germany, etc? Maybe it happens all the time like you say and I just missed it somehow.

To be clear: I don't think this is important part of the US dynamic, but this kind of excuse-making for Israel is part of this interesting phenomenon in the US. They can do just about anything and we defend it.

THere have been other instances:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...y_spook.2.html

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/20.../16360941.html

[Jeff Lebowski]

For starters, bombing a country that borders and is a pseudo-ally of China is a little problematic.

A question for you: Why do you think sanctions and negotiations will be effective against Iran when they were such an abysmal failure with North Korea?

I don't think there is any guarantee that it will be effective. Once again, I am asking people to rank the strategies in terms of risk. I think it is the best strategy of the three for the reasons described above.

[Omaha 680]

I don't think there is any guarantee that it will be effective. Once again, I am asking people to rank the strategies in terms of risk. I think it is the best strategy of the three for the reasons described above.

My preferred strategy is crippling sanctions combined with continuing sabotage while helping nudge the Iranians towards regime change. The reality is, absent a regime change, a strike will happen eventually. The Israelis won't wait until Iran has a nuke and the current regime will not stop pursuing one.

[Jeff Lebowski]

My preferred strategy is crippling sanctions combined with continuing sabotage while helping nudge the Iranians towards regime change. The reality is, absent a regime change, a strike will happen eventually. The Israelis won't wait until Iran has a nuke and the current regime will not stop pursuing one.

You are probably right.

[myboynoah]

But you were making that the point that because they disavow the holocaust, they will somehow be less concerned about self-preservation and therefore not susceptible to MAD. I don't see the connection. Yes, that makes them more dangerous to Israel, but what does that have to do with MAD?

I was making the point that because they are led by religious zealots they might not be as concerned about self-preservation as nations not led by religious zealots. The comment about the holocaust was to cite an example of the type of irrational belief to which that religious zealotry has led them.

It is an interesting and important aside that such comments, when put side-by-side with those same zealots' vow to "wipe" Israel off the map, show the type of threat underwhich Israel might perceive it finds itself.

[Devildog]

This Israel - Iran crap isn't new. It's just more of the same. This has been occurring forever.

Remember when Israel blew up Saddam's nuclear reactor right before he had them turn it on.

It's a good thing they did bomb that sucker too... considering what ended up taking place.

I just wish Romney had more Reagan in him. We know where Obama stands.

I posted this on the other Romney thread, bringin' it again.

The choice isn't between war and surrender, it's between doing what's right or not.

[YOUTUBE]tpH5L8zCtSk[/YOUTUBE]

[Goatnapper'96]

This Israel - Iran crap isn't new. It's just more of the same. This has been occurring forever.

Remember when Israel blew up Saddam's nuclear reactor right before he had them turn it on.

It's a good thing they did bomb that sucker too... considering what ended up taking place.

I just wish Romney had more Reagan in him. We know where Obama stands.

I posted this on the other Romney thread, bringin' it again.

The choice isn't between war and surrender, it's between doing what's right or not.

[YOUTUBE]tpH5L8zCtSk[/YOUTUBE]

Ya, well uh if you or Ronald Reagan actually fought or sent your sons you would feel different!

President Ronald Reagan makes my nipples hard. But I will point out that I think Reagan would have been hesitant to actually attack Iran, but he sure as hell would have spent a gazzillion dollars to prepare for that attack and make sure the Iranians knew how prepared the US was. I am not sure we are giving the Iranians the messsage that we are preparing to ensure they will not get a nuke.

[byu71]

Ya, well uh if you or Ronald Reagan actually fought or sent your sons you would feel different!

President Ronald Reagan makes my nipples hard. But I will point out that I think Reagan would have been hesitant to actually attack Iran, but he sure as hell would have spent a gazzillion dollars to prepare for that attack and make sure the Iranians knew how prepared the US was. I am not sure we are giving the Iranians the messsage that we are preparing to ensure they will not get a nuke.

I LOVE President Reagan. That being said, a lot of people are very selective in their memory of him. Isn't he the guy that cut and ran from Beirut?

Reagan is NOT your Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck conservative no matter how many times they want to claim so.

[il Padrino Ute]

Just words, Obama.

[Pelado]

http://www.freedomsjournal.net/2012/...-mr-president/

What actions have preceded President Obama’s assuring words to Israel on Iran? This president came to office pledging to the Iranian mullahs “an open hand, not a clenched fist.” They spat on his open hand. When the people of Iran rose up following obviously rigged elections in June, 2009, Mr. Obama declined to offer any support for the Green Revolution in the streets. Instead, green turned to red—the red bloodstains on the cobblestones as the mullahs’ hired guns shot down pro-democracy demonstrators.

Isn't the clenched fist a symbol of Marxism? Maybe Obama's not a Marxist after all.

[Goatnapper'96]

I LOVE President Reagan. That being said, a lot of people are very selective in their memory of him. Isn't he the guy that cut and ran from Beirut?

Reagan is NOT your Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck conservative no matter how many times they want to claim so.

He did not talk softly but he was really hesitant to unleash the big stick he was building. He was a pragmatist as well. That is the reason he was so popular. I also think the way the counterculture/hard core liberals tried to portray him as crazy enough to push the button blew up in their faces when the evil empire went bankrupt and that really cemented Reagan's legacy and gave conservativism a huge shot of legitimacy. Perhaps Reagan knew what he was doing, perhaps not but history will give him the credit. I believe it was probably as much luck and good timing as brilliant diplomacy.

In the end what I loved most about him was his ability to infuse confidence and optimism. Some wanker named Morgenthau waxed eloquent about intangible elements of power in international relations, one of those elements is nationalism and Reagan could leverage that like no other. But once again I think some of that was just timing as the US is a powerful enough entity that after the Vietnam era and the economic issues of the 70's it was like Ute hoops you just knew eventually the luck would change. It was kicked off with "DO YOU BELIEVE IN MIRACLES" and the Republic just got rolling for a couple of decades.