Romney Comments on Israel

[Omaha 680]

Just saw this linked on drudge:

Israel has asked the United States for advanced "bunker-buster" bombs and refueling planes that could improve its ability to attack Iran's underground nuclear sites, an Israeli official said on Thursday.

"Such a request was made" around the time of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Washington this week, the official said, confirming media reports.

But the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity given the sensitivity of the issue, played down as "unrealistic" Israeli reports that the United States would condition supplying the hardware on Israel promising not to attack Iran this year.

White House spokesman Jay Carney, asked whether the Israelis had made such a request to U.S. officials during the visit, said "there was no such agreement proposed or reached" in President Barack Obama's meetings with Netanyahu or his aides.

But when asked if the matter was raised with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta or other U.S. officials, Carney told reporters he had no information on that. "I would refer you to other officials," he said.

A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that military capabilities came up in discussions between Netanyahu and Panetta but did not elaborate. No deals were struck during those talks, the official added.

Netanyahu made clear to Obama at a White House meeting on Monday that Israel had not yet decided on military action against Iran, the White House has said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...82717220120308

[Devildog]

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.

Goat I want you to know that I'm a big fan of your posting skills... you are one of the best here.

Now with that said...

Way back in the day, Iran took some hostages from our embassy there, and they held them for quite awhile...

The U.S. President at the time was not a strong leader, but there was a race for that job going on.

Turned out that Iran decided to release those hostages they had held for a long time... on the very day before Mr. Reagan took office after winning that job.

I believe that they were somewhat aware of the gigantic, world class, state of the art, one for the ages, ass-kicking that was coming their way... as a matter of fact... I'm sure they knew.

Reagan would not have let Iran get a nuclear weapon.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Goat I want you to know that I'm a big fan of your posting skills... you are one of the best here.

Now with that said...

Way back in the day, Iran took some hostages from our embassy there, and they held them for quite awhile...

The U.S. President at the time was not a strong leader, but there was a race for that job going on.

Turned out that Iran decided to release those hostages they had held for a long time... on the very day before Mr. Reagan took office after winning that job.

I believe that they were somewhat aware of the gigantic, world class, state of the art, one for the ages, ass-kicking that was coming their way... as a matter of fact... I'm sure they knew.

Reagan would not have let Iran get a nuclear weapon.

lol.

Yes, the very same Reagan who later smuggled arms to Iran in exchange for the release of US hostages and then lied about it.

Yikes, can you imagine the shit storm that would occur if Obama did something like that?

[myboynoah]

lol.

Yes, the very same Reagan who later smuggled arms to Iran in exchange for the release of US hostages and then lied about it.

Yikes, can you imagine the shit storm that would occur if Obama did something like that?

Yeah, like congressional hearings carried live, commissions, indictments, convictions, high-level resignations, and catchy name for the whole thing ending in "-gate."

[Maximus]

Goat I want you to know that I'm a big fan of your posting skills... you are one of the best here.

Now with that said...

Way back in the day, Iran took some hostages from our embassy there, and they held them for quite awhile...

The U.S. President at the time was not a strong leader, but there was a race for that job going on.

Turned out that Iran decided to release those hostages they had held for a long time... on the very day before Mr. Reagan took office after winning that job.

I believe that they were somewhat aware of the gigantic, world class, state of the art, one for the ages, ass-kicking that was coming their way... as a matter of fact... I'm sure they knew.

Reagan would not have let Iran get a nuclear weapon.

Obama hasnt let Iran get a nuclear weapon and there is nothing indicating that he will.

[Indy Coug]

Obama hasnt let Iran get a nuclear weapon and there is nothing indicating that he will.

Obama hasn't stopped Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and there is nothing indicating that he will.

[Devildog]

lol.

Yes, the very same Reagan who later smuggled arms to Iran in exchange for the release of US hostages and then lied about it.

Yikes, can you imagine the shit storm that would occur if Obama did something like that?

That parallel is weak. Those particular hostages were held by terrorists not a Nation state. Punishing the whole country was not an option in that case.

Was it ever proved that Reagan knew?

You see what you want.

Either side is willing to gamble that their view is correct on the Iranian nuclear weapon question.

If the hawks view is wrong... then America would look the ass to the the libs in Europe.

If the doves view is wrong... A major American city could be erased from the Earth.

Obama will stand by and gamble.

Appeasement is capitulation.

[Maximus]

Obama hasn't stopped Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and there is nothing indicating that he will.

What hasnt he done that you would have expected him to do by now?

[Devildog]

Politics...

These same concepts have been argued forever.

Evolution in the game continues but the point remains the same.

Nations like Iran now support smaller groups to do their bidding... thereby risking less and they are able to deflect responsibility.

That has given rise to Intelligence gathering and increased special forces operations here.

That is beside the point.

What matters to me is what the United States is willing to do to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Israel has at least as much at stake in this question as America does.

The future president of this country will have much say in the course of future events.

For me, at this time, Romney is clearly the better choice over Obama.

[woot]

If the hawks view is wrong... then America would look the ass to the the libs in Europe.

If the doves view is wrong... A major American city could be erased from the Earth.

That's a pretty laughable characterization. If the hawks view is wrong, looking like an ass to the "libs in Europe" wouldn't make the top 10 notable consequences.

Again, I don't see anyone actually saying what Obama is supposed to be doing right now. I'm guessing the fact is that you simply don't trust Obama, because of your partisanship, to handle the situation properly when things come to a head, and that your feelings on the matter don't actually have much to do with how he has handled it up to this point.

Unless you'd like to articulate what exactly you think he should have done or should be doing? Lebowski's three options still seem like a good rubric. Do you favor a preemptive strike? At what point?

[Devildog]

Woot

What do you see as the top 10 most notable consequences of forcing Iran to allow inspections of their facilities and using objective international criteria to determine their nuclear program's intent.

I'm sure my partisanship affects my perspective. Do you think yours doesn't?

I didn't read Lebowski's three options. I only reponded to him when he addressed me.

I have no problem with parking an aircraft carrier battle group or two in the Straits of Hormuz (yesterday).

[Viking]

I'm reasonably liberal and the idea of Iran with a nuke has me scared to death.

They will use it. Period. If you think otherwise, you're kidding yourself.

What to do about it? You have to strike now.

[RobinFinderson]

I'm reasonably liberal and the idea of Iran with a nuke has me scared to death.

They will use it. Period. If you think otherwise, you're kidding yourself.

What to do about it? You have to strike now.

What evidence supports this?

Nuking Israel doesn't make sense. There are a lot of Muslims living within the fallout zone of Israel, and Islamic holy sights would glow in the dark for decades. Hawks have gotten a lot of mileage out of Iranian statements that Israel shouldn't exist, but it does not follow from that they will nuke Israel to bring about that end.

[Devildog]

Probably almost half of the Arab world doesn't want a nuclear armed Iran either.

Do you think the Saudi's want Iran with a nuke?

Anybody worried about oil prices due to American intervention is thinking too short term... What do you think a nuclear armed Iran saber rattling with its neighbors or with the west will do to oil prices?

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm reasonably liberal and the idea of Iran with a nuke has me scared to death.

They will use it. Period. If you think otherwise, you're kidding yourself.

What to do about it? You have to strike now.

Use it how? For what purpose? Be specific.

And what do you mean by "strike now". Again, provide some specifics please.