http://www.debka.com/article/21716/
This is interesting too. Guess we’ll know soon enough.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I’m not really going to argue semantics, but the way I read it, “sabotage” and “hamstring” were synonyms.
[/quote]
Okay, but by hamstring - I meant delay/postpone/prevent.
I think - for whatever reasons - that the Obama administration doesn’t want Israel to launch a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities at the moment. The cancelled joint exercises, the “leak” and Obama’s clear statements:
'In a television interview, Obama said he did not believe Tehran had the “intentions or capabilities” to attack the United States, playing down the threats from Tehran and saying he wanted a diplomatic end to the nuclear standoff.
“Any kind of additional military activity inside the Gulf is disruptive and has a big effect on us. It could have a big effect on oil prices. We’ve still got troops in Afghanistan, which borders Iran. And so our preferred solution here is diplomatic,” Obama said.
His comments echoed concerns expressed by earlier by Iran’s neighbor Turkey that an attack on Iran would be disastrous.
“My number one priority continues to be the security of the United States, but also the security of Israel, and we are going to make sure that we work in lockstep as we proceed to try to solve this, hopefully diplomatically,” he told NBC.
[quote]
Also, I notice by your diction you seem to assume the worst of the administration, I guess I’m not sure how starting from that position can lead to a “true” understanding of what they are doing/trying to do. You sound more like the “Obama is a enemy of America” type of poster. Maybe I’m mis-reading you though. [/quote]
I didn’t say anything over-the-top about Obama. I’m giving my opinion of what is going on.[/quote]
I don’t think you said anything over-the-top. I think your position comes from a place where the Sec of Defense is an “idiot” and “amateurish,” a place where your assumption is that the US and Israel are actively working against one another (“hamstring”) rather than an assumption they are either directly working together or very much trying to. I’m not sure how “accurate” an explanation based on these assumptions can be. But perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, and Lord knows I’m often surprised at what happens in international affairs.
As always, it’s interesting to read your opinions and thank you for them.
Thanks GL. Sorry to dis your Defense Secretary but I have reason to be sceptical. For one thing Panetta made what also appeared to be a “mistake” the previous day with a surprise announcement that US forces will be leaving Afghanistan in 2013 - apparently, this was not supposed to be announced until May. And then there was this gaffe - Leon Panetta Makes Foreign Policy Gaffe - WSJ amongst others - and the fact that Panetta was an Obama appointee with absolutely no intelligence or foreign policy experience
and…
"From at least the mid-1970s until 1986, President Barack Obama?s nomination for Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, had a close personal friendship with Hugh DeLacy, a Santa Cruz, California activist and a life long Marxist-Leninist.
Then Congressman Panetta and DeLacy exchanged letters over many years ? almost all of which dealt with defense and foreign policy issues. Many involved requests by DeLacy for information, policy papers, etc., which Panetta went out of his way to supply.
What Panetta hopefully did not know was that in the year before this correspondence began, Hugh DeLacy had been in the People?s Republic of China meeting with three men, all at one time accused of having spied for the Soviet Union. One of them, Solomon Adler, was at that time, reliably reported to be a senior advisor to the Chinese intelligence services.
In February 1972, Hugh DeLacy received a letter from California academic John (Jack) S. Service. Clearly a reply to an earlier communication, the letter remarked that the men had possibly previously met in 1945 and should reconnect in the near future.
In 1945, DeLacy had been a secret Communist Party USA member, serving as a Democratic Congressman in Washington. DeLacy had been infamous at the time for his speeches on the floor of the House, denouncing US support for the Chinese Nationalists and trying his best to tilt US policy in favor of Mao Zedong?s communist forces."
I could go on but you get the idea.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
…But I just don’t think that supporting Israel in this particular action, either vocally or literally, is something that will ultimately improve our chances for success against Iranian recruitment efforts, diplomatic efforts of our own with peripheral countries or chances for establishing rapport with govts in the area that will help actively fight terrorism…
[/quote]
I disagree. Abandoning Israel will send a crystal clear signal to Arab allies such as S.A., Kuwait, UAE, Qatar and others that the US is not a reliable friend and can’t be trusted.
[/quote]
I think this is the more important point…we need these nations to know that we will back them up.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
…But I just don’t think that supporting Israel in this particular action, either vocally or literally, is something that will ultimately improve our chances for success against Iranian recruitment efforts, diplomatic efforts of our own with peripheral countries or chances for establishing rapport with govts in the area that will help actively fight terrorism…
[/quote]
I disagree. Abandoning Israel will send a crystal clear signal to Arab allies such as S.A., Kuwait, UAE, Qatar and others that the US is not a reliable friend and can’t be trusted.
[/quote]
I think the message it sends is that if one of our allies does something that we feel will be detrimental to our own interests we won’t back them up. It sends the message that just because a country is our ally doesn’t mean they have carte blanche to do whatever they want free of repercussion. It sends the message that even our allies better hop to our tune.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
…But I just don’t think that supporting Israel in this particular action, either vocally or literally, is something that will ultimately improve our chances for success against Iranian recruitment efforts, diplomatic efforts of our own with peripheral countries or chances for establishing rapport with govts in the area that will help actively fight terrorism…
[/quote]
I disagree. Abandoning Israel will send a crystal clear signal to Arab allies such as S.A., Kuwait, UAE, Qatar and others that the US is not a reliable friend and can’t be trusted.
[/quote]
I think the message it sends is that if one of our allies does something that we feel will be detrimental to our own interests we won’t back them up. It sends the message that just because a country is our ally doesn’t mean they have carte blanche to do whatever they want free of repercussion. It sends the message that even our allies better hop to our tune.[/quote]
The problem with that is it IS in our best interests for Iran’s nuclear weapon program to be taken out. It is.[/quote]
I know it is. I’ve never denied that. I just don’t feel it is in our best interests for US to be the ones who do it, not when Israel seems to be willing and ready and capable of taking it out without our help or overt approval.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
…But I just don’t think that supporting Israel in this particular action, either vocally or literally, is something that will ultimately improve our chances for success against Iranian recruitment efforts, diplomatic efforts of our own with peripheral countries or chances for establishing rapport with govts in the area that will help actively fight terrorism…
[/quote]
I disagree. Abandoning Israel will send a crystal clear signal to Arab allies such as S.A., Kuwait, UAE, Qatar and others that the US is not a reliable friend and can’t be trusted.
[/quote]
That and that Israel is prime for the taking. If we abandon Israel, it will be instant war.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
@ SexMachine:
Look, I get that denying nuclear weaponry to an apocalyptic theocracy is a high-priority issue. No argument from me there. What I have some doubts about revolves around just how apocalyptic this theocracy is and just how nuclear weapon-bent it is. I just can’t help but be skeptical when the echo of the bullshit we had to listen to about Saddam Hussein’s links to al Qaeda and, more pointedly, the massive stockpile of WMDs that he had is still so clear in my ears.
And I think this trepidation is justified to a certain extent. If this were some sort of major issue that did NOT involve the possibility of perhaps thousands or tens of thousands of American lives being lost in Iran in the process I’d be much more gung-ho about the anti-Iran rhetoric like a lot of other people seem to be. I just feel that this is one of those times in history where the U.S. REALLY needs to tread carefully, perhaps think outside its normal scope of operation, and ask some tough questions about itself and its role in the world.
Let’s get down to brass tacks here. Like I said, I wholeheartedly agree with your statement about ridding the world of Strangelovian theocracies. But the next logical question that I don’t see the right people in the right places asking is “is it best for the U.S. to be at the forefront of the movement to exterminate this threat?”
Think about it: We KNOW that Israel is going to act against Iran when the time calls for it, and most likely with great success barring some unforseeable reversal of circumstances, regardless of what we do about it. If we come out and publicly say, without ambiguity, that we are 100% against an Israeli airstrike of any kind against any targets inside Iran, they would still carry through with it if they thought Iran was a real threat. And they would eradicate that threat and any requisite threats stemming from it. Thy certainly wouldn’t wait around for us to join the fray. So, in essence, there is every single likelihood that Iran and their nuclear threat could be wiped out without our involvement, support, blessing, whatever.
Now, who do you think would be better to have pissed off at us due to our involvement, or lack thereof, in this conflict when the Israelis and Iranians have run their course and Iran is potentially turned into fucking glass? Israel, or the entire remaining Muslim world? Which breakdown in relations do you think the U.S. is better-equipped to handle?
[/quote]
The USA has already been infiltrated at all levels of life and governemt, byt the Muslim brotherhood and the USA govt is busy helping it to become the supreme religious and financial force in the US.
Impending Israeli attacks on Iran are the least of your worries, after 18000 jihad attacks on US citizens on US soil.
If and when they strike, I hope they shoot a full accurate barrel (as it were) on Ahmadinejad’s head.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
…Israel doesn’t need U.S. ‘support’ - and certainly not the sort of support Bam Bam gave by telling them to go back to '67 borders…[/quote]
Okay…I have a feeling that I’ll get “Jewbacca-Slapped” for these comments…but here goes:
-
Netanyahu pretty much “schooled” the President on this issue…and came out publicly and said that they are now are of the “same understanding on the issue”.
-
This was NOT something I read…but actually heard Ehud Barak state that this administration has been one of the strongest supporters of Israel in DECADES…(yes, decades…)
Flame away!
Mufasa[/quote]
No flame here - but Ehud Barak is a leftist moron.
If you want accurate and interesting commentary about the Soetoro governemt and Israel and its relationship, go to www.carolineglick.com
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
…Israel doesn’t need U.S. ‘support’ - and certainly not the sort of support Bam Bam gave by telling them to go back to '67 borders…[/quote]
Okay…I have a feeling that I’ll get “Jewbacca-Slapped” for these comments…but here goes:
-
Netanyahu pretty much “schooled” the President on this issue…and came out publicly and said that they are now are of the “same understanding on the issue”.
-
This was NOT something I read…but actually heard Ehud Barak state that this administration has been one of the strongest supporters of Israel in DECADES…(yes, decades…)
Flame away!
Mufasa[/quote]
No flame here - but Ehud Barak is a leftist moron.
If you want accurate and interesting commentary about the Soetoro governemt and Israel and its relationship, go to www.carolineglick.com
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
…That’s a completely disingenuous argument on his part then. We’ve been faced with the choice between decency before and when the choice is between decency and what’s best for the U.S., we go with what’s best for the U.S., or at least what we think is best. Look at Gitmo/torture. That may have been important and necessary in the terror war, but that isn’t what I’d call “decent”. The decent thing to do here may be to stand by Israel, but the bottom line is that this is Israel’s fight and I don’t believe in some “today Israel, tomorrow the world” scenario. At some point in time a democracy is going to have to stand on its own merit. That goes for Israel AND the Muslim world. If democracy is going to flourish there, it has to be without our forcing it upon them and without trying to preserve its one beacon in the area at a growing detriment to our OWN democracy.[/quote]
This is one of the darkly funniest, most clueless things I have EVER read about the ME and America.
It would be so wonderful to fly over the iranian nuclear sites and bomb them. Send 'em all to Hell.
If they do one bit of terrorism, firebomb their cities.
Interesting links nuffsaid. Thanks.
“Panetta’s statements in the past few weeks peg him as either an idiot or a man sending the signal that Israel is going to have to go it alone. If Panetta was an opponent of direct action all along, which may well be the case, then he is trying to sabotage any possible Israeli operation while disavowing any responsibility for it…If the ball is finally rolling on the Israeli side then the situation in Washington has to be tense. It is doubtful that the Obama Administration would back any Israeli strike, openly or under the table. Whatever promises were made to the Israelis in exchange for patience were never sincere and if Israel seriously expected that when the checkpoints were reached and Israel stuck with a covert campaign, that Washington would support a strike, they were kidding themselves. And it would not be the first time.”
"The question is why hasn’t it been carried out yet and the likely answer is Obama. Not just Obama, but the oddball mix of Clintonites and left-wing Chicago radicals who would be in a prime position to oppose or support any such move. Just as with the takedown of Bin Laden, it is likely that there are figures in the administration who support such a move and those who oppose it.
The Israeli cabinet and defense establishment has been having its own quiet debate on the subject, just as it before taking out Osirak. As then the lefties are opposed, but their best ammo comes from D.C. which has doubtlessly been stringing Israel along and promising that if Israel is patient then the problem will be taken care of. To the right the argument has no doubt been that the United States will not do anything and that Israel needs to do it alone."
I’m sure you’ve all heard of Brzezinski. His foreign policy ideas influence the Obama administration more than any other foreign policist. The current process of “shifting to the Pacific” is straight out of Brzezinski’s book. Here’s Brzezinski’s idea of what Obama should do about an Israeli strike:
Zbigniew Brzezinski, who enthusiastically campaigned for U.S. President Barack Obama, has called on the president to shoot down Israeli planes if they attack Iran. “They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?” said the former national security advisor to former U.S. President Jimmy Carter in an interview with the Daily Beast. Brzezinski, who served in the Carter administration from 1977 to 1981, is currently a professor of American foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies in Maryland.
“We have to be serious about denying them that right,” he said. “If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a ‘Liberty’ in reverse.'” Israel mistakenly attacked the American Liberty ship during the Six-Day War in 1967.
Brzezinski was a top candidate to become an official advisor to President Obama, but he was downgraded after Republican and pro-Israel Democratic charges during the campaign that Brzezinski’s anti-Israel attitude would damage Obama at the polls.
President Obama’s advisors have emphasized that the former national security advisor is not playing any unofficial role as advisor to the White House.
" Read today that Iran’s religious leader once again threatened the destruction of Israel."
Big deal… How many nucs does Israel have , over 200? Those “threats” are empty so get real, you guys talk like your part of the power structure of America and Israel. I think there’s more of a reason than this nonsense talk that Iran is a threat cause if they get the bomb they will use it against Israel. That is suicidal, and they know it, but without a bomb then they are open to the threats from the USA and its proxy Israel. ANd the reason why american politicians stand behind Israel the way they do is because of the power of the right wing Israel lobby in America. Meanwhile Israel continues to take more and more of Palestinian lands and treat the Palestinian like vermin. I don’t know just seems to me its all about money and power and not about justice and living in peace.
[quote]silee wrote:
Those “threats” are empty so get real,
[/quote]
Are they?
When did American politicians ‘stand behind Israel?’ I don’t remember that. I don’t remember it under Bush II, Bush I or Reagan either.
Do they?
And people wonder why some distrust Obama on Israel. My assessment is that Obama wants to prevent any Israeli strike before November for obvious reasons - he can then go to the general election promising his right hand’s cunning, then when he wins he can “distance” himself from Israel as much as he likes. I don’t expect much better from Mittens either. Israel knows it has to go it alone.