Israel sets ultimatum deadline to act upon Iran.

[adampjr]

If Iran, or any other enemy of the United States was believed to have "enough nuclear material that is sufficient to produce five nuclear bombs." And if "the range is within the capability to reach all of the U.S, including any one of our nuclear reactors", you can bet your last dollar the United States WOULD defend itself! And whether that would be Iran or any other country, yes...they should strike first and destroy those capabilities.

Israel has that same right, regardless of what you think.

The fact is, this is known by BOTH Israel and by the United States which has always helped Israel to defend its people. Until this administration.

Whatever. Can you see taht someone might see that differently without being pro-Iranian? or is mudslinging adverse intentions on people who disagree wtih you just something you like to do?

[Diggindeeper]

Whatever. Can you see taht someone might see that differently without being pro-Iranian? or is mudslinging adverse intentions on people who disagree wtih you just something you like to do?

Call it mudslinging if you wish. I am at a loss to understand how you can disagree with my statement above! I am at a loss to see why Israel is in the wrong about this. At a complete loss.

[Vhayes]

The fact is, this is known by BOTH Israel and by the United States which has always helped Israel to defend its people. Until this administration.

Where did this administration NOT back Israel?

[adampjr]

Well, for future reference, if you're ever at a loss as to how someone else is thinking, your odds of finding out and learning about that is much better if you refrain from asserting they must be "pro-Iranian' or that they "don't caer about Israel." It is these bizarre statements that I am calling mudslinging.

I will try to explain some of it without deciding that people who disagree with me are unreasonably thirsty for blood. See how this works?

1. I don't trust government assertions. that is part of our disagreement. Israel and the US have made an assertion about Iran. I worked in military intelligence for a good period of time and I have some idea about how the process works. I know that conclusions are given to decision makers and for classification reasons teh supporting evidnece is withheld. Many times, the conclusions are not necessarily present in the evidence but are rather the products of analytical leaps which may or may not be warranted. Conclusions can very easily be stated with a level or certainty that is far from justified. I have zero confidence that these latest assertions by intelligence agencies are exceptions. The way to analyze statements is not to just assume they are true. These assertions are meaningless because they tell us nothing about how the intelligence came to those conclusions. Was it by analyzing uranium movement? Did they control for other explanations? I will tell you that the intelligence community goes about things in a less than scientific manner, and that wouldn't be gving anything away!
Do you personally care to show any real reason to believe Iran has a nuclear weapon or is close to it? Or are you advocating the shedding of blood over something so inconcrete as vague intelligence assertions?
^Does any of that make me pro-Iranian?
*And even if they did have enough "nuclear material" (which is vague enough), that still tells us nothing. That's like worrying that your neighbor has enough wood do make 7 catapults. there's a lot of things one can do with wood.

2. No, that doesn't fit the definition of defense. That's offense. Defense by defintion requires someone else to act first or show signs of acting aggressively. Merely having a nuclear weeapon is not an aggressive act. Much less so is kinda/maybe/sorta close to having the amoung necessary.. an act of aggression.
^Does the standard defintion of defense make me pro-Iranian?

3. If one nation that is the enemy of another has material that is sufficient to produce 5 nuclear bombs and the range is within the capability to reach all of another country means the 2nd country should strik first and destroy those capabilities, think about that. By your standard, almost every nation should be at war with each other. You definitely just said Iran should strike Israel first and destroy those capabilities. Israel actually has those capabilities. And mind you, you just said that every country in the world that is remotely at odds with the US should strike it first.
^I see how you might to to construe taht as pro-Iranian. It is not. It is the logical application of your standards.

I fail to see how any of my reasons for not entirely aggreing with your post make me pro-iranian. You are welcome to explain.

WE do have some agreement. I agree with you that it doesn't make any sense to say the United States has any rights that Israel doesn't. I never said as much, either. Or course, if Israel and American have the right to peaceful nuclear nergy, so does Iran. I'm sure you agree wtih that, since you apparently beleive that American doesn't have special rights based on your "Israel has that right too" comment.

[adampjr]

Where did this administration NOT back Israel?

That's also true. While Obama lacks some of the zionist flair of many Republicans, he can hardly be described as anti-Israel. Remember who's still paying for Israel's defense while we have budgetary problems of our own.

[decrumpit]

A few questions (for anyone):

1. Why would Iran be so eager to completely destroy its infrastructure and military by going through with a program Khameni has already declared immoral?

2. Why would Iran use an atomic bomb to destroy a city holy to Islam, destroy the Dome of the Rock, and destroy one of the few Shiite groups in Southern Lebanon at the same time?

3. Why would Iran want to make Tehran a nuclear graveyard and trigger the apocalypse just to attack a country that it vastly superior in military prowess?

4. Why hasn't the Constitutionality of such a war been brought up yet?

5. Why haven't any of the 16 US security agencies said that Iran is developing a bomb?

6. When was the last time Ahmadinejad started a war?

[adampjr]

A few questions (for anyone):

1. Why would Iran be so eager to completely destroy its infrastructure and military by going through with a program Khameni has already declared immoral?

2. Why would Iran use an atomic bomb to destroy a city holy to Islam, destroy the Dome of the Rock, and destroy one of the few Shiite groups in Southern Lebanon at the same time?

3. Why would Iran want to make Tehran a nuclear graveyard and trigger the apocalypse just to attack a country that it vastly superior in military prowess?

4. Why hasn't the Constitutionality of such a war been brought up yet?

5. Why haven't any of the 16 US security agencies said that Iran is developing a bomb?

6. When was the last time Ahmadinejad started a war?

1. Khameni's power is limited.
2. Right? What wierd idea.
3. They wouldn't.
4. Because its kind of a separate question. And, if declared (it won't be) it would be Constitutional.
5. Because maybe they're not.
6. Yea, another good question.

You could add to it:
7. What's the only country ever in the history of the world to use nuclear weapons against human beings?
8. Importantly, what key distinction separated taht incident and does not apply to Iran? Answer: When the US did it, no one else could strike back.

[student of the Lamb]

Call it mudslinging if you wish. I am at a loss to understand how you can disagree with my statement above! I am at a loss to see why Israel is in the wrong about this. At a complete loss.

I agree with your assessment!

[student of the Lamb]

Where did this administration NOT back Israel?

The administration's actions are anti Israel. The most obvious way was in the appointing of Samantha Power, wife of Cass Sunnstein who is the regulatory czar. She came to the administration from the UN where she was responsible for writing UN strategy against Israel. Her assessment was that the only way to deal with Israel with with a very large conventional military force. She was appointed to the genocide prevention board of the UN. What reasons would Obama have for appointed her to his foreign affairs staff with such credentials if he was not anti Israel. Of course, I am sure that shunning Netanyahu was just an oversight, right?

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-...vention-board/

www.jewishjournal.com/rabbi_shmuley/item/samantha_power_clarifies_her_comments_on_israel_20 110411/

www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-appoints-responsibility-to-protect-champion-samantha-power-to-chair-genocide-panel/

[EarlyCall]

I'm just going to respond gracefully to this, as much as I can. That was really rude. You really have not business calling my beliefs and sincerity into question because I don't support military action against Iran. If you wish to reply respectfully, you're welcome to.

I'm not going to respond to the Neville Chamberlain comment, other than to say that, like the rest of your post, that was very rude. It could be applied, I suppose, to any situation where there is a question of going to war with another nation or not.

I do not see your reasons given as sufficient for considering Iran a real threat. The sincerity of some talk of some of their government can firstly be legitimiately called into question. But obviously you know that Iranian politicians are completely sincere (I'm apparently a fool for disagreeing with you about this, even though I never called their sincerity into question. Did I? Care to cite what you're talking about here?). I won;t ask how you know that. Still, Iran has no nuclear capacity, and little way to pose a threat to Israel if it wanted to.

I'm going to take issue with your last argument as well. Because I (according to you) don't take Iranian politicians at their word, no one should take me at mine? Well, most people who know me take me at my word because I'm a more respectable person than politicians, Iranian or otherwise. They also, thankfully enough, doin't have you around to tell them how I feel about Iranian politicians and their sincerity. But I appreciate the comment. And sorry, if I didn't stoop to your level of rhetoric.

So are you trying to ay that you didn't like my post and you disagree?

[EarlyCall]

Care to explain the point of the European war analogy? I'm not seeing the connection. Is Iran poised to take over the middle east or something? Perhaps you know something about their capabilities that no one else does?

Clearly you do not see the connection nor the point.

[adampjr]

So are you trying to ay that you didn't like my post and you disagree?

I am saying that and I am also saying that your isninuations about me were both rude and unwarranted.

[adampjr]

Clearly you do not see the connection nor the point.

I see what you are trying to say. Care to answer the simple questions, or are you just going to call everyone who disagrees with you Neville Chamberlain without explaining why the Iran situation is anything like that late 1930s Hitler situation?

[adampjr]

I agree with your assessment!

If the part you are agreeing with her is that you are at a loss as how people think otherwise, feel free to see my response that addresses that very question. What DiD was doing was attaching the label pro-Iranian to me. She has not provided a single reason for saying that. Do you care to?

[Vhayes]

People DO see it otherwise.

I know this is from the Huffington Post but hey - if people can use The BLaze as a resource with a straight face, I figure HuffPo should fly, yes?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...b_1727802.html

It has been said by members of the Israel lobby that Obama's actions speak louder than his words, and that his actions have hurt Israel. Let us recall some of the actions. In response to the onslaught on Gaza in December-January 2008-2009, in which 1,300 Palestinians were killed and 13 Israelis, Obama observed a silence which he has never broken. When, in November 2010, Netanyahu balked at the proposal of a 90-day partial extension of the freeze on West Bank settlement expansion, Obama offered twenty F-35 fighter jets if he would change his mind; Netanyahu refused, and Obama gave him the jets anyway. Only a week ago, the president donated another $70 million, on top of U.S. assistance already given, to build up the Israeli "Iron Dome" defense against rockets. Yet it is felt that Obama's love of Israel has been insufficiently demonstrative. The reason is simple but it is seldom mentioned quite candidly.

Twice, in the last four years, this president lapsed from the post-1992 American protocol toward Israel of undiluted flattery and largesse. In June 2009 he called for a settlement freeze, and in May 2011 he spoke of the 1967 lines as the starting point for the creation of an independent Palestine. Now, the de facto policy of the Netanyahu government is annexation of the West Bank. These diplomatic hints and reminders from the president were therefore as unwelcome as they were unexpected.

As for Iran, Israelis themselves (except Netanyahu and those in his immediate circle) are a good deal more cautious than their American neoconservative supporters. At a public meeting in April, in the Israeli city of Kfar Saba, Yuval Diskin, who in 2011 retired as head of Shin Bet (the Israeli FBI), said that he had "no faith" in Netanyahu's policy or his instincts on Iran. Two days later the former chief of Mossad, Meir Dagan, emphatically concurred and praised Diskin for his honesty.

And then, there's this, written/published by American Jews:

http://www.njdc.org/blog/post/sheffey061912

Sheffey Rebuts Right Wing’s Double Standard on Obama and Israel
David Streeter — June 19, 2012 – 10:55 am
In his latest op-ed for The Times of Israel, veteran pro-Israel activist Steve Sheffey rebutted the double standard imposed on President Barack Obama by certain Republican partisans who are bent on turning Israel into a partisan wedge issue. Sheffey wrote:

Republican partisans continue to apply a double standard to President Obama, ignoring his tangible successes in strengthening the US-Israel relationship and criticizing him for what would go unnoticed in other administrations. It’s all part of their campaign to delegitimize President Obama in the eyes of pro-Israel voters.<snip>

<snip>We hear about imagined slights to Prime Minister Netanyahu, but when the chips were down, Obama came through for Israel and Netanyahu. When Israel asked for help fighting the Carmel forest fires, President Obama’s response was ‘get Israel whatever it needs. Now.’

In September 2011, when the late-night call came from Israel to Obama asking for help in rescuing the Israelis trapped in the Egyptian embassy, Netanyahu himself called it a ‘decisive and fateful moment,’ recalling that Obama ‘said “I will do everything I can.” And he did.’

From an Israeli paper:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...ities-1.458743

A majority of Jewish Israelis oppose an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities without U.S. cooperation, and think it is unlikely Israel will soon launch a unilateral strike against the Islamic Republic, a poll released Thursday has found.

Some 61 per cent of those questioned oppose an Israeli strike, compared to 27 per cent in favor, the poll by the Israel Democracy Institute and Tel Aviv University's Evens Program in Mediation and Conflict Resolution found.

In addition, 56 per cent think the chances are low that Israel would launch such a strike unilaterally, compared to 33 per cent who assume Israel will go ahead anyway.

And last but not least, the views of an Israeli statesman:
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/the-p...enemy-1.459121

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, hiding behind his "aides," was aggrieved by the chutzpah of President Shimon Peres, who dared to disturb the monopoly that he and Defense Minister Ehud Barak had secured over the debate about whether to bomb Iran. "Peres forgot the role of a president in the State of Israel," Netanyahu rebuked Peres via his "aides."

Peres - along with military experts, senior commanders in the Israel Defense Forces, a former Mossad chief, the president of the United States, and much of the Israeli public - believes that Israel is incapable of striking Iran on its own. If it does decide to attack, he posits, it must have at least U.S. support, if not its military might.

But hey - what do any of these people know?