Bombing Iran?

[MHunterB]

I suppose this Jewish guy thinks he's really Israeli ---- a lot of them have "joint citizenship," whatever that means: means they aren't really American, basically.

I think if Israel wants to bomb Iran, let them get on with it. It's THEIR problem, not really ours. They are a lot closer than we are. They normally bomb nuke sites in enemy countries: they already did both Iraq and Syria. What's taking them so long?

Well, what's taking them so long is Iran is bigger and more dangerous, so they want to hold the coats: "Let's you and him fight!" sez Israel, and I for one am not interested in fighting a war for Israel. They are NOTNOTNOT a 51st or 52nd state.

well, i agree that israel wants our OK to bomb iran in case they need back up, or perhaps they do want us to do so.

the thing i object to though is here we have this very prominant american businessman whose organisation contributes very heavily to political causes i am sure, having a very public meeting with a foreign head of state and publically criticises our president for an action by our military.

first of all, i am pretty sure obama had very little to do with that decision...but for someone to criticise our government and military that way to the head of a foreign nation on a public stage is just wrong, no matter who is in office.

Like this has never happened before with any other 'prominent businessman'??? Does the name 'Charles Lindberg' ring a bell there? I doubt he had consulted the President, either.....

 

[theHawk]

"A top American Jewish leader on Sunday criticized the Obama administration for cutting its aircraft carrier presence in the Persian Gulf region from two carriers to one. He said the move sent entirely the wrong message to Iran about America’s commitment to keep all options, including the military option, on the table in the struggle to thwart Tehran’s nuclear drive.

“I’m personally very disturbed by the withdrawal [of one of the US's two aircraft carriers] from the Persian Gulf, the Arab Gulf, because of the message it sends to the Iranians,” said Malcolm Hoenlein, the long-time executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organization, in unusually critical comments. “We have to think about how the Iranians perceive it.”

Jewish leader raps US for taking aircraft carrier out of Gulf | The Times of Israel

i just really have to wonder why this businessman is going to israel and complaining about a move that takes our kids (and my kid is in a carrier group).

also, who is this "we" he is speaking about?

whether you like obama or not, this is just wrong. do not go to a foreign country and disrespect ours. that weakens us worse than the withdrawl of an aircraft carrier.

He appears to be a vice President of an American Jewish group. I assume the "we" he speaks about is the Jewish group he is apart of.

He has the right of freedom of speech like the rest of us.

On another note, I don't think anyone believes Obama will lift a finger to stop Iran from getting the bomb.

 

[sealadaigh]

I suppose this Jewish guy thinks he's really Israeli ---- a lot of them have "joint citizenship," whatever that means: means they aren't really American, basically.

I think if Israel wants to bomb Iran, let them get on with it. It's THEIR problem, not really ours. They are a lot closer than we are. They normally bomb nuke sites in enemy countries: they already did both Iraq and Syria. What's taking them so long?

Well, what's taking them so long is Iran is bigger and more dangerous, so they want to hold the coats: "Let's you and him fight!" sez Israel, and I for one am not interested in fighting a war for Israel. They are NOTNOTNOT a 51st or 52nd state.

well, i agree that israel wants our OK to bomb iran in case they need back up, or perhaps they do want us to do so.

the thing i object to though is here we have this very prominant american businessman whose organisation contributes very heavily to political causes i am sure, having a very public meeting with a foreign head of state and publically criticises our president for an action by our military.

first of all, i am pretty sure obama had very little to do with that decision...but for someone to criticise our government and military that way to the head of a foreign nation on a public stage is just wrong, no matter who is in office.

Like this has never happened before with any other 'prominent businessman'??? Does the name 'Charles Lindberg' ring a bell there? I doubt he had consulted the President, either.....

i did not say it never happened before. i saw an article about a current event and offered a very general opinion. essentially, i said words to the effect that i think that an american businessman with deep pockets and with the aquantance of other deep pocketed businessmen meeting, of his own volition, with the head of a foreign state and criticising military decisions made by my country, the USA, on a very public stage is wrong and should be condemned.

i think you are far to eager to crucify me, given our past. i have absolutely no idea what charles lindbergh has to do with this. he was, and is, an american hero, certainly with what many would consider flaws, but there is very little correlation between what he did and what this businessman did, if you read what i said and understand what linddbergh actually did. you should read about him before you grasp at more straws.

and again...over 70 years ago...i suppose if we want to go that route, i could argue he never appeared on TV.

 

[sealadaigh]

"A top American Jewish leader on Sunday criticized the Obama administration for cutting its aircraft carrier presence in the Persian Gulf region from two carriers to one. He said the move sent entirely the wrong message to Iran about America’s commitment to keep all options, including the military option, on the table in the struggle to thwart Tehran’s nuclear drive.

“I’m personally very disturbed by the withdrawal [of one of the US's two aircraft carriers] from the Persian Gulf, the Arab Gulf, because of the message it sends to the Iranians,” said Malcolm Hoenlein, the long-time executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organization, in unusually critical comments. “We have to think about how the Iranians perceive it.”

Jewish leader raps US for taking aircraft carrier out of Gulf | The Times of Israel

i just really have to wonder why this businessman is going to israel and complaining about a move that takes our kids (and my kid is in a carrier group).

also, who is this "we" he is speaking about?

whether you like obama or not, this is just wrong. do not go to a foreign country and disrespect ours. that weakens us worse than the withdrawl of an aircraft carrier.

He appears to be a vice President of an American Jewish group. I assume the "we" he speaks about is the Jewish group he is apart of.

He has the right of freedom of speech like the rest of us.

On another note, I don't think anyone believes Obama will lift a finger to stop Iran from getting the bomb.

i never for one moment questioned his freedom of speech. i questioned his discretion, lack of judgement, and may perhaps even question his loyalty at some point.

i am sure he was aware of the not so cordial feelings between our president and the israeli prime minister and the upcoming meeting, and i do not think an american should meet with the head of a foreign state and undercut our position.

i may be wrong. many people seem to think it is alright.

 

[georgephillip]

Wow.

Was that an attempt of being funny?

When do you expect the annexation of Area C?

There is no way to correctly answer that question.

"Government minister Yuli Edelstein told a conference in Jerusalem that the lack of Israeli sovereignty over Area C – the 60% of the West Bank under full Israeli military control in which all settlements are situated – 'strengthens the international community's demand for a withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines'".

Do you think the international community will tolerate your annexation of Judea and Samaria?
Do you care?

Likud members call for Israeli annexation of West Bank territories | World news | guardian.co.uk

 

[blackhawk]

"A top American Jewish leader on Sunday criticized the Obama administration for cutting its aircraft carrier presence in the Persian Gulf region from two carriers to one. He said the move sent entirely the wrong message to Iran about America’s commitment to keep all options, including the military option, on the table in the struggle to thwart Tehran’s nuclear drive.

“I’m personally very disturbed by the withdrawal [of one of the US's two aircraft carriers] from the Persian Gulf, the Arab Gulf, because of the message it sends to the Iranians,” said Malcolm Hoenlein, the long-time executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organization, in unusually critical comments. “We have to think about how the Iranians perceive it.”

Jewish leader raps US for taking aircraft carrier out of Gulf | The Times of Israel

i just really have to wonder why this businessman is going to israel and complaining about a move that takes our kids (and my kid is in a carrier group).

also, who is this "we" he is speaking about?

whether you like obama or not, this is just wrong. do not go to a foreign country and disrespect ours. that weakens us worse than the withdrawl of an aircraft carrier.

The truth is the military option was and never will be on the table at least not by the U.S. or the United Nations so one or two carrier's it really does not matter the only Nation that is likely to take military action is Israel.

 

[sealadaigh]

"A top American Jewish leader on Sunday criticized the Obama administration for cutting its aircraft carrier presence in the Persian Gulf region from two carriers to one. He said the move sent entirely the wrong message to Iran about America’s commitment to keep all options, including the military option, on the table in the struggle to thwart Tehran’s nuclear drive.

“I’m personally very disturbed by the withdrawal [of one of the US's two aircraft carriers] from the Persian Gulf, the Arab Gulf, because of the message it sends to the Iranians,” said Malcolm Hoenlein, the long-time executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organization, in unusually critical comments. “We have to think about how the Iranians perceive it.”

Jewish leader raps US for taking aircraft carrier out of Gulf | The Times of Israel

i just really have to wonder why this businessman is going to israel and complaining about a move that takes our kids (and my kid is in a carrier group).

also, who is this "we" he is speaking about?

whether you like obama or not, this is just wrong. do not go to a foreign country and disrespect ours. that weakens us worse than the withdrawl of an aircraft carrier.

The truth is the military option was and never will be on the table at least not by the U.S. or the United Nations so one or two carrier's it really does not matter the only Nation that is likely to take military action is Israel.

that is not the point. i don't care if we have the whole pacific fleet in the persian gulf and our military decides to move one life raft.

the point is that i do not think an american citisen and a powerful businessman who heads an organisation full of equally powerful americans should go into a foreign country and criticise to the prime minister of that country, in a very public forum, the actions of our military.

to make the matter worse, there is a very important meeting coming up between these two heads of state and their relationship with each other could easily and accurately described as contentious.

 

[georgephillip]

"'I understand the complexity of it,' noted Hoenlein, a highly experienced Jewish leader who has held his position since 1986. 'It’s all very well yelling slogans about bombing Iran. You have to think about the ramifications.'”

No doubt "highly experienced" businessmen will also be thinking about how to profit from ramifications like oil shock.

Jewish leader raps US for taking aircraft carrier out of Gulf | The Times of Israel

 

[Circe]

That reminds me of the statement of Martin Niemöller, ever heard of it?

He's dead.

Let him rest.

Niemöller isn't a good reason for Israel to own our firepower. Sorry, you all are going to have to take care of your own country. And high time, too.

Nothing to do with what I was saying

So what are you saying? I notice you did not clarify. You want to make me wrong somehow without saying what ABOUT.

Jews are always using the Niemöller saying to claim that we should be protecting Israel every minute. How about Israel and Jews generally taking care of their own interests for a change? There is a limit to how long ol' Niemöller is going to work for you. At some point Israel is going to have to do its own fighting.

 

[Circe]

On another note, I don't think anyone believes Obama will lift a finger to stop Iran from getting the bomb.

No, of course not.

Bush didn't either, of course.

 

[Circe]

i never for one moment questioned his freedom of speech. i questioned his discretion, lack of judgement, and may perhaps even question his loyalty at some point.

i am sure he was aware of the not so cordial feelings between our president and the israeli prime minister and the upcoming meeting, and i do not think an american should meet with the head of a foreign state and undercut our position.

i may be wrong. many people seem to think it is alright.

I think he's perfectly loyal: he's just loyal to Israel, not to America.

This guy, and Bill Kristol, and too many other Jews, want to treat our whole military like a tool they can use at will for the benefit of Israel.

How about the rest of us not allowing that? Darn! Israel's problems have nothing whatsoever to do with us. Let them do their own fighting. If they had fought back more in the 1930s, so many of them might not have been killed. It's this dependence on other people fighting for them, Niemoller, America, whomever they can try to shame into doing their fighting for them, that is causing the problem. Let them do their OWN fighting --- they are a different country! We don't fight Slovenia's battles, we don't need to fight Israel's battles or Sudan's battles or Argentina's battles or any other country's battles as if they were a state of the union: well, they aren't.

 

[theHawk]

"A top American Jewish leader on Sunday criticized the Obama administration for cutting its aircraft carrier presence in the Persian Gulf region from two carriers to one. He said the move sent entirely the wrong message to Iran about America’s commitment to keep all options, including the military option, on the table in the struggle to thwart Tehran’s nuclear drive.

“I’m personally very disturbed by the withdrawal [of one of the US's two aircraft carriers] from the Persian Gulf, the Arab Gulf, because of the message it sends to the Iranians,” said Malcolm Hoenlein, the long-time executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organization, in unusually critical comments. “We have to think about how the Iranians perceive it.”

Jewish leader raps US for taking aircraft carrier out of Gulf | The Times of Israel

i just really have to wonder why this businessman is going to israel and complaining about a move that takes our kids (and my kid is in a carrier group).

also, who is this "we" he is speaking about?

whether you like obama or not, this is just wrong. do not go to a foreign country and disrespect ours. that weakens us worse than the withdrawl of an aircraft carrier.

He appears to be a vice President of an American Jewish group. I assume the "we" he speaks about is the Jewish group he is apart of.

He has the right of freedom of speech like the rest of us.

On another note, I don't think anyone believes Obama will lift a finger to stop Iran from getting the bomb.

i never for one moment questioned his freedom of speech. i questioned his discretion, lack of judgement, and may perhaps even question his loyalty at some point.

i am sure he was aware of the not so cordial feelings between our president and the israeli prime minister and the upcoming meeting, and i do not think an american should meet with the head of a foreign state and undercut our position.

i may be wrong. many people seem to think it is alright.

It sounds like the Isrealis welcomed his visit. If he met with the leader(s) of Israel, its because they wanted to meet him. Its not like "an American" can just go meet the Prime Minister or any of his staff anytime they wish.

He's also not saying anything new that everyone doesn't already know: Obama is a spineless liberal who won't do anything about Iran.

So what exatly are you really upset about? The fact that Obama is showing the world he is weak and won't stop Iran from getting the bomb, or because someone is pointing out that fact?

 

[theHawk]

i never for one moment questioned his freedom of speech. i questioned his discretion, lack of judgement, and may perhaps even question his loyalty at some point.

i am sure he was aware of the not so cordial feelings between our president and the israeli prime minister and the upcoming meeting, and i do not think an american should meet with the head of a foreign state and undercut our position.

i may be wrong. many people seem to think it is alright.

I think he's perfectly loyal: he's just loyal to Israel, not to America.

This guy, and Bill Kristol, and too many other Jews, want to treat our whole military like a tool they can use at will for the benefit of Israel.

How about the rest of us not allowing that? Darn! Israel's problems have nothing whatsoever to do with us. Let them do their own fighting. If they had fought back more in the 1930s, so many of them might not have been killed. It's this dependence on other people fighting for them, Niemoller, America, whomever they can try to shame into doing their fighting for them, that is causing the problem. Let them do their OWN fighting --- they are a different country! We don't fight Slovenia's battles, we don't need to fight Israel's battles or Sudan's battles or Argentina's battles or any other country's battles as if they were a state of the union: well, they aren't.

He's a "long-time executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organization", of course he is loyal to Israel.

Doesn't mean it isn't in our best interest to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb.

 

[sealadaigh]

i never for one moment questioned his freedom of speech. i questioned his discretion, lack of judgement, and may perhaps even question his loyalty at some point.

i am sure he was aware of the not so cordial feelings between our president and the israeli prime minister and the upcoming meeting, and i do not think an american should meet with the head of a foreign state and undercut our position.

i may be wrong. many people seem to think it is alright.

I think he's perfectly loyal: he's just loyal to Israel, not to America.

This guy, and Bill Kristol, and too many other Jews, want to treat our whole military like a tool they can use at will for the benefit of Israel.

How about the rest of us not allowing that? Darn! Israel's problems have nothing whatsoever to do with us. Let them do their own fighting. If they had fought back more in the 1930s, so many of them might not have been killed. It's this dependence on other people fighting for them, Niemoller, America, whomever they can try to shame into doing their fighting for them, that is causing the problem. Let them do their OWN fighting --- they are a different country! We don't fight Slovenia's battles, we don't need to fight Israel's battles or Sudan's battles or Argentina's battles or any other country's battles as if they were a state of the union: well, they aren't.

He's a "long-time executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organization", of course he is loyal to Israel.

Doesn't mean it isn't in our best interest to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb.

so, let me get this straight. you are in favour of american private citizens meeting with the heads of foreign states in their country and, on their TV and in their press, negatively criticising our military strategy and the deployment of our personnel.

OK. gotcha.

 

[ima]

i think he's perfectly loyal: he's just loyal to israel, not to america.

This guy, and bill kristol, and too many other jews, want to treat our whole military like a tool they can use at will for the benefit of israel.

How about the rest of us not allowing that? Darn! Israel's problems have nothing whatsoever to do with us. Let them do their own fighting. If they had fought back more in the 1930s, so many of them might not have been killed. It's this dependence on other people fighting for them, niemoller, america, whomever they can try to shame into doing their fighting for them, that is causing the problem. Let them do their own fighting --- they are a different country! We don't fight slovenia's battles, we don't need to fight israel's battles or sudan's battles or argentina's battles or any other country's battles as if they were a state of the union: Well, they aren't.

he's a "long-time executive vice chairman of the conference of presidents of major american jewish organization", of course he is loyal to israel.

Doesn't mean it isn't in our best interest to prevent iran from getting a nuclear bomb.

so, let me get this straight. You are in favour of american private citizens meeting with the heads of foreign states in their country and, on their tv and in their press, negatively criticising our military strategy and the deployment of our personnel.

Ok. Gotcha.

...... Free speech?

 

[Circe]

Doesn't mean it isn't in our best interest to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb.

It is in our interests that Iran not get a nuclear bomb, obviously.

It is not so obvious that it is in our interests to PREVENT Iran from getting a bomb: that would involve a war, and we don't seem able either to win any wars against Muslims, or to get out of these losing wars in less than ten years with a huge financial deficit.

Better just wait and see.

 

[skye]

Doesn't mean it isn't in our best interest to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb.

It is in our interests that Iran not get a nuclear bomb, obviously.

It is not so obvious that it is in our interests to PREVENT Iran from getting a bomb: that would involve a war, and we don't seem able either to win any wars against Muslims, or to get out of these losing wars in less than ten years with a huge financial deficit.

Better just wait and see.

Wait and see with the enemy is like what happened before the Second World War when a lot of people wanted to wait and see about the good old nazis.

With Iran, the choice is wait and see and risk the balance of power completely changing in favor of the Islamists and the enemies of the West .....or taking necessary steps before is too late.

 

[sealadaigh]

Doesn't mean it isn't in our best interest to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb.

It is in our interests that Iran not get a nuclear bomb, obviously.

It is not so obvious that it is in our interests to PREVENT Iran from getting a bomb: that would involve a war, and we don't seem able either to win any wars against Muslims, or to get out of these losing wars in less than ten years with a huge financial deficit.

Better just wait and see.

Wait and see with the enemy is like what happened before the Second World War when a lot of people wanted to wait and see about the good old nazis.

With Iran, the choice is wait and see and risk the balance of power completely changing in favor of the Islamists and the enemies of the West .....or taking necessary steps before is too late.

so, you are for nuclear disarmament. it is nice to finally agree with you about something.

 

[skye]

It is in our interests that Iran not get a nuclear bomb, obviously.

It is not so obvious that it is in our interests to PREVENT Iran from getting a bomb: that would involve a war, and we don't seem able either to win any wars against Muslims, or to get out of these losing wars in less than ten years with a huge financial deficit.

Better just wait and see.

Wait and see with the enemy is like what happened before the Second World War when a lot of people wanted to wait and see about the good old nazis.

With Iran, the choice is wait and see and risk the balance of power completely changing in favor of the Islamists and the enemies of the West .....or taking necessary steps before is too late.

so, you are for nuclear disarmament. it is nice to finally agree with you about something.

Why would you assume I am for nuclear disarmament, when this has nothing to do with the terrible threat posed by the Islamists?

 

[Connery]

Doesn't mean it isn't in our best interest to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb.

It is in our interests that Iran not get a nuclear bomb, obviously.

It is not so obvious that it is in our interests to PREVENT Iran from getting a bomb: that would involve a war, and we don't seem able either to win any wars against Muslims, or to get out of these losing wars in less than ten years with a huge financial deficit.

Better just wait and see.

A "wait and see" attitude is enabling Iran in getting bombs. Constantly upsetting their activities and slowing them down until we have someone with the brains and courage to face this situation with a solution and the resolve to facilitate that solution is key.