Netanyahu's red line would be drawn with american blood

[Jroc]

interestingly, notwithstanding the anti-semitic pieces of trash, the US has never fought for israel. israel has done all of it's own fighting.

but then again, i never put much stock in the assertions of israel hating loons.

Well up until now Israel always knew they could count on us. After all it is 30 million Jews living among 300 million Arabs who would like to eradicate them. Who would you root for?

israel has counted on us? some...

in 1948, the arabs were armed by the soviets. the u.s. and britain said they couldn't get involved and didn't sell weapons to the jewish fighters.

in 1948, when the mandate was divided by the british, the high ground, fortresses and defensible positions were given to the arabs.

israel fought it's own battles, fought it's own wars.

it wasn't until daddy bush asked israel to take SCUD missiles without response that an attack went unpunished by israel.

it wasn't until baby bush asked israel to stop defending itself against hezbollah in lebanon that israel could be perceived as weak and beatable.

it wasn't until baby bush de-stabilized the mid-east by deposing saddam hussein and took away the one counterweight to iran that israel was in danger from a potentially nuclear iran.

so what is all this BS that republicans are good for israel?

words are cheap.

Those talking points of yours make no sense why would Israel have any need to responsed to those scuds? That would be stupid as the U.S. and its coalition partners annihilated Saddam Hussein’s forces, what would be the point of a response from Israel? As far as Shimon Peres’s liberal weak response to Hezbollah that was on him, he was unprepared as libs usually are. Saddam Husain helped Israel? That’s a good one Israelis know who their friends are, and it isn't liberal Americans or liberal Israelis who were prepared to give away half the country that's a fact

 

[Jroc]

nonsense.

you understand that even israeli's have different opinions on these subjects. there, like here, there is a rabid right, ready to bomb bomb bomb iran....

and then there are the normal people.

Jillian,

I misunderstood your initial post to say that I was a israel hating loon... I was wrong.

I am one of those who feel if we wait for Iran to have a nuke, it will be too late.

Iran's leaders say they want to irradicate Isreal along with the jews, and I take them at their word. I remember Hitler and his threats... he should have been taken seriously.

Why on earth do we sit back and listen to them threaten Isreal in front of the U.N.?
Should there not be consequences to their threats? I feel a bully should be punched right in the mouth... to Hell with waiting to get hit first.

Again though... I am sorry for my off the cuff remark earlier. (Didnt take long for me to realize I was wrong)

not a problem. i always appreciate people who are big enough to say they made a mistake. you're ok in my book.

it is my understanding that the saudis have already given israel permission to use their air space to take out iran's nuclear capability.

it is my understanding that everyone is doing their usual diplomatic dance. i think the policies of the last administration were far more damaging to israel despite professed support.

it is my belief that we can't afford to mount another unnecessary war in the mideast and we need to be less headstrong than the last admin...

we can't reshape the middle east. it isn't going to happen. but no one is going to let iran go nuclear... no matter what the israel haters on the far left and far right say.

as for achmadinejad... no, i don't understand why he's allowed to waste our time in the UN...

but i also don't think we should be drawn into netanyahu's re-election drama... most israelis are more moderate than he is and he's got a rough election ahead of him. he's had to appeal to the furthest right of the israeli political spectrum for support... much like romney, here.

and just because he wants his old buddy in the white house doesn't mean i need to trade every other issue that matters to me.

So.....Neytanyahu is not really worried about Iran? it's all about his reelection? Bullshit.. He'll be relected easily

 

[WillowTree]

Nutanyahoo is a dangerous bully. He wants to be the only kid on the block with nukes. Fuck Nutanyahoo!

He is the most awesome dude ever I wish he was president of the united states.

Go move there then if you love him so much

Unless she is Jewish that's an impossibility.

 

[The Infidel]

Nutanyahoo is a dangerous bully. He wants to be the only kid on the block with nukes. Fuck Nutanyahoo!

He is the most awesome dude ever I wish he was president of the united states.

Go move there then if you love him so much

 

[jillian]

Actually, Israel's survival has relied heavily on American aid, especially during the early years of its reconstitution and beyond to the Six-Day War of '67, the Yom Kippur War of '73. With respect to the latter, without the tons of armaments sent by Nixon, well. . . .

monetary aid...which we are still giving.

oh...and i see why you misconstrued what i said. i was answering you and referring to the person you told to go to hell as the anti-semitic trash. not you.

I didn't misconstrue you at all, assuming you're talking to me. I had no other thought in my head but the idea that Israel has always fought its own wars as you say. That statement is true and good for it, but vital American aid accelerated the building up of a fledgling infrastructure that made it's survival possible, it's ability to stave off it's annihilation with greater confidence, that and the direct providence of God. Isreal had more resources to spend on the elements of war than otherwise.

I love Israel and her people, and wouldn't have it any other way. And I would that America stand behind her with direct military support as well should she need it.

The nuclear threat posed by Iran is not merely the weapons that can fall from the sky, and that threat does not end with Israel.

As for the alleged failings of Republican administrations. Nonsense. The overwhelming majority of conservatives, the Republican Party, from the rank and file on up to its leadership, adamantly stand behind Israel. The growing anti-Semitism in America is palpable within the Democratic Party, particularly among its hard left. It's rooted in the leftist radicalism of the 1960s, the victimization movement making Israel out to be the bad guy, the interloper, the oppressor of Palestinians. . . .

I first noticed its rise in the 1970s at college. Still a young, naive boy in many ways, my middleclass sensibilities in the face of such hatred, this strange and foreign take on the Israelis-Palestinian dispute was shocking. It wasn't coming from the conservatives on the campus. We were the folks standing up against it, facing down the smarmy Marxist professors and the un-washed dingbats in Tie-dye.

Hogwash. The peaceful Palestinians living in Israel never had it so good as a result of a people that came in and turned a desert into a paradise.

As for Bush, he asked the Israelis not to respond in kind in order to avoid a wider war, as his administration rushed Patriot missile systems to that country and sent out dozens of elite groups to hunt down and destroy scud missile sites. If you think for a moment Bush's heart didn't bleed over that, you are mistaken. Everyone understood the reason for it, and that was not the beginning of the Arabs in the region thinking that Israel could not or would not fight its own battles. Bullshit. The increasingly precarious situation in which Israel finds herself today goes to the unremitting pressure to make nice with the Palestinians, to concede strategically vital ground, a trend in American policy that Bush II blunted and for which he was roundly criticized throughout his presidency by, you guessed it, the leftist media.

Taking out Hussein was the removal of a tyrant who slaughtered his own people by the bushel full and who actively supported terrorist assaults on Israel. Well, for the time being, that threat no longer exists, and the days of the regime in Iran, rejected by the Iranian people and others abroad, are hopefully numbered.

no. i wasn't talking to you.

 

[jillian]

Jillian. The question I asked is "Do you think Israel is worth saving?"

you know that isn't an issue, right. israel doesn't NEED saving.

is it worth saving? well, of course.

neo-con extremists don't care about rational responses, though.

and i don't think we should be drawn in to netanyahu's re-election campaign and his desire to mess with our elections.

i don't think supporting israel requires that. do you?

I think Netanyahu is crying out for help. I think he feels abandoned by the US. Don't you believe the Arab states who say they want to "eradicate Israel"? Can't you see where he might be a tad nervous being surrounded by so many who wish an end to his civilization? Some, the Palestinians, have said goal written in their charter.

netanyahu is being a politician. and he wants his buddy to be president. i know he and obama don't like each other. but obama isn't going to be responsible for losing israel on his watch.

israel has some crazy politics. and netanyahu welcoming someone who is running for president the way he did violated all protocol.

i know all about the palestinians... so does israel ... so does the US government... and our policy, which is for a two state solution hasn't changed since ... well, forever.

do you know what was proposed at oslo?

 

[Jroc]

you know that isn't an issue, right. israel doesn't NEED saving.

is it worth saving? well, of course.

neo-con extremists don't care about rational responses, though.

and i don't think we should be drawn in to netanyahu's re-election campaign and his desire to mess with our elections.

i don't think supporting israel requires that. do you?

I think Netanyahu is crying out for help. I think he feels abandoned by the US. Don't you believe the Arab states who say they want to "eradicate Israel"? Can't you see where he might be a tad nervous being surrounded by so many who wish an end to his civilization? Some, the Palestinians, have said goal written in their charter.

netanyahu is being a politician. and he wants his buddy to be president. i know he and obama don't like each other. but obama isn't going to be responsible for losing israel on his watch.

israel has some crazy politics. and netanyahu welcoming someone who is running for president the way he did violated all protocol.

i know all about the palestinians... so does israel ... so does the US government... and our policy, which is for a two state solution hasn't changed since ... well, forever.

do you know what was proposed at oslo?

Yeah they were and are a failure.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Jillian? What say you? Is Israel worth protecting?

She is one of those self hating Jews...

No she isn’t, that I can say for sure. There is nothing that she posts that would lead to such a conclusion. She just believes her liberal views are right, she's wrong about that, but "Self-hating Jew" No way

I think we can all agree Jillian isn't like that.. I've seen her posts on Israel and she always defends her homeland.. So I actually give her kudos for that.. Some day she will have to choose between her religion of liberalism or the very existence of Israel.. it may be sooner than she thinks under this President who DESPISES Israel.

Having said all of that, I still think she sucks major booty.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Nutanyahoo is a dangerous bully. He wants to be the only kid on the block with nukes. Fuck Nutanyahoo!

He is the most awesome dude ever I wish he was president of the united states.

I agree... He's handsome too ;-)

Unlike Ears Obama with his purple freaking lips.. Who the hell has purple lips?? Freaking zombies.. It's creepy as hell!

 

[Jroc]

She is one of those self hating Jews...

No she isn’t, that I can say for sure. There is nothing that she posts that would lead to such a conclusion. She just believes her liberal views are right, she's wrong about that, but "Self-hating Jew" No way

I think we can all agree Jillian isn't like that.. I've seen her posts on Israel and she always defends her homeland.. So I actually give her kudos for that.. Some day she will have to choose between her religion of liberalism or the very existence of Israel.. it may be sooner than she thinks under this President who DESPISES Israel.

Having said all of that, I still think she sucks major booty.

She can't see though the fog of her ideology, not unlike most liberal Jews. Religious Jews vote 75% Republican

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

No she isn’t, that I can say for sure. There is nothing that she posts that would lead to such a conclusion. She just believes her liberal views are right, she's wrong about that, but "Self-hating Jew" No way

I think we can all agree Jillian isn't like that.. I've seen her posts on Israel and she always defends her homeland.. So I actually give her kudos for that.. Some day she will have to choose between her religion of liberalism or the very existence of Israel.. it may be sooner than she thinks under this President who DESPISES Israel.

Having said all of that, I still think she sucks major booty.

She can't see though the fog of her ideology, not unlike most liberal Jews. Religious Jews vote 75% Republican

I disagree respectfully.. She doesn't want to see. History has a way of repeating itself. People throughout history after the Holocaust all wondered, "Why?? Why did they just walk in to the ovens?" Anyone who knows and loves Israel KNOWS that the phrase," Never again," holds significant meaning and yet American jews don't seem to give a damn. Perhaps if they lived amongst the rocket-torched neighborhoods, cafes, malls, buses.. watching Israeli children blown apart.. I don't know what it's going to take?

 

[Meathead]

All conflicts in that part of the world shed mostly Muslim blood and most of that Islamist. It's drops to buckets.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Well up until now Israel always knew they could count on us. After all it is 30 million Jews living among 300 million Arabs who would like to eradicate them. Who would you root for?

israel has counted on us? some...

in 1948, the arabs were armed by the soviets. the u.s. and britain said they couldn't get involved and didn't sell weapons to the jewish fighters.

in 1948, when the mandate was divided by the british, the high ground, fortresses and defensible positions were given to the arabs.

israel fought it's own battles, fought it's own wars.

it wasn't until daddy bush asked israel to take SCUD missiles without response that an attack went unpunished by israel.

it wasn't until baby bush asked israel to stop defending itself against hezbollah in lebanon that israel could be perceived as weak and beatable.

it wasn't until baby bush de-stabilized the mid-east by deposing saddam hussein and took away the one counterweight to iran that israel was in danger from a potentially nuclear iran.

so what is all this BS that republicans are good for israel?

words are cheap.

Those talking points of yours make no sense why would Israel have any need to responsed to those scuds? That would be stupid as the U.S. and its coalition partners annihilated Saddam Hussein’s forces, what would be the point of a response from Israel? As far as Shimon Peres’s liberal weak response to Hezbollah that was on him, he was unprepared as libs usually are. Saddam Husain helped Israel? That’s a good one Israelis know who their friends are, and it isn't liberal Americans or liberal Israelis who were prepared to give away half the country that's a fact

But, wait, there's more. jillian's operating under the idea, advanced by liberals when criticizing Bush, that the former regime in Iraq served as a stabilizing bulwark against Iran. (The other complaint of liberals is that we used Iraq as a stabilizing bulwark against Iran.) In my opinion, our past associations with Hussein's regime as the supposed lesser of two evils only served to corrupt American foreign policy.

Hell, it threatened Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait . . . just like the present regime of Iran. But wait it minute, it was a Democrat, Jimmy Carter, that pushed out a friendly regime in Iran and heralded in the rabidly anti-American regime that assaulted our embassy and held American hostages all those many days. No. We have Carter to thank for the current Iranian regime. The Israeli, Saudi Arabian, Egyptian and Jordanian governments of the time, as well as American conservatives, pleaded with Carter to not do what he did.

But jillian blames Bush II! As if Bush I could have stood by and allowed Hussein to remain in Kuwait and then turn on Saudi Arabia as was Hussein's original intent. Stability? LOL! And then once we were there, we were supposed to stay there forever? Bush I rightly said, "No!" Hussein had to go. Bush I should have taken him out the first time.

And what is this nonsense about Bush II pressuring Israel to not defend itself against Hezbollah? Bush II was the most adamantly pro-Israeli American president in history. The only thing Bush II did was to encourage Israel to proceed with caution in official pronouncements. Diplomatic speak. Everybody knew, except for jillian, apparently, that those remarks were for public consumption. Bush II made it clear in both backdoor communiqués and in semi-official comments, those made in interviews, that he would not criticize Israel for doing whatever it considered necessary. Green light. The leftist MSM understood that, and they didn't like it.

Here's a little flashback in the face of jillian's historical revisionism: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/02/world/americas/02iht-bush.2363483.html?_r=0

Moreover (LOL!), Israel sure as hell did defend itself, with Bush II's blessings, in a two-front offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon and against Hamas in so-called Palestine in that little flare up. Things eventually cooled down after Israeli forces stalled, and Bush II, once again via backdoor communiqués, let Syria know that it was about five-minutes-to-twelve-o'clock away from facing direct American intervention from the air if it didn't successfully encourage Hezbollah in Lebanon to come to terms, Iran's opinion on the matter be damned. Assad believed Bush. Got the message. Just like Gadaffi got the message, turned over his WMDs and swore off the support of terrorist activities in Israel. Bush wasn't bluffing.

jillian doesn't know what the hell she's talking about. She either makes this shit up as she goes along or gets all her information from leftists rags.

Also the main reason Bush I asked the Israelis to let us deal with the SCUDs in the first Persian Gulf War was so that Saudi Arabia with its indispensable jumping off point of attack could save face, more at the stability of the Muslim streets in the Islamic world. It was the smart geopolitical thing to do. Israel understood that, and Saudi Arabia was grateful for it. After all, Israel was in no position to exact anything like the vengeance we exacted for those SCUD attacks. Indeed, jillian's point is . . . well, rather pointless.

Finally, this cannot be reiterated too much: it was Bush II who put an end to the incessant pressure for Israel to give up vital strategic ground. jillian's prattle about SCUDS and passivism are not only fantasies, but have absolutely nothing to do with the price of beans in China. Bush I and especially Clinton pushed the paradigm of concession that yielded nothing but a better armed and strategically positioned foe, more determined to destroy Israel than ever before. It is for this reason, more than any other, that relations between the current American president and the Israeli prime minister are strained. Israel is never going back to the pre-Bush II paradigm. It won't. It can't. And that arrogant SOB in the White House is just too stupid or indifferent to Israel's plight to get it. No doubt, in his mind, Israel is being uppity.

I loath Obama.

 

[shock]

America has no problem with Iran that cannot be solved by diplomacy.

America has no reason to shed American blood for Israel.

 

[jillian]

America has no problem with Iran that cannot be solved by diplomacy.

America has no reason to shed American blood for Israel.

the U.S. has never shed american blood for israel, you anti-semitic retard.

 

[bripat9643]

You know this thread just reminded of a recent Obama quote this is not word for word but it was something along the lines of Israel is one of our strongest allies in the region. I can't help but wonder who are our other strong allies in the region?

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, believe it or not. Qatar is also an ally. We have an air force base there.

 

[bripat9643]

America has no problem with Iran that cannot be solved by diplomacy.

What a moron. Yeah, diplomacy worked great with Saddam, didn't it?

America has no reason to shed American blood for Israel.

Who is even suggesting that we should?

 

[Amazed]

Well said, but ALL of this is above Jillian's purty lil head.

israel has counted on us? some...

in 1948, the arabs were armed by the soviets. the u.s. and britain said they couldn't get involved and didn't sell weapons to the jewish fighters.

in 1948, when the mandate was divided by the british, the high ground, fortresses and defensible positions were given to the arabs.

israel fought it's own battles, fought it's own wars.

it wasn't until daddy bush asked israel to take SCUD missiles without response that an attack went unpunished by israel.

it wasn't until baby bush asked israel to stop defending itself against hezbollah in lebanon that israel could be perceived as weak and beatable.

it wasn't until baby bush de-stabilized the mid-east by deposing saddam hussein and took away the one counterweight to iran that israel was in danger from a potentially nuclear iran.

so what is all this BS that republicans are good for israel?

words are cheap.

Those talking points of yours make no sense why would Israel have any need to responsed to those scuds? That would be stupid as the U.S. and its coalition partners annihilated Saddam Hussein’s forces, what would be the point of a response from Israel? As far as Shimon Peres’s liberal weak response to Hezbollah that was on him, he was unprepared as libs usually are. Saddam Husain helped Israel? That’s a good one Israelis know who their friends are, and it isn't liberal Americans or liberal Israelis who were prepared to give away half the country that's a fact

But, wait, there's more. jillian's operating under the idea, advanced by liberals when criticizing Bush, that the former regime in Iraq served as a stabilizing bulwark against Iran. (The other complaint of liberals is that we used Iraq as a stabilizing bulwark against Iran.) In my opinion, our past associations with Hussein's regime as the supposed lesser of two evils only served to corrupt American foreign policy.

Hell, it threatened Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait . . . just like the present regime of Iran. But wait it minute, it was a Democrat, Jimmy Carter, that pushed out a friendly regime in Iran and heralded in the rabidly anti-American regime that assaulted our embassy and held American hostages all those many days. No. We have Carter to thank for the current Iranian regime. The Israeli, Saudi Arabian, Egyptian and Jordanian governments of the time, as well as American conservatives, pleaded with Carter to not do what he did.

But jillian blames Bush II! As if Bush I could have stood by and allowed Hussein to remain in Kuwait and then turn on Saudi Arabia as was Hussein's original intent. Stability? LOL! And then once we were there, we were supposed to stay there forever? Bush I rightly said, "No!" Hussein had to go. Bush I should have taken him out the first time.

And what is this nonsense about Bush II pressuring Israel to not defend itself against Hezbollah? Bush II was the most adamantly pro-Israeli American president in history. The only thing Bush II did was to encourage Israel to proceed with caution in official pronouncements. Diplomatic speak. Everybody knew, except for jillian, apparently, that those remarks were for public consumption. Bush II made it clear in both backdoor communiqués and in semi-official comments, those made in interviews, that he would not criticize Israel for doing whatever it considered necessary. Green light. The leftist MSM understood that, and they didn't like it.

Here's a little flashback in the face of jillian's historical revisionism: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/02/world/americas/02iht-bush.2363483.html?_r=0

Moreover (LOL!), Israel sure as hell did defend itself, with Bush II's blessings, in a two-front offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon and against Hamas in so-called Palestine in that little flare up. Things eventually cooled down after Israeli forces stalled, and Bush II, once again via backdoor communiqués, let Syria know that it was about five-minutes-to-twelve-o'clock away from facing direct American intervention from the air if it didn't successfully encourage Hezbollah in Lebanon to come to terms, Iran's opinion on the matter be damned. Assad believed Bush. Got the message. Just like Gadaffi got the message, turned over his WMDs and swore off the support of terrorist activities in Israel. Bush wasn't bluffing.

jillian doesn't know what the hell she's talking about. She either makes this shit up as she goes along or gets all her information from leftists rags. On the other hand, this Army Ranger, retired, followed that conflict with a great deal of interest from a wide range of sources, including inside sources supplied by old associates.

Also the main reason Bush I asked the Israelis to let us deal with the SCUDs in the first Persian Gulf War was so that Saudi Arabia with its indispensable jumping off point of attack could save face, more at the stability of the Muslim streets in the Islamic world. It was the smart geopolitical thing to do. Israel understood that, and Saudi Arabia was grateful for it. After all, Israel was in no position to exact anything like the vengeance we exacted for those SCUD attacks. Indeed, jillian's point is . . . well, rather pointless.

Finally, this cannot be reiterated too much: it was Bush II who put an end to the incessant pressure for Israel to give up vital strategic ground. jillian's prattle about SCUDS and passivism are not only fantasies, but have absolutely nothing to do with the price of beans in China. Bush I and especially Clinton pushed the paradigm of concession that yielded nothing but a better armed and strategically positioned foe, more determined to destroy Israel than ever before. It is for this reason, more than any other, that relations between the current American president and the Israeli prime minister are strained. Israel is never going back to the pre-Bush II paradigm. It won't. It can't. And that arrogant SOB in the White House is just too stupid or indifferent to Israel's plight to get it. No doubt, in his mind, Israel is being uppity.

I loath Obama.

 

[Jroc]

israel has counted on us? some...

in 1948, the arabs were armed by the soviets. the u.s. and britain said they couldn't get involved and didn't sell weapons to the jewish fighters.

in 1948, when the mandate was divided by the british, the high ground, fortresses and defensible positions were given to the arabs.

israel fought it's own battles, fought it's own wars.

it wasn't until daddy bush asked israel to take SCUD missiles without response that an attack went unpunished by israel.

it wasn't until baby bush asked israel to stop defending itself against hezbollah in lebanon that israel could be perceived as weak and beatable.

it wasn't until baby bush de-stabilized the mid-east by deposing saddam hussein and took away the one counterweight to iran that israel was in danger from a potentially nuclear iran.

so what is all this BS that republicans are good for israel?

words are cheap.

Those talking points of yours make no sense why would Israel have any need to responsed to those scuds? That would be stupid as the U.S. and its coalition partners annihilated Saddam Hussein’s forces, what would be the point of a response from Israel? As far as Shimon Peres’s liberal weak response to Hezbollah that was on him, he was unprepared as libs usually are. Saddam Husain helped Israel? That’s a good one Israelis know who their friends are, and it isn't liberal Americans or liberal Israelis who were prepared to give away half the country that's a fact

But, wait, there's more. jillian's operating under the idea, advanced by liberals when criticizing Bush, that the former regime in Iraq served as a stabilizing bulwark against Iran. (The other complaint of liberals is that we used Iraq as a stabilizing bulwark against Iran.) In my opinion, our past associations with Hussein's regime as the supposed lesser of two evils only served to corrupt American foreign policy.

Hell, it threatened Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait . . . just like the present regime of Iran. But wait it minute, it was a Democrat, Jimmy Carter, that pushed out a friendly regime in Iran and heralded in the rabidly anti-American regime that assaulted our embassy and held American hostages all those many days. No. We have Carter to thank for the current Iranian regime. The Israeli, Saudi Arabian, Egyptian and Jordanian governments of the time, as well as American conservatives, pleaded with Carter to not do what he did.

But jillian blames Bush II! As if Bush I could have stood by and allowed Hussein to remain in Kuwait and then turn on Saudi Arabia as was Hussein's original intent. Stability? LOL! And then once we were there, we were supposed to stay there forever? Bush I rightly said, "No!" Hussein had to go. Bush I should have taken him out the first time.

And what is this nonsense about Bush II pressuring Israel to not defend itself against Hezbollah? Bush II was the most adamantly pro-Israeli American president in history. The only thing Bush II did was to encourage Israel to proceed with caution in official pronouncements. Diplomatic speak. Everybody knew, except for jillian, apparently, that those remarks were for public consumption. Bush II made it clear in both backdoor communiqués and in semi-official comments, those made in interviews, that he would not criticize Israel for doing whatever it considered necessary. Green light. The leftist MSM understood that, and they didn't like it.

Here's a little flashback in the face of jillian's historical revisionism: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/02/world/americas/02iht-bush.2363483.html?_r=0

Moreover (LOL!), Israel sure as hell did defend itself, with Bush II's blessings, in a two-front offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon and against Hamas in so-called Palestine in that little flare up. Things eventually cooled down after Israeli forces stalled, and Bush II, once again via backdoor communiqués, let Syria know that it was about five-minutes-to-twelve-o'clock away from facing direct American intervention from the air if it didn't successfully encourage Hezbollah in Lebanon to come to terms, Iran's opinion on the matter be damned. Assad believed Bush. Got the message. Just like Gadaffi got the message, turned over his WMDs and swore off the support of terrorist activities in Israel. Bush wasn't bluffing.

jillian doesn't know what the hell she's talking about. She either makes this shit up as she goes along or gets all her information from leftists rags. On the other hand, this Army Ranger, retired, followed that conflict with a great deal of interest from a wide range of sources, including inside sources supplied by old associates.

Also the main reason Bush I asked the Israelis to let us deal with the SCUDs in the first Persian Gulf War was so that Saudi Arabia with its indispensable jumping off point of attack could save face, more at the stability of the Muslim streets in the Islamic world. It was the smart geopolitical thing to do. Israel understood that, and Saudi Arabia was grateful for it. After all, Israel was in no position to exact anything like the vengeance we exacted for those SCUD attacks. Indeed, jillian's point is . . . well, rather pointless.

Finally, this cannot be reiterated too much: it was Bush II who put an end to the incessant pressure for Israel to give up vital strategic ground. jillian's prattle about SCUDS and passivism are not only fantasies, but have absolutely nothing to do with the price of beans in China. Bush I and especially Clinton pushed the paradigm of concession that yielded nothing but a better armed and strategically positioned foe, more determined to destroy Israel than ever before. It is for this reason, more than any other, that relations between the current American president and the Israeli prime minister are strained. Israel is never going back to the pre-Bush II paradigm. It won't. It can't. And that arrogant SOB in the White House is just too stupid or indifferent to Israel's plight to get it. No doubt, in his mind, Israel is being uppity.

I loath Obama.

Great post, all true, and that’s exactly what she does. She soaks up the leftist talking points then regurgitates them as her own..Sad. I owe you multiple reps for this post. She won’t come back at you because she can’t. She’ll drop out of the thread as she always does or ignore your post. There was a time when Jillian would acknowledge the fact that conservatives were pro-Israel. that was their strong point she would say, no more.

 

[Synthaholic]

Jillian? What say you? Is Israel worth protecting?

Is Israel unable to protect itself?