mother wrote:How about this:


In the entirety of the Umma I think there have only ever been 2 Nobel laureates in the sciences. (Which is SUPER sad considering how much the Muslim world contributed to sciences and humanities back during the dark ages. Do you realize we would have lost most of our knowledge of the Greeks without Muslim Scholars? Google Al Kindi, Ibn Rushd, and Ibn Khaldun if you don't know what I'm talking about )

How about the fact that Israel is a modern democracy?

How about the fact that Israel is the only country in the region that protects the rights of minorities (and women)? Nowhere else in the middle east are *muslims* freer than in Israel. I don't think I need to point out the situation for Christians, Jews, Hinus, Buddhists, Atheist... Do you know where gay Gazans go to get their pride on? Tel Aviv.

Name a product other than oil or terror that comes from Saudi Arabia.

[BTW Jews have a totally different reason, and we're deathly serious about never again, but you're not always on the short list for genocide like we are]

See, these are the things I'm looking for. All excellent reasons to admire the Israelis, which I highly do.

By and large, I think Saudi values and rational values couldn't be much further off, but they're in such a great strategic location, that if we need to stage in the middle east we NEED them. So we gotta kiss their ass. And part if that is alluding that they may be a better ally than Israel. That's IR in a nutshell, strange bedfellows.

Also, what is it I read about Israel not being keen on American soldiers based in Israel? If that's the case, then we really need to humor the Saudis or we have no FOB.

chemvictim wrote:They're talking about Israel stuff on the debate now. I'm listening with interest.

Edit: R and O appear to have the same position - we will stand with Israel if it is attacked, we will not allow the nukes, military only as last resort. There's no difference.

Yes there is. Romney can be believed. Obama cannot when it comes to Israel. He has pointedly snubbed them.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Yes there is. Romney can be believed. Obama cannot when it comes to Israel. He has pointedly snubbed them.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree about this one. Israel is our ally, not our insecure girlfriend.

chemvictim wrote:I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree about this one. Israel is our ally, not our insecure girlfriend.

True, but PetiteSirah has more cogent arguments showing Obama is not a friend to Israel.


Edit: Obama vs. Romney 101: 4 differences on Israel

Part of the problem is with Obama saying Israel has to go back to the 1967 borders, which is suicidal.

And as for diplomacy ... Obama Caught on Mic Insulting Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu While Talking with French President Sarkozy – Report 11/8/11

mother wrote:News we can all get behind- TSA is pulling those damned nude-o-scopes at JFK and LGA.

(They used the potentially cancer causing back-scatter machines)

Nice! I hope the rest of the country follows through. What are they using instead? Back to the metal detectors or using the millimetre wave technology? (That's the one that takes 2 seconds of marginally less intrusive scanning.)

MarkDaSpark wrote:True, but PetiteSirah has more cogent arguments showing Obama is not a friend to Israel.


Edit: Obama vs. Romney 101: 4 differences on Israel

Part of the problem is with Obama saying Israel has to go back to the 1967 borders, which is suicidal.

And as for diplomacy ... Obama Caught on Mic Insulting Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu While Talking with French President Sarkozy – Report 11/8/11

Um, it was Sarkozy that called him a liar, NOT Obama. All Obama said was, you are sick of him, but I have to work with him everyday. To me that sounds like, look, I know the guy is difficult, but I gotta work with him everyday so I deal with it. I have TWO people like that out here. Can't stand em, I grin and bear their existence. People have asked me on more than one occasion, how can you work with those ghastly ghouls. Um, cause I have to?

Um, also I wasn't really swayed by the "four points" to believing that Obama actively roots for the destruction of Israel. Seems like he's there when they need him (Cairo) and pretty content to let them do their own thing otherwise. Short of bombing Iran. As far as the Palestinian State, is he the only president to say there should be one?

bhodilee wrote:Um, it was Sarkozy that called him a liar, NOT Obama. All Obama said was, you are sick of him, but I have to work with him everyday. To me that sounds like, look, I know the guy is difficult, but I gotta work with him everyday so I deal with it. I have TWO people like that out here. Can't stand em, I grin and bear their existence. People have asked me on more than one occasion, how can you work with those ghastly ghouls. Um, cause I have to?

Um, also I wasn't really swayed by the "four points" to believing that Obama actively roots for the destruction of Israel. Seems like he's there when they need him (Cairo) and pretty content to let them do their own thing otherwise. Short of bombing Iran. As far as the Palestinian State, is he the only president to say there should be one?

I agree with all of the above, nothing terrible there. Could be just me but it sounds like more of the old "Obama is bad, he hasn't done anything right ever!" MDS did day PS has more cogent arguments so I guess we will wait for his big brother to chime in.

I fully understand Israel's position on "Never Again", I have been to several concentration camps, studied a lot of the history of WWII and the Holocaust and being half Polish I can relate to a group of people that have been treated terribly throughout history. It is too bad that in my opinion some Jewish leaders and people damage their cause by refusing to compromise even a little on any issue. We all need to find a way to coexist in this world. OK, now I will go smoke some more hopium.

I say the following with tounge FIRMLY planted in cheek:

edlada wrote:I have been to several concentration camps, studied a lot of the history of WWII and the Holocaust... It is too bad that in my opinion some Jewish leaders and people damage their cause by...

SHOCKING. Polish person admits Holocaust was bad, but hints Jew's bring it on themselves.

;)

"It is too bad that in my opinion some Jewish leaders and people damage their cause by refusing to compromise even a little on any issue. We all need to find a way to coexist in this world."

Umm I think THEY have, considering that the other nations not only do not recognize them but are at war with them.
Oh and the little jab toward MDS and Low...nice fifth grade level.

edlada wrote:It is too bad that in my opinion some Jewish leaders and people damage their cause by refusing to compromise even a little on any issue. We all need to find a way to coexist in this world. OK, now I will go smoke some more hopium.

There was a time, in the mid-1990s after the first Intifada but before the second, that I took something like that view. At that point, the Palestinians were still publicly making hints they would compromise and recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. I was even accused on some boards of being anti-Semitic because I thought the Israelis needed to reach some sort of accommodation with the Arabs

It was a complex argument, but it seemed to me that Israel could not survive long term without an accommodation because they could not sustain a generations long war: even if they continued to win, and conquered enough territory to keep the rockets away from the population centers, young Israelis would eventually tire of war and would leave for safer places more promising more opportunity (mostly the US and AUS-NZ). Some that is still long term true.

The deeper problem, which the Second Intifada made showed, and which 9/11 made manifest to the world in spades, is that no matter what accommodation the Israelis might make, it will NEVER be enough for the Palestinians or the other Arabs. Negotiations can never succeed unless there is a meeting of the minds. The only meeting of the minds possible with the Palestinians and the other Arabs would be to agree that most of the Jews should be driven into the Mediterranean Sea, and the few who remain live as dhimmi under Sharia.

At some point, when it becomes clear that successful negotiations are not possible, you stop being serious about them. You continue to talk - hope against hope, in Churchill's quip to jaw jaw is always better than to war war- but you don't continue to negotiate with yourself to make it look like there is progress, and you prepare for war.

That's where we are in the Middle East now. There is really no point negotiating unless the Palestinians and other Arabs are prepared to recognize Israel's right to exist and to be willing to stop preaching hatred of the Jews and inciting violence against them.

mother wrote:I say the following with tounge FIRMLY planted in cheek:


SHOCKING. Polish person admits Holocaust was bad, but hints Jew's bring it on themselves.

;)

Tongue in cheek acknowledged.
If it wasn't clear, I was referring to the present situation where some of the Israeli leadership is unwilling to budge on any issue. I firmly believe that Israel has a right to exist but I also believe the Palestinians deserve a home. I am sure one of the Arab countries could give them a place of their own (That's not in Israel).

The largest population of Jews in Europe prior to WWII was in Poland, about 3.3 million. I realize Poland had the reputation of being anti-semitic but other than Russia (about 3.1 million), no other country had as many Jewish residents. Incidentally, although the Holocaust contributed, Poland lost almost 1/4 of its population during WWII at the hand of the Germans and Russians.

My favorite map:


But this one is pretty good too:


a. 3 miles wide here
b. Golan Heights
c. Sea of Galilee
d. Jordan River... Sea of Galilee to Dead Sea
e. 1967 "Green Line"... the 1949 armistice lines separating Israel from its heartland of Judea-Samaria when Jordanian forces illegally annexed it. After the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, Israel regained that land... at which time the world began referring to Judea and Samaria as the "West Bank" in order to try to erase any Jewish connection to this historically Jewish land!
f. 9 miles wide here
g. Tel Aviv
h. Jerusalem
i. Dead Sea
j. Gaza Strip: 5 miles x 25 miles

The surrounding 22 Arab countries (green of the top map) are 640 times larger than tiny Israel yet they expect Israel to turn over all the West Bank, Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights and half of Jerusalem

And some other interesting factoids:
Israel is one of the tiniest nations on the face of the earth... is a democratic nation, only about 8,000 sq. miles, 2½ times the size of Rhode Island and only slightly larger than the Canary Islands, 1/19th the size of California!. It is only 260 miles at its longest, has a 112-mile coastline, 60 miles at its widest, and between 3 and 9 miles at its narrowest! A very high-powered rifle could launch a projectile right across the country! This is particularly frightening when one considers that 65% of Israel's population is within this 9-mile wide section (Tel Aviv area).

joelsisk wrote:
The surrounding 22 Arab countries are 640 times larger than tiny Israel yet they expect Israel to turn over all the West Bank, Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights and half of Jerusalem

And some other interesting factoids:
Israel is one of the tiniest nations on the face of the earth... is a democratic nation, only about 8,000 sq. miles, 2½ times the size of Rhode Island and only slightly larger than the Canary Islands, 1/19th the size of California!. It is only 260 miles at its longest, has a 112-mile coastline, 60 miles at its widest, and between 3 and 9 miles at its narrowest! A very high-powered rifle could launch a projectile right across the country! This is particularly frightening when one considers that 65% of Israel's population is within this 9-mile wide section (Tel Aviv area).

Holy balls! I was not aware of the dimensions. I mean, I always realized it was a small country, but wow. We call this "perspective" There may be ranches in Nebraska that size.

bhodilee wrote:Um, it was Sarkozy that called him a liar, NOT Obama. All Obama said was, you are sick of him, but I have to work with him everyday. To me that sounds like, look, I know the guy is difficult, but I gotta work with him everyday so I deal with it. I have TWO people like that out here. Can't stand em, I grin and bear their existence. People have asked me on more than one occasion, how can you work with those ghastly ghouls. Um, cause I have to?

Um, also I wasn't really swayed by the "four points" to believing that Obama actively roots for the destruction of Israel. Seems like he's there when they need him (Cairo) and pretty content to let them do their own thing otherwise. Short of bombing Iran. As far as the Palestinian State, is he the only president to say there should be one?

Except if you read it, it's only been within the last year (of him having to start campaigning) that he's done that support. Prior to that, he wasn't pro-Israel at all.


As to the Palestinian State issue, it could be that other US Presidents have supported the idea, but O is the first to insist that Israel use the 1967 lines.


As "Dad" (thanks RPM!) pointed out, it's really hard to negotiate with someone who insists you have no "right to exist", nor have the right to your historical land (which many of them insist isn't, and destroy archaeological proof all the time).


And thanks to our Younger, Smarter Brother Joel, for the great graphics. Now if only our Other, Younger, Smarter Brother would show up.


Edit: As to giving the Palestinians a home, the other Arab nations are the ones that kept them in the refugee camps. They could have given land to them, yet didn't.


The Problem Is Palestinian Rejectionism -- pay to see more, but basically at the Oslo accords (signed in 1993) both parties agreed to both Israel & Palestinian states, yet the Palestinian authority still refuses to recognize the right to exist.

So, for those of you in "the family," do you all agree that there is no hope for peace via diplomacy or negotiation and that we must proceed by making more and louder threats? Is that the gist of it?

I know that some of you detest Obama and everything about him, and everything he has done or will ever do, but do you really think he'd sit by and happily let Israel go down?

Excellent summary:

In 1978, Israel traded the entire Sinai for peace; Egypt has recently demonstrated that withdrawals from land are permanent but promises of peace are not. In 2000, Israel offered the Palestinians a state on substantially all the West Bank and Gaza; they declined in favor of a barbaric war on Israeli civilians. In 2001, after Israel accepted the Clinton Parameters, the Palestinians rejected them. In 2005, Israel removed every settler and soldier from Gaza, and got a rocket war in return. In 2008, Israel offered a state again, and got no response at all.

-- from 45 Years Later, No Closer to the Truth

chemvictim wrote:[D]o you really think he'd sit by and happily let Israel go down?

Yes.

rpm wrote:Yes.

Short and to the point!

chemvictim wrote:So, for those of you in "the family," do you all agree that there is no hope for peace via diplomacy or negotiation and that we must proceed by making more and louder threats? Is that the gist of it?

I know that some of you detest Obama and everything about him, and everything he has done or will ever do, but do you really think he'd sit by and happily let Israel go down?

Only half "family", but yes. The Palestinians can play the victim all they want, but they are the ones that refuse to acknowledge Israel's right to exist.


As for Obama, this is an interesting commentary on that: Debunked: The Myth of a Caring Obama White House.

Yet, a possible indicator as to Obama’s instinctive appeasement of Israel’s enemies can be gleaned from the newly minted “Rabbis for Obama” campaign initiative, formed to engage and mobilize grassroots supporters.

This attempt at outreach includes many leaders of the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction (BDS) Movement, a movement inimical to Israel’s well-being. Among Obama’s rabbis are founders of the pro-Hamas “Fast for Gaza” initiative. It even includes one person who spent an evening in 2008 dining with Ahmadinejad and another who says that the United States and Israel bring terrorism on themselves. Several members of Rabbis for Obama are officials of Jewish Voice for Peace, a radical group that the Anti-Defamation League featured in its list of the “Top 10 Anti-Israel Groups in America.”

As the author states in his last sentence, "With such intellectual underpinnings, how can it be argued that Israel has a friend in the White House?"


So no, Obama won't "happily" sit by, but by all his actions (or inactions), will let it go down.


Edit: The author also doesn't believe Obama to be anti-Semitic.

And it's past time for more threats. Action is needed.

MarkDaSpark wrote:True, but PetiteSirah has more cogent arguments showing Obama is not a friend to Israel.


Edit: Obama vs. Romney 101: 4 differences on Israel

Part of the problem is with Obama saying Israel has to go back to the 1967 borders, which is suicidal.

And as for diplomacy ... Obama Caught on Mic Insulting Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu While Talking with French President Sarkozy – Report 11/8/11

Not go back to the 1967. Use the 1967 borders as foundation to determine land swaps, which has been the basis of every negotiation.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Except if you read it, it's only been within the last year (of him having to start campaigning) that he's done that support. Prior to that, he wasn't pro-Israel at all.


As to the Palestinian State issue, it could be that other US Presidents have supported the idea, but O is the first to insist that Israel use the 1967 lines.


As "Dad" (thanks RPM!) pointed out, it's really hard to negotiate with someone who insists you have no "right to exist", nor have the right to your historical land (which many of them insist isn't, and destroy archaeological proof all the time).


And thanks to our Younger, Smarter Brother Joel, for the great graphics. Now if only our Other, Younger, Smarter Brother would show up.


Edit: As to giving the Palestinians a home, the other Arab nations are the ones that kept them in the refugee camps. They could have given land to them, yet didn't.


The Problem Is Palestinian Rejectionism -- pay to see more, but basically at the Oslo accords (signed in 1993) both parties agreed to both Israel & Palestinian states, yet the Palestinian authority still refuses to recognize the right to exist.

Got it, Obama will merrily let Iran pull the Nuclear trigger on Israel so he doesn't have to do it himself. His middle name is Hussein after all.

Plus, the Showtime Series Homeland is basically modeled after him.

MarkDaSpark wrote:And it's past time for more threats. Action is needed.

What do you mean by action?

bhodilee wrote:Holy balls! I was not aware of the dimensions. I mean, I always realized it was a small country, but wow. We call this "perspective" There may be ranches in Nebraska that size.

That's kind of the point of my post. Basically, the media often makes it sound like the West Bank is so small, which it is, until you realize that it takes up about 1/3 of the entire country of Israel. And the fact of the matter is that Israel is tiny to begin with, which the media seldom acknowledges. It makes it hard to believe that Israel has been so successful at wars against much larger countries.

ETA: 8000 sq miles is about 5.1 million acres. Ted Turner owns just under 2 million acres. John Mallone, as the US' largest land owner, owns 2.2 million acres. source

chemvictim wrote:What do you mean by action?

You know what "action" means.

The problems in the Mid East are thorny indeed. Obviously Israel has a right to exist without the constant threat of annihilation and the Arabs have been completely unreasonable about the entire situation. I don't believe Obama would standby and watch Israel be destroyed. On the other hand, another war in the Mid East is not a very pleasant prospect. It is unfortunate that the most volatile part of the world also holds a significant amount of the world's petroleum reserves, I think there would be far less interest in the problems of the region were this not the case. If a major conflict erupts there and especially if it involves nuclear weapons, I don't know if anybody can predict the outcome except it would probably be very ugly given that almost every major country in the world has a vested interest in the oil. I don't think being prudent in the face of a possible Armageddon is appeasement or not showing strength. The current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would pale in comparison to a major conflict involving the Arab countries vs the US, Israel and it's allies. Russia still has a significant stockpile of nuclear weapons and they have always sided with the Arab nations. A conflict in the Mid East could rapidly escalate and not only involve massive loss of human life but significant economic disruption to the world economy. The other problem is winning a war is sometimes easy, it is the peace or rather the turmoil afterward that is the big problem. If we have learned nothing else from Iraq and Afghanistan we should have learned that lesson. Does anybody think the rest of the world will be happy if the US occupies the Mid East for the next 50 years or so like in Europe during the cold war days? In the best case scenario, the US or Israel with US support steps in and takes out Iran before they have a nuclear capability. Of course if Israel initiates the war they will have their hands full fending off the other Arab countries. Then what? A major ground war in the region? Limited nuclear warfare? Will the US public agree to raise taxes for this war? We certainly can't start another war on credit. With so many questions and many terrible consequences I think slow, prudent actions are the reasonable course even if that means many more years of tension.

I certainly don't see Romney dealing with the situation in any reasonable fashion, he talks a good game with lots of tough rhetoric but I think (god forbid) if he becomes president he will see talking about it isn't as easy doing something about it. Romney's biggest talent appears to be changing his positions to suit the moment, that may work in an election, it doesn't work too well when you have to govern effectively.

kylemittskus wrote:You know what "action" means.

But I don't find Ahmadinejad attractive. Wait...is that what you meant?

bhodilee wrote:Got it, Obama will merrily let Iran pull the Nuclear trigger on Israel so he doesn't have to do it himself. His middle name is Hussein after all.

Well, he'll shed crocodile tears, and there will be much be weeping and moaning of the bar, but the deed will be done. Any retaliation will be Israeli, not American.

edlada wrote:The problems in the Mid East are thorny indeed. Obviously Israel has a right to exist without the constant threat of annihilation and the Arabs have been completely unreasonable about the entire situation. I don't believe Obama would standby and watch Israel be destroyed. On the other hand, another war in the Mid East is not a very pleasant prospect. It is unfortunate that the most volatile part of the world also holds a significant amount of the world's petroleum reserves, I think there would be far less interest in the problems of the region were this not the case. If a major conflict erupts there and especially if it involves nuclear weapons, I don't know if anybody can predict the outcome except it would probably be very ugly given that almost every major country in the world has a vested interest in the oil. I don't think being prudent in the face of a possible Armageddon is appeasement or not showing strength. The current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would pale in comparison to a major conflict involving the Arab countries vs the US, Israel and it's allies. Russia still has a significant stockpile of nuclear weapons and they have always sided with the Arab nations. A conflict in the Mid East could rapidly escalate and not only involve massive loss of human life but significant economic disruption to the world economy. The other problem is winning a war is sometimes easy, it is the peace or rather the turmoil afterward that is the big problem. If we have learned nothing else from Iraq and Afghanistan we should have learned that lesson. Does anybody think the rest of the world will be happy if the US occupies the Mid East for the next 50 years or so like in Europe during the cold war days? In the best case scenario, the US or Israel with US support steps in and takes out Iran before they have a nuclear capability. Of course if Israel initiates the war they will have their hands full fending off the other Arab countries. Then what? A major ground war in the region? Limited nuclear warfare? Will the US public agree to raise taxes for this war? We certainly can't start another war on credit. With so many questions and many terrible consequences I think slow, prudent actions are the reasonable course even if that means many more years of tension.

I certainly don't see Romney dealing with the situation in any reasonable fashion, he talks a good game with lots of tough rhetoric but I think (god forbid) if he becomes president he will see talking about it isn't as easy doing something about it. Romney's biggest talent appears to be changing his positions to suit the moment, that may work in an election, it doesn't work too well when you have to govern effectively.

You're right that the problems are thorny indeed and do not admit of an easy or even a reasonable solution. Like this election, we're looking for least worst. I disagree that Obama will take action to prevent the Iranians from getting a bomb, and that's very, very big deal

The Iranian "problem" is that we botched things in Iran to a fare-thee-well for decades. No President or Joint Staff wanted to fight a war with Iran if it could be avoided. The American people don't want to fight a war with Iran. The Iranians, as the editorial in the Wall Street Journal today puts it, are at war with us, and with the Israelis.

It would have been a hard war dealing with Iran in 1991-2, it would have been a hard war in 2003-2005. But, if the Iranians get the bomb, the war will be far, far more destructive. I don't like the idea, but I truly believe that if the Iranians get the bomb, we will see a nuclear war in the Middle East. Probably with a nuke popped on the Israelis and a bunch of them popped on the Iranians. I have no good idea what will happen after that, but I think it will be ugly. Of course, the world will be outraged, but the only countries whose outrage is meaningful is the US, Russia, China, Pakistan and India (if Pakistan acts up). The French and the Brits won't act. The only powers who can project power in the Middle East are Russia and the US, and Pakistan/India to a limited extent.

WWII was very much worse than it would have been had the French and the British stopped Hitler when he tried to re-militarize the Rheinland in 1936. Millions who died in the war would have lived. I deeply believe we're likely to see millions die in the Middle East because of (primarily) American weakness over the past 10 years in dealing with Iran. I'm not saying it wasn't understandable, or the much easier thing to do, but, that will be cold comfort to those who die.

rpm wrote:Well, he'll shed crocodile tears, and there will be much be weeping and moaning of the bar, but the deed will be done. Any retaliation will be Israeli, not American.

I think the Israeli's are capable of handling it on their own. We should really only get involved in their business if
A) they request it
B) other Arab Nations get involved

though again, if Israel does not want our troops on their ground, where are we staging out of? Greece?

bhodilee wrote:I think the Israeli's are capable of handling it on their own. We should really only get involved in their business if
A) they request it
B) other Arab Nations get involved

though again, if Israel does not want our troops on their ground, where are we staging out of? Greece?

The Israelis are capable of a relatively short series of very sharp conventional attacks (of only a fairly high likelihood of success) and quite capable handling a nuclear war against Iran.

The only power which can conduct a sustained conventional series of attacks against Iran's nuclear capabilities, its military and its C3, is the US. No one else. Not the Russians or the Chinese (not that they would...) Not the Brits or the Frogs. Not the Pakis or the Indians. No one. Nessuno.

This is what makes this such a difficult problem: as undesirable as US involvement is for a whole host of reasons, the more convinced that the Iranians are that the US will not fight, the greater the likelihood that the Iranians will get a bomb. That makes a nuclear war far more likely, whether the Iranians use it first (or give it to terrorists who do), the Israelis use nukes in response to Iranian conventional or CBW weapons attacks, or the Israelis simply discover that their conventional attacks failed and the Iranians are throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the tiny country, with the Egyptians and Syrians and Hezbollah piling on. Would the Israelis use nukes under those circumstances? I certainly wouldn't take the bet they won't.

If the US did it, the B-2s would be flying of CONUS, maybe the B-1s also. B-52s would probably stage out of Diego Garcia. Carriers would be on station in South Asia. Air Force fighter/bombers might stage out of Saudi or Kuwait. Maybe even Afghanistan or the other 'stans. We wouldn't need to stage out of Israel at all.

rpm wrote:The Israelis are capable of a relatively short series of very sharp conventional attacks (of only a fairly high likelihood of success) and quite capable handling a nuclear war against Iran.

The only power which can conduct a sustained conventional series of attacks against Iran's nuclear capabilities, its military and its C3, is the US. No one else. Not the Russians or the Chinese (not that they would...) Not the Brits or the Frogs. Not the Pakis or the Indians. No one. Nessuno.

If the US did it, the B-2s would be flying of CONUS, maybe the B-1s also. B-52s would probably stage out of Diego Garcia. Carriers would be on station in South Asia. Air Force fighter/bombers might stage out of Saudi or Kuwait. Maybe even Afghanistan or the other 'stans. We wouldn't need to stage out of Israel at all.

this is of course all reliant on the 'stans allowing us to do so. Perhaps I'm confused as to your thoughts on the Middle East war you envision. Are the all fighting each other and Israel or are they Uniting against the common aggressor, in this case an Israeli first strike.

If they see us as "helping" Israel (even they they know we would), are they letting us stage out of any of their countries or uniting against us as well?

If the entire region does unite against the US/Israel, where are we staging troops out of?

bhodilee wrote:this is of course all reliant on the 'stans allowing us to do so. Perhaps I'm confused as to your thoughts on the Middle East war you envision. Are the all fighting each other and Israel or are they Uniting against the common aggressor, in this case an Israeli first strike.

If they see us as "helping" Israel (even they they know we would), are they letting us stage out of any of their countries or uniting against us as well?

If the entire region does unite against the US/Israel, where are we staging troops out of?

In a US led war, it would be (despite any protests) the US with support from our Arab "allies" (who don't much like the Iranians) in the Gulf. That's what would involve the US staging I mentioned. There are variations, depending on who's supportive and who's not. But the big bombers would fly out of CONUS.

In an Israeli initiated war, then out position is worse, because all the Arabs would virtually have to unite against the evil Jooooozzzz, and our options would be more limited.

As painful as it is to contemplate, a US led war has a greater chance of success for the world - though it would be tough on us short term - than does an Israel-led war. I really am very concerned that an Israel-led war, if it was not obviously very successful very quickly (as in '67 War obvious and quick), would escalate and end up in a nuclear exchange. Be afraid.

rpm wrote:
In an Israeli initiated war

... very bad things could happen.

Very Bad Indeed.

mother wrote:... very bad things could happen.

Very Bad Indeed.

That about sums it up. And, if your chap Obama is re-elected, the chances of the very bad indeed increases. Asymptotically, I think, but that's just my view.

Remember the election is not about who's a good candidate, only about who is the least worst, who will do the least harm to the country and the world.

rpm wrote:That about sums it up. And, if your chap Obama is re-elected, the chances of the very bad indeed increases. Asymptotically, I think, but that's just my view.

Remember the election is not about who's a good candidate, only about who is the least worst, who will do the least harm to the country and the world.

I think that the likelihood of Israel making a unilateral strike increases, thus increasing the chances of Very Bad Indeed outcomes.

I do however actually think Obama is better equipped once that bad thing happens to try to then avert Very Bad Indeed outcomes.

Doesn't make me sleep easier.

But Romney/Ryan want to harm me and mine in a non-hypothetical way. (Besides it really doesn't matter who I vote for)

rpm wrote:In a US led war, it would be (despite any protests) the US with support from our Arab "allies" (who don't much like the Iranians) in the Gulf. That's what would involve the US staging I mentioned. There are variations, depending on who's supportive and who's not. But the big bombers would fly out of CONUS.

In an Israeli initiated war, then out position is worse, because all the Arabs would virtually have to unite against the evil Jooooozzzz, and our options would be more limited.

As painful as it is to contemplate, a US led war has a greater chance of success for the world - though it would be tough on us short term - than does an Israel-led war. I really am very concerned that an Israel-led war, if it was not obviously very successful very quickly (as in '67 War obvious and quick), would escalate and end up in a nuclear exchange. Be afraid.

I can't say that I disagree with most of what you are saying (except I am far less optimistic that Romney is the lesser of two evils). However as I mentioned earlier, given the best case scenario for the almost inevitable war, is that people forget about what happens after the war. The current wars were sold as cheap and easy and the US certainly made short work of Saddam Hussein and look where we are years later. A country in shambles albeit despotless shambles, the situation in Afghanistan a mess as well. It is one thing to take out a regime but then what? What about the average American's aversion to taxes? Who will pay for the occupation/stability force, etc.? What about America's aversion to bloodshed? Bring on the war but god forbid if soldiers get killed! It has been proven time and again in recent years that in spite of all of the high tech weapons, at some point you need boots on the ground. Certainly if we engage Iran in a war, and again it wouldn't be much of a battle, the real battle will start after the "major combat" is over. Drones and KBR (Kellog Brown & Root) can only do so much. I don't believe taking out Iran will be a panacea to Israel's problems either. It would certainly send a message to other Arab countries to think twice about threatening Israel, but I am not sure a.) how much of a deterrent it will be given the level of fanaticism there and b.) Do we just keep taking out Arab nations one by one until they finally quit?

rpm wrote:In a US led war, it would be (despite any protests) the US with support from our Arab "allies" (who don't much like the Iranians) in the Gulf. That's what would involve the US staging I mentioned. There are variations, depending on who's supportive and who's not. But the big bombers would fly out of CONUS.

In an Israeli initiated war, then out position is worse, because all the Arabs would virtually have to unite against the evil Jooooozzzz, and our options would be more limited.

As painful as it is to contemplate, a US led war has a greater chance of success for the world - though it would be tough on us short term - than does an Israel-led war. I really am very concerned that an Israel-led war, if it was not obviously very successful very quickly (as in '67 War obvious and quick), would escalate and end up in a nuclear exchange. Be afraid.

I think I see it as you see it. If we allow Israel first strike it's a bad move. We dont' wanna make the first strike though. Too bad we can't force the Saudi's to do it. How perfect would that be. They could call it Saudi Across the Sea.

edlada wrote:I can't say that I disagree with most of what you are saying (except I am far less optimistic that Romney is the lesser of two evils). However as I mentioned earlier, given the best case scenario for the almost inevitable war, is that people forget about what happens after the war. The current wars were sold as cheap and easy and the US certainly made short work of Saddam Hussein and look where we are years later. A country in shambles albeit despotless shambles, the situation in Afghanistan a mess as well. It is one thing to take out a regime but then what? What about the average American's aversion to taxes? Who will pay for the occupation/stability force, etc.? What about America's aversion to bloodshed? Bring on the war but god forbid if soldiers get killed! It has been proven time and again in recent years that in spite of all of the high tech weapons, at some point you need boots on the ground. Certainly if we engage Iran in a war, and again it wouldn't be much of a battle, the real battle will start after the "major combat" is over. Drones and KBR (Kellog Brown & Root) can only do so much. I don't believe taking out Iran will be a panacea to Israel's problems either. It would certainly send a message to other Arab countries to think twice about threatening Israel, but I am not sure a.) how much of a deterrent it will be given the level of fanaticism there and b.) Do we just keep taking out Arab nations one by one until they finally quit?

Let's leave which of the two bozos will do a worse job aside for now - we're unlikely to convince each other.

The rest of the post raises all of the thorny issues I've been worrying about with respect to Iran since we decided not to do anything about the mullahs after we took out Saddam. For all the reasons you suggest. I think had it been done then, the world would have cheered and it would have been merely difficult and expensive. A few tens of thousands of casualties - which you and I as know as historians are small casualties in serious wars.

A successful war with Iran will not be a panacea, but as you point out will give the fanatics at least some pause. The future of the Muslim world will depend on whether than pause is enough time for reasonably moderate and sensible people to come to power, become just ruthless enough to hold it, and slowly bring Islam out of the dark ages. If not, and they insist on having a clash of civilizations - which is possible - then someone will have to take out Muslim nations as they become significant threats.

As for the cost of all of this, we'll have to swallow our prior generosity and extract the financial costs of the wars and occupations from the vanquished in the form of reparations - taking their oil. Ugly, but really within the traditional law of war and the only alternative to the American taxpayer footing the bill. Unless the Saudis, Kuwatis, and Japanese want to pay as they did in 1991.

We could end up with some like the Delian League with our allies paying tribute to the US, which maintains the military muscle. Now, we maintain the muscle and our feckless allies neither pay not contribute to the cost of defense. That's ultimately not sustainable. Either they pay, they share the burden, or we stop defending. If we determine their defense is essential to ours, it gets dicey if we have to look for ways to 'make' them pay up.

The current impasse is all the result of good intentions combined with a healthy regard for the risks of action - good things - but without serious consideration of the long-term costs of inaction.

We'll be very, very lucky if this whole mishigas ends up with the dead numbered only in the hundreds of thousands.

mother wrote:But Romney/Ryan want to harm me and mine in a non-hypothetical way. (Besides it really doesn't matter who I vote for)

Sounds like you're voting your lady parts. I know you're mother, but....

Today, I am sad to have Italian Heritage.

Live in fear weathermen, live in fear!