Iran focus of Obama, Netanyahu talks
Read this article - please respond to following prompts
What are the administration's reasons for supporting Israel? - Based on your knowledge and what you have read about this Global situation - Does the president need to move the US in this direction?
What are Israel's reasons for a possible -preemptive strike against Iran? from what you have read today and before - Are they justified?
I think they should move in that direction bc if they had a nuke it could end badly bc of there repetition of terrorist groups living there it would start ww3. also i think Israelis reasons are more about money than any thing because of the oil prices i think they are looking of a opining to take iraq over so that they will get the money from the oil industry
ReplyDeleteI fully support the position President Obama has taken on Iran. I believe that Israel does have the right to protect itself and do whatever it deems necessary to meet their security needs. Israel is our ally and we will stand by her, I also believe it is in the interest of both nations to combat a nuclear Iran that could lead to a nuclear arms race. On the other had I wish that the president didn't have to move in this direction. I just wish everyone can get along, that diplomacy will succeed.
ReplyDeleteIsrael is in a very uncertain position. They are constantly under rocket attack and the constant threats of annihilation from Iran doesn't help. The question is, is Israel justified? I know I can't make that decision because i'm not in their position, but if Israel feels that their existence is threatened , then they should launch a preemptive strike
Let's all ask ourselves these questions:
ReplyDelete1) How many nuclear weapons does Isreal have?
2) How many nuclear weapons does Iran have?
3) Has Israel signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty?
4) Has Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty?
5) Is imposing sactions on Iran constitutional?
6) How does this effect U.S. National Security?
We need to take a look at the word "blowback"; the unintended consequences of covert operations. We need to take a closer look at our actions - something I've been preaching on these posts.
wow, I though I would never see the day i would agree with Obama.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most things cory said, while on the other hand I hope we all can see the thin line between, diplomacy working and it not working. In this example i think diplomacy has only delayed the action.
Now, i want every one reading this post to taken in what would happen on BOTH sides of this issue. What if we didn't help, how could that be making the same mistake twice. Like Alan says we need to look at "blowback" , but that also accounts for not doing anything, and letting yet another danger grow just for the sake of peace.
Lets look in history and listen to the group of people who said "hitlers fine", "Germany is not a threat", or even TIME magazine naming him man of the year.
"There are many among us who in the past closed our eyes to events abroad, because they believe what was taking place in Europe was none of our business and that we could maintain our physical safety by retiring to our continental boundaries, obviously defense policy based on that is merely to invite future attacks" FDR
Conducting covert operations by the CIA and imposing sanctions is only digging a deeper hole for ourselves. I believe that you need to look at some work by Michael Scheuer.
Delete'You will often hear self-styled conservatives say, "I support the free market and a strong national defense." But if by supporting a "strong national defense" they mean supporting a large and aggressive conventional military — as they almost invariably do — these two positions are mutually exclusive. A military establishment funded by taxation, inflation, and debt is just as destructive to the market economy as a welfare establishment funded by taxation, inflation, and debt.'(http://mises.org/daily/5925/Military-Spending-and-Bastiats-Unseen)
"While Iran is a threat to Israel, there is surely no threat to America in Iran's less-than-impressive military forces, nuclear development program, or unattractive public diplomacy. No, the threat to the United States comes from two sources. First, the relentless "Iran is the new Nazi Germany" propaganda pushed by Israel and the American citizen Israel-firsters, and, second, the multi-decade failure of the U.S. Congress to seriously address the national-security issues of energy, borders, and immigration.
Neither Iran's government or its Revolutionary Guard Corps, or their Lebanese semi-surrogate Hezbollah are going to launch a terrorist first strike in the United States. All of these entities are rational actors and they know a first-strike from their side would earn them a catastrophic response. But the rub comes for America from the fact that each of the just-mentioned entities have a terrorism infrastructure established in North America – in the United States, Canada, and Mexico – that could and would be used in response to a U.S. or Israeli first strike on Iran. And that response would be effective inside America because – thanks to the Congress' knowing failure to control borders and immigration – no level of U.S. law enforcement has anything near a complete handle on the size, intentions, capabilities, and targets of our potential Iranian attackers.
So perhaps its time for Americans to reread Mr. Paine, begin thinking for themselves, and recognize the expensive and potentially war-causing absurdities that have been foisted on them regarding the "threat" from Syria and Iran by their bipartisan governing elite and its deserving-to-be-indicted co-conspirators, Israel's government and its American Israel-first acolytes. If viewed with a realistic eye rather than one clouded by propaganda, the claims that two decaying blotches on the map named Syria and Iran constitute severe national-security threats to the United States would earn the dismissive scorn they so richly merit." (http://www.antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=11559)
Again, it's called Blowback.
It's nice to see the US and Israel ally with each other since usually when I think of the Middle East, I think of an enemy as a whole. Netanyahu and Obama have successfully come to the agreement to help each other relax conflict against Iran and prevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon, which could potentially harm us if Israel were to use it against us. They also stand together since time for diplomacy is running short. I support Obama moving toward this direction. It's nice to be on the side of Israel, we can help them and they can help us. Taking care of this problem now is smart so that preparation is present if something were to ever go wrong.
ReplyDeleteI think that the direction Obama took is great. Because Israel and the united states are ally's of each other its our duty to stick beside them. I think that it is right to stick with them in the first place, but I also think that we could possibly be benefited from this in the long run. I with that none of this would happen in the first place but because it is, it is the right thing to do and I do not normally agree with Obama. I think that everything will work out for the best.
ReplyDelete-LAUREN MAYER
I sort of agree with President Obama. I believe that Isreal has the right to defend itself from or send a preemptive strike on an obvious threat and that the US should back them up on it. I do not think, however, that there is a obvious threat. Yes, Iran has never liked Isreal. But, the regieme has been around for I think it was 30-something years and hasn't shown any direct agression towards isreal in that time. Iran knows that attacking Isreal would be suicide and attacking Isreal would be irrational. Iran hasn't made any irrational decisions as of yet.
ReplyDeleteWe ignored Hitler when he was gaining power. But Hitler was taking over countries and was outright breaking treaties and agreements. Iran has not outright broken any agreements or shown cause of alarm. If the time comes when Iran shows to be more hostile and irrational in the future, we should by all means come down on them with an iron fist. That time is not now however.
"Iran represents a 2,700 year old civilization and except for a brief incursion against the Greeks in 545 B,C, under Cyrus the Great, Iran has never committed an act of aggression against Europe. The European Union has seven times the population, 50 times the GDP of Iran, and possesses hundreds of nuclear missiles while Iran has none. The EU is more than 1,000 miles away and does not share any borders with Iran, yet Washington, through NATO, continues to arbitrarily decide who Europe’s enemies are. To date no Iranians, who are 90 percent Shiite, have been implicated in any terror or suicide bombings in Europe or North America." (http://tech.mit.edu/V130/N6/maheshwari.html)
DeleteIran could be developing a nuclear bomb, for that reason Israel wants to strike first. The U.S has always been a close ally of ours. Obama wants to stick by our ally, for that reason I agree with him.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Iran has justifiable reasons for developing nuclear power. All of the world powers have nuclear power, and it is an efficient way to make power. However, we must also not let our guard down. Iran has in the past been rather reluctant to inspections of their nuclear facilities, some of which contain stolen enrichment equipment. The Stuxnet virus was designed to seek out and damage these pieces of equipment, one of the first instances of real world destruction caused by a computer virus. I also believe that we should end our treaty with Israel, as they are just aching to attack Iran, a country they have many tensions with.
ReplyDeleteI really do not think that America should proceed to stop Iran from making a nuclear bomb. Iran's real enemy is Israel, not America. That is not our problem. Let Israel figure this out their-selves
ReplyDeleteI believe that the United States should persist with our ally relation, nut when it comes to the Israel versus Iran conflict i think we should not intervene. If it comes down to it we should take action but as of now we should not do anything.
ReplyDeleteHow did the 'Palestinian movement' emerge? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US. After 1945, the US created US Intelligence by recruiting tens of thousands of Nazi war criminals. Forced by external circumstances, the US government gave lukewarm support to the creation of the State of Israel. But then it reversed itself and implemented policies designed to destroy Israel. Bush Sr.'s administration forced Israel to participate in the Oslo process, which brought the PLO into the West Bank and Gaza. In 1989 U.S. Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney Pushed to Create a PLO State. The 'First Intifada' was a US-PLO strategy used to represent the Arabs in West Bank and Gaza as supposedly oppressed 'underdogs'. The US abandoned its previous official policy of trying to get Israel to relinquish the territories won in the War of Independence. Mahmoud Abbas, who will soon have total control over Gaza, is the one who invented the strategy of talking 'peace' the better to slaughter Israelis. The US ruling elite loves Mahmoud Abbas.
ReplyDelete( written before Gaza was turned over to the PLO ) Although Israel suffered terrorist attacks from its Arab neighbors during these years, when they staged a full-scale military provocation, the US refused to help.
These are just a few examples of our so-called "alliance". For all of those who aimlessly make posts about how the U.S. and Israel are close allies, actually go do some research. Take a look at this website: www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm
I agree with Marcus on his statement. I can see why Isreal would want to strike first. My logic of this is them basically wanting to do bigger damage to Iran before they do any damage to them .
ReplyDeleteI agree with Briana and Marcus. I think Israel has the right to strike first in their own defense.
ReplyDelete