Advertisement

Archive for Monday, February 6, 2012

Obama: Israel has not decided on Iran attack

February 6, 2012

Advertisement

— President Barack Obama said Sunday he does not think Israel has decided whether to attack Iran over its disputed nuclear program, a standoff that has the Middle East on edge.

The president sought to assure allies and foes alike that the United States was working in lockstep with Israel to solve the crisis, “hopefully diplomatically.”

Obama’s comments came as Israel’s major allies in the West are working hard to talk it out of a unilateral military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, arguing forcefully that an attack ultimately would only strengthen the regime in Tehran. Israel fears that Iran is fast approaching a point at which a limited military strike would no longer be enough to head off an Iranian bomb.

“I don’t think that Israel has made a decision on what they need to do,” Obama said during a pre-Super Bowl interview with NBC. He reiterated that the United States has removed no option from consideration in dealing with Iran — an allusion to military intervention — but emphasized that the United States wants a diplomatic solution built around a world coalition.

Iran insists its nuclear pursuits are for peaceful civilian purposes, not a bomb.

After years of worries about Iran’s nuclear program, world leaders are now showing real concern that Israel could attack the Islamic republic imminently — a move that might trigger a broader war and disrupt the international economy.

Iran’s regime says it wants to extinguish the Jewish state, and the West accuses it of assembling the material and know-how to build a nuclear bomb. Just last week, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta would not dispute a report that he believes Israel may attack Iran this spring in an attempt to set back the Islamic republic’s nuclear program.

Obama refused to say whether the United States would get notice from Israel before any potential strike on Iran.

“I will say that we have closer military and intelligence consultation between our two countries than we’ve ever had,” Obama said, adding, “We are going to be sure that we work in lockstep as we proceed to try to solve this — hopefully diplomatically.”

Comments

Ron Holzwarth 2 years, 5 months ago

It appears to me that it is impossible for anyone to distinguish propaganda from actual intent concerning this situation. Just this morning I read a propaganda piece and watched the "news footage" from Iran that bears many very striking similarities to the "news footage" that was released by the Nazi Party prior to the start of World War 2.

This "news footage" from Iran contains so many inaccuracies that it is not possible to counter them all. But, how literally is it really intended to be taken? I have no idea, but the real problem is that many who watch it will believe that it is all literally true.

Just as many believed everything that Adolf Hitler said about The Third Reich, which would last for a thousand years. But in reality, it lasted for only 12 years.

It is just one more piece of propaganda that has only one real purpose, and that is to bolster the current government's hold on power. But how many realize that?

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/ayatollah-kill-all-jews-annihilate-israel/

0

jhawkinsf 2 years, 5 months ago

With the benefit of some hindsight, we can look at the two examples where Israel did go in and destroy the nuclear facilities in Syria and Iraq. With all that has happened since Israel's attack in Iraq, a strong argument can be made that having Saddam Hussein in possession of nuclear weapons would have made Iraq a far more dangerous place. And as we look towards current events in Syria, who could argue that having Assad in possession of nuclear weapons would be a good thing. A better argument can be made that Israel's strikes, while denounced at the time, in fact have done more good than harm. Should Israel strike Iran's nuclear facilities, what will think in a decade or two? Sure, in the days to follow there will be condemnations. The U.N. will do what it always does, condemn Israel. But given time and perspective, it seems more likely than not that we will be thankful that Iran does not have nuclear weapons should the attack be carried out.

0

Flap Doodle 2 years, 5 months ago

"President Barack Obama said Sunday he does not think." Well, there's your problem.

0

bad_dog 2 years, 5 months ago

A problem you can certainly identify with.

0

Ron Holzwarth 2 years, 5 months ago

Facebook Discussion:

Ron Holzwarth: This is unbelievable propaganda, more similar to what was produced by the Nazis prior to WW 2 than anything else I have ever seen. They are happily talking about the next World War, and actually looking forward to it.

However, it is debatable how much of it is for internal purposes, that is, instead of taking the blame for the economic mess that Iran is now in, they are pointing to others as being at fault, exactly the way Adolf Hitler did.

Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel www.wnd.com http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/ayatollah-kill-all-jews-annihilate-israel/


Facebook Friend: Iran and Israel seem to have their own little MAD policy going. With all the saber rattling at each other, something is bound to trip sometime.

Ron Holzwarth: Well, ya know, Iran is not very popular in the Arab countries these days. And wouldn't it be a damn shame how many Arabs would die in these attacks they are talking about if they actually did it.

What's this? Nuke Jerusalem? I thought their mosque on Temple Mount was so holy. That would make it so holy that it would glow at night for a while.

And, Iran's missile guidance systems are so terrible that they might miss and hit say, Mecca, Saudi Arabia. And Medina too, maybe.


Facebook Friend: If Iran threw any type of nuke at them, Israel would sterilize Iran...and I really think that the rest of the Arab world would not lift a finger as long as the rest of the world stayed out of it. If all the other countries started choosing up sides like WWI; then all bets are off.

Ron Holzwarth: The government of Iran is not very popular with the Iranian citizens. But, the government there is keeping that really, really quiet. How much longer they can keep the lid on popular dissent there is an open question.

But, if the citizens begin to realize that it is a very real possibility that millions of Iranians will die, and most of the rest will first starve, and then die of radiation poisoning, maybe they'll overthrow the government and join the modern world.

To me it seems that the complex and inconsistent sets of alliances and national interests in the Middle East today is incredibly similar to the situation in Europe prior to the outbreak of World War 1.

But, how many people here in the USA have really read and comprehended any in depth the history of the World Wars?

I had an advantage in that I had plenty of time to read,,,

0

Ron Holzwarth 2 years, 5 months ago

Facebook Discussion continued:

Facebook Friend 2: There is one big difference, Ron. Most of the governments in the world (not Iran) nowadays realize the terrible cost of going to war and will use it only as a last resort. In 1916, governments were much more gung-ho about going to war. (Hadda learn the hard way, I guess.)

Facebook Friend: I don't agree. Governments still (as in WWI) think everything will be contained and wrap up neatly and quickly.

0

Ron Holzwarth 2 years, 5 months ago

Did you read about what happened in the Rhineland in 1936?

"...no more than the Germans walking into their own backyard." - Lord Lothian

Did you read about what happened in Czechoslovakia in 1939?

"I believe it is peace in our time." - Neville Chamberlain

But if you ask most Americans when World War 2 started they will say December 7, 1941.

Little things can spiral out of control very quickly and turn into very big things that involve the whole world.

"The one who does not remember history is bound to live through it again." - George Santayana

0

Ron Holzwarth 2 years, 5 months ago

An enormous amount of advances in medical and other high technologies of many types come from Israel. Plus quite a lot of covert intelligence that we never hear about.

And just about none of that comes from any of the Islamic countries.

Saying that we get "zip" from Israel makes it quite obvious that you don't read very much world news.

Think about all that the next time you use a computer, go to a doctor, or go a hospital. Would you be willing to take an Israeli developed vaccine or be connected to an Israeli developed medical device?

Sure, and you wouldn't even think about it.

http://www.arlenefromisrael.info/faces-medical/

http://cnpublications.net/2006/11/01/israeli-medical-advances/

http://www.scottishfriendsofisrael.org/Israel_Today/medicine.htm

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/1869#.TzABRMVSR8E

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/09/21/remember-mr-president-israel-is-world-leader-in-medicine/

0

Ron Holzwarth 2 years, 5 months ago

I was able to cite sources and you were not able to do the same. Where is the stretch?

0

Ron Holzwarth 2 years, 5 months ago

"Myth: The United States spends way too much on foreign aid.
Realty: The United States spends only a minuscule amount on foreign aid."

"The United States spends only 0.080 percent of the federal budget or $2.28 billion on the altruism of foreign aid. Compared to other modern industrialized countries, the sacrifice the United States makes in disbursement of foreign aid is small."

http://truthmonk.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/does-the-united-states-spend-too-much-on-foreign-aid/

0

Ron Holzwarth 2 years, 5 months ago

Afghanistan + Pakistan + Egypt = $8.5 billion. They are shaky allies at best. Israel = $3 billion.

0

tecuani 2 years, 5 months ago

They wouldn't get their butts whooped though. The gap between Israeli capabilities and the rest of the region's armed forces has gotten larger and larger.

I asked a Marine Corp fighter pilot who the best in the world were, and without any hesitation he said "the Israelis". Even compared to Americans in American planes, and he said "yes." Their entire population is prepared to die defending their territory, and unlike people who give that concept lip service in the US, these guys actually prepare for it.

In order for Israel to truly be threatened, EVERY neighbor would have to invade, with everything. Then Israel would just nuke their capitols. Game over.

0

jhawkinsf 2 years, 5 months ago

Does the power with the best military always win? Certainly, then, we won the war in Vietnam. And the Soviet Union won it's war against Afghanistan.
In fact, given the disparity in military might, Israel shouldn't even exist, they being far outmanned and out armed in 1947. They were again outmanned and out armed in 1967.
The side with greater military power does not always win. And with the case of Israel, it could win a hundred wars and not be safe, yet if they lose just one, they will cease to exist. The same cannot be said for those on the other side of this conflict.

0

Ron Holzwarth 2 years, 5 months ago

My comment here discusses that point: http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2011/nov...

This is the text of it: My views on the subject of the war in Vietnam will always be colorized by my friendship at work with Benny, a South Vietnamese refugee, and one of my high school teachers.

Benny insisted repeatedly that all the Vietnamese people had ever wanted was for everyone to go away, just leave! This is our country, not yours!

He was talking about the French who were there for about 100 years, then it was the United States, and the Chinese who never set foot in the country, but were willing to supply them with arms to fight the United States. (The Chinese were very wise, actually.)

I was very fortunate to have Mr. James Bono for a German teacher during my freshman year in high school. Later, he earned his doctorate in German here at KU.

In 1968/1969 he talked a few times in class about how the war was a political thing that was in no one's best interests. He told us that right or wrong, the only way that the war could ever be actually won was with an invasion of North Vietnam, and that was not going to be done for political reasons that had to do with avoiding a serious conflict with China. No one wanted that, so Vietnam was simply a proxy war that went on and on, with the Vietnamese population caught right in the middle of it, just wishing all the invaders would leave. They had been wishing that for over 100 years.

This is something that was presented to me that I do not doubt, but I cannot cite a definitive source for it. It was from Mr. Bono himself in class, from his book, or perhaps I read it somewhere else. But I'm very sure that this is a fact:

If all the money that was spent on the conflict in Vietnam by all of the parties concerned (The French, the North Vietnamese, the South Vietnamese, China, and the United States) was instead spent on supplying goods and services to the citizens of Vietnam:

The citizens of Vietnam would have had the highest standard of living in the world.

0

Ron Holzwarth 2 years, 5 months ago

But, I did learn one thing from watching the propaganda film. I didn't know that the Sunnis and the Shi'ites have different sets of hadiths.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.