Incredible how some people (Progressives and Ron Paul supporters) completely overlook these kinds of statements.
BTW recent Israeli intelligence reports that have surfaced indicate that Iran is developing ICBM's capable of reaching the USA and Europe. This is not just a problem for Israel.
Really, do you believe Iran can do a thing against Israel? LoL! Israel can and will blast Iran into the stone age. When I was in the Air Force, in the UK, during the 80's we called it MAD. Problem is Iran has no Nukes, so if Imadinnerjacket is dumb enough to try it, Israel will blast Tehran into the stone age.
Just like won't close the Straits or Hormuz he won't do a thing to Israel. It would be the death of Tehran.
Look at the example of Iraq in the first Gulf War, though. When we attacked them to get them out of Kuwait, they knew the end was near and just started launching missiles at Israel.
Iran is a terrorist nation, even though they know they are no match for us militarily. If we have to declare war on them, will they hesitate to start launching nukes?
What nukes! Iran has no nukes. They may have the uranium, but the best that they can make is a dirty bomb. The got nothing and Imadinnerjacket is just all talk and no action. There is nothing he can do. Even if he makes a dirty bomb, what can he do with it.
I'm a Paul supporter and I'm unfazed by his remark. All Iran does is talk, talk and talk. They're just trying to get a reaction from Israel. The best thing Israel can do is let Iran continue to make an ass out of themselves, b/c who wants to be friends with the crazy guy in the room.
If Iran does attack Israel, expect the full force of the United States to come down on Iran's leadership without mercy or remorse.
Prememptive war is a mistake. Have you learned nothing from the last 20 years of foreign policy? Attacking a country for what they might do is just a terrible plan.
It's never worked out and it leaves much blood on the hands of the attacker.
Israel is a "one bomb country." They cannot absorb a nuclear attack and survive to retaliate. In the face of an impending strike from Iran, a pre-emtive strike is their only option.
Have you learned nothing? No attacks on American soil after we started going after the middle east. And not for lack of trying, but lack of resources and personnel to mount an effective attack here.
Why leave it to chance? I would rather see a pre-emptive strike than an Iran that posseses nukes and can use that as a bargaining chip to get what they want.
Even if they do not attack, simply being in possesion of that weapon will completely change the game. Hell, we give Pakistan billions of dollars every year and what do we get in return? We give them money as a show of respect for a nuclear armed nation that is extremely unstable.
@ybevar1. I agree preemptive strikes have their allure (and there are instances where this might be justified). The problem with a preemptive policy (at least for the U.S) is that it gives too much power to the executive branch to act on "intelligence" without the hassle of a congressional vote or a burden of proof. All you end up needing is a good sales team to sell the threat (real or imagined) and any "collateral damage" aka deaths of civilians become a mere regretful but acceptable consequence.
It's happened before and its ended in the deaths of thousands upon thousands.
I agree that it is a tough position when you see a growing threat and need to decide whether to act now or "wait" (of course other measures can be taken in the meantime).
It seems to me that people have become bloodthirsty and so easily accepting of the idea of bombing countries we don't like.
@cyberprunes
Pre-emptive strikes are legally and militarily warranted under international law and the conditions Israel almost uniquely faces. Had not Israel launched pre-emptively in '67 while several Arab armies were massed on her borders with the EXPRESS intention of destroying her and her citizenry (much like the current situation with Iran), she would no longer exist and we'd be referring to "Holocaust II."
Nice of you to blithely spin these platitudes from a place as yet beyond the reach of Iran's forthcoming nukes, but Israel will probably not be willing to risk sacrificing the lives of millions for the sake of your cum-by-yah delusions.
Israel doesn't even need the US. We have given enough planes and bombs to take care of a third world country like Iran.
I mean come on, what can a third world military do the Israel Air Force with F-16's, F-18's, and all of the other jets they have. I would say the life expectancy of an Iranian pilot is only a few minutes if he goes an Israeli pilot.
No doubt Israel can handle Iran alone. I don't suspect Obama will help Israel if there is a conflict anyway, it will be too detrimental to his re-election chances.
Israel has already told the US that they will not give advance warning if a strike is imminent.
Gotta fit an Obama attack in there huh. You don't know what Obama would do. If we were to speculate from the data we have...the US is more likely to support Israel than not.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
All that is moot if Iran has ONE working nuclear weapon, which could destroy the whole of Israel in one blow. And Iran really doesn't care what happens in response.
Wowww....Iran a third-world country? You've gotta be out of your mind. Not your fault though, no one is TELLING you otherwise.
They may not be a superpower or anything close, but they're certainly not a third world country. One of the more dangerous beliefs going around is yours: That Iran is just another country to steamroll over. With them it will not be shock and awe, followed by a march to the capital. It will be full blown war, and MANY, MANY more good guys will die this time.
Also, F-16s and F-18s are pretty awesome, but MIG-29s are pretty dangerous too. I don't recall there being many dogfights with MIGs when it came to Iraq/Afghanistan. I highly doubt there were ANY dogfights.
I'm not commenting on whether or not anybody should go to war with Iran - Just pointing out what you're seeing as a baby kitten is much more like a mentally unstable tiger.....
Here's a pic of Tehran - The capitals of third world countries don't look like this:
A proper campaign against Iran would require multiple sorties launched from carriers. Israel cannot mount these. Barring some miracle of military prowess (once the rule -- not the exception -- for brave Israel), the best she can to would be to set back the mullah's plans for 3 to 5 years.
Who says proper campaign! You want to take out Iran's nuclear capability. About the same as Operation El Dorado Canyon and Israel is more than capable of doing that.
Oh, come off it! Do you actually believe in this crap? How many terrorist attacks have there been in the US since 9-11? That would be zero! How many credible terrorists have been caught getting on airplanes since 9-11? Zero! How much freedom have we given up since 9-11? A lot! How much better off are we? We are far worse off.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I guess you agree with US President Hussein and NPR (which referred to those mowed down as "collateral damage") that the unfoiled Fort Hood attack wasn't terrorist.
@James Fort Hood? I love how any nut bar is now automatically associated with the "global terrorist threat".
The heritage foundation? You really should cite a less biased source to be taken seriously. I see an attempt to justify overreaching conservative policy by using a lot of speculation.
You discredit yourself by making remarks like "President Hussein" (clearly attempting to imply that he supports or is at least soft on terrorism which ALL evidence points to the opposite)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Iran has been proven to have provided material support to the 9/11 attacks, and has been supported terrorism throughout the Middle East and the world for a very long time.
Terming every terrorist attack the work of a lone actor is only one of the ways that De facto President Obama (and the dhimmis -- like you -- who support him) proves himself to be "soft on" Islamic terrorism. He's not only made common cause with the Muslim brotherhood, helped shepherd in the development of a nuclear weapon by a country that's been killing Americans for years -- he's eliminated use of the very term.
You do understand, right, that once they launch a nuclear weapon at Tel Aviv it's too late? That Israel doesn't feel comforted that, after the country is blown to bits, the US might retaliate?
i voted for obama and will be voting for ron paul come november.
anyway, i find it incredible that anyone could actually believe that there is a country on earth that poses any kind of military threat to the united states. i guess the war propaganda gets to the simpletons easier than it does others.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
terrorists attacked us on 9/11 not a country. individual acts of terrorism are impossible to completely prevent. again, no country, be it iran, russia or whoever pose any kind of threat to us HERE. "anyone can attack us"? BULLs**t. we outspend the world in defense for f**k's sake! do you honestly think another country would actually deploy fighter jets or shoot missles at us? it would be suicide to do so. i'm sorry, but i just cant buy into this nonsense.
oh, and our troops wouldnt get killed by iranian built IEDs if they werent deployed to fight bulls**t wars in iraq and afghanistan.
If Iran has an ICBM (which they are developing) paired with highly enriched nuclear material (which they are developing) paired with an intention on killing Americans and they fire the weapon - there is no way even our defenses would be able to prevent some kind of damage.
and let's say that they decided to fire that weapon. we would then completely and utterly annihilate them. you dont think they know firing a single missile at the US would be suicide? come on.
clearly you are a neo con. spouting fear mongering propaganda. you probably think we have to preemptively attack them just like we did with iraq, right? i bet you have no problems sending our troops over there while sit back at home and just watch, right?
You know something Pudd, clearly you have no understanding of these people. They WANT to be martyred. It is a wholly foreign concept to Americans. They don't care if they die and they won't consider it suicide either.
@pudd: What makes you so sure we would annihilate them - or even that we should? There are a LOT of innocent people in Iran, would we really launch an allot strike against them? I would hope not. Me might destroy every military base (after some losses ourselves) but that would be scant comfort for the MILLIONS of lives lost in just one successful nuclear strike on an American city.
Your ignorance is incredible. Look up info on the people who committed the 9/11 attack. Don't be a complete idiot.
The last part of your post is entirely correct. Why destroy any legitimacy or credibility of your comments with really stupid comments like the first sentence?
@ybevar1 - I apologize for my unduly harsh comment. I think it's a serious mistake to underestimate the fanatics who hate us, characterizing them as third world thugs.
Some of them are quite well educated. Ignorant and stupid thugs don't build sophisticated IED's, or nuclear weapons.
Most of the time it is a western educated fellow who is in charge of planning and constructing an attack.
This person will be a good talker who will use brainwashing techniques and fanatical rhetoric to take advantage of a weak minded person and convince them that martyrdom is the way to heaven.
no, most people just don't think its our problem, or our place to go in guns blazing.
if iran and israel have issues with each other, sure we could help in peace negotiations, but outside of that, let them sort it out themselves.
and ybevar, it is just a problem for israel. just because a country may at some point possibly if a billion things work out just right acquire a strike capability, doesn't mean that every country in range needs to then attack that country. question everything and cut through the propaganda.
Doubtful. They would be the first (excluding russia). The vehicle to strike long distance is more difficult than getting the nuclear warhead itself. Not only that..we'd know if they were testing long range missles very quickly.
Israel threatened and publicly calls for attacking Iran! When Iran does it, its the end of the world, but when the apartheid regime with the nuclear weapons do it, we ask exactly how much weapons they need.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Last time a radical regime spewed this kind of garbage about the Jewish people, 6,000,000 innocent people were murdered in cold blood.
Israel can and should destroy these nuclear sites if Iran doesn't back off of its rhetoric. It is too risky to be timid with the possibility of another holocaust.
Public opinion will not favor Israel, however in the back of everyone's minds everyone will be happy if Israel strikes Iranian nuclear sites, they will just be too PC to say it.
I'm sure everyone on this board is happy that Israel took out Iraq's nuclear reactor in the 80's. Same goes for the Syrian nuclear site they destroyed in 2007.
how is iran different? Imagine Saddam Hussein or Bashar Assad with nukes....
Iran is just as unstable if not more unstable than both of those regimes. Israel taking out their nuclear capabilities would be a blessing to the free world.
Yo ybevar1 why are you calling Israel a "radical and evil regime to acquire weapons of mass destruction?" Is is because your mossad has fingerprints all over 9/11? Or that the Rothschild banksters founded your pile of dirt and now you're funding wars worldwide? So that you can steal the spoils from both sides? To me that sounds like pure evil. Hitler was Catholic not Muslim. Why don't you go hate on Catholics? Way to miss the target.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
There are good and bad people from all religions. Iran adheres to a version of Islam that encourages followers to become martyrs and labels nonbelievers as monkeys and pigs.
Show me 1 shred of proof that Israel had anything to do with 9/11. From some things I have read, Mossad tipped the US off about an imminent attack and the US decided to ignore it. You are probably going to post a link regarding the 5 supposed Israelis who were seen watching 9/11 with an excited eye. Mossad agents are some of the most professional and disciplined people in the world - if Mossad had anything to do with 9/11 you can bet their agents would have been out of sight, not out in the open watching intently.
You are obviously too anti semitic to give a crap that a free and modern nation is being existentially threatened. I think if it were any other country but Israel Iran was going after this whole situation would be looked at in a different light.
I'm no supporter of Iran but this is a pretty poor comparison. You are implying that Iran is capable of wiping out the Jews. This is not possible.
They are rattling the cage and spewing garbage...It's also not the last time since Nazi Germany that a radical regime spewed such garbage.
Iran is years away from nuclear capability and we'll know far in advance when they get really dangerous. The best way to combat Iran is to erode it from the inside. Changing hearts and minds. That's the only truly effective way to destroy such radicalism.
People of the Muslim persuasion appear to be impervious to having their hearts and minds changed. They have a pretty good track record on changing other people's hearts and minds at the tip of a sword though.
A Cancer - really? - Israel, more engineers and patents per cap ( by far) than any other country - they have also said they do NOT want US help (action) in dealing with Iran - their intelligence programs are very strong - I think they know exactly that they are dealing with.
Any leader calling for destruction of another people or country will never survive - hatred will never lead to peace or success for their nation - this is like a fat stupid bully picking a fight on a smaller kid with a black belt.
The US and Israel are best buddies when it comes to terrorizing the world. Both countries are huge hypocrites. Good that Iran is working on defending itself. The US/ Israel 'defend themselves' all the time, in the same ways or worse. It's like the argument that we would be safer if all guns were taken away. No, we'd be safer if everyone had guns. Who would risk invading another person's home? Let Iran have nuclear capabilities, and the US worldwide bullying and terrorism in that area might slow down. Until then, the US/ Israel double teaming will continue.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Iran needs to get over their issues with Israel and learn to accept the fact they're there to stay.
Besides it's foolish to go starting a fight with a country that has a an advanced military and a past history of handing people their asses just because you hate them.
The only cancer I have seen in the world as of late is the Islamic leaders and their mouth spouting.
Damn Genghis Khan, he should have wiped them all out when he had the chance. Because he did not we have to deal with these idiots today.
I wonder what Iran's true objectives are. All I can guess is a larger say on the world stage but if they continue to play like this, they really risk getting into a war which they cannot win and will mean the end of the regime. What is it that they hope to accomplish?
You people are f**king disgusting. You ALL sound like terrorists. Both sides! US terrorized them first, btw. But it doesn't matter. War is for the weak of mind and spirit. Period. You are ALL weak, disgusting animals! Both sides sound exactly the same to me. KILL KILL KILL. Not one bit of difference. Also, you cannot put knowledge back in a bottle. Nukes are possible. Everyone knows they are possible. There is no f**king way in hell you can PREVENT anyone from making them. No matter what your pathetic american egos have you believing.
Israel has been making just as many threats as Iran recently. Most recently Israel (who has a significant nuclear arsenal) has been threatening to attack Iran's nuclear facility.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I just don't have much use for either of these nations, and I would hate to see the US get dragged into another silly conflict in the region because they can't control their "friends" in Israel.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I don't think the US is quite that clever, but they do want to keep the region destabilized. They did put Iran in it's current position by eliminating Iraq's government. It was predictable that Iran would try to flex it's muscles a little, and that Israel would overreact.
A homeland claimed by 2 rival cultures each with the "authority" of religion behind them. Neither the Muslims nor the Jews will agree on a solution to this problem. Therefore this nonsense of 2 religions marching to war is unfortunately inevitable.
Having said that, of course Israel has the right to protect itself from nuclear war but it's never smart to attack a country based on rhetoric.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
anyone who isn't a staunch conservative loves socialism, Marxism, welfare, laziness, gender-bending, sinfulness, Muslims, and educational elitism - and is labeled leftist.
liberals (pronounced lib-brawl) show a more unique revolutionary need for social activism which threatens the good conservatives way of life, while progressives work behind the scenes and flaunt their alternate lifestyles and debauchery in the faces of good folk.
all must have (at one point) smoked pot regularly for no less than 1 year (or it is assumed, at least).
A leftist is generally someone who is a dreamer, naive to the facts that surround a situation, thinking only of the end result and not caring what means it takes to get there.
you know, someone who lacks vision or foresight, naive to the effects of their plans, thinking of only immediate personal profit and disregarding any long term effects of their ideas, and not caring about the effects or who they've got to destroy in order to gain that personal profit or power?
In this case liberals want to completely disengage Iran and allow them to obtain a nuclear weapon that could end Israel's existence. They could also use this weapon against Europe or the US. Although the regime has said many times that Israel should be wiped off the map and the US is the "Great Satan", you will choose to ignore that and hope they will be friends with you and join your drum circle.
Conservatives on the other hand don't mind toppling the ruthless animals in control of Iran, who have said that homosexuals don't exist and treat women as though they are cattle. Conservatives would consider striking them to prevent a nuclear disaster, knowing that in some circumstances, it is necessary to use force to achieve a greater good. Conservatives would do this knowing full well that radical Islamists have no intention of making peace with the west, and that they will seek to kill or convert as many 'infidels' as possible at all costs.
well american intervention on foreign governments worked out so well before! like in vietnam or iraq, and lets not forget the reason why Iran is the way it is now anyway, american intervention in their government.
Hmm...how the heck could Iran ever use a nuke again the US. Using it against the EU would even be a stretch. I mean has Russia or China given them an ICBM yet? How the hell would they deliver it? I mean, how could even deliver it?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"liberals want to completely disengage Iran and allow them to obtain a nuclear weapon" - that is utter and complete bulls**t, typical of radicals that have no interest in reality.
The only thing about your extremely biased comment that is correct is "Islamists have no intention of making peace with the west".
That's why liberal Democrat President Obama is waging precise and targeted war on those who truly threaten us.
We're much better off with a President that will take the necessary action on a limited basis, instead of his idiot predecessor. Bush increased geometrically the number of Islamists who hate the US and the west, with his incredibly senseless invasion and destruction of Iraq.
After giving a little more thought - perhaps President Obama isn't much of a liberal any longer. His superb foreign policy efforts are at least moderate, and he's more of a real conservative than the buffoons running for the Republican presidential nomination.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"When Israel attacked a nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981 almost the entire US Congress voted to condemn the act, but Congressman Paul was one of the few Republicans who stood up and said Israel should not have to answer to America for how she defends herself. Remember, this was the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan that had condemned Israel, a coalition that included the most hawkish anti-Communists and the most fervent Christian conservatives.
Republicans condemned Israel’s actions in 1981 for two reasons: 1. The Reagan administration was making an ally of Saddam Hussein. 2. The Republican Party had not yet conflated Israel’s and America’s interests as identical."
If "govtrack.us" would update their information, we could see the votes. And yes, i was 19 at the time and it was widely reported in the news.
Its Hitler in a Headscarf..
Scary part is, there are more supporters of Hitler's policy to eradicate Jews today then there were 75 years ago..
But what's even scarier is watching liberal NY Jews protest outside of the Israeli embassy by the UN..
I used to wonder how Hitler got so many Jews to willingly march into the gas chambers, then I saw with my own eyes Jews protesting with Palestinians for the end of Israel..
There's a self destructive gene in that clan, in my opinion..
This is the problem with theocracies, and this is the reason the US needs to stay far away from religious conflicts in the area. This will never end, these two competing mythologies have been trying to kill each other for centuries and it will not stop anytime soon. At least secular governments can eventual forget things that happened generations ago and maintain some type of peace, but not these folks. Neither of these groups will be truely satisfied until the other is gone. It is not in the US national interest to take sides or become involved in any future conflicts.
How about letting some european countries deal with this mess for the next few decades?
MarkofFaithFeb 3, 2012
And people wonder why Israel calls Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas "existential threats"?
ybevar1Feb 3, 2012
Incredible how some people (Progressives and Ron Paul supporters) completely overlook these kinds of statements.
BTW recent Israeli intelligence reports that have surfaced indicate that Iran is developing ICBM's capable of reaching the USA and Europe. This is not just a problem for Israel.
southsideirishFeb 3, 2012
Really, do you believe Iran can do a thing against Israel? LoL! Israel can and will blast Iran into the stone age. When I was in the Air Force, in the UK, during the 80's we called it MAD. Problem is Iran has no Nukes, so if Imadinnerjacket is dumb enough to try it, Israel will blast Tehran into the stone age.
Just like won't close the Straits or Hormuz he won't do a thing to Israel. It would be the death of Tehran.
charlotte_webFeb 3, 2012
Look at the example of Iraq in the first Gulf War, though. When we attacked them to get them out of Kuwait, they knew the end was near and just started launching missiles at Israel.
Iran is a terrorist nation, even though they know they are no match for us militarily. If we have to declare war on them, will they hesitate to start launching nukes?
southsideirishFeb 3, 2012
What nukes! Iran has no nukes. They may have the uranium, but the best that they can make is a dirty bomb. The got nothing and Imadinnerjacket is just all talk and no action. There is nothing he can do. Even if he makes a dirty bomb, what can he do with it.
sanmanFeb 4, 2012
they have other weapons like chemical weapons, which have a lot of killing power, as the Kurds found out the hard way
hproFeb 4, 2012
Do you know the difference between the government and the nation?
soporifikxFeb 4, 2012
Apocalyptic religious fanatics do not care about the fate of Tehran.
nickymouseFeb 3, 2012
I'm a Paul supporter and I'm unfazed by his remark. All Iran does is talk, talk and talk. They're just trying to get a reaction from Israel. The best thing Israel can do is let Iran continue to make an ass out of themselves, b/c who wants to be friends with the crazy guy in the room.
If Iran does attack Israel, expect the full force of the United States to come down on Iran's leadership without mercy or remorse.
ybevar1Feb 3, 2012
What you are saying is scary, because I'd rather stop Iran from attacking anyone in the first place rather than wait and see what happens.
nickymouseFeb 3, 2012
All they are doing is spewing hate and like many countries in the middle east, act as a victim of Israel.
I don't expect Iran to attack Israel, if anything, I think that Iran is trying to bait them.
superkendallFeb 4, 2012
Spreading hate- and weapons. Never underestimate the power of the two combined.
cyberprunesFeb 4, 2012
Prememptive war is a mistake. Have you learned nothing from the last 20 years of foreign policy? Attacking a country for what they might do is just a terrible plan.
It's never worked out and it leaves much blood on the hands of the attacker.
jamesotisFeb 4, 2012
Israel is a "one bomb country." They cannot absorb a nuclear attack and survive to retaliate. In the face of an impending strike from Iran, a pre-emtive strike is their only option.
soporifikxFeb 4, 2012
I don't think many people have a an actual understanding of what nuclear weapons can do.
superkendallFeb 4, 2012
Have you learned nothing? No attacks on American soil after we started going after the middle east. And not for lack of trying, but lack of resources and personnel to mount an effective attack here.
cyberprunesFeb 4, 2012
@jamesotis. Your line of thinking would have destroyed the world during the cold war.
ybevar1Feb 5, 2012
Why leave it to chance? I would rather see a pre-emptive strike than an Iran that posseses nukes and can use that as a bargaining chip to get what they want.
Even if they do not attack, simply being in possesion of that weapon will completely change the game. Hell, we give Pakistan billions of dollars every year and what do we get in return? We give them money as a show of respect for a nuclear armed nation that is extremely unstable.
cyberprunesFeb 5, 2012
@ybevar1. I agree preemptive strikes have their allure (and there are instances where this might be justified). The problem with a preemptive policy (at least for the U.S) is that it gives too much power to the executive branch to act on "intelligence" without the hassle of a congressional vote or a burden of proof. All you end up needing is a good sales team to sell the threat (real or imagined) and any "collateral damage" aka deaths of civilians become a mere regretful but acceptable consequence.
It's happened before and its ended in the deaths of thousands upon thousands.
I agree that it is a tough position when you see a growing threat and need to decide whether to act now or "wait" (of course other measures can be taken in the meantime).
It seems to me that people have become bloodthirsty and so easily accepting of the idea of bombing countries we don't like.
jamesotisFeb 6, 2012
@cyberprunes
Pre-emptive strikes are legally and militarily warranted under international law and the conditions Israel almost uniquely faces. Had not Israel launched pre-emptively in '67 while several Arab armies were massed on her borders with the EXPRESS intention of destroying her and her citizenry (much like the current situation with Iran), she would no longer exist and we'd be referring to "Holocaust II."
Nice of you to blithely spin these platitudes from a place as yet beyond the reach of Iran's forthcoming nukes, but Israel will probably not be willing to risk sacrificing the lives of millions for the sake of your cum-by-yah delusions.
southsideirishFeb 3, 2012
Israel doesn't even need the US. We have given enough planes and bombs to take care of a third world country like Iran.
I mean come on, what can a third world military do the Israel Air Force with F-16's, F-18's, and all of the other jets they have. I would say the life expectancy of an Iranian pilot is only a few minutes if he goes an Israeli pilot.
ybevar1Feb 3, 2012
No doubt Israel can handle Iran alone. I don't suspect Obama will help Israel if there is a conflict anyway, it will be too detrimental to his re-election chances.
Israel has already told the US that they will not give advance warning if a strike is imminent.
southsideirishFeb 3, 2012
They wouldn't, especially since they only need to send a couple of Strike Eagles over and blow up a building.
cyberprunesFeb 4, 2012
Gotta fit an Obama attack in there huh. You don't know what Obama would do. If we were to speculate from the data we have...the US is more likely to support Israel than not.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ybevar1Feb 5, 2012
@cyberprunes
The US will support Israel to an extent but I really don't think this president has had a record of backing Israel up.
I am solely basing my opinion (which I am entitled to) off of Obama's record in office when it comes to Israel.
superkendallFeb 4, 2012
All that is moot if Iran has ONE working nuclear weapon, which could destroy the whole of Israel in one blow. And Iran really doesn't care what happens in response.
jdhammerFeb 4, 2012
Wowww....Iran a third-world country? You've gotta be out of your mind. Not your fault though, no one is TELLING you otherwise.
They may not be a superpower or anything close, but they're certainly not a third world country. One of the more dangerous beliefs going around is yours: That Iran is just another country to steamroll over. With them it will not be shock and awe, followed by a march to the capital. It will be full blown war, and MANY, MANY more good guys will die this time.
Also, F-16s and F-18s are pretty awesome, but MIG-29s are pretty dangerous too. I don't recall there being many dogfights with MIGs when it came to Iraq/Afghanistan. I highly doubt there were ANY dogfights.
I'm not commenting on whether or not anybody should go to war with Iran - Just pointing out what you're seeing as a baby kitten is much more like a mentally unstable tiger.....
Here's a pic of Tehran - The capitals of third world countries don't look like this:
http://old.tehrantimes.com/News/10714/01_QUAKE.jpg
jamesotisFeb 6, 2012
A proper campaign against Iran would require multiple sorties launched from carriers. Israel cannot mount these. Barring some miracle of military prowess (once the rule -- not the exception -- for brave Israel), the best she can to would be to set back the mullah's plans for 3 to 5 years.
southsideirishFeb 6, 2012
Who says proper campaign! You want to take out Iran's nuclear capability. About the same as Operation El Dorado Canyon and Israel is more than capable of doing that.
charlotte_webFeb 3, 2012
Iran is not just talk; they are a known supporter of worldwide terrorism.
southsideirishFeb 3, 2012
Oh, come off it! Do you actually believe in this crap? How many terrorist attacks have there been in the US since 9-11? That would be zero! How many credible terrorists have been caught getting on airplanes since 9-11? Zero! How much freedom have we given up since 9-11? A lot! How much better off are we? We are far worse off.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jamesotisFeb 4, 2012
There have been in excess of 23 Muslime-inspired terrorist attacks on the US since 9/11.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/07/terrorist-watch-23-plots-foiled-since-9-11
I guess you agree with US President Hussein and NPR (which referred to those mowed down as "collateral damage") that the unfoiled Fort Hood attack wasn't terrorist.
cyberprunesFeb 4, 2012
@James Fort Hood? I love how any nut bar is now automatically associated with the "global terrorist threat".
The heritage foundation? You really should cite a less biased source to be taken seriously. I see an attempt to justify overreaching conservative policy by using a lot of speculation.
You discredit yourself by making remarks like "President Hussein" (clearly attempting to imply that he supports or is at least soft on terrorism which ALL evidence points to the opposite)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
southsideirishFeb 6, 2012
Bull f**king s**t! More smoke and miirors to take our freedoms away.
I would rather die free that live as a slave.
soporifikxFeb 4, 2012
Iran has been proven to have provided material support to the 9/11 attacks, and has been supported terrorism throughout the Middle East and the world for a very long time.
jamesotisFeb 6, 2012
@cyberpruneS
Terming every terrorist attack the work of a lone actor is only one of the ways that De facto President Obama (and the dhimmis -- like you -- who support him) proves himself to be "soft on" Islamic terrorism. He's not only made common cause with the Muslim brotherhood, helped shepherd in the development of a nuclear weapon by a country that's been killing Americans for years -- he's eliminated use of the very term.
soporifikxFeb 4, 2012
You do understand, right, that once they launch a nuclear weapon at Tel Aviv it's too late? That Israel doesn't feel comforted that, after the country is blown to bits, the US might retaliate?
puddmasterFeb 3, 2012
i voted for obama and will be voting for ron paul come november.
anyway, i find it incredible that anyone could actually believe that there is a country on earth that poses any kind of military threat to the united states. i guess the war propaganda gets to the simpletons easier than it does others.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ybevar1Feb 3, 2012
Who would have thought some primitive looking thugs living in the Hindu Kush could have killed 3,000 americans on 9/11?
If they could attack us, anybody can attack us.
BTW Iranian built IEDs have been killing US troops for years now.
puddmasterFeb 3, 2012
terrorists attacked us on 9/11 not a country. individual acts of terrorism are impossible to completely prevent. again, no country, be it iran, russia or whoever pose any kind of threat to us HERE. "anyone can attack us"? BULLs**t. we outspend the world in defense for f**k's sake! do you honestly think another country would actually deploy fighter jets or shoot missles at us? it would be suicide to do so. i'm sorry, but i just cant buy into this nonsense.
oh, and our troops wouldnt get killed by iranian built IEDs if they werent deployed to fight bulls**t wars in iraq and afghanistan.
ybevar1Feb 3, 2012
Clearly you are a Ron Paul supporter...
If Iran has an ICBM (which they are developing) paired with highly enriched nuclear material (which they are developing) paired with an intention on killing Americans and they fire the weapon - there is no way even our defenses would be able to prevent some kind of damage.
puddmasterFeb 4, 2012
and let's say that they decided to fire that weapon. we would then completely and utterly annihilate them. you dont think they know firing a single missile at the US would be suicide? come on.
clearly you are a neo con. spouting fear mongering propaganda. you probably think we have to preemptively attack them just like we did with iraq, right? i bet you have no problems sending our troops over there while sit back at home and just watch, right?
chordonblueFeb 4, 2012
You know something Pudd, clearly you have no understanding of these people. They WANT to be martyred. It is a wholly foreign concept to Americans. They don't care if they die and they won't consider it suicide either.
superkendallFeb 4, 2012
@pudd: What makes you so sure we would annihilate them - or even that we should? There are a LOT of innocent people in Iran, would we really launch an allot strike against them? I would hope not. Me might destroy every military base (after some losses ourselves) but that would be scant comfort for the MILLIONS of lives lost in just one successful nuclear strike on an American city.
jpurdyFeb 4, 2012
Your ignorance is incredible. Look up info on the people who committed the 9/11 attack. Don't be a complete idiot.
The last part of your post is entirely correct. Why destroy any legitimacy or credibility of your comments with really stupid comments like the first sentence?
jpurdyFeb 4, 2012
@ybevar1 - I apologize for my unduly harsh comment. I think it's a serious mistake to underestimate the fanatics who hate us, characterizing them as third world thugs.
Some of them are quite well educated. Ignorant and stupid thugs don't build sophisticated IED's, or nuclear weapons.
ybevar1Feb 5, 2012
Most of the time it is a western educated fellow who is in charge of planning and constructing an attack.
This person will be a good talker who will use brainwashing techniques and fanatical rhetoric to take advantage of a weak minded person and convince them that martyrdom is the way to heaven.
Our enemy is cowardly and barbaric.
soporifikxFeb 4, 2012
Did you just wake up after a 40-year sleep?
triplehelixFeb 4, 2012
no, most people just don't think its our problem, or our place to go in guns blazing.
if iran and israel have issues with each other, sure we could help in peace negotiations, but outside of that, let them sort it out themselves.
and ybevar, it is just a problem for israel. just because a country may at some point possibly if a billion things work out just right acquire a strike capability, doesn't mean that every country in range needs to then attack that country. question everything and cut through the propaganda.
angrycat70Feb 4, 2012
Problem is that after they sort it out, the rest of the world has to deal with years of nuclear winter.
cyberprunesFeb 4, 2012
Doubtful. They would be the first (excluding russia). The vehicle to strike long distance is more difficult than getting the nuclear warhead itself. Not only that..we'd know if they were testing long range missles very quickly.
jaketyson85Feb 4, 2012
troof. ROM PAUL is all trendy and hip to vote for and whatnot. but with him in office we would be sitting ducks.
7wiseguyFeb 4, 2012
Israel threatened and publicly calls for attacking Iran! When Iran does it, its the end of the world, but when the apartheid regime with the nuclear weapons do it, we ask exactly how much weapons they need.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
neotechniFeb 4, 2012
"Israel threatened and publicly calls for attacking Iran!"
False
rudegarFeb 4, 2012
they do seem to want to attack hem though
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/netanyahu-trying-to-persuade-cabinet-to-support-attack-on-iran-1.393214
ybevar1Feb 3, 2012
Last time a radical regime spewed this kind of garbage about the Jewish people, 6,000,000 innocent people were murdered in cold blood.
Israel can and should destroy these nuclear sites if Iran doesn't back off of its rhetoric. It is too risky to be timid with the possibility of another holocaust.
Public opinion will not favor Israel, however in the back of everyone's minds everyone will be happy if Israel strikes Iranian nuclear sites, they will just be too PC to say it.
ybevar1Feb 3, 2012
I'm sure everyone on this board is happy that Israel took out Iraq's nuclear reactor in the 80's. Same goes for the Syrian nuclear site they destroyed in 2007.
how is iran different? Imagine Saddam Hussein or Bashar Assad with nukes....
Iran is just as unstable if not more unstable than both of those regimes. Israel taking out their nuclear capabilities would be a blessing to the free world.
kochevnik2001Feb 3, 2012
What's wrong ybevar1? Couldn't land that mossad job? So instead you spam your zionist spew?
ybevar1Feb 3, 2012
What is spew about not wanting a radical and evil regime to acquire weapons of mass destruction?
Couldn't get into the Iranian revolutionary guard? Spew your Islamophobic terrorist loving garbage somewhere else.
ybevar1Feb 3, 2012
What is spew about not wanting a radical and evil regime to acquire weapons of mass destruction?
Couldn't get into the Iranian revolutionary guard? Spew your Islamophobic terrorist loving garbage somewhere else.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kochevnik2001Feb 3, 2012
Yo ybevar1 why are you calling Israel a "radical and evil regime to acquire weapons of mass destruction?" Is is because your mossad has fingerprints all over 9/11? Or that the Rothschild banksters founded your pile of dirt and now you're funding wars worldwide? So that you can steal the spoils from both sides? To me that sounds like pure evil. Hitler was Catholic not Muslim. Why don't you go hate on Catholics? Way to miss the target.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ybevar1Feb 3, 2012
wtf are you talking about?
There are good and bad people from all religions. Iran adheres to a version of Islam that encourages followers to become martyrs and labels nonbelievers as monkeys and pigs.
Show me 1 shred of proof that Israel had anything to do with 9/11. From some things I have read, Mossad tipped the US off about an imminent attack and the US decided to ignore it. You are probably going to post a link regarding the 5 supposed Israelis who were seen watching 9/11 with an excited eye. Mossad agents are some of the most professional and disciplined people in the world - if Mossad had anything to do with 9/11 you can bet their agents would have been out of sight, not out in the open watching intently.
You are obviously too anti semitic to give a crap that a free and modern nation is being existentially threatened. I think if it were any other country but Israel Iran was going after this whole situation would be looked at in a different light.
neotechniFeb 4, 2012
". Iran adheres to a version of Islam that encourages followers to become martyrs and labels nonbelievers as monkeys and pigs. "
That's the only version
cyberprunesFeb 4, 2012
I'm no supporter of Iran but this is a pretty poor comparison. You are implying that Iran is capable of wiping out the Jews. This is not possible.
They are rattling the cage and spewing garbage...It's also not the last time since Nazi Germany that a radical regime spewed such garbage.
Iran is years away from nuclear capability and we'll know far in advance when they get really dangerous. The best way to combat Iran is to erode it from the inside. Changing hearts and minds. That's the only truly effective way to destroy such radicalism.
chordonblueFeb 4, 2012
People of the Muslim persuasion appear to be impervious to having their hearts and minds changed. They have a pretty good track record on changing other people's hearts and minds at the tip of a sword though.
Closed AccountFeb 3, 2012
yeah.. they gonna get bitch stomped if they keep this sh*t up.
martov2010Feb 3, 2012
No wonder he says since in Iran you can't: A - Have sex; B - jerk off; C - get this goddamn sand out of your ass crack (southpark)
brucealmightyFeb 3, 2012
No thanks, Iran...you've obviously got far more serious problems to deal with at home first.
elimgarakFeb 3, 2012
Wow, what psycho retards! That will help you out with the sanctions and the whole "not get invaded" thing - threaten Israel!
theswashbucklerFeb 4, 2012
Khomeni is the cancer...
windadctFeb 3, 2012
This makes me laugh....
A Cancer - really? - Israel, more engineers and patents per cap ( by far) than any other country - they have also said they do NOT want US help (action) in dealing with Iran - their intelligence programs are very strong - I think they know exactly that they are dealing with.
Any leader calling for destruction of another people or country will never survive - hatred will never lead to peace or success for their nation - this is like a fat stupid bully picking a fight on a smaller kid with a black belt.
number4940Feb 4, 2012
The US and Israel are best buddies when it comes to terrorizing the world. Both countries are huge hypocrites. Good that Iran is working on defending itself. The US/ Israel 'defend themselves' all the time, in the same ways or worse. It's like the argument that we would be safer if all guns were taken away. No, we'd be safer if everyone had guns. Who would risk invading another person's home? Let Iran have nuclear capabilities, and the US worldwide bullying and terrorism in that area might slow down. Until then, the US/ Israel double teaming will continue.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
protogenxlFeb 3, 2012
Iran is now using /b/ rhetoric?
montrosityFeb 3, 2012
And the USA will eliminate the cancer that is Iran if you attack Israel.
jamesotisFeb 4, 2012
Not so long as we have an Islamist president.
KOMRADE008Feb 4, 2012
So c**ky. You don't even understand the many ways your........
nitoriFeb 4, 2012
Iran needs to get over their issues with Israel and learn to accept the fact they're there to stay.
Besides it's foolish to go starting a fight with a country that has a an advanced military and a past history of handing people their asses just because you hate them.
miffelplixFeb 4, 2012
Number of countries Iran has 'preemptively attacked': 0
Number of countries Israel has 'preemptively attacked': 10+.
Zionists trying dumb Americas to fight their wars: priceless.
toxtekFeb 6, 2012
Absolutely correct. Only the zionist propaganda watchers would deny that.
mmysamaFeb 4, 2012
I hope the Arab spring comes to Palestine next. Thats one Arab country that needs to have it's leadership overhtrown, moreso than Egypt ever did.
chordonblueFeb 4, 2012
It would be even better to see it happen in Iran.
jamesotisFeb 4, 2012
There is no country named Palestine.
jfjawFeb 4, 2012
And this insane world remains silent.
jfjawFeb 4, 2012
And this insane world remains silent.
WabbitslayerFeb 4, 2012
The only cancer I have seen in the world as of late is the Islamic leaders and their mouth spouting.
Damn Genghis Khan, he should have wiped them all out when he had the chance. Because he did not we have to deal with these idiots today.
toxtekFeb 6, 2012
Israel is surely a cancer and needs to be cut out at the earliest.
aplusplusplusFeb 4, 2012
Maybe Komen should start funding Iran?
velvusFeb 4, 2012
I wonder what Iran's true objectives are. All I can guess is a larger say on the world stage but if they continue to play like this, they really risk getting into a war which they cannot win and will mean the end of the regime. What is it that they hope to accomplish?
captswuitsFeb 4, 2012
You done gone and done it.
kyzzyxxFeb 3, 2012
You people are f**king disgusting. You ALL sound like terrorists. Both sides! US terrorized them first, btw. But it doesn't matter. War is for the weak of mind and spirit. Period. You are ALL weak, disgusting animals! Both sides sound exactly the same to me. KILL KILL KILL. Not one bit of difference. Also, you cannot put knowledge back in a bottle. Nukes are possible. Everyone knows they are possible. There is no f**king way in hell you can PREVENT anyone from making them. No matter what your pathetic american egos have you believing.
Hold crap all you people are f**king stupid and pathetic!!!!!!!!!!!!!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
FrankLuskaFeb 4, 2012
You just correctly explained one major problem with the entire world,
but if you want to be taken seriously, tone down a little.
trythinking1stFeb 4, 2012
someone has some anger issues...
KOMRADE008Feb 4, 2012
Actually this is good. Spineless, mind-controlled, sheeple... you need to get some passion! Seriously.
craig1958Feb 3, 2012
Can we have just one week where Israel and Iran both behave themselves?
austrologiFeb 3, 2012
What has israel done?
southsideirishFeb 3, 2012
Nothing at all, unless they get attacked. Then they bitch slap you, Wonder if Imadinnerjacket really wants to get bitchslapped.
mattbrad2Feb 3, 2012
Being bitchslapped by Israel just doesn't have the same funny vibe to it that you'd see on a youtube video.
kasha34Feb 4, 2012
Israel gets attacked every week by Iranian proxies in Gaza. And they don't do much about it.
craig1958Feb 3, 2012
Israel has been making just as many threats as Iran recently. Most recently Israel (who has a significant nuclear arsenal) has been threatening to attack Iran's nuclear facility.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
southsideirishFeb 3, 2012
And what is the problem with that? I mean come on, if it is OK or our leaders to do it, then it should be OK for israel to do it.
And dropping 1000 pound bombs is not the same has having the ability to nuke.
craig1958Feb 3, 2012
I just don't have much use for either of these nations, and I would hate to see the US get dragged into another silly conflict in the region because they can't control their "friends" in Israel.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
southsideirishFeb 3, 2012
Ah, again I will be buried for saying this, but what if we want to be pulled in? More empire building.
austrologiFeb 3, 2012
Why would we want these pos deserts other than oil? We don't even get that for our troubles.
craig1958Feb 3, 2012
I don't think the US is quite that clever, but they do want to keep the region destabilized. They did put Iran in it's current position by eliminating Iraq's government. It was predictable that Iran would try to flex it's muscles a little, and that Israel would overreact.
No, the US is just stumbling around in the dark, as usual. They will never figure out that part of the world.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
southsideirishFeb 3, 2012
Do you really believe the US wants the oil?
The oil companies get the oil and the US get's something far more valuable.
kasha34Feb 4, 2012
@craig
Not "much use" for Israel?
All the technology you use every day comes from Israel.
cyberprunesFeb 4, 2012
The expansion of settlements is pretty f**ked up.
jamesotisFeb 4, 2012
Not f**ked-up. Entirely legal, justifiable and desirable. Unfortunately, also non-existent for some time now..
soporifikxFeb 4, 2012
Have you been there? Have you seen what's going on, or experienced it, or talked to Israelis who live it every day? Why are you even commenting?
superkendallFeb 4, 2012
What seems really f**ked-up to me is the concept people cannot live where they want to.
kasha34Feb 4, 2012
Did you know it's a death penalty offense in Jordan to sell land to any Jew?
cyberprunesFeb 4, 2012
And that is horrible. Just another society poisoned by religious nut jobs.
kasha34Feb 4, 2012
Not exactly. Just another society poisoned by ISLAMIC nut jobs.
ybevar1Feb 3, 2012
What has Israel done?
They are only trying to protect themselves from an attack on their homeland. Any other free country would do the same.
cyberprunesFeb 4, 2012
A homeland claimed by 2 rival cultures each with the "authority" of religion behind them. Neither the Muslims nor the Jews will agree on a solution to this problem. Therefore this nonsense of 2 religions marching to war is unfortunately inevitable.
Having said that, of course Israel has the right to protect itself from nuclear war but it's never smart to attack a country based on rhetoric.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kasha34Feb 4, 2012
Jews were in the Middle East for 5,000 year before Muslims.
Now Muslims have 99.9% of the Middle East. And you complain that Jews have that last .1% ?
cyberprunesFeb 4, 2012
I'm not complaining. I'm stating that the major dispute is over holy land claimed as a right by rival religions.
kasha34Feb 4, 2012
Yes. And I'm telling you that Islam has 99.9% of it.
And the idea that there are Jews in the Middle East that are not under their boot is intolerable to them.
carlmosconiFeb 3, 2012
A child molester has no right in dictating who are who not to attack!
crashdvisFeb 3, 2012
And American leftists and Ron Paul supporters would cheer if it happened.
particleman420Feb 3, 2012
what do "leftists" have to do with anything?
also, what is a "leftist"?
ikorkyiFeb 3, 2012
anyone who isn't a staunch conservative loves socialism, Marxism, welfare, laziness, gender-bending, sinfulness, Muslims, and educational elitism - and is labeled leftist.
liberals (pronounced lib-brawl) show a more unique revolutionary need for social activism which threatens the good conservatives way of life, while progressives work behind the scenes and flaunt their alternate lifestyles and debauchery in the faces of good folk.
all must have (at one point) smoked pot regularly for no less than 1 year (or it is assumed, at least).
ybevar1Feb 3, 2012
A leftist is generally someone who is a dreamer, naive to the facts that surround a situation, thinking only of the end result and not caring what means it takes to get there.
particleman420Feb 3, 2012
so it's the opposite of a conservative?
you know, someone who lacks vision or foresight, naive to the effects of their plans, thinking of only immediate personal profit and disregarding any long term effects of their ideas, and not caring about the effects or who they've got to destroy in order to gain that personal profit or power?
got it!
ybevar1Feb 3, 2012
You definitely have it right....
In this case liberals want to completely disengage Iran and allow them to obtain a nuclear weapon that could end Israel's existence. They could also use this weapon against Europe or the US. Although the regime has said many times that Israel should be wiped off the map and the US is the "Great Satan", you will choose to ignore that and hope they will be friends with you and join your drum circle.
Conservatives on the other hand don't mind toppling the ruthless animals in control of Iran, who have said that homosexuals don't exist and treat women as though they are cattle. Conservatives would consider striking them to prevent a nuclear disaster, knowing that in some circumstances, it is necessary to use force to achieve a greater good. Conservatives would do this knowing full well that radical Islamists have no intention of making peace with the west, and that they will seek to kill or convert as many 'infidels' as possible at all costs.
particleman420Feb 3, 2012
well american intervention on foreign governments worked out so well before! like in vietnam or iraq, and lets not forget the reason why Iran is the way it is now anyway, american intervention in their government.
southsideirishFeb 3, 2012
Hmm...how the heck could Iran ever use a nuke again the US. Using it against the EU would even be a stretch. I mean has Russia or China given them an ICBM yet? How the hell would they deliver it? I mean, how could even deliver it?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ybevar1Feb 3, 2012
@southsideirish
Please read this:
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/02/israel-iran-developing-long-range-missiles/
Coming from possibly the greatest intelligence force in the world, I would not take it lightly.
jpurdyFeb 4, 2012
"liberals want to completely disengage Iran and allow them to obtain a nuclear weapon" - that is utter and complete bulls**t, typical of radicals that have no interest in reality.
The only thing about your extremely biased comment that is correct is "Islamists have no intention of making peace with the west".
That's why liberal Democrat President Obama is waging precise and targeted war on those who truly threaten us.
We're much better off with a President that will take the necessary action on a limited basis, instead of his idiot predecessor. Bush increased geometrically the number of Islamists who hate the US and the west, with his incredibly senseless invasion and destruction of Iraq.
jpurdyFeb 4, 2012
After giving a little more thought - perhaps President Obama isn't much of a liberal any longer. His superb foreign policy efforts are at least moderate, and he's more of a real conservative than the buffoons running for the Republican presidential nomination.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
austrologiFeb 3, 2012
Don't forget that they bite the heads off of small rodents and piss on homeless people and dangle pieces of meat in front of the hungry
FrankLuskaFeb 3, 2012
Your a complete looney, Paul was the ONLY person in congress that supported Israel when they attacked nuclear sites in Iraq.
Take your fear, lies and hate mongering somewhere else.
jamesotisFeb 4, 2012
Citation?
FrankLuskaFeb 4, 2012
My mistake, one of a few "Republicans" in the Congress to side with Israel. I believe he was the only Republican in the house to do so.
http://www.therightperspective.org/2011/12/07/ron-paul-i-support-israel/
http://ronpaulmyths.com/foreign-policy.php
"Ron Paul voted to oppose a Congressional resolution condemning Israel for bombing Iraq's nuclear reactors."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/Paul2012.html
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2011/05/25/israel-and-the-right/
"When Israel attacked a nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981 almost the entire US Congress voted to condemn the act, but Congressman Paul was one of the few Republicans who stood up and said Israel should not have to answer to America for how she defends herself. Remember, this was the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan that had condemned Israel, a coalition that included the most hawkish anti-Communists and the most fervent Christian conservatives.
Republicans condemned Israel’s actions in 1981 for two reasons: 1. The Reagan administration was making an ally of Saddam Hussein. 2. The Republican Party had not yet conflated Israel’s and America’s interests as identical."
If "govtrack.us" would update their information, we could see the votes. And yes, i was 19 at the time and it was widely reported in the news.
jamesotisFeb 4, 2012
Then Bravo Ron Paul.
bultannewsdailyFeb 3, 2012
death is best thing for dirty israel people
niceguyvanFeb 3, 2012
Hello Hitler. How did you come back?
medallionsFeb 4, 2012
Its Hitler in a Headscarf..
Scary part is, there are more supporters of Hitler's policy to eradicate Jews today then there were 75 years ago..
But what's even scarier is watching liberal NY Jews protest outside of the Israeli embassy by the UN..
I used to wonder how Hitler got so many Jews to willingly march into the gas chambers, then I saw with my own eyes Jews protesting with Palestinians for the end of Israel..
There's a self destructive gene in that clan, in my opinion..
kasha34Feb 4, 2012
Hatred of Jews (based on jealousy) is integral to Islam. Mohammad funded his early band by leading dozens of bloody raids against Jewish caravans.
craig1958Feb 4, 2012
This is the problem with theocracies, and this is the reason the US needs to stay far away from religious conflicts in the area. This will never end, these two competing mythologies have been trying to kill each other for centuries and it will not stop anytime soon. At least secular governments can eventual forget things that happened generations ago and maintain some type of peace, but not these folks. Neither of these groups will be truely satisfied until the other is gone. It is not in the US national interest to take sides or become involved in any future conflicts.
How about letting some european countries deal with this mess for the next few decades?
kasha34Feb 4, 2012
"have been trying to kill each other for centuries"
Not exactly. It's ISLAM that's been killing Jews, and holding them down as 3rd class non-citizens for 1,400 years.
craig1958Feb 4, 2012
Fine, I'm not really interested in your holy war and I certainly don't want my tax dollars supporting either (or both) sides of it.
kasha34Feb 4, 2012
There's a piece of graffiti that I'm told appears all over the Arab world:
First comes Saturday,
Then comes Sunday.
Which means, first we'll get the Jews. Then we'll be coming for the rest of you.
craig1958Feb 4, 2012
Who do you think "the rest of you" are?
Personally, I have no interest in any superstitions involving either saturday or sunday. If you want to have your little war (again); have a blast.