Posted on 01/15/2014 9:06:46 PM PST by Eleutheria5
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) triggered controversy with a fiery floor speech in the Senate on Tuesday night, during which she declared that "we cannot let Israel determine when and where the United States goes to war."
Breitbart reports that the speech was made during a debate on a bill that would impose new sanctions on Iran if it fails to comply with the nuclear deal that was reached with it in November.
The bill includes a provision offering support to Israel in the event of an Israeli pre-emptive strike on Iran.
Feinstein chairs the Select Committee on Intelligence and is considered pro-Israel, but her remarks, which echo those of anti-Israel critics, have provoked outrage, noted Breitbart.
In her speech, Feinstein said that "a vote for this legislation will cause negotiations to collapse," arguing that the six-month deal reached in Geneva and finalized on Sunday represented "the best opportunity in more than 30 years to make a major change in Iranian behavior."
.....
(Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...
JINO
I'm cool with that, so long as the "United States" does not f with Israel when it is time for them to go to war with Iran or any other nutball islamic country. Facing facts, with zero at the helm it is NOT in Israel's best interest to let the United States know about anything.
“the best opportunity in more than 30 years to make a major change in Iranian behavior.”
But Di, the Iranians aren’t going to change,
Israel knows this, Iran knows this, even Obama
knows this, so why the long face?
Iran declares war on the infidel every day.
For those of you who are senators that means US.
I hate to agree with Dianne Feinstein, but I agree with Dianne Feinstein
So how’s about this: Don’t support Israel if we strike Iran, just stay the f@#$ out of the way and let us do what we must.
It is one thing, and proper, to sign mutual defense treaties or have understandings of such with allied nations. It is quite another to put in writing that U.S. soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen will shed blood and be killed if a friendly nation decides to pre-emptively attack another nation. That goes for any friendly nation, not just Israel.
Israel has somewhere in the range of 200 nuclear weapons. It has one of the finest air forces on Earth, and probably the most effective intelligence operation in the Mossad. Israel receives billions of dollars of foreign military aid per year from the U.S. They are more than capable of both defending their country and, should they wish, inflicting crippling damage upon Iran in an offensive strike.
To put it lightly, I would defend my best friend no matter what if he is sucker punched in a bar. If he asked me to promise to back him up no matter what because he wants to sucker punch a smaller guy who ran his mouth a bit... that's a different situation.
“Israel receives billions of dollars of foreign military aid per year from the U.S.”
We receive 1.5 billion dollars in aid, with lots of strings attached. For all of me, you could keep it.
” They are more than capable of both defending their country and, should they wish, inflicting crippling damage upon Iran in an offensive strike.”
We do not have delivery capability; no carriers. And one does not use nuclear warheads except in the direst of circumstances. See Heinlein’s Star Ship Trooper for an explanation, if one is needed.
“To put it lightly, I would defend my best friend no matter what if he is sucker punched in a bar. If he asked me to promise to back him up no matter what because he wants to sucker punch a smaller guy who ran his mouth a bit... that’s a different situation. “
Your analogy does not fit. Iran is not smaller. It is huge compared to Israel, and was a rival empire to both Rome and Greece. Furthermore, they are not running their mouth, they are getting ready to slaughter us and dominate a vital region with the threat of nuclear bombs. What they are is the big bruiser in the bar that’s getting ready to bust the bottom off a bottle and start cutting, and in those circumstances, a sucker punch may well be our only hope, “our” meaning both the US and Israel.
If you want to sit it out and let us take on the bruiser with the bottle, ok. Could you lend us a carrier, at least? And train our “finest air force in the world” in carrier takeoffs and landings. They don’t know how to do that. Few pilots do outside of the US Navy and Marines. To use your analogy, we may want to sucker punch Iran, but we’d need a freakin’ step ladder to get within range.
The trouble with these folks is that if no-one sucker punches them they usually end up doing exactly what they say they will.Herr Schickelgruber comes to mind.
I appreciate your response, and I fully admit my analogy was a bit of a reach. Comparing geopolitics and threat of war to the goings-on at a bar can be done well for a laugh, but it takes a better writer than I.
Your point about nuclear weapons is interesting. I believe you do have delivery systems, namely planes. Perhaps you'd know more about it than I do, but an Israeli official once spoke about 'the Samson option' regarding their strategic weapons. I highly doubt Israel would take the risks involved in building and maintaining a nuclear arsenal without developing the effective means to use them. The 'Samson' talk may well have been bluster, and understandable bluster at that. Most of Iran's belligerent talk is bluster, too. I hold no love for Iran's government, quite the opposite. They are not, however, an existential threat to Israel at the moment. The U.S. is to Iran. They know that, and their words and actions make some sense in that context.
I say that Iran is the 'smaller' guy not referring to land mass or population. Israel is a much more powerful nation in military and technological terms. Whatever limitations you wish to apply to the Israelis, and of course there are some, are also faced by the Iranians. Israel and Saudi Arabia both outspend Iran by significant margins in the defense and technological realms. Iran could not defeat Iraq in the 1980's, while Israel has repelled several combined attacks throughout its history.
Iran is not an irrational nation. Several current and former Israeli civilian and military/intelligence officials have plainly stated this, too, despite heated rhetoric from both sides. Should Iran take tangible actions that suggest a nuclear attack is possible, let alone eminent, then the game is different. As of now, Iran has not even tested a nuclear weapon.
Feel free to disagree, but my main point is in challenging the notion that the United States should be engaging in pre-emptive wars of choice whether ours or an ally's. I'm in the minority on FR, I'm sure, and it's something the U.S. has done often in its history. I see a certain hypocrisy in our dealings with the DPRK-South Korea situation versus the Iran-Israel situation. The DPRK has issued not only crazy verbal threats, but lethal direct military actions including downing an airliner and attempting to assassinate the ROK president. They've developed, tested and threatened to use nuclear weapons. Somehow Iran is touted as a greater threat then the DPRK. Israel and Saudi Arabia, Iran's enemies, have a lot of money and influence in DC...
Brilliant.
$1.5 billion is the increase in this year's aid bringing the total to $4.1 billion.
Basically America’s military is used to destroy various States and then the vacuum is filled by the other big spenders in DC the Saudis and their wahhibist villainy. These people and their supplicants on the hill are bankrupting this country and will soon be responsible for importing this mess to these shores. Its why David Goldman the famous Spengler columnist wrote to his people that China is the new empire to work with as America is done. We are the new Soviet union collapsist state in waiting.
The unfortunate thing is the goofball in the White House is of the same frame of mind as this nutcase.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
Related threads
Feinstein: 'We Cannot Let Israel Determine When and Where the United States Goes to War'
It's been reported that Israel wanted to attack last fall, but was dissuaded by the Obama administration. Inconvenient during an election. In raising what some might suggest is a classic antisemitic canard, she seems to ignore that fact that the US clearly does it's best to determine when Israel can kill terrorists. Or go to war. Where Jews live, we have agents attached to the Jerusalem consulate monitoring that. Senator Di is off base
You are correct. I couldn’t have said it any better myself.
Di Fi is lying about the bill. There is no automatic declaration of war.
Israel has limited conventional capabilities to hit Iran. Israel cannot use nukes first. It would have to think outside the box and use things like container ships launching cruise missiles and even ICBMs filled with solid warheads to crack buried facilities. Even then, it would only get one strike with ~100 bombers and 24 fighters that have the range.
Several current and former Israeli civilian and military/intelligence officials have plainly stated this, too, despite heated rhetoric from both sides.
You mean the Kibbutznik ideologues who said that leaving Gaza would lead to peace?
Levin laid into her and Weinstein tonight
He was leftwing Jew bashing
He can do that.....lol
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.