Posted on 06/19/2007 10:39:11 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
In Pat’s house, if he sees an intruder sneaking into his daughter’s room with knife in hand, Pat would give the guy the benefit of the doubt, thinking that the guy probably just wanted a lock of hair.
Then he’d roll over and go to sleep.
Of course Pat is not anti-Islamist! Pat hates the Jews and he wants Ahmedinajad and his gang of thugs to finish Hitler’s work. Buchanan wouldn’t mind Iranian nukes as long as they are pointed at Israel. Pat would help our enemies as long as Israel suffers.
for later read
“This presidency is dead; it squandered its base.”
Yep, and for what??!!!
A wasted opportunity that usually only comes once in every few generations.
If Israeli intel is convinced the threat of Iran manufacturing nukes is imminent and is that the U.S. isn't going to take care of business they will go for it. But it isn't (yet), so they haven't.
"Seeing how we are a little busy in Iraq and Afghanistan."
The operation in question would exclusively involve Naval and Air Force assets, and those branches aren't too busy at the moment. (Our nation-building efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are being conducted primarily by the Army and Marines).
In addition, the U.S. is in a far better position (militarily) to deal Iran a sufficiently crippling blow. We have them surrounded on three sides -- air bases in Afghanistan and Iraq to the east and west respectively, and our huge naval presence in the Persian Gulf to the south. The IAF, by contrast, would need to fly over several (hostile) nations just to get to their targets, and their naval presence in the Gulf is comparitively weak (no carriers).
And of course you're ingoring the main point: a nuclear Iran isn't just a threat to Israel, it's a threat to the entire civilized world. So it's in our interest to get the job done.
You think we'd plan a launch or a strike on Iran and keep Israel completely in the dark? I don't think so. Why not just tell Israel to go for it since we are a little busy in Iraq and Afghanistan?
The operation in question would exclusively involve Naval and Air Force assets, and those branches aren't too busy at the moment.
Since Israel isn't helping out in Iraq or Afghanistan, what is there world class military doing? Is Israel too busy?
The American people are spending billions on Iraq and Afghanistan, and "we're taking casualties etc. All this while Israel sits at home. I think they could handle this, no?
And of course you're ingoring the main point: a nuclear Iran isn't just a threat to Israel, it's a threat to the entire civilized world. So it's in our interest to get the job done.
No, you seem to be ignoring the fact that Iran has no way to launch on the U.S. No delivery systems etc. And it's in Israel's backyard, not ours.
Besides, you think Iraq wouldn't know what would happen if they launched a nuke missile on Miami? Come on. You don't think Iraq knows we just happen to have a fleet of nuclear subs roaming the oceans? Please, lets get serious here.
Fact is, you've already said an attack on Iran would make Israel safer, and you already said the Iran military was pathetic. So since we are tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, costing us billions every few days, causalities etc, I think Israel could step up to the plate, and take care of Iraq's "pathetic" military as you described it.
You know we are reminded all the time about Israels top gun bad ass military, their 450 plus nuclear weapons, their airforce etc, so if Iran is really is really this threat to Israel, then I think it's high time Israel step up to the plate and help themselves, and America out.
Neither do I, nor did I make that claim. I'm sure they'd be apprised of everything.
Why not just tell Israel to go for it since we are a little busy in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Reading comprehension not a strong suit of yours? To repeat, an operation against the Iranian nuke facilities would exclusively involve the Air Force and Navy, two branches that aren't currently involved in the nation building efforts in those two nations.
Since Israel isn't helping out in Iraq or Afghanistan, what is there world class military doing? Is Israel too busy?
lol....looks like I'll have to repeat myself yet again. This time I'll just quote my the relevant part of my previous post word for word: "the U.S. is in a far better position (militarily) to deal Iran a sufficiently crippling blow. We have them surrounded on three sides -- air bases in Afghanistan and Iraq to the east and west respectively, and our huge naval presence in the Persian Gulf to the south. The IAF, by contrast, would need to fly over several (hostile) nations just to get to their targets, and their naval presence in the Gulf is comparatively weak (no carriers)."
No, you seem to be ignoring the fact that Iran has no way to launch on the U.S. No delivery systems etc.
You're assuming the only way nukes can be deployed are on ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, or aircraft. They'd either smuggle the nuke(s) through our porous borders or send it/them on a ship (encased in a lead container) to one of our harbors.
Besides, you think Iran wouldn't know what would happen if they launched a nuke missile on Miami? Come on.
You're assuming we're dealing with rational folks here (like our Cold War enemies the Soviets), not religious fanatics. Mutually Assured destruction only work if the nations in question are run by sane people.
Fact is, you've already said an attack on Iran would make Israel safer,
I also said (about three times now) than it would make the U.S. safer, and than we're in a far better position to get the job done than is Israel.
"I also said (about three times now) that it would make the U.S. safer and that we're in a far better position to get the job done than is Israel.
I think that’s nonsense. I suspect Buchanan doesn’t like Jews, but that’s only a fraction of what you’re accusing him of.
Pat’s public statements regarding Israel suggest more than garden variety Jew-hatred. Buchanan and Ahmedinajad agree on one thing: the world would be “better” if Israel were wiped off the map. He is a hardcore anti-semite.
I think it’s fair to say that Buchanan doesn’t care much about Israel, and that he tries to be a counterweight to what he (correctly) sees as massive pro-Israel bias in the American political system. I happen to agree with that bias because I’m pro-Israel. But in the case of most Democrats, it simply results from the enormous clout of Jewish voters, activists, and donors in the Democratic party, and the tenacity and toughness of the Israel lobby. In other words, Rat politicans tend to be right on Israel, but generally for the wrong reasons. Buchanan (wrongly, in my view, but sincerely, in my view) thinks that the U.S. supports Israel excessively, against its own national interest. I think that, more than old-fashioned ethnic Catholic anti-Semitism (Pat’s brand), explains his hostility toward Israel. Also, I don’t think it’s fair to equate mild anti-Semitism with “Jew Hatred,” or hostility toward Israel with anti-Semitism, or opposition to the Israel lobby to hostility toward Israel. If we’re to be fair, we need to draw these distinctions. Life isn’t always simple.
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.