Netanyahu Goes Nuclear on Obama

.breitbart.com ^ | 9/2/12 | Awr Hawkins

[Justaham]

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly shouted "Time has run out!" at U.S. Ambassador Dan Shapiro, as the two met in Israel earlier this week and discussed the Obama administration's position on Iran.

The Jerusalem Post reported that Shapiro was in Israel for meetings with Netanyahu, and at some point the PM couldn't hold his frustration with President Obama in any longer: "Instead of pressuring Iran in an effective way, Obama and his people are pressuring us not to attack the nuclear facilities." Those present say Netanyahu then said assertively: "Time has run out!"

Shapiro responded by alleging that Netanyahu was "distorting Obama's position." Following this, a no-holds-barred shouting match broke out as the fuming Israeli PM let loose on the U.S. ambassador.

Republican Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI) was on the trip as well, and is reported to have watched the episode in "stunned" silence.

[ScubieNuc]

I disagree. Obama needs to carry a certain amount of the Jewish vote, so if he doesn’t help or appears to actively hinder Israel, in the event Israel attacks Iran, Obama would lose a chunk of voters, which he can’t afford in a tight race.

As for the cry that you can’t change presidents during a war, Romney/Ryan/Republicans could easily counter that by saying something like, “Israel was forced to act militarily, because policies of Obama had failed to stop Iran from moving forward on their plans for nuclear weapons and the illimination of Israel.”

[ScubieNuc]

I disagree. Obama needs to carry a certain amount of the Jewish vote, so if he doesn't help or appears to actively hinder Israel, in the event Israel attacks Iran, Obama would lose a chunk of voters, which he can't afford in a tight race.

As for the cry that you can't change presidents during a war, Romney/Ryan/Republicans could easily counter that by saying something like, “Israel was forced to act militarily, because policies of Obama had failed to stop Iran from moving forward on their plans for nuclear weapons and the elimination of Israel.”

[Pox]

No need to take them out, simply collapse the entrances and exits and repeat when necessary.If they can’t get in or out their facilities are basically useless.

I say this under the premise that any attack will likely start a war which will eventually require troops on the ground and if/when it comes to that, the ground troops can take care of the facilities.

[Pox]

Perhaps, but there comes a time when the puppet throws off its chains and proceeds down its own path, and Israel may be forced onto that path by the inaction of its supposed ally.

[Pox]

I disagree from the viewpoint that a unilateral course is always the last choice in modern times, and that’s not too difficult to understand.

So, if it comes down to it, they will have to go it alone, and that is much more difficult than having support from others.

[what's up]

You have trouble telling the difference between a nation that is not sovereign and one that is sovereign but trying to avoid as much trouble as possible for its people.

[jpsb]

Well a general war in the middle east will end badly for everyone, so I tend to agree with you. The USA has really messed up the entire region. But it is too late to switch sides so we are stuck with Israel, which is fine with me since I like Israel a lot more then I like Islamests.

[justa-hairyape]

Think about it. If Country A feels threatened by Country B, and its leadership calls on Country C to "do something about it," then Country A isn't really a sovereign nation at all -- but rather (perhaps) a stunted puppet of Country C.

Country A = Iran. Country B = Israel. Country C = USA.

Kinda works better.

[itsahoot]

For the life of me I’ve not figured out why Netanyahu hasn’t tasked the Mossad with leaking the dirt they have

The question of the ages, one that I have pondered since the zero came upon the political scene.

[ASA Vet]

We lost almost 100,000 KIA in WW3. It was NOT cold.

[Mr Apple]

Unum correctly states:
A bunker-buster might not be able to take out their nuclear-enrichment facilities, but a nuke could.

E. Pluribus Unum, Jewbacca; GOP J, and KC Lion, I'd like to have your thoughts on my posts #27 and #29 from the article below if you have a moment please:

"John Bolton Confirms: Israel Is Alone"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2926110/posts?page=24

[KC_Lion]

In a Nuclear Exchange No one wins, which is why preventing the Iranians from having one is so crucial.

The Stuxnet virus is just one of many ways the Israeli's are trying to prevent this.

You also have to take into account the supply of the Iranian Nuclear site, if Israel does decide to strike it could cut the arteries or hit the facility in such a way the prevents anything from leaving/entering.

One does not need to destroy the facilities per say, simply prevent their use.

[Jewbacca]

Well, I don’t know.

I do know Iran is on the bleeding edge of Israeli range, making an “all-in” conventional attack difficult.

I would suggest a long, drawn-out, many tiered attack (months of cruise missles) before a nuclear attack, although I, too, am afraid a nuke attack may be the only possible method because I suspect Obama would order interception of Israeli craft.

[SparkyBass]

Sigh. Does Bibi not know that cockroaches can survive a nuclear blast?

[Mr Apple]

One does not need to destroy the facilities per say, simply prevent their use.

Excellent reply. Thank you.

[Mr Apple]

Your reply also very astute, thank you.

[Batman11]

“Just hope that any war between Iran and Israel takes place AFTER the November elections or Obama will be re-elected for sure.”

I have said all along that Bibi hates Obama’s guts and knows that Israel will not survive if he is re-elected. He will do everything he can, at the right time, to make sure Obama loses the election. I have confidence in him!