Israel asks America to strike western Iraq first, if it decides to fight Saddam

Ha'aretz Daily ^ | Friday, February 08, 2002 Israel Time: 06:01 | By Amir Oren

[ppaul]

:

:

[Bogey78O]

Europe looks too masculine in that cartoon.

It makes sense to strike Western Iraq first. If they did lose they'd launch their nukes at Israel as a last resort and we don't want that to happen because Israel will return fire.

[concerned about politics]

Israel asks America to strike western Iraq first

Now I don't care for that. It's like Israel is saying we're it's personal weapon. "Hey, go get these guys next! Heh heh heh."
We're fighting terrorists that attacked, and may someday attack again , the United States.
Israel needs to understand we're not fighting THEIR war.
Bush needs to do what's best for America first.

[concerned about politics]

We'll know what to do.

I hope so. If it appears we're over there to protect Isreal, and the war on terrorism gets blurred, the other nations may back off their support.
Another Clinton legacy. No inspectors. We had 'em, he screwed that up, too.

[Blackyce]

If we're gonna be picking a fight in their neighborhood, I think its reasonable for them to ask us not to let them get their ass kicked. Obviously we're not obligated to listen, but they can ask.

[Bobby777]

I rather doubt Iraq has nukes ... they do have binary biological / chemical warheads ...

[concerned about politics]

Obviously we're not obligated to listen, but they can ask.

True. America will have to watch for heavy spin, though.
We need to stay focused.

[flaglady47]

Your not thinking No. 5. You're right, America has to do what's best for its interests. And so does Israel. So if America does not go into Western Iraq first, and Iraq begins to attack Israel, then Israel will not sit idly by like they did last time during Desert Storm. They will strike back against Iraq swiftly. Then the rest of the Middle Eastern countries around there will get all bent out of shape and the chances for a widening war over there well beyond Iraq increases accordingly. So, it IS in America's interests to attack Western Iraq first, unless we want to risk a much enlarged war in that tinderbox area of the world. So, bottom line, satisfy Israel's interests and we satisfy our own. This is a chess game. You must look beyond the first move.

[American in Israel]

Israel asks America to strike western Iraq first

-Now I don't care for that. It's like Israel is saying we're it's personal weapon. "Hey, go get these guys next! Heh heh heh."

In any other hostage crises the cops will plan the attack to minimize civilian casualties. Iraq has promised Bush to destroy Israeli cities if America attacks. Israel is asking to have western Iraq neutralized to help minimize the cities destroyed by Iraq. Seems pretty reasonable to me (but then I am in one of those cities...) What would you think of a cop that reports "Yeah I killed the perp, but 6 million hostages were lost in collateral damage". Not exactly a success huh?

[Carry_Okie]

Seeing as I am an American citizen, do I get to pick a few choice spots?

[Brian Allen]

"Yeah I killed the perp, but 6 million hostages were lost in collateral damage". Not exactly a success huh?

Oh -- I dunno.

Sounds like the outcome of the talks between the limeys and the Chi-Coms in which the limeys boasted having achieved the upper hand.

Just before they handed seven and a half million FRee British Hong Kong Citizens -- and their descendents in perpetuity -- into medieval slavery!