Mitt Promising His Full Support

[Park]

http://news.yahoo.com/adviser-romney-back-strike-against-iran-072640314.html

 

 

Here we go again. So basically we are electing a guy that is promising to give full backing to the guys that are just chomping at the bit to either attack themselves--not likely--or get a draft dodging coward president to send American troops to do their job for them--more likely.

 

 

Will Ron Paul denounce this? No way!

 

 

So it's another war, and I'm sure we can pay for it with tax cuts and cutting health care to boot.

 

 

Woooo hooooo!

[/dev/null]

And Leon (Panetta) is getting Laaaaaarger!

 

One of Panetta’s goals in Israel may be seeking to ensure that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu doesn’t mount a military strike before the U.S. presidential election

Silly Hebrews, those Iranian nukes aren't as important as Obama's 6 year re-election campaign

 

Panetta, 74, may have to “reassure Israel that the U.S. will take care of the Iran situation, especially if Obama is elected to a second term,

So Romney is the warmonger and Obama is the peace candidate, kind of like how Wilson kept us out of war and LBJ warned us about how AuH2O would get us into a war.

[B-Man]

Mitt Promising His Full Support............To help protect our ally, Israel

 

That's what your article talked about, but if, (in your desperation) you want to incorrectly label that as "war-mongering", go ahead.

 

No one expects any sense out of your posts anyway kraP.

 

.

[Koko78]

Mitt Promising His Full Support............To help protect our ally, Israel

 

That's what your article talked about, but if, (in your desperation) you want to incorrectly label that as "war-mongering", go ahead.

 

No one expects any sense out of your posts anyway kraP.

 

.

 

Of course no one really expects King Oblambam to not support Israel, so all his warmonger labeling and peace speak doesn't really count once the election is over.

[/dev/null]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_ISRAEL_IRAN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-07-29-09-04-29

 

Obama didn't make plans to attack Iran, somebody else did

[DC Tom]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_ISRAEL_IRAN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-07-29-09-04-29

 

Obama didn't make plans to attack Iran, somebody else did

 

Yeah, in this case somebody else did. The Pentagon probably (almost certainly) has plans for military action against Iran that go back decades and are updated every so often.

 

These plans are probably...well, Bush's fault.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Yeah, in this case somebody else did. The Pentagon probably (almost certainly) has plans for military action against Iran that go back decades and are updated every so often.

 

These plans are probably...well, Bush's fault.

Soon to be Obama's fault. :-) Remember when it was all Clinton's fault?

[Park]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_ISRAEL_IRAN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-07-29-09-04-29

 

Obama didn't make plans to attack Iran, somebody else did

 

 

A senior Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss confidential talks, said the article in the Haaretz daily was incorrect.

 

 

Ok...Obama has not got in a war, has continually cautioned about attacking anyone and the Israelis are sure unhappy with him. Mitt on the other hand says he is walking hand in hand with any plans for an attack.

 

 

Now, Ron Paul is going to give a speech at the RNC, isn't he? To support this? If he does he is a complete fraud

 

Yeah, in this case somebody else did. The Pentagon probably (almost certainly) has plans for military action against Iran that go back decades and are updated every so often.

 

These plans are probably...well, Bush's fault.

The question of course becomes who is more likely to use those plans. Mitt's and other Republican's rhetoric seems to indicate that they are. Mitt's whole foreign policy team is the old neo-con crowd, the Bush people

[DC Tom]

The question of course becomes who is more likely to use those plans. Mitt's and other Republican's rhetoric seems to indicate that they are. Mitt's whole foreign policy team is the old neo-con crowd, the Bush people

 

After Iraq, I don't think anyone's going to implement those plans on a whim, or on Israel's request.

[B-Man]

Romney: You bet Jerusalem is the capital

By Jennifer Rubin

 

Without specifically criticizing President Obama in his speech in Jerusalem, Mitt Romney delivered a blow to the Obama campaign’s frantic efforts to defend the president’s hostile stance toward the Jewish state simply by saying: “It is a deeply moving experience to be in Jerusalem, the capital of Israel.” The Obama administration can’t even say that much, a sign of how reflectively protective of the Palestinians’ sensibilities is this president. Of course, Jerusalem is the capital. It was declared so in 1948. The Knesset is there. The disposition of its borders is a matter for final status negotiation, but only an uninformed or virulently insensitive administration would be unable to distinguish the two.

 

In a bit of cleverness the Romney team sent out the text of the speech with this header: “Mitt Romney today delivered remarks to the Jerusalem Foundation in Jerusalem, Israel.” That is a deliberate dig at this administration. which has repeatedly put out documents suggesting that Jerusalem isn’t in Israel and has attempted to scrub from the White House Web site the reference to Israel’s capital.

 

Romney’s speech paid tribute to America’s historic relationship with Israel. (“Different as our paths have been, we see the same qualities in one another. Israel and America are in many respects reflections of one another.”)

 

Washington Post

 

.

[/dev/null]

Washington Post

 

.

The Washington Post is a joke. "Conservative" Op Ed page with banner and side ads that Mitt Romney wants to overturn Roe v Wade

[B-Man]

The Washington Post is a joke. "Conservative" Op Ed page with banner and side ads that Mitt Romney wants to overturn Roe v Wade

 

 

I'm not worried about the "ads", these sites need to take money from whomever they can, and the election year "lets scare women to keep them in line" ads, are not believable to anyone with a brain.

 

.

[Koko78]

"lets scare women to keep them in line" ads, are not believable to anyone with a brain.

 

Which, sadly, is why the libs use them to rally their base.

[KD in CA]

So basically we are electing a guy that is promising.....

 

You should have more faith in your fellow morons. Romney isn't going to win.

[truth on hold]

Bowing to AIPAC as the one true special interest lobby power might as well be in the constitution at this point; or a kind of 11th commandment: "thou shall do as we say and put no american interests before ours." For someone who gets the joke like Obama about how complicit Israel is with the others in all the sh#t going on over there too, the challenge was trying move toward a more objective policy for the region and more rational for US, without being struck down by AIPAC political lightning bolts. Heck even bush tried early on for those paying attention. Both ultimately succumbing. Only question I have would Obama in a 2nd term feeling less threatened make some real progress. That's about the only the way this could sway my vote for him. Have my doubts but its huge over riding issues (not just mideast, in just about every region there are legacy and political reasons our foreign policy is grossly out of whack), I'll give it some attention. Settlement expansion has crossed the point where a two state solution is possible anyway. There'll be one state and no Jewish state since Jews will be a minority.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack

[dayman]

I'm going to go way way out there in terms of the way Americans typically discuss foreign policy but IMHO...I don't think EVEN IF they build a damn bomb...it's worth going to war over. Period. Nuclear arms have historically been a deterent. We had our cold war never fired them. Lots of other countries have them and don't use them. Pakistan and India went to war constantly until the bomb now they both have one and never do anymore. I understand teh rhetoric of Iran is out of control but I do see them as rational actors, they are interested in their own preservation.

 

Not to say I wouldn't try to do everything I can to stop them from getting a bomb. But the policy of "we will do what it takes to make Israel safe"...if that means going to war to stop Iran from getting a bomb...the bottom line is that's a stupid ****ing policy no matter what candidate says it. I think secretly at least Obama knows that and maybe even Mitt (I hope). And I sure as hell basically know Iran has done the math and knows it isn't worth it for any country to go nuts over this...

Edited July 29, 2012 by TheNewBills

[Fan in San Diego]

I'm going to go way way out there in terms of the way Americans typically discuss foreign policy but IMHO...I don't think EVEN IF they build a damn bomb...it's worth going to war over. Period. Nuclear arms have historically been a deterent. We had our cold war never fired them. Lots of other countries have them and don't use them. Pakistan and India went to war constantly until the bomb now they both have one and never do anymore. I understand teh rhetoric of Iran is out of control but I do see them as rational actors, they are interested in their own preservation.

 

Not to say I wouldn't try to do everything I can to stop them from getting a bomb. But the policy of "we will do what it takes to make Israel safe"...if that means going to war to stop Iran from getting a bomb...the bottom line is that's a stupid ****ing policy no matter what candidate says it. I think secretly at least Obama knows that and maybe even Mitt (I hope). And I sure as hell basically know Iran has done the math and knows it isn't worth it for any country to go nuts over this...

 

A lot of people don't share your opinion on that point. They seem bat shite crazy to me. They have vowed to destroy Israel.

[dayman]

A lot of people don't share your opinion on that point. They seem bat shite crazy to me. They have vowed to destroy Israel.

 

 

I wouldn't call them a responible world actor but I would call them a rational actor in the sense that things made not in their best interest by conditions placed on them throught the world community can and will deter certain of their own behavior adn things that threaten their very existence as a regime will be forgone. They're dead set on going forward with what they see as their soverign right, to have nuclear domestic energy program...and that means having the ability to make a bomb along with it really.

 

That said, I think we can use this carrot as a lure to bring them into a situation where they can be expected to act mores so as a responsible member of the international community. That doesn't mean they'll be responsible in terms of cooperating with our best intersts or that of Israel..but at least that perhaps if we make concessions and they do as well...they can come back closer to the international community in terms of where they are now and that is ultimately the goal of all involved who don't want war. And I do think that by the narrow definition I hold "rational actor" to they are in fact still a rational actor even if they are dysnfuctional and possibly mislead and eating severe sanctions right now.

 

Basically in sum what I'm saying is the starting point in negotiation and the talking points of "no nuclear program whatsoever" is ok to an extent in this game of chicken/diplomacy but the honestly take that approach to the problem beyound international posturing and not being open to creative options including some form of nuclear Iran as a result is something that is a non-starter in terms of real progress. Now...there may and hopefully are some alternative approaches to compromise besides nuclear Iran that can work...so I'm not suggesting those aren't preferable.

 

Nuclear nations will always argue they're bad and should be controlled. NonNuclear states seeking them will alway aregue security.

 

The real issue here is proliferation v. security. If we can break the interests off from specific tactics I think there is some room to make a deal here.

[truth on hold]

A lot of people don't share your opinion on that point. They seem bat shite crazy to me. They have vowed to destroy Israel.

The infamous "wipe them off the map" comment? For starters Farsi is a notoriously difficult language to translate. About the only thing clear is that it was in the context of Israel's decades of documented human rights violations. Many interpreted it to mean Israel is wiping it ownself off the metaphorical map of civilized nations. Either way it's propaganda, either outright lie or exaggeration. Looking for a one liner to rally the cries of war around.

 

What if you were living in Iran and saw snippet of this from the republican presidential nominee at the time? How might you feel?

 

Edited July 29, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack

[dayman]

The question is simple...if Iran is really so insane why is the regime still oporurating? They're either completely off the map, dangerous, and unpridictable or they hold positions against us and others with an ideology we don't share and we're at political odds with them. In one scneario war is probably necessary. In another it would be a disaster. We aren't at war, we haven't been at war, the only thing we can do is follow Israel into one. Israel btw is in the grips of what would be a very "conservative" (not that the term translates) government here in the US. Their own foreign policy strong men dominate all levels of government at the moment. They can and will do what they need to do and we won't sit by and watch them be destroyed...but that said...what are we dealing with here? An insane nation or a hostile towards our interests nation? It think the truth of the matter is that Iran while I personally do not like the regime...is not some evil "must be stoppped" regime. There is clearly room for peace here. And peace may well mean Israel doesn't get to control all aspects of Iran military operations. And if that is what it is, that is what it is. And that's fine by me and should be fine by us as a nation.