RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Ignatius begins: "Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has a lot on his mind these days, from cutting the defense budget to managing the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. But his biggest worry is the growing possibility that Israel will attack Iran over the next few months."

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta briefs the media in Washington. (photo: Reuters)
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta briefs the media in Washington. (photo: Reuters)

Panetta: Israel Will Attack Iran

By David Ignatius, The Washington Post

03 February 12


efense Secretary Leon Panetta has a lot on his mind these days, from cutting the defense budget to managing the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. But his biggest worry is the growing possibility that Israel will attack Iran over the next few months.

Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June - before Iran enters what Israelis described as a "zone of immunity" to commence building a nuclear bomb. Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon - and only the United States could then stop them militarily.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu doesn't want to leave the fate of Israel dependent on American action, which would be triggered by intelligence that Iran is building a bomb, which it hasn't done yet.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak may have signaled the prospect of an Israeli attack soon when he asked last month to postpone a planned U.S.-Israel military exercise that would culminate in a live-fire phase in May. Barak apologized that Israel couldn't devote the resources to the annual exercise this spring.

President Obama and Panetta are said to have cautioned the Israelis that the United States opposes an attack, believing that it would derail an increasingly successful international economic sanctions program and other non-military efforts to stop Iran from crossing the threshold. But the White House hasn't yet decided precisely how the United States would respond if the Israelis do attack.

The Obama administration is conducting intense discussions about what an Israeli attack would mean for the United States: whether Iran would target U.S. ships in the region or try to close the Strait of Hormuz; and what effect the conflict and a likely spike in oil prices would have on the fragile global economy.

The administration appears to favor staying out of the conflict unless Iran hits U.S. assets, which would trigger a strong U.S. response.

This U.S. policy - signaling that Israel is acting on its own - might open a breach like the one in 1956, when President Dwight Eisenhower condemned an Israeli-European attack on the Suez Canal. Complicating matters is the 2012 presidential campaign, which has Republicans candidates clamoring for stronger U.S. support of Israel.

Administration officials caution that Tehran shouldn't misunderstand: The United States has a 60-year commitment to Israeli security, and if Israel's population centers were hit, the United States could feel obligated to come to Israel's defense.

Israelis are said to believe that a military strike could be limited and contained. They would bomb the uranium-enrichment facility at Natanz and other targets; an attack on the buried enrichment facility at Qom would be harder from the air. Iranians would retaliate, but Israelis doubt that the action would be an overwhelming barrage, with rockets from Hezbollah forces in Lebanon. One Israeli estimate is that the Jewish state might have to absorb 500 casualties.

Israelis point to Syria's lack of response to an Israeli attack on a nuclear reactor there in 2007. Iranians might show similar restraint, because of fear the regime would be endangered by all-out war. Some Israelis have also likened a strike on Iran to the 1976 hostage-rescue raid on Entebbe, Uganda, which was followed by a change of regime in that country.

Israeli leaders are said to accept, and even welcome, the prospect of going it alone and demonstrating their resolve at a time when their security is undermined by the Arab Spring.

"You stay to the side, and let us do it," one Israeli official is said to have advised the United States. A "short-war" scenario assumes five days or so of limited Israeli strikes, followed by a U.N.-brokered cease-fire. The Israelis are said to recognize that damage to the nuclear program might be modest, requiring another strike in a few years.

U.S. officials see two possible ways to dissuade the Israelis from such an attack: Tehran could finally open serious negotiations for a formula to verifiably guarantee that its nuclear program will remain a civilian one; or the United States could step up its covert actions to degrade the program so much that Israelis would decide that military action wasn't necessary.

U.S. officials don't think that Netanyahu has made a final decision to attack, and they note that top Israeli intelligence officials remain skeptical of the project. But senior Americans doubt that the Israelis are bluffing. They're worrying about the guns of spring - and the unintended consequences. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

-143 # Robt Eagle 2012-02-03 14:32
Which is better: 1) Israel knocking out the Iranian's enrichment facitlities OR 2) the US attaacking Iran once they actually have a nuclear weapon?
+196 # BradFromSalem 2012-02-03 15:20
+25 # Rita Walpole Ague 2012-02-04 07:42
Yep! Hells bells, our pols, so many of whom are in the pockets of the military'indust rial/terrorism complex, cannot for one minute not bow down to another oh so profitable war for our greed and power addicted villainaire rulers, with APAC lobbying funds increased with more $$$ going into U.S. weapon contributions to Net/Not Israel.

Time to Occupy Peace and Liberty and Justice for All.
+126 # BenECoyote 2012-02-03 18:10
Robert, which was better, 1)when the CIA overthrew the Iranian Democracy in 1952 because they refused to sell oi to BP (it was called operation Ajax, the documents have been declassified, and the sec of state at the time the docs were released gave a statement about it and admitted our involvement) or 2) when the people got fed up with the human rights abuses under the despotic shah, and were fed up with the shah giving away their oil fortune to the people that overthrew their government, and installed of Iran overthrew our puppet dictator and installed a government unfriendly to the invaders? Military escalation in the middle east has never worked out for anyone in the long run.
+43 # Sully747 2012-02-03 19:05
Ben,… Thumbs up… but.. you are going way to deep for most people’s memory or knowledge of recent history.
+58 # Billy Bob 2012-02-03 20:43
I'm glad he's reminding everyone about the facts though.
+6 # 2012-02-03 23:34
I'm with you Billy Bob. Did you read my more recent comments on the other Post?
+3 # Billy Bob 2012-02-04 12:25
Yes I did. I also responded to them. Go check out my responses from today, particularly the last one near the bottom of the comments section.
+43 # Headzzzup 2012-02-03 20:49
No - BenECoyote is not going to deep - I remember it all and frequently update my contacts with this information. Thanks, Ben for updating the Iran recent history for all of us.
+17 # X Dane 2012-02-03 21:11
That would be knowledge, Sully747. Too few of out citizens know what we did waaaay back then. They just know that the Iranians dislike us, but no WHY.
+9 # 1984 2012-02-04 12:06
Iranians do NOT dislike us. They love Americans and hate their dictators. Read any article where Americans have gone to Iran,expected trouble only to be treated as honored guests. Read the one about the US Wrestling team. Also, when asked which country he liked the best, Mike Wallace said: Iran.
+41 # John Locke 2012-02-03 21:21
BenECoyote: Very Good...Yes the ...(1953)... Iranian coup (known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup) was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh on August 19, 1953, orchestrated by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom (MI5) and the United States (CIA) under the name TPAJAX Project. The coup saw the transition of Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi from a constitutional monarch to an authoritarian one who relied heavily on United States support to hold on to power until his own overthrow in February 1979... It was about Oil then and is about oil now.. Israel will certainly begin this war.... and it may be WW3...The US, I believe, has already secretely given Israel a green light to attack, when they supplied israel the bunker buster bombs. This will be the next war...and will most likely include all nations with the UK Israel and the US against the entire civilized world, much to the delight, of the Fundamantal christians who want this armageddon, and the rapture. This is utter insanity.The only way to prevent it is through our military, should they wake up and rebel.
+6 # 2012-02-03 23:40
John: OMG! This is surreal!

"This will be the next war...much to the delight of the Fundamentalist Christians who want this armageddon and the rapture."
-13 # Todd Williams 2012-02-04 07:56
John, if this raid occurs, I really don't think this will be WW3. How do you figure it will be the UK, Israel and the US against the "entire civilized world?" Our military should rebel? Against whom? President Obama? Man, you've been reading too many Tom Clancy novels.
+8 # John Locke 2012-02-04 13:49
Todd Williams: reread what I wrote. And look further...China and Russia will side with Iran and so will the entire Middle east..wake up my friend...Do you think if Israel drops a few bombs on Iran they won't retaliate against both Israel and us...I said the only hope is if the military rebels and refuses to continue with our elective wars...I thought it was clear.
+95 # Sarafornia 2012-02-03 18:16
I am horrified by this choice. Israel's leaders are crazy. We do not need another war and we do not need to provide any support for Israel. Our govt should immediately cut off any aid and we should impeach those warmongers in our Congress who blindly support Israel. Let Israel go it alone.

+36 # John Locke 2012-02-03 21:25
I don't think Israel would dare go it alone, I think they are only doing this because they know we are behind them. I don't think we can win this war either, and I think we are going to be really hurt if this comes to pass. But our public officials are just insane enough to go ahead, Remember Hitler, he was just as arrogent as israel and the US is today...
+8 # 2012-02-03 23:43
You need to read John Locke's comment.
-4 # Todd Williams 2012-02-04 07:59
First of all Israeli leaders are no more crazy than leaders of most countries. Second, although I don't agree with many in Congress, what constitutional right to we have to impeach anyone in Congress for their votes or opinions? I do agree we should let Israel "go it alone."
+6 # John Locke 2012-02-04 14:02
Todd Williams: On an individual basis YOU have a right to enlist in Israels army... But you don't have a right to get America involved.
+3 # grandma lynn 2012-02-07 00:47
Is it really "alone" with how much weaponry they have from us? How much weaponry do they have from us? How much of our aid in the Middle East is termed in dollars, but is made up of weapons sales and fighter jets?
+77 # maddave 2012-02-03 18:34
You've obviously never been in the military, Robt, but if you were it was as an REMF! (Viet Namese. Look it up. )

What's best, Robert Eagle, is our coming into the 21st Century and recognizing that we have a problem on our hands. To solve it, I recommend:
1. Tell all concerned that there WILL NOT BE ANOTHER WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST - period. We will not be the first to shoot, but we will certainly be the second!
2. Approach Teheran with this message:
"We regret the mistakes that have were made in the past, but that was then. This is now. The time has come for the USA and Iran to sit down as equal partners and, in good faith, discuss terms and conditions that will lead to long term peace & stability in the Middle East.
3. Simultaneously, tell Netanyahu that if Israel bombs Iran, we will bomb Tel Aviv. No questions asked.

Wil it work? Maybe ,maybe not. If it does, Hu-Rah!! If it doesn't, we can always go to war and bankrupt ourselves in another F***ing quagmire.
Which would YOU choose?
What if it were your son/daughter, brother/sister, husband/wife or your best friend who will be coming home in a box - or worse, with half of his/her brain and all four limbs gone?
It's a no brainer!
-46 # jerryball 2012-02-03 19:14
1. We don't have the right to tell anyone anything even though we do so over and over.
2. Obama has already approached Tehran with your exact same message. It got thrown back into his face and ridiculed.
3. Don't be ridiculous....
+7 # 1984 2012-02-04 12:11
How do you know what Obama said in his secret letter to Amadinejad?
-2 # Todd Williams 2012-02-04 08:01
I agree with everything you said except bombing Tel Aviv. That would make us worse than the Iranians.
+19 # 1984 2012-02-04 12:19
"Worse than the Iranians????" What has Iran actually done??? Under the Non-prolifeatio n Treaty, which Israel will not sign, Iran has a right to bring their nuclear energy program to the to a point just short of a nbomb. Japan and France have done this. What proof, rather than speculation is there that Iran is building a bomb. I cannot believe how readily we are accepting as true, what the US and Israel say! REMEMBER IRAQ! Speculative attacks attacks on Iran-- it is "the oil, stupid."
+10 # Billy Bob 2012-02-04 13:49
I agree, but France has NOT done this. They have many nuclear weapons as well.

By my count:

United States
United Kingdom

ALL have nuclear weapons. This may be one of the reasons both Pakistan and India still exist without an all out war. They HATE each other and have those weapons as a regional arms race to keep each other in check. I don't like it, but it's a fact.

Even if Iran WERE to build a bomb, it's only logical purpose would be self-defense. OFFENSIVE nuclear war is suicide.

So ABSOLUTELY! IT'S THE OIL STUPID! And, it always has been.
+5 # X Dane 2012-02-04 15:55
Didn't you forget China, Billy Bob?
+4 # HJ7 2012-02-04 22:03
Quoting X Dane:
Didn't you forget China, Billy Bob?

..and North Korea!
+8 # Billy Bob 2012-02-04 22:53
I said, "by my count". I didn't look it up.

In fact, it wasn't even the central point. The central point was that it's getting to the point where many countries have them. Iran having one won't change anything.

It's ironic that, in order to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons it "might some day use", many in Israel feel the need to use nuclear weapons they have right now!
+4 # 2012-02-04 19:14
Excellent comment, Billy Bob!
+10 # John Locke 2012-02-04 14:08
nancyakbariesq: There are currently eight states that have successfully detonated nuclear weapons. Five are considered to be "nuclear-weapon states" (NWS) under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferati on Treaty (NPT). In order of acquisition of nuclear weapons these are: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China. Nations that are known or believed to possess nuclear weapons are sometimes referred to as the nuclear club.

Since the NPT entered into force in 1970, three states that were not parties to the Treaty have conducted nuclear tests, namely India, Pakistan, and North Korea
yes there is absolutely NO evidence Iran is building any bomb...except what has been fabricated like Iraq...
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-02-04 16:57
Oh yeah! I forgot China! Why did I think France had the bomb?
+2 # reiverpacific 2012-02-06 13:05
Quoting Todd Williams:
I agree with everything you said except bombing Tel Aviv. That would make us worse than the Iranians.

Thanks for that bit of common-sense follow up. Two stupid wrongs don't make a right.
"As bad as" though applies to LIKUD as much as Mullah-Run Terahn who from all I'm allowed to know, has no desire to go to war. Still can't figure out why they want nuclear power with all that concentrated solar energy at their disposal though. Hwat an example to the world if they turned away from nuclear aspirations all together and concentrated on Solar in partnership with (say) Germany.
-But then what would the US do with all that surplus cannon-fodder they call troops around the world -and how frustrating for the Pentagon-C.I.A. criminals.
Remember, the USA has demonstrated more than anybody since Ghengis Kahn bad examples of military intervention, adventurism and destruction of other nations since it was capable of it, so we are in no position to blacken anybody's kettle!
+4 # Headzzzup 2012-02-04 16:01
"partners and, in good faith" - the US has NEVER been partners in good faith. Obama may have good faith, but our Gov doesn't. And, Obama won't be Pres forever. Hopefully for another term.
"bomb Tel Aviv" - with the very strong Jewish Lobby? Israel is our military arm in the mid-East. We wouldn't want to jeopardize our military hold there.
+16 # aitengri 2012-02-03 19:12
ANSWER: U.S. knocks out Israel's strike capability, thereby saving the great Persian state from further humiliation at the hands of the Western oligopoly.
-3 # Todd Williams 2012-02-04 08:02
Man,, you've gotta be kidding. Right? If not, then man that's nuts.
+1 # noitall 2012-02-08 14:36
Israel poses the biggest danger to the area and should it should be made clear to them by the U.S. that they're on their own and to not even think about using nukes. Without nukes they'd get their ass kicked by Iran.
+18 # KittatinyHawk 2012-02-03 19:49
Neither.... However if Israel must prove who is the biggest on the block, than so be it.
If they must continue to kill like those they condemn, this must be their undoing.
+6 # Todd Williams 2012-02-04 07:50
Again, neither. Why Eagle, does it always have to come down to these stark, one way or another answers? Don't you believe in nuanced approaches to issues?
+5 # Billy Bob 2012-02-04 12:30
Obviously not. His faction of U.S. politics uses these either/or(s) as a manipulative tactic. It helps to constantly equate nuance with mamby-pamby wimpy cowardice. That gets the testosterone boiling in the millions of men in any country who are secretly worried to death about implied threats to their manhood.

I'm not immune to this either. Few men are. That's why it's so affective.

The world isn't black and white, but painting it that way is very useful to people who want to stifle debate.

It's the "kinder gentler" way of saying "stfu".
+3 # 2012-02-04 19:23
This psychologically -driven-testost erone boiling concept is amazing, Billy Bob

I also like what you said about black and white thinking stifling debate.
+6 # rebelgroove 2012-02-04 11:12
The first option is absolutely dumb and the second a non-starter because Iran isn't interested in a bomb.

I love how you christian fundamentalist republicans twist your facts and recite vague truths - something you must have learned from your Israeli financiers.
+76 # BradFromSalem 2012-02-03 15:19
The Israeli's, especially Bibi, is waiting to see if the Gingrich assault on, I mean campaign for, the US Presidency is gaining ground before deciding on a course of action.

Also, even though the Israelis will start the war without the US, they know that the US has its back. This war mongering Conservative government in Israel, as all Conservative governments, choose war as the path to peace, always. And in this case they are taking advantage of the good will of the United States.

Once a war starts, you never know where, when, and how it will end. The Israeli government, as portrayed in this article, is making the same mistake the neo-Cons in the US made about Iraq. That it will be short with minimal casualties.

Once again, neo-Cons slept through a history lesson; only this time the neo-Cons are from Israel.
+55 # humactdoc 2012-02-03 17:35
Our neo-Cons and Israel's neo-Cons are most likely NOT independent of each other. Both are heavily backed by and invested in military industrial complexes that want war at any cost.
+14 # KittatinyHawk 2012-02-03 20:08
Than I hope they and their children of service age are all enlisted.
-53 # HJ7 2012-02-03 18:01
Quoting LiberalLibertarian:
That it will be short with minimal casualties.

Once again, neo-Cons slept through a history lesson; only this time the neo-Cons are from Israel.

Perhaps you slept through History 101.
Up against the 20 million Soviet, six million Jewish and uncounted millions of Chinese deaths the few thousand allied death in Iraq while tragic are in fact but a few. The lesson of history is that a few thousand deaths spent blocking Hitler's invasion of the Rhineland might well have saved tens of millions by stopping Hitler while it was easy to do so. Letting Iran get nukes is much like letting Germany rearm in the 30's.
+26 # BradFromSalem 2012-02-03 19:16
Why is it that ever since the Raygun administration every potential adversary is the next Hitler. I did not sleep through history, although I may have nodded off during French so I could dream about the teacher (Vavoom!).

But I digress.

Currently the USA has conservatively as big a military as the top 10 countries combined. At the start of WW2 we had small army, a navy that was effectively destroyed, and an air force that more or less non existent.

So, for Iran to actually become a threat on the scale of Hitler they would need to enlist nearly their entire population. Also, there is the MAD detterent. What makes you think that Iran would risk sacrificing its very existence in order to destroy Israel. And in order to do that they would have to do it quick.

Neo-Cons, Now hear this!

"War is not Answer". (Marvin Gaye)

"All We Are Saying is Give Peace a Chance" (John Lennon / Yoko Ono)
+1 # X Dane 2012-02-04 16:37
Liberal are you kidding? Iran has 75 MILLION people!! I don't know... but I doubt our military is larger than China's

I aggree. WAR is NOT the answer
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-02-04 22:56
It's not about how many soldiers we have. It's about how many WEAPONS we have and how much money we spend on those weapons. We don't need that many soldiers to use many of these weapons. The number of feet on the ground is only important when it comes to colonizing and occupying foreign lands after pre-emptively attacking them.
+10 # CandH 2012-02-03 19:16
And Pakistan's Nukes? Um, Germany 1930s? Help me out here. Wait, it's the Death Star in Star Wars? How many died in that movie? No, wait, it seems more like Star Wars: The Phantom Menace?

Wait, sorry. My programming went awry. Death is life. War is Peace. Bombs are Love...
0 # grandma lynn 2012-02-07 00:56
"...feet on the ground" for some reason makes me think of James Agee's "A Mother's Tale." This allegory connects the birthing of sons / soldiers (now of course so many women are in the front lines too) with their mothers' naivete. The mothers docilely let their "calves" load onto the vehicles that take them to distruction. What's important about feet on the ground is that it lets a good number of prols romanticize war. Their sons are "over there, over there..." dying.
+19 # MICKEY 2012-02-03 19:32
Are you kidding, comparing Iran to Nazi Germany? Germany was already the most powerful country in Europe with designs on every other nation in Europe. Iran is struggling to stay financially solvent. Where was America when that war started?
+10 # KittatinyHawk 2012-02-03 20:07
It is time than for Draft to be reinstated, no one child is exempt esp Politicians. No sex deferred.
Israel, all those of Jewish Descent must be called first. Their War, they must go.
It is fine for them to sit and watch while we are at war...I think not.. Their War, their children drafted first.
Head Count in Israel to see that all of those of age to serve in Israel are called out first. Their War, again their show of heads.

No Politician, No Religious deferrment. Obama's Daughters are of age, then they must be ready for draft, same with Romney, Bush, Cheney .... everyone will sacrifice their Children or we do not go at all.

So perhaps you all start suggesting that to the Media, to your Politicians. Get a Referendum ready now for Primaries or Fall Vote. But stop something
-2 # 2012-02-04 00:06
Sadistic think??
+2 # Todd Williams 2012-02-04 08:18
Are you crazy? Another draft? NO FUCKING WAY!!!! I burned my damn draft card in 1970 and would happily riot in the streets to stop another killing draft. NO MORE WAR! NO MORE DRAFT! Any liberal that believes in a draft is a fake, a fraud.
+4 # Billy Bob 2012-02-04 12:32
I think the point she trying to make is that hopefully people would respond exactly like you. In other words, if we had a draft, people wouldn't stand for what's being committed in our name.

Am I right, Kittatiny?
+4 # leedeegirl 2012-02-04 12:32
Quoting KittatinyHawk:
It is time than for Draft to be reinstated, no one child is exempt esp Politicians. No sex deferred.
Israel, all those of Jewish Descent must be called first. Their War, they must go.
It is fine for them to sit and watch while we are at war...I think not.. Their War, their children drafted first.
Head Count in Israel to see that all of those of age to serve in Israel are called out first. Their War, again their show of heads.

No Politician, No Religious deferrment. Obama's Daughters are of age, then they must be ready for draft, same with Romney, Bush, Cheney .... everyone will sacrifice their Children or we do not go at all.

So perhaps you all start suggesting that to the Media, to your Politicians. Get a Referendum ready now for Primaries or Fall Vote. But stop something

forget it, Hawk! i have ONE son ... ONE! ... and he will go OVER MY DEAD BODY!
0 # 2012-02-06 23:01
Sadistic, revengeful thinkins is antithetical to being anti-war!
+106 # Richard Raznikov 2012-02-03 15:20
The whole thing is appalling. Israel obviously feels that it can strike Iran with impunity, that at most it would have to "absorb" 500 deaths. And how many deaths would Iran have to "absorb"? What gives Israel the right to attack any other country to prevent that country from obtaining nuclear weapons? –– Israel itself has a large stockpile of nuclear weapons. And the amazing notion that it could strike Iran for five days, and this would be followed by a U.N.-brokered resolution.
Where's the U.N. now? Awaiting instructions from the U.S.?
On top of all of this is the fact that Iran almost certainly is not developing weapons and that it is at this moment welcoming inspectors.
As an American Jew, I can no longer support Israel's insane, belligerent policies toward its neighbors. Enough is enough. And if the United States was not in league with Israel in this action, it ought to tell Israel that an attack upon Iran would result in a cut-off of U.S. military aid to Israel. That would certainly get someone's attention.
But the U.S. won't do that. It would rather play 'let's pretend.'
When are we going to stop the madness?
-75 # Pyotr7 2012-02-03 17:00
Iran has threatened to use nuclear weapons against Israel. A minor detail, I know but you left it out of your tirade.
+37 # CandH 2012-02-03 17:24
Iran does NOT have nuclear weapons. Even Panetta said so. If one shows up, take a look at the actual nuclear weapons dealer in the ME--Israel. She has 200+, and wouldn't hesitate to use one to incinerate an area on the planet that terrizes the world on her behalf.
+41 # RMDC 2012-02-03 18:12
Pyotr7 -- you are wrong in saying Iran has threatened Israel. It is the US and Israel and their propagandists in the media who have said this.
+19 # maddave 2012-02-03 19:28
Yeah, Pyotr . . . So just who is this "Iran" that made that threat to use the nuclear weapons that Leon Panetta says don't exist? Do you have a name. a date , a face or a context? I'll bet that same dude threatened to loose Death Planet on TelAviv, too.

If you want to join in the big guys' game, get all of your s*** in one sock.
-8 # 2012-02-04 00:08
iran has threatened to run israel off the face of the earth?
+5 # RMDC 2012-02-04 20:04
dorian -- you are wrong in saying "iran has threatened to run israel off the face of the earth." You are very loosely paraphrasing a mistranslation circulated by Israeli and American propaganda agents. The correct line that Achmadinejad said is "the Zionism will pass into the pages of history." Achmadinejad opposes Zionism because it is a racist and imperialist ideology. He is not against Israel and is happy to co-exist with a peaceful Israel.
+3 # Billy Bob 2012-02-04 21:16
She did include a question mark. It's a bit confusing.
+2 # 2012-02-05 01:45
Thanks, Billy Bob. You are a detail man.
Appreciate it.
+3 # Billy Bob 2012-02-05 09:12
If you witnessed my housecleaning you'd realize that I'm not detail oriented.

It's just that a lot of us use sarcasm on this site and it's often misunderstood. It's so bad that I often write: "NOTE: SARCASM", which itself, is a bit sarcastic. So, sometimes it's just hard to tell.
-1 # 2012-02-04 21:44
RMDC: I stand corrected but I do not believe he would be "happy to co-exist with a "peaceful" Israel, sorry, RMDC.
I appreciate your comment. That guy is one scarey looking dude!
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-02-05 17:51
Well, we'll never know what a peaceful Israel would be like.
-3 # MissMarple 2012-02-04 23:46
I listened to Ahmadinejad's speech on C-SPAN. He said that they would, "wipe the Zionist Entity from the pages of history". That can be seen in two ways. First, that the Muslim countries will kill all the Jews. Second, that the legal State of Israel, the Jewish State, will be over run in some manner, and not have the ability to continue to exist as a State; it will cease to exist in time. In either case, war would be necessary, because Jews learned that there is nothing to be gained by cooperation with Nazis.

So you both are right and wrong. RMDC was right that dorianb's words were wrong, but dorianb's understanding of Ahmadinejad's words was essentially right, and RMDC was wrong. In any case, if Ahmadinejad wanted to coexist with Israel, he could start by calling it Israel, while differentiating between the Israeli People and the Zionist government. The words would stick in his mouth.

Ahmadinejad does not like Jews. The way he treats Jews who have not left Iran, for various reasons, shows that he does not. But he does not like lots of people. He is a terrible person, very bad for Iran and the Iranian People, who has imprisoned them in a jail of rotten orthodoxy. There is no way out but to leave. Freedom is illusory. He can't co-exist with the Iranian People; how can he co-exist with Israel?
0 # 2012-02-06 23:04
I agree!
0 # John Locke 2012-02-07 20:35
MissMarple: I know some Iranean Jewish people that live in vegas, when in Iran they could NEVER admit to being jewish. They could be killed..they were required to hide their religion. Ahmadinejad does not like Jews, you are correct. These were all professional people Doctors and lawyers.
+3 # KittatinyHawk 2012-02-03 20:26
When we put the draft back on the block and no one's child is deferred. Even children with others in service can do military service of some kind. Those with health issues will be taught to work in MASH, Chow Hall, Logistics, or Maintenance.
No Child left out. What is good enough for Middle Class, Poor will now be good enough for the Rich. If they flee, the Country that allows them refuge will have to pay USA or send 5 of their own to battle for each.
Want to Play Risk, than they better be prepared for New Rules. No one is left out. Everyone in the Country who initiates War will Pay for Supplies, Weapons, Ammunition, Food and Health Care as well as the salary, Insurance for Families. Israel you want to start a War, lets see what you got. By the Way, USA, Canada, UN get summary from Planning on what this War will Cost. One Half must be put into Account up front before first strike. If this is not done, No One shows up to defend. This puts Attacker on the fence, Attackee will not be allowed to start any problems against anyone but One attacking or they will be bombed, any survivors or those who side with, will be held accountable for Human Life, Damages to Land and property/liveli hood of others.
Anyone wants to play, let's get documents drawn up. All Accounts in Banks held escrow until such time as those threatening put up the sum, sign the agreements. Want to be civilized, want to be Humane
0 # Todd Williams 2012-02-04 08:20
+1 # John Locke 2012-02-07 20:36
Todd Williams: I got that and fully agree, we need to educate our children to never let the government draft them... also we need to educate Robt Eagle...
0 # 2012-02-06 23:07
"Want to be civilized,want to be Humane"

These comments do not support being civilized or humaneness.
+1 # John Locke 2012-02-07 21:57
Richard Raznikov: The reason the US won't threaten to cut off aid to Israel if they attack Iran, is because the US and Israel are joint partners in this...Israel is being used to start the war so we have an excuse to join in and protect our ally... that will be the propaganda before the war starts. to get our citizens emotionally charged...Right now there is a large segment of our population that supports this war...The evangelists...
+49 # MidwestTom 2012-02-03 16:51
Uf Panetta is truly WORRIED, why doesn't he get our troops out of Israel. They may feel a little less brave if our troops weren't there. We will continue to have this problem as long as we allow people with Israeli and American citizenship to play major roles in our government. Duel citizenship people are promoting this war, not people whose only loyalty is to this country.
+7 # CandH 2012-02-03 17:40
Your question is obviously self-answering. He's not worried, and furthermore, he just told you he has "insider information" that the war will begin as scheduled in April, May, or June. Schedules, we must adhere to schedules...
-11 # BradFromSalem 2012-02-03 19:23

Almost every Jew feels a loyalty to Israel. Your rants about those that have dual citizenship seem like thinly disguised anti Semitism.
+10 # Billy Bob 2012-02-03 21:04
AMEN! It's ironic that Tom is so pro global corporations, but has a problem with this war "because of Israeli dual citizenship".

His rants always conveniently leave that little matter of OIL out of the equation. "We're" USING Israel and USING the accusation of anti-semitism to let it get away with doing "our" dirty work.

Of course it's not "we" or "our". It's the global oil cartel which has our nation doing its bidding as well.

The ONLY things that scare them more than having to ship oil without going through Iran and Syria are SOLAR POWER and WIND POWER.

Sshhh! Don't talk about those dirty words too loudly if you know what's good for you.
+6 # Todd Williams 2012-02-04 08:24
I agree Billy. But remember that the US is part of the global oil cartel. We produce and refine and sell oil on the open market. We are consumers and producers like many other countries. For us to break out of oil politics, we need to develop alternative power sources. This would make us truly free of Mideast intrigues.
+5 # John Locke 2012-02-04 14:19
Todd Williams: Oil Money is part of the problem why we can't break out from under their thumb...Their lobby like Wall Street and Insurance and Big Pharma control wasnington. and oil money prefers wars and occupation over changing priorities, think of the 10 Bn a quarter profits...Think of Afghanistan oil pipeline by Unicol, Think Iraq Oil Reserves, think Iran Oil reserves and yes even think of Vietnam oil reserves...
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-02-04 17:04
Also, think Iranian access to the ocean so that oil can be shipped.
0 # maddave 2012-02-03 19:29
Start with the likes of Yossef Bodanski!
+1 # Todd Williams 2012-02-04 08:21
Wait, we have troops in Israel? I never knew that. Show me the proof right now.
+1 # John Locke 2012-02-05 11:11
Todd Williams: Here's your proof...
0 # 2012-02-06 23:09
Midwest Tom: Please describe what you mean by "dual citizenship people" and why they are promoting this war.
+21 # Doubter 2012-02-03 17:07
Is the tail going to wag the dog?
+38 # nappster 2012-02-03 17:15
The threat of halting $5billion in aid should be enough to stop Israel; just like it should be enough to stop settlement construction; get Israel to honestly negotiate a free Palestine with the capital in Jerusalem, etc…
Either Israel is the 51st state or Washington is Israeli Occupied Territory…Take your pick! The only legitimate position to be taken by the “so-called” peace movement, in this country, is to admit that we are all sick of this charade by the US government.
+22 # CandH 2012-02-03 17:19
"Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June..."

Place your bets commodities/cur rency banksters/specu lators. Panetta just gave you a hattip, with enough spread to re-elect$ the 12-dimentional chess master, our President, and fund that third $100M Island Yacht you'll need after the fallout gets to all of our water supplies.

On a far heavier note, a false-flag is a comin. Bank on it. Gotta "pull" us in, give us an excuse, to fight. USS Enterprise or that new Navy Seal Team vessel hanging around the Gulf, seem the most likely (+ it's another Rinse/Repeat scenario, with the USS Liberty and USS Cole incidents as history.)

Las Vegas have their "Mostest Evil deck-of-cards" printed yet? Place your bets ladies and gentlemen. We're goin ta War again, and again, and again, and agai....
+3 # RMDC 2012-02-04 08:39
When the false flag or the war against Iran opens, oil prices will explode. Gas could be $10 a gallon. The fragile economies of the US and Europe will collapse. Obama will lose in November. Netanyahoo will be orgasmic -- he's a nihilist and a psychopath. He will love the destruction and chaos that he set off.
+2 # 2012-02-04 21:46
RMDC: Netanyahu(sp) is another scarey looking dude.
+31 # humanmancalvin 2012-02-03 17:20
Non-thinking twits like Robt Eagle the Troll will call for war at the drop of a hat. Of course they have never been in a war, outside of fantasyville.
Yet another, as if we need more, reason to never allow a Republican near the White House. Never.
-43 # Robt Eagle 2012-02-03 18:10
You are correct, I never served, but my son is in Afghanistan with his SEAL Team right now so I have some insight and skin in the game. Bad people exist in this world, so understand that we need to protect ourselves and our allies. If not you won't be able to write BS like you just did!
+10 # MICKEY 2012-02-03 19:17
And how's that going for your boy?
-4 # Todd Williams 2012-02-04 08:28
Mickey, that's not fair. You and I may not agree with Eagle, but I would never want any harm to come to his son. Knock off that crap!
+10 # MICKEY 2012-02-04 11:29
I would not want harm to come to ANYONE'S sons, including the thousands of innocent Afghans who have already lost their lives in this useless war. I say get Eagle's son home now along with all the other daughters and sons who live in harms way daily for no purpose...and there is yet talk of more war?
Todd, you and I do agree and my comment does not disrespect Son of/or Eagle, but rather asks, "how is that war going and is it worth your life?"...I think we all know the answer to that.
+5 # Billy Bob 2012-02-04 12:47
Nice response.
0 # 2012-02-06 23:20
Mickey's original comment hd more than a hint of cynicism in it, Billy Bob.

I agree with you his second reply was a nice response. Why would we want harm to come to anyone's children, or to anyone period, even if their values and viewpoints differ from ours?
+1 # 2012-02-06 23:15
Todd has made a comment coming from courage and integrity and it does not deserve 4 thumbs down"
+5 # KittatinyHawk 2012-02-03 20:47
What are we protecting ourselves from in Iran if Israel wants to go and bomb them???

Your kids choice, wasn't drafted. But I believe it is time for draft to be reinstated and I am anti war. But I am tired of the elite sitting home and the children of real fold goin to war for them.
In Nam, rich kids daddies and mommies said oh our kids are going to be lawyers and doctors. Well, so was my friends going to College, Universities when they went, few came back One was already two years in premed. Other friends signed up to avoid some bad places.

Bad People exist everywhere, we are all good and bad. Some of us have Conscience. I pray sir, you never have to go pick up a body bag nor anyone else anywhere.

You know the ones who died were lucky. Many of my friends came back with toe tags. They married and killed themselves drinking or eating bullet. Most could not live back here accepting what they did. Most who ate bullets, were Marines. I have never forgotten them, I never forgot the looks on their wives faces. But my friends were alone, poor because suicide insurance. They never thought of anyone else while they were thinking of everything they did.

Thank you son for being brave enough to serve. When he comes home, make sure he gets Counseling, Health Review by civilian doctors. Too many Service doctors ignore too many things
0 # Todd Williams 2012-02-04 08:28
+4 # Billy Bob 2012-02-03 21:49
Many of us have relatives involved in this as well. Don't think that makes you special or your opinions any more valid. It's a poor excuse for your arrogance.
+8 # Billy Bob 2012-02-03 22:10
Also, think about what you're saying:

Are you sure that without the aid of your son in securing the profit margins of the global petroleum cartel, all Americans would lose our Freedom of Speech?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I beleive we already The First Amendment BEFORE the invention of the internal combustion engine.

In fact, our Freedom of Speech would be a hell of a lot more secure if our country was no longer addicted to oil.
+1 # John Locke 2012-02-07 20:43
Billy Bob: for one there would be no need for preemptive wars all over the mid east
+4 # John Locke 2012-02-04 14:20
Robt Eagle: On other articles I have given you an opportunity to respond to rants like this, but you don't...what are you afraid of?
+7 # John Locke 2012-02-04 16:15
Robt Eagle: Once again I couldn't pass up the opportunity to respond to your rant here..."our military is protecting your right to write your brand of BS here..."

Again I need to hear your excuse how? By invading Iraq, Afghanistan, our Intervention in Panamanian Revolution (1903)- The Banana Wars (1909-1933)-U.S . Occupation of Vera Cruz (1914)-Pershing 's Raid into Mexico (1916-1917)-All ied Intervention in Russian Civil War (1919-1921)-Kor ean War (1950-1953)-Int ervention in Lebanon (1958)- Second Indochina War (1956-1975)- Dominican Intervention (1965-1966?)- Lebanese Intervention (1982-1984)- Grenada Invasion (1983)- First Persian Gulf War (1980-1988)-Pan ama Invasion (1989)- Second Persian Gulf War - Somalia Intervention (1992-1993)- Occupation of Haiti (1994-Present)- Bosnian War (1995)-Kosovo War (1999)- Libyan War (2011)- (there's More) We were the invader and aggressor in all these wars... So tell me robert how is the US Military protecting us by invading countries all over the world? I want to hear your response!
I asked you before, I am still awaiting your answer! Come on Robt Give us a reply or drop the crap about your kids defending our right to make comments here...
+15 # bugbuster 2012-02-03 17:26
I say a pox on both of their houses--Israel and Iran, and the rest of the Middle East too for that matter. Let them settle their own differences. The ones with oil will sell oil to the world market no matter what happens. Maybe if the they all weren't being propped up by outsiders they would have to grow up and act right.
+5 # Todd Williams 2012-02-04 08:30
Right on Bug! I feel the same way in spades. We've gotta stay out of this mess at every level.
+18 # Bill Clements 2012-02-03 17:40
"U.S. officials see two possible ways to dissuade the Israelis from such an attack:

1) Tehran could finally open serious negotiations for a formula to verifiably guarantee that its nuclear program will remain a civilian one.

2) The United States could step up its covert actions to degrade the program so much that Israelis would decide that military action wasn't necessary."

Are you telling me that the U.S. has no leverage to use against Israel? This is, of course, utter b.s. We have leverage to use, but will deliberately choose to avoid using it. We're happy to let Israel act as our proxy; it gets us off the hook. And Israel will be quite happy to take sole responsibility for this strike, which, btw, will be carried out with our ordinance.

My guess, given the increased coverage lately on the need to take action against Iran, is that it's pretty much a done deal. Those who were paying attention to the build-up to the war in Iraq are essentially seeing the same thing repeated today. The only real difference, is that we'll let someone else do there dirty work.
+3 # uglysexy 2012-02-03 18:41
hard to say if it's a done deal. why would it be publicly announced if it were a done deal? if someone did that to the u.s.....tipped off the tactic of a done deal....the military would
be livid....I still think there is an element of the carrot and stick bluff ...mutt and jeff technique here
+2 # KittatinyHawk 2012-02-03 20:37
Yo we were warned with every war we were in or we just outright start them.

I am waiting for the Draft to be reinstated all for one etc
+1 # Bill Clements 2012-02-05 13:08
I have to agree with KittatinyHawk. When the administration wants a reading on public opinion, they let the media put it up on the flagpole and then judge the reaction. Although, generally, there public's reaction is not given a great deal of weight. The Iraq War being a case in point.
+6 # X Dane 2012-02-04 00:05
Bill Clements, I do not aggree, I do not think that Obama want Israel to start attacks, for it will certainly drag us in, and we will indeed be ON THE HOOK.

Obama wants to make improvement here at home. He can NOT do that with perpetual war.
You saw some of my suggestions earlier, Bill. We need to make Congress understand
that if they want to support Israel, instead of us, They are in the wrong country. They are UN AMERICAN, They have to work for OUR country. If they will NOT do that. We will vote THEM out in November. We should ALL aggree on that.
+1 # Bill Clements 2012-02-05 13:52
X Dane, I can imagine a scenario where Obama/Panetta give Israel a green light for their attack on Iran with the absolute proviso that under no circumstances can they expect U.S. involvement. In this way they can avoid being "on the hook."

I agree with you that Obama cannot afford to put us into another war and make improvements at home.

Getting Congress to oppose the Israeli lobby. Far easier said than done. On the other hand, it is easy to imagine an American public far more critical of Israel and US Middle East policy sans AIPAC.

An excellent article on this subject of the Israeli Lobby:
+3 # Todd Williams 2012-02-04 08:32
One monkey wrench in this scenario is the election. Can you believe how the right would tear Obama a new one if he abandoned Israel? He would probably lose the election and then we would have a war mongering Rethug in the WH. Not good.
+1 # Bill Clements 2012-02-05 14:01
There are no easy solutions at this juncture. I agree, in an election year, any shift in Israeli policy/support would further complicate Obama's chances for reelection.

But that doesn't preclude the necessity (and urgency) for forging a new policy towards Israel.

An article worth reading:
+42 # X Dane 2012-02-03 17:44
Thank you very much, Richard Raznikov.
This is exactly what we need. American Jews, (no offense) particularly the many very rich Jews, who are sending money to Israel, need to take a stand: Are they AMERICANS? or are they ISRAELIS? I understand they sympathise with Israel.

BUT you can NOT SERVE TWO MASTERS. You MUST choose. To whom do you owe allegiance?? If Israel has your heart and MONEY. You need to be where your heart is. You can NOT be A GOOD AMERICAN CITIZEN.

You now need to tell Israel: Enough war. If you insist on attack and war there will be no more money and support coming from us. America and Europe, really... the world.... is in a precarious position. We are SLOWLY coming out of the horrible recession.

Israel attacking Iran could send the oil prices soaring and kill any progress apart from the obvious horrors of untold people being killed, and damage to infrastructure, for the Iranian will certainly strike back. And where is the end????

Now if the republicans, and particularly the presidential candidates are going to beat the war drums, and try to force the President to go with Israel, there can be NO DOUBT that they want CONTINUAL war.
America and our people be damned...... We will be.
+20 # Bill Clements 2012-02-03 18:18
"You now need to tell Israel: Enough war. If you insist on attack and war there will be no more money and support coming from us. America and Europe, really... the world.... is in a precarious position."

This is another opportunity for Obama to be a mensch and exercise real leadership. I fear that he will avoid doing so.
-11 # uglysexy 2012-02-03 18:39
Tell israel enough war? how about the u.s.? the u.s. has killed more muslims than israel has...and on the iran side...they've been making IEDs that killed american soldiers in iraq and have repeatedly vowed to wipe israel off the map...khameini today saying israel is a tumor that Will be Removed....alon g with ahmahdinejihad repeatedly denying the holocaust...
I'm neutral on this because I don't think we can decide for the Israeli's how they best should deal with the existential threat that Iran constitutes. Nor will they let us. There will be repercussions globally either way. But no one in the u.s. will influence Israel's strategies below the Federal Level of U.S. Govt and Military.
+16 # CandH 2012-02-03 19:38
"...repeatedly vowed to wipe israel off the map..." NEVER said.

(What are we at-3x on this thread alone, so far? “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.” Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945.)
+7 # Todd Williams 2012-02-04 08:39
I think uglysexy has a point. We've got a real penchant for killing Muslims. Why do you think they are able to recruit so many terrorists? Their great benefit package? We need to step back from Israel, Iran and the whole fucking mess. We need to get out of Afghanistan, quit giving money to Pakistan, leave Syria to its own devices, cut funding to Egypt and develop our own alternative energy sources. Hey, you don't see China with troops anywhere, do you? We've got to stop being the hired gun.
+10 # CandH 2012-02-03 17:50
JITNOT (Just In The Nick Of Time) NDAA is scheduled to come online in March. All you "peace activists," "war protesters," "anti-Israeli-l eaders commenters," "Iran naysayers" ...buh-bye. How did ninlevn do this, and the terrrsts win so easily? Oh, I forgot. They hate us for our freedoms...
-46 # Robt Eagle 2012-02-03 17:50
Richard, Israel is being threatened constantly by their neighbors and bombed constantly. If every day your next door neighbor dumped his dog's crap on your porch, what would you do invite him in so he could dump it on your living room floor. Israelis are scared to death of Iran having nuclear weapons as Iran has consistenly indicated that they would never hesitate to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. I truly beleve Israel as not only the right, but the duty to protect its people including pre-emptive strike if it will protect their population. Israel occupies a tiny spec of land in the Middle East, how are they such a threat to all the other Islamic states???
+16 # CandH 2012-02-03 18:36
"...wipe Israel off the face of the earth." Never said. Propaganda that you, neo-cons (and our President BTW) repeat ad nauseam.

Teeny tiny Israel has 200+ nuclear weapons. Regionally, Pakistan and India have less than Israel, but have them. Iran, and the rest of the ME, including comparable teeny tiny land mass ME countries of Lebanon, UAE, Bahrain, Djibouti (E Africa,) have none.

So RE, what's your bettin spread? "Casualties spread?" After all, this is casino "pre-emptive strike" capitalism 101.
+11 # Bill Clements 2012-02-03 19:09
Lets see, how are they a threat? Hint: it's not the tiny piece of geography they occupy. Might have something to do with the size of their military?
+27 # Richard Raznikov 2012-02-03 19:23
Quoting Robt Eagle:
Richard, Israel is being threatened constantly by their neighbors and bombed constantly... Israelis are scared to death of Iran having nuclear weapons as Iran has consistenly indicated that they would never hesitate to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. I truly beleve Israel as not only the right, but the duty to protect its people including pre-emptive strike if it will protect their population. Israel occupies a tiny spec of land in the Middle East, how are they such a threat to all the other Islamic states???

Well, the 'bombing' of Israel is in the form of ordnance being fired by segments of the Palestinian population, not by Iran or other states. Anyone viewing this with some objectivity would have to agree that the force Israel uses against the Palestinians far exceeds that used against it. Israel is far, far more powerful than Iran and always will be. Iran will never hit Israel with nukes, even if it had them, and it doesn't. There is NO justification for so-called pre-emptive strikes unless one is in immediate danger, and Israel isn't. Pre-emptive strikes are in fact acts of war and against international law.
I have always supported Israel's existence and safety, but I do NOT support its treatment of the Palestinians or its threats to attack its neighbors. Iran is not the aggressor here.
+20 # X Dane 2012-02-03 21:28
Thanks Richard Raznikov. Right again. I totally aggree. The Israeli treatment of the Palestinians is atrocious, and the building on their land in the West Bank is illegal and should be stopped.
-1 # HJ7 2012-02-04 22:23
Quoting MICKEY:
Are you kidding, comparing Iran to Nazi Germany? Germany was already the most powerful country in Europe with designs on every other nation in Europe. Iran is struggling to stay financially solvent. Where was America when that war started?

Germany was also struggling with solvency back in 39. They solved the problem for a while by stealing Jewish property and pillaging much off Europe.
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-02-04 23:01
Our country is struggling with solvency as well, as is the entire global economy. What's your point?

It's still disengenuous to compare Iran to nazi Germany. Every time a new country needs to be colonized and occuppied it's ruled by nazis. It's getting old.
+2 # MICKEY 2012-02-05 11:25
Solvent enough to have the most powerful military in the world in 1939. So, as Billy Bob asks, what is your point?
-3 # HJ7 2012-02-04 22:26
Quoting X Dane:
Thanks Richard Raznikov. Right again. I totally aggree. The Israeli treatment of the Palestinians is atrocious, and the building on their land in the West Bank is illegal and should be stopped.

Of course Saddam, Qaddafi and Assad have demonstrated how one should treat the local population. Israel is benign by comparison.
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-02-04 23:02
saddam and qaddafi are dead. Are you suggesting we have netenyahoo executed?
+13 # Dion Giles 2012-02-03 20:20
To Robert Eagle: And how, Mr Troll, would you feel about a neighbour who had grabbed and held the place he lives in by force and violence, has fenced it off and has for decades settled mates on your side of the fence with the claim "God promised us your land"? Me, I'd want rid of that thieving neighbour asap.
+15 # Billy Bob 2012-02-03 20:58
Well, if my next door neighbor was homeless because I demolished his home while his children were sleeping in it and then put my home on top of their bodies, I certainly wouldn't torture him and bomb him into oblivion for puting a little doggie doo doo on "my" porch. In fact, I might even recognize his right to exist.
+25 # RMDC 2012-02-03 18:17
If Panetta and Obama wanted to stop Israel's insane threats against Iran, they could easily do so. US law prohibits using the weapons it gives to nations for illegal and aggressive wars. It could simply demand a return of all the bunker buster bombs, F-16s, Patriot missile defense systems, and the rest. The US could block all Israeli harbors and air space until the weapons were returned. This would shut up Netanyahoo and Barak really quick. Oh, and withhold the $4 billion a year the US gives to Israel.

No one should tolerate Israel's war mongering. It has attacked it neighbors over and over again. Israel is the threat in the whole middle east. I'm not against Israel but it should be required to join the community of peaceful nations. If it won't, then kick it out of the world community.

Netanyahoo is insane and a real danger to Israel and the world. Obama has a responsibility to contain him. The US created the Israeli war machine and now it must defang it -- by any means necessary.
-25 # HJ7 2012-02-03 19:14
Every nation, even Israel, has a right of self protection. Iran has been using it's terrorist proxies to bombard plucky little Israel with rockets and bombs. Israel has every right to strike back. If Iran responds by blocking oil shipments out of the Gulf it will then be Iran vs Rest of the world. It's Iran that needs to be defanged.
+6 # RMDC 2012-02-04 07:37
HJ& -- what planet do you live on. Iran is not bombarding Israel with rockets and bombs. Israel's right of "self protection" is not the same thing as an unprovoked attack on Iran.

Most of the world supports Iran. It is only the US, France, UK, and US who will back Israel in this war.
+4 # Todd Williams 2012-02-04 08:44
Yes, Israel has the right to strike back if attacked, but should not carry out a first strike. That is international law 101.
+4 # John Locke 2012-02-04 15:23
Todd Williams: Does your international law 101 apply to the US also? Because we strike first! I am not even suggesting we are right to do so... I am merely responding to yours...
+1 # Todd Williams 2012-02-06 09:19
John, of course it applies to the US. Never said it didn't. Illegal wars by our country have been going on forever. Vietnman, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.
+2 # Todd Williams 2012-02-04 08:43
Sorry to tell you RMDC, Israel has many of its own weapons based on our technology. In fact, it's said that their missile defense system is better than the Patriot.
+14 # BenECoyote 2012-02-03 18:22
Obama is beating the war drums again, just like Libya. Obama is the most war mongering bellicose Nobel peace prize winner of all time, and they should demand their prize back. Not only must Obama NOT get involved in any Iranian invasion, he needs to make it clear that, as a nation of law (since we've decided we're the world police) we need stop any rogue nation that invades another country. Not only should we cut aid and freeze assets of any belligerent country, but we must use the same resources to stop any invasion that we have used in the past.
On the other hand, if we renounce our role as playground bully, and step back and actually try to make peace, we may actually accomplish that goal, but it will mean a huge cut on military industrial profits. Rocky Anderson has always been against the wars in the middle east, and will continue to work for peace there, but as long as our government is controlled by corporate money, there is no reason for the Dems or Repubs to stop. We need a better choice for Justice.
0 # X Dane 2012-02-03 23:28
Ben E Coyote. I respectfully dissagree. Obama is ambitious, no doubt. But he desn't want to be a war president, which W LOVED to say he was.
It was disgusting. You have NEVER heard Obama say that he is a war president. He INHERITED two wars. He didn't START them.

Obama wants to make big improvements in THIS country. He will NOT be able to do that with constant war in the middle east. I agree, he has made mistakes. But you should realize how much preasure there is on him from the right wing. Any good bill gets loaded up with crap that he doesn't want. A miserable situation.

In regard to Libya, Obama was getting lots of flack about leading "from behind" He did NOT want to be the aggressor, so he waited to be asked, and stayed back a bit, in a supporting role, wirh France and England in the lead.
Obama is neither as bad as you think, nor as perfect as some others think. But he tries. That is a whole lot more than any of the republicand do.
+3 # Richard Raznikov 2012-02-04 17:53
X Dane, respectfully, Obama doesn't need to SAY he's a war President to be one. He has escalated the drone attacks inside Pakistan, overthrown Libya (NATO was just a fig leaf; the so-called uprising was actually CIA-paid mercenaries from Qatar dropped into Eastern Libya to secure the oil fields and start the war), and imposes sanctions against Iran which are, in fact, acts of war under international law. He has extended the Bush foreign policy, authorizing assassinations and kidnappings.
As for the 'big improvements' he wants to make in the U.S., are you referring to arrests without charges, detention without trial, mass surveillance, and the abrogation of the Bill of Rights? I supported him actively in 2008 but will not vote for him in 2012. Obama is worse than you think, I'm afraid. Much worse. He's filled his administration with bankers and corporate thieves. I can't keep making excuses for what is right in front of our eyes.
+1 # futhark 2012-02-05 11:30
I Obama doesn't want to be known as a "war president", why is he continually boasting about the success of his drone and special forces attacks? He seems to rejoice in the limelight of violence he has created and glories in his position as biggest dog on the block. I find his boasting disgusting and morally repellant.
+1 # RMDC 2012-02-04 07:42
Coyote -- you have the wrong terms for the US. You adopt the terms the mass media uses -- playgrouind bully, world police.

The US is an empire. It followed from the British empire. All empires are murderous and fight wars non-stop. There mission is to kill and brutalize every nation they can into submission. The fact that Iran will not submit and lick the ass of the US and Israel is the reason it must be destroyed.

The Israelis have joined up with the US empire and made a shrewed strategic move to take over elected officials in the US by means of campaign bribes. So they actually now run the empire, at least as far as the middle east operations go.

All empires are evil and eventually collapse from their own excesses. The US and Israel will collapse. They will destroy themselves. But before they collapse, they will probably kill another 100 million people in the world. The long term legacy of the US will be right there beside Hitler's Germany, Tojo's Japan, the British and Beligan genocidiers, and the rest of the world's horrors.
-22 # Doctoretty 2012-02-03 18:55
In its young life, Israel has fought several wars to protect itself from hostile neighbors without asking for help on the ground from any other country. As far as I know not one American life has been lost in those wars. On the other hand, America has a stake in Israel's survival and should continue to support it when if feels it's existence is threatened. I am a lifelong liberal, and I don't think we should go to war at the drop of a pin. But I am sick and tired of hearing Israel demonized by the extreme left. This little country has made many contributions to the world in science, the arts, technology etc., and when there is a natural disaster anywhere, is one of the first responders with aid. Whether we like Mr. Netanyahu (I am not a fan), we must continue to support Israel's exisistence, short of going to war when other means can be found to protect that existence.
-23 # HJ7 2012-02-03 19:17
Yes. Talk about Israel seems to bring out the "National" part of every "Socialist."
+14 # Billy Bob 2012-02-03 20:55
It seems that holocaust scenarios are only scary to some people when Jews are the victims and the crime was neatly tucked away in the "past".

It's ok when Israel does it, right?
-5 # Todd Williams 2012-02-04 08:51
Nobody said that, Billy Bob. You are being a reactionary.
+7 # Billy Bob 2012-02-04 10:44
HJ7 has a history of calling everyone nazis and then equating naziism to socialized medicine, and anything that smacks of liberalism in America.

The right likes to point out the fact that the word "nazi" is a German accronym for "National Socialist Party". I guess you all didn't know that. Nevermind the fact that the literal translation of those words is taken completely out of context, and that YES true socialism is the OPPOSITE of fascism, despite the fact that the right is really scared of public libraries.

In fact, if you asked some right-wingers what hitler did that was soo evil, I suspect, given their own political tendencies, the only major complaint they’d have against him would be the autobahn. Afterall, that would be a true example of “socialism” (also known as nationally funded infrastructure) . Otherwise, they have to be pretty careful in their criticizms of the nazis, lest they tear holes in their own justifications for torture and “secret rendition”

So, yes, he DID say that. He's fond of accusing left-wingers who don't agree with the Israeli military agenda of "nazi" sympathies. He put it cleverly, just as glenn beck would have coached him.
+1 # John Locke 2012-02-04 15:40
Billy Bob: I respectfully disagree in part, here's why...America has elements of both; a Fascist government with parts of our system that can be characterized as socialism... Fascism is where the Government and corporations merge, we have that now...Socialism is collective, example...any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. Don't take this wrong but our government giving farmers money not to grow crops, and Oil depletion allowances, and isn't SS, Medicare and Medicade a form of socialism? The government is in control of the entire process! from production to ownership and control...
I am not against SS, Medicare or Medicade , just making a point...
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-02-04 17:16
Thanks for the reply.

Are you saying that Social Security, et al. are part of a fascist system? Also, don't you think there's an authoritarian element of fascism? I'm not refering to the fact that some have to pay taxes, etc. I'm refering to an unelected authority tell you how to live your life. If so, I think capitalism is more in character with the spirit of fascism.

Leaving terms like "fascism" and "socialism" aside I think is important at this point, unless we want this to become some generic conversation about what-ifs.


Which faction of American politics more resembles the philosophy of ADOLF HITLER:

A. Conservatives (with justifications for pre-emptive war, extraordinary rendition, torture, white supremacy, religious intollerance, threats to the rights outlined in the U.S. Constitution, non-observance of international or domestic law; to name a few things off the top of my head)


B) Liberals (with their love of socialized medicine, federal funding for the arts and sciences, public libraries, publicly funded infrastructure projects, public schools, ets.)


+3 # John Locke 2012-02-04 18:33
Billy Bob: No, social programs are part of a social democracy: a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices. That is what we began under Roosevelt, and there is nothing wrong with the premis....
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-02-04 17:17

Maybe the dictionary definition of "fascism" is a clever way to avoid the point of what direction do we want our country to go. Is it possible to be a fascist for peace, general welfare, and the U.S. Constitution? If so, sign me up!

Is it possible to be anti-fascist while completely resembling adolf hitler in philosophy? If so, the repug party are his greatest admirers.
+4 # John Locke 2012-02-04 18:29
Billy Bob: Fascism is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists seek rejuvenation of their nation based on commitment to an organic national community where its individuals are united together as one people in national identity by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and blood through a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through discipline, indoctrination, physical education, and eugenics... (one party...two faces, no difference, and lots of propaganda)
Fascism promotes political violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality...(We have been continually at war to unite the people)
Fascists commonly utilize paramilitary organizations for violence against opponents or to overthrow a political system. (Think OWS and the terror attacks on free speach by the paramilitary police) Fascism opposes multiple ideologies: conservatism, liberalism, and two major forms of socialism—commu nism and social democracy...(we were at one time a social democracy, but no longer, and there is really only one party with two branches)
This country has expoused each of the foregoing points...
Please tell me if this does not describe Amerika today!
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-02-04 21:19
I agree 100%. I just thought you were agreeing with right-wing assumptions that the true fascists were the very people trying to stop all of this.

By the way, I liked your definition. It was very detailed and reality based.
0 # Todd Williams 2012-02-06 09:21
I know what Nazi stands for.
+18 # Richard Raznikov 2012-02-03 19:37
[quote name="Doctorett y"America has a stake in Israel's survival and should continue to support it when if feels it's existence is threatened... I am sick and tired of hearing Israel demonized by the extreme left. This little country has made many contributions to the world in science, the arts, technology etc... We must continue to support Israel's exisistence, short of going to war when other means can be found to protect that existence.

Whether a country has 'made many contributions to the world' is rather beside the point. ALL countries have a right to exist, Israel included. But Iran also has that right. Supporting Israel's existence is not the same thing as supporting its 'right' to attack others when its own existence is not threatened. Iran does not threaten Israel's existence. Rhetoric is not military capacity. Israel has more than 200 nuclear weapons with delivery systems. Iran has none. A 'pre-emptive' attack under these conditions is murder. It;s murder no matter who does it.
+14 # Archie1954 2012-02-03 19:55
Doctoretty you are completely mistaken. I know Americans, if that's what you are have short memories but those many American sailors on the US Liberty who were murdered by the Israeli airforce in 1967 have left behind families who remember and would be shocked at your foolish comment.
+3 # BradFromSalem 2012-02-03 20:11

Well said. Israel has made many mistakes. It has often acted in a manner toward the Palestinian population that is very similar to our own treatment of the Native Americans. And still, regardless of what many Left Wing persons say, there is an historical claim to the land.

Both populations need to share, and the rest of the world needs to facilitate that sharing. Since Israel's creation, there has been a strong Arab pushback by denying the Palestinians sanctuary. This tactic was inculcated by the Soviets since they knew the West had Israel's side. Now that the Cold War is over, this is another proxy battle that stays with us. A way to peace can be found, but both sides have to believe and others should only assist as requested. Easy to say, but possibly the only way to avoid war.
-5 # 2012-02-04 01:03
Brilliant statement, LL and thank you for supporting Doctoretty who is obviously outnumbered on this Post.
-2 # 2012-02-04 00:47
Doctoretty: I applaud you for your knowledge of history, your compassion and your common sense, You state you are "a lifelong liberal." I say your thinking and attitude is that of an
"authentic liberal".
+2 # Todd Williams 2012-02-04 08:51
I too am a life long liberal and am sick and tired of this Israel bashing. No, I don't support everything Israel does. I don't support the expansion of the settlements. But I do think Israel has a right to exist and the Israeli people have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As do the Palestinians, by the way. Why do people posting here have to take such polarized views on this situation? Again, my position for our country would be to sep back and let Israel and Iran work this out, one way or another. NO MORE US INVOLVEMENT IN THE MIDEAST!
+3 # Richard Raznikov 2012-02-04 18:04
Quoting Todd Williams:
I too am a life long liberal and am sick and tired of this Israel bashing. No, I don't support everything Israel does. I don't support the expansion of the settlements. But I do think Israel has a right to exist and the Israeli people have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As do the Palestinians, by the way. Why do people posting here have to take such polarized views on this situation? Again, my position for our country would be to sep back and let Israel and Iran work this out, one way or another. NO MORE US INVOLVEMENT IN THE MIDEAST!

Todd, I also support Israel's right to exist, as I've said before. The only problem with your 'let Israel and Iran work this out' comment is that it's not taking place in a vacuum. Israel's got 200 nukes, which we abetted. Israel's got WMDs, including 'bunker buster' bombs. The U.S. has played a major role in arming Israel. To now 'let them work it out' is rather a little late. It's like letting a pro linebacker work it out with a 12-year-old running back. It's not quite an equal situation, thanks in large degree to what the U.S. has done.
And, by the way, has the U.S. ever apologized for overthrowing Iran's democratically- elected government in 1953? Didn't think so. But Iran hasn't forgotten.
-2 # 2012-02-04 21:51
Todd Williams: I'm with you. I agree with your comments, and as a life long liberal activist; I am sick and tired of this Israel bashing.
+15 # ozken 2012-02-03 19:05
The prospect of another bloody war is too disgusting and horrific to contemplate. Just remember one simple truth. Right now Israel has 200+ nuclear weapons and Iran has none. Who then is the threat to peace? Who appointed Israel as the good guys? Israel - a country that continues to ignore the rulings of the United nations. Why aren't they kicked out of the U.N.? Why weren't the Palestinians even given observer status at the U.N.?
As usual - might is right - accept it isn't - and the people of the world are getting smart enough to know it in economics as well as politics.
+12 # jwb110 2012-02-03 19:22
I think that the GOP has overplayed their hand in this election. The older Republicans, who always vote, are not pro-Israel. There may be a large religious right Zionist yahoo lunatic fringe but they do not outweigh the swing voters who have been pushed to the wall with this economy and a war for them is something else that they will have to pay for with their tax dollars. The 1% may benefit from a ar but the 99% know who will have to foot the bill.
The greatest part of the National Debt is from the Bush II War in Iraq. Even those of us that knew how that the debt had been accrued and the lunacy of a debt ceiling debacle that followed are tired of their GOP/TP ravings. They will be hard put to back pedal on all their rhetoric about National Debt and then try to push us into another MIddle East conflict. Israel may have to go it alone on this one.
What is different now is that there has been the OWS. That has created a network for protest that is actually effective. It is a new world and even thought the GOP/TP acts as though the 99% does not exist, we actually are here and organized and tired of being treated like we are not even in the room.
+4 # X Dane 2012-02-03 22:39
Thank you jwb110. We will need you to help us get organized to stop the madness
+3 # RMDC 2012-02-04 08:24
jwb110 -- I wish I could be as optimistic as you are about the rationality of the US people and its electoral processes.

The real "yahoo" of the world is Netanyahoo of Israel. He is truly an evil and machiavellian politician. He knows that if he attacks Iran the US will have to enter the war to defend Israel. This will defeat Obama because Obama will waffle and look like Netanyahoo's lackey when the does enter the war. This will put Netanyahoo's soul mate Gingrich it the white house. Israel has given itself the right to assassinate a US president if he does not do what Israel wants. Romney will be killed by Israeli agents (it will look like and accident). Gingrich will defeat Obama because all of Obama's supporters will stay home. Then Netanyahoo will have what he wants -- total control of the US through his bitch Newt Gingrich. The two of them will open wars of conquest throughout Africa -- remember Gingrich's PHD dissertation praised the Belgian operations in the Congo. Israel is already a major player in the blood minerals being mined in Africa.

The future does not look good for the US. Americans are simply to simple minded to understand why a war against Iran may destroy more of their future than Iran's.
+1 # Todd Williams 2012-02-04 08:56
Finally, a sane, well thought comment, instead of anti-Israel rants. This is the kind of nuanced thinking I love to read on the forum.
0 # bobby t. 2012-02-03 19:41
when israel set up their nukes, it was done as a second strike capability, and a warning to the world that don't mess with me.
in this case, they will not wait for iran to use a weapon , not by using it themselves, but by giving it to a terrorist to use against israel's air force for example. they will deny doing that of course. this is what israel is worried about. if a weapon is created by a country headed by a violent dictator who has ordered the death of all protestors in his country, they have to take out their bomb building site, as a defensive move, like the one george bush used but lied about, iraq. israel took out a few sites already, and you didn't see the world chastise it for doing so. they will be happy if israel does this dirty work. the problem is the oil however, and the amount that goes to russia and china, etc. the world economic situation makes this all very very sticky indeed. the world is unstable and this is making it worse. hillary has a hell of a job to do, and maybe that is the reason for all of this in the end. she gets peace, and gets the vice presidency, and then the presidency. nice move if that is the reason for this stuff, and it damn well be the reason....
+10 # X Dane 2012-02-03 22:36
Excuse me Bobby t. Your imagination is spinning out of control. Please rein it in. There are enough problems. We do not want to add to them,

What we need is to be, is reasonable, think rationally, and calm people down.
Attacking Iran is unbelievably stupid.

The country is much bigger than Iraq. Look at a map, with a population 3 times that of Iraq.
We had a very hard time there, didn't we??
The young Iranians do NOT hate America, but they sure will if we are involved in attacking them. That will accomplish what we do NOT want UNITE the WHOLE country against us. A totally insane caper.
-1 # 2012-02-04 01:20
Bobby T did nt say that, X Dane.
0 # 2012-02-04 01:18
Good comment, Bobby. I gave you a plus but it came up 2-.
+3 # X Dane 2012-02-04 18:04
Dorian, you need to read his post again.
He is speculating that Israel wil give nukes to terrorists, to get something started. That is an imagination out of control

In the end he is wondering if Hillary wants all this. "She has a hell of a job to do, maybe she gets peace, then the vice presidency and the presidency," etc etc, etc.
Please read it again. It is certainly wild speculations. And NOT HELPFUL.

I wanted him to realize the insanity of attacking Iran, and consider its size as a country and 75 millions versus the Iraqi 25 million. We had a hell of a time there. Lost thousands of our people and many, many thousands of Iraqis. That is rarely mentioned.

Millions displaced outside Iraq, as well as millions inside the country. Horrific. Think about how many of these people, kids and young people who now hate us, for ages to come.

Too many people do NOT think about the destruction in our wake, and the many people maimed for life. We ache for OUR casualties, living and dead. It is high time we consider our victims.

And they ARE OUR victims. WE INVADED Iraq, and to make matters worse the infrastructure is badly damaged. Iraqis do not have the good hospitals to help their seriously injured people.

I mention all this, for people rarely consider ALL the horror that war brings and seldom, what we leave behind. OUR people need grow up and understand It.
+1 # 2012-02-04 21:55
OMG, XDane, you're right! Thank you for critiquing me. I sure needed it. Wonderful comment in the horrors of war.
+1 # 2012-02-05 02:06
I really appreciate your careful attention and good comments. Sorry about the minus. Read that wrong. You're good, X Dane!
+1 # X Dane 2012-02-06 04:01
Thank you Dorian. I honestly think we need to read articles carefully and comments too, and try to calm down rather than whip up the emotions.

As I have mentioned before, I am NOT anti semitic Or hating Jews far from it,
but Netanyaho and his government is endangering the world. And American Jews and the congress HAVE to take a stand, and tell Israel to back off.

We should stand with Israel, but NOT start a war. If they, or we open PANDORA's box. untold horrors will follow.
I really do not want to critiqui anybody, only point out someting that was overlooked.
+2 # Todd Williams 2012-02-04 08:59
You may have a point here. You don't see the Saudis telling Israel not to bomb Iran. Nor will you hear the Jordanians bitch.
+3 # Billy Bob 2012-02-04 13:57
The oil and resources of Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan have been "under threat" of being nationalized. This would pose a major threat to Saudi profits.

Besides that, Arabians are not Persians.
+21 # chizables 2012-02-03 19:52
To think that Iran would bomb Israel is ludicrous. Iran is not that stupid. It would be suicide.

Israel needs to back off and chill out. Iran is not going to attack them.

If Israel goes to war with Iran, Iran will be either unable to or afraid to strike back at Israel. So it will be the U.S. that suffers the retaliation. Our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq will be sitting ducks for Iran's revenge.

It would be another quagmire of a war that we will get involved in with no way out.

But then, the military contractors stocks would soar, so they would be glad to get into a war. Haliburton and friends would make millions more in profits.

Then there are the economic repurcussions: Gas prices will go sky high. But then that will be good for the oil companies, so they will be happy too.

All of this because of Israel. Israel does not need to start this. Are they crazy?

So Israel says Iran has threatened them. We do not even know if that is true, but if it is, so what? Israel can blow Iran up 100 times over. We all live under nuclear threat now. All of us. Not just Israel.

Another fact. Look it up. Israel has been saying that Iran was developing a bomb and was going to attack them since 1994. It is all crazy. You would think Israel wants to get into a war.
+16 # Archie1954 2012-02-03 19:52
I have the sinking feeling that the Israeli tail is going to wag the American dog again. Americans had better wake up to the traitors in Congress who are egging Israel on in its death wish, most of them Republicans but also including Lieberman and some others. These Israeli firsters don't care if the US economy is completely detroyed by an oil embargo resulting from an Israeli strike on Iran or the destruction of the US fleet on site which is a sitting duck if Israel attacks.
+5 # X Dane 2012-02-03 22:11
Archie 1954. We need to make it clear that the people in congress better understand WHICH country they owe allegiance to!!!There are several Jewish senators, both republicans and democrats. They have to understand that they are AMERICAN SENATORS. They can not waste OUR tax money to protect Israel and send OUR SONS DAUGHTERS, FATHERS AND MOTHERS to get maimed or killed for the sake of Israel.

They better start PROTECTING us. Ore they are OUT in NOVEMBER. Let us all make sure of that...PLEASE
+11 # X Dane 2012-02-03 22:14
Any person in Congress voting for war with Iran should be called out as UN AMERICAN. For they surely are.
+6 # Todd Williams 2012-02-04 09:00
You can be sure if war with Iran starts, it won't come to a Congressional vote.
+16 # colvictoria 2012-02-03 20:06
This is just insane!!! Another war with a country which has lots of oil and a country who has threatened to sell its oil in anything but the US dollar. Iran also is one of very few nations which refuses a FED type bank.
We just spent 10 years in Iraq and 5 million were displaced and 1 million dead. How long will this war last? How many millions will die and be left homeless. How many U.S. soldiers will die? How many victims of depleted uranium and white phosphorous?
Obama and Panetta should just tell Israel no more billions in funding period!
And what about AIPAC? how much money is Obama receiving for his campaign? He needs to refuse all money from AIPAC.
Here is a great news clip video from TRNN
-2 # Todd Williams 2012-02-04 09:02
Hold on a second, who said Americans are going to fight Iran? Don't be so paranoid. Obama is not going to war with Iran.
+17 # rhgreen 2012-02-03 20:38
"But the White House hasn't yet decided precisely how the United States would respond if the Israelis do attack" Why not respond the same way it's implied that the US would respond if Iran attacks Israel?

Excuse a bit of history, but Iran has never attacked anyone. Israel has and so has the US, including the CIA against Iran in the 1950s and 1980s. Threats? Israel almost brags about doing in the Syrian nuclear facility, and wants everyone to know about its own nuclear capabilities.

"The Obama administration is conducting intense discussions about what an Israeli attack would mean for the United States" Why not discuss the fact that an attack by Israel on Iran would be WRONG!, and that it would legitimize anyone coming to Iran's defense including retaliating against Israel?

"The administration appears to favor staying out of the conflict unless Iran hits U.S. assets, which would trigger a strong U.S. response" As a previous commenter pointed put, why the hell would US assets be in a country that is committing aggression, and expect them to be immune to retaliation? And why would the US have the right to "respond" if such assets were hit?
-8 # MissMarple 2012-02-03 20:44
Who is the target of this "leak"? Is Panetta trying to tell Israel that we know what they are up to and we won't stand for it? At the same time, we are telling the world that we are slapping down Israel.

It is safe to say this very public leak was not for the benefit of Israeli ears. It was a very public message to Iran. The President of Iran has downgraded Israel from the Zionist Entity, to the Zionist Regime. It was a reminder that the United States was not the only nuclear armed country in the neighborhood, and Israel had a lot to lose with the entry into Iran's arsenal of their new missile that can easily hit everywhere in Israel. Before that, having a nuclear weapon, making threats against the "Zionist Entity" that is not even worthy of being named, without a means of delivery, is a threat, but a low level threat. Add an easy delivery system, and the threat goes to level RED.

Iran has been working on a new missile for years. We laughed at their photo-shopped missile firing pictures several years ago. But it isn't funny anymore. They have demonstrated that they have it, and will soon have it consistently. That is what makes a nuclear weapon dangerous now.

This was a message to Iran that the U.S. won't always tell Israel NO!
+15 # X Dane 2012-02-03 21:49
I beg to differ Miss Marple. I think the "Leak" was intended for all the parties...make that the world.

Iranians are NOT stupid, nor are they suicidal. They know, that if they use nuclear weapons against Israel, they will not be able to count far before they are hit .....with a vengeance.

Iran has not attacked another country for hundreds and hundreds of years.
They were ATTACKED by IRAQ and St. Reagan supplied Iraq with the nerve gasses that killed thousands of Iranians, and later the Iraqi Kurds. They have plenty of reasons to despise us. Please read some of the first posts.
-9 # 2012-02-04 01:27
x Dane: I gave you a minus and 5 plus's came up. Something is wrong here.
+8 # Doubter 2012-02-04 11:01
Other people had voted in the meantime.
+5 # X Dane 2012-02-04 18:44
Frankly my dear. "I don't give a damn"
My comments are meant to bring attention to issues, that some may not have thought about. Also, there is too much hysteria, cool heads and careful thinking is sorely needed now.

Countries too often behave like stupid little kids. Flex their muscles and call each other all sorts of idiotic names.
W was setting things in motion, when he in the State of The Union Address called Iran, Iraq, and North Korea: "The Axis of Evil". A collossal blunder.

When we started the attacks in Afghanistan, Iran approached our government, and wanted to help. They offered to train Afghan troups and police. Rumsfeld didn't even bother to answer.

And THEN came the stupid Axis remark. You would have to be incredibly dense, not to get it: North Korea has nukes....NO ATTACK... Iraq...NO NUKES! Iraq was attacked. So of course, Iran worked hard to get nukes. They didn't want to be sitting ducks. They have been burnt before, and with good reason, they do not trust us.
+8 # Richard Raznikov 2012-02-04 19:46
Can't imagine why Iranians wouldn't trust us. You don't think it could have anything to do with our having engineered a coup against their democratically- elected government, do you? And then our supporting the Shah and his secret police? No, can't imagine...
0 # X Dane 2012-02-04 22:53
Of course Richard Raznikov, I certainly think so. I have mentioned that here in comments on a number of other articles. A lot of the people commenting here, know about it, but an awful lot of our fellow citizens do not know at all. Too many people are not even interested.

I wonder if you agree with what else I said?
+3 # Billy Bob 2012-02-04 23:05
Nah! It MUST be because of our "freedom". Maybe if we get rid of even MORE of our freedoms, we can make them love us. It's the strategy we used to appease bin laden.
+4 # Todd Williams 2012-02-04 09:06
No Iran is not stupid. But it is posturing to Israel just like Sadam did with WMDs in order to scare Iran. This is the big bluff and it happens frequently in the Mideast. We should not get sucked into the big bluff like we were in Iraq.
-6 # 2012-02-04 01:25
Good for you, Miss Marple. You're a good historian.
+7 # jimeshelman 2012-02-03 20:45
How is it that anyone can justify anger or the act of initiating war?

Are not we all pretty good at miscommunicating?

Compassion, patience and vigilance are requirements for continuance of the human race. If we forget any of these
three, there is no genuine reason to expect that continuity.

Iran does not YET have capability for
a nuclear strike. Yes, it is a terrible
prospect that they may have and choose
to use such in future. Now is not that

Did the potential for Saddam to have and
use WMD justify W's invasion of Iraq?
There *seemed* to be good reasons for
pre-emptive strike, but I argued against
such at that time.

Did the Domino theory justify the U.S.
escalation in Vietnam?

There are other historical situations I
might cite, but not my point.

Does the U.S. have a Dept. of Defense or a Department of War?

Do we have a State Department?

Can we sit and breathe a moment while both of these institutions do their jobs
as best they can?

That is what taxpayers pay them to do.
+5 # leedeegirl 2012-02-04 13:00
Quoting jimeshelman:
How is it that anyone can justify anger or the act of initiating war?

Are not we all pretty good at miscommunicating?

Compassion, patience and vigilance are requirements for continuance of the human race. If we forget any of these
three, there is no genuine reason to expect that continuity.

Iran does not YET have capability for
a nuclear strike. Yes, it is a terrible
prospect that they may have and choose
to use such in future. Now is not that

Did the potential for Saddam to have and
use WMD justify W's invasion of Iraq?
There *seemed* to be good reasons for
pre-emptive strike, but I argued against
such at that time.

Did the Domino theory justify the U.S.
escalation in Vietnam?

There are other historical situations I
might cite, but not my point.

Does the U.S. have a Dept. of Defense or a Department of War?

Do we have a State Department?

Can we sit and breathe a moment while both of these institutions do their jobs
as best they can?

That is what taxpayers pay them to do.

but NOT what their campaign donors pay them to do ...
+14 # Billy Bob 2012-02-03 20:51
If you look up the PNAC agenda, it was clear that the Middle-East would not be held under American influence alone. There were to be spheres of influence, just like during the Opium Wars. Now, of course the opiate is oil.

The area was ALWAYS to be split up between the U.S., Turkey, Israel and India. That was DICK cheney's (and wolfiwitz's and pearl's and the bush's) agenda all along.

Our democratically elected "DEMOCRATIC PARTY" President is following their orders dutifully like a good boy.

I don't think we need to worry about U.S. involvement in this one (not OFFICIAL involvement anyway). We've done our part to cut, divide and pillage the area as planned. Now it's Israel's turn to off the only obstacle in the way of oil export access to the Indian Ocean route.

This is all according to plan.

Pay attention, because Syria will be next...

Don't believe me? Just look it up. It's been publicly acknowledged for years and was officially put in writing in the early '90s.

Many of us believed this was one of the things in the works during the Iran-Contra scandal. Remember that one? We were called "paranoid conspiracy theorists back then".
-4 # Todd Williams 2012-02-04 09:07
Nope, I don't believe everything you said. Sorry.
+6 # John Locke 2012-02-04 20:45
Todd Williams: Your closed mind will be your undoing! Billy Bob is 100% accurate... but he stopped short of the complete picture. The last Mid East Country Cheney and his gang intended to invade was Saudi Arabia... Look it up for yourself, I looked at it when the plan was drafted and they wanted Clinton to Invade Iraq in 1998... Everyone in Bush Jr's. administration were PNAC activists...the founders were William Kristol, Murdoch stooge...and Robert Kagan; Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Libby were prominant in this attempt to control the world. There were (5) countries that the Neocons wanted to invade...Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and I don't recall the fifth country...
+3 # Billy Bob 2012-02-04 21:22
It was Afghanistan. Remember all those mineral resources and the "necessity" to build a pipeline.
+1 # Todd Williams 2012-02-06 09:30
Closed mind? I am the most open minded person on this thread. I don't trust anyone in the Mideast, including Israel. I don't want to go to war with Iranl. I don't believe in the draft. I have a clear picture of oil and US politics in the Mideast. Just what in the hell is close minded about that? You're any more open minded? Give me one big break!
+4 # John Locke 2012-02-04 20:23
Billy Bob: Good post, Perhaps the reason I like you, and your posts, is you are very knowledgeable, and always on point...somethi ng lacking by the super majority here. Many like Robert Eagle and Todd Williams must wake up and smell the real roses, not the fabricated government generic GMO Version
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-02-04 21:26
I feel the same about your posts as well. Actually, I said something to that effect regarding the Tuesday article about the "Biggest Risk to the Economy in 2012". Go check it out:

Actually, I'll quote it because it fits here as well:

"Thank you for being about the only person I've ever heard to actually say those things. It shouldn't be an act of personal bravery to question the militarization of our increasingly police state. It should be considered a matter of American Freedom.

Thank you for speaking the truth right in the face of the manipulations and flag waving propaganda."

Maybe we should share a few imaginary beers.
+2 # John Locke 2012-02-05 09:38
Billy Bob: Maybe a wiskey sour?...Bear will make you put on weight!
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-02-05 14:50
Wiskey sour it is! CHEERS!
0 # X Dane 2012-02-09 19:23
John, a BEAR certainly will,especially a Grizzly BEAR. HA, HA.
Typos can be funny
0 # Todd Williams 2012-02-06 09:32
Just what I the hell are you talking about, Locke? I've disagreed with Eagle on every point. Just what makes you the gatekeeper to truth on this thread? Again, give me a break!
+1 # John Locke 2012-02-07 22:19
Todd Williams: I am no gate keeper. I state facts and support them. I don't rely on opinion unless I state that is my opinion...I also won't argue against facts with only my opinion...I argue facts with facts...I have worked with close friends who were FBI, and have had friends who were CIA. When I talk about subjects, they are subjects I am familiar with...I have also been a radio Talk show host and a TV commentator...I also have a law what does all this make me... Nothing special, just a poster with a store of knowledge... who as always is trying to wake people up...and hopefully save what is left of our democracy! You generally make sense... but sometimes your opinion gets the better of real facts... That does not mean I don't like you...I do.. I even like Robt Eagle... I think sometimes it would be a boring post with out his musings...Don't take things so personal...just keep an open mind and keep posting!
+16 # giraffee2012 2012-02-03 21:14
I think our government is pulling the wool over our eyes with these "W" - like "scare tactics"

The USA and England (yeah the UN) decided to put the Jews in Israel after WWII - but not bc it was once theirs --- obviously it was to "use them" --- but if you are old enough, you know this is true.

When they setup their "new country" - they had communes, etc., but every child was trained militarily and now 60+ years later we have a military-like society whose brains have been trained to fight rather than use any other means (etc)

BUT - the hitch is our Military Establishment is a bunch of big corporation lobbyists funding our government to have wars so these corporations can make money. (Making airplanes, supplying private army people, rebuilding what they bombed and on it goes. You know these companies get appointed and the government does not send these jobs out to bid)

HENCE this scare tactic about Iran making a bomb (if true) is similar to WMD argument (whether by Israel or USA making the statement of fear)

DO NOT VOTE REPUBLICAN -- each candidate except Ron Paul has SAID "war it is"
+12 # Billy Bob 2012-02-03 22:21
"BUT - the hitch is our Military Establishment is a bunch of big corporation lobbyists funding our government to have wars so these corporations can make money"

My cousin, who I've previously mentioned "couldn't wait to get over there and bag some 'hajis' ", also wouldn't know what to do without a war to fight. He was upset because of all the special forces training he was given and the fear that we'd pull out before he got a chance to get over there and "put it to use" bagging his limit. His mindset NEEDS to kill someone to feel it's serving its purpose. He wants this "war" and will be sad to see it end.

When all of these "brave young haji killers" come home, you can expect them to vote. Not all of them will come home with a conflicted conscience. Some of them will miss their "glory days". Of course he'll live long enough for a few more wars for profit. He's made a "career" out of it.
+8 # Susan W 2012-02-03 22:24
If the Israelis feel the need to attack Iran for something they haven't even done then they should have at it--alone. It's really easy to be the wimpy little brother antagonizing everyone in the neighborhood knowing your big brother will step in and bail you out. It is quite another scenario to go it alone.

I realize the administration needs an excuse to start another war, what with the election coming up and all and the need to appear "tough", however, sending in the proxy Israelis to start it then claim "protecting allies" is so chickenshit it stinks. Man up and lob the first shell or stay the hell out of it.
-1 # bobby t. 2012-02-03 22:26
all of this is to set up a diplomatic miracle by hillary clinton, our first female president. one has to ask the question, why now? election years provide wars, as no president lost an election during a war, or great peaceful achievements. iran has a choice and they know it. they have set it up to coincide with this election year in order to get accomodation from the world. the liberals in iran must be crying now, as they are smart enough to see the handwriting on the wall. lots of terrific people reside in iran. they are not all the enemy. we will make a deal and they will lose. that is the way this ballgame goes. it is hardball, as nixon used to say.
+12 # heraldmage 2012-02-03 22:46
We need to remind Congress & the President that while Israel may pay them we the people elect them.
We don't care what Israel whats. We are not interested in fighting another war or supporting their attacks, invasions and occupation.
If Congress wants to keep their job they will stop instigating wars & spreading Israelis lies, misrepresentati ons and fabrication.
We are only interested in defending the 50 states not every country with USA corporate holding.
We say NO TO WAR, NO to selling weapons to brutal dictators, No to over throwing government of sovereign nations, NO to paying activist & rebels to instigate unrest & regime change, no to arming oppositions armies, & NO to FUNDING the military -industrial complex with military foreign aid. If a country wants to by defensive weapons system they should pay for it not the people of USA.
Since we already know money is more important that the voters its time to replace every member of Congress that supports WAR. But what's worse is our government supports war for the profit of the 99%. They don't care about innocent death of our children & the children, women & men of the nation attacked based on lies, misrepresentati on & fabrications, they only care about the money.
+3 # heyjude 2012-02-04 01:15
Do you RECALL the last Pres election?
Do you RECALL that Israel attacked Lebanon, I believe? Wasn't it Just in Time -- to get out the vote for a Pro-AIPAC, pro-ISRAEL vote for USA president??? (And as I recall, Obama didn't weigh in on that at the time at all, or even since then.) It was a time they could do something scott-free.
Well, it's that time again. WHICH ONE OF OUR ETHICAL PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES will stand up to Israel NOW???

And: what have the Iranians done to the Israelis? For that matter, what have the Palestinians done to the Israelies?

Were the Palestinians reponsible for the Holocaust???? I never see this question being asked. It's as though the Holocaust occurred not in Europe, but right there in the little villages and vineyards and olive groves of the Palestinians.

Maybe I was Chosen to explode a Nuclear Bomb in the Middle East, where calmer heads always prevail. Maybe I've been chosed to poison the earth and water and air of the entire Middle East? Do the Israelies think they would NOT be mortally damaged? That they alone would escape this hell? Who would be killed??? And who is anyone to even consider such decisions?
+6 # rebelgroove 2012-02-04 11:07
I just read this somewhere, but can't remember exactly where:

AIPAC : A**holes from Israel Pushing America into Conflict

Seems pretty true to me.
+5 # Crusader Rabbit 2012-02-04 01:25
OK I know this is repeated from other posts, but so is much of the rehash in virtually every article here and elsewhere that concerns Israel. The paragraph below falls in the "all you need to know" category. Iʻm deferring to Einstein on this one.

Following the 1948 massacre of 240 unarmed men, women and children at Deir Yassin, twenty-eight prominent Jews, including Albert Einstein published a letter in the New York Times (12/2/48):

The public avowals of [Menachen] Begin’s party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialis m, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character: from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future. … Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultra-nationali sm, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. … This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike) and misrepresentati on are means, and a “leader State” is the goal.
+1 # 2012-02-04 20:20
Crusader Rabbit: Can you get the rest of the letter? Thanks
+2 # Crusader Rabbit 2012-02-05 02:45
OK, hereʻs the whole letter, which may need to be posted in pieces here because of the length limits:

New Palestine Party

Visit of Menachem Begin and Aims of Political Movement Discussed


Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our time is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing. chauvinist organization in Palestine.

The current visit of Menachen Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin's political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.
+2 # Crusader Rabbit 2012-02-05 02:47
ʻ48 NYT Einstein letter part II

Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin's behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement.

The public avowals of Begin's party are no guide. whatever to its' actual character. Today their speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialis m. whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.
+3 # Crusader Rabbit 2012-02-05 02:49
ʻ48 NYT Einstein letter, part III

Attack on Arab Village

A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. this village. off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab hands who wanted to use the 'village as their base. On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants - 240 men, women and children - and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin.

The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the Freedom Party.

Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultra-nationali sm, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have rooosed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model.
+2 # Crusader Rabbit 2012-02-05 02:50
NYT ʻ48 Einstein letter, part IV

During the last years of spontaneous anti-British violence. the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing , and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute.

The people of the Freedom Party have had no part in the constructive achievements in Palestine. They have reclaimed no land, built no settlements, and only detracted from the Jewish defense activity. Their much-publicized immigration endeavors were minute, and devoted mainly to bringing in fascist compatriots.

Discrepancies Seen

The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentati on are means, and a "Leader state" is the goal.
+3 # Crusader Rabbit 2012-02-05 02:51
NYT ʻ48 Einstein letter, part V

In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is imperative that the truth about Mr. Begin and his movement be made known in this country. It is all the more tragic that the top leadership of American Zionism has refused to campaign against Begin's efforts, or even to expose to its own constituents the dangers to Israel from support to Begin.

The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.


Reprint, New York, December 2, 1948.
+8 # futhark 2012-02-04 03:33
You mean that Iranians don't "hate us for our freedom"? OMG!!!

Unilateral and unconditional American support for Zionism needs to end NOW!
+4 # rebelgroove 2012-02-04 11:05
Israel won't bomb Iran; Iran is not building a bomb. Israel just wants to maintain its role as the local bully.

Only a complete idiot would think that a limited strike could be successful because it neglects the Iranian response.

Thousand of American soldiers and sailors would die for Israel's hubris.
+1 # Pyotr7 2012-02-05 02:30
So Israel is only bluffing against something that you know Iran is not actually doing? OK, that means there is no problem and we can all go back to sleep.
-1 # stan van houcke 2012-02-04 11:09
the tail wags the dog? no, israel is a mercenary state and does exactly what the boss says, when the boss orders it. israel has to do the dirty work for the american empire, just like it did during the contragate, and what it does in teaching the latin american death squads, and what it does in northern iraq, and what it's mercenaries did even in abu ghraib. perhaps if israel will be hit hard this time by hezbollah the jewish population will listen. if not, well, one way or another it will learn, like we all do. and if not,one has to finally pay a price for that stupidity.
+4 # giraffee2012 2012-02-04 12:19
Never ever vote GOP/TP but DO VOTE IN 2012 (while we still own the privilege of voting)
+1 # bobby t. 2012-02-04 12:59
just remember, leon panetta is not taking any options off the table. that was the main focus of the leak. he has to say that.our national security is threatened by iranian speeches and threats. saber rattling? walk softly but carry a big stick.
the draft, mentioned above, was taken off the board after seeing the protests of the vietnam years. the powers that be said no more drafts. smart move. now they can use an all volunteer army to do their bidding and not have the public react violently to their moves. like patton said, let the other son of a bitch die for his country. sad but true for our sons and daughters in the military....i believe all americans should be required to serve our country for a period of two years. i would be happy to train them to become teachers in poor neighborhoods. let the kids of the one percent know what poverty smells like....
-4 # handmjones 2012-02-04 13:22
Interesting that Iran has orbitted its third satellite. That encompasses the technology that would be necessary to send a rocket to the US. Presumably the uranium that they have upgraded will not be stored in the obvious target area.
In the attacks on Iraq and Syria they targetted normal electric generating Nukes, so I presume these also produce material for a plutonium bomb. Lastly, if Iran is attacked it is reasonable to suppose that any other Muslim country with the bomb might give them one.
-1 # bobby t. 2012-02-04 15:14
that would be correct, especially if they want to be blown off the face of the earth. it is one thing for the isi to help the talaban, and another to give iran a nuke. suicide.
+8 # davehaze 2012-02-04 16:44
No draft but I do have this suggestion:
Whenever the country wants to go to war a manditory open vote by all citizens over 18 is taken. Go to war yes or no. All those who vote yes are immediately drafted, no exceptions: the President, congressmen, infirm, wheelchair bound, 100 years old, insane, CEOs, pundents, billionares. No note from your doctor. You want the war you go. And you pay for it. A 50% war tax will be added onto their income tax.

The result is no more war -- unless we are attacked or actually threatened in which case those who previously voted no will vote yes and those who previously voted yes will vote no.

Just a thought.
+4 # Richard Raznikov 2012-02-04 19:51
Thank you, davehaze. Sanity, a rare commodity.
+2 # X Dane 2012-02-04 23:07
davehaze, simple and brilliant. Can we get Berni Sanders to write that into law.
Since we all get to pay for any war....ONE WAY OR ANOTHER...we should also have a vote in the matter.
Please send your suggestion to senator Sanders.
+4 # Eleanor Dwight 2012-02-04 16:58
I think we should back a more diplomatic solution to this issue of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. There are proposals being made to make the Middle East a nuclear weapons free zone. There are currently 5 successful nuclear free zones in the world. Israel and Iran and surrounding countries would agree to give up their nuclear weapons. Arab governments have made calls for just such a nuclear free zone. Now is the right time to revisit such a proposal. Look on line to see all the nuclear free zones that actually work. Now that would be too sensible wouldn't it.
+3 # Richard Raznikov 2012-02-04 19:53
Israel will never agree.
+2 # X Dane 2012-02-04 23:10
Sadly I'm afraid you are right Richard.
+1 # 2012-02-04 20:36
It would be sensible and not destructive if only it would work and bring peace to the Middle East.
+2 # CSPol 2012-02-04 21:44
If you are wondering why Israel is talking an airstrike, here is what was NOT printed in the reprint of Khamenei's speech:

Khamenei said this: “The Zionist regime is a cancerous tumor and it will be removed.” While we don’t know how or why a mention of this element of the speech managed to get excised from the account in the Times, it’s a question worth pondering.
-1 # bobby t. 2012-02-05 10:12
yes, yes, cspol, hence the irgun mentality. one fights fire with fire. be bold and mighty forces come to your aid.the irgun was needed as much as the regular idf back in their day. they were outnumbered 80 million to two million. and they won. meyer landsky was the toughest kid in the neighborhood. he was a small guy but the big kids were afraid of him. israel understands that kind of survival technique. they used it to all the displeasure of large parts of the world. they are not going down without a fight to the end. and they may take us with them. every president has known this. the middle east is the powder keg of the world. the suez crisis was averted only by the seventh fleet steaming up loaded with some scary weapons and sailing to the canal. the russians and others backed down. we are hoping this will happen again. seems like a lot of very scared people on line today and yesterday. like i said, it may be a set up for hillary and obama to save the day. obama has to be a hawk. if he was a dove he loses. so we lose either way....catch 22.
+2 # futhark 2012-02-05 12:08
When I was a kid in the 1950s we learned to sing the "Exodus Song" in school. Later we were bombarded on the radio with the "Ballad of Moshe Dayan". All the news was slanted that the Zionists were good and the Arabs were nasty and evil.

Looking back at it all, I am disgusted by the extent public opinion was shaped by the media to favor one side against the other. We all lose by unconditional support of Zionist Israel.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.