(Seneca Lake Specific)
0 messages
Updated
Lakes Online Forum
83,673 messages
Updated 6/13/2024 6:12:00 PM
Lakes Online Forum
5,197 messages
Updated 6/10/2024 5:39:11 AM
(Seneca Lake Specific)
0 messages
Updated
Lakes Online Forum
4,170 messages
Updated 6/10/2024 6:29:37 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,261 messages
Updated 5/28/2024 6:31:10 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,977 messages
Updated 6/10/2024 6:30:23 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
|
|
|
| Name: |
MrHodja
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
Could It Be?
|
|
Date:
|
8/21/2010 11:07:10 PM
|
In the past Israel was quick to pounce on any threat to its national security in the most strident ways. Some thought they went overboard, others understood the lessons learned on the playground while growing up: bullies only understand superior force and the willingness to use it.
One would have thought, based on history, that Israel would have neutralized the Iranian nuclear threat - period. But up until now Israel knew the US had their back.
Could it be that the reason Israel did not take out the Iranian reactor is that they no longer feel they have our tacit - and if necessary, active support? Could it be that the present administration has diminished our support of Israel to the point that they cannot act alone?
This question has been passing back and forth across the few grey cells I have left and it really concerns me. For years Israel has been our proxy in the Middle East. Have we lost that too?
Nasreddin Hodja
|
| Name: |
lotowner
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Could It Be?
|
|
Date:
|
8/22/2010 8:01:34 AM
|
You pose a big question. I would add that maybe Israel is listening to this administration's comments that this first nuclear unit does not pose a risk. If they believe what this administration is saying, I suggest that they would buy ocean front property in Montana. They need to do whatever is necessary to guarantee their existence. Security is no longer the issue.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Could It Be?
|
|
Date:
|
8/22/2010 9:11:56 AM
|
I assume the Administration has been urging restraint. I'm betting there is a quid pro quo in the works -- love to know what it is. Must be very big.
I've been watching this Iranian nuclear situation develop and I'm totally puzzled. At first, I thought we were waiting to see the outcome of the election in Iran, then there was the assination attempt (CIA?) a few weeks ago. Or is this more of the "we're not at war with Islam"? Are we waiting for better intel?
|
| Name: |
Yankee06
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Could It Be?
|
|
Date:
|
8/22/2010 2:20:58 PM
|
-Very perplexing.
-if the assessments in the press are right, that last Friday was teh last day the Israelis could have struck without causing widespread radiation clouds, then I would have thought Israel would have struck. There are many reasons that could be given why it did not strike. here are a few:
1) The general assessment is wrong. Isreal might assess that it can strike later depending on type weapons systems it uses, or depending on different weather and disperal conditions,or just because Iranian defensive posture will be lower as time goes on. None of these reasons is very satisfying to anyone who has studied israeli policy.
2)New Israeli National Security Policy: Israel has indeed changed its national security policies and posture and believes that even a nut-job regime like the one in Tehran will not attack Isreal, realizing that the Israeli counter attack will wipeout most of Iran's infrastructure for decades or centuries to come. A mideast version of MAD, --Mutually Assured Destruction.
3) Diplomacy over War: Israel, by living with this dangerous situation, is betting that its restraint will make the rest of the world recognize that israel is indeed trying to establish a workable peace system in teh mideast and thus enjoin the world to bring pressure on teh mideast terrorist organizations and supporting regimes to establish a workable, long-lasting peace process.
Personally, I don't believe the Israelis will allow the Iranians to build nuclear bombs, and that somewhere down the line, probably sooner than later, and after it becomes clear to the world what the Iranians are doing, Israel will take military action to elimenate what it failed to prevent.
|
| Name: |
roswellric
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Too complicated.
|
|
Date:
|
8/22/2010 9:20:40 PM
|
Israel, after all their history will ultimately do what they have to do to survive. They are very measured in their responses and generally act in their self preservation interests. You can always count on that and less on the politics. This is consistent with the Bible prophecy of: "Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near" Don't worry about the politics....
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Interesting discussion this a.m.
|
|
Date:
|
8/23/2010 8:51:49 AM
|
on Bill Bennett's show. Did not catch the name of the guest but he is a media type. He is of the opinion that when Netanyahu met privately with Obama some sort of deal was struck. His evidence to support the speculation is two fold: 1) Obama's language about a nuclear Iran has gone from "unacceptable" to "it will not happen". I frankly have not noticed this supposed change on his language but I try not to listen. 2) Netanyahu has apparently become very engaged and supportive of the latest round of Mid East peace talks, including being more accommodating than his usual self. Again, I have not seen this but I am not following it all that closely. Based on this evidence he believed some sort of deal was struck and that the U.S. will take out enough of the nuclear facilities with bunker busters that their program will be set back. Of course I don't believe OCarter has the gonads to do anything of the sort but I would love to be proven wrong. And while it would infuriate his base they will ultimately forgive him and it would be a huge shot in the arm for his approval ratings. Won't solve the economic problems we have but I think many conservatives, myself included, would applaud his preventing Iran from going nuclear.
The discussion also centered around Israel's biggest fear with a nuclear Iran and that would be an inability to strongly deal with Hamas and Hezbollah because their sponsor is now nuclear capable and that this will embolden both groups. While they don't put it past nut jobs like Achmadiniwackjob and Mullahs to accept the destruction of Iran if they struck Israel they are still basically cowards and blowhards and while they have no problem sending others to their death they would be less likely to accept that sacrifice for themselves or their family. One would think they realize that if Hamas or Hezbollah detonate a nuclear weapon in Israel that everyone in the world will know where it came from and there would be retribution of the nuclear kind.
|
|
|
New Post
Search
Off-Topic Forum
Reply
»
New York Lakes
»
Seneca Lake
Login
|
Home
