• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Israel asked US for green light to bomb nuclear sites in Iran

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Israel gave serious thought this spring to launching a military strike on Iran's nuclear sites but was told by President George W Bush that he would not support it and did not expect to revise that view for the rest of his presidency, senior European diplomatic sources have told the Guardian.

(Assuming this is true), I don't think we'll be hearing many more cries of "warmonger!" from those who were convinced that Bush desperately wanted to attack Iran.
 

WI Crippler

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
15,427
Reaction score
9,577
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
(Assuming this is true), I don't think we'll be hearing many more cries of "warmonger!" from those who were convinced that Bush desperately wanted to attack Iran.

I wouldn't put money on that.
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
(Assuming this is true), I don't think we'll be hearing many more cries of "warmonger!" from those who were convinced that Bush desperately wanted to attack Iran.

The Bush administration has been pushing hard for a ME peace deal in the last few months; such a strike by Israel would have put off any hope of an accomplishment. But for whatever the reason, good for Bush for reigning them in, and his recent decision to open a US liaison office in Teheran.
 
Last edited:

RedAkston

Master of Shenanigans
Administrator
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
50,383
Reaction score
30,907
Location
Mississippi
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Bush administration has been pushing hard for a ME peace deal in the last few months; such a strike by Israel would have put off any hope of an accomplishment. But for whatever the reason, good for Bush for reigning them in, and his recent decision to open a US laiason office in Teheran.
Wow! It's been a long time since I saw a liberal give Bush any credit whatsoever for doing something right.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
49,960
Reaction score
19,054
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
I think it's a mistake. Iran's gonna get a nuke, and Isreal's not gonna wait for the next prez to say yes. And at that point they WILL strike and will use nukes against Iran first.
 

John_Gault

Active member
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
428
Reaction score
105
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I honestly don't understand this whole ****. It seems that a while back the liberals were crying for "talks" and everyone in the republican world was bashing the hell out of anyone even implying that we should not take sides in the Middle Eastern conflict... but now Bush is doing BOTH of those things but no one on the right is even calling bush a *****. I mean come on, WAR is not a partisan topic and since Foreign Policy's main priority in my eyes should be to DETER war WTF are the left and right doing criticizing each other for in the first place. Jesus, who gives a **** if a republican saves the world? Who gives a **** if a Democrat saves the world? As long as someone does the right thing, and in this case it is OUR president, I say Hoorah for Bush!
:soap
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I honestly don't understand this whole ****. It seems that a while back the liberals were crying for "talks" and everyone in the republican world was bashing the hell out of anyone even implying that we should not take sides in the Middle Eastern conflict... but now Bush is doing BOTH of those things but no one on the right is even calling bush a *****. I mean come on, WAR is not a partisan topic and since Foreign Policy's main priority in my eyes should be to DETER war WTF are the left and right doing criticizing each other for in the first place. Jesus, who gives a **** if a republican saves the world? Who gives a **** if a Democrat saves the world? As long as someone does the right thing, and in this case it is OUR president, I say Hoorah for Bush!
:soap


And this is one new course I hope the new president follows.
 

scourge99

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,233
Reaction score
1,462
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
And this is one new course I hope the new president follows.

The proliferation of nuclear weapons and the technological know-how to make such weapons is a future far worse than most that I can imagine.
 

ADK_Forever

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
3,706
Reaction score
1,001
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Wow! It's been a long time since I saw a liberal give Bush any credit whatsoever for doing something right.

It's been a long time since he did something right. ;)

I don't trust him tho, not until he's out of the white house and back in Texas! :cool:
 

Slainte

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
1,061
Reaction score
315
Location
Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
To me, stuff like this further shows the weakening of the neoconservative movement in Washington.

If Wolfowitz, Feith and Rumsfeld were still high ranking members of the administration the answer probably would have been different.
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,259
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
(Assuming this is true), I don't think we'll be hearing many more cries of "warmonger!" from those who were convinced that Bush desperately wanted to attack Iran.

Israel, bro, you know you don't have to ask. Your light is always green.....just give us a lil warning, k?
 

scourge99

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,233
Reaction score
1,462
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
To me, stuff like this further shows the weakening of the neoconservative movement in Washington.

If Wolfowitz, Feith and Rumsfeld were still high ranking members of the administration the answer probably would have been different.

What specific part of neoconservatism are you referring to? Its quite a general label that has shifted in meaning over time. Lately its just a cliche.
 

Slainte

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
1,061
Reaction score
315
Location
Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What specific part of neoconservatism are you referring to? Its quite a general label that has shifted in meaning over time. Lately its just a cliche.

The ardently pro-Israeli part of it mainly. So called support for democracy and opposition towards "evil" states like Iran. Dividing the world into good and bad, either because they really mean it, or because it's easiest to present the situation that way. I take it the last part is the bit you think has changed?

With Gates there's been a shift back to the pragmatic approach, essentially here the US doesn't believe an Israeli attack will accomplish much and it certainly isn't worth the costs involved. The US won't just back Israel based on an ideological commitment towards them anymore, hopefully.
 

scourge99

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,233
Reaction score
1,462
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
The ardently pro-Israeli part of it mainly.
We a-like-the Jews. Its true.

So called support for democracy and opposition towards "evil" states like Iran. Dividing the world into good and bad, either because they really mean it, or because it's easiest to present the situation that way.
Such is only used in speeches. Its politics for dummies. I highly doubt you'd find high level foreign policy documents stating "Axis of Evil" in its own right without referring to the speech as an allusion.

I take it the last part is the bit you think has changed?
I don't know if anything has changed. I thinks its merely in the rebuilding and rearming stage. The powder kegs filling up worldwide. Arms are being built up, lines are being drawn, new powers are aligning, world-wide economic depression is looming. It may be calm at the moment but there's plenty of signs that a storm of war is brewing like it has throughout history.

With Gates there's been a shift back to the pragmatic approach, essentially here the US doesn't believe an Israeli attack will accomplish much and it certainly isn't worth the costs involved. The US won't just back Israel based on an ideological commitment towards them anymore, hopefully.
I highly doubt that. I can't imagine the US turning its back on Israel anymore than we'd turn our back on the UK.
 

Frolicking Dinosaurs

200M yrs of experience
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Messages
2,166
Reaction score
1,692
Location
Southeastern USA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
For all his faults (I'd list them but there is a word limit on the site ;)) GWB isn't the one who wants a war with Iran - that would be Cheney. Cheney is currently disappeared as GWB finally figured out that he was a pasty for the underhanded shenanigans of the likes of Cheney and Rove. They pulled the stings and GWB took the fall. Have you noticed since GWB pretty much axed Cheney that his approval ratings started going up steadily?

The US can't afford another war right now and Israel may be in for its own brand of shock and awe if it tries to attack Iran. Israel seems to suffer from the same delusion that the US suffered prior to the Iraqi invasion: If we go in, the world is going to back us up because of who we are. That did not happen for the US and it certainly is not going to happen for Israel. Unless Iran attacks them first, I don't expect Israel to get much support for an invasion - and I believe the US people would revolt if any prez - Dem or GOP - offered massive support to Israel right now.

The US is now out of cash and will see who its real friends are. Be afraid, be very afraid.
 
Last edited:

Agnapostate

Banned
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
5,497
Reaction score
912
Location
Between Hollywood and Compton.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
That's been a typical attitude of the Israelis over the years, along with an inflated and egotistical belief in their eternal moral superiority.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,862
Reaction score
10,300
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
That's been a typical attitude of the Israelis over the years, along with an inflated and egotistical belief in their eternal moral superiority.

Two things:

1. Israel is concerned about an existential threat, and as a small nation (in terms of geography), 1-2 atomic bombs would pose just such a threat.

2. The "belief" you describe is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation of the Biblical Chosen People concept.
 

Agnapostate

Banned
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
5,497
Reaction score
912
Location
Between Hollywood and Compton.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Two things:

1. Israel is concerned about an existential threat, and as a small nation (in terms of geography), 1-2 atomic bombs would pose just such a threat.

2. The "belief" you describe is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation of the Biblical Chosen People concept.

Two factual things:

1. Israel has traditionally not acted in a manner that a reasonable observer would interpret as preventing "existential" threats. The country has engaged in numerous acts of preemptive aggression against neighboring countries after having unjustly occupied the territory of an indigenous population.

2. That's...simply not what I meant. I was referring to Israeli state policies and actions.
 

scourge99

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,233
Reaction score
1,462
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Two factual things:

1. Israel has traditionally not acted in a manner that a reasonable observer would interpret as preventing "existential" threats. The country has engaged in numerous acts of preemptive aggression against neighboring countries after having unjustly occupied the territory of an indigenous population.

2. That's...simply not what I meant. I was referring to Israeli state policies and actions.

What exactly do you think their goals are?
 

Slainte

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
1,061
Reaction score
315
Location
Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Such is only used in speeches. Its politics for dummies. I highly doubt you'd find high level foreign policy documents stating "Axis of Evil" in its own right without referring to the speech as an allusion.

But the presentment of their foreign policy is based on a black and white perception of the world. It maybe a front, or a "noble lie" for their true motive to maintain American hegemony, but it's still a part of the movement. Generally they do hold an ideological commitment that our way is the best way to do things and as Israel does things our way we should back them whatever.

I don't know if anything has changed. I thinks its merely in the rebuilding and rearming stage. The powder kegs filling up worldwide. Arms are being built up, lines are being drawn, new powers are aligning, world-wide economic depression is looming. It may be calm at the moment but there's plenty of signs that a storm of war is brewing like it has throughout history.

Pretty gloomy outlook, there are no serious ideological divisions left in the world, the great powers are pretty interdependent, Europe is more stable than ever, a "depression" is pretty unlikely.

I highly doubt that. I can't imagine the US turning its back on Israel anymore than we'd turn our back on the UK.

People like Gates aren't interested in abandoning Israel, they just don't base their entire foreign policy around Israeli interests. They base it, funnily enough, on American interests.

Also the UK and Israel are very different types of allies for the US. The US doesn't offend the rest of Europe by backing us no matter what, the UK is a globalish power in her own right and generally helps US security rather than hinders it.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
(Assuming this is true), I don't think we'll be hearing many more cries of "warmonger!" from those who were convinced that Bush desperately wanted to attack Iran.

Maybe. From what I've read regarding it, it's more concern for ourselves rather then Israel.

1) Israel is unlikely to stop Iran's program
2) An attack would likely result in open war
3) US assets in Afghanistan and Iraq would be subject to strikes

With very little benefit and obvious massive costs, even the most rabid warmonger would have to say no.
 
Top Bottom