• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

With eye on Iran, Israelis seek US action in Syria [W:36]

Snappo

Banned
Joined
Aug 29, 2013
Messages
376
Reaction score
57
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Candidly, I would have guessed the exact opposite. But I just read this off the AP wire a minute ago:

With eye on Iran, Israelis seek US action in Syria

With eye on Iran, Israelis seek US action in Syria

JERUSALEM (AP) — Behind an official wall of silence, Israel is signaling it wants the U.S. to strike Syria sooner rather than later, fearing that continued inaction could hurt American credibility in the region.

Yet at the same time, Israel appears to have little desire to see Syrian President Bashar Assad toppled, on the theory that a familiar foe is preferable to some of those who might replace him, especially the Islamist extremists who are increasingly powerful in the rebellion.

These contradictory forces have put Israel in a delicate position as the U.S. contemplates military action. In public, Israeli leaders have said little about President Barack Obama's handling of the Syria crisis. But following his decision over the weekend to postpone military action by seeking the backing of Congress, the signs of confusion and consternation appear clear.

"I have full faith in President Obama's moral and operational stance. I recommend patience," President Shimon Peres said in a radio interview Monday, seeking to calm a nervous public. "I am confident that the United States will respond in the right way to Syria."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Surtr

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2011
Messages
7,017
Reaction score
2,980
Location
The greatest planet in the world.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Syria and Israel are long time enemies. Why is it surprising that they would want us to fight their battles for them?
 

aberrant85

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
594
Reaction score
209
Location
SF Bay Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Israel bombed Syria in 2007. I'm sure they think the more the merrier.
 

Snappo

Banned
Joined
Aug 29, 2013
Messages
376
Reaction score
57
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Syria and Israel are long time enemies. Why is it surprising that they would want us to fight their battles for them?
No - I mean in general that they wanted us to take care of business with missiles right now. I think the way it would go down is USA does some limited strikes on Assad, then Assad and Iran go after Israel, then USA/Canada/EU bomb Syria back to the stone age. In the second phase, Israel would "have to take one for the team" so we had an excuse for an all out blitz like Desert Storm. I figured there was no way they wanted towns in Gaza Strip to get gassed; which is what I think happens in part 2 of my scenario.
 

reinoe

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
16,821
Reaction score
7,180
Location
Out West
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Syria and Israel are long time enemies. Why is it surprising that they would want us to fight their battles for them?
Agreed. And that adds another piece to the puzzle. The Israeli's aren't the ones stamping their feet and having temper tantrums after chemical weapons were used (and we're not sure it was Assad). Israel is on the front door of the situation, but military action is being ramped up by people 4000 miles away. If the U.S. is the primary instigator for war then I'm not surprised that Israel wants the U.S. to fight the battle.
 

Surtr

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2011
Messages
7,017
Reaction score
2,980
Location
The greatest planet in the world.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
No - I mean in general that they wanted us to take care of business with missiles right now. I think the way it would go down is USA does some limited strikes on Assad, then Assad and Iran go after Israel, then USA/Canada/EU bomb Syria back to the stone age. In the second phase, Israel would "have to take one for the team" so we had an excuse for an all out blitz like Desert Storm. I figured there was no way they wanted towns in Gaza Strip to get gassed; which is what I think happens in part 2 of my scenario.
If they want it so bad, they can use their own damn bombers. Between 1993 and 2003, we gave them 262 F-16s and F-15s which are both fully capable of carrying out precision strikes with the billions of dollars of air to surface ordnance we've given them. Not sold, gave. We give them billions in military and financial support, and they're still magically incapable of doing their own dirty work, unless it involves tracking some old nazi down on the other end of the Earth.
 

SBu

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,523
Reaction score
636
Location
Washington State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Isreali public also probably looking for some kind of action from a third party because they want someone to deter the use of chemical weapons without giving Assad a justified reason to respond in kind against the Israelis. Jews were victims of chem weapons in WWII. I'm sure that weighs on the minds of the Israeli public.
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,629
Reaction score
20,383
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
In my view, both the US and Israel are hoping that Iran gets drawn in - it will give them cover for an attack on the Iranian nuclear program and facilities.
 

Surtr

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2011
Messages
7,017
Reaction score
2,980
Location
The greatest planet in the world.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Agreed. And that adds another piece to the puzzle. The Israeli's aren't the ones stamping their feet and having temper tantrums after chemical weapons were used (and we're not sure it was Assad). Israel is on the front door of the situation, but military action is being ramped up by people 4000 miles away. If the U.S. is the primary instigator for war then I'm not surprised that Israel wants the U.S. to fight the battle.
What needs to happen is we let the UN carry out their investigation, and proceed with punitive actions if necessary, instead of ramping up the war machine again.
 

APACHERAT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
6,159
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Candidly, I would have guessed the exact opposite.
So would I.

Maybe it's because Al Qaeda has never been that big of a threat to Israel ?

At least with Assad in power, Israel knows who they are dealing with. So it doesn't make any sense.
 

CalGun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
7,039
Reaction score
3,268
Location
Denio Junction
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Israel needs us. They understand the power of the oval office and will go along with whatever the loser in charge says.
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
"It's hard to identify who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. Probably they are all bad guys," Shai said. "The interest of Israel is that no one will attack Israel and we will not be involved in any way." .....snip~

This ^^^^^.....pretty much says it all. They know Assad wont attack them. But at least they see it for what it is. No good guys anywhere in the Syrian mix.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,511
Reaction score
37,761
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
You may be reading more into this than is really there. Perhaps the major point being expressed, by Israel's leaders, is that if the U.S. breaks its word about the "red line" in Syria then they may also do so with regard to Iran getting nukes.
 

Snappo

Banned
Joined
Aug 29, 2013
Messages
376
Reaction score
57
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
So would I.

Maybe it's because Al Qaeda has never been that big of a threat to Israel ?

At least with Assad in power, Israel knows who they are dealing with. So it doesn't make any sense.
I think everyone who isn't Jewish and is in the Middle East is pretty much a threat to Israel. I suspect every country outside of Israel would love to see Israel gone.

But to your point, I am not sure how much of Al Qaeda is a threat to anyone right now. I really think some other players right now have much bigger numbers, more money, and therefore more access to weapons and people that would do Israel harm.

I also agree with you about Assad. Sometimes the enemy you know is WAY BETTER than the enemy you do not know. At least with Assad, Israel could reasonably predict what he was up to and what the threat level is. Imagine Al Qaeda with chemical or biological WMD's. That would really destabilize the Middle East.
 

Snappo

Banned
Joined
Aug 29, 2013
Messages
376
Reaction score
57
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
If they want it so bad, they can use their own damn bombers. Between 1993 and 2003, we gave them 262 F-16s and F-15s which are both fully capable of carrying out precision strikes with the billions of dollars of air to surface ordnance we've given them. Not sold, gave. We give them billions in military and financial support, and they're still magically incapable of doing their own dirty work, unless it involves tracking some old nazi down on the other end of the Earth.
You are way off base. USA wants Israel to ask for permission before doing anything in the Middle East, so the Oval Office bribes Israel with weapons and other military technologies. If tomorrow morning USA stopped giving a penny to Israel I would be very happy. Then folks like myself could send after-tax dollars to Israel to offset the loss, no non-Jews would have to spend their tax dollars on Israel, and Israel would no longer be beholden to the Oval Office. The only down side for USA is that their oil interests in the Middle East might be on shakier ground; but that's a non-issue soon enough because in 10 to 20 years USA will be a net exporter of oil. So I really would prefer we gave Israel nothing via USA tax dollars.

Case in point - remember back during Desert Storm when we were bombing Saddam back to the stone age and he randomly started shooting missiles into Israel even though Israel had nothing whatsoever to do with that UN action? USA begged Israel to stay out of it. Had Israel not been beholden to the requests of our POTUS because we bribe her with $3 billion in yearly arms, she could have dropped a few dozen nuclear weapons on Iraq and called it a day. Then 10 years later our USA troops would not have had to go onto the ground searching for the WMD's that Saddam had long since sent to Syria.
 

Snappo

Banned
Joined
Aug 29, 2013
Messages
376
Reaction score
57
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
You may be reading more into this than is really there. Perhaps the major point being expressed, by Israel's leaders, is that if the U.S. breaks its word about the "red line" in Syria then they may also do so with regard to Iran getting nukes.
You might be correct TTWTT. I wonder how important the USA-Iran relationship really is to Israel. Clearly she can protect herself even if she has to go against Iran alone. Since she never signed any of those arms limiting treaties, it is believed that she could not only have upwards of 400 nuclear weapons deployed but that she also has Neutron Bombs. BTW - I have also read multiple times that Israel has chemical and offensive biological weapons capabilities. So should Israel even care what USA wants to do about Syria and Iran?
 

APACHERAT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
6,159
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I also agree with you about Assad. Sometimes the enemy you know is WAY BETTER than the enemy you do not know. At least with Assad, Israel could reasonably predict what he was up to and what the threat level is. Imagine Al Qaeda with chemical or biological WMD's. That would really destabilize the Middle East.
If Assad's air defenses are neutralized, that more air space for Israeli aircraft to fly through while conducting an air strike on Iran. Iraq's air defense is no threat to israel.

I hope someone has informed Obama that it very likely that Assads air defenses has Russian soldiers operating those defenses. That Russian Bear is out of hibernation.
 

Snappo

Banned
Joined
Aug 29, 2013
Messages
376
Reaction score
57
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I hope someone has informed Obama that it very likely that Assads air defenses has Russian soldiers operating those defenses. That Russian Bear is out of hibernation.
Not to worry - check out this article:

Russia "Evacuates" Syria Naval Base

eports from today indicate that Russia has recently pulled it’s personnel from Syria due to the security situation and for diplomatic reasons.

In an interview with the Al-Hayat newspaper, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov said:

Presently, the Russian Defense Ministry has not a single person stationed in Syria. The base does not have any strategic military importance.

Additionally, Russia Today, in an article published recently, reports:

Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister says all personnel had been evacuated from the navy resupply base in Tartus, Syria, adding that not a single Russian military serviceman remained in the country.

Social media is abuzz with the implications of such a move. The two primary opinions among commentators are that Russia has scrambled to abandon Syria and/or that [as a result], the green light has been given for possible intervention by other state actors, specifically America and it’s allies.

The use of the word “evacuate” in Russia Today’s article compounds the panicked response by readers, who assume Russia’s decision, whenever it was made, was in a scramble to abandon Syria in a surrender to international pressure. Additionally, the Western media promoted view of a Syrian government with it’s back against the wall, it’s days numbered and as a “sinking ship”, further solidifies the inappropriate perceptions and responses.
 

polgara

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
20,215
Reaction score
17,786
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
If Assad's air defenses are neutralized, that more air space for Israeli aircraft to fly through while conducting an air strike on Iran. Iraq's air defense is no threat to israel.

I hope someone has informed Obama that it very likely that Assads air defenses has Russian soldiers operating those defenses. That Russian Bear is out of hibernation.
Good evening, APACHERAT! :2wave:

"That Russian bear is out of hibernation"...

:afraid:

:eek:
 

APACHERAT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
6,159
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Not to worry - check out this article:

Russia "Evacuates" Syria Naval Base

.
Your link is a pro rebel organization.

What I have read that the Russian Tartus naval base has been rinforced by Russian Marines.
There are tens of thousands of Russian civilians living in Syria and if they have to be evacuated it would be through the Russian naval base at Tartus.

>" MOSCOW, June 28 (Xinhua) -- Moscow denied on Friday the reported closure of the Russian embassy in Damascus and evacuation of a naval base in Syria's Tartus.

"These rumors are speculations and provocations aimed at preparing public opinion for the attempts to change the (Syrian) regime," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters after talks with his Moroccan counterpart Saad-Eddine El Othmani."<
Russia denies closure of embassy, naval base in Syria - Xinhua | English.news.cn

Russian marines deploy to Syria to protect naval base at Tartus:


August 3, 2012

A Russian defense ministry source admitted in an interview with CBS news that Russia is sending three Navy ships, each carrying about 120 marinesto reinforce its naval base in Syria.

The marines are in place to assist in the possible evacuation of the Russian naval base in Tartus if it “comes under attack” (see article: Source: Russia sending three military ships to Syria...
Their mission is to protect and defend the base if it comes under attack.

Russian marines deploy to Syria to protect naval base at Tartus - Wichita Military Affairs | Examiner.com
 

Surtr

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2011
Messages
7,017
Reaction score
2,980
Location
The greatest planet in the world.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You are way off base. USA wants Israel to ask for permission before doing anything in the Middle East, so the Oval Office bribes Israel with weapons and other military technologies. If tomorrow morning USA stopped giving a penny to Israel I would be very happy. Then folks like myself could send after-tax dollars to Israel to offset the loss, no non-Jews would have to spend their tax dollars on Israel, and Israel would no longer be beholden to the Oval Office. The only down side for USA is that their oil interests in the Middle East might be on shakier ground; but that's a non-issue soon enough because in 10 to 20 years USA will be a net exporter of oil. So I really would prefer we gave Israel nothing via USA tax dollars.
Israel wants us to act on their behalf in a way that will benefit them to the fullest without lifting a finger. They have a history of doing that, and for some reason, we continue to oblige them. I wouldn't mind giving them aid if they pulled their weight and assisted us with our middle eastern operations. So far, they're just a bad investment.

Case in point - remember back during Desert Storm when we were bombing Saddam back to the stone age and he randomly started shooting missiles into Israel even though Israel had nothing whatsoever to do with that UN action? USA begged Israel to stay out of it. Had Israel not been beholden to the requests of our POTUS because we bribe her with $3 billion in yearly arms, she could have dropped a few dozen nuclear weapons on Iraq and called it a day. Then 10 years later our USA troops would not have had to go onto the ground searching for the WMD's that Saddam had long since sent to Syria.
We didn't beg them not to do anything. Cheney told them to piss off because their interference would put allied forces at risk. They wouldn't risk losing their annual billions in handouts from the US by doing something as stupid as using nuclear weapons on an area occupied by US forces, anyway.
 

Drake McHugh

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
628
Reaction score
138
Location
Brookfield,Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I have read different Israeli views on the matter. As someone noted,Syria is historically been enemy No.1,long before Iran. Still,their are many,especially those in the north who probably oppose bombing Syria,as they know it means danger for them.
 

Iron Yank

Active member
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
335
Reaction score
174
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Israel wants us to act on their behalf in a way that will benefit them to the fullest without lifting a finger. They have a history of doing that, and for some reason, we continue to oblige them. I wouldn't mind giving them aid if they pulled their weight and assisted us with our middle eastern operations. So far, they're just a bad investment.
I think you have this wrong, wasnt it the US that told Israel to stand down in both Iraq wars as to prevent to incite the crazy muslims against the Jews? And if you judge countries in this context we have also given billions of military aid to Egypt, Turkey Jordan & Saudi Arabia, when are they ever going to "pull there weight" as you have described the same way you would expect it from Israel? Bad investment maybe, but for whatever reason you mention the Jews and no one else.

We didn't beg them not to do anything. Cheney told them to piss off because their interference would put allied forces at risk. They wouldn't risk losing their annual billions in handouts from the US by doing something as stupid as using nuclear weapons on an area occupied by US forces, anyway.
This is just an assinine statement. Cheney never told them to piss off as you have implied and how in the world did using nukes ever get into this discussion ? I've never heard Israel threaten anyone with these weapons although I'm sure they would use them if there very existance was threatened. (Like anyone would) Irans leaders on the other hand have stated on many occasions that they would wipe Israel off the map, yet you feel the need to critisize Israel & not Iran. odd....... uniformed or Anti semetic perhaps?
 

Surtr

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2011
Messages
7,017
Reaction score
2,980
Location
The greatest planet in the world.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I think you have this wrong, wasnt it the US that told Israel to stand down in both Iraq wars as to prevent to incite the crazy muslims against the Jews? And if you judge countries in this context we have also given billions of military aid to Egypt, Turkey Jordan & Saudi Arabia, when are they ever going to "pull there weight" as you have described the same way you would expect it from Israel? Bad investment maybe, but for whatever reason you mention the Jews and no one else.
You must have missed the part where Israel is the topic of the thread.

This is just an assinine statement. Cheney never told them to piss off as you have implied and how in the world did using nukes ever get into this discussion ? I've never heard Israel threaten anyone with these weapons although I'm sure they would use them if there very existance was threatened. (Like anyone would) Irans leaders on the other hand have stated on many occasions that they would wipe Israel off the map, yet you feel the need to critisize Israel & not Iran. odd....... uniformed or Anti semetic perhaps?
If you aren't even going to bother reading the conversation, butt out.
 

Snappo

Banned
Joined
Aug 29, 2013
Messages
376
Reaction score
57
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Israel wants us to act on their behalf in a way that will benefit them to the fullest without lifting a finger. They have a history of doing that, and for some reason, we continue to oblige them. I wouldn't mind giving them aid if they pulled their weight and assisted us with our middle eastern operations. So far, they're just a bad investment.
I'm pretty sure LBJ didn't put troops in Israel in 67, Nixon didn't put troops in Israel in 73, and Reagan didn't put troops in Israel in 82. We Jews have a history of fighting like great warriors.


We didn't beg them not to do anything. Cheney told them to piss off because their interference would put allied forces at risk. They wouldn't risk losing their annual billions in handouts from the US by doing something as stupid as using nuclear weapons on an area occupied by US forces, anyway.
They won't lose a penny. Most of us Jews make a substantial living in USA, and there are I believe somewhere around 6.7 million of us here. If each of us Jews sent $448 to Israel, it would be a total wash. And as I have said before, I would prefer it were that way. I don't think Christians should have to fund Israel with tax dollars because that is not fair. Jews should fund Israel with their own earnings. The great losers if USA stops giving out freebies are actually Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Libya, etc.
 
Top Bottom