The Goat Pen

When Iraq was a threat to Israel, Israel took care of it on its own. It was glo0bally criticized for taking out Iraq's nukes, with the US among the critics.

Dora wrote:Our presence in Iraq hasn't reined in Iran at all. Not only did the US not attack Iran, but it would not aid Israel in doing so either.

so far the approach has failed to engage Iran . America needed a reason to go after Iran (other than Israel telling them they should) - again - McCain (and Bolton) was all about attacking Iran and Obama was about dialogue ( another reason I'm not convinced Jews don't love RINO's). In the end, we failed to engage Iran so Israel and America attacked Iran with technology, not ground forces. But that is only a temporary measure.

Now that Bush is gone and war hawk AIPAC favorite Hillary Clinton failed to get the nomination, America sees the folly of this pre-emptive strike nonsense and also sees that Israel expected us to do the wet work for them.

I think Americans in general are starting to wake up to Israeli influence, in large part to dissenting voices in politics outside the traditional two party system.
They see the true cost of Israeli influence in this country and it makes the foreign aid we give Israel look like a drop in the ocean.

Wow, how much sand is in your vagina there JW? Must be a lot to be that grumpy.

Do us all a favor - Get a douche, take a shit, and take a few deep breaths.

eCat wrote:But mostly because McCain was a giant douche.

America needed a reason to go after Iran (other than Israel telling them they should)

Why would Bush need another reason? It seemed to have been enough reason in attacking Iraq.

( another reason I'm not convinced Jews don't love RINO's)

Well, it's a fact that Jews overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

If I had to guess its because he, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfield badly misjudged how long it would take them to get Iraq and Afghanistan stabilized to the point that they could attack Iran. By 2005 America's mood for war had turned sour and the war hawks failed in their attempt to generate fear among the masses with a nuclear iran, especially given that there were no WMD's in Iraq. Their credibility is shot and Iran stuck to their statement they were creating nuclear power for energy. That whole Axis of Evil turned more into a plot of a bad "B" movie playing at the local drive in than a a foreign policy guideline.

In the meantime Iran aligned itself with some lucrative contracts to supply oil to China, our economy tanked and the Bush long term plan (inspired by the Jerusalem Time's man of the year) was rendered impotent. Disrupting the oil supply to China while engaging in what would become a 3 country borderless war is not going to end well.

Of course Israel always had the option of attacking Iran since , lets face it, a nuclear Iran is a threat to only one nation in the world - and they chose not to.
Whether they did it at the request of America or because they were convinced the retaliation would be such that America would not have their back due to the mood of the American public is only known to Israel.

Dora wrote:When Iraq was a threat to Israel, Israel took care of it on its own. It was glo0bally criticized for taking out Iraq's nukes, with the US among the critics.

I had a friend who worked in the CIA at the time. The US said that publicly, but privately they supported it.

"Initially the NAZIs did not intend to murder the Jewish people, but instead they wanted every single Jew deported from the Deutsch Lebensraum. "The Jews must get out of Germany, indeed out of Europe altogether," -Joseph Goebbels (1937)"

Why would anybody leave Europe to go live in some godforsaken rock-strewn scrabble land? Well, before the holocaust, that is. Afterwards, yeah, I can see a bunch of folks being like "Fuck yeah, let's get the fuck outta here. Anything is better than this crap, even that shitty slagland down yonder. "The Promised Land". Thanks alot, God. Couldn't you at least have given us somewhere that had, you know, grass? Well, whatever, let's get the fuck outta here." I can see, though, how some might be bitter about such a turn of events. I sure would be...

"Our presence in Iraq hasn't reined in Iran at all."

I really don't have a dog in this fight, b/c I don't really give much of a shit about Israel, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, none of that shit or the people over there (and when I say "don't give a shit", that's what I mean - I'm not for em or against em, I just really don't give a shit one way or the other about them or 99.99% of the rest of the world's population), but I have to say that having US troops and equipment occupying a country directly b/w Iran and Israel is a pretty serious deterrent if Iran had any plans to attack Israel. I have no idea what their plans were or are or are not, but to say that a major US military presence has not had any effect of reining in any dirty tricks that Iran possibly had in mind seems very unlikely...

had a friend who worked in the CIA at the time. The US said that publicly, but privately they supported it

I did read that Reagan was pleased with the Israeli attack reportedly because it showed that Israel was able to handle its own problems rather than expecting the US to do it for them.

Side note: I have a friend who works for the CIA & comes from a CIA family. According to him, the CIA views do not conform to government's views. They see themselves as 'lifers' while the government comes & goes based on elections. He says the CIA does not like Israel & never has. I don't know if this is true, but that's what he says.

to say that a major US military presence has not had any effect of reining in any dirty tricks that Iran possibly had in mind seems very unlikely...

I'm basing my opinion on what I'm seeing. Iran has historically attacked Israel via proxy by providing weapons to Hezbollah & the Palestinians. This is still going on. More than ever according to reports. Iran has also gained power within Iraq which they did not have while Saddam was in power. Iran has long-range missile capability which has not changed. And they continue to work on their nukes undeterred by US presence. I guess it's possible that Iran would have attacked Israel directly if not for US presence there but I personally do not believe they would have.

Dora wrote:Something else... I'm a newbie here so I don't know you guys very well. But if I had to guess, I would guess most of you vote Republican & voted for Bush. If you oppose this war for Israel, why did you vote for Bush? And if you did, why blame Israel for the policy of your guy?

Dora, I don't blame Israel for (really) anything. I just understand AIPAC and the "guilt."

I voted for Dubya twice. Loved those decisions and NOT just because I am anti-abortion. I am thrilled Saddam is dead and gone (as I'm sure you are) and Iraq is a much better place (for everyone.) Moreover, I hated TARP (hated it, hated it, hated it.) I cheered when my own GOP Congressional party members voted it down the first time and cursed them when they approved an even larger TARP the second time. What were they thinking???? Now (looking back, three years later) it appears that pretty much every bank will have repaid every cent of those TARP funds (plus interest) to the US taxpayer making this policy (a Bush policy that I hated) one of the best policies of the Bush Administration.

That is another reason why I vote GOP. Their leaders often see the big picture even if everyone else doesn't. It is also part of the "wisdom comes with age" thing. Remember what Winston Churchill said: "anyone under 21 who is a conservative has no soul.... anyone over 30 who is still a liberal has no brain."

he should have said "and anyone over 35 that trusts their government is a fool"

Dora wrote:

to say that a major US military presence has not had any effect of reining in any dirty tricks that Iran possibly had in mind seems very unlikely...

I'm basing my opinion on what I'm seeing. Iran has historically attacked Israel via proxy by providing weapons to Hezbollah & the Palestinians. This is still going on. More than ever according to reports. Iran has also gained power within Iraq which they did not have while Saddam was in power.

As long as there is one US GI garrisoned in Iraq, Iran will not do anything to anyone (directly.) This is what happens with a $600,000,000,000 modern military.

If anyone cares: I claim affiliation with neither the Demo-Craps nor the Republi-Cons. I can't stand either party as they are all hypocrites and professional liars. Normally, I vote for the Craps because their lies are more appealing to me - at least they pretend to be on my side. The Cons philosophical elitism is nauseating to me. Despite their claims to Christian values, their principle ethic seems to be "We're OK, screw you."

I understand the Craps. They mean well, but their egos and self-interest keeps getting in the way of the "progress" they desire.

The Cons are an enigma to me. They are either the most ignorant, ill informed people on earth, or they are the most selfish and by far the most clever. I'm still trying to figure out which.

As long as there is one US GI garrisoned in Iraq, Iran will not do anything to anyone (directly.)

They didn't do anything directly before the Iraq invasion either.

Dora wrote:

As long as there is one US GI garrisoned in Iraq, Iran will not do anything to anyone (directly.)

They didn't do anything directly before the Iraq invasion either.

Yes they did. They fought an 8 year war with Iraq.

Yea, but Saddam started that war.

I wonder what will happen if the Mullahs get control of Egypt and/or Syria? On the surface, it seems like that would be a nightmare for the Jews, but the different Muslim groups hate each other almost as much as they hate Jews.

[youtube]CMNry4PE93Y[/youtube]

http://tosh.comedycentral.com/segments/ ... urtles-kid

Red Bird wrote:Yea, but Saddam started that war.

I wonder what will happen if the Mullahs get control of Egypt and/or Syria? On the surface, it seems like that would be a nightmare for the Jews, but the different Muslim groups hate each other almost as much as they hate Jews.

We are at the precipice of understanding. That is (at its core) is Islam (as the majority religion) and a Representative Democracy, mutually exclusive?

We are at the precipice of understanding. That is (at its core) is Islam (as the majority religion) and a Representative Democracy, mutually exclusive?

They way Osama Ben Laden interpreted scripture, they were. I have to admit though, that I'm basically ignorant of the beliefs of most Muslims. What little I do know is positively draconian, but so are many Jewish religious scriptures - an eye for an eye, stoning people for adultery, etc. etc. Again, at least according to what little I know about Jewish teachings, which mostly comes from the parts borrowed by Christians - Moses, Danial, King Solomon, the ten commandments, honor thy mother and father. . .