Jewish Politics

[Acumen]

I don't care if he joined the Church of Satan.

And you're not "most" of America.

Because he's a politician?

Interesting.  Where does McCain hang out in the homes of terrorists, buy property from criminals, and claim mentorship from racists and anti-Semites?  Perhaps the media missed this one.

Israel quite honestly doesn't rank all that high on my priorities of what the next president of the United States should be concerned with. This isn't Israel, I'm not Israeli, and I'm not voting for president of Israel or Prime Minister.

Well, Israel ranks quite high on my list as they do with other Americans.  They're a loyal ally to the U.S. and they've been battling for their lives since they were nationalized in the 1940's.

My primary concerns are that I do not want war with Iran

Neither do I, but exactly how is this avoidable?  Seriously.

[VLinvictus]

And you're not "most" of America.

And I thank God for that every day.

Interesting.  Where does McCain hang out in the homes of terrorists, buy property from criminals, and claim mentorship from racists and anti-Semites?  Perhaps the media missed this one.

It all depends on how we want to define those terms.

Well, Israel ranks quite high on my list as they do with other Americans.  They're a loyal ally to the U.S. and they've been battling for their lives since they were nationalized in the 1940's.

That's all very good, but the country Americans should be most concerned about is America.

I believe that any American who puts the welfare of any other country ahead of that of the United States is a traitor.

Neither do I, but exactly how is [war with Iran] avoidable?  Seriously.

Gee, I don't know: maybe by not starting one? Seriously.

If Iran were to attack us or one of our allies, then there would be justification for war. How we would have the manpower to wage such a war I do not know but will leave that to our generals to decide. Let us just hope no idiot decides it would be a good idea to reinstate the draft.

Until such a point is reached, there is no justification for attacking Iran. McCain has made enough bellicose statements in this regard to indicate that he sees no distinction in this matter, and that is frightening.

[Acumen]

Um, if Iran continues an active nuclear weapons development, I don't see much of a choice in the matter -- I don't care who is the leader. 

[VLinvictus]

Um, if Iran continues an active nuclear weapons development, I don't see much of a choice in the matter -- I don't care who is the leader. 

There's always a choice. Why would the Iranian development of nuclear weapons be a justification for us to go to war?

[river]

There was one pix of Acumen that I really liked.   He was a cute guy.  I thought it was him, but not sure.   I don't much care for the mean looking ones.

[bunsinspace]

Um, if Iran continues an active nuclear weapons development, I don't see much of a choice in the matter -- I don't care who is the leader. 

There's always a choice. Why would the Iranian development of nuclear weapons be a justification for us to go to war?

BS"D

I don't know.  But I would go to war because Iran under Amadmanforjihad has consistently threatened to "wipe Israel off the map."  I would go to war against any nation threatening the existence of another.  And if this nation decides on a course of war I am going to support it.  I did NOT support the declaration of the war with Iraq by V.P. Cheney's manipulation of intel to P. Bush.  I would have supported it had it been for people rather than oil.

[Akiva]

I agree with Buns.  While I do think that war should be the last option, if one state has repeatedly threatened to annihilate another state, and is developing the means to do so, then the former must be stopped at all costs.  Such intervention should take place for any state whose sovereignty is threatened by another.  The Iranian leadership has been extraordinarily foolish-- they have succeeded in pissing off not only the US and Israel, but a good portion of the international community as well. 

[VLinvictus]

If the "intervention" in Iran is true multinational effort -- not a lame-ass "coalition of the willing" made up primarily of fourth-rate countries and islands -- that would be a different story. I think even Israel alone is quite capable of adequately responding to any Iranian threat. If the Iranians really did want to "wipe Israel off the map" -- a phrase, btw, that was actually mistranslated but no matter -- I am confident that their major cities would likely be reduced to radioactive ash if they tried anything.

What I am 100% totally against is another unilateral US invasion like what we did with Iraq. Our own generals have complained that our military forces are spread to the limit and recruitments have consistently failed to meet quotas. I am concerned that the only way to properly wage a war against Iran will involve reinstating the draft -- it is too much to hope that this war, if it truly is inevitable, will wait until "victory" is achieved in Iraq and we can redeploy the forces we have committed there.

If my country were to be attacked, if our homeland directly threatened, I would take up arms to defend her. I have no interest whatsoever in being sent against my will to kill and die on the other side of the planet.

[WorldWarrior]

If we're going to use the "when one county threatens another" reason/excuse to go to war--we're going to be very very busy.

In Darfur.

In Chechnya.

In Indonesia.

In Israel--which is constantly threatening other countries.


Where oh where will we get all those soldiers needed to attack all those countries?

And I am sure I left some threatening countries out.



Btw--Ahmadinijad has very little power in his country. The president of Iran is little more than a figrurehead.

To attack Iran because of something Ahmadinijad says would be like attacking England because of something Queen Elizabeth says.

[Acumen]

Um, if Iran continues an active nuclear weapons development, I don't see much of a choice in the matter -- I don't care who is the leader. 

There's always a choice. Why would the Iranian development of nuclear weapons be a justification for us to go to war?

BS"D

I don't know.  But I would go to war because Iran under Amadmanforjihad has consistently threatened to "wipe Israel off the map."  I would go to war against any nation threatening the existence of another.  And if this nation decides on a course of war I am going to support it.  I did NOT support the declaration of the war with Iraq by V.P. Cheney's manipulation of intel to P. Bush.  I would have supported it had it been for people rather than oil.

Well, the manipulation of intel is a fairy tail propagated by the DNC, but that's a different matter.

I get a little frustrated when people post propaganda in tit for tat posting as if there is a game being played.  Iran is unlike many of the supposed national threats of the world, not just because of their weaponization program, but because of their backward ideology.  When nations are pursuing nuclear technology coupled with being actively involved in terrorism and threatening to wipe countries off the face of the earth, then they sort of warrant an attack for the purposes of self-preservation.  This is the way the world works. 

[WorldWarrior]

"Well, the manipulation of intel is a fairy tail propagated by the DNC, but that's a different matter"



It helps to read the report on the Iraq War "intelligence" that came out this past week to understand just who really wrote the book on skewing and ignoring intelligence.

[VLinvictus]

In Israel--which is constantly threatening other countries.

Such as?

[Clyde5001]

In Israel--which is constantly threatening other countries.[/quote]

Such as?

Exactly. Israel only responds to nations that threaten her or harbor NGOs that threaten her.

Then it's open season - as it would be for any country.

[Acumen]

"Well, the manipulation of intel is a fairy tail propagated by the DNC, but that's a different matter"



It helps to read the report on the Iraq War "intelligence" that came out this past week to understand just who really wrote the book on skewing and ignoring intelligence.

Have you read it?

[Akiva]

If we're going to use the "when one county threatens another" reason/excuse to go to war--we're going to be very very busy. 

If this is in response to my post, you have severely misquoted me.  My post read that "if one state repeatedly threatened to annihilate another state and is developing the means to do so, then the former must be stopped at all costs."  A "threat" is different than a "treat to annihilate", and you did not consider the factor that Iran is allegedly actively developing the means to carryout such an annihilation.  Furthermore, I did not claim that military power was necessary, only that the threatening nation be stopped "at all costs."  If this necessitates multi-lateral military force, so be it. 

In Darfur. 

A multi-national peacekeeping force could be installed in Sudan to insure that ethnic cleansing and genocide be halted in Sudan's Darfur region. 

In Chechnya. 

The Chechnyan matter is far more complicated; there is both a Russian and separatist government installed there.

In Indonesia. 

I am afraid that you will have to enlighten me as to what country is attempting to annihilate Indonesia. 

In Israel--which is constantly threatening other countries. 

You will also have to enlighten me as to which countries Israel has threatened.  It appears that Israel itself is usually on the side that is constantly threatened.

Where oh where will we get all those soldiers needed to attack all those countries? 

Such as Israel?

And I am sure I left some threatening countries out. 

Actually, you seem to be pretty confused as to whether you are presenting a list of "threatening" or "threatened" countries. 

Btw--Ahmadinijad has very little power in his country. The president of Iran is little more than a figrurehead. 
To attack Iran because of something Ahmadinijad says would be like attacking England because of something Queen Elizabeth says.

Somehow, I am unconvinced that the Ayatollah harbors a viewpoint much different from that of Ahmadinejad.  And as far as I know, Queen Elizabeth has not threatened to annihilate any sovereign nations lately.  I would think that if history has taught us anything, it is that extremists will keep their promises.

[Acumen]

Btw--Ahmadinijad has very little power in his country. The president of Iran is little more than a figrurehead. To attack Iran because of something Ahmadinijad says would be like attacking England because of something Queen Elizabeth says.

Well, where do I begin.  Ah, . . .  first, Ahmadinijad is the chief executor of the Guardian Council and the Iranian Parliament.  He is no mere figurehead, and he is certainly not comparable to Queen Lizo unless the dear Queen can directly fire diplomats and ministers while appointing loyal subjects positions in the government. 

Keep underestimating Islamic terrorism meanwhile defending a candidate that boasts of cutting our national defense and combat spending.

[WorldWarrior]

Akiva--hi. Sorry if my post was confusing. I've got some family matters going on that are taking precedence on time and thought these days--but I promise to return at some point and make my ideas more clear.



Acumen--The Iranian president has very little actual power. The Mullahs hold the power in Iran. If we don't recognize this and keep reacting to Ahmadinijad as though he spoke from a position of power we are going to find that the Bush administration has us embroiled in yet another hopeless thankless war.

[Acumen]

Acumen--The Iranian president has very little actual power. The Mullahs hold the power in Iran. If we don't recognize this and keep reacting to Ahmadinijad as though he spoke from a position of power we are going to find that the Bush administration has us embroiled in yet another hopeless thankless war.

And you would be wrong.  Ahmadinijad, like any U.S. president, is subject to checks and balances such as the Iranian Parliament (which he's been pissing off) and especially the Guardian Council (which he's been irritating with his big mouth).  Both of these groups, in an essentially two columned government, balance out Ahmadinijad.  However, to say that he's a mere figurehead displays an ignorance of the Iranian governmental structure.  If he's been pissing off his government, then why haven't they removed him?  The answer: because he has sufficient power to protect himself.

[WorldWarrior]

"The President of Iran is the highest elected official in the Islamic Republic of Iran, second only to the Supreme Leader of Iran. According to the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran the president is responsible for the "functions of the executive," such as signing treaties, agreements etc. with other countries and international organizations; the national planning and budget and state employment affairs; appointing ministers, governors, and ambassadors subject to the approval of the parliament.[1]



Unlike many other countries, in Iran

the president does not have control over

--foreign policy,

--the armed forces,

--nuclear policy, or

--the main economic policies of the Iranian state,

which are under the control of the Supreme Leader. "


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Iran


I only have time right now to post this source.  There are numerous sources with the same information.  Google came up with many.

[Acumen]

"The President of Iran is the highest elected official in the Islamic Republic of Iran, second only to the Supreme Leader of Iran. According to the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran the president is responsible for the "functions of the executive," such as signing treaties, agreements etc. with other countries and international organizations; the national planning and budget and state employment affairs; appointing ministers, governors, and ambassadors subject to the approval of the parliament.[1]



Unlike many other countries, in Iran

the president does not have control over

--foreign policy,

--the armed forces,

--nuclear policy, or

--the main economic policies of the Iranian state,

which are under the control of the Supreme Leader. "


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Iran


I only have time right now to post this source.  There are numerous sources with the same information.  Google came up with many.

Thanks for the source, but it doesn't support your claim that the Iranian president is a mere figurehead.  In fact, it contradicts it.  But I would be more than happy to preview any other sources that contradict your earlier claims.