Just what we need, Mitt--another war.

[Shang]

Here he goes, right on schedule:

JERUSALEM — Mitt Romney would support a unilateral military strike by Israel against Iran to stop Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapon capability, a senior foreign policy adviser said Sunday.
The presumptive Republican nominee began a series of meetings with top Israeli officials here Sunday and plans to deliver a muscular defense of Israel in a formal speech delivered near Jerusalem’s Old City. Previewing the candidate’s remarks, adviser Dan Senor told reporters that Romney would back Israeli military action against Iran.
“It is an existential threat and we in the West partnering with Israel should do everything we can from stopping Iran from developing that weapons capability,” Senor said. “And if Israel has to take action on its own, in order to stop Iran from developing that capability, the governor would respect that decision.”
Senor also said Romney believes the option of a U.S. strike against Iran should be “on the table,” adding that the threat of military action could push the Iranians to stop enriching uranium.
Senor cautioned that Romney is not “advocating” for military action, but believes it should be an option.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...uHX_story.html


(By the way, what’s “an existential threat”? Is that when Kierkegaard becomes belligerent?)

[Willin']

Nothing personal, it's just good business.

[LeeG]

A threat to one's existence? The next question is he saying Iran is an existential threat to Israel or the US?
Hey, it's ok, it's not like an attack on Iran will have consequences. The world economy could handle another price spike in oil. No problem.

[Nicholas Scheuer]

Always looking out for No-1, it's the way those A-Holes do biz. Of course Israel is soaking it up like a SPONGE. Us having a Prez who suspects maybe (however many) million Muslims "can't all be wrong" is a problem for Israel.

[skuthorp]

The US needs a war of some sort to keep the MIC happy, the party donations coming and the populace distracted. It's been the rule since WW2.

[LeeG]

Is it common for presidential candidates to do fundraising in foreign countries? Closed door fundraising in Israel sure sends a hell of a message.

[Keith Wilson]

Sure, Mitt, go play with that gasoline next to the brush fire; what could go wrong? Anything that might get you a few more votes is justified.

[Canoeyawl]

Sure, Mitt, go play with that gasoline next to the brush fire; what could go wrong? Anything that might get you a few more votes is justified.

Perhaps, Anything that might get you a few more bucks is justified

[John Smith]

It is important to remember that Romney is supported and advised by many of those who supported and advised G.W. The Project for a New American Century came from this group.

they seem to dream of American world dominance. At the risk of getting heat from this, isn't that similar to what Hitler dreamed of?

I puzzle at the polls and wonder if that many people hold that much hatred for our sitting president and why. This man is gracious, intelligent, thoughtful and tends to think before opening his mouth. Contrary to what the Right would have you believe, he is a citizen, he went through school on student loans, and has a great deal of working knowledge on world affairs.

The Right, on the other hand, criticizes any decision he makes. Not because they disagree with it, but because HE made it, and their stated goal is his failure. Even when he succeeds, as in killing Bin Laden, they complain about how he did it, or say they'd have done the same thing.

[ccmanuals]

In terms of foreign policy I think Mitt is simply Bush 2.0.

[Nicholas Scheuer]

There are a few John, who simply don't like Obama because he's a politician from Illinois, the State where Governors often go to jail. They forget that Senators Adlai Stevenson and Paul Simon were from Illinois, not to mention A. Lincoln.

[Shang]

...they seem to dream of American world dominance. At the risk of getting heat from this, isn't that similar to what Hitler dreamed of?

Oh my GAWD! Mitt is about to invade POLAND!

[Gerarddm]

Neocons love the use of force, that's all they can understand? A nuanced foreign policy? Not so much.

I can imagine twits liKe John Bolton attaining high rank in a Romney admin, OMG.

[Nicholas Scheuer]

Well, it started with taking away "America" from the Native People, right through to the present with Bush's "Unilateral" excuses for diplomacy, and dreams of disenfranchizing the less fortunate among us who fail to elevate themselves out of poverty by their own bootstraps like worthwhile "Entreprenuers" who got there withthe aid of tax breaks and Federal Small Biz Loans.

[Arizona Bay]

Well, it started with taking away "America" from the Native People, right through to the present with Bush's "Unilateral" excuses for diplomacy, and dreams of disenfranchizing the less fortunate among us who fail to elevate themselves out of poverty by their own bootstraps like worthwhile "Entreprenuers" who got there withthe aid of tax breaks and Federal Small Biz Loans.

...and daddy's money

[David G]

Sure, Mitt, go play with that gasoline next to the brush fire; what could go wrong? Anything that might get you a few more votes is justified.

Exactly what I see. I have trouble believing that Romney is actually stupid enough to hold to that pronouncement should he ever find himself President of the U.S. (of course I consistently misunderestimated the stupidity of BushII - so what do I know)... but, meantime, he's galvanizing some support and money. Pandering Piece of Twit.

[Paul Girouard]

So the wise thing to say is ; "Israel , you are on your own, good luck!" is that the message the USA should send to the middle east?

[Arizona Bay]

So the wise thing to say is ; "Israel , you are on your own, good luck!" is that the message the USA should send to the middle east?

Neither candidate has said that.

[wardd]

So the wise thing to say is ; "Israel , you are on your own, good luck!" is that the message the USA should send to the middle east?

not to the middle east just to isreal

[BrianW]

Here he goes, right on schedule:

JERUSALEM — Mitt Romney...

...Senor also said Romney believes the option of a U.S. strike against Iran should be “on the table,” adding that the threat of military action could push the Iranians to stop enriching uranium.
Senor cautioned that Romney is not “advocating” for military action, but believes it should be an option.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...uHX_story.html

Sounds familiar...

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama warned Iran on Tuesday the United States would keep up pressure on its disputed nuclear program with "no options off the table" but said the door remained open to talks for a peaceful resolution.

In his State of the Union address, Obama said Tehran was isolated and facing "crippling" sanctions that he said would continue so long as the Islamic Republic keeps its back turned to the international community.
"America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal. But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations," he said.

I get the impression, you guys just don't like when someone other than Obama says it.

[wardd]

i don't recall obama saying in affect he'd back up isreal no matter what

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

So the wise thing to say is ; "Israel , you are on your own, good luck!" is that the message the USA should send to the middle east?

Wherever you got that from it was not from the lips of President Obama. He is acknowledged worldwide as a fairly adroit practicioner of diplomacy with a comprehensive knowledge of world affairs.
If your guy has any of the same abilities he has certainly kept them a secret from the run of the media except for Faux News.

[Norman Bernstein]

I get the impression, you guys just don't like when someone other than Obama says it.

What they said was not at all similar. Obama indeed said that no options would be off the table... but that's not the same thing as saying that, if Israel were to strike unilaterally, he'd 'respect' their decision. One statement is workable under the aegis of an international effort, and doesn't advocate a unilateral first strike.... the other statement is a blatant endorsement of a unilateral first strike.

The difference is called 'diplomacy'.

[John Smith]

I think all this stuff must be put in context. Obama is much more hesitant about using military force than is Romney.

They are both correct when they say the threat of such force may be what forces the diplomacy.

[hanleyclifford]

Here he goes, right on schedule:

JERUSALEM — Mitt Romney would support a unilateral military strike by Israel against Iran to stop Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapon capability, a senior foreign policy adviser said Sunday.
The presumptive Republican nominee began a series of meetings with top Israeli officials here Sunday and plans to deliver a muscular defense of Israel in a formal speech delivered near Jerusalem’s Old City. Previewing the candidate’s remarks, adviser Dan Senor told reporters that Romney would back Israeli military action against Iran.
“It is an existential threat and we in the West partnering with Israel should do everything we can from stopping Iran from developing that weapons capability,” Senor said. “And if Israel has to take action on its own, in order to stop Iran from developing that capability, the governor would respect that decision.”
Senor also said Romney believes the option of a U.S. strike against Iran should be “on the table,” adding that the threat of military action could push the Iranians to stop enriching uranium.
Senor cautioned that Romney is not “advocating” for military action, but believes it should be an option.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...uHX_story.html


(By the way, what’s “an existential threat”? Is that when Kierkegaard becomes belligerent?)

The article cited by the OP specifically says Mitt Romney stops short of supporting a unilateral strike against Iran. What a bunch of trolls have descended on this lame thread.

[Nicholas Scheuer]

The difference between Repub and Demo "diplomacy" is that the Repubs like the idea of "UNILATERAL". Don't take my word for it, just reread all of the foreign affairs reporting throughout the Bush years (BOTH of them).

Obama, and Clinton before him, with bargain, call it BI-lateral, or MULTI-lateral.

Mitt won't take his marbles and go home if he's not getting his way, he'll just toss a nuke at them in order to get his way. After all, America is the "greatest country that ever was, and noobdy else's opinion counts, right?"

[seanz]

Jingoism.


Tra-la-la fiddle-dee-dee.

[LeeG]

So the wise thing to say is ; "Israel , you are on your own, good luck!" is that the message the USA should send to the middle east?

That is a stupid thing you said.

[bobbys]

That is a stupid thing you said.

.

That is a rude thing you said..

Lee your above this trash talk...

[Keith Wilson]

So the wise thing to say is ; "Israel , you are on your own, good luck!" is that the message the USA should send to the middle east?

Something between that and "Go get 'em, boys, we got your back!" might be the wisest course, ya think? Mr. Romney really needs to learn when to emit nothing but genial-sounding platitudes.

[Tom Montgomery]

There is no acceptable unilateral military strike against Iran. A responsible U.S. Presidential candidate would make clear to Israel that Iran's nuclear ambitions and its consequences are a multi-national problem and any military strike will absolutely, without exception, require multi-national cooperation.

Keep in mind that Mitt and Bibi are personal friends.

[Glen Longino]

Exactly what I see. I have trouble believing that Romney is actually stupid enough to hold that that pronouncement should he ever find himself President of the U.S. (of course I consistently misunderestimated the stupidity of BushII - so what do I know)... but, meantime, he's galvanizing some support and money. Pandering Piece of Twit.

Shhh...the good thing about Romney is that for every Troglodytic voter he impresses with his brainless rhetoric, he alienates two(2)sane voters.
Thus, he is campaigning Against Himself!
How can we lose?

[Tom Montgomery]

Shhh...the good thing about Romney is that for every Troglodytic voter he impresses with his brainless rhetoric, he alienates two(2)sane voters.
Thus, he is campaigning Against Himself!
How can we lose?

By misunderestimating the number number of troglodytye voters.

[David G]

So the wise thing to say is ; "Israel , you are on your own, good luck!" is that the message the USA should send to the middle east?

Paul - taking what Romney said, then trying to create an unpalatable option that's close to opposite of it... then painting the situation as a choice between the two (without mentioning any of the wide range of other options that might be available) is...

A Logical Fallacy.

It's known as the False Dichotomy, and you'll find it listed here:http://theskepticsguide.org/resource...fallacies.aspx

[David G]

What they said was not at all similar. Obama indeed said that no options would be off the table... but that's not the same thing as saying that, if Israel were to strike unilaterally, he'd 'respect' their decision. One statement is workable under the aegis of an international effort, and doesn't advocate a unilateral first strike.... the other statement is a blatant endorsement of a unilateral first strike.

The difference is called 'diplomacy'.

Just so.

Brian - I think you're having to work WAY too hard at attempting to justify the idiocy that is going on these days in the Republican Party - as exemplified by the empty suit that is the current candidate. I feel badly for you, and want you to know that if you should come to your senses, and decide to support Obama this round... you will be welcomes with open arms <G> Seriously, you're too smart to be put in this position.

[Glen Longino]

Just so.

Brian - I think you're having to work WAY too hard at attempting to justify the idiocy that is going on these days in the Republican Party - as exemplified by the empty suit that is the current candidate. I feel badly for you, and want you to know that if you should come to your senses, and decide to support Obama this round... you will be welcomes with open arms <G> Seriously, you're too smart to be put in this position.

Dammit!
How kind and thoughtful you are, David!
I'm learning from you...I'll never call Brian a Troglodyte again, so help me God!

[bobbys]

Paul - taking what Romney said, then trying to create an unpalatable option that's close to opposite of it... then painting the situation as a choice between the two (without mentioning any of the wide range of other options that might be available) is...

A Logical Fallacy.

It's known as the False Dichotomy, and you'll find it listed here:http://theskepticsguide.org/resource...fallacies.aspx

..


And yet you somehow missed post 12 ....

>>>>Oh my GAWD! Mitt is about to invade POLAND! <<<

[Glen Longino]

..


And yet you somehow missed post 12 ....

>>>>Oh my GAWD! Mitt is about to invade POLAND! <<<

Ooooh...somebody get a rope!
Good lord, bobbys!

[David G]

bs,

And that is what's known - among the intelligensia - as a 'non-sequitor'.

[hanleyclifford]

..


And yet you somehow missed post 12 ....

>>>>Oh my GAWD! Mitt is about to invade POLAND! <<<

No, I believe the professor would call that "false equivalence", but in any event not relevant in an anti Romney rant.

[Glen Longino]

bs,

And that is what's known - among the intelligensia - as a 'non-sequitor'.

Who? Me or bobbys?
bobbys?
I figgered!

[bobbys]

What they said was not at all similar. Obama indeed said that no options would be off the table... but that's not the same thing as saying that, if Israel were to strike unilaterally, he'd 'respect' their decision. One statement is workable under the aegis of an international effort, and doesn't advocate a unilateral first strike.... the other statement is a blatant endorsement of a unilateral first strike.

The difference is called 'diplomacy'.

.

That is funny.

Here is Obama's "diplomacy".

By Adrian Blomfield in Jerusalem

2:52PM GMT 25 Mar 2010


The snub marked a fresh low in US-Israeli relations and appeared designed to show Mr Netanyahu how low his stock had fallen in Washington after he refused to back down in a row over Jewish construction in east Jerusalem.

The Israeli prime minister arrived at the White House on Tuesday evening brimming with confidence that the worst of the crisis in his country's relationship with the United States was over.

Over the previous two days, he had been feted by senior Republicans and greeted warmly by members of Congress. He had also received a standing ovation from the American Israel Public Affairs Affairs Committee, one of the most influential lobby groups in the United States.

But Mr Obama was less inclined to be so conciliatory. He immediately presented Mr Netanyahu with a list of 13 demands designed both to the end the feud with his administration and to build Palestinian confidence ahead of the resumption of peace talks. Key among those demands was a previously-made call to halt all new settlement construction in east Jerusalem.

When the Israeli prime minister stalled, Mr Obama rose from his seat declaring: "I'm going to the residential wing to have dinner with Michelle and the girls."

As he left, Mr Netanyahu was told to consider the error of his ways. "I'm still around," Mr Obama is quoted by Israel's Yediot Ahronot newspaper as having said. "Let me know if there is anything new."
For over an hour, Mr Netanyahu and his aides closeted themselves in the Roosevelt Room on the first floor of the White House to map out a response to the president's demands.
Although the two men then met again, at 8.20 pm, for a brief second meeting, it appeared that they failed to break the impasse. White House officials were quoted as saying that disagreements remained. Shimon Peres, the Israeli president, added: "Apparently they did not reach an understanding with the United States."
It was the second time this month that Mr Netanyahu has been at the receiving end of a US dinner-time snub.
A fortnight ago, Joe Biden the US vice president, arrived 90 minutes late for a dinner Mr Netanyahu hosted in Jerusalem after Israel announced plans to build 1,600 new homes in Ramat Shlomo, a Jewish settlement in the city's predominantly Arab east.
Erupting in fury, the United States described the decision to expand Ramat Shlomo as an "insult" that undermined Mr Biden's peace making efforts and demanded that it be reversed. Palestinians see east Jerusalem, captured by Israel during the 1967 Six Day War, as their future capital and regard any Jewish building there as a barrier to a peace settlement.
Mr Obama's mood further soured in the minutes before his meeting with Mr Netanyahu after it emerged that approval had been given for an even more contentious Jewish building project in the heart of one of east Jerusalem's Palestinian suburbs.
Sending a clear message of his displeasure, Mr Obama treated his guest to a series of slights. Photographs of the meeting were forbidden and an Israeli request to issue a joint-statement once it was over were turned down.
"There is no humiliation exercise that the Americans did not try on the prime minister and his entourage," Israel's Maariv newspaper reported. "Bibi received in the White House the treatment reserved for the president of Equatorial Guinea."

[pefjr]

Good one Shang, I couldn't have done better myself, even with a prefect throw with a cast net. Look at how many suckers you caught willing to go along with your theme. And everyone seemly ignorant of the "good war" that they willing went along with 4 yrs. ago swearing all along they would never vote for Obama again if he escalated the troop level again. My, what irony you have dug up. Excellent to outstanding Expose'.

[Glen Longino]

.

That is funny.

Here is Obama's "diplomacy".

By Adrian Blomfield in Jerusalem

2:52PM GMT 25 Mar 2010


The snub marked a fresh low in US-Israeli relations and appeared designed to show Mr Netanyahu how low his stock had fallen in Washington after he refused to back down in a row over Jewish construction in east Jerusalem.

The Israeli prime minister arrived at the White House on Tuesday evening brimming with confidence that the worst of the crisis in his country's relationship with the United States was over.

Over the previous two days, he had been feted by senior Republicans and greeted warmly by members of Congress. He had also received a standing ovation from the American Israel Public Affairs Affairs Committee, one of the most influential lobby groups in the United States.

But Mr Obama was less inclined to be so conciliatory. He immediately presented Mr Netanyahu with a list of 13 demands designed both to the end the feud with his administration and to build Palestinian confidence ahead of the resumption of peace talks. Key among those demands was a previously-made call to halt all new settlement construction in east Jerusalem.

When the Israeli prime minister stalled, Mr Obama rose from his seat declaring: "I'm going to the residential wing to have dinner with Michelle and the girls."




As he left, Mr Netanyahu was told to consider the error of his ways. "I'm still around," Mr Obama is quoted by Israel's Yediot Ahronot newspaper as having said. "Let me know if there is anything new."
For over an hour, Mr Netanyahu and his aides closeted themselves in the Roosevelt Room on the first floor of the White House to map out a response to the president's demands.
Although the two men then met again, at 8.20 pm, for a brief second meeting, it appeared that they failed to break the impasse. White House officials were quoted as saying that disagreements remained. Shimon Peres, the Israeli president, added: "Apparently they did not reach an understanding with the United States."
It was the second time this month that Mr Netanyahu has been at the receiving end of a US dinner-time snub.
A fortnight ago, Joe Biden the US vice president, arrived 90 minutes late for a dinner Mr Netanyahu hosted in Jerusalem after Israel announced plans to build 1,600 new homes in Ramat Shlomo, a Jewish settlement in the city's predominantly Arab east.
Erupting in fury, the United States described the decision to expand Ramat Shlomo as an "insult" that undermined Mr Biden's peace making efforts and demanded that it be reversed. Palestinians see east Jerusalem, captured by Israel during the 1967 Six Day War, as their future capital and regard any Jewish building there as a barrier to a peace settlement.
Mr Obama's mood further soured in the minutes before his meeting with Mr Netanyahu after it emerged that approval had been given for an even more contentious Jewish building project in the heart of one of east Jerusalem's Palestinian suburbs.
Sending a clear message of his displeasure, Mr Obama treated his guest to a series of slights. Photographs of the meeting were forbidden and an Israeli request to issue a joint-statement once it was over were turned down.
"There is no humiliation exercise that the Americans did not try on the prime minister and his entourage," Israel's Maariv newspaper reported. "Bibi received in the White House the treatment reserved for the president of Equatorial Guinea."

Do you have any idea how ridiculous you are when you try to be serious rather than ridiculous?
No?
I figgered!
Do us a favor and be consistently ridiculous...okay!

[LeeG]

.

That is a rude thing you said..

Lee your above this trash talk...

Now bobbys, I am not above cutting off stupid arguments. You are fond of dismissing others arguments by characterizing them as based on false logic with long c&p. I'm using fewer word but more accurately.

[2MeterTroll]

Yes!

So the wise thing to say is ; "Israel , you are on your own, good luck!" is that the message the USA should send to the middle east?

[skuthorp]

Israel has operated as it pleases safe in the knowledge that the world's policeman would come to their aid if they were actually threatened. It's time that they, and us and many other nations learned to look to their own laurels andspecifically for Israel to take responsibility for it's actions.
As an aside in every newsreel on the Israeli 'settlers' you find what seem to be American accents from what I presume are immigrants, but also presumably dual nationality holders. Means that the US Israel lobby is kept very strong and maybe also that if the s**t hits the fan they can run off home.

[hanleyclifford]

Israel has operated as it pleases safe in the knowledge that the world's policeman would come to their aid if they were actually threatened. It's time that they, and us and many other nations learned to look to their own laurels andspecifically for Israel to take responsibility for it's actions.
As an aside in every newsreel on the Israeli 'settlers' you find what seem to be American accents from what I presume are immigrants, but also presumably dual nationality holders. Means that the US Israel lobby is kept very strong and maybe also that if the s**t hits the fan they can run off home.

Have you ever cornered a wild animal that knows you want to kill it? The last time the "policeman" came to the Jews aid, they/ he let six million of them get slaughtered first. Israel lives ten minutes from total war near an enemy that has publicly called for it's destruction. Get real, Dude, and see the world from some one else's point of view.

[mikefrommontana]

It doesn't help that Israel, as currently constituted, is an artificial state. Were it not for the push to create a Jewish homeland following the Holocaust, Israel would not exist.

Because the prime function of Israel seems to be to serve as a homeland, the politics are driven by religion and will always seek to sustain themselves through religion. As long as that is the case, Israel will always be 10 minutes from annihilation.

Were Israel able to determine a way to become a secular state that is inclusive of the Palestinians, it would become a more organic state--but then would lose is specialness as a Jewish "homeland" and become just another (though very wealthy, connected, and innovative) Mid-East state.

Until Israel can make itself more organic, it will never be a sustainable state without a wealthy patron state (United States). It would behoove our politicians to push change, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

[hanleyclifford]

It doesn't help that Israel, as currently constituted, is an artificial state. Were it not for the push to create a Jewish homeland following the Holocaust, Israel would not exist.

Because the prime function of Israel seems to be to serve as a homeland, the politics are driven by religion and will always seek to sustain themselves through religion. As long as that is the case, Israel will always be 10 minutes from annihilation.

Were Israel able to determine a way to become a secular state that is inclusive of the Palestinians, it would become a more organic state--but then would lose is specialness as a Jewish "homeland" and become just another (though very wealthy, connected, and innovative) Mid-East state.

Until Israel can make itself more organic, it will never be a sustainable state without a wealthy patron state (United States). It would behoove our politicians to push change, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Interesting points here. I think at one time or another we were all "artificial" states, but be that as it may reality is what we see and deal with now. I would not use the term "religious" to describe the Jewish state; "cultural" is closer to the description. The Palestinians have made it clear that Israel has no right to exist. I agree with the part about not holding our breath.