Times Online: President Bush backs Israeli plan for strike on Iran
Submitted by jordie on Sun, 07/13/2008 - 23:32
"President George W Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official.
Despite the opposition of his own generals and widespread scepticism that America is ready to risk the military, political and economic consequences of an airborne strike on Iran, the president has given an “amber light” to an Israeli plan to attack Iran’s main nuclear sites with long-range bombing sorties, the official told The Sunday Times."
Check it out: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/arti...
»
Very
SAD....... :(
www.ronpaul2008.com
There is life at the end of the tunnel my friends!
***********Ron Paul for POTUS 2012***********
*************Obama Is A Communist!************
**********Repeal the 17th Amendment**********
Double the size of the House of Representatives
$$$$$$$$$AUDIT THE FEDERAL RESERVE$$$$$$$$$$
sick people
more war drums...
Website:
http://www.libertypoet.com/
Twitter:
http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
"How can we justify to the unemployed and underemployed in the United States the incredible cost of maintaining a global empire?" - Dr. Ron Paul
Big difference
There is a big difference between war drums and saber rattling. Israel is bluffing.
What do you think about the war on drugs?
How about Operation Wall Street?
Shout it today!
http://www.youshouts.com/index.php
could be
but having between 200~300 nukes Israel does not have to show weakness by bluffing...and remember they did attack Iraqi and Syrian installations in unexpected swift attacks in the past.
So they are confident.
Website:
http://www.libertypoet.com/
Twitter:
http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
"How can we justify to the unemployed and underemployed in the United States the incredible cost of maintaining a global empire?" - Dr. Ron Paul
Oh...they are confident
Yeah...they could do the tactical strike against Iran...no arguments here. I'm saying they won't because it isn't in their best interests at this time.
They hit Iraq and Syria completely by surprise...which is their MO. They're telegraphing their attack on Iran, which argues that they're bluffing because they have NEVER telegraphed an attack. So, the key word to your post is "unexpected".
It's certainly still on the table as far as they're concerned, but they will not do it in the near future.
What do you think about the war on drugs?
How about Operation Wall Street?
Shout it today!
http://www.youshouts.com/index.php
unexpected
for example during opening ceremonies of Olimpic games...?
you are right that at this moment an attack would kill western economies and that would hurt Israel too.
personally I think an attack would come only on the weekend when markets are closed.
Website:
http://www.libertypoet.com/
Twitter:
http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
"How can we justify to the unemployed and underemployed in the United States the incredible cost of maintaining a global empire?" - Dr. Ron Paul
No
It wouldn't make sense for them to strike now. The Iranians are likely more than a decade from creating a bomb...if ever and Israel has the intelligence in the reigon to know this.
Israel may be shady and every evil name you could hang on them, but one thing they've never been is stupid. They know a strike would be provocative and wouldn't be immediately necessary, so they won't.
They would be risking their ace in the hole asset...and that's the complete and blind backing from the US.
What do you think about the war on drugs?
How about Operation Wall Street?
Shout it today!
http://www.youshouts.com/index.php
Wow
What I don't understand is the caption under the photo, which states, "US officials acknowledge that no American president can afford to remain idle if Israel is threatened"
Why could we not afford it? Does our money supply come from Israel?
Is the heart of our country in Israel? That statement almost implies that if the little country of Israel is threatened, some how that would do damage to America.
I don't get it. Why could no American president afford to not get involved in the entanglements of other countries?
Does the Constitution say that we must defend all other countries, even though we have no control over what they do or the wars they incite?
We can't be responsible for other country's actions.
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
well put
agree with you 100%.....I, too, can NOT understand that statement: US officials acknowledge that no American president can afford to remain idle if Israel is threatened".......
we are not yet USREAL......America FIRST!!!
Actually, according to the
Actually, according to the caption, those are President Bush's own words too!
Our President is saying that we cannot afford to not get invovled.
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Double wow...
that is the very sentence that captured my attention, and I too asked myself Why? I don't get it, either....
Berwick, Columbia County, Pennsylvania
Ron Paul 2012 - The People's Choice
rEVOLution SuperPAC: http://www.revolutionpac.com/
WTP Federal Lawsuit to BAN ALL ELECTRONIC VOTING
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2011-07-26...
Uzi
Funny, the guy that wrote the article is named Uzi Mahnaimi -- Uzi is a very popular type of Israeli machine gun.
Ron Paul's Convention Speech