Post by HHWPost by HHWPost by Count 1Post by jgarbuzhttp://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31...
A Washington insider, former aid to Colon Powell, gives the most
candid assessment of the present crisis I've yet heard. If you
want
to
deepen your understanding of what's going on for the US in the Middle
East, don't miss this.<>
Does this mean that Israel has to wait for Iran to hit it with an
atomic bomb, and does Israel need US permission to wipe out the
Iranian nuclear threat on its own?
I listened to the interview. Standard stuff, express the obvious and impress
the less intellectually capable.
There was a lot of "expressing of the obvious". I'll allow you that.
I can see why Hunter said 'most penetrating
Post by Count 1interview', it was neither penetrating nor illuminating. Interestingly
enough he did say he believed the majority of Israelis would not support a
strike by anyone against Iran and would even accept a civilian controlled
nuclear energy program in Iran. Hardly supports Hunter's standard refrain
of Israelis as a pack of blood hungry wolves looking to hit Iran using any
pretext, or ally, possible.
***
Yes, he did say that. Apparently the concern is that public opinion
doesn't determine Israeli policies. You should be familiar with the
syndrome. It doesn't here in the States either. You argue for America
to attack Iran so that Israelis don't have to watch frightening
banners during televised Iranian military parades.
***
Nope. I asked you at what point will people like you allow Israel to respond
to this aggression.
You didn't answer.
***
Then I'll answer it right here. I never have the least difficulty
answering you.
***
Interesting claim to make considering your tacit admission that you have.
***
In the first place a banner and warlike talk are not aggression though
they may be sanctionable by the U.N. They are forms of belligerent
speech. If your questions were competently drafted you might get more
answers.
***
I think you're splitting hairs, but you do realize that it's perfectly
rational for Israelis to consider such behaviour threatening.
Of course it is threatening. The problem is that the Israeli
leadership have created the situation themselves. They have
perpetrated a 40 year illegal and extremely brutal occupation of
another people's country. That is what has engendered the belligerent
speech. Why should it surprise you? And why do you suppose you can
convince us to focus on a symptom, i.e., certain forms of
communication, when you refuse even to discuss the cause?
I could have
Post by HHWadded supplying arms to Hamas on the list of 'aggression', but I think you
get the point.
Israel sells weapons all over the world. Do her leaders lie awake at
night imagining the misery they will inevitably cause? Has ISRAEL
committed acts of aggression by doing so? Maybe you should express
yourself in musical notation, Richard. The more narrow ambit might
assist in achieving precision.
At this point I'm pasting my post back in here. We know how easily you
are embarrassed and how often you flee from what I say. But there are
times when it needs to be faced:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
HHW:
Then I'll answer it right here. I never have the least difficulty
answering you, Ratner.
In the first place a banner and warlike talk are not aggression
though
they may be sanctionable by the U.N. They are forms of belligerent
speech. If your questions were competently drafted you might get more
answers.
I denounce any American role in or responsibility for Israel's
"response," i.e., Israel's bombing of Iran. I say, from here forward
Israel is on her own. American support for Israel (read indirect
support for her crimes) simply emboldens the country's criminal
leadership. They commit more and worse crimes when shielded by
America. They've admitted that "they need our help" to attack Iran.
They are whining incessantly about it. It's simple, just don't give
it
to them. They won't attack alone. And they will see the handwriting
on
the wall as to compromise with the Arab and Muslim World. The refusal
to help Israel commit a crime, the refusal to be an active,
complicit,
coconspirator, is by no means a failure to "allow her" to do
anything.
She's a sovereign nation. Let her indulge any criminal stupidity her
leadership dreams up. Just get us separated from it.
Once we've regained a decent global reputation we might even be in a
position to join the civilized world in sanctioning Israel so as to
more speedily change her criminal ways.
Then I'll answer it right here. I never have the least difficulty
answering you, Ratner.
In the first place a banner and warlike talk are not aggression
though
they may be sanctionable by the U.N. They are forms of belligerent
speech. If your questions were competently drafted you might get more
answers.
---------------------------------------------------------------
She's a sovereign nation. Let her indulge any criminal stupidity her
leadership dreams up. Just get us separated from it.
Once we've regained a decent global reputation we might even be in a
position to join the civilized world in sanctioning Israel so as to
more speedily change her criminal ways.
I denounce any American role in or responsibility for Israel's
"response," i.e., Israel's bombing of Iran. I say, from here forward
Israel is on her own. American support for Israel (read indirect
support for her crimes) simply emboldens the country's criminal
leadership. They commit more and worse crimes when shielded by
America. They've admitted that "they need our help" to attack Iran.
They are whining incessantly about it. It's simple, just don't give
it
to them. They won't attack alone. And they will see the handwriting
on
the wall as to compromise with the Arab and Muslim World. The refusal
to help Israel commit a crime, the refusal to be an active,
complicit,
coconspirator, is by no means a failure to "allow her" to do
anything.
Post by HHW***
She's a sovereign nation. Let her indulge any criminal stupidity her
leadership dreams up. Just get us separated from it.
***
After reading your rant I guess this is as close to an answer as you'll get.
Basically your bias against Israel is so strong anything she does in defence
or response to such aggression is characterized as 'criminal stupidity'.
But something tells me if she did engage in any 'criminal stupidity' like a
tactical strike against Iranian enrichment facilities similar to her strike
against Osirak, you wouldn't be giving her a pass based on her soveriegnty.