Any Freepers have a problem with this?
Right on, President Bush!
I back President Bush 1000-percent on his support of Israel, the same amount as I reject his suicidal (open the immigration floodgates) plan to turn America into Mexico North.
Good.
although I don't think this was in much doubt though.
We must remember that ANY attack on or in Israel will have a perverse effect on our OWN troops in the region.
And generally, any attacked LAUNCHED by Iran will have to go over the same troops.
You support your allies and friends, especially in that region.
In the event of a nuclear attack on Israel by Iran, it will be too fricking late to come to Israel's aid. Whatever the US and Israel are planning on doing, they'd better do soon.
I think those advocating a pre-emptive attack on Iran are moving in the right direction, but don't go far enough with their piece-meal approach. I say go pre-emptive all the way: simultaneous nuclear first strikes on Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, and Venezuela. Nothing else has the capability of unifying all of us behind the President like a just war. No one will dare criticize President Bush once we're fully involved in war with every single nation on the planet that poses a threat to our security. It'll make us forget all this divisive immigration debate too, and help our party hang on to Congress this November. A "win-win" scenario, in other words.
No.
I'm thinking, give us an excuse, Mahmoud. Give us an excuse...
I am not a Bush-bot, but I will fully support the President on this one.
I don't have a problem with the concept, but I do have a problem with President Bush making such a statement. He is effectively making a treaty without Senate concurrence, or else he is giving Israel nothing more than a two year commitment at best. I say "at best," because I'm old fashioned enough to think that Congress should have some say regarding the use of the United States Armed Forces.
Just because the Democrats routinely circumvent the Constitution, it doesn't mean the Constitution is obsolete.
ML/NJ
---------------------------
In my view the only reason for statements like this is to dissuade Israel from acting against what is clearly a threat to her existance.
I'm afraid it's reactionary. In the event of any attack on Israel (from Iran) there probably won't be much of it left to aid.
Israel is probably going to have to pre-emptively protect itself against Iran. Are we going to slap their wrist again like we did concerning Iraq in 1981?
I hope not.
100% support, no problem with it.
So Iran, are you listening?
Wow long thread so this may already be asked and answered but,
what is the context here? Iranian missile attack, or any large scale attack? Because Israel is attacked every day. What if Hezbullah unleashes 10,000 rockets on Israel...will the US intervene?
Missing some context, here. Is the US volunteering to occupy the areas that Israel withdraws from after disengagement?
That would be a No!
I've no problem whatsoever with the commitment my President has made to the caretakers of the Holy Land.