Posted on 11/18/2011 6:28:57 PM PST by ColdOne
Answering in this thread since the other was blocked.
It is WAY past time we only protect our “vital Interests”.
Why doesn’t he warn Iran to leave Israel alone? It isn’t logical to expect Israel to wait until they are attacked.
Sorry, logic is irrelevant here...
Of course if they were doing the same thing to the US, I can imagine a few bunker busters in the plan...
Preventing Iran from getting nukes is a vital national security interest. Why else do you think that Obama is preventing Israel from acting and sabotaging our diplomacy, by taking an attack off the table?
Dont worry when the Super committee cuts the defense budget by 600 billion we wont be able to do anything to anybody,so Israel better Protect themselves ,they are not as Insane as our fearless Leaders.
Either God takes us out through our economic inaction and Israel acts on its own, or we end up being on the wrong side because of our current administration's and State Department's love affair with foreign oil.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
As I noted on earlier threads, there will also be economic consequences from a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran, as well as from a "non violent" dominence of a nuclear Iran in the region. Which will last until Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey have bombs. In which case either Israel or the Persions will have the Arabs as potential allies. Of the three options, I suspect the first, a preemptive strike, would probably be the least damaging economically, though that's not something an ally would expect Israel to make a decision impacting their very existance on. None of this will matter if the community organizer in chief talks the Iranians out of their nuclear program. If he can't, and if Israel decides to strike, threatening statements like Panetta's probably don't advance the cause of Israeli planning cooperation with or notification of the US.
I’m truly confused. Either the Hussein Obama administration doesn’t understand that the threat of force is necessary for negotiations to work, or they intentionally sabotaged said negotiations. I pray this was intended to set the stage for an American attack, because the alternative is the Panetta aid and abetting the Iranian program on purpose or out of monumental delusion.
I can’t see any reason for an intentional public statement like this other than to reassure Iran, or to both give the President political cover domestically should Israel strike. He warned them, not his fault, and to set the stage for future demands on Israel. Should the Iranian reaction be localized, retaliation from Lebanon and Gaza but no attempt to disrupt the oil markets, then he won’t need the cover, and can simply make demands of Israel.
All that matters is that they buy enough time to keep Obama in office. This brain dead public is too busy on Face Book, iphones and their ipads to know that this is even remotely happening.
Then after the election, Obama will cave into Iran and give them everything they want. Or else, Israel hits them on their own out of desperation before the election. But I doubt that will happen.
Iran is patient, they will postpone the announcement they have a nuke until after Obama is reelected. They know the importance of having him in office when they do. They could hit Israel at ant time and wipe most of the Jewish population off the map and the EU and Obama would do nothing; Other than Perhaps pay for the clean up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.