It was not a thin red line either.
In my humble opinion, Netanyahu ranks right up there with Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, and Margret Thatcher when it pertains to leadership and statesmanship.
There are some people in our country who could learn a thing or two from him.
It is interesting to compare his speech with the speeches from the Iranian leader - "Alqua-Velva Jihad" as Dennis Miller calls him, and the speech from our President.
Let's remember Israel is the strongest and biggest military in the North Africa region...right now.
Speaking of Iran, why do our leaders and media want to court a man who is responsible for detaining a group of Americans for 444 days back in 1979 and 1980? Have they forgotten?
Walkie, Churchill and Thatcher? Really?
Adulation of Netanyahu is a lot higher in the US than it is in Israel. And as to drawing a "red line", Roger Cohen points out in the Sept. 24th edition of the N.Y. Times that, " Netanyahu has talked himself into a corner on Iran. He has set so many “red lines” on the Iranian nuclear program nobody can remember them...His cry-wolf dilemma comes right out of a children’s book. It was in 1992 that he said Iran was three to five years from nuclear capacity." So, 20 years ago, Iran was as close to nuclear weapons as they are now! Not much progress.
And, to your final comment, there is no evidence Ahmadinijad was involved in the American Embassy takeover or the detention of the hostages. He was admittedly a member of the Islamic Association of Students, the group supposedly behind the takeover.
Netanyahu may want to draw his red line in the sand but white paper analyses indicated boming the Iranian facility might set back the program two years. (Remember, they were only three to five years away 20 years ago.) Netanyahu's efforts are to get us to deal with Iran for Israel. He wants the President to draw our own line in the sand and has attempted to circumvent him through Congress and has openly expressed his desire to have someone else to deal with.
If you want an informed opinion on military action, I suggest "Weighing the Costs and Benefits of Military Action in Iran".
Walkie’s historical comparison is valid, when the Brits were threatened with destruction they had Churchill to pull them through, under similar circumstances the Israelis have Netanyahu, who certainly has shown a Churchillian determination when it comes to the protection of his country... and don’t forget, he is fighting against the forces of genocide, not just for another term in office.
So, Bryant, what is your take on the nukes for Iran question, do you believe, as Obama apparently does, that Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons and he will then prevent their use by threats of mutual destruction as in the USSR cold war?
Or maybe you believe that the Iranians are just developing nuclear power for peaceful purposes?
Passin, I know as much about Iran's nuclear program as you do. Namely, what we read and what we hear. And, for the record, I have never heard nor has the President ever said, that Iran should have nuclear weapons. If you have a documented basis for your statement, I'd love to see it.
I do not know whether they are developing nuclear power for peaceful purposes although that would be reasonable. Then they could sell petroleum products to all of us western devils for good old cash.
And the Israelis are no more threatened with destruction than they were in 1967 or 1948. Actually, even less so, in view of the situation in Syria and the treaty with Egypt. Iran knows the Israeli's have nuclear weapons although the Israeli's decline to confirm. And, regardless of your opinion of the leadership of Iran, I do not think they are interested in a conflict of mutual destruction.
And, when the Brits were threatened with destruction, they had the United States, FDR, and the Lend Lease program to pull them through. I do not denigrate the accomplishments of Churchill but I do question the comparison with Netnyahu.
Israel can draw all of the lines it likes ,but it has no right to dictate our foreign policy or to force a pointless war upon us.
You both have a very catalystic view of the middle east. ahmadinejad does not speak for the Iranian people, he dictates. You both speak harsher words toward ower allies than to a tyrant. You both have no grown to stand on to speak against Israel a peace keeping nation. YOU ARE WRONG.
If we had used our bombs as we should have we would not have needed a draft. More Americans have been killed by diplomacy and bleeding hearts. Let the Tyrants of this worlds people suffer not us. Kill or be killed is at times a sad fact fly.
But know this fly. Kill or be killed is a fact for Isreal! A fact wich no heart can change. No matter how GREAT that hearts LOVE for humanity may be. Isreal fights to defend nothing more. The lesser of two evils was Gaddafi. The lesser or two evils was Mubarak. And yes we helped displace evil for greater evil.
What did the Brits have when they were threatened with distruction that Isreal does not have?
22, if Israel does not need the United States, why is Netanyahu so intent into cajoling us into drawing our own line in the sand vis a vis Iran and nuclear power? If Israel does not need the United States why has, " Israel ... received more direct aid from the United States since World War II than any other country...($100 billion since 1974)"? Source - Jewish Virtual Library (updated January 2012)
I never said Ahmadinejad spoke for the Iranian people. In fact, I think his most recent election was a sham. There is a rising younger, middle class in Iran which chafes under the religious autocrats. But an attack by Israel or the US or any combination of these could resurrect the strong nationalistic attitudes of the Iranians (kind of like the strong national feelings of Americans).
And, I'm curious 22, when you wrote, "If we had used our bombs as we should have we would not have needed a draft.", which bombs and conflicts are you referring to? Would we have not needed the draft in WW II? We certainly used a lot of boms then. Vietnam? Dropped even more then than in WW II.
And I don't understand the question in your last post.
To answer my own question the Brits had as you said The United States.
Isreal at this time does not have the United States.
And they should.
Yes if we had used our bombs as we should have we would not have needed the draft. What stopped WW2 two really big bombs!
The war in Vietnam could have been over in the blink of an eye. With the use of bombs. This is why Iran wants Nuclear power they know I'm right they know with a big ass bomb they can exterminate Isreal and so on. So cry me a river of knowledge tell me more of what youve lurned from history. And again I'll tell you, you are wrong.
Maybe Isreal is reaching out to the USA to stop a war. To maintain peace. To make sure such power as the nuclear bomb does not fall so easily into the hands of radicals and even worse religious radicals. I can not understand why Obama put off Isreal. My goodness what smugness what foolishness to sit on late night but not see to a meeting of epic emportance. And yet he has your support. That is the scariest part of all.
"Isreal at this time does not have the United States" - 22, your post, Sunday
What part of Israel receiving more direct US aid than any other country did you not understand?
I'm out - tired of trying to teach an elephant to type.
Did you know an elephant can pick delicate flowers with its trunk and never bruise a pedal?
If I give a man in a boat a gps a motor an anchor and a horn. Is that enough aid to justify not comeing to his aid when the boat begins to sink?