Do you think Israel is strategizing with US for attack on Iran ?

[kentuck]

This has nothing to do with the Palestine issue. However, do you think Israel feels as threatened by Iran as they were by Iraq? Do you think they are coordinating their strategy with Bush and Condi, etc for an imminent attack upon the "nuclear" facilities in Iran? Is this paranoia or a real threat? What do you think?

[Skidmore]

1. When is Israel not strategizing for war?

When is the * junta not strategizing for war?

[acmavm]

2. I think Israel has a LOT to do with the big push against Iran. And Syria

for that matter. They see the way the wind is blowing with the American people and they know that they need to get the job done soon. And thier friends and co-collaborators in the bush** adminstration are happy to oblige.

[EST]

3. Yes

[movonne]

12. YES, YES!!!!

[Just-plain-Kathy]

4. I sure do!

Just look at the bout Isreal had with Hezbolah this past summer, it was Bush who told Isreal to wait until Hezbolah made a move and then pounce.

Who starts a war over two missing soldiers?

[WiseButAngrySara]

10. How could I forget it! My first time ever posting in I/P

forum, and my last. Finally found out why it's referred to as the dungeon.

[KarenS]

5. yes,,,, I think the government in Israel is strategizing with the

US government.

[babylonsister]

6. Absolutely. nt

[bonito]

7. It;s the neocon agenda

Iran needs to start talking, negotiating through a east meets west nation real soon.

[blues90]

8. I have been thinking about ground troops

Doesn't Israel have a good number of ground troops ? This is one question I have when the talk comes up about not having enough ground troops to attack Iran .

[Name removed]

9. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WiseButAngrySara]

13. Absolutely no doubt about it. ....n/t

[TahitiNut]

14. Through middlemen/brokers ... yes.

:shrug: The AIPAC/et.al. 'lobby' must have a lot of frequent flyer miles at this point.

[illinoisprogressive]

15. yep!

[leftchick]

16. that is why condi is in Israel today

it has nothing to do with "peace". There is no money to be made in peace.

[kentuck]

17. If everyone thinks so, then why is the media so silent ??

Do they think if they don't say anything, no one will notice?? I think the truth would be helpful before we get into a much bigger mess...

[scarletwoman]

20. Because the Ruling Class WANTS a "bigger mess". The media is part of the Ruling Class.

And so are the bigshot Dems.

sw

[scarletwoman]

18. Yes, and with Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt. But especially the Saudis.

They are key. Jordan and Egypt would never go against Saudi Arabia.

sw

[Emit]

19. Just minutes ago Pat Buchanan on McLaughlin mentioned this

and then he said in the same breath that the Dems won't do a thing about it but will go along -- because they can't stand in opposition to AIPAC. For as much as I can't stand his politics, he remains steadfast on speaking out on the topic -- and, yes, I know, he gets called to the carpet all the time for it.

And, earlier today, this article was sent my way:

The Democrats are silent as the Bush regime prepares for war against Iran ...

~~snip~~

They would no doubt have the backing of Ariel Sharon sycophant Hillary Clinton and the House Democrats who all but unanimously voted for a resolution supporting Israel’s most recent war crimes in the devastation of Lebanon. Only eight Democrats could be found to oppose it. With respect to Iran, one House member told Seymour Hersh, "There’s no pressure from Congress" to avoid military action. "The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it." The coming war is an imperative of Empire, not just Republican extremism or the compulsion of Christian fascists courting Armageddon.

In fact, an attack on Iran is straight out of the Democrat’s playbook. Stephen Zunes, Middle East Editor for Foreign Policy in Focus, remarked on the Democratic Party’s 2004 platform:

One possible target for American forces under a Kerry administration is Iran. The platform implies an American right to such military intervention by stating that "a nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to us and our allies." No concern is expressed, however, about the already-existing nuclear arsenals of Iran’s neighbor Pakistan or of nearby Israel. Iran has called for a nuclear-free zone in the region, which the Democrats appear to reject, apparently because it would require America’s regional allies to get rid of their nuclear arsenals as well. The Democrats, like the Republicans, believe that instead of pushing for multilateral and verifiable arms control treaties, the United States can effectively impose a kind of nuclear apartheid, unilaterally determining which countries can have nuclear weapons and which countries cannot.

Get that: Iran has called for a nuclear free Middle East and the Democrats and Republicans alike have rejected that call.
From Lieberman to Obama to Clinton to Kerry to Harman to Bayh to Dean, the story is the same. Robert Dreyfuss writes that "just as the Democrats meekly got in line to support the invasion of Iraq, many (perhaps most) elected Democrats are demanding a confrontation with Iran, too. Some, such as Hillary Clinton, are even trying to out-Bush the president in demanding a showdown with Iran."

The Democrat’s position paper on "defense," "Real Security: Protecting America and Restoring Our Leadership in the World", says Democrats will "roll back the nuclear threats of Iran and North Korea." The document, gangster style, literally states that Democrats in power would make "an offer Iran cannot refuse" adding, "Iran should understand the existential threat of military response…"

~~snip~~

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SAN20070113&articleId=4440

[bluewave]

21. Time to pass a foreign lobbying reform act

No lobbying on behalf of foreign powers. Including Israel, China, Mexico, etc.

[kentuck]

22. Oh, for fuck's sake!

You people grow some balls!

[Emit]

23. I knew it was just a matter of time before this thread was relegated

to the dungeon...

[scarletwoman]

24. No talking about Israel in front of the kiddies, I guess.

This just gets more and more ridiculous.

When a giant nuclear fireball erupts over the Middle East, will it still be impolitic to question whether Israel might have played some part in the events leading up to it?

sw

[kentuck]

25. You ask a good question scarletwoman...

This post was not about Palestine. It was about US/Israel collusion to maybe start another war. We need to be able to differentiate and not be so trigger happy because it might be too "controversial". Not everybody who criticizes Israel is an anti-Semite. Let's just bury our heads in the sand and maybe it will go away?

[scarletwoman]

26. *sigh* I can't add anything to what you've said -- not without getting deleted, I'm sure.

I sincerely believe that restricting our ability to thoroughly examine EVERY factor in the big picture of what's going on in the most crucial and dangerous geo-political upheaval going on in our world and our lifetimes is in itself very dangerous and reckless.

It has pained me greatly for a long time now, especially since last summer's attack on Lebanon.

Maybe we just have to wait for things to get really really worse, maybe then we'll be free to open up the discussion all the way.

Peace,
sw

[KoKo]

27. Yes...all the signs are there that they are going to try to re-sell the "terra"

with the reports of Iran supplying the money for the IED's and Suicide Bombers. I expect to see photos of "made in Iran" on CNN in the coming weeks on any scraps of metal they can find. They might even be able to find an Iraqi who will report that he was paid by Iran to blow himself up but couldn't do it at the last minute.

First they will try to take out al Sadr, though. And that will be tricky. But, then on to Iran. They have to "save face" and so does Israel after what happened in Lebanon this Summer. :-(

[Lithos]

28. Locking per I/P guidelines

Not based on a recent news or op-ed article.

Lithos
DU Moderator