Reuters AlertNet – Netanyahu adviser raises “MAD” nuclear scenario
Source: Reuters
JERUSALEM, July 9 (Reuters) – Israel must have “tremendously powerful” weapons to deter a nuclear attack or destroy an enemy that dares to launch an atomic strike, a senior adviser to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was quoted on Thursday as saying. Read more »
Iran – truly a crisis for democracy?
First, let me say I am saddened by the treatment we see on TV of the Iranian people, and the farcical appearance of their voting process.
But at the same time – we can’t forget Obamagate, as I call it. [the gate to free enterprise is slowly closing, once closed, be nigh impossible to open].
“It’s time we asked ourselves if we still know the freedoms intended for us by the Founding Fathers. James Madison said, “We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self government.” -Ronald Reagan.
That being said, should we not strive to keep things in perspective- what is the real issue in Iran? Are we indignant over the results or the treatment of the people?
Religious beliefs in a Iran (The Republic of Islam) have a fundamental role in their elections or democracy, the state religion is the only allowed participant and standard. They are a theocracy, not a democracy – I.e. their democracy, “capacity of mankind for self government”, is restricted by their supreme religion. They elect people (Islam only) to carry out their government administration, subject to the religious beliefs and objectives of their religion, Islam and the ultimate authority: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Despite our enthusiasm, Mousavi/Karroubi are not advocating an overthrow of that form of government.
In the final analysis, whomever wins in Iran – the policies don’t change much, just the tactfulness of their execution. Mousavi wants us to see that destroying Israel is in the worlds best interest (the opposition) while Ahmadinejad doesn’t care whether we agree or disagree. Same policy and same intent, only different set of players. I almost think I prefer Ahmadinejad since I know where he is coming from – doesn’t believe in the holocaust, thinks U.S. is the great Satan, wants us out of Iraq – and for that matter wants us out of all of middle east.
Mousavi/Karroubi aren’t much different, we are still a sinful and satanic country and should leave the middle east, Israel must go, but willing to grant women some rights so they will support the growth of the “Republic of Islam” (Iran) throughout the Middle East. One plus, the free enterprise system has some place in their economic theory, where Ahmadinejad wants more government control (fascism) and Mousavi believes in a more socialistic approach to the economy. And, on one primary and important topic – none of the popular candidates advocated substantial change in Iran’s nuclear program or defense initiatives.
I didn’t write this to be an in-depth piece on the Iranian government, its social structure or cultural history – I only wanted to wake some people up to asking the right questions before becoming full time supporters of a theocratic society and government; that regardless of outcome – will still be opposed to the U.S. in principle and not an ally. Before being overly supportive, actually read and look at what the opposition platform is, and see what is the difference from the incumbent party.
Support that they are pursuing a democratic approach, but don’t think that makes you them an ally or a friend.
Middle East Strategy at Harvard
On June 4, U.S. President Barack Obama delivered a much-anticipated address to the world’s Muslims, from a podium at Cairo University.
The following MESH members responded to an invitation to comment on the speech: Michele Dunne, Bernard Heykal, Josef Joffe, Mark N. Katz, Mark T. Kimmitt, Martin Kramer, Walter Laqueur, Michael Mandelbaum, Michael Rubin, Harvey Sicherman, Philip Carl Salzman, Raymond Tanter, and Michael Young.
Update: More MESH members weigh in: Alan Dowty, Bruce Jentleson, and Michael Reynolds.
The End of America’s Strategic Alliance with Israel? – Caroline Glick – The Corner on National Review Online
The End of America’s Strategic Alliance with Israel? [Caroline Glick]
From an Israeli perspective, Pres. Barack Obama’s speech today in Cairo was deeply disturbing. Both rhetorically and programmatically, Obama’s speech was a renunciation of America’s strategic alliance with Israel.
Rhetorically, Obama’s sugar coated the pathologies of the Islamic world — from the tyranny that characterizes its regimes, to the misogyny, xenophobia, Jew hatred, and general intolerance that characterizes its societies. In so doing he made clear that his idea of pressing the restart button with the Islamic world involves erasing the moral distinctions between the Islamic world and the free world.
Obama: U.S. ‘not at war with Islam’ – CNN.com
Obama: The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God’s vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth.
Obama: U.S. ‘not at war with Islam’ – CNN.com.
And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given to him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.
Commentary: Does Obama want to change Israeli government? – CNN.com
Amazing we have a problem and it exists over a non-existent state, Palestine. The state never existed, was never called that, its an illusion that has created world wide conflict because Trans-Jordan, modern day Jordan, didn’t want to care for its own people 70 years ago. And, typical if an ill-informed public we have bought into this concept that somehow Jews moved to Israel and took over the land of Palestine from indigent people there. Sorry, folks, it never happened. Even if you go to the U.N. archives on census, jewish people were the majority in Israel, a part of Great Britain, at the time of partition – Not counting the so-called mass exodus the movie “Exodus” tried to portray. OK , getting off my soap box – the following is a considerate review of what is our government (President Obama) doing; and what is the policy?
President Obama has embarked on what could represent a radical departure in America’s Mideast policy, at least on settlements.
Having worked for Republican and Democratic administrations, I took it for granted that the current president and secretary of state would first try to invest in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu before publicly confronting him.
After all, even the toughest secretary of state, James Baker, who initially had no confidence in the hard-line Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, found common ground with him in an effort to pull off the Madrid Peace Conference in 1991.
Unlike his two immediate predecessors (Bill Clinton and George W. Bush), the president has decided to draw the line with Israel and push for a comprehensive freeze on settlements on the West Bank. The president seems unwilling to yield ground and to allow the Israelis any of the traditional loopholes that would have permitted some settlement construction. If the U.S.-Israeli brouhaha leads to a real confrontation, even the fall of the Netanyahu government, President Obama may not feel too bad about it.
via Commentary: Does Obama want to change Israeli government? – CNN.com.
Gibbs: Iranian missile test ‘obvious concern’ | Latest News | WFAA.com
Gibbs: Iranian missile test ‘obvious concern’ | Latest News | WFAA.com .
Just a concern? We might need to accelerate to a higher state of worry – if something doesn’t happen, Israel or some other mideast country is going to have to address the problem. The “concern” should that happen would be more consequences than we have now.
U.S. Officials Call Iran Missile Launch ‘Successful’ – Presidential Politics | Political News – FOXNews.com
U.S. source has confirmed Iran’s missile test and said the administration is studying the details of the launch.
-
Recent Comments
Cristi on Open Thread – The Reason… 
Dana on Open Thread – The Reason… 
zunedita373 on Comedian Wanda Sykes Draws Fir…
Netblog
