President Obama's AIPAC speech: Obama prefers diplomacy to force on Iran

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"President Barack Obama said Sunday that United States will not hesitate to attack Iran with military force to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon, but he cautioned that "too much loose talk of war" recently has only helped Tehran and driven up the price of oil.

Obama appealed to Israel for more time to let sanctions further isolate Iran. He sought to halt a drumbeat to war with Iran and hold off a unilateral Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

"For the sake of Israel's security, America's security and the peace and security of the world, now is not the time for bluster," Obama told thousands at the annual American-Israel Public Affairs Committee's policy conference. "Now is the time to let our increased pressure sink in, and to sustain the broad international coalition that we have built."

Quoting Theodore Roosevelt, Obama said he would "speak softly, but carry a big stick" - and warned Iran not to test U.S. resolve.

Obama's widely anticipated speech came one day before he meets at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who planned to address AIPAC late Monday. Three GOP presidential candidates - Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich - were scheduled to speak to the conference via satellite on Tuesday, a critical day in the campaign when 10 states vote."

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/03/president-obama-s-aipac-speech-obama-prefers-diplomacy-to-force-on-iran-73353.html


TEXT: Obama's remarks to AIPAC

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/text-obamas-remarks-aipac/408866

[King_David]

1. Most important line being :

""President Barack Obama said Sunday that United States will not hesitate to attack Iran with military force to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon, "

[azurnoir]

2. so in the event of war who's army will you be joining?

America's? IDF? or do you as we have seen 'others' claim in past have more important things to do? but I'm sure you will at least be willing to cheer it on, right?

[shira]

3. There won't be a war unless Iran starts it. n/t

[azurnoir]

4. and how should Iran 'starting a war" be interpreted?

does mean no war unless Iran actually physically fires the first shot? or does it mean something else?

[shira]

11. The way that starting wars has always been interpreted. No games. n/t

[shaayecanaan]

5. Sarge, I'm only eighteen, I got a ruptured spleen...

and I always carry a purse
I got eyes like a bat, and my feet are flat, and my asthma's getting worse
So I wish you well, Sarge, give 'em Hell!
Kill me a thousand or so
And if you ever get a war without blood and gore
I'll be the first to go

[jimmie]

6. That WAS true during the VN war....

its alot different when a nuke is being threatened to be dropped on your country.

Or should israel just trust Am-a-nut-job and wait for the nuke to hit and only then respond.

[azurnoir]

9. and Iran has directly threatened to nuke Israel?

or have statements been made by Iran that are loosely interpreted as supposedly maybe might meaning that?

[azurnoir]

10. Lol I think 'someones' already enlisted for that last war the one without blood and gore

perhaps looking to make officer or something

[King_David]

7. I am not American,why would I join that army ? nt

[azurnoir]

8. I did not just ask about the US as I am aware you are not American I asked about IDF too

but your not Israeli either I take it, your answer will suffice

[Scurrilous]

12. In front-page editorial, Pro-Netanyahu paper supports attack on Iran

Amos Regev, the editor of Israel Hayom: “[An attack on Iran] would be difficult. It would be daring. But it’s possible.”

<snip>

"In an uncommon front-page, top-headline piece, Amos Regev, the editor of daily Israel Hayom, discusses the decision regarding an Israel military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Regev, a member of Binyamin Netanyahu’s inner circle between his two terms as Prime Minister, attacks those speaking against the war, and concludes that “Yes, it’s possible to attack – and to succeed.”

Israel Hayom, launched in 2007 by international casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson, is known for its deep commitment to supporting Prime Minister Netanyahu. The paper – now the most widely read daily in Israel – is distributed for free; lately, it was revealed the paper’s senior political analyst is also employed for advising and speech writing at the Prime Minister Office.

On major issues, Israel Hayom has always reflected the personal position of Prime Minister Netanyahu. Regev’s long piece – more than 1600 words - featured on the paper’s front page Thursday, titled: “don’t be cocky and don’t be afraid.” It opens with a critique of those expecting the United States to solve the Iranian problem for Israel."

<snip>

"The bottom line comes towards the end (my translation):

t would be very convenient for all of us if the Iranian crisis just disappears with the wave of a magic wand. But the problem is not going anywhere and is only getting worse each day. That is why we must solve it. And we can solve it. Some people say an attack on Iran will “set the Middle East ablaze.” Others say an attack on Iran would shock the Middle East, but after an initial spike in oil prices, will not trigger a dramatic change. It would simply solve the problem, they say, just as the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear plant destroyed Iraq’s nuclear program once and for all. If it took Iran 20 years to get to where they are today in their nuclear program, who is to say that they will recover from a military strike in a year or two?

The final paragraph states again: “With or without the Americans, it (an attack on Iran) would be difficult. It would be daring. But it’s possible.”

http://972mag.com/in-front-page-editorial-pro-netanyahu-paper-supports-attack-on-iran/38027/