Robertson Advocates Israel Striking Iran Before The 2008 Election

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"On yesterday’s edition of The 700 Club, Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson sharply criticized the “moderate tone” the Bush administration has allegedly taken toward Iran and its nuclear weapons program. Robertson advocated that Israel look out for the “survival of its nation” and “make some kind of a strike” against Iranian nuclear facilities. He also predicted that it will likely happen before the 2008 elections:

But nevertheless, I think we can look in the next few months for Israel to make a strike — possibly before the next election — because I think George Bush — to use the term an “amber light” — he’s given the amber, the yellow light, saying, “Caution, but go ahead.”

<snip>

"Today, top McCain surrogate Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) is also talking to controversial Pastor John Hagee’s organization. In 2006, Hagee declared:

The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God’s plan for both Israel and the West… a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ.

Other members of the right wing have also been unifying around the idea of striking Iran before Bush leaves. Both John Bolton and Bill Kristol have made the same argument."

more


Lieberman praises pastor repudiated by McCain

<snip>

"One of John McCain's most prominent supporters on Tuesday praised an evangelical leader whom the Republican presidential candidate repudiated after a string of controversial remarks were made public.

Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent who frequently campaigns with McCain, said pastor John Hagee's support for Israel outweighed the remarks that led McCain to reject his endorsement.

Lieberman said he had been urged not to speak to Hagee's group, Christians United for Israel.

"The bond that I feel with Pastor Hagee and each and every one of you is much stronger than that, and so I am proud to stand with you tonight," Lieberman told several thousand members of the group, which urges U.S. support for Israel.

"I don't agree with everything that Pastor Hagee's done and said ... but there is so much more important than that that we agree on," Lieberman said."

more

[Hugabear]

1. Why doesn't he just volunteer his fucking ass and do it himself?

Why don't all these fucking chickenhawks take up arms and do it themselves? It pisses me off to hear these fucktards pushing death and destruction ever so casually.

[blue52power]

6. As nuts as he is

Robertson is probably going to turn out to be correct. Israel most likely will take out the nuke facilities. There is no way they can permit Iran to obtain a nuclear warhead to go with their ballistic missile capability. It's a matter of survival for them.

[Hugabear]

7. Got any proof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons?

Particularly when all indications are that they are NOT developing nukes? There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that Iran is doing so. The only ones pushing this "Iranian nuke" meme are the right-wing neocons who have been itching for an excuse to take out Iran for years.

And even *if* Iran were developing nukes, do you think that Israel should enjoy a monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region?

[blue52power]

8. Iran can't get nukes

"The only ones pushing this "Iranian nuke" meme are the right-wing neocons"

Really, like the right wing nuts in France? Obama stated today that the nuclear scenario would change everything in the Mideast and stated "all options are on the table" if they build nukes.

"who have been itching for an excuse to take out Iran for years."

There is no appetite to start any more war fronts since we shouldn't be in Iraq anyway. However, we are talking about Israel taking this military action, not the US.

"And even *if* Iran were developing nukes, do you think that Israel should enjoy a monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region?"

Yes, Israel is a tiny country with a small population surrounded by mortal enemies who dream of exterminating Israel not just in statements by nuts like the Iranian President, but in stated policy pronouncements by Iran and terrorist organizations such as Hezzbolha and Hamas among many others.

Israel has shown no inkling to conquer or colonize, only defend itself.

[Hugabear]

9. I'll ask you once again - show me some proof

Show me one ounce of proof that shows that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

As for Israel taking action, are you that fucking naive to believe that we wouldn't be involved somehow? In order for Israel to attack Iran, they would most certainly have to fly over Iraqi airspace, which the US now controls. I really don't think that either Turkey or Saudi Arabia is going to allow Israel to use its airspace. And once Israel were to attack Iran, how long do you think it would be before the United States were directly involved? We have hundreds of thousands of troops in the region that are sitting ducks for an Iranian response, which would be wholeheartedly justified.

[blue52power]

12. Understand the nuclear fuel cycle

The UN has guaranteed Iran nuclear fuel for any civillian nuclear energy sites. This would guarantee that Iran could not build a Nuclear weapon. Unforturnately, Iran is completing the nuclear fuel cycle, a product of which will by weapons grade plutonium and uranium.

Israel will take them out, probably within the next 4-8 months. The US will likely offer technological intelligence on location and air defenses. There is little the Iranians could do outside of launching some unguided missiles at Israel, which are really just terror grade type weapons. As far as the US, they will do nothing with the threat of US troops nearby and lots of carriers in the area. They send some more special operations forces inside Iraq and launch a few unguided missiles at US bases.

Are you fucking naieve enough to believe that Iran can be trusted with nuclear weapons?

[azurnoir]

13. Quite the crystal ball you have there

show us where Iran has been the aggressor in any war it has been in in the last millenarian.

[blue52power]

14. re:

Well since the Islamic Rep. of Iran has existed since 1979, there isn't much history. Your question is totally irrelevant. What is germane is the radical theocracy of Iran and the theology of radical Islam. What is specific is that they are attempting to build a nuclear weapon and their threats to give Israel yet another Holocaust.

[Hugabear]

15. What IS relevant is that you keep parroting these Neocon talking points

Since 1979, Iran has attacked NOBODY. However, since that time, the US and Israel have both attacked other countries.

Once again, Iran is well within its rights to pursue atomic power for peaceful means. They are in full accordance with all UN treaties regarding nuclear power. Hell, Israel still refuses to even sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

[blue52power]

22. What is germane is you keep parroting Islamic Iran talking pts

I didn't realize that theocracies and fundamentalist religion were in now.

But apparently they are worth your support lol.

Iran is a nutball wacko fundamentalist regime that supports terrorism throughout the world. They are run by a bunch of religionist mullahs who think it is ok to kill men for being gay and stone women to death for committing adultery.

[Hugabear]

24. Yes or no - should Iran be attacked?

Even though the IAEA has said that Iran is well within their rights to develop nuclear power, and even though there is NO evidence that they are developing nuclear weapons, you feel that Israel would be justified in launching a PREEMPTIVE attack?

Your logic sounds just like the fucking bullshit that we were being fed before the Iraq war. Let me guess, you were probably cheerleading for Bush when our tanks started rolling into Iraq.

Sorry, this is NOT about Iran's human rights record. We all know that it's fucking atrocious. But that alone does NOT justify attacking them. There are plenty of other countries around the world with even worse human rights records - should we just start attacking them all one by one?

[blue52power]

27. RE:

Yes. Israel should attack the nuclear facilities to defend their people. Obama said as much today, when he said all options are on the table.

Please don't compare the US going into Iraq on a personal Bush vendetta to the people of Israel who are within Iran's large ballistic and nuclear capable missiles. They have a right to defend themselves and they don't have the luxury of distance that we do.

[Hugabear]

36. So you favor preemptive military action

Good to know where you stand.

BTW, Obama NEVER said that Israel should attack Iran. You are LYING. But then again, we shouldn't expect any less from your type, should we?

[blue52power]

37. My last post to you

You have attacked me like a right wing zealot.

I'll just say wake up Pollyanna, Iran is a real threat that treat women like dogs and kill them like slaves. They castrate and hang gay men and stone women for adultery. We used to care about human rights in this Party. It's a shame. The 60s generation has been replaced with the "do anything to win" mantra and percolating anti-semitism.

No wonder Liebermann has no loyalty to us any longer.

So, put your last attack in, but mark my words, there is evil in the world and Iran sponsors a great deal of the radical fundamentalist muslims out there. They are not our friends, there aim is to subjugate us.

Bottom line is that no matter what our opinions are, Israel will take out the nuke facilities like they did in Iraq in the early 80s, Syria recently, and Iran soon. The world will be safer for it.

[Hugabear]

38. And here is my last post to you

If you want to make the case that we should take military action against countries with abysmal human rights records, go for it. But just be aware that there are plenty of countries around the world with WORSE human rights records than Iran.

[Shaktimaan]

31. um...

and even though there is NO evidence that they are developing nuclear weapons

There is evidence, it was just provided to you. The UN has guaranteed Iran nuclear fuel for any civillian nuclear energy sites. This would guarantee that Iran could not build a Nuclear weapon. Unforturnately, Iran is completing the nuclear fuel cycle, a product of which will by weapons grade plutonium and uranium.

According to Benny Morris, none of the intelligence agencies believe that Iran is building nuclear power plants for any other reason than to enrich plutonium for nuclear weapons. Logically speaking it doesn't even make any sense for Iran to build a nuclear power plant merely for power. The country is loaded with natural gas and oil. The energy produced by a nuclear plant will end up being many times more expensive than the alternatives once you factor in the costs of developing and building it. Why else would they be constructing a nuclear plant if not for weapons production?

Do you honestly think that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons?

Your logic sounds just like the fucking bullshit that we were being fed before the Iraq war.

No. That logic was based on lies. If Saddam was actually developing WMDs then the war would have been justified. Iran actually is developing WMDs so a justification definitely exists for attacking them... to the extent that it would take to cripple their nuclear facilities that is. A full-scale invasion and regime change could not be justified and I don't think anyone is suggesting one.

You may disagree as to whether an attack is justified or not. But this same exact situation has been dealt with in the past when Iraqi nuclear facilities were destroyed by Israel, a move that was widely condemned at the time. Knowing what we do now about Saddam Hussein do you see Israel's previous attack as unjustified?

[Phx_Dem]

42. Iran is NOT in compliance with the NPT

Sorry that does not fit with your narrative. Maybe ElBaradei is a closet neocon?

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2008/gov2008-15.pdf

[azurnoir]

18. The history isn't germane

to you because Iran was not the aggressor in the war with Iraq. And give me a quote where Iran has said it would nuke Israel, but apparently you ascribe to the "Iranians or their government are suicidal" propaganda, because you do realize that is what it would be for Iran, do you not?

[blue52power]

23. Surely you jest

The President of Iran and his underlings have made numerous comments regarding the destruction of Israel. Wake up and watch the news.

[Hugabear]

26. You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?

The President of Iran, the one that the media loves to vilify, has no real fucking power in Iran. He's a figurehead. Pretty much everything he says is to rally his base, and has nothing to do with actual Iranian policy. And if you bothered to actually pay attention, he almost always refers to the REGIME in Israel. Can you provide one specific example where he has called for the destruction of Israel as a country?

[blue52power]

28. Enabler

The President in Iran doesn't say anything regarding international relations or Israel without approval of the mullahs.

The mullahs are 10 times worse.

Just because Bush is an ignoramus doesn't mean real problem countries don't exist. It's Israel's right to defend Israelis.

[LeftishBrit]

39. 'It's Israel's right to defend Israelis.'

Certainly. But it's not Pat Robertson's right to give them their orders!

[Shaktimaan]

32. innaccurate.

And if you bothered to actually pay attention, he almost always refers to the REGIME in Israel. Can you provide one specific example where he has called for the destruction of Israel as a country?

He refers to Israel as the Zionist regime specifically because Iran rejects Israel's sovereignty as a legitimate state. You'll notice that he never uses the word "Israel" for any reason... the apparent stance of states who reject Israel's legitimacy is to refuse to refer to it using any of the trappings or terminology that would normally accompany a respected nation.

When he threatens Israel's destruction, it seems pretty clear that he is referring to its incarnation as a Jewish state, that Zionism is what he wants wiped out... not necessarily the actual land of Israel itself. But I think it would be a mistake to assume that a state so firmly committed to another government's destruction would refrain from destroying the land as a means to an end, on the basis that it never specified that it wanted to annihilate all of the rocks and soil along with the government.

For all practical purposes his threats against Israel can and should be interpreted literally... he wants to destroy Israel, the Jewish State. Determining exactly what extent of destruction would be necessary in order to satisfy him is an academic question for Israel. The least-damaging possibility is itself such an unvarnished threat to Israel's existence that parsing out his exact intention is senseless. Making the argument that he only seeks to bring down the Israeli government and install an Islamic caliphate versus thinking that he plans on committing mass genocide against all of the Jews in Asia is like arguing over deck chair placement on the Titanic as far as Israelis are concerned.

This is international diplomacy... he is not a peaceful man who is woefully misunderstood. You don't make statements like his with the expectation that your target will disregard them; especially if you are also in the process of creating nuclear weapons, (Or at least making everyone THINK that you are creating nukes), and funding, arming and training terrorist organizations that have been active in wiping as much of the actual target country off the planet as they are capable of.

Now, if you bothered to actually pay attention, you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss his state as a legitimate threat.

[azurnoir]

30. Try answering with facts rather than insults

but that is a common tactic for a certain "mind" set here. You dodge the fact that an attack on Israel would be suicide for Iran and then make claims you apparently can not or will not prove, but show me were the Iranian government has said it will destroy Israel.

[Shaktimaan]

33. No one is really worried about Iran attacking Israel itself.

The worry is that it will provide weapons to an organization that would do so, like Hezbollah. Think it's unlikely? Would you bet your life on it?

Or that it would use its nukes as a foil enabling it to engage in conventional actions, like taking over part of Saudi Arabia for instance. Even the best case scenario would be a greatly empowered Iran with the newfound ability to muscle in on its neighbors. Or even just give the impression that it might for essentially unmatched diplomatic leverage.

A nuclear armed Iran would be very bad news for America, Israel and others, regardless of whether they have a plan in place to bomb Israel right now or not. This isn't necessarily a winner take all game. It doesn't have to be to be a destructive force for Israel though.

[azurnoir]

34. Are you actually advocating

a "preemptive" attack on Iran because of what they possibly, maybe, might could, do in the future?

[Vegasaurus]

35. Iran makes the whole unstable region even more unstable

If they continue on the present course, there may be no option at all, EXCEPT to bomb their nuclear facilities.

I don't advocate declaring war on Iran, but it is a tense situation, and a military option may have to be considered.

[azurnoir]

40. And war will stabilize it ?

Just like it did in Iraq?

[Shaktimaan]

45. No I am not advocating that.

But I am not against it either. To be honest, I don't feel that I have enough knowledge or experience to answer the question of how to handle the situation. It would depend very much on the details, which I don't have access to.

It could very easily be the case that a preemptive strike would be the best possibility though. A nuclear armed Iran is not a risk that's acceptable for Israel. If the sites could be taken out with minimal loss of life, as was the case in Iraq and Syria, then it might be the best option.

In situations like these you always have to deal in unknowns... what someone might possibly do in the future. It comes down to balancing the risks, that's all. Morality doesn't come into play, just cold math. The fact of the matter is that we can reasonably calculate the cost of taking a certain action. We can't as easily calculate the cost that taking no action might incur.

Don't forget, the last time Israel struck pre-emptively to prevent an enemy from acquiring nuclear weapons it turned out to have been the right thing to do. The 90's might have looked very different were Iraq armed with nukes. Interesting to think about how Israel, of all states, probably saved Kuwait, and possibly even Saudi Arabia, in the long run.

Now, are you against a preemptive strike on Iran under any conditions? Or is there a situation where you would possibly support it?

[Sezu]

41. It's funny how people not under such an existential threat can

find themselves supportive of crazy Iran. It's even funnier to think that people believe Israel would attack Iran because they THOUGHT it was a threat. Most rational people know that IF Israel attacks, it will be because it has PROOF they are in danger. Israel has not survived 60 years in that neighbourhood because they are stupid.

[notfullofit]

16. Ah so, but

the Iran of yore is no more.

[Hugabear]

17. Okay, same question - when was the last time Iran attacked anyone?

We're approaching 30 years of Iran under their new Islamic rule. During this time, when have they attacked anyone?

While you're at it, let me know how many times Israel or the US has attacked someone during the same time frame.

[notfullofit]

20. You did emphasize

'anyone'

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215331032586&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Hugabear]

21. You know damned well what I meant

Show me when in the last 30 years Iran has attacked another country.

[notfullofit]

25. I have not said they have, however

The background for the war was disagreement about the border between the two countries, stemming back to 1971, when Iran occupied a couple of Iraqi islands in the Persian Gulf near the outlet at Shatt El Arab.

Iraq was also objecting to the Islamist propaganda that was transmitted from Iran to Iraq, and Iraq's government feared that there might be a revolution among the Iraqi Shi'is in the south. In 1980 Iraq expected that Iran was weak after the Iranian Revolution.

Surprise, surprise!

[azurnoir]

19. What would be the result of a nuclear attack on Israel-for Iran?

the poster claimed "unguided missiles" I believe the ones Israel and the US has are guided.

edited to add "ones" thinking faster than typing

[notfullofit]

29. Are you willing

to take the chance that they are not?

There are plenty of other countries in the region besides Israel that have good reason to be afraid of a nuclear Iran.

That being said, I would need definitive proof of their pursuit of nuclear weapons before any attack on those facilities.

[sabbat hunter]

43. I will agree to Israel launching

if he agrees to hop on the first missile and ride it in to Tehran.

[notfullofit]

44. Thanks for the

smile of the day.

[LeftishBrit]

2. Robertson and Hagee are insane...

I think it's frightening that such people have so much power in a country like the USA, with explicit separation of church and state. (Or do they just think they have that much power?) They are hate-preachers, who support terrorist violence in the cause of their religion - just like their Muslim hate-preacher counterparts. Yet the Christian ones seem to get away with it.

There is not the same sort of problem in the UK in general, but Northern Ireland is an exception (Ian Paisley et al).

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

3. If Israel's future is to be determined by...

...following the guidance of socalled friends such as Lieberman, Hagee, and Robertson, I'd say that's going to be a very bleak future.

[Viva_Daddy]

4. Apparently Lieberman doesn't know End-Time Theology

He should know that, according to End-Time Theology, all Jews must convert to Christianity or be killed in the Battle of Armageddon.

[azurnoir]

5. End days, Rapture? more like rupture

Iran and Israel,and possibly a number of other ME or EU countries? America sits "safely" on the other side of the world, none of the present players has the capability of attacking us at home on a major scale.

[IndianaGreen]

10. Let's bomb Pat Robertson and John Hagee instead!

The world would be better off without these apostles of hatred.

[number6]

11. Robertson is a mental case

:crazy: and Hagee :crazy: and Lieberman :crazy: and McInsane