1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Return of the War Party? by Patrick Buchanan

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by mrskeet410, Nov 15, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mrskeet410

    mrskeet410 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,064
    Return of the War Party? by Patrick Buchanan begins -

    "Is a vote for the Republican Party in 2012 a vote for war?

    Is a vote for Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich a vote for yet another unfunded war of choice, this time with a nation, Iran, three times as large and populous as Iraq?

    Mitt says that if elected he will move carriers into the Persian Gulf and "prepare for war." Newt is even more hawkish. America should continue "taking out" Iran's nuclear scientists — i.e., assassinating them — but military action will probably be needed.

    Newt is talking up uber-hawk John Bolton for secretary of state.

    Rick Santorum has already called for U.S.-Israeli strikes: "Either we're going to stop them ... or take the long term consequences of having a nuclear Iran trying to wipe out the state of Israel."

    But if Iran represents, as Bibi Netanyahu is forever reminding us, an "existential threat," why does not Israel itself, with hundreds of nuclear weapons, deal with it?

    Bibi's inaction speaks louder than Bibi's words.

    He wants the Americans to do it..."

    http://news.yahoo.com/return-war-party-080000134.html
     
  2. 682LINY

    682LINY Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    967
    can you spell unilateral,, a coalition could do it non nuclear,,with out threat of total destruction,,,israel takes a great risk going alone,,and we are bound by treaty to back them up if they do,, where as group action is a much safer action for both sides (israel and iran)in the big picture,, a non nuclear option.. it is a war that will be fought,, what scale it is fought on is the only question,,and if israel is threatend with being over run ,, there is no question about them useing the nuclear option,,
     
  3. mrskeet410

    mrskeet410 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,064
    682LINY - "...and we are bound by treaty to back them up if they do..."

    Which treaty is that?
     
  4. 682LINY

    682LINY Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    967
    This came across Bloomberg TV this evening. Boeing has delivered the MOP to the Air Force. The MOP is a 30,000lb bunker buster/tunnel destroyer designed to penetrate up to 200ft before exploding. It is a non nuclear weapon designed to destroy and/or disrupt hardened underground targets and carries a payload of 5,300lbs+ of high explosive to do the job. The delivery platform will be the B2 and/or the B52. Both aircraft will be able to carry two of the weapons and the guidance system is GPS and INS. For more information do a search on MOP/Boeing. Kind of a nice Veterans Day present,don't you think? Greg Saucedo

    just the thing for a anti nuke party

    we have mutual defence treaties with just about any non comunist country you can think of
     
  5. Old Cowboy

    Old Cowboy Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,988
    Reminds me of a scare tactic I heard back in 1964...."if you vote for Goldwater we'll have WAR!".......well, they were right, I voted for Goldwater and we DID have war.
     
  6. mrskeet410

    mrskeet410 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,064
    682LINY - Don't change the subject. Tell us about that treaty that would obligate the USA to go to war on the whim of another country>
     
  7. wolfram

    wolfram Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    Messages:
    6,384
    Its a little like the Hillbilly and the game warden going fishing. The hillbilly lights a stick of dynamite and tosses it in the lake and after the blast a bunch of fish float up. The game warden starts telling the hillbilly about all the laws that he just violated and the hillbilly responds by lighting another stick of dynamite and handing it to the warden and saying well you gonna fish or just keep talkin about it?

    If the SHTF in the middle east we will be forced to fish and not because of some treaty. Scarey stuff.
     
  8. slic lee

    slic lee Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,048
    Location:
    Miami Beach florida
    Mr Skeet-we,the USA went into Iraq basically alone and were called aggressors, still to this day. The entire world says Israel who everyone wants dead should attack Iran alone. Now, the entire world blames Israel for returning fire just to defend itself. They would have to be dumb to expect the US to help them. If Israel were defeated, this to you 410, how long before the USA was attacked by all of Islam? I patiently await an answer. Lee
     
  9. Maurice

    Maurice Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    299
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    slic lee," we the USA went into Iraq basically alone " what a load of b**ls**t, there were quite a number of nations troops involved in Desert Storm. Please spare me the usual American Hollywood b**ls**t that only America does anything. The Brits had thousands of troops, hundreds of tanks and the S.A.S were behind Iraqi lines seeking out and destroying Scud Missiles. Maurice ( The Brit. )
     
  10. crusha

    crusha TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,762
    The British contingent was nothing more than a couple "advisers" in jodhpurs plinking at empty buildings with their Browning Hi-Powers.
     
  11. TinMan88

    TinMan88 TS Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    979
    Buzz-gun, columns of challenger tanks is what Britain brought to Iraq. Why did you slag the Brits on this? More to the point>

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/13/dennis-ross-resigns-as-middle-east-advisor/

    Here is some insight about why we are embroiled in the Middle East. Dennis Ross just resigned recently. Before that was Martin Indyk who when caught up with- fled back to his homeland- Yep, you guessed it. There is an omnipresent influence in our policy. WMD? Hooey! I'll bet that Colin Powell still burns remembering his speech (selling that poop) to the U.N.

    Listening to the talking points of this batch of repubs so far, excepting Ron Paul, they are OWNED.
     
  12. mrskeet410

    mrskeet410 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,064
    Well 682LINY - Have you come up that treaty that would commit the USA to war on the whim of another country?
     
  13. Rooksd1

    Rooksd1 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    125
    Here is a few MrSKEET. Their are many more.
    Formal U.S.-Israel Agreements
    July 23, 1952 — Agreement relating to mutual defense assistance.
    November 29, 1983 — Agreement creating the Joint Political Military Group and Joint Security Assistance Program.
    April 30, 1996 — Counterterrorism cooperation accord to enhance capabilities to deter, prevent, respond to and investigate international terrorist acts or threats of international terrorist acts against Israel or the United States.
    April 30, 1996 — Counterterrorism cooperation accord
    January 16, 2009 — Memorandum of Understanding Between The United States and Israel Regarding Prevention of the Supply of Arms and Related Materiel to Terrorist Groups.
     
  14. mrskeet410

    mrskeet410 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,064
    And which of those say the USA must aid another country in an unprovoked offensive strike on another? None of those do.

    No president, no Secretary of State would ever sign, nor would any Senate ratify an agreement that obligated the USA to go to war to support a unilateral decision by another country to launch an offensive war.
     
  15. Rooksd1

    Rooksd1 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    125
    Including the one Clinton and Obama agreed to in 2009 all of them if unilateral attack is the only defense. You used the word must I don't know if we must but we have agreed to.
     
  16. mrskeet410

    mrskeet410 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,064
    Rooksd1 - Please be more specific regarding the one Clinton and Obama agreed to in 2009.

    Regarding word over 'must' versus 'we have agreed to', these are 682LINY's words -

    "...and we are bound by treaty to back them up if they do..."
     
  17. kiv-c

    kiv-c Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Messages:
    852
    Rooksd1, is this the one you were referrring to:

    "Memorandum of Understanding Between The United States and Israel Regarding Prevention of the Supply of Arms and Related Materiel to Terrorist Groups
    (January 16, 2009)

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The United States and Israel (the “Parties”),

    Recalling the steadfast commitment of the United States to Israel's security, including secure, defensible borders, and to preserve and strengthen Israel's capability to deter and defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats;

    Reaffirming that such commitment is reflected in the security, military and intelligence cooperation between the United States and Israel, the Strategic Dialogue between them, and the level and kind of assistance provided by the United States to Israel;

    Taking note of the efforts of Egyptian President Mubarak, particularly the recognition that securing Gaza’s border is indispensable to realizing a durable and sustainable end to fighting in Gaza;

    Unequivocally condemning all acts, methods, and practices of terrorism as unjustifiable, wherever and by whomever committed and whatever the motivation, in particular, the recent rocket and mortar attacks and other hostile activity perpetrated against Israel from Gaza by terrorist organizations;

    Recognizing that suppression of acts of international terrorism, including denying the provision of arms and related materiel to terrorist organizations, is an essential element for the maintenance of international peace and security;

    Recognizing that the acquisition and use of arms and related materiel by terrorists against Israel were the direct causes of recent hostilities;

    Recognizing the threat to Israel of hostile and terrorist activity from Gaza, including weapons smuggling and the build-up of terrorist capabilities, weapons and infrastructure; and understanding that Israel, like all nations, enjoys the inherent right of self defense, including the right to defend itself against terrorism through appropriate action;

    •Desiring to improve bilateral, regional and multilateral efforts to prevent the provision of arms and related materiel to terrorist organizations, particularly those currently operating in the Gaza Strip, such as Hamas;
    Recognizing that achieving and maintaining a durable and sustainable cessation of hostilities is dependent upon prevention of smuggling and re-supply of weapons into Gaza for Hamas, a terrorist organization, and other terrorist groups, and affirming that Gaza should not be used as a base from which Israel may be attacked;

    Recognizing also that combating weapons and explosives supply to Gaza is a multi-dimensional, results-oriented effort with a regional focus and international components working in parallel, and that this is a priority of the United States’ and Israel’s efforts, independently and with each other, to ensure a durable and sustainable end to hostilities;

    Recognizing further the crucial need for the unimpeded, safe and secure provision of humanitarian assistance to the residents of Gaza;

    Intending to work with international partners to ensure the enforcement of relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions on counterterrorism in relation to terrorist activity in Gaza;

    Have reached the following understandings:

    1. The Parties will work cooperatively with neighbors and in parallel with others in the international community to prevent the supply of arms and related materiel to terrorist organizations that threaten either party, with a particular focus on the supply of arms, related materiel and explosives into Gaza to Hamas and other terrorist organizations.

    2. The United States will work with regional and NATO partners to address the problem of the supply of arms and related materiel and weapons transfers and shipments to Hamas and other terrorist organizations in Gaza, including through the Mediterranean, Gulf of Aden, Red Sea and eastern Africa, through improvements in existing arrangements or the launching of new initiatives to increase the effectiveness of those arrangements as they relate to the prevention of weapons smuggling to Gaza. Among the tools that will be pursued are:

    •Enhanced U.S. security and intelligence cooperation with regional governments on actions to prevent weapons and explosives flows to Gaza that originate in or transit their territories; including through the involvement of relevant components of the U.S. Government, such as U.S. Central Command, U.S. European Command, U.S. Africa Command, and U.S. Special Operations Command.
    •Enhanced intelligence fusion with key international and coalition naval forces and other appropriate entities to address weapons supply to Gaza;
    •Enhancement of the existing international sanctions and enforcement mechanisms against provision of material support to Hamas and other terrorist organizations, including through an international response to those states, such as Iran, who are determined to be sources of weapons and explosives supply to Gaza.
    3. The United States and Israel will assist each other in these efforts through enhanced sharing of information and intelligence that would assist in identifying the origin and routing of weapons being supplied to terrorist organizations in Gaza.

    4. The United States will accelerate its efforts to provide logistical and technical assistance and to train and equip regional security forces in counter-smuggling tactics, working towards augmenting its existing assistance programs.

    5. The United States will consult and work with its regional partners on expanding international assistance programs to affected communities in order to provide an alternative income/employment to those formerly involved in smuggling.

    6. The Parties will establish mechanisms as appropriate for military and intelligence cooperation to share intelligence information and to monitor implementation of the steps undertaken in the context of this Memorandum of Understanding and to recommend additional measures to advance the goals of this Memorandum of Understanding. In so far as military cooperation is concerned, the relevant mechanism will be the United States-Israel Joint Counterterrorism Group, the annual Military to Military discussion, and the Joint Political Military Group.

    7. This Memorandum of Understanding of ongoing political commitments between the Parties will be subject to the laws and regulations of the respective parties, as applicable, including those governing the availability of funds and the sharing of information and intelligence.

    This Memorandum of Understanding was signed on 16 January, 2009 at Washington, in duplicate, in the English language. "


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
  18. mrskeet410

    mrskeet410 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,064
    KIV-C - So where does it say that if another country makes a unilateral attack on Iran, or any other country, that we have to back them up.

    And that is a Memorandum of Understanding, not a treaty of alliance ratified by the Senate.
     
  19. Rooksd1

    Rooksd1 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    125
    You apparently know nothing about diplomacy.
    We receive intelligence from Israel (which is the most important source we have) in exchange for aid and the defense of Israel. We (The non liberal Americans) keep our word. Over and out!
     
  20. mrskeet410

    mrskeet410 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,064
    Our word to do what? What have we promised them? Did the Senate ratify that?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.