ViewsMidEast by CartoonArts International
- July 07, 2009
- From Beginning
- Previous feature
- Show Calendar
- Next feature
- Current
Editorials A-Z Navigation
- prev
ViewsLatinAmerica by CartoonArts International
Views of the World by CartoonArts International- next
© 2009 Cartoonists and Writers Syndicate - All Rights Reserved.
Comments (23) Jump to Comments Form
oldlegodad
said,
4 months ago
The Israelis will get tired of this and strike the facilities. Joe B has said we have nothing we can do about it. He knows right??
stealth6948 said, 4 months ago
Careful,, That might just blow up in your face. While Obama doesn’t aprove of Israel attacking Iran they are both soverign nations. Let them do what they want, Just keep us out of it.
Gladius said, 4 months ago
It’ll be impossible to stay out of it and a real nightmare.
dtroutma said, 4 months ago
Joe was, unfortunately, just following the line of the last 60 years. The real way to reign in nukes in the middle east is to restrain the ONLY nuclear power in the Middle East- Israel.
TrickyPickle said, 4 months ago
Israel has done this before, Lego, in the 80’s with a nuclear site in Baghdad.
David
said,
4 months ago
Yes, let’s restrain Israel and completely ignore the mad dictator whose goal it is to become a nuclear power too.
Iran’s goal is to become a nuclear power and their objective has been made abundantly clear…to wipe Israel off of the map.
If we were in Israel’s position restraint would be the last thing on our mind. We would be furious at a neighbor that has a penchant for blowing things up in our country and we’d be striking back. We would laugh in the face of that same neighbor who offers peace in exchange for us giving up more land especially after they made such deals with us twice before and didn’t live up to their end.
Furthermore, we’d have all of our missiles pointed at Tehran and we’d be telling Mou Mou to “go ahead….make our day!”
How hypocritical of us to tell Israel not to defend itself when they know and we know they are in danger.
Gladius said, 4 months ago
Israel is not blameless for the current situation, however, it has less options than most. The previous post is a little rabid, however.
dtroutma,
Israel has nukes and there is little we can do about it. Also, our influence in Israel has waned over the years. It is not nearly as dependent on U.S. aid as it has been in the past. The debacle in southern Lebannon should have been thoroughly condemned by the U.S. The situation in Gaza is much more debateable. The settlements are a clear cut provocation. The right of return would be ridiculous for anyone to expect Israel to accept. This is just a little of the back and forth. Neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis have clean hands. However, many of the other countries involved have used the Palestinian people for their own political purposes rather than for any real concern over the plight of their poor ‘brothers.’
Once you boil it all down, one thing is clear. Israel is unlikely to peacefully accept a nuclear Iran whether you approve of their position or not. The U.S. does not have enough leverage on the current government to stop it.
dtroutma said, 4 months ago
Gladius, agree on the “right” of return, no democratic election would be remotely possible for the Jewish State. The tragedy (?) is that neither Blafour, nor Peel Commission recommendations for TWO STATE solution were attempted to begin with, and a shared administration on Jerusalem. That is what Israel REFUSES to accept (Jerusalem) and IS the solution, well if there ever is one.
DrCanuck said, 4 months ago
Those who ascribe to the rule of law (rather than the rule of the gun) accept the principle of reciprocity: if it’s illegal for you, it is illegal for me; if it’s legal for me, it’s legal for you.
So could I perhaps get an American to answer me this: if it’s OK for America and Israel to have nuclear weapons, why is it nto OK for Iran to have them?
oldlegodad
said,
4 months ago
Because they are not us.
TrickyPickle said, 4 months ago
DrCanuck: I’m not an American, nor am I Israeli. Yet I am uncomfortable with the idea of a nuclear Iran. A better idea: nobody has nuclear weapons. I’m good with that.
DrCanuck said, 4 months ago
I’ll try another tack; all you 2nd amendment supporters who state that a “well armed society is a polite society” and no one will “start anything” when anyone is armed, does that hold true for nations too? Doesn’t it make sense for the US to give nuclear weapons to everyone to keep the peace? There never was a nuclear exchange for the Cold War decades and India/Pakistan haven’t had a war since they both went nuclear. So why not?
rekam
said,
4 months ago
DrCanuck, since Iran is an Islamic nation and wants to rule the world, it would not be wise for them to have nuclear weapons. Besides, then they would try to blow Israel away.
I’m a US citizen who is deathly afraid of Iran having nuclear weapons. If they took over the US, there’s no reason they wouldn’t take over Canada too.
dtroutma said, 4 months ago
Since Iran has stated for a long time, and been willing to accept controls from those other than the U.S., (for good reason) they want nuclear power, not weapons, why are we looking at giving “mini-nuke” plants to others, AND pushing for more nukes at home? Nuclear weapons are insane, which must be why Bush wanted “bunker busters”. Nuclear power may well be necessary (yet still dangerous) in the future, but newer designs than those operating in the U.S. today, and elsewhere, MUST be required.
And no, Canuck I do NOT trust nations with nukes any more than 2nd amendment fanatics, as opposed to “supporters of rational controls”.
I also think Sarah Palin has a lot more desire to “rule the world” than Iran.
DrCanuck said, 4 months ago
rekam: America is a Christian nation who wants to rule the world. Is it wise for THEM to have weapons?
(And, incidentally, do you think it’s a rational fear to hold that Iran, with a couple of weapons, could “take over” North America?)
cdward said, 4 months ago
rekam, just curious, what is your evidence that Iran “wants to rule the world,” And does it being Muslim have anything to do with it? Seems Rome once thought it should rule the world - and Great Britain. And the US (remember, “leader of the free world”?).
And, as DrC says, just how could Iran take over the US unless we self-destructed first? Their measly nuclear ambitions are meaningless compared to our vast hoard.
For my part, I would rather none of us have nuclear weaponry, but the genie is out of the lantern, and we have to cooperate with the nations of the world for responsible regulation (that we also comply with).
TrickyPickle said, 4 months ago
DrCanuck: I find your comparison unfair. Iran is an Islamic Republic, by it’s own definition. The U.S. is a secular government that does not take orders from any religious sect. I believe you must mean that US policy is influenced by traditional christian values?
Rekam: Eh? What?
dtroutma: I find it difficult to believe that Iran wants nuclear power only. It is far cheaper for them to get their power from their own gas reserves. A nuclear reactor gives you access to the ability to create nuclear based weapons. I am not worried that Iran will use these weapons. They are far more valuable as a bargaining tool. I am worried that they may misplace a few and they end up in truly extremist hands. The US is not pushing for more weapons, your president just signed a deal with Russia to reduce your stockpiles.
DrCanuck said, 4 months ago
TP: While I accept your point of US being “influenced” rather than controlled by the Christian fundamentalists, I don’t see that much of a difference, perhaps only of degrees. Both countries have fundamentalists, moderates, and secularists fighting it out for control.
But that’s not my point. rekam gave his perception of Iran and Islam; I gave a popular Middle East perception of America and Christianity. Neither is entirely based in reality, as cdward pointed out in rekam’s post and you pointed out in mine. But wars are based on perceptions, usually incorrect, of the Other.
rekam
said,
4 months ago
What I meant was that the Islamic fanatics have already indicated they are gleefully on the way to taking over parts of Europe and aren’t happy with just that. They aren’t happy with the fact that everyone isn’t bowing to their laws.
churchillwasright said, 4 months ago
If the United States had wanted to take over the world, we would have done so. Instead we send aid.
DrCanuck said, 4 months ago
Tell me, rekam, do you see this as a goal of “Muslims” in general or a small minority of Muslim fanatics? And have they any reasonable chance of doing so?
Further, would you also agree there are a core group of Christian fanatics who would “bomb, bomb Iran” as a desired goal?
churchillwasright said, 4 months ago
DR SHAMUCK: I agree with you that it is only a small minority of Muslims that have fanatical views. But if you consider that there a billion Muslims, 10% is 100 million, and only 5% is 50 million. If you are talking about a committed fundamentalist Islamic movement, numbers like that are scary.
M Henri Day said, 4 months ago
Typical of Jyllands-Posten to run a cartoon like this, ignoring entirely the fact that while Iran is not a nuclear-weapons power, Israel most definitely is and, also, unlike Iran, but like its patron the United States, not at all adverse to going to war if it thinks it can win. But facts are there to be ignored, when propaganda better serves the cause….
Henri