Yes… because there are only two countries in that deal that would get involved in any possible nuclear destructive devices. Also some arent blindly supporting Israel.
The problem is caused by Iran. No neighboring country trusts them. The Arab League has made it clear as to Assad that they do not want the balance of power upset, but Iran’s public statements indicate that they will attack Israel at the first opportunity. No one should blame the Israeli government for doing its job and protecting its citizens.
We don’t need another war because we continue to refuse to muzzle the mutt. We haven’t even kept it in it’s own yard, like in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Egypt, West Bank, over the years, so it IS time to make it heel and stop jumping the fence.
There are no winners in any war for any reason, only victorious conquerors—some benevolent, some despotic.. The U.S., starting with Viet Nam, has been the most powerful bully (but not the only would-be hopeful) in the world while being in total denial. During this time the U.S foreign policy has been, as best stated by Clint Eastwood in the movie Dirty Harry, “I know what you’re thinking, punk [nation]…But being as this [nation] is [like] a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun [military] in the world and [the U.S.] will blow your head [government] clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself a question: do I feel lucky? Well do ya, punk?"
Hopefully Iran does not “feel lucky,” and hopefully the U.S. will stop “feeling lucky” and directly and indirectly (surrogate nations) stop its’ aggression unless openly attacked. Let Americans hope that the U.S will revert too and provide the means for the U.N. to fulfill its mission-as first envisioned-by providing it, with or without the support of all Nations, the military means and will to do so.
Why? 1. The U.S. cannot police a world, one that obviously does require policing, primarily by itself. 2. In trying to do so, in the long term, the U.S. shall lose most of the attempts it makes at being the world’s primary policeman; be seen as and if not actually the bully; and shall bankrupt itself in the attempt.
shakeenaguy about 12 years ago
Turn loose the dog!
Tue Elung-Jensen about 12 years ago
Yes… because there are only two countries in that deal that would get involved in any possible nuclear destructive devices. Also some arent blindly supporting Israel.
Spyderred about 12 years ago
The problem is caused by Iran. No neighboring country trusts them. The Arab League has made it clear as to Assad that they do not want the balance of power upset, but Iran’s public statements indicate that they will attack Israel at the first opportunity. No one should blame the Israeli government for doing its job and protecting its citizens.
Dtroutma about 12 years ago
We don’t need another war because we continue to refuse to muzzle the mutt. We haven’t even kept it in it’s own yard, like in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Egypt, West Bank, over the years, so it IS time to make it heel and stop jumping the fence.
leweclectic about 12 years ago
There are no winners in any war for any reason, only victorious conquerors—some benevolent, some despotic.. The U.S., starting with Viet Nam, has been the most powerful bully (but not the only would-be hopeful) in the world while being in total denial. During this time the U.S foreign policy has been, as best stated by Clint Eastwood in the movie Dirty Harry, “I know what you’re thinking, punk [nation]…But being as this [nation] is [like] a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun [military] in the world and [the U.S.] will blow your head [government] clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself a question: do I feel lucky? Well do ya, punk?"
Hopefully Iran does not “feel lucky,” and hopefully the U.S. will stop “feeling lucky” and directly and indirectly (surrogate nations) stop its’ aggression unless openly attacked. Let Americans hope that the U.S will revert too and provide the means for the U.N. to fulfill its mission-as first envisioned-by providing it, with or without the support of all Nations, the military means and will to do so.
Why? 1. The U.S. cannot police a world, one that obviously does require policing, primarily by itself. 2. In trying to do so, in the long term, the U.S. shall lose most of the attempts it makes at being the world’s primary policeman; be seen as and if not actually the bully; and shall bankrupt itself in the attempt.
Current events are proving this to be the case