CNN -- Bush: U.S. would aid Israel if attacked

[Newsjock]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/23/us.mideast/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Tuesday that the United States would come to Israel's aid if it were attacked by Iran and welcomed the Jewish state's plan to define its borders.

He made the comments at the White House during a joint news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert after a meeting between the two leaders. It was Olmert's first official visit to the United States as prime minister.

... "I told the prime minister what I've stated publicly before: Israel is a close friend and ally of the United States. And in the event of any attack on Israel, the United States will come to Israel's aid," Bush said.

[MadMaddie]

1. And ummm....what troops are you going to send....?

[Kutjara]

3. No troops, just a few nukes. n/t

[MadMaddie]

12. Yea...I guess he wouldn't figure out that the fallout from the

Nukes would drift to Israel...sigh...

[Joe Bacon]

95. I want to know HOW Chucklenuts is gonna do this?

He can't use the troops, he just sent the last of the reserves to the border.

He's overextended in Iraq.

So he MUST be wanting to use the :nuke: after all it fits right in with his plan to trigger Armageddon and bring Jesus back...

[rooney]

9. There must be some way to get

these crazy people out of office. What would happen if the military would not invade Iran in order to protect israel or for any other reason they decide to use to invade another country?

[Wise Doubter]

42. We need a silver bullet......

Wait a minute, we need about 4 or 5 silver bullets !!

[Mythsaje]

2. And do what, exactly?

Make angry noises? Haul troops out of Iraq and leave it to its fate? Ship MORE National Guard troops to the Muddle East? Institute a draft? Oh, that'll go over well.

I don't think we could AFFORD to help Israel.

[MadMaddie]

6. You are right...

Fightinig wars in Iraq, Afghanastan, Israel, Iran

He thinks another war is going to save his ass....

Seriously....he has failed at everything he has touched....

[Tom Joad]

4. i wonder if he'd do the same for Oregon?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Botany]

7. the man is a natural born diplomat

Want to inflame the Islamic world more?

Let George do it. Idiot!

BTW is Iran now going to "attack Israel" and we have to help them?


... "I told the prime minister what I've stated publicly before: Israel is a close friend and ally of the United States. And in the event of any attack on Israel, the United States will come to Israel's aid," Bush said. Send College Republicans?????????

[bluerum]

8. Now wouldn't that be convenient. I hear Iran has a bone to pick with

Israel - and Bolton and the rest of *'s thugs are just slavering at their podiums when they talk about Iran.

[katty]

74. his statement is clear-now he waits to react to a false flag operation

[daleo]

10. Suppose Israel attacked Iran and Iran counter attacked Israel?

Would that bring the U.S. in on Israel's side? Something tells me this could be the way it goes.

[TexasLawyer]

16. Yes, something tells me the same thing

And something also tells me the the American public would not be informed of the "first blow" in this scenario-- the US or Israeli bombing of Iran.

[HuffleClaw]

17. bingo!

that is the plan. or one of the plans.

[radfringe]

27. I've been saying that for the past 2 years

scenario goes like this:

Israel bombs Iran's nuke facilities

Iran retailiates

bush invades Iran to 'defend' Israel

and the pesky detail about Israel involvment in the first place is buried somewhere on a back page next to an ad for hemorroid cream

[HuffleClaw]

28. the spin is 'israel has acted to DEFEND itself'

already we're hearing the usual over the top tales to 'justify' an attack, the 'badges for jews' one being the latest. they are almost ready too, i think, another carrier group is enroute to the region and should be there shortly if it hasn't already arrived. all that is needed is an insta-crisis. ALSO, bush just met with the israeli pm, most likely to hammer out the little details.

[radfringe]

29. It's a spin-off of WMDs/Iraq

we invaded Iraq to defend ourselves against the WMDs

While the rheotric is there to indicate a "threat" to Israel by Iran - there are no indications that we have read in articles which point to Iran attacking Israel unless Iran is attacked first

[Jacobin]

33. Yep. Only the 'news' won't report the initial attack by Israel

and if it does, it will say its a lie

[Tight_rope]

47. Yeah...I smell that stinking fish here too!

Actually, I starting smelling it about 3 years ago.

[iamjoy]

57. Iran Has Already Attacked Israel - Sort Of

After all, Iran has called for Israel to be wiped off the map (but then, most Arab and Muslim nations have). If Israel thought an attack from Iran were imminent, a pre-emptive strike could be ordered - especially given the conern that Iran's first strike may well be nuclear.

I don't know why more people don't understand this about Israel, that they are surrounded by enemies who want them destroyed.

[daleo]

61. That hardly constitutes an attack

Those were just words (probably mistranslated words at that) - an actual military attack is a much different matter.

If countries were given the moral right to preemptively attack any country that they ever had cross words with, who would be left? Only the strongest, and they would soon pound each other to bits from fear as well.

Reagan said "we start bombing the Soviet Union in five minutes". Should Brezhnev have ordered a nuclear strike just to be on the safe side?

[Zhade]

66. Thank you for that sane post.

NT!

[Poll_Blind]

82. Indeed! n/t

PB

[sarcasmo]

87. Didn't our President decide he had the moral right from Jebus to attack

Iraq. When none of the 9/11 hijackers came from Iraq?

[sofa king]

94. The two are at war right now, and have been since 1982.

Hezbollah began as a Lebanese-based Iran-funded shiite movement with a combat/terrorism wing. They have been physically fighting the Israelis for 24 years without interruption. Note that ascribing fault to one side or the other does not change the fact that Iran and Israel are already involved in what any reasonable person would call a war.

One might get away with calling this a proxy war, like Vietnam or Korea, but it's still a war.

[Charlie Brown]

11. We have to save Israel so that Jesus can return

and destroy the Jews.:crazy:

:sarcasm:

[genieroze]

13. Gee wiz, I bet that went over well in Iran.

[Patsy Stone]

14. With all due respect to you

and no respect due for that dipshit, I can't think of one US President who wouldn't "help" Israel if it was under attack.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Patsy Stone]

41. That's a different situation

This article says "attacked", not if they attack unprovoked.

[Clovis Sangrail]

15. this is how it will happen

Amedinijad will be provoked until he attacks Israel.
We will come to Israels aid with bombing runs on Tehran launched from Iraq.

[Milspec]

18. And Amedinijad has not been...

shall we say provisional at the least?

[Clovis Sangrail]

21. I'm not sure what you mean

Amedinijad is a lunatic cowboy just like *

I don't think it will be too hard to get him to throw the first blow.

[Downtown Hound]

19. Big surprise there

What president wouldn't? Bush, stop trying to sound tough, you're little stunt on the aircraft carrier with the stuffed crotch was enough of your macho charade to last me ten lifetimes.

[fujiyama]

20. No surprise here

but does he have to be so explicit about it?

Once again, he shows how truly clueless he is. He has no tact whatsoever. But for him, the thing is, if (more likely WHEN the war goes bad) he can subtly say "It wasn't us...It was the Jews that dragged us in this". They always provide for a nice scapegoat...

[regnaD kciN]

22. Bush: Pope most likely Catholic...

...and bears thought to defecate in woods.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

23. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[blonndee]

24. How convenient, and so predictable. n/t

[951-Riverside]

25. ....They sure helped iraq when WE were attacked.

By the way Mary Cheney, FUCK YOU!

(Sorry just had to get that out)

[davepc]

26. same way we did in 1948,' 67, '73, and '82?

Since when did Israel need the US to help it defeat its enemies in combat?

[Ezlivin]

39. Could Israel have done it without American weapons?

As the world's largest arms dealer, the U.S. is instrumental in ways other than sending troops.

[IA_Seth]

46. Or American dollars? n/t

[Posteritatis]

62. They did fairly well in 48, 56 and I think 67....

I know American military aid wasn't huge from the get go, and that in the earlier wars they were using a lot of French and British equipment. (Hell, in 1948 they were using Wehrmacht equipment at points; irony's so tasty sometimes.)

Equipment and money are one thing, but "fucking hardcore" would probably still describe the Israeli military if they issued super soakers and skateboards instead of rifles and tanks.

Barring something unlikely like Bring Out The Nukes, I can't see any threat to their existence anytime soon that's more than rhetorical or hypothetical.

[Selatius]

83. They would've bought from the French and the British then

The nuclear reactor that supposedly gave rise to Israel's nuclear weapons stockpile is a French-built reactor. I believe it's called the Demona nuclear reactor.

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council are the five biggest arms dealers in the world.

[antonialee839]

30. Bush and what Army?

[Evergreen Emerald]

31. Like he helped the Katrina victims?

Yikes, Israel should turn down that kind of help!

[truthisfreedom]

32. kinda like the way we'd protect Taiwan. maybe we should tow Taiwan over

into the mideast?

[lovuian]

34. Getting set up for war with Iran... and if Iran struck first

I guess America would follow... Israel now dictates foreign policy

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[w4rma]

37. And the sky is blue, bears poop in the woods & the Pope is still Catholic.

Where is the news? :puffpiece:

[ckramer]

38. Why would Americans want to die for Israel???

No Joe-sixpacks want to die for 'a close friend', trust me on this one. LOL!

Enough money wasted on Israel already.

Let them be!

[treestar]

89. It is another country why don't they defend themselves like

other countries?

Do we have some sort of NATO-like thing going? If we have a pact with them what do they do? Come to our defense if we are attacked by the Cubans?

[Wise Doubter]

40. And WHY exactly should we help Israel ??

What have they ever done for us ??!! We have always helped them.

Why are they not in the "coalition of the willing"?!

:wtf:

[flashdebadge]

50. my decision to help someone is never based on what they can do for me. (nt

[Wise Doubter]

52. The SAME person EVERY time ??

That all looks good on paper, but in real life people get killed for these actions.

If we go to war to defend Israel, I`ll give you a ride to the recruiting office - deal?

[Posteritatis]

63. I'd support just about any country that was defending another

from unprovoked attack or invasion, unless it was for a damned good reason. At the moment, I'm having trouble finding "a damned good reason" beyond a country actively engaging in genocide at the time. If Iran attacked Israel out of the blue, I would nod approvingly at any country which jumped into the conflict in Israel's defense. If Britain invaded France, I'd do the same for anyone defending France. You can come up with some pretty creative combinations; I'd usually react the same way.

One of the few bits of international law that have managed to stick, for the most part, since the Second World War was the idea that one country cannot arbitrarily invade or annex another, that if you go and try to beat on your neighbor without reason, you're asking for trouble from your neighborhood. In fact, I can't think of any unilateral border changes beyond Tibet which have been recognized generally. This is a Good Thing (unless you're Tibetan, but you get my drift).

Yes, I know what's going on in the Middle East, and that's actually the aspect of Bush's perpetual war which annoys me more than most of the rest of his actions. Any actions that maintain that idea - or preserve, or repair, what's left of it - are actions I'm at least somewhat in approval of, and that's largely independent of the nature of the countries involved in the fighting.

[Selatius]

84. The Tibet case is iffy at best

All the maps don't show Tibet as a separate country, but since the establishment of the UN, you are right: No annexation of territory by force has been officially recognized.

In China's case, we just don't bring it up. Big Business is saving too much money paying Chinese laborers an average of 60 cents an hour to jeopardize the relationship over a case of a bunch of peaceful people being crushed by Chinese troops. Maybe if those peaceful Tibetans had a mountain-load worth of oil under their feet, things would be different.

[leesa]

43. Of course, they are our Masters.

[papau]

44. Bush Praises Olmert's Land Plan (proposal to redraw boundaries

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

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-bush24may24,0,296941.story?track=tottext

From the Los Angeles Times
Bush Praises Olmert's Land Plan
He says the Israeli leader's proposal to redraw boundaries in the West Bank could clear the path to a Palestinian nation.
By Paul Richter and Laura King
Times Staff Writers

May 24, 2006

WASHINGTON — President Bush on Tuesday praised Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's controversial plans to redraw the West Bank's borders as "bold ideas" that could open the way to a Palestinian state, even without agreement from Palestinian leaders.

In his first White House meeting with the new Israeli leader, Bush emphasized that he was only beginning to learn about Olmert's plan, which would remove some smaller Jewish settlements in the West Bank while absorbing larger settlements into Israel. But Bush said the ideas could lead to a Palestinian state if the U.S.-backed peace plan known as the road map continued to face obstacles.

Some U.S. officials have said recently that they did not expect Bush to publicly embrace Olmert's plan, for fear of alienating European and Arab allies who criticized it as a land grab.

Bush's enthusiastic, if preliminary, review seemed to signal his hope for beginning the same kind of strong relationship he had with Olmert's predecessor, Ariel Sharon, who has been in a coma since suffering a massive stroke in January.<snip>

[Norquist Nemesis]

45. As if anyone had any doubts. n/t

[Az_lefty]

48. Is Israel headed for thier own MIHOP 9-11 ?

Sounds like a way to give bunnypants an excuse to nuke Iran.
:hide:

[goforit]

56. Now that is scary.

[bdamomma]

60. bush just loves death and destruction

and he is just itching to start another war, stupid a$$ he is.

[AzDar]

49. Get your WORLD WAR on, Chimpolini....... n/t

[uppityperson]

51. What "Plan to define its borders"? This is a telling part to me.

Not sure what it is saying, but it seems an important part.

Other comments.
Bush is so undiplomatic
I also believe in the likely scenario of:Israel (overt or covert placing blame elsewhere) attacks Iran, Iran attacks back, USA gets involved.
Why do these people continue to support Israel like this? I just don't get it.

[Wise Doubter]

53. "Why do these people continue to support Israel like this?"

Follow the money...follow the money...

[Zhade]

67. I'd like to know more about that myself.

The Israeli government isn't known for its fairness in deciding borders - be they its own or those of others.

[PaDem]

54. this is like the law of gravity (eom)

****

[goforit]

55. But not our own Katrina victims.

[Disturbed]

58. Amedinijad is provoked to attack Israel?

I don't think so. He is not in charge in Iran. I also don't think the Iranian leaders are suicidal. I also don't think that Israel will attack Iran because that would be too detrimantal for them.

[IndianaGreen]

59. The US should stop being Israel's co-dependent!

The Middle East will be better off without the United States. People there would be forced to make peace, or set their own peace, or destroy each other in the name of their gods. At least there will be no more American blood being shed, and no more American-made bombs killing civilians.

[davsand]

70. Yep. I agree. Time to stop propping them up.

No more cheap weaponry, no more blind support, no more people dying with US subsidized killing technology.

I am not "anti" anybody, but I have never understood why the US has felt compelled to prop up any established nation at such a cost.


Laura

[Poll_Blind]

75. Heartily agreed! n/t

PB

[ForrestGump]

64. Good pretext for attacking Iran, then

But pretty transparent.

All the Israelis (US...whoever...) have to do is stage an incursion or massacre, a la the Tonkin incident that escalated US involvement in Vietnam or the Germans' faked border skirmish that justified the 1939 invasion of Poland and set WWII in motion, and we're in there. This is extremely dangerous. I'm sure it's just what Israel wants, and not only for protection, but is also an American neocon wet dream.

But the US hasn't faced a decent military power since Vietnam or, arguably, Korea (especially the Chinese, of course) or even WWII, and has become too used to declaring victory over militaries woefully mismatched in terms of power and effectiveness (and, even then, almost embarassing themselves in Grenada, astonishingly enough). Taking on Iran with conventinal forces, unless it's in support of the Israelis' considerable military prowess (see them as good or bad guys, or both, you've got to acknowledge their military tenacity), isn't much of an option, especially with US forces so dissipated. And if the US resorts to nukes...I can't even imagine what the fallout (no pun intended) would be from that, but I know several neocons in power have already imagined it in detail. :scared:

[Poll_Blind]

76. Good points, Forrest. You're right, it would take very little...

...to start a war between Israel/US and Iran. I'm afriad that any scruitiny of what actually started the conflict would be very hard to discern from the smoking rubble that both the US and Israel would likely turn Iran into after the fact.

PB

[ForrestGump]

79. Not only difficult to ascertain what happened

(look at how long it took for Tonkin to be confirmed, for one), but such scrutiny would be deemed unpatriotic... :-(

[Poll_Blind]

80. ...and anti-semitic. That's a certainty. n/t

PB

[DoveTurnedHawk]

65. Umm...Duh?

Like this is news?

DTH

[Hosnon]

68. This isn't news...straight out of the U.N. Charter. nt

[High Plains]

73. Does that mean if Israel attacks Iran, we will come to Teheran's

defense?

[Poll_Blind]

81. Of course we both know that no equality of action will be shown,

should the situations be reversed.

PB

[noonwitch]

69. If Iran attacks Israel, we should defend Israel

Iranian leaders have been saying how they'd like to wipe Israel off the map-it's not so unreasonable that they may try to do what they've said they're going to do at some point.

If Iran attacks Israel, they will not just be killing Israelis. They will also be killing Palestineans. We owe it to both of them to defend their country. Maybe the only good that would come of such a thing is that finally the Israelis and the Palestineans would have a common enemy and finally make peace with each other.

[IndianaGreen]

78. What if Israel strikes Iran first?

Why should the US defend an aggressor state, and prevent the victim to defend itself with a retaliatory strike? How does that sound to you?

That's why this is such a faux issue! Israel is not fearful of Iran having nukes, which Iran is not seeking anyway. What Israel fears is the same thing the US fears, that there will be another country that they could not blackmail with their military might, including their atomic weapons.

We know from the Cold War that MAD did work, even when we almost were vaporized over a few Soviet missiles in Cuba. The same can be said about MAD as a deterrent for nuclear war in the Middle East.

The rational thing to do is to worry instead about those individuals that would use nukes in the Middle East out of some Messianic complex. There are only two individuals that fit that profile, one is Osama bin Laden, the other is George W. Bush.

[Selatius]

85. The Bush Doctrine makes Israel the defensive state, not the aggressive one

Prevention is the so-called reason behind the invasion of Iraq in the first place. It was defined as an act of proactive defense. Why shouldn't Israel utilize the same road paved by the US? If Israel bombs Iran first saying it needed to knock out those reactors like they did with Iraq in 1981, they'd use the same excuse they used back in '81 and then bolster it with Bush's example.

[treestar]

90. Why do we owe them anything?

Other than getting our nose out of their affairs.

A sovereign nation has to be able to defend itself. Why doesn't that apply to Israel?

[Spinoza]

71. The idea that Israel would need

American militairy aid to defend against Iran is ridiculous. Iran couldn't even take out the Iraqi military in more than 8 years of fighting. Israel would wipe the floor with Iran in less than a week.

[progressivebydesign]

72. Great foreign policy. Not. n/t

[Poll_Blind]

77. There's method in Ahmadinejad's "madness". From the Kim Il-Jung...

...school of rhetoric. Has anyone played poker here? You know, I used to work for a world-class poker champion in a capacity that had nothing to do with poker. Anyway, he was a perceptive fellow in all things and once said "'Go Fish' is a card game you play with people. Poker is a people game you play with cards." Therein lies the truth, in my opinion: Ahmadinejad is playing international politics- which makes poker look like a kid's game. There are bluffs, feints, playing the fool, playing the pride-filled idiot. Ahmadinejad is no fool. Ahmadinejad is making these statements for a reason: He has seen how Kim Il-Jung has used hyperbolic rhetoric, calling the US's bluff and daring the US to intervene in their affairs with threats of over-the-top retaliation. And he has seen how it worked.

Now let's look at who the US makes war against: Make no doubt about it- the U.S. does not fight against foes it does not think it can win against. To it's people, it says one thing, but it is not the reality. Look at the numerous invasions of foreign countries, starting at least as far back as the 1980's: U.S. Invasion of Grenada, US sends troops to seize Panama's Manuel Noriega, U.S. invades Iraq a la Gulf War I, U.S. invades Iraq a la Gulf War II. I may have forgotten some and certainly the small paramilitary organizations and corrupt nations we have propped up are almost countless.

But do you notice something in the scale of conflicts?

The U.S., simply put, is an empire in its twilight unable to address any of it's publicly-declared enemies: Famously, Russia, China, North Korea. Nor does it wish to- most of these countries are major holders of the public debt. Yes, we have been selling our debt to our enemies. We owe money to them. This puts us in a very weak position. Outside of militarily conquering those nations there is no way to remove that debt. No way.

So the U.S. contents itself with an invasion here, an invasion there when the smaller members of the formerly-U.S. "world" get out of line in a manner of speaking.

But Iran is no Iraq. Not geographically, not politically, not militarily. They are a much stronger, more cohesive nation than the tin-pot dictatorial regime that Saddam ran. They also have some very big friends. The same friends we owe lots of money to: Russia, China. If we attack them the most immediate repercussion will likely not be militaristic but economic.

[sarcasmo]

86. Kick back to the top for the Decider's sure stupidity.

[NorthernSpy]

88. After the USS Liberty, Jonathan Pollard, the AIPAC spy scandal...

... transfers of sensitive American technology to China, and billions upon billions of tax dollars dropped down our favorite rat-hole, I'm convinced that we need to wash our hands of Israel for once and all. They've screwed us over too many times.


"If it came to a choice between American and Israel, I would side with Israel."

-- Kay Arthur, "Christian Zionist" and rightwing traitor. Why doesn't she just move her ass to the country that enjoys her greater loyalty?

:eyes:

[rhett o rick]

91. They r laying the ground work for another "Bay of Tonkin" incident

Iran will attack Israel like the North Vietnamese attacked the USS Turner Joy. What will most likely happen is that Iran will provoke Israel and the war will be on. Hold on to your butt, if you think the Neocons have suspended our civil rights in favor of supposed security, wait until we are at war with Iran. There is absolutely nothing that would surprise me. Martial law, rounding up terrorist suspects in the Country and putting them in mass in "Interment Camps". What's to stop them?

[ldf]

92. israel's borders were drawn by the united nations

just because they are successful in running people off a parcel of land, and then build structures on it, does NOT make it theirs.

the united nations should adamantly, with no compromise, insist they return to their original borders.

it is bad enough that the people who lived there were removed for the purpose of creating israel, in the first place. hence the whole argument that israel should be driven into the sea. and the arguement for return of the arabs to their rightfully owned land.

( as an aside, did their god not cast them out of the promised land? and just who's fault was THAT?)

it is also bad enough that we have allowed some fictional account of a family's "alleged" history to result in all the turmoil of the middle east.

but that is water under the bridge. israel exists, through the goodwill of the rest of the world. they would do well to settle for that.

if israel addressed the fact that they displaced the arabs in the first place, they may well be on their way to peace with the palestinians.

i will support israel only after it returns to its own, united nations sanctioned, borders.

GET OFF OF OCCUPIED LAND!

[Deja Q]

93. Okay everybody. Leave Israel alone. They are not worth it.

[Catchawave]

96. Sounds almost like a subliminal....

"Bring it on" message. :nuke: