Israelis Urge US To Stop Iran
The Washington Times is reporting that three Israeli Knesset members are calling for the US to attack Iran.
From the perspective of a US citizen and taxpayer, it is certainly preferable to have Israel deal with its own problems. Asking the US to take care of its problems, at our risk and our expense, is highly undesirable to me.
If it really makes sense to attack Iran preemptively, Israel should be willing to undertake that effort on their own. We pay through the nose to arm them to the teeth. At the very least this should entitle us to forgo risking our own people and prestige.
Asking America to solve Israel's conflicts creates moral hazard. Are Israel and its supporters working hard enough keep conflict at a minimum? Are they arriving at the lowest risk and least expensive solutions, from an American perspective?
Based on their conduct in the occupied territories alone, I would answer no.
Of course, the article goes on to make the never ending WWII analogy:
WWII was a unique event. Iran is not 1944 Germany. What is the entire GDP of Iran? How does it compare with the US? Using this comparison alone the situation does not bare any resemblance whatsoever to WWII. They are feeding you a line.
Germany invaded three countries before WWII “officially” started. Iran has invaded none and made no threat to do so.
Of course, there is a country that has recently conducted an invasion. That would be the US.
Washington Times
Voxday
The United States and its allies must act to stop Iran's nuclear programs -- by force if necessary -- because conventional diplomacy will not work, three senior Israeli lawmakers from across the political spectrum warned yesterday.
As a last resort, they said, Israel itself would act unilaterally to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear arms.
From the perspective of a US citizen and taxpayer, it is certainly preferable to have Israel deal with its own problems. Asking the US to take care of its problems, at our risk and our expense, is highly undesirable to me.
If it really makes sense to attack Iran preemptively, Israel should be willing to undertake that effort on their own. We pay through the nose to arm them to the teeth. At the very least this should entitle us to forgo risking our own people and prestige.
Asking America to solve Israel's conflicts creates moral hazard. Are Israel and its supporters working hard enough keep conflict at a minimum? Are they arriving at the lowest risk and least expensive solutions, from an American perspective?
Based on their conduct in the occupied territories alone, I would answer no.
Of course, the article goes on to make the never ending WWII analogy:
"Despite all the different circumstances, we see similarities to what happened in the 1930s, when people underestimated the real problem or focused on other dangers. For us, either the world will tackle Iran in advance or all of us will face the consequences."
WWII was a unique event. Iran is not 1944 Germany. What is the entire GDP of Iran? How does it compare with the US? Using this comparison alone the situation does not bare any resemblance whatsoever to WWII. They are feeding you a line.
Germany invaded three countries before WWII “officially” started. Iran has invaded none and made no threat to do so.
Of course, there is a country that has recently conducted an invasion. That would be the US.
Washington Times
Voxday
posted by Brian at 11:21 AM
1 Comments:
yep! time we disarmed the only nuclear state in the middle east - Israel.
Post a Comment
<< Home