This is a sad event on many levels. Read the Digg story, and then follow the comments, and see if you can spot the overwhelming theme, and then state whether you agree or disagree with it. Please also comment on whether elected representatives of the United States should ever place the interest of another nation on the same or higher footing than ours - whether you agree that this is what Joseph Lieberman is essentially doing. http://digg.com/politics/Lieberman_After_Iran_wipes_out_Israel_They_Will_Attack_US
If the US stops exerting force in the region of the Middle East, what incentive would make it rational for Iran to attack the US? It would be completely irrational. Even attacking the US first how things are now in the region is completely irrational. That would bring all of NATO on top of Iran. Totally ludicrous scare tactics by Lieberman trying to define Iran as a perpetual enemy.
Even Hopey McChangerson says Iran is dangerous. Yeah, I know, he said they weren't dangerous the day before, but I guess you have to listen to the last thing he said. (or you're a racist)
I have mixed feelings on this issue, hapa. First, I do NOT believe Iran poses a serious military threat to Israel or the U.S. That's not to say that they don't possess the means to destabilize the Persian Gulf if they so intended. I do and will agree that the threat that Israel perceives is a future threat that may materialize, if Iran achieves advanced missile technology. This has been a long-standing fear of Israel, and going back to the Cold War, many in the U.S. Military/Pentagon made a bold case that Israel was a strategic dead weight as an ally to the U.S. as against the USSR, as Israel is very small geographically, and would be highly vulnerable to Soviet missile strikes. For the time being, now that the Cold War has passed, we (Americans) need to reassess realpolitik as it pertains to our relationship with Israel, IMO. This doesn't mean abandoning Israel. However, it may mean reigning in Israel's impulses while we use a more aggressive diplomacy to reshape the dynamic relations in the ME, even if some of Israel's aspirations have to be tamped down. And that's where the legitimate debate with Lieberman enters the fray: Is Lieberman saying what he's saying and (presumably) prepared to do what he's suggesting - i.e. pushing the U.S. toward a more hawkish stance towards Iran - because he's more concerned about Israel's interests, or more concerned about America's interests? The two are not as intertwined as some may suggest, and may have been in the past (arguably, though debatable). Nothing is more essential than demanding that those elected to represent the interests of the United States do so without emotional or sentimental baggage that may cloud their judgment and prevent them from doing so, whether the topic is Israel, Iran, Germany or Timbuktu.
The idea that Iran doesn't pose a military threat to Israel is naive at best. If you were in charge of Israeli security, I can assure you that you'd be dealing with Iran as a potential military threat. Those charged with defending countries like Israel are forced to take this approach. If you didn't deal with them on that level you'd be failing in your duties as a military officer. Re: the U.S., I'm not sure I understand the distinction here. Are you saying you're unable to connect the dots between a destabilized Persian Gulf (I will set aside for a moment the other ways in which Iran poses a potential military threat to the U.S.) and threats to American security either at home or on U.S. territory abroad?
liberman is a israel-firster zionist. Anything he does will always have a angle benefiting israelis at the expense of tax paying Americans. It wouldn't surprise me if 20 years from now we find out the guy is a high ranking israeli agent. When a guy like him consistently gets re-elected into congress and manages to run for VP shows who controls the US. The liberman connection is the primary reason why Al Gore's agendas are suspect. Gore went as far as to hand his daughter to a prominent zionist banking family.
Lieberman's statement was actually far more aggressive than most here seem to realize. When he said "Israel has to decide", he was not just mouthing typical political doubletalk. In fact, Israel has been under a requirement to ask our permission before starting any mideast wars, since we would be the one who has to fight it. If they didn't receive our go-ahead, they could find themselves at the end of a long limb. Lieberman was saying that McCain would in effect give Israel a free pass to start a war with iran. Pat Buchanan had an interesting column last week outlining the terrible unintended consequences in history that occurred when big powers gave war guantees to small countries.