Will Obama order military attack on Israel?

According to Tom Tancredo, possibly.

I have a theory that Republican politicians have a monthly contest to see who can say the stupidest thing without getting call out on it. Looks like Tom is a shoe in for April.

 

Ok? Shouldn't this be in the Opinion section? Your opinion is noted, just as you noted someone else's. Why don't we start a thread that is consisted of facts.

 

Not very likely! Obama lacked the guts to call a military attack even on Syria after drew his infamous "red line" said he would if they used chemical weapons. As a result, our enemies no longer fear us and our friends no longer trust us.

 

USA attack Israel?

not in a million years.

 

Rather than wasting money on attacking Israel....why not SAVE $$$ by stopping giving it to them completely, I give 'em a year tops without US aid and guns.

 

No. Obama might be a big doofus but he would not attack Israel.

 

Some Republicans would place Israel's national interest above our own, and refuse to admit that it might be possible that what's best for Israel isn't always what's best for the U.S.

 

Obama is more likely to order an attack on Havasu Lake City in Arizona.

http://www.marines.mil/News/NewsDis...anglico-performs-cas-in-lake-havasu-city.aspx

 

yes, he will attack Israel.

right after he attacks San Fran, NYC, Detroit, and Honolulu.

 

And some Democrats, (but by no means all) seem to think that sucking up to Iran will pay dividends. It won't. They lie and cheat as a matter of course and they wish the destruction of the "Great Satan," i.e. the United States -- and of course of Israel as well.
when Obama failed to keep his "red line" promise by pouncing on the Iranian surrogates in Syria when they used chemical weapons, he showed the Mullahs that the United States is no longer a great power to be feared. He also showed our friends, all over the world, that we can no longer be trusted.

 

Fear mongering jingoistic idiocy seems to be new obamacare.

 

Ah - No. Mr. Obama isn't concerned with the state of the American Union, or World Affairs, he only is concerned with what he considers will be his legacy, and attacking Israel - our only democratic ally in the Middle East, would wreck the Democratic Party, and his reputation, and that of any and all African-American politicians who might consider a Presidential run for decades. It isn't even possible, as Congress has to declare war, and there is no imminent threat to Israel that could justify an American attack on a long standing ally. Even hinting at such action would automatically guarantee a GOP victory of the White House in 2016, something that is probably going to happen anyways - 12-years of Obama-Clinton-Kerry-Reid-Pilosi-Shultz, the country is sick of them.

The Republican Congress probably will fine tune, and dribble around the edges of the ACA, but it is the law, and if they could repeal it, they have had four months to try, and come up with nothing, it will remain Obama's legacy, for good or bad. He killed OBL as promised, and if his final year in office turns Iran away from an active role in terrorism, even if he simply neutralizes them, not saying that theocratic government will become a Western ally, than letting them have nuclear power capability, with monitoring procedures in effect, eliminates any threat to Israel. Along with easing diplomatic, business, tourism and travel with Cuba after 60 plus years of a failed embargo, will be seen by historians like Nixon's visit to China. Cuba - a 700 mile long island, will become the Hawaii of the East Coast in 20-years if America follows that path. All of these will bode well for the man's legacy in office.

I am not a fan of Obama, think he was unqualified for the position, and his appointments and political optics are terrible, along with his racial policies, which have turned back that clock to 1961, however, how much of it is his incompetence, and how much is him trying to rectify problems originally produced in the Clinton, Bush, Jr. era. Bush, Jr. didn't expect America to surprised in NYC with a terrorist attack any more than FDR did at Pearl Harbor. The bill for the War on Terrorism, which has evolved into, and been maintained by Obama, is now part and parcel of American foreign policy and known as the Bush Doctrine. So Mr. Obama gets some kudos, despite facing a hostile Congress throughout most of his time in office.

Attack Israel? No, he will just give them a stand-down order, and put Iran into a No-Fly Zone if necessary, but he doesn't want to be known as the Tojo of the 21st Century as he exist 8-years in the White House..............

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure_of_imagination

You are the kind of poster who seems determined to repeat history.

 

alright then, lets pick a fight we might win

 

That is pretty funny stuff.

Sanctions on Israel would suffice for me.

 

Idiots like 0bama and Bush have been given too much power. It seems the balance of power is out of whack in favour of the executive, and the president especially, in modern times.

 

Probably not Obama but I'd certainly consider it. If your kids die in a nuclear conflagration, it'll be because Israelis thinks they should feel honored to die for the Mogen David.

 

lol wut?

We're supposed to fear an attack on Israel (itself a laughable idea, worrying so much about Israel) by the US under the direction of 0bama, because 9/11?

That really doesn't add up. Just because you can imagine something absurd doesn't mean it's about to happen, and 9/11 was a less absurd and outlandish concept than the US attacking Israel anyway.

 

That was brilliant. First off the US does not provide Israel financial aid or guns

Lol. But hey why let reality get in the way.

Israel has a series of military industrial development agreements that are far from financial aid. Those projects employ hundreds of thousands of
Americans and pay taxes to run their nation. The US benefits from any such agreements. Its not aid.

One way aid stopped years ago. Anything the US sends Israel is exchanged.

Guns?

Yah right they make Uzis in the US. Lol.

 

"Since 1992, the U.S. has offered Israel an additional $2 billion annually in loan guarantees. Congressional researchers have disclosed that between 1974 and 1989, $16.4 billion in U.S. military loans were converted to grants and that this was the understanding from the beginning. Indeed, all past U.S. loans to Israel have eventually been forgiven by Congress, which has undoubtedly helped Israel's often-touted claim that they have never defaulted on a U.S. government loan. U.S. policy since 1984 has been that economic assistance to Israel must equal or exceed Israel's annual debt repayment to the United States. Unlike other countries, which receive aid in quarterly installments, aid to Israel since 1982 has been given in a lump sum at the beginning of the fiscal year, leaving the U.S. government to borrow from future revenues. Israel even lends some of this money back through U.S. treasury bills and collects the additional interest.

In addition, there is the more than $1.5 billion in private U.S. funds that go to Israel annually in the form of $1 billion in private tax-deductible donations and $500 million in Israeli bonds. The ability of Americans to make what amounts to tax-deductible contributions to a foreign government, made possible through a number of Jewish charities, does not exist with any other country. Nor do these figures include short- and long-term commercial loans from U.S. banks, which have been as high as $1 billion annually in recent years."
http://www.wrmea.org/congress-u.s.-...l-aid-to-israel-figures-facts-and-impact.html

Whatever you say.....................

 

I don't think Obama is an idiot. You instruct him to get out the vote in Southside Chicago on election day, he will do it easily. You ask him to involve himself in world geopolitical affairs, and he isn't even in the league. The difference between giants like Nixon and Reagan vs. President's like Carter and Obama (the latter two both heavily involved in minutia), is that the two former ones arrived in the office highly experienced politicians, with long standing goals and beliefs which they would not compromise. In Nixon's case, even at the cost of the Presidency - but he certainly knew foreign affairs as did Reagan. The latter two, just political novices, who have no particular idea of what they are doing whatsoever.

In Carter's case - he ran everything associated with the Presidency from the Oval Office - impossible, he never delegated anything, while Obama seems to delegate everything. Both had the same poor record of being unable to attract or appoint qualified statesmen to work for them, but were excellent in hiring underlings who could "spin" any story or incident to their favor. People compare Obama, and his performance, to a bad eight years of George W. Bush, Jr., but actually, Obama is more like Carter than any other President, and neither could stand against the Clinton machine, without the entire Democratic Party abandoning the Clinton's, and propping him up, to the tune of an illegal invalidation of the Florida primary, which cost Hillary Clinton the nomination. Both Obama and Bush, Jr. had difficulty making trade agreements and forging alliances in wartime.

Whether that plays out as the voters (who are not the most informed people in America at anytime), buying another four years, making it 12-straight for the Democrats, and putting a stamp of approval on Obama's third term, after repudiating his policies in 2010 and 2014, remains to be seen. After he leaves office, I expect Obama to fade away meekly to Hawaii, play golf, and never be heard from again............

 

Wow. Haterz gotta hate, I guess. You would order a military strike on Israel, but I'm guessing you can't even articulate why you would do that.

 

Well yeah, I'll easily concede that 0bama's failures stem more from his character and background than a lack of intellect. I don't think he was any more qualified for the position than I am or most other people are. Bush had a better background but failed anyway, which tells me he was never so much as potentially good presidential material. 0bama might have been, but again his background was nowhere near what it needed to be, especially where facing and successfully overcoming political trials was concerned, I'm thinking.

And a long 8 years has maybe taught him a few things, but I'll still be glad to see him go. I just hope to Venus and all that is good that the Wicked Witch doesn't succeed him!

 

On the other hand, Rule 11 requires members create a thread with a personal opinion:

Just saying.

 

Probably because Syria didn't use chemical weapons. For that you have to thank Turkey - one half of the homeland of Gladio B

- - - Updated - - -

Yup, I'm with you 100% on that. Sadly, I don't think Congress has the balls to do it.