I appologize for the Text color/background of this post. There appear to be some technical difficulties on the site.I have made the text larger to help. You could also select and "highlight" the text or paste it into your word browser.
This weekend, Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney visited Israel (second source Washington Post) during his overseas tour looking for supporting votes and donations.
*note I am no expert in Jewish-Hebrew customs, I was only aware that today marked an important day from the news reports*
Today was the first day of a three-day visit to Israel. His first mistake is visiting during a very solemn day on the Jewish calendar, the Tisha B'Av. If I were to travel for his intended purpose, a day of mourning is not the best day to visit and "show that we need to stand by Israel".
I am all for standing behind Israel, although I do feel that we take it upon ourselves as a country to to dedicate 100%of our resources to one country. While the US did "found" Israel in the 60's, it is NOT soil of the US.
**correction, I misspoke: The modern nation o Israel was founded by the UN but the US was the primary backer. A brief summary of why can be seen here: http://www.theocracywatch.org/christian_zionism_israel_forms.htm
This visit to Israel brought out some very, very scary words out of the Republican presidential hopeful. In his speech Romney said, "We should employ any and all measures to dissuade the Iranian regime from its nuclear course, and it is our fervent hope that diplomatic and economic measures will do so," and "In the final analysis, of course, no option should be excluded. We recognize Israel's right to defend itself, and that it is right for America to stand with you. "
"any and all measures, no option": I don't know about you, but that sounds a little like a threat of WAR. I thought Romney was AGAINST wasteful spending? Would provoking a war with Iran NOT be wasteful spending?
Obviously he did not learn from his 2000-2008 counterpart George Bush and his endeavors in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yes, I know Obama spent about $5Trillion during this term, but a lot of it was towards IMPROVEMENTS to our country and its internal workings, including our infrastructure ( S.1926 (110th) and H.R. 4268 (111th)) and a beginning step towards fixing our broken health care system.
George Bush spent over $10 Trillion on two wars that did what for the US? What did it accomplish other than removing our enemies.
On top of this Romney contradicts him self in policy.
He spoke of us being the "peace-makers", yet an hour prior to the speech "one of his senior foreign policy advisers- would support Israel's right to launch a unilateral military strike against Iran" (W.Post)
How can someone claim to not want to use military force say "any and all means necessary", while supporting ones "right" to launch a military strike?
I also encourage you to read the Washington Post article on Page 2 at the end about the "Arab Spring", and think about how hypocritical it is for us to not defend the people of countries (i.e. Egypt) who are pushing for a less oppressive dictatorship towards a more democratic government than what they had. Just another thing to use to press for an un-necessary military action against countries like Iran who "do not like us."
In short America, please really think about our decision in about 100 days.
Do we re-elect a president that will try to keep us in peace and improve our broken insides?
OR
Do we go back to militaristic Ideals that compleetly contradict the ideals our country was founded upon? Ignore OUR people while focusing on OTHERS freedoms while our own people struggle day to day?
The choice is yours America,
Choose wisely!
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Obama has used the same language when discussing Iran. The last speech I can think of off the top of my head where he said that the US will not take any option off of the table was in November 2011, but he likely said something more recently given current events.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I'm not exactly sure what you meant by the US 'founding' Israel in the 1960s. Can you elaborate?
Anon,
DeleteI encourage discussion but not behind closed masks.
I am not aware of Obama saying anything along the exact lines as Romney but if you can provide a source I would very much like to read it.
As for Israel I appologize I meant the 40's by the UN.
I do stand corrected. If you are unfamiliar with the formation of modern Israel (as I am unable to copy and paste on this mobile app) I will have to suggest googling is
DeleteFair enough, you have my apology.
ReplyDeleteThe first time I heard about it was referenced here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42DU0venTTc) in October 2011, and then reiterated with further explanation here (http://www.reuters.com/video/2011/12/08/obama-on-iran-no-options-off-table?videoId=226508075) that December. To me, Obama's 'no option is off the table' is practically identical to Romney's 'no option should be excluded'. Both have stressed that, while diplomatic and economic solutions are preferable, the threat of a military operation will not be discounted.
As far as Israel goes, I am rather familiar with its creation, and as such am also aware that the US had little to do with the Jewish state until the 1960s (what I thought you were alluding to) when the Soviets began exerting their influence on the Arab nations. Although the US was the first country to extend recognition and extended a cordial, if somewhat distant, hand to the Israelis, the UK and France were actually much more instrumental in providing weapons and aid. In fact, as far as I am aware it was not until the Six-Day War in 1967, after it became rather apparent that the US wasn't going to be able to play both sides of the table, that the government became overtly pro-Israel.
Additionally, Secretary of Defense Panetta stated earlier today that if economic sanctions do not deter Iran from pursuing its nuclear enrichment program, then military options will need to be considered.
ReplyDelete