Would this be escalating like this had Romney won?

[PaceAdvantage]

That's the question that ran through my mind as I read this article about the Egypt PM backing the Palestinans and Israel drafting 16,000 reservists.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2...eservists?lite

Funny how all this starts escalating big time after Obama is reelected.

What I'd like to know, is how in the world does any country or group of countries think they have any sort of chance to defeat Israel in any sort of armed conflict?

Because even on the odd chance that they do somehow manage to get Israel back on her heels, they must know, even with Obama as Prez, the US is going to come to her aid militarily should something like that happen.

Which leads me to a frightening thought. The only way for the enemies of Israel to truly believe they can defeat her, is if they also somehow simultaneously inflict serious damage on the US mainland...in the form of a 9/11 style terrorist attack, only with something of much greater magnitude...I don't even want to think about what that might entail...

What say you all about what's going on over there as it relates to the election results?

[horses4courses]

There are always troubles brewing for Israel and Gaza.
This was going to happen regardless of what is going on in the US.

As much as some people think we are the world's police force, our role has diminished over the past 50 years.

[Tom]

Knowing that Israel now stand alone plays a big role in the activity.
Talk is cheap, the actions of the US during Ben Ghazi send a clear message to the Middle East.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Funny how all this starts escalating big time after Obama is reelected.

The timing is beyond coincidence. The election of a "dove" instead of a "hawk" had to be highly influential.

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

What I'd like to know, is how in the world does any country or group of countries think they have any sort of chance to defeat Israel in any sort of armed conflict?
Because even on the odd chance that they do somehow manage to get Israel back on her heels, they must know, even with Obama as Prez, the US is going to come to her aid militarily should something like that happen.

Israel is essentially an island surrounded by a sea of Arabs, who for the most part pray every day for that country to be annihilated.
Just a few nuclear bombs strategically exploded would make that prayer come true in seconds.
Much of the weaponry being supplied to Gaza, Syria, and Lebanon is being provided by Iran.
When Iran has the nuclear bomb, that it has been given time to build, the nation state of Israel could be no more.
The nuclear capabilities of Israel have been rumoured but are uncertain.
I suspect that Netanyahu has less confidence that the U.S. will come to aid militarily while Obama is in power than you are expressing here.

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Which leads me to a frightening thought. The only way for the enemies of Israel to truly believe they can defeat her, is if they also somehow simultaneously inflict serious damage on the US mainland...in the form of a 9/11 style terrorist attack, only with something of much greater magnitude...I don't even want to think about what that might entail...

Hopefully you are wrong about the probability of that happening.
The damage incurred by 9-11 went a lot deeper and wider than the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.
Much of the economic mess of today can be related back to that horrible disaster.
In the meanwhile, the prestige of the American military has fallen significantly in the perception of the middle-East and Asia.
They realize that America can no longer afford to be the world's policeman to all places at all times.
Neither China nor Russia have shown a willingness to aid in that capacity either.
Hence several middle East dictatorships have been overthrown.
The insurgents who have taken over have a resentment for the fact that the U.S. was providing funding to the tune of billions of dollars a year to the previous dictatorships. In effect, America backed "the wrong horse" in some of those countries. Pakistan could be next.
At any rate, history tends to repeat itself.
President Obama and the late British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain seem to have a lot in common.
Chamberlain's approach to Hitler didn't work.
Why should we believe that Obama's approach to Ahmadinejad's will?
This next decade could be a tough one.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I'm not sure I think its quite as devious as Pace Advantage speculates - with coordinated attacks in the plans to neuter us from intervention - mainly because that sort of premise would actually probably only rally us together as a nation and guarantee our full support of kicking the living shit out of whatever 5th century vowel intenstive leader dreamed up that bad idea.

If anything, I think there's a pervasive thought elsewhere that our Egypt involvement and tangential lack of interest in Syria has been a bit of a problem for us, even though it isn't exactly portrayed as such. We effectively facilitated the "feelgood liberation" of a population that has moved in a radically different direction than that which the average citizen had in mind when they tuned into CNN to watch the lovely Arab Spring coverage.

Meanwhile, we have this mess going on in Syria and suddenly we don't seem overly eager to jump into the fray once again. At least not right out in the open, with the State Dept. and Oval Office making cutesy sounding statements about the "best interests" of the people (and us).

So... If this does escalate quickly - and Egypt gets involved in a tangible way - our President's administration is in a bit of a bind and I feel fairly comfortable in my opinion that the President is very cognizant of how he is portrayed and the narrative that accompanies the portrayal. He'd be in a bit of a bind to have helped install the same regime that now is ignoring the treaties the former regime had respected and being forced to fight militarily against that which the people "democratically" installed to govern them following his intervention.

Basically, I think that some of this big balls syndrome isn't coming from a perceived lack of interest in defending Israel, but rather in the precarious nature of how we deal with the potential allies of Palestinians considering the politics of the last four years. I don't think there's a sense that Obama is a puss that won't shed blood, but a sense that his politics and image occupies a disproportionate amount of his calculations. They probably just figure they have a window in which to work before he's either forced into it, or until the administration can create a narrative or build off of a convenient event (like PA's theory) that acquits him of any sense of hypocricy or failure in policy.

[elysiantraveller]

Realistically it wouldn't matter who won the election here. This ball began rolling when Obama said "Mubarak must go." Had we not said that the military would have most likely disposed of him and put in place another "friendly" dictator that we could work with.

As for Iran, as Greyfox, mentioned I believe are relationship with them is a major part of this issue although I am sure he and I completely disagree on how that relationship could and should function.

[lamboguy]

i agree with the above poster, and truly think that if Romney had been elected these attacks would have been a lot worse.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

i agree with the above poster, and truly think that if Romney had been elected these attacks would have been a lot worse.

We'll never know. I'd have guessed just the opposite and the attacks may not have been launched at all.
People poke tigers when they think their teeth have fallen out.

[OntheRail]

Well I guess when Obama would rather uck it up on Lettermen instead of meeting with Netanyahu it sent a clear impression. Couple that with the open mic gap about Putin and being Gumby in his second term. And with the US poised on the edge of the cliff. I don't think if a stretch to link these events to one another.

How would things of went if Cater was re elected?

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by OntheRail

Well I guess when Obama would rather uck it up on Lettermen instead of meeting with Netanyahu it sent a clear impression. Couple that with the open mic gap about Putin and being Gumby in his second term. And with the US poised on the edge of the cliff. I don't think if a stretch to link these events to one another.

How would things of went if Cater was re elected?

There was no reason for Obama to meet with Netanyahu. Except maybe to shut up the righties and their ridiculous talking points.

My history must be bad, because I do not remember a President Cater. Did you mean Jimmy Carter. Here are a few differences I can think of. The hostages would have been released sooner. As you probably don't know, there was an agreement negotiated by the Carter Administration for the release of the hostages. Before it could be implemented-during the campaign-Reagan sent James Baker to meet with the Iranians to persuade them to delay the release until the inauguration. In return, Baker promised to sell the Iranians weaponry to use in their war against Iraq. This was clearly illegal. As was negotiating with an enemy by a private citizen to the detriment of the hostages and the country

It is clear that this election has done nothing to change the opinions of the nutcases in the Republican party. They still have the same delusional, self reinforcing ideas. They know nothing of history. They have no respect for anthing or anyone outside their tiny circle and lack the capacity alter their thinking in any way. They think they have a direct line to God, and that the righteousness of their cause neutralizes and harm they do.

[wisconsin]

Originally Posted by mostpost

It is clear that this election has done nothing to change the opinions of the nutcases in the Republican party. They still have the same delusional, self reinforcing ideas. They know nothing of history. They have no respect for anthing or anyone outside their tiny circle and lack the capacity alter their thinking in any way. They think they have a direct line to God, and that the righteousness of their cause neutralizes and harm they do.

You mis-spelled Democrats and you really should not talk about your comrades this way.

[Tom]

This from the guy who killed Twinkies!

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by wisconsin

You mis-spelled ...

He also misspelled "anything" ... you can usually tell when mosite is going to struggle with spelling - it generally follows a condescending speech mocking someone else's spelling.

[OntheRail]

Originally Posted by mostpost

There was no reason for Obama to meet with Netanyahu. Except maybe to shut up the righties and their ridiculous talking points.

My history must be bad, because I do not remember a President Cater. Did you mean Jimmy Carter. Here are a few differences I can think of. The hostages would have been released sooner. As you probably don't know, there was an agreement negotiated by the Carter Administration for the release of the hostages. Before it could be implemented-during the campaign-Reagan sent James Baker to meet with the Iranians to persuade them to delay the release until the inauguration. In return, Baker promised to sell the Iranians weaponry to use in their war against Iraq. This was clearly illegal. As was negotiating with an enemy by a private citizen to the detriment of the hostages and the country

It is clear that this election has done nothing to change the opinions of the nutcases in the Republican party. They still have the same delusional, self reinforcing ideas. They know nothing of history. They have no respect for anthing or anyone outside their tiny circle and lack the capacity alter their thinking in any way. They think they have a direct line to God, and that the righteousness of their cause neutralizes and harm they do.

Really Ob's not meeting with Netanyahu sent as clear a message... you may have missed it but Hamas did not.

You Dem's just can't stop blaming Republican's for your failure... can you. Reagan... Bush... Reagan... Bush...

Cater...Carter the peanut farmer.

[Tom]

Carter - Clinton - Obama - dems in office, embassies fall.

Nothing aids the growth of terrorism like a democrat president.