Romney talks tough on Iran during visit to Israel

World Jul. 30, 2012 - 07:05AM JST ( 34 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

34 Comments

0

minello7Jul. 30, 2012 - 09:18AM JST

Visit to Israel ??? This is part of a fund raising vote buying PR exercise for the US presidential elections, nothing more. So far he's upset the British and the Palestinians with his rhetoric. Excuse my sense of humour, but the best was a Mormon in a black Jewish skull cap. Maybe that could be the new attire for the Mormon door knocking fraternity.
2

SushiSake3Jul. 30, 2012 - 09:39AM JST

And the ongoing trend of U.S. politicians of all stripes bending over backwards to appease a bunch of thugs in Israel continues, all stemming from verses in the Bible that precisely none of those politicians can prove is even accurate.

Folks, this is 2012, not the 1st century. Time to get religion out of politics.
0

VespertoJul. 30, 2012 - 09:47AM JST

Excuse my sense of humour, but the best was a Mormon in a black Jewish skull cap. Maybe that could be the new attire for the Mormon door knocking fraternity.

:D

Not even Romney would be dumb enough to defend Iran in Israel, besides his team is on their toes after last week.

Iran knows it would be suicide to attack Israel, since the american jewish lobby would force the US military to take action. On the other hand, Ahmadinejad doesn't run the show, the ayatolahs do, and they're extremists. Also, no one likes Israel in that region, so Iran would have support. Thorny MAD situation.
0

SerranoJul. 30, 2012 - 09:49AM JST

"presenting himself as Israel's best friend"

That's inviting trouble.

I'll bet Romney's glad to be out of Britain, ha ha!
4

SushiSake3Jul. 30, 2012 - 10:17AM JST

Anyone else find it kinda funny how - after conservatives have spent years accusing president Obama of a policy of appeasement - here's their own top man bending over backwards to appease another nation?

There's a word for that. :-)
-2

Bgood41Jul. 30, 2012 - 10:22AM JST

At last, we have someone can talk straight regarding Iran instead of deficit in chief. The world knows that America is getting weak under blamer in chief, economically and politically. The dictators around the globe gone wild, and Romney will bring certainty to America foreign policy, rather than Obama; the quick fix and kicking can down the road in chief.
0

SushiSake3Jul. 30, 2012 - 10:45AM JST

Heh, Romney will bring certainty there will be yet another war America can't pay for.

President Obama has been working to shut the damn wars down because hey - they cost money America doesn't have.

Romney, on the other hand, wants even more wars.

Um-freaking-believable in this age.
0

SushiSake3Jul. 30, 2012 - 11:11AM JST

"Romney talks tough"

Heh, knowing Mitt, it's only a matter of days - possibly even minutes - until he changes his position. :-)

Nailing down Mitt on policy is as simple as nailing jelly to the wall. He may even change position while you're driving lo the polling station in November. :-)
0

Ehime SebastianJul. 30, 2012 - 11:35AM JST

It worries me to see the two US presidential candidates trying to outdo each other to please Israel in order to get elected.

With the Obama administration's top security official briefing Israel's prime minister on U.S. plans for a possible attack on Iran (yesterday's JT news) and Obama announcing 70 million dollars in additional spending (or 70 billion dollars, as Obama actually stated, possibly mistakenly) for Israel's Iron Dome missile defense shield.
1

SushiSake3Jul. 30, 2012 - 11:42AM JST

It's a multi-party policy of appeasement.

But why aren't conservatives up in arms over how Mitt is bowing down to foreign leaders??
0

Bgood41Jul. 30, 2012 - 12:01PM JST

War is a terrible thing and should only be the last resort. Regardless what Romney and all talker in chief approach, Iran's behavior will be the deciding factor of war or not. For now, in Iran you can not have sushi and sake freely at all. Japan must be steadfast and strong, for packing and run policy will bring about less fun time with sushi and sake as well. By the way, Iraq and Afghanistan is now not in peace either, and the future of peace is still a process. Quick fix might sound good, but sometimes a big disaster such as forwarding over the cliff is awaiting. Future of sake and sushi fun time is at steak for the future generation. Cheers.
3

SushiSake3Jul. 30, 2012 - 12:13PM JST

Bgood, are you in the food industry by any chance?
-1

SushiSake3Jul. 30, 2012 - 12:45PM JST

Ben Jack - "Iran has been making plans for another country's destruction for years now and is arming, supporting, financing and training of groups that have as their goals the destruction of another country. Funny how you are not at all concerned about that."

Do you support the US' wars of aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan?
0

SushiSake3Jul. 30, 2012 - 01:02PM JST

Ben, yes, that answers my question.
1

SimondBJul. 30, 2012 - 01:24PM JST

Israel would not need such a shield if countries like Iran would just leave it alone for a change and work for peace in the Middle East.

Sorry to burst your balloon Ben Jack but I think you'll find that it is Israel that is threatening to attack Iran and not the other way around. And following your "logic", then surely america is at fault for attacking Afghanistan and Iraq instead of just 'leaving them alone". And how much peace has the US brought to the middle east in the last decade? War yes, peace no. And Romney seems to want more war. Probably in the name of peace.
0

LagunaJul. 30, 2012 - 01:56PM JST

Outsourcing has always been his specialty. A Romney presidency would follow Israel's lead in Middle East policy, or so he explicitly states. Others may wish to keep American hands on the diplomatic steering wheel.
0

Ben JackJul. 30, 2012 - 03:29PM JST

My answer to SushiSake's question above was that I support US troops leaving both Iraq and Afghanistan. I do not support a military attack on Iran and I think it would be disastrous and counterproductive.
0

Ben JackJul. 30, 2012 - 03:34PM JST

Sorry to burst your balloon Ben Jack but I think you'll find that it is Israel that is threatening to attack Iran and not the other way around.

Nope. Iran threatened Israel first and Iran has been training, supporting, arming and financing Hezbollah and Hamas, two groups that have Israel's destruction in their charters and who actively attack Israel.

And following your "logic", then surely america is at fault for attacking Afghanistan and Iraq instead of just 'leaving them alone".

You have a point with Iraq. You do not with Afghanistan, Afghanistan harbored a group that attacked the United States. There was large support for going into Afghanistan. This is not nearly as true for Iraq. Anyway, everything cannot be compared to everything. We are talking about Iran here. Iran should not have nuclear weapons and they should not be allowed to developed them.

And how much peace has the US brought to the middle east in the last decade?

I am talking about Iran. Iran should not have access to nuclear weapons. If you want more peace in the Middle East, Iran having nuclear weapons would not be the way to get there.
-2

SushiSake3Jul. 30, 2012 - 05:09PM JST

Ben - "Iran should not have access to nuclear weapons. If you want more peace in the Middle East, Iran having nuclear weapons would not be the way to get there."

Peace in the ME has been destroyed by a country that not only has access to nuclear weapons but has used them - America.

Has Iran invaded any other nation in recent .....centuries?

Sure, there is a "possibility" Iran may attack or invade other nations, but you can say the same virtually any developed nation.

The thing that gets me about the anti-Iran crowd is the sheer hypocrisy.

Iran may have nuclear weapons. Wow.

It's widely believed Israel **already has **nuclear weapons.

To be fair, if you are going to blast Iran, go after Israel too. And America.

Will you do that?
1

MadvertsJul. 30, 2012 - 06:22PM JST

"Peace in the ME has been destroyed by a country that not only has access to nuclear weapons but has used them - America."

Meh, there was peace in the ME?
0

SuperLibJul. 30, 2012 - 07:19PM JST

Sushi is against Obama and supports Iran having nukes? Wow.....didn't think that was the case.
0

SushiSake3Jul. 30, 2012 - 08:32PM JST

Superlib, looks like you're acing your Conservative Alternative Reality class.

Good on ya, mate, keep up the good work. :-)
2

Thunderbird2Jul. 30, 2012 - 08:45PM JST

Mitt the Twit worries me... he's the kind of nutter who would attack Iran and then get into a war which would suck in America's allies, so we have more of our young men and women dying. He is Dubbya in disguise.
0

SuperLibJul. 30, 2012 - 09:30PM JST

Be careful, Sushi.....remember that your favorite attacks on Republicans depends on you pretending to love the US......but you are being too honest in some of these threads. It's all about winning and you're getting sloppy....
2

MadvertsJul. 30, 2012 - 09:44PM JST

"He (Romney) is Dubbya in disguise."

Nah, he's a moderate who sold his soul to the extreme right to better his chances at the ballot. Dubya really believed what he was doing, that was the scary part.
0

mrmaliceJul. 30, 2012 - 09:49PM JST

I read there's a certain type of reactor that uses liquid thorium instead of uranium and you don't get plutonium as byproduct (the thing they use in warheads) so shouldnt that be safe if Iran wants nuclear power then. I also read the research into that particular type of reactor was discontinued somewhere during the cold arms race but the docs still have to be somewhere around. I havent checked the information thoroughly but i dont think it's all bee-ess. Someone somewhere has to know more about it
1

lucabrasiJul. 30, 2012 - 10:06PM JST

I read there's a certain type of reactor that uses liquid thorium instead of uranium and you don't get plutonium as byproduct

India's big on it. It's the future. We just need the rest of the world to follow India's example.
2

Ben JackJul. 30, 2012 - 10:08PM JST

SushiSake,

Peace in the ME has been destroyed by a country that not only has access to nuclear weapons but has used them - America.

As Madverts correctly points out, when the heck has there been peace in the Middle East? The US has a lot of faults, but the Middle East has been a mess long before the US got involved.

Has Iran invaded any other nation in recent .....centuries?

Sigh. The present country of Iran has not been around for centuries. The present country of Iran has talked actively and encouraged the destruction of another country, one that was no threat to it at all. The present country of Iran does in fact support, train, finance and arm two groups whose goals are the destruction of another country. The present country of Iran has order the death of a citizen of another country because he wrote a book they found offensive. A Japanese translator was assassinated because of this death threat. Hardly the picture of a peaceful nation.

Sure, there is a "possibility" Iran may attack or invade other nations, but you can say the same virtually any developed nation.

See above. Iran already actively encourages and works to destroy another country.

The thing that gets me about the anti-Iran crowd is the sheer hypocrisy.

I am not anti-Iran. I am not in favor of military action against Iran. You have tried this argument before. It failed then. It continues to fail.

Will you do that?

No reason for me to. Neither country has encouraged the destruction of another country. Iran has absolutely nothing to fair from Israel and no real reason to be at war with them. Since the revolution, Iran has decided to be at war with Israel and has decided to encourage its destruction. Speaking of hypocrisy, if you are truly against nations having nuclear weapons, why would you ever want another to have them? The question is especially true in light of what I mentioned above about Iran.
2

MadvertsJul. 30, 2012 - 10:09PM JST

" It's the future"

Indeed. I wonder why Iran refused it when offered this state of the art technology by the negotiations.

Surely it's not because it would deny them access to weapons grade plutonium, contrary to their claims of a program iof nuclear "energy"?
1

Ben JackJul. 30, 2012 - 10:09PM JST

Nah, he's a moderate who sold his soul to the extreme right to better his chances at the ballot.

I think so, too. Hopefully he will a moderate again if he gets into office. He would be a much better president if he does.
2

MadvertsJul. 30, 2012 - 10:24PM JST

"Hopefully he will a moderate again if he gets into office. He would be a much better president if he does."

I don't think he will win, but anything is possible. The trouble with making deals with the Tea Party nuts and their ilk is they won't simply go away if he makes a return to the middle.

Romney reminds me of so many apt, over-achievers that despite their credentials are utterly to be unlikeable that I've met in my life...
0

MadvertsJul. 30, 2012 - 10:24PM JST

Whoops are utterly unlikeable
0

Ben JackJul. 30, 2012 - 11:02PM JST

The trouble with making deals with the Tea Party nuts and their ilk is they won't simply go away if he makes a return to the middle.

That is a good point. Again, hopefully, if he wins, he will go back to the center and be successful enough that he will not need any nuts to keep him in.

Romney reminds me of so many apt, over-achievers that despite their credentials are utterly to be unlikeable that I've met in my life...

I know what you mean. Many times, those kinds of people are the best leaders though.

This race is pretty interesting to me in that I think either candidate does have a chance to win it. As I wrote in another thread, neither of them seem like bad people, they are both intelligent and successful. So, it is really not a bad choice this time around. That is, as long as Romney can remember his moderate roots if he gets into office. As you mention, that is a big if. Then again, it takes as much energy to be positive as it does to be negative. That is one of the reasons that, maybe against reason, I am still hopeful Iran will decide to cooperate and follow IAEA and NPT rules and futher conflict can be avoided.
0

MadvertsJul. 31, 2012 - 02:33AM JST

"As I wrote in another thread, neither of them seem like bad people, they are both intelligent and successful."

They keep bringing Ann Romney on stage with him which seems an intelligent move on the part of his team as she's smart too and seems more likeable and natural at it all than Mitt, despite the obvious and pretty exclusive TV (and certainly diffusion) training he'll have had over the years. I can't shake the image of the wealthy businessman who's "had it all" - who is merely seeking the office of president to further his ego or legend or heh, perhaps even further personal gain who knows?

Israel will have been a good boost with the loyal conservative base and was a chance for him to strut the tough guy stance he'd show if elected (die-hard Republicans seem to love that sort of swaggering), though in fairness the PR scheme was probably overshadowed by his recent gaffes in the UK.

I'm not sure the Israeli's will wait for the UN carrot and stick farce to continue until Iran announces that they already have the bomb and it's too like NK. Nor will they need "US plans" as per the other days article - I'm sure they will attack Iran's nuclear facilities with or without international support if pushed. The last thing the ME needs is another conflict, but I have to say I prefer that scenario than the Mullah's with their finger on the button.