« The Newt Question(s) | Main | Occupy Corzine »

December 08, 2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Again off point, but a situation that I hope will never become important. If it does the US might have a really big problem:

It is an central position for evangelicals and the Christian right that support for Israel be strong and unconditional. We have seen that in all of the debates. I believe some of this involves end-of-times theology.

There is some chance that Israel will make a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear capacity. There certainly is an element within Israel that would support a unilateral strike. What would Iran do in return? What would any nation do in return?

The problem then is escalation involving perhaps all the middle east and areas beyond. If the US is seen as unconditionally supporting Israel's strike then the world becomes a very dangerous place for us. What would Russia do? What would China do? Very dangerous indeed.

The certainty of support for Israel under any condition shown by the debaters could get us in very serious situation. But how should the US feel about unconditional support for Israel? Certainly Iran poses an existential threat to Israel, but, also certainly, not to us. Can we be allowed to tie ourselves to Israel at that level.

If the debaters were taken at face value by either Israel or Iran, and one of them were elected President, there is potential for great harm through miscalculation. The likelihood of any if this happening is small, but the downside of mistakes by us or others is huge.

I support Israel. I am sure that Israel should continue to exist. But the debaters can give me shivers in their support of Israel at any cost.

AlB.: Thanks; that is pretty astounding, to say the least! Researching the 'Intermediary' (if one existed)would be interesting. As these Lefty 'Players' come to light; a common 'thread' starts to surface. I think the Country has absorbed all of the stellar Harvard types it can handle.

Hello, Dick G. My understanding is that Soros money was on the other side of MF Global's miscalculations on Europe. That made sense because Soros is a real smart dude having special expertise in relative currency valuations. If I gave the impression I hold that against him, I do not. It is the capitalist way. It is ironic, however, that Soros has a world view that government beaurocrats would do a better job of running a world economy. I did not think of fact checking Soros role, which might be hard to do. It made sense when I heard it on radio, specific news source forgotten, but it was not a commentator (i.e., not Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Savage,et al). I also am reasonably certain that it was not Rachael Maddow or Chris Matthews.

PS: Do you think that Corzine will get a pass til after the election? There is some similarity to the stalled pipeline?

SOROS CONNECTION; Al, what was the connection that Soros profited by ? I've been listening to Corzines testimony and he's pulled the 'Clinton card'; "I can't remember". Three hours wasted.

Please forgive 2 off-subject questions that baffle me:

1. Why does MSM characterize Jon Corzine's involvement with the MF Global bankruptcy and missing billions as being "tragic"? Isn't this the same Jon Corzine who cosponsored Sarbanes/Oxley responsibility of CEOs and CFOs for financial performance of their company? Isn't this the same Jon Corzine who was CEO of Goldman Sachs? Isn't George Soros the $2 Billion profiteer of Corzine's "tragedy"? Is Global MF going to get bailed out by Geitner as being "too large to fail"? Will our illustrious Attorney General turn a blind eye to prosecution? And, will our President pretend that nothing happened? Cannot easily blame this one on Bush/Cheney/Rove. So MSM and the Obama Administration will pretend that it did not happen?


2. Bill M.--You seem to have some insights on Harry Reid's thinking. And, thank you for your favorable comment on my earlier post. Do you have any explanation for his successful opposition to nuclear power? Obama opposes the Canadian oil pipeline and recovery of natural gas by fracturing rock strata,coal generation of power, oil recovery in Alaska/Gulf/USA mainland,
hydroelectric, etc. The only politically "viable" energy sources seem to be solar (oops, Solyndra just lost the taxpayer billions) and wind turbines (closed down on Cape Cod because they made too much noise). In your opinion, do Reid or the administration have a viable vision of an energy source for the next 20 year transiton period in the USA?

Al B.

"FAILURE IN NOV. IS NOT AN OPTION": One 'look' at Sen. Tom Coburn, Mr. 'NUTS & BOLTS' of the Senate,you realize it can't be Newt G. In fact we may not have the luxury of waiting for Nov.. If they can get Holder Impeached; then double down. Fraudulent incompetance should never have been allowed to stand this long.
The Europeans are further from a German agreement. The future of the 'EURO' in doubt. Germany's Standard of Living may not be as dependent on Western Europe as people think. To complicate matters, a German 'Bond Auction' failed recently.
The 'US' needs a 'Special Representative', like Irskine Bolles ,and/or the former Comptroller General to represent the Country in future discussions.

The comments to this entry are closed.