Israeli Prime Minister 'utterly rejects' emerging Iran deal

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    Nov. 11, 2013 9:46 a.m.

    @ Mark B:

    Thankfully, you are not me and I'm not you.
    Try to be open enough to realize I'm not representing any of the groups you mentioned... the GOP, Tea Party, right (or left) extremists. I didn't mention any of them in any of my comments. That's simply you reading things into things... in an unobjective desire to label everyone... especially those who don't agree with your ideologies. In so doing, you've drifted off context of the article subject.

    I speak only for myself and represent no one or nothing else... other than the principle of common sense. You should try it... it's often fulfilling.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    Nov. 8, 2013 8:38 p.m.

    If I were Tators, I would not mention a thing about name-calling. The GOP, tea party guys and far right radioheads wrack their brains every day thinking of new ways to insult Obama. They do it knowing he won't waste time to counterattack. Are they thinking? Yes - about the next compelling bumper sticker.

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 5:47 p.m.

    @ Happy Valley Heretic:

    Having a militarily strong Israel has been the only means of having any semblance of balance in the Middle East for quite some time. Cutting off our military aid to Israel would be one of the dumbest things we could do as far as trying to maintain any peace in that region of the world. Rogue countries in that region would then run amuck.

    The prime minister of Israel is not trying to control America, but simply looking out for the safety of his country and hoping that we will start acting like the ally we contend we are.

    FYI: Stooping to name calling of world leaders significantly diminishes your credibility.

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 4:28 p.m.

    Can you imagine if President Obama goes to Iran, gets some big agreement with them, and comes home to declare "We have peace in our time."

    Why would that ring a distant but familiar bell?

  • David Centerville, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 12:32 p.m.

    The Obama administration has already "bought" into a deal with Iran emotionally. Their vision is clouded with their utopian philosophy distortions. They want the deal badly to bolster a horrible 2nd term and are willing to give up too much to secure a deal with Iran.

    Unfortunately, Iran cannot be trusted and Obama is throwing an historical friend, Israel, to the wolves.

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 11:50 a.m.

    Our administration has turned soft after the way their Syria debacle worked out so poorly. Israel is a longtime ally. Iran is not. I don't blame Israel's leadership at all for being disappointed with the current results of the most recent talks with Iran. Every freedom loving country needs to stand up for its own security. And in Israel's case, it's very existence.

    Obama is proving to our allies that they can no longer count on us when the chips are down.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 11:14 a.m.

    So, if Israel does attack, where will Obama stand? Support them? Try to stop them? Or stand on the sidelines? Think about those choices.


    I didn't realize that Laird was an anti Israel. The term Zionist is usually code for something like anti Israel or Jewish.

  • Hemlockroid Kailua-Kona, HI
    Nov. 8, 2013 9:53 a.m.

    As Defense Secretary Melvin R. Laird wrote in March 1969, these "Zionist developments were not in the United States' interests and should, if at all possible, be stopped."

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 9:49 a.m.

    Cut Israel Off and see how big they talk, Tired of Nutty Yahoo trying to control America and start a war with Iran.
    Time to cut apron strings and the 2 billion welfare we send them every year.