Reply With Quote
Cue the Iranian Boogeyman troll in 3.......2.......1........
I am concerned that Israel will force our hand though. I don't really see this as an issue that's within our circle of influence at the end of the day.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...-check-on-IranWashington
By showering Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with affection on his trip to Capitol Hill Tuesday, members of Congress partially obscured a larger disagreement over just what tools the US should employ to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
In Pictures: Iran's military might
Related stories
What would happen if Iran had the bomb? (+video)
Military strike on Iran: Are Obama and Netanyahu now on the same page?
Benjamin Netanyahu goes to Congress, saying patience with Iran wears thin
Obama chides rivals for 'popping off' about war with Iran over nukes
Mr. Netanyahu, who had private meetings with groups of House and Senate leaders on both sides of the aisle, was giving love as good as he was getting.
“I don’t think there is a place anywhere else on earth where we can match the clarity, courage, and wisdom that I find here in the halls of this ins ution," he said.
RECOMMENDED: What would happen if Iran had the bomb?
But the definition of “clarity” was up for debate as Democrats took issue with a bold plan floated by Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R) of Kentucky, which would preemptively give President Obama the green light to take military action against Iran.
“I think it is time to consider a resolution authorizing the use of force” against Iran, Senator McConnell said at an afternoon press briefing with reporters. “A resolution authorizing the use of force does not mandate the use of force. It would clearly indicate to the Iranians that we were willing to go beyond sanctions, that many of us are skeptical are likely to get the final result.”
Speaking to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s annual meeting the night prior, McConnell laid out his thoughts on Iran in more specific – and strident – terms.
“In my view, the only way – the only way – the Iranian regime can be expected to negotiate to preserve its own survival rather than to simply delay as a means of pursuing nuclear weapons is if the administration imposes the strictest sanctions while at the same time enforcing a firm declaratory policy that reflects a commitment to the use of force,” McConnell said, receiving a standing ovation from a group widely regarded as one of the nation’s most powerful lobbying groups.
He said he would consult with Mr. Obama and congressional leaders to introduce such a resolution “if at any time the intelligence community presents the Congress with an assessment that Iran has begun to enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels, or has taken a decision to develop a nuclear weapon.”
Many Senate Republicans have been critical of the administration's willingness to give sanctions time to have an effect.
“I’m willing to talk, I hope sanctions will work, I’m willing to apply more, but time is not going to last forever. The Israelis have a different clock than we do,” said Sen. Lindsay Graham (R) of South Carolina.
Democrats, on the other hand, took issue not only with McConnell’s suggestion but an op-ed by GOP presidential front runner Mitt Romney addressing America's conflict with Iran.
“I’m not going to be part of rushing forward to a declaration of war. These are things that have to be done very, very cautiously,” Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D) of Nevada said at an afternoon news conference.
McConnell's proposed resolution was "premature," added Sen. John Kerry (D) of Massachusetts, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in an e-mailed statement.
Obama likewise sounded a cautionary note during his first press conference since November.
“This is not a game. There’s nothing casual about it,” he said.
Senator Kerry even took to the Senate floor to criticize Mr. Romney, the former governor of his home state, for what he called “idle talk of war.”
“Talk has consequences, and idle talk of war only helps Iran by spooking the tight oil market and increasing the price of the Iranian crude that pays for its nuclear program,” Kerry said. “And to create false differences with the president just to score political points does nothing to move Iran off a dangerous nuclear course.”
Cue the Iranian Boogeyman troll in 3.......2.......1........
I am concerned that Israel will force our hand though. I don't really see this as an issue that's within our circle of influence at the end of the day.
No. No more.
Yes! Talk of war continues to raise oil/gas prizes and the GOP is a winner!
Of course it could further destabilize the region but what the it is an election year and the GOP suffers blinded hatred for the president!
Good ing point....everyone should shut the up because I'm tired of oil going up based on conversations.
this .
Don't worry.
Obama straightened out the Israelis:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8E715H20120307
Israel cautiously welcomes big-power talks with Iran
Israel on Wednesday cautiously welcomed the planned resumption of big-power nuclear talks with Iran, insisting that Tehran be denied the means to turn uranium into bomb fuel.
With Israel speaking increasingly loudly of resorting to military action to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, the talks could provide some respite in a crisis that has driven up oil prices and threatened to suck the United States into its third major war in a decade.
Tuesday's announcement of new talks followed a visit by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the United States, where President Barack Obama said the talks offered a diplomatic chance to quiet the "drums of war".
"I'm very happy that they are opening discussions," said Netanyahu's national security adviser, Yaakov Amidror.
Anytime you need further lessons on the geopolitical landscape you know where to find them.
this will be news to johnsmith
Anyone who thinks that a nuclear Iran is a security threat to the U.S is just wrong.
Here's the facts on what a nuclear Iran would mean.
1) Would embolden the Iranian regime to dominate the Middle East using Hezbollah and Syria and other groups.
2) Would pose a severe security threat to Saudi Arabia. The Shia fanatics will eventually try to take over Mecca like they did in 1979 when the Ayatollah took over. Also, the Iranian government is pissed at how the es are treated in the Kingdom.
3) A Saudi-Iranian conflict would mean disaster for oil prices which would be a huge threat economically to the Western world.
4) Pakistan would also have a security threat with a nuclear Iran. These two countries have not gotten along since the Ayatollah took over in 1979. Pakistan is a majority Sunni country where es are routinely getting attacked and vice versa. Plus, there's a Sunni extremist group causing terror attacks in Iran which the Iranians think get support from the Pakistanis.
5) Israel would be effected if an emboldened Iran uses Hezbollah and Syria to launch attacks. Israel has enough capability to withstand and blast those groups and even the Iranians.
Basically a nuclear Iran would pose a security threat to Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, a minor threat to Israel, and a major economic threat to the Western World due to oil. But little security threat to the Western world.
I was agreeing with you.....next time I won't use so many big words like " ", so that you won't for some reason that is totally beyond me, get upset about it.
Would you rather I just go back to pointing out that you've never once offered anything of substance in this forum and are actually more guilty than anyone else here of just immediately attacking the messanger rather than the message itself?
You're a poor mans chumpdumper, a less witty clambake, and a much, much dumber winehole.
Happy?
I think you just offended 3 posters on this board.
I'm not offended.
me either
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
