Reply With Quote
Meh...the US Ambassador to Israel announced it?...It's just Obama trying to posture and act tough to get the Democrats Jewish donor base off the sideline and hopefully giving him money.
Ripped from: Plans to Strike Iran “ready,” And Congress Moves The War Goal Posts Closer
Reuters: U.S. plans for a possible military strike on Iran are ready and the option is “fully available”, the U.S. ambassador to Israel said, days before Tehran resumes talks with world powers which suspect it of seeking to develop nuclear arms.
- more -House:AP: US envoy to Israel: US ready to strike Iran
…In his speech, Shapiro acknowledged the clock is ticking.
“We do believe there is time. Some time, not an unlimited amount of time,” Shapiro said. “But at a certain point, we may have to make a judgment that the diplomacy will not work."
- more -
Senate:On the diplomatic front, the House is expected to vote Thursday on H.Res. 568, a resolution expressing the importance of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. While this is a non-binding resolution, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) warned that it urges President Obama to affirm the unacceptability of an Iran with nuclear-weapons capability, and oppose policies that accept containment of a nuclear-capable Iran.
"This language represents a significant shift in U.S. policy, and would guarantee that talks with Iran currently scheduled for May 23, would fail," Kucinich said. "Current U.S. policy is that Iran cannot acquire nuclear weapons. Instead, H.Res. 568 draws the red line for military action at Iran achieving a nuclear weapons capability, a nebulous and undefined term that would include a civilian nuclear program."
- more -
Senators tussle over new Iran sanctions
Republicans blocked an attempt by Senate Democrats on Thursday to pass new sanctions against Iran, complaining the final language in the bill, which they had negotiated for months, is not tough enough to deter Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
Republicans complained Democrats provided them the final language just minutes before they were asked to approve it. Republicans said the new wording appeared to water down the threat of U.S. military action against Iran if that country developed nuclear weapons; something President Obama has said is on the table.
- more -
Meh...the US Ambassador to Israel announced it?...It's just Obama trying to posture and act tough to get the Democrats Jewish donor base off the sideline and hopefully giving him money.
Doesn't it make sense for a global military to have plans ready for pretty much every scenario someone can think of? I've always kinda assumed that somewhere in the Pentagon there's a filing cabinet full of plans to invade everyone from Iran to Russia to Canada to the local Hooters.
"...it is standard procedure for armies to draw up plans for a broad range of possible scenarios. But Shapiro's comments were the most explicit sign yet that preparations have been stepped up."
Ho hum, just another war.
not much chance of a sneak attack......thanks to facebook.
we'll see. seems like the same old song and dance to me.
Don't want: War
Do want: A military that's constantly prepared for it
I'm not really seeing what the fuss is here.
somebody's spidey sense must be tingling; I don't see it either
Yeah, we're known for our restraint and good judgment when it comes to the middle east.
ok
I don't rule out the possibility of war with Iran, indeed it seems distinctly probable to me in the medium term, but the Congressional and diplomatic saber rattling is hardly unusual.
it's possible the envoy's comments, taken together with loud noises about being *tuff* on Iran coming from the US Congress, bring us slightly closer to war.
but it's also possible this is election year posturing, and/or is intended to put pressure on Iran ahead of the upcoming nuclear parley.
Saber rattling and posturing is significant, as demonstrated in the run up to Iraq part 2.
sure, it can be
"Constantly prepared," is that what we're doing here? Seems like a distinction could be made between preparedness and making aggressive threats of preemptive strikes/invasions.
I'm sure it could, I just don't see that as being the case here though.
Yup, context and stakes are pretty important in this matter. Re the stakes, I reckon they're a lot higher than we faced/are facing in Iraq.
can you flesh that out a little bit? it's not intuitively clear to me what you mean.
Do you see making threats of a preemptive strike as preparedness? Seems to me preparedness would center around defending Israel if she were attacked. That's not what we're doing/saying at all.
what are we doing and saying, as you see it?
I certainly respect that you may see things differently, but from my POV I see some sabre rattling at worst.
Making threats and drawing up plans of a preemptive strike against Iran.
saber rattling can be dangerous in it's own right.
in principle, the nip connotes the bite but does not denote what the bite would denote; in practice, sometime people take "aggressive posturing" wrong, and it leads to an actual fight.
I'm hardly surprised there's planning for such contingencies, would be more surprised if there wasn't, tbh.
Not sure our individual differences are relevant. The Bush, and now apparently Obama doctrine of preemptive strikes has been a significant change in our foreign policy, don't you agree? At the rhetorical level at least?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
