Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama not bluffing on war with Iran?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Obama not bluffing on war with Iran?

    Really? So if we would have destroyed this project at the beginning there would not be a full scale war. Now that we waited 3 years Iran now has our largest foes against us, China and Russia, against us. The middle east is a total cluster. We are supplying weapons to the rebels who are fighting us in Iraq and Afghanistan, China and Russia are supplying the Syria troops, and the dictators are on Syria's side since Syria has helped them fight us in wars. This is why Obama is the worst president ever. He does not use a single cell of his brain, something happens and he reacts. The smartest president cannot think past his lying ass or just wants to destroy the country.

    Iran can have a nuclear weapon if they have half a brain now. Everyone has told them how to do it and we have caught them doing so.

    Barack Obama's threats to use military force to prevent Iran securing a nuclear weapon are more than idle bluffs, vice-president Joe Biden told the biggest pro-Israeli lobbying group Aipac on Monday.

    Biden said that while the US preferred a diplomatic solution to the standoff with Iran, a military option remained on the table.

    "The president of the United States cannot, and does not, bluff. President Barack Obama is not bluffing," Biden told the audience in Washington.

    Israel is seeking assurances of support from the US, should it decide to launch air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities.

    There has been scepticism about Obama's commitment to a military option against Iran, given the administration's general unwillingness to be drawn into new conflicts after the experience of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Some observers feel that Obama's threat is aimed purely at putting pressure on Iran to resolve the standoff diplomatically and not embark on another conflict.

    Pro-Israel supporters of the military option, speaking at Aipac's annual conference, attempted to counter Obama's reticence by insisting the military option would only require an overnight air strike, rather than a prolonged conflict.

    In contrast with the run-up to the Iraq war, the US is determined to show that it is pursuing all alternatives to conflict. Biden said that if the US had to take military action, it was critical that the world knew it had tried everything in its power to prevent such an eventuality.

    Obama, in an interview last year, insisted he was not bluffing. But his public pronouncements contrasted with behind-the-scenes US pressure on Israel to hold back from an air strike, particularly in the White House election year. The White House views Iran as the top foreign policy priority of Obama's second term.

    The US and other governments held inconclusive talks with Iran recently, and further talks are planned. The new US secretary of state John Kerry, at a press conference in Saudi Arabia on Monday, said there was a "finite" time for conclusion of the talks.

    Iran denies it is pursuing a nuclear weapon, and insists it only wants nuclear power to meet domestic energy needs.

    Addressing the conference via satellite link from Israel, prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu said Iran had not yet crossed the red line on the nuclear issue but it was getting closer. He expressed scepticism about the value of sanctions and called for a more credible military threat.

    Biden was speaking before a trip planned by Obama to Jerusalem later this month, provided an Israeli government is in place by then. Iran, not Palestine, is the key issue for Israel at present, though Biden stressed that the White House remained committed to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    Obama is viewed with suspicion by many Israelis who see him as too sympathetic to the Palestinians, but Biden's credentials as a staunch supporter of Israel have seldom been challenged. Biden insisted that he and Obama were deeply committed to the security of Israel.

    "It is in our naked self-interest, beyond the moral impertive," Biden said.

    The vice-president said the US works hard to ensure Israel retains a qualitative edge in military hardware, even at a time of recession.

    Aipac members are planning a mass lobby of Congress on Wednesday and, among other issues, will be seeking to establish whether US aid to Israel will suffer from the $85bn in budget cuts ordered by Obama on Friday.

  • #2
    Any bets on this Presidency being the first to back down out of a vicious threat?
    _____________________________________________

    Comment


    • #3
      I'll wait for the idiots to say we spend more than x number of our allies (which doesn't matter as we're not going to war against them) and that cuts to the military are not only fine, but necessary as we have no real enemies.
      I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

      Comment


      • #4
        One of my buddies is getting deployed on the 8th to the gulf of aden..

        Comment


        • #5
          You may want to take that down. Deployments don't need to be posted
          I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

          Comment


          • #6
            We have been deploying them there since 2003, not a big deal.

            Comment


            • #7
              I don't think China or Russia have ever been thrilled with our policing of the middle east. As far as Syria is concerned I'd personally rather have a dictator in charge to keeps the nuts in check instead of our guys getting their asses shot off.

              Comment


              • #8
                Perhaps, but better safe than sorry. OPSEC, always better to err on the side of caution
                I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by jw33 View Post
                  I don't think China or Russia have ever been thrilled with our policing of the middle east. As far as Syria is concerned I'd personally rather have a dictator in charge to keeps the nuts in check instead of our guys getting their asses shot off.
                  Haven't always agreed with you but call me selfish but I agree. But then agree we have seen how many more suffer after one took over?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    If by war you mean sanctions and more money to train a resistance, then yeah.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X