Bombing Iran?

[sealadaigh]

"A top American Jewish leader on Sunday criticized the Obama administration for cutting its aircraft carrier presence in the Persian Gulf region from two carriers to one. He said the move sent entirely the wrong message to Iran about America’s commitment to keep all options, including the military option, on the table in the struggle to thwart Tehran’s nuclear drive.

“I’m personally very disturbed by the withdrawal [of one of the US's two aircraft carriers] from the Persian Gulf, the Arab Gulf, because of the message it sends to the Iranians,” said Malcolm Hoenlein, the long-time executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organization, in unusually critical comments. “We have to think about how the Iranians perceive it.”

Jewish leader raps US for taking aircraft carrier out of Gulf | The Times of Israel

i just really have to wonder why this businessman is going to israel and complaining about a move that takes our kids (and my kid is in a carrier group).

also, who is this "we" he is speaking about?

whether you like obama or not, this is just wrong. do not go to a foreign country and disrespect ours. that weakens us worse than the withdrawl of an aircraft carrier.

 

[Katzndogz]

obama intends to convey weakness to Iran. He intends to encourage them in their pursuit of world war for the sake of the Hidden Imam.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Bombing Iran?

The idea is complete madness.

One of many good reasons to keep republicans and neo-cons out of the WH.

 

[Katzndogz]

Letting Iran bomb us is a much better idea. A quick surrender would mean immediate peace. Iran doesn't actually have to come here, although some small nuclear devices could easily be smuggled in. There are plenty of American interests around the world to bomb. And, as an added benefit, bombing American interests would hurt, if not destroy, all those enterprises the interests represent.

There is no downside to democrats to stop Iran.

 

[LockeTalk]

What on Earth are you saying?

 

[sealadaigh]

Letting Iran bomb us is a much better idea. A quick surrender would mean immediate peace. Iran doesn't actually have to come here, although some small nuclear devices could easily be smuggled in. There are plenty of American interests around the world to bomb. And, as an added benefit, bombing American interests would hurt, if not destroy, all those enterprises the interests represent.

There is no downside to democrats to stop Iran.

this isn't necessarily about iran. this is about an american business man going to a foreign country and criticising our military decisions to them and in front of the world, essentially putting the whole issue in play for foreign powers.

nor is it about republicans or democrats. obama is the commander in chief first and a democrat second, and this isn't being done without the knowledge and approval of the oint chiefs of staff.

i tell ya what. i am a vet and i sure didn't appreciate what jane fonda did what she did and while this isn't exactly the same, it is close enough.

it also sends ripples and rumours through our military from the lower command on down.

 

[M14 Shooter]

While Obama is in office:

-Iran will develop and build nuclear weapons.
-Iran will use one of those nuclear wepons in Israel; Israel will retalliatein like and kind.
-Economies will collapse, world-wide chaos and tumult will ensue.

Obama will blame Bush; His useful idiots will agree.

 

[sealadaigh]

What on Earth are you saying?

to whom on earth are you talking?

 

[PaulS1950]

Obama has no desire for a military action in Iran or any other arab country. He may be "commander-in-chief" but in name only. He hasn't the personal fortitude to stand up to anyone nor is he a democrat. He ran on the democratic ticket but he is a disruptive, polarizing sneak that is out to make the USA into a socialistic democracy. He broke his "solemn oath" to defend and protect the constitution by unlawfully using executive orders to appoint people to positions without congressional support. The man wants to be a dictator - not a president.

I just hope the USA can recover from 8 years of his crap.

 

[Intense]

This is the CDZ. Please keep it civil.

 

[ima]

While Obama is in office:

-Iran will develop and build nuclear weapons.
-Iran will use one of those nuclear wepons in Israel; Israel will retalliatein like and kind.
-Economies will collapse, world-wide chaos and tumult will ensue.

Obama will blame Bush; His useful idiots will agree.

So we should attack Iran so they don't nuke Israel? So more Americans should die protecting Israel? Would attacking Iran even work? Or will we just get dragged into the mess for no real reason to the US? Like seriously, who really cares if Iran and Israel nuke each other? I know I don't.

 

[M14 Shooter]

While Obama is in office:

-Iran will develop and build nuclear weapons.
-Iran will use one of those nuclear wepons in Israel; Israel will retalliatein like and kind.
-Economies will collapse, world-wide chaos and tumult will ensue.

Obama will blame Bush; His useful idiots will agree.

So we should attack Iran so they don't nuke Israel? So more Americans should die protecting Israel? Would attacking Iran even work? Or will we just get dragged into the mess for no real reason to the US? Like seriously, who really cares if Iran and Israel nuke each other? I know I don't.

Clearly, you don't understand the global effect of a Iran/Isreal nuclear exchange.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Obama has no desire for a military action in Iran or any other arab country. He may be "commander-in-chief" but in name only. He hasn't the personal fortitude to stand up to anyone nor is he a democrat. He ran on the democratic ticket but he is a disruptive, polarizing sneak that is out to make the USA into a socialistic democracy. He broke his "solemn oath" to defend and protect the constitution by unlawfully using executive orders to appoint people to positions without congressional support. The man wants to be a dictator - not a president.

I just hope the USA can recover from 8 years of his crap.

Actually it takes greater personal fortitude to stand up to the warmongering right, Pentagon establishment, and ‘defense’ industry.

War is the coward’s ‘solution,’ those truly brave seek peace.

 

[Connery]

Iran has been threatening to attack US interests for a while. Nothing has come out of it just a lot of talk....fear mongers love this stuff..

For example, "The Iranian ambassador to Russia reportedly said Wednesday that his country has the means to attack U.S. interests "anywhere in the world." Ambassador Seyed Mahmoud-Reza Sajjadi told reporters in Moscow that it would only exercise such capability if attacked by the United States, according to the Reuters news agency.

"The Americans know what kind of country Iran is. They are well aware of our people's unity," Sajjadi said. "And that's why Iran is fully able to deliver retaliatory strikes on the United States anywhere in the world.".....I am still waiting....
Iran: We can attack U.S. interests "anywhere" - World Watch - CBS News

There is no benefit in bombing Iran currently.

 

[skye]

Obama has undoubtedly and single-handedly contributed to the growth of the Islamists in the Middle East with his naive conciliatory policies and by invariably backing the wrong people. By reducing the visible strength in the Gulf, we are inviting the Iranians to fill the vacuum by increasing theirs.

The Iranians will now feel even less pressure to stop the development of any nuclear weapons.

 

[Connery]

Obama has undoubtedly and single-handedly contributed to the growth of the Islamists in the Middle East with his naive conciliatory policies and by invariably backing the wrong people. By reducing the visible strength in the Gulf, we are inviting the Iranians to fill the vacuum by increasing theirs.

The Iranians will now feel even less pressure to stop the development of any nuclear weapons.

Interesting warfare is much different today than it was let's say 50 years ago.US capability and presence is felt through the Stuxnet worm and other computer viruses, drones etc. for example. The days of committing personnel and material as a show of force is no longer necessary. If the US removes a carrier I hardly think that Iran will believe it has disappeared.

The sky is just not falling for me today, literally or figuratively.

 

[skye]

Obama has undoubtedly and single-handedly contributed to the growth of the Islamists in the Middle East with his naive conciliatory policies and by invariably backing the wrong people. By reducing the visible strength in the Gulf, we are inviting the Iranians to fill the vacuum by increasing theirs.

The Iranians will now feel even less pressure to stop the development of any nuclear weapons.

Interesting warfare is much different today than it was let's say 50 years ago.US capability and presence is felt through the Stuxnet worm and other computer viruses, drones etc. for example. The days of committing personnel and material as a show of force is no longer necessary. If the US removes a carrier I hardly think that Iran will believe it has disappeared.

The sky is just not falling for me today, literally or figuratively.

What you are saying is fairly obvious, but the psychological and intimidatory importance of visible US presence and might, both for the allies and the enemies of the US and the West is very important and can not be underestimated.

Obviously even aircraft carriers can to some extent be considered old technology but are still of great significance from many viewpoints.

 

[Connery]

Obama has undoubtedly and single-handedly contributed to the growth of the Islamists in the Middle East with his naive conciliatory policies and by invariably backing the wrong people. By reducing the visible strength in the Gulf, we are inviting the Iranians to fill the vacuum by increasing theirs.

The Iranians will now feel even less pressure to stop the development of any nuclear weapons.

Interesting warfare is much different today than it was let's say 50 years ago.US capability and presence is felt through the Stuxnet worm and other computer viruses, drones etc. for example. The days of committing personnel and material as a show of force is no longer necessary. If the US removes a carrier I hardly think that Iran will believe it has disappeared.

The sky is just not falling for me today, literally or figuratively.

What you are saying is fairly obvious, but the psychological and intimidatory importance of visible US presence and might, both for the allies and the enemies of the US and the West is very important and can not be underestimated.

Obviously even aircraft carriers can to some extent be considered old technology but are still of great significance from many viewpoints.

I am not discounting the aircraft carrier I am saying threat the removal of one when supplanted with more insidious and powerful weapons has a more potent effect. Conventional warfare has been replaced by a technological warfare and economic weapons.

If you think the sanctions are not having an effect just read the following: "American officials say they believe that Ayatollah Khamenei exercises full control over Iran’s nuclear program. On Thursday, he rejected direct talks with the United States while it was “pointing a gun at Iran”; on Saturday he elaborated on the issue. He called on the United States to show “logic” while talking to Iran, without further elaborating. He and other Iranian leaders have often emphasized that before any talks can take place, Western sanctions must be lifted"
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/w...-says-iran-not-seeking-nuclear-arms.html?_r=0

The days of the cigar chomping tough guy as the only means of winning a war are over. Technology, tough guys, sophisticated weaponry and economic tools are what is in common use today. One less carrier is meaningless.

 

[Circe]

I suppose this Jewish guy thinks he's really Israeli ---- a lot of them have "joint citizenship," whatever that means: means they aren't really American, basically.

I think if Israel wants to bomb Iran, let them get on with it. It's THEIR problem, not really ours. They are a lot closer than we are. They normally bomb nuke sites in enemy countries: they already did both Iraq and Syria. What's taking them so long?

Well, what's taking them so long is Iran is bigger and more dangerous, so they want to hold the coats: "Let's you and him fight!" sez Israel, and I for one am not interested in fighting a war for Israel. They are NOTNOTNOT a 51st or 52nd state.

 

[sealadaigh]

I suppose this Jewish guy thinks he's really Israeli ---- a lot of them have "joint citizenship," whatever that means: means they aren't really American, basically.

I think if Israel wants to bomb Iran, let them get on with it. It's THEIR problem, not really ours. They are a lot closer than we are. They normally bomb nuke sites in enemy countries: they already did both Iraq and Syria. What's taking them so long?

Well, what's taking them so long is Iran is bigger and more dangerous, so they want to hold the coats: "Let's you and him fight!" sez Israel, and I for one am not interested in fighting a war for Israel. They are NOTNOTNOT a 51st or 52nd state.

well, i agree that israel wants our OK to bomb iran in case they need back up, or perhaps they do want us to do so.

the thing i object to though is here we have this very prominant american businessman whose organisation contributes very heavily to political causes i am sure, having a very public meeting with a foreign head of state and publically criticises our president for an action by our military.

first of all, i am pretty sure obama had very little to do with that decision...but for someone to criticise our government and military that way to the head of a foreign nation on a public stage is just wrong, no matter who is in office.