- #1
turbo
Gold Member
- 3,165
- 56
The signs are very disturbing. Israeli PM Olmert urges action against Iran, but hints that there may be room for diplomacy. His words for action border on ultimatum, however, and he made no offer of diplomacy, insisting instead that the "International Community" needs to take action against Iran.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070124/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_olmert_1
In a parallel move, Bush hammered on Iran for being supportive of the Shiites and mentioned Iran a number of times in his State of the Union address. He didn't bother hammering the Saudis, who have said publicly that they will provide support to the Sunnis if Shiites retain the upper hand in Iraq. He also linked the Iraq war to 9-11 as he does at every opportunity, though the majority of the hijackers identified were Saudis. He made mention of "diplomacy" in the region, but has shown no willingness to negotiate with the Iranian government - so similar to the way he manipulated the US into attacking Iraq. His idea of diplomacy is to issue ultimatums, and pursue sanction against "enemies" instead of talking to them to see if we can establish any common ground. When the "enemy" fails to obey his orders, he declares that diplomacy has failed, and just like that we are at an "impasse" with no possible political solution.
The Stennis carrier group will soon be in the Persian Gulf, expanding our presence to two full carrier groups. The Stennis is presently in San Diego taking on supplies and additional weaponry and aircraft and will head for the Gulf soon. I fear that once the group is deployed in the Gulf, Israel will attack Iran's nuclear facilities and Bush will "interpret" Iran's response as an attack on the US, and launch an air war against Iran, thus plunging the region into a wider war, against the wishes of the US voters and our elected representatives. This set of circumstances - the speeches, the lack of diplomatic dialog with the "enemy" and the prepositioning of massive military force all point to another contrived and unnecessary war. If I am right, and I hope to be wrong, this will not be a war of a few "surgical" strikes against military/nuclear targets - those could be launched from distant land bases. It will be a war of non-stop and massive air strikes - the kind of attacks that are made-to-order for close-positioned carriers capable of many, many sorties/day.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070124/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_olmert_1
In a parallel move, Bush hammered on Iran for being supportive of the Shiites and mentioned Iran a number of times in his State of the Union address. He didn't bother hammering the Saudis, who have said publicly that they will provide support to the Sunnis if Shiites retain the upper hand in Iraq. He also linked the Iraq war to 9-11 as he does at every opportunity, though the majority of the hijackers identified were Saudis. He made mention of "diplomacy" in the region, but has shown no willingness to negotiate with the Iranian government - so similar to the way he manipulated the US into attacking Iraq. His idea of diplomacy is to issue ultimatums, and pursue sanction against "enemies" instead of talking to them to see if we can establish any common ground. When the "enemy" fails to obey his orders, he declares that diplomacy has failed, and just like that we are at an "impasse" with no possible political solution.
The Stennis carrier group will soon be in the Persian Gulf, expanding our presence to two full carrier groups. The Stennis is presently in San Diego taking on supplies and additional weaponry and aircraft and will head for the Gulf soon. I fear that once the group is deployed in the Gulf, Israel will attack Iran's nuclear facilities and Bush will "interpret" Iran's response as an attack on the US, and launch an air war against Iran, thus plunging the region into a wider war, against the wishes of the US voters and our elected representatives. This set of circumstances - the speeches, the lack of diplomatic dialog with the "enemy" and the prepositioning of massive military force all point to another contrived and unnecessary war. If I am right, and I hope to be wrong, this will not be a war of a few "surgical" strikes against military/nuclear targets - those could be launched from distant land bases. It will be a war of non-stop and massive air strikes - the kind of attacks that are made-to-order for close-positioned carriers capable of many, many sorties/day.
Last edited by a moderator: