Originally posted by sh76 While I don't think the US would invade Iran, I don't doubt that it could carry out airstrikes.
Therefore, I think the presence of the carrier is saying
"We have a military presence here and we can prevent you from closing the strait and taking other actions against our interest. Be warned that our diplomatic efforts in the area of your nuclear program are not to be ignored or retaliated against."
Agree. Yet, I wonder if troops on the ground in an actual invasion would become a possible reality if Santorum were president. Especially if something were precipitated by Israel.
Originally posted by moon1969 Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon
TEHRAN—Amidst mounting geopolitical tensions, Iranian officials said Wednesday they were increasingly concerned about the United States of America's uranium-enrichment program, fearing the Western nation may soon be capable of producing its 8,500th nuclear weapon. "Our intelligence estimates ...[text shortened]... .S. providing weapons and resources to a rogue third-party state such as Israel.
Originally posted by moon1969 Agree. Yet, I wonder if troops on the ground in an actual invasion would become a possible reality if Santorum were president. Especially if something were precipitated by Israel.
So vote for Ron Paul. There is no candidate less hawkish. The president is just as likely as Santorum to go to war, especially if his poll numbers need a boost.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung .....You sidestepped MY question now. What else could an aircraft carrier "say"? YOU seem to think it's there to "say" something to Iran. I left open the possibility that maybe it's just going to the Indian Ocean.
You will have to stage a coup and install yourself as forum dictator before "you" get to ask ze kvestions...
Originally posted by dryhump So vote for Ron Paul. There is no candidate less hawkish. The president is just as likely as Santorum to go to war, especially if his poll numbers need a boost.
First, I will not vote in the Republican primary. Second, voting for Ron Paul in the primary is the same as staying home and not voting. The Republican rank-and-file will never nominate Paul. Third, I do hope Ron Paul runs third party as that would help ensure the President is reelected.
Originally posted by moon1969 First, I will not vote in the Republican primary. Second, voting for Ron Paul in the primary is the same as staying home and not voting. The Republican rank-and-file will never nominate Paul. Third, I do hope Ron Paul runs third party as that would help ensure the President is reelected.
I repeat, the president is just as likely as any republican candidate to go to war. Isn't it the president who keeps declaring that "all options are on the table"? I'm telling you, if his numbers go in the tank, look out.
I still think that Santorum compared to Obama or Romney is more likely to go to war with Iran. Santorum is more intense about both the nuclear threat and the defense of Israel. Moreover, I view Santorum as the all-out invasion Bush kind of guy, i.e., Iraq, instead of the strategic participation Obama kind of guy, i.e., Libya.
Originally posted by WoodPush I think the carrier is saying "we're enforcing our embargo", and "we're monitoring global sanctions from other countries" and oh hey, don't forget, we can easily make this a full blockade.
Use of force doesn't always have to be about making things explode.
That said, I think it's a little naive to state that the U.S. can't or won't make things explode ...[text shortened]... , it's not weak either, and public support can be a fickle and manipulable thing.
I agree with your statement.
I would add that Obama is fine with Iran firing the first shot at our aircraft carrier. It is just the excuse our government needs to invade with the support of most Americans. I think it is preferred that the unreasonable sanctions imposed weaken Iran before an invasion though. That is the real purpose of the strict sanctions, just as they were when imposed on Iraq before invading.
I expect my government to invade Iran after the presidential elections. It doesn't matter who is president except Ron Paul. He is our only chance to avoid putting ourselves (and especially our children) into economic slavery because of the crushing debt that will result. A vote for anyone else is a vote for your own slavery.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung No, I think the US is really "saying" that. Also the US is "saying" that there needs to be political reforms in Iran so that Iranian opposition can have a voice.
Of course maybe the ship just needed to get to the Indian Ocean and it had nothing to do with Iran.
Oh yeah. It's also "saying" don't close the straits or we'll make you asplode. Whe ...[text shortened]... you're "saying" except that if you don't do what we want we'll make you asplode.
Two cites from a recent news article:
In December, Iranian officials warned the United States not to return to the Persian Gulf after the carrier USS John Stennis departed.
Iran recently threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, attempting to use its control over the waterway as a trump card in its standoff with the West.
I think Occam's Razor applies here. The most simple explanation is that the US is disrespecting the Iranian threat. Whatever else might be implied cannot eliminate this most basic meaning in the act.
Everyone has the tendency, when commanded NOT to do something they believe they have the right to do and the ability to do... to do that very thing. To read anything more into the carrier's presence is not necessary from the facts I am aware of.
Originally posted by moon1969 Agree. Yet, I wonder if troops on the ground in an actual invasion would become a possible reality if Santorum were president. Especially if something were precipitated by Israel.
If international diplomacy was carried out in body language I think The U.S just took up the buffalo stance coupled with very heavy frown right in front of Iran's neurotic arm waving towards the straits of hormuz. If anything the chance of a hot war in the region might have become less likely.
Originally posted by moon1969 I still think that Santorum compared to Obama or Romney is more likely to go to war with Iran. Santorum is more intense about both the nuclear threat and the defense of Israel. Moreover, I view Santorum as the all-out invasion Bush kind of guy, i.e., Iraq, instead of the strategic participation Obama kind of guy, i.e., Libya.
I think that the powers that be will go to war with Iran so it matters little if Obama is still there or not. in fact, Obama has already proven himself to be a gung ho military kind of guy himself. Of course, they may wish to shake things up a bit and have a Republican start it.
Of course, Ron Paul under no circumstances is to be allowed to win. He is really the only threat to their plans.
Originally posted by whodey I think that the powers that be will go to war with Iran so it matters little if Obama is still there or not. in fact, Obama has already proven himself to be a gung ho military kind of guy himself. Of course, they may wish to shake things up a bit and have a Republican start it.
Of course, Ron Paul under no circumstances is to be allowed to win. He is really the only threat to their plans.
However, President Obama is less likely to go to war than the Republcian candidates, especially a Santorum. And while President Obama may be hawkish than Paul, President will not go to war, especially full-out war, if he does not believe it in America's interest, no matter what any powers that be might say.
While President Obama is flexible in response to new data like any leader should be, the President is just as principled as Paul and cares about America.
Originally posted by moon1969 While President Obama is flexible in response to new data like any leader should be, the President is just as principled as Paul and cares about America.
Obama is just as principled as Ron Paul? You mean the way Obama went to war without declaring war or consulting Congress? You mean like his endless Executive Orders which Ron Paul swears he will avoid using because they are unconstitutional? Is Ron Paul the modern day Jesus Christ everyone wants a peice of but rejects him in his entirety?
Pfft. If anyone deserves a Nobel Peace Prize it ain't the joker in the White House, rather, it's Ron Paul.
Originally posted by moon1969 However, President Obama is less likely to go to war than the Republcian candidates, especially a Santorum. And while President Obama may be hawkish than Paul, President will not go to war, especially full-out war, if he does not believe it in America's interest, no matter what any powers that be might say.
While President Obama is flexible in respons ...[text shortened]... like any leader should be, the President is just as principled as Paul and cares about America.
The President's core principles are that he likes winning and doesn't like losing.
What is U.S. carrier in Strait of Hormuz "saying"?
15 Feb '12 05:41
Back to Top