NONE of the candidates have pronounced their
desire to take the United States military into armed conflict with
Iran.
----
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7NWxf-jh2I

On Jan 26, 1:09 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote:
> Excuse me,  but I am not hearing all that much rhetoric coming from the
> Republican candidates!  As a matter of fact,  all four current Republican
> presidential candidates'  discussion of Iran has been tempered.   It is
> true that with the exception of Dr. Paul,  Gingrich, Romney and Santorum
> have all left the door open with regard to what action "might"  be taken,
> if Iran continues its quest for nuclear armament,  and both Romney and
> Santorum have admitted that the potential for military intervention is a
> distinct possibility,  but NONE of the candidates have pronounced their
> desire to take the United States military into armed conflict with Iran.
>
> It is also true that three of the candidates strongly oppose Iran
> possessing a nuclear weapon.  So do I, and most Americans.
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 8:47 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE 
> <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > January 24, 2012 • 3:16AM
> > An article published in Lebanon’s The Daily Star, Bruce Riedel, who
> > has advised four U.S. Presidents on the Middle East and South Asia and
> > is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington,
> > said the danger of war against Iran is growing. He said “Iran is
> > rattling its sabers, the Republican Presidential candidates and others
> > are rattling theirs. But even if Tehran gets the bomb, Israel will
> > have overwhelming military superiority over Iran, a fact that should
> > not be lost in all the heated rhetoric.”
>
> > Riedel, while he was advising President Obama on Afghanistan had said
> > earlier the greatest threats to America’s security are the British
> > terrorists who need no visa to come over to the United States. He is
> > echoing the voices of U.S. military officers and some others, who are
> > concerned about the dangers that a war with Iran poses. The Chairman
> > of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey was in Israel
> > recently where he sent a clear message: “Don’t attack Iran, and let
> > the tougher sanctions take hold.” “This is getting very dangerous,”
> > said Jon Alterman, a former State Department official who runs the
> > Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International
> > Studies, as quoted in NPR radio on Jan. 19. “All the senior people I
> > know in the U.S. government are starting to lose sleep over where this
> > all might go.”
>
> > Riedel cited former head of Israel’s Mossad, Meir Dagan, saying, “Iran
> > will not get the bomb until at least 2015. In contrast, Israel has had
> > nuclear weapons since the late 1960s and has jealously guarded its
> > monopoly on them in the region.” Moreover, Israel will continue to
> > enjoy the support of the world’s only superpower for the foreseeable
> > future. Iran, in contrast, has no major power providing it with
> > financial help. Its arms relationships with Russia and China have been
> > severed by Security Council Resolution 1929, Riedel said.
>
> > Riedel concluded saying: “So, don’t let the hot air from Tehran or the
> > Republican debates confuse the reality on the ground. Iran is a
> > dangerous country but it is not an existential threat to either Israel
> > or America.”
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Reply via email to