Obama is leading the US down a dangerous path. By playing by Iran's rules he is allowing them to develop nuclear weapons and also to prepare for Israel and the US air strikes. They will be at the top of their war games causing many more Israel and American causalities then unwise would have happen if we didn't advertise our intentions. Obama screws up everything he gets involved in; it's time for a change before its too late American. Obama has weaken this country in less then four years, image by the end of eight years how much worst off we will be then Greece. There are no free rides.
It sounds as though you have not followed these events closely, or even read this article.
President Obama has been working with the EU, the UN and the Arab League to deal with this volatile and unpredictable situation (less than three weeks ago Iran said they would NOT make a preemptive strike) for months. Unilateral action would be a far more "dangerous path".
No one is "allowing" Iran to develop nuclear weapons; are you not aware of the sanctions? The IAEA's mission is the latest step in urging Iran to the right direction. Other than full blown strikes (which wouldn't be verifiable anyway, and inflame the region to no real purpose), there aren't too many other options. Iran can militarily "prepare" all they want; if the US and its allies decided to take action, it wouldn't do them any good, as their military strength and technology simply do not measure up.
Except for Ron Paul, the sabre-rattling Republican candidates are hawks who would pour kerosene on the fire.
I prefer President Obama's more measured approach: working closely with the UN, our allies and the Arab League, using diplomacy and NOT going off like a hot head, and, when necessary, selective and careful use of military resources in America's best interests to obtain maximum results with minimal cost (e.g. Bin Laden, decimation of al Qaeda, logistical support for our allies during the Libyan uprising, rescuing hostages, continued vigilance against international terrorism, etc.). Not exactly "screwing up".
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
President Obama has been working with the EU, the UN and the Arab League to deal with this volatile and unpredictable situation (less than three weeks ago Iran said they would NOT make a preemptive strike) for months. Unilateral action would be a far more "dangerous path".
No one is "allowing" Iran to develop nuclear weapons; are you not aware of the sanctions? The IAEA's mission is the latest step in urging Iran to the right direction. Other than full blown strikes (which wouldn't be verifiable anyway, and inflame the region to no real purpose), there aren't too many other options. Iran can militarily "prepare" all they want; if the US and its allies decided to take action, it wouldn't do them any good, as their military strength and technology simply do not measure up.
Except for Ron Paul, the sabre-rattling Republican candidates are hawks who would pour kerosene on the fire.
I prefer President Obama's more measured approach: working closely with the UN, our allies and the Arab League, using diplomacy and NOT going off like a hot head, and, when necessary, selective and careful use of military resources in America's best interests to obtain maximum results with minimal cost (e.g. Bin Laden, decimation of al Qaeda, logistical support for our allies during the Libyan uprising, rescuing hostages, continued vigilance against international terrorism, etc.). Not exactly "screwing up".