The "wider war" is on, sports fans... https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3665734/us-strikes-targets-in-iraq-and-syria-in-response-to-deadly-drone-attack/
I have a feeling that this policy is a big mistake. A more measured and smaller response would have sent a message with the escalation ramifications.
Yes... but right now i dont have a beter plan than Biden::: "President Joe Biden said in a statement: “The United States does not seek conflict in the Middle East or anywhere else in the world. But let all those who might seek to do us harm know this: If you harm an American, we will respond.” https://www.huffpost.com/entry/us-b...fatal-drone-attack_n_65bd5dd1e4b05c8779f9341f
I think Biden's approach is probably the right one. Iran doesn't have nukes (as far as we know) and you don't want to have a bunch of small attack back and forth on US servicemen so maybe (?) it's best to try to stop it before it really gets started. I have a feeling Israel might have to make another "power plant" attack in the near future.
If Biden wanted to, he could shut down all Iranian oil production full-stop in a matter of hours. I don't think it would be a bad option if Iran doesn't stop with the escalations.
The Coalition follows up a sharp right jab with a quick left hook... https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3665898/us-uk-launch-strikes-against-houthi-targets-in-yemen-to-protect-red-sea-shipping/ I guess there's some sense in the apparent plan to attack "Iran's Irregulars" first. Who knows what guides such decisions ? The issue of striking Iran directly seems to me to boil down to what precisely does one strike ? Oil infrastructure has been bandied about. My thought was endeavor to cripple their nuclear program.
it's 2004. i'm reading about the war in the middle east on sciforums it's 2014. i'm reading about the war in the middle east on sciforums it's 2024. i'm reading about the war in the middle east on sciforums
Well, it appears this will be an ongoing thing. The region is hostile. Americans died and counter strikes made. The strategy, apparently, is to weaken their capabilities to harm Americans in that area. Good.
They were just urging Biden two days ago to reopen red sea passages. I questioned that suggestion. Wasn't uss Cole attacked not far from the red sea. Alder or elder or something ... A port at the entry point, right? How is opening passage a good idea? I understand naval ships already being there. The Red sea is a lot like a barrel. it's risky ... Anyone know the reason for the urgency of consideration? Edit: It was port Aden in Yemen... Red sea entry point on the map.
A war with Iran would be quite mad. The aim of the action against the Houthis is strictly limited to stopping them from interdicting shipping in the Red Sea. Even that will be hard to do.
Ostensibly, it's about "freedom of the seas" and such. Could it perhaps be more like our corporate lords and masters being inconvenienced by the delays and additional costs incurred by having to detour around Africa ? I believe mention has already been made that the impact of the aforementioned on national economies worldwide has yet to be felt in full. Could Biden be motivated by notions of averting fresh negative effects on the U.S. economy with the Presidential election drawing nigh ?
The New World Order speaks, their puppet acts ? War is good for business ? Worldwide orders for F-35 fighter jets have surpassed Lockheed's capacity to produce them. Billions are being spent to manufacture more artillery rounds. New factories are being built to produce ammunition. Missile production is ramping up. Drones of all kinds are proliferating. So much for "watching the world wake up from history"...
Do you think there's a problem with unprovoked attacks on commercial shipping? Is there a problem with shipping not being able to use the Suez canal, but instead having to divert around the southern tip of Africa, in order to stay safe? If there's a problem, who do you think is in the best position to solve it? Do you have a solution in mind?
