Pentagon planning Navy buildup as 'warning to Iran'

On 20 Dec 2006 19:11:20 -0800, wrote:


"Zeno дµÀ£º
"
On 20 Dec 2006 07:30:45 -0800, "eatfastnoodle"
wrote:

Warning is not a Warning when nobody believes that you will indeed
carry out the threat, there have been so many "warnings" (don't do
this, don't do that, otherwise there will be consequences, don't test
the bomb/US will never tolerate a nuclear NK/Iran) sent to Iran and
North Korea so far that US credibility has become a joke, because they
did exactly what the US warned them not to do, and what they got?
ANOTHER WARNING. When you don't have the military resources, diplomatic
support and political capital to back it up, warning is just an
invitation for the world to see how powerless and stupid you are,

I'm sorry but your post doesn't make sense. Can you give further
explanation?

If the US does in fact have a naval buildup in the persian gulf, how
can that buildup express what you claim: no military resources,
diplomatic support and political capital for the warning.

better to admit your weakness and try other routes.

Because ships and planes can't and won't destroy Iran, and the US has
such a large chunk of its troops struck in Iraq, and even if navy and
air force can do the job, the US is in no position to use it, EU won't
support invasion, Russia and China are totally against it, so all the
major powers are against military strike, not to mention Bush's
credibility is a joke after the Iraqi fiasco and his party has just
lost both house and senate because of another oversea military
intervention, if GWB wants to announce to the world that he plans to
invade another, far bigger country to eliminate so called WMB threat
(sound familiar?), he will find it a little bit harder to convince the
congress to go along with it, not to mention no foreign ally at all,
I'm sure not even Britain and Australia will sign on to another big
foreign intervention supported by the same people inside the
administration who have shown to world how utterly incompetent they are
by bungling the Iraq operation, no ally at all, not even "coalition of
the willing", because nobody is going to follow Bush's stupid policy
any more.


LOL, is it possible to make one long sentence so that I can't respond
to a piece of it (or clip away sections)? That has got to be a record
for sentence length - it's the whole paragraph.

Your response doesn't undo the fact.

A naval buildup in the Persian gulf suggests a possible defense
response to any overt action Iran may take - in Iraq or anywhere else
in the middle east.

By your arguments - Iran is a totally impotent nation as what you
proclaim of america applies doubly to Iran and it's president. That
is, they don't even have a naval buildup.