Ryoki wrote:Nice timing, just as the Obama administration told the Israelis 'not only will we not support you if you go ahead with this attack, we are going to tell your enemy about your plans and publicly denounce it as immoral' and at the same time politely asking Iran to not attack US targets in the event of an Israeli attack. Which caused the Israelis to radically alter their tone as of last week - ye gods, Obama handled that extremely well, i would have never thought he had the balls for that, in election season no less.
Can't really blame the Canadians for missing it, neocons have never been good at facts and reality and this particular piece of news was buried pretty deep. Ah well eh?
Iran has every right to attack US targets as doing so would be in retaliation to the acts of war already committed by the US and Israel, including but not limited to cyber-warfare attacks, assassinations, air space and territorial waters violations, and state-sponsored acts of terrorism.
And if you really think the US will stand down when Israel calls on them to help attack Iran, you're far more naive than I give you credit for
If anybody else does to America what we’re doing to Iran right now, our national security types would describe it as open warfare.
Heck, we have a recent U.S. government national cyber security strategy document that says what we’re now doing to Iran — if done to us — would constitute an act of war worthy of a commensurate kinetic response on our part (the brilliant quote: “‘If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down one of your smokestacks,’ unnamed official says”).
http://nation.time.com/2012/06/01/u-s-a ... inst-iran/
The double standards are mind-boggling to say the least.
But one this is clear with President Obama: between this and his personally-approved targeted-assassination campaigns, his vigorous embrace of pre-emptive wars is complete.
