The Pentagon Sends US Troops to Israel. Iran target?

[JonathanC]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&...

Just read, what I thought, is a breaking news article. I haven't been able to find the same story reported elsewhere.

Has anyone read/heard anything about this? Is GlobalResearch.ca a reliable source?

[Oakey]

Does it look reliable?

[hornetrider]

Just one second, my cat is also interested in that website.

[0a]

I can't see any other source than the Jerusalem Post Article quoted. It seems they are making a lot of the US using the term "deployment" for the troops they are sending to take part in a large troop exercise.

I wouldn't be surprised however if they hang around just in case.

Article: http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=25024...

[JonathanC]

Who's the next target: Syria or Iran?

[vixen1700]

Gotta love the look on that cat's face.

[Puggit]

Why would the US move troops to Israel to attack Iran when they are moving out of Iraq and have massive amounts of personnel in Afghanistan.

Weird story.

[essexplumber]

[BrassMan]

If you have people in Iraq and Afghanistan, why why would you attack Iran from Israel?

[Jimbeaux]

There are British troops in the U.S., are you going to invade Quebec?

[anonymous-user]

Jimbeaux said:

There are British troops in the U.S., are you going to invade Quebec?

Something similar. We fancy a rerun, it's been 200 years!

[JonathanC]

Jimbeaux said:

There are British troops in the U.S., are you going to invade Quebec?

The reason why this is different is because the US has never had a major troop presence in Israel and has always preferred to give Israel assistance only at arms length probably to avoid unduly upsetting the delicate balance of sensitivities in the region.

[Jimbeaux]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

We'll then, work it around the car show schedules please.

[Rollin]

JonathanC said:

Jimbeaux said:

There are British troops in the U.S., are you going to invade Quebec?

The reason why this is different is because the US has never had a major troop presence in Israel and has always preferred to give Israel assistance only at arms length probably to avoid unduly upsetting the delicate balance of sensitivities in the region.

Looks like they've done the same thing for at least the last 4 years, so not as different as you like to think.

[Jimbeaux]

JonathanC said:

Jimbeaux said:

There are British troops in the U.S., are you going to invade Quebec?

The reason why this is different is because the US has never had a major troop presence in Israel and has always preferred to give Israel assistance only at arms length probably to avoid unduly upsetting the delicate balance of sensitivities in the region.

I agree. Odd that nobody else mentions this if the U.S. European Command is deploying the troops.

[Jimbeaux]

Guam said:

Jimbeaux said:

We'll then, work it around the car show schedules please.

Hah well have you during Sema all your fit young guys will be drooling over the chicks and metal in Vegas

Cruel trick that is!

[paulrussell]

The US would not go to war with Iran at the moment, as Obama isn't as trigger happy like both Bushes.

[Blib]

paulrussell said:

The US would not go to war with Iran at the moment, as Obama isn't as trigger happy like both Bushes.

He's got a close election coming up....... no one votes against a sitting President when there's a war on....

[Jimbeaux]

paulrussell said:

The US would not go to war with Iran at the moment, as Obama isn't as trigger happy like both Bushes.

What was so trigger happy about Bush Senior??

[JonathanC]

Jimbeaux said:

What was so trigger happy about Bush Senior??

Was going ask the same thing. And, in the context of Israeli policy, he was probably as dissimilar to his son as any of the other presidents.