Skip to comments.Attack on Iran would be 'very destabilizing' -- US military chief
Posted on 07/05/2009 9:33:26 PM PDT by Flavius
WASHINGTON (AFP) A US military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities would be "very destabilizing," top US military commander Admiral Mike Mullen said Sunday, warning that any attack could have serious "unintended consequences."
"I've been one who has been concerned about a strike on Iran for some time, because it could be very destabilizing, and it is the unintended consequences of that which aren't predictable," the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff told the Fox News Sunday television program.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Would an Iranian nuke strike on Israel be OK?
“and it is the unintended consequences of that which aren’t predictable”
Hormuz, nuff said.
We definitely wouldn’t want a place that is already destabilized to become very destabilized.
WE ARE THE MOST POWERFUL NATION IN THE HISTORY OF EARTH YOU WIMPY FRAEAKING MORON!!! GROW A PAIR AND DO WHAT HAS TO BE DONE!!!!!!!!!!!
I AM SO SICK OF IT. THESE PEOPLE ARE DESERT VERMIN. DON’T THEY REALIZE THAT??????????
And what does the good Admiral think the consequences of Iran having nuclear weapons will be?
I think a low yield nuke on AFP offices in Paris would be much more in order.
Yeah, an Iranian stroke to the west would be stabilizing....
Intended consequences for whoever they can get a bead on
Now, that makes good sense!
"Well, sir, we're going to attack, but frankly sir, no one will probably notice. Maybe McDonald's won't open until a little later, maybe 9 am. But probably not."
Of course it wouldn't. Bibi is looking after the best interests of his own nation, & I'm confident that he could handle Iran quite well w/o the US getting involved.
If the unintended consequences aren't predictable, how can you be so sure they'd be destabilizing?
Waaaaaaaait a minute. Is this an example of, "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit."?
Iran getting nuke missiles is not??
Agreed, Bibi has to do what he thinks is best for Israel.
First, I had thought that someone who had risen this high would have quit making stupid statements -- "unintended consequences ... aren't predictable." Indeed!
Secondly, I wonder what Mr Chairman thinks would be the result of an Iranian attack on Israel.
Ya know what would have been destabilizing?
Obama piping up for freedom.
What a concept
Why are we still pissin with Iran? I thought Obambi had a plan to ween us off dependence on foreign oil /s
If we dont need oil there is no longer any conflict. Right?
That’s why I certainly won’t support current Republican favorites. Mullen was appointed during the Bush Administration. So was Gates. The other favorite politicians of free traitors are the same.
Duncan Hunter was the Republican chance to get enough votes, and Republicans blew it for momentary gratification from a few favored constituents. Now we’re headed for defaults through Democrats and/or Republicans who support feminism (anti-family social programs, government-run education, overstepping regulatory offices full of menopausal maniacs,...) and appeasements of foreign enemies.
...libertine liberals, all. There is no “war” in exchanges of political speech. That’s a man-haters’ linguistic construct for the purpose of equating women and sensitive New Age guys with men.
...”destabilizing” what—the traitorous import regime that’s slowly killing our Nation? There is no conservative US political party. A conservative party would be run by men—not by mouthy bandwagons of suburbanite harpies.
If we were half the men that our great-grandfathers were, Iran would have already been invaded, occupied and denazified. We shouldn’t be such a henpecked, romantic nation of Baby Boomers and Gen-X-ers.
Sometimes you need to destabilize.
What it comes down to is this - people are going to die. Is it going to be more of them or more of us?
History reminds us that we were totally unprepared when FDR led us into WWII following his failed shovel-ready stimulus package. zero and his minions are dismantling America every day.
And trying to force a constitutionally removed and impeached President onto a Free People is not destabilizing to the entire Latin American region ? Please DC, start making sense again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.