Skip to comments.Hannity and Allen West: Bomb Iran Instead
Posted on 09/07/2013 3:54:10 AM PDT by Kaslin
Sean Hannity and Col. Allen West were in agreement last night that an isolated military strike on Syria is not the best course of action, fearing, among other outcomes, that the attack could spark an Iranian retaliation against our ally Israel. Hannity voiced his distrust of Iran and why he thinks a strike on the nation would be a better option.
Their ideology is - they are the modern day Nazis. They want a modern-day Holocaust. So if you agree with me that they are the proxy here, wouldnt it make sense that if we really wanted to have an impact, rather than lob a few cruise missiles into Syria, which I dont think would be very effective, based on days, not weeks, and no boots on the ground, why dont we do what we should do and thats take out Irans nuclear sites?
Col. Allen West shared Hannitys concern about Iran, as well as his solution.
Fox News contributor Juan Williams, however, disagreed with Hannity and West on the grounds that Iran "has not directly attacked us or our allies." Williams may be right, but Iran's support of anti-Western terrorism and its history of anti-Israel rhetoric raises more than a few red flags if the nation ever gains possession of nuclear weapons.
Iran is really the center, the nerve center and sometimes you have to go after the head and I think that if you want to do the right thing strategically, you maybe want to focus against Iran so that you dont give them the initiative.
Hannity also criticized President Obamas plan to strike Syria as ineffective, suggesting a few days old, no-boots-on-the-ground attack would not accomplish much.
All this symbolic pinprick stuff is just silly to me.
The video, from Fox News:
If the nuclear reactors are already in operation, bombing them might not be an option unless he wants to cause a nuclear disaster in the region.
Look at Fukashima’s unending problems. What could possibly go wrong with another nuke reactor(s) disaster?
Yeah... shame Iraq was destroyed by the Israelis years ago... that’s why there is no ME today.
Come to think of it... the Israelis blew up a reactor facility in Syria recently.
Either one sounds good to me-—well, at least much better than starting a world war that could be disastrous!
Hannity sickens me. He should be in the first attack wave since he’s been beating the drums of war since 9/11. Yer a great ‘Merican. Oh puke.
So instead of war on Syria they want war on Iran? Oh well, as long as they get their war...
They sure did, and proved it can be done
Since Col. West agrees with Sean Hannity are you going to smear him too? Next time engage your brain and read before you type a idiotic post
They can go together.
I listen to a lot of Sean and agree with him on most issues. On this, he has always been very hawkish.
Iran may indeed be the “crux” of the problem here.
Good for your comment, unfortunately, some here certainly do short Hannity here.
Action on Iran is very serious, maybe that is where action needs to be taken. Very difficult.
In this particular case then I'd say Alan West is talking as foolishly as Hannity is. If it makes no sense to bomb Syria over Syria then it makes even less sense to bomb Iran over Syria.
I truly enjoyed the syrians claiming it wasn’t a nuclear reactor. I also enjoyed the dead nork scientists. That is what they call a twofer!
The nuclear reactor in Iraq was still under construction when the Israelis destroyed it. There were no radioactive materials at the site.
Read up on operation Opera. The window of opportunity to conduct something similar in Iran has already closed. The only option now is a full scale invasion.
I’d venture to guess that if we quit sending billions of dollars to Iran, Syria, etc. , and quit giving them 400 million tons of weapons, there would be no ‘war’.
We had the assets in place, we had the momentum, and we had adult leadership in Washington.
The only thing that keeps us from doing what needs to be done is the will and backbone to admit that WAR is the ugliest and most evil side of man... and VICTORY is defined by defeating an enemy so completely that when our troops roll in to take control of said country and complete mop up operations and deliver water, food and medicine... that the enemy falls to their knees with thanks.
We beat Germany by killing Germans until the Germans could stand no more. We destroyed their ability to sustain their war effort and then we destroyed their abilities that allowed them to operate as a society. Japan was the same. We lack the will and strength to win wars... we have the finest warriors in the world and they will do whatever is asked of them... they have and they win their battles and are noble and honorable... but the political will no longer exists to implement War as War.
You are absolutely correct... when calculating the pre-programmed limited and focused overseas military contingency ROE's that are America's operational norm. Now if we mobilized for War with one goal... all out Victory... as Reagan said... "We win, they lose"... then the answer and outcome would be different. No chance of that ever happening.
The US government, has loss all credibility for me because it is rotten from the top and to its core. Sure, 0-Bama is an anti-American commie, and no one should expect such a man to fight for American interests in any war against this nation. But setting the POS aside, the Federal bureaucratic/institutional culture is out of control because it seeks to dominate the people at all levels. IRS, NSA, EPA, need I go further? In fact, a war would only give the Federal even more reason to consolidate power; not such a good idea, especially now.
Before we can consider any foreign war, we must radically reform and replace our Federal institutions. The real enemy, the real threat to our everyday freedoms, is the Federal government.
Well, I didn’t check the thread, I’m sure the dogpiling on West started right away.
An EMP burst over Teheran would scramble telecommunications and just might destroy the mullahs’ ability to command & control Iranian society.
Degrading their power to rule would almost certainly result in revolution. That is probably scarier to the ayatollahs than an attack on their nukes.
Of course, we cowardly “infidels” don’t have the stomach for that.
That is why it makes more sense that IF we are going to waste resources and break things it makes more sense to take out the root problems; Iran, Saudiland and Syria.
As soon as Iran has a nuclear weapon, they will indiscriminately use it on Israel, Europe and America..... and not necessarily in that order.
Actually, it was Rep. Duncan Hunter (the son), who said it first, to bomb Iran, rather than Syria, because Iran is the one behind it.
Rep. Hunter did four tours in the Middle East, including Fallujah.
Start by taking out the Saudi Royal Family.
Israel struck before the reactor was fueled in both cases. That opportunity is lost.
“That opportunity is lost.”
Beats letting the Iranians get off the first shot with their nukes.
The war with Iran will be next year. All this is just the prelude. The US will be be involved in a support role but probably Israel will have to go hard like we haven’t seen in decades. Might spill over to some of their neighbors also. Nothing will be the same after this next go around.
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.