Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Attack on Iran would be 'very destabilizing' -- US military chief
afp ^ | 7/6/09 | afp

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 ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: amazing


1 posted on 07/05/2009 9:33:26 PM PDT by Flavius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Flavius

Would an Iranian nuke strike on Israel be OK?


2 posted on 07/05/2009 9:34:32 PM PDT by Islaminaction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flavius

“and it is the unintended consequences of that which aren’t predictable”

Hormuz, nuff said.


3 posted on 07/05/2009 9:35:44 PM PDT by happinesswithoutpeace (Hey there, White House Ha Ha Charade you are)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flavius

We definitely wouldn’t want a place that is already destabilized to become very destabilized.


4 posted on 07/05/2009 9:35:55 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Hey America! How's that "hope and change" thing working out?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

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??????????


5 posted on 07/05/2009 9:37:43 PM PDT by my small voice (A biased media and an uneducated public is the biggest threat to our democracy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Flavius

And what does the good Admiral think the consequences of Iran having nuclear weapons will be?


6 posted on 07/05/2009 9:39:39 PM PDT by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Islaminaction

I think a low yield nuke on AFP offices in Paris would be much more in order.


7 posted on 07/05/2009 9:41:53 PM PDT by Rembrandt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Islaminaction

Yeah, an Iranian stroke to the west would be stabilizing....

Idiots


8 posted on 07/05/2009 9:42:00 PM PDT by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DB

Intended consequences for whoever they can get a bead on

Now, that makes good sense!


9 posted on 07/05/2009 9:43:32 PM PDT by himno hero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Flavius
Aren't most attacks on a country supposed to be destabilizing? Isn't that sort of the point?

"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."

10 posted on 07/05/2009 9:46:40 PM PDT by TheWasteLand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Islaminaction
Would an Iranian nuke strike on Israel be OK?

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.

11 posted on 07/05/2009 9:47:01 PM PDT by ChrisInAR (The Tenth Amendment is still the Supreme Law of the Land, folks -- start enforcing it for a CHANGE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Flavius
"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,"

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."?

12 posted on 07/05/2009 9:48:14 PM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all. -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flavius

Did we wake you up? Go back to sleep.
13 posted on 07/05/2009 9:48:41 PM PDT by smokingfrog ( Don't mess with the mockingbird! /\/\ http://tiny.cc/freepthis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flavius

Mental Masturbation

14 posted on 07/05/2009 9:50:11 PM PDT by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flavius

Iran getting nuke missiles is not??


15 posted on 07/05/2009 9:52:36 PM PDT by GeronL (freeping on a PS3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChrisInAR

Agreed, Bibi has to do what he thinks is best for Israel.


16 posted on 07/05/2009 9:53:31 PM PDT by Islaminaction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Flavius
"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.

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.

17 posted on 07/05/2009 9:56:06 PM PDT by RobinOfKingston (Democrats, the party of evil. Republicans, the party of stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flavius

Ya know what would have been destabilizing?

Obama piping up for freedom.

What a concept


18 posted on 07/05/2009 10:03:59 PM PDT by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flavius
What is more destabilizing is the uncertainty and indecision around the question of what will be done if iran continues down the path it is on.
19 posted on 07/05/2009 10:12:45 PM PDT by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paul51

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?

Freekin idiots


20 posted on 07/05/2009 10:18:51 PM PDT by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Flavius

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.


21 posted on 07/05/2009 11:08:42 PM PDT by familyop (cbt. engr. (cbt), NG, '89-' 96, Duncan Hunter or no-vote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flavius

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.


22 posted on 07/05/2009 11:11:02 PM PDT by familyop (cbt. engr. (cbt), NG, '89-' 96, Duncan Hunter or no-vote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flavius

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?


23 posted on 07/05/2009 11:49:46 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper (...and never forget that!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper

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.


24 posted on 07/06/2009 1:17:01 AM PDT by yorkie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Flavius
A US military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities would be "very destabilizing,"

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.

25 posted on 07/06/2009 1:29:47 AM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flavius

DESTABILIZE THIS.

26 posted on 07/06/2009 1:55:23 AM PDT by PhilDragoo (Hussein: Islamo-Commie from Kenya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson