Posted on 01/22/2006 9:18:26 PM PST by FreeKeys
Joe Lieberman: U.S. Prepared for Iran Strike
Sen. Joe Lieberman said Sunday that the U.S. is prepared to deal with the Iranian nuclear crisis militarily - even if the war in Iraq continues to require a substantial American troop commitment.
"We have the most powerful military in the history of the world," Lieberman told CBS's "Face the Nation."
"We are capable, if necessary, of continuing to pursue our aims militarily in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere and, if necessary, conduct a military attack on Iran."
Lieberman said the he hoped an attack on Iran, if it should come, would be carried out "with the assistance of our coalition allies in Europe."
But he noted that any assault on Iranian nuclear facilities "would be primarily an air attack. It's not going to involve massive use of ground forces."
Asked about reports that the U.S. would let Israel take the lead in any attack against Iran, the Connecticut Democrat told CBS:
"The United States is a strong enough country that we never want to be in a position to have to essentially contract out protection of our national security, vis-a-vis Iran, to another country like Israel."
He noted also the Israelis "don't have the same aircraft capacity that we do, capable of doing it."
Lieberman said that while the military option remains a last resort for the U.S., "I want the people who lead Iran to understand that it is on the table. We deem their pursuit of nuclear weapons to be dead serious."
Today, we are still fighting the war that President Carter failed to recognize. In many ways, the men and women of the military who are dying today, are risking their lives because of President Carter.
I will never forgive him for what he did to America.
P.S. Jimmy Carter was a great Governor of Georgia and I proudly voted for him as president.
Bush 2 doctrine. We simply disagree about Japan. What is your opinion of the doctrine?
I think it's good if complicated.
For some countries, it would work. For others, it would not. China is clearly not going to be scared by something like that. It would be something to determine from rogue country to rogue country how effective it would be.
Libya, for example, would have easily cowered to something like that (Ghadafi has no backbone). It may work with Iran as well, but on the other hand it may not.
It is a good doctrine if used correctly.
Ol' Peanut Brittle will NEVER acknowledge responsiblity for the failed policies which have brought us to this point.
I'm turning in for the night. Interesting discussion, y'all.
ping
Yup. THIS type of thing is exactly why we can't let ANY more DimwitticRATS get their mitts on the Oval Office.
"This action [the invasion of Afghanistan] of the Soviets made a more dramatic change in my own opinion of what the Soviets' ultimate goals are than anything they've done in the previous time I've been in office." -- Pres. Jimmy Carter to ABC News, Dec. 1979
(DUUUUUUUHHHHHH!!!!!)
My understanding is this would allow us essentially to warn another country with a pre-emptive nuke.. I like the idea.
Conventional War with North Korea would be much tougher than conventional war with Iran. However, the occupation of Iran would be much tougher than the occupation of North Korea (I say conventional war, because when you introduce the potential nukes into the equation...)
The North Koreans have been raised to believe Americans and South Koreans are demons. They know of no other reality beyond what the Party has shown them. They will fight like ravenous dogs for their country in a conventional war. However, once defeated and reunited in liberty with their southern brothers, would accept the defeat peacefully and even thankfully.
Iran would be no different than Iraq and Afghanistan. The Iranian army will retreat, the leaders will go into hiding, conquest will be a breeze, but for years their would be the car bombing nuisance. Hopefully it wouldn't be as hard as the reconstruction as Iraq, because the Iranian people don't have the Arab neurosis and Persia's not split ethnically like Iraq is (thus no Kurd vs. Shia vs. Sunni tensions), but it would be the same pattern. It would be 8+ months before we find the key leaders of Iran if we find them at all, car bombs every week to weaken U.S. morale, ect.
I don't see us occupying Iran. I think we carpet bomb the hell out of their nuke sites and capital, and hope that the Iranian people do the rest.
All it would take to solve the Iran problem is a massive midnight military airdrop over selected cities and campuses in Iran.
What would we drop?
100,000 guns and 10,000,000 rounds, parachuted in.
The young Iranians would do the rest.
Price? $100 million. No US causalties.
"Although we disagree on any number of issues, he always struck me as a reasonable, patriotic, and decent man."
Hi,
What you said struck a chord with me. I might be repeating the replies of many others because I can't be bothered to read the entire thread.
Mr. Lieberman is one of the very few Dems/libs that can compete in the arena of ideas and that I respect. When I read his views, I feel like it's a healthy debate and meeting of the minds, not like almost all the other Dem/lib brainless wonders.
I agree completely. And us too considering they would likely hand a nuke to Al Queda and set one off here.
Glad that old Joe finally got his head out of the clouds of thinking how proud his parents would be if he became VP and has become his old self again. Maybe he will inspire some others to leave Hillary's plantation.
Absolutely! There are plenty of aircraft in the area with little to do. Plus I suspect any attack would also take out the Iranian government and then the Syrian forces would be incapacitated with cronic diarria.
Because we seem to be constantly provoked from many sides I have thought that, too. Plus the Dems might think it would give them a shoo in in the next elections. They are (Dems) after all working hand in hand with the Islamists. I cite Osama parroting the Dem talking points in his recent tape. Or was that Howard Dean doing an Osama imitation.
:-)
Yes, but once there they would rebuild Iraq in a hurry, and cheap too.
It worked after four long years of unrestricted warfare, causing the sinking of the Imperial Japanese Navy, the destruction of their industrial base, the deaths of millions of soldiers, sailors, and airmen, not to mention hundreds of thousands of civilians, and a demoralized, nearly starving population.
Under those circumstances, it would probably work again.
If H&N had happened preemptively, on 12/6/41, the only thing that would have been different is that the war would have been more savage, and longer.
Thanks!
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.