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."
If they don't, and soon, they probably won't get any older.
"The Iranians are very young, and very pro-American. It's a shame they can't overthrow these suicidal Mullahs."
Agreed. Perhaps after some bombings the regime will be weakened. We might be able to help them out, arm them.
On your BarMitzvah,we''ll explain it all.
If we live that long,ducky.
Umm, we had a plan for that with Russia and N.A.T.O. -- neutron bombs. :-)
Hey, since we're talkin' bout nukes anyway...
Border control in Iraq doesn't solve the problem of Iran trying to make a full-scale invasion, to be sure.
But perhaps the US military has been making preparations these past few months, because they're preparing for it anyway. If it isn't an invasion, you will see large influxes of Iranian militants as the Mullahs try to send as many terrorists as humanly possible to wage war in Iraq (making our life there more difficult).
It won't be just a few bombings. The nuke sites are spread out over several hundred locations.
During the 2004 election season, I was seriously hoping that Leiberman would be the candidate. If he ignored the slime machine and was just himself, THAT would have changed the tone in Washington- and across the nation.
Of course, he was too reasonable, patriotic, and decent for the fringe left, and they dumped him for the Traitorous Toy Soldier. My thinking was that if - Heaven forbid - Bush lost in 2004, at least I could sleep at night with Joe in the White House. He was on board with the WOT and understood what we were up against. The rest of the pack would have aged me 10 years easily, due to sleep depravation and nightmares.
As it is, Kerry's run helped to marginalize the Left even more, so I'm glad Joe didn't get the nod.
North Korea is a terrible problem, but talks and negotiations must be exhausted till the very last. A war with the NOrth Koreans would be a massive disaster.
Not since Nagasaki, anyway.
To quote the Aristocats: "Ladies don't start fights, but they know how to finish them."
And the retort: "You ain't no lady. You ain't nothin' but a sister."
Cheers!
I am not sure how we should procede in Iran. But if you are suggesting that a potentially greater danger from N. Korea should inhibit us in Iran, I do not agree.
We don't do anything about NK because we no longer can do anything. We let the situation go too long.
I don't consider our tight spot with NK as any reason why we should let another crazy regime get us into a Mexican standoff.
I know the US Intel agencies don't have a real sterling rep, but every signal coming out of Iran is bad, bad, bad. These guys have the will, the money, and the means to make not just one but several nukes in a startingly short period of time. Worse yet, they've all but announced publicly in neon lights over Tehran that they'll use 'em soon as they have 'em.
The only thing Eurabia is saying is "Stop, or we'll say stop again." Even Britain is twitchy. Jack Straw said 'no military option' just the other day.
One things for sure, the Israelis aren't going to let this bunch of islamofascists get their fingers on a nuclear trigger pointed right at their cities. That ain't gonna happen. Once Iran crosses the uranium rubicon the gloves are gonna come off. I for one wouldn't blame the Israelis if they turned Tehran and Qom in craters in that situation.
The sabers aren't just rattling here Luis, they're being pulled from their scabbards while the whole worlds watching. Once they come out, the only way to survive will be to blast every single one of those Iranian nuclear installations out of existence by any and all means necessary.
Liebermans from what's left of the 'saner' parts of the Dem party. Granted, they have no power and they're completely overshadowed by the whacko brigades that have taken it over in the last 20 years, but they're still there. I think of Joe Lieberman as Zell Miller, but without the testicular fortitude.
So, while he may be 'paying bills', he is probably the last man in the Dem party that's worth paying any attention to at all.
L
Yeah, but Joe failed to mention that.
I don't understand when attacking Iran in the course of the continuing war on terror, was anything other than a foregone conclusion.
I'm surprised it took this long to begin.
Unfortunately, in Iran (and in Iraq previously) we would be seeing welcome greetings from the Iranians who are eager for democracy and enthusiastic that the Mullahs are gone.
In NK, you'll see no such thing. It would almost be like the would-be invasion of Japan at the end of WWII (they were expecting maximum casualties as every Japanese citizen, even the women and children, would fight to the death). NK would be similar.
Well, World War II was a little different as nuclear weapons were seen as offensive where as today they are seen mostly as defensive. This change is mostly due to the advent of the ICBM during the Cold War the and ability to destroy the world with the turn of a key or push of a button.
Our troops in Iraq are position to avoid the worse of a strike. Wouldn't be pretty, but Iran couldn't sustain a response.
The Iranians will do well to hold their positions.
Thats true, and there has been some great strides in border security.
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.