Lieberman: U.S. should weigh Iran attack

[Plainsman]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070610/ap_on_go_co/us_iran

"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Lieberman said

I like the way this guy thinks!

 

[12Footer]

Re: Lieberman: U.S. should weigh Iran attack

Of course, Joe is right on. But Americans are too chicken (the ones holdin the reigns are anyhow).

 

[LFK]

Re: Lieberman: U.S. should weigh Iran attack

Too chicken to represent the majority of voters in their country?

 

[12Footer]

Re: Lieberman: U.S. should weigh Iran attack

IMHO, Yes they are. Unfortunately, the "majority" is represented by Joke Murtha, Nanny Pelosi, Dingy Harry Ried, Ted Kenedy, Chucky Shuemer, Osama Obama, Edwards et al.

 

[WillyBWright]

Re: Lieberman: U.S. should weigh Iran attack

I think you'll find that confined to the Iraq theatre, the libs are fully onboard. But they won't go for crossing into Iran.

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Lieberman: U.S. should weigh Iran attack

Talk is cheap: Eric. We are clearly unable to prevale in a much weaker and much more susceptible Iraq, not due to the Islamic enemy we face, but the encouragement to Islamo facists from our enemies in Europe, Russia, China and our own Media and predominately one political party here at home, (some wobbly Republicans are the problem too like yer worthless Republican Senator from Nebraska), we sure don't want to take on a real tough and determined country like Iran. Liberman is a class act, (as an American Statesman), but: he is wealthy and does not face an election for 6 more years.

Remember Eric; Persians are not Arabs!! I think the Liberals clearly have the upper hand with the uninformed, ('cept on all aspects of homosexuality: 'course), apathetic American people. As a practical matter, we would get our heads handed to us by a fired up very tough and determined Iran working with all the world's Liberals n' Chinese n' Russians n' other Europeans against us.

Big mistake to attack anyone for any reason, (a 9/11 attack of real cornsequence did not matter, if ya clearly cornsider the last 6 years: Eric), until the Democrats decisively purge their party of the current power players. As long as nakedly anti American domestic politicans have sooo much power we are fairly helpless, and any agressive action would backfire in a big way, IMHO. A crushing political defeat for all who voted to invade Iraq then turned to take political advantage by stabing out troops and our country in the back (regardless of appoligies), would change this awfull scenario we presently face.

The Libs and anti war types have us now: Eric; they clearly plan to relive their glory days of the mid 1970's and there is very little that can be done about it. I fear we will have to live with a nuclear Iran, and I bet rational Cornservatives will come to a similar assesment of our current profound state of weakness that I have. If the anti American Dems get soundly crushed in 2008 (prior to Iran getting Nukes), this could change. The last time we faced this scenario we elected Ronald Reagan and avoided Soviet Domination that Carter surely would have delivered to us. Prayers may help, (the big fella could throw some technical problems the Iranian's way) but agressive military action by the US is clearly unthinkable, and would likely end the Republican party, or put them in minority until we loose an American city or two. Respectfully, JR

 

[12Footer]

Re: Lieberman: U.S. should weigh Iran attack

I think you'll find that confined to the Iraq theatre, the libs are fully onboard. But they won't go for crossing into Iran.

Willy, this (to me anyhow) , is like an American 65 years ago saying " I think you'll find that confined to the Pacific rim theatre, the libs are fully onboard. But they won't go for crossing into Iwo Jima."

 

[Plainsman]

Re: Lieberman: U.S. should weigh Iran attack

I hear ya OMR! And your right about Lieberman not running for any office, so he can speak what needs to be spoken. If enough Americans were informed of what Iran is doing to aid in the killing of our troops, I think a surgical strike on Iran could be stomached by the American people.

And you are ABSOLUTELY correct about chuck hagel, and I have let him know that!! Our AG, Brunner, is going to run against him in the next election. He's a squared away guy.

It's sad, but our dem Senator, Ben Nelson seems to vote they I want him to on issues. The Republican votes with the libs, go figure.

 

[Tail_Gunner]

Re: Lieberman: U.S. should weigh Iran attack

Talk is cheap: Eric. We are clearly unable to prevale in a much weaker and much more susceptible Iraq, not due to the Islamic enemy we face, but the encouragement to Islamo facists from our enemies in Europe, Russia, China and our own Media and predominately one political party here at home, (some wobbly Republicans are the problem too like yer worthless Republican Senator from Nebraska), we sure don't want to take on a real tough and determined country like Iran. Liberman is a class act, (as an American Statesman), but: he is wealthy and does not face an election for 6 more years.

Remember Eric; Persians are not Arabs!! I think the Liberals clearly have the upper hand with the uninformed, ('cept on all aspects of homosexuality: 'course), apathetic American people. As a practical matter, we would get our heads handed to us by a fired up very tough and determined Iran working with all the world's Liberals n' Chinese n' Russians n' other Europeans against us.

Big mistake to attack anyone for any reason, (a 9/11 attack of real cornsequence did not matter, if ya clearly cornsider the last 6 years: Eric), until the Democrats decisively purge their party of the current power players. As long as nakedly anti American domestic politicans have sooo much power we are fairly helpless, and any agressive action would backfire in a big way, IMHO. A crushing political defeat for all who voted to invade Iraq then turned to take political advantage by stabing out troops and our country in the back (regardless of appoligies), would change this awfull scenario we presently face.

The Libs and anti war types have us now: Eric; they clearly plan to relive their glory days of the mid 1970's and there is very little that can be done about it. I fear we will have to live with a nuclear Iran, and I bet rational Cornservatives will come to a similar assesment of our current profound state of weakness that I have. If the anti American Dems get soundly crushed in 2008 (prior to Iran getting Nukes), this could change. The last time we faced this scenario we elected Ronald Reagan and avoided Soviet Domination that Carter surely would have delivered to us. Prayers may help, (the big fella could throw some technical problems the Iranian's way) but agressive military action by the US is clearly unthinkable, and would likely end the Republican party, or put them in minority until we loose an American city or two. Respectfully, JR

We agree here Omr......

But the Israel's will never allow Iran to go Nuclear and no country will influnce there desision in this matter. I am afraid we are headed for some type of action soon over there. There is a lot going on now, Iran's as a country is in great turmoil and a lot of dissent is taking place with in both government and the people.

Of course we never hear about, just how formidable the Persian's are....damm near makes me want to puke.

 

[Coors]

Re: Lieberman: U.S. should weigh Iran attack

I think myself as not paranoid, but I re-oiled my guns last night, in-case my children or grand-children need them.

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Lieberman: U.S. should weigh Iran attack

I hear ya OMR! And your right about Lieberman not running for any office, so he can speak what needs to be spoken. If enough Americans were informed of what Iran is doing to aid in the killing of our troops, I think a surgical strike on Iran could be stomached by the American people.

And you are ABSOLUTELY correct about chuck hagel, and I have let him know that!! Our AG, Brunner, is going to run against him in the next election. He's a squared away guy.

It's sad, but our dem Senator, Ben Nelson seems to vote they I want him to on issues. The Republican votes with the libs, go figure.

That is one of the many reasons I'm not a Republican: Eric. Ben Nelson is better in many ways then Hagel, (and he does have actual honor) n' think about Zell Miller or Sam Nunn cornpared to the Eastern Lib Republicans.

With Iran, I feel there is no such thing as a "surgical strike". They are very smart and have been on this path since 1979, and have diversified their deadly assets. Any attack would galvanize their population against us, (that's basic human nature: Eric) and the Russians n' Chinese n' Europeans would rush to help them fight us. Tell me I wrong here: 'cause I'm not!!!

Even a covert knockin' out their sole gasoline refinery would be front page NY Times every day to enrage 'em, n' the rest of the world's Libs. N' we could count on our very own Democrats n' Chuck Hagel to impeach Mr. Bush. If we attack Iran, the Republican party will either cease to exist or will be in a minority similar to the 1930s until the 1990s. Liberals may be anti American, but they are very capable with the media and most Universities in their hip pocket. N' we all know how the American people are critical thinkers.

We are in a Neville Chamberland period of time. Did ya know that FDR is on record to have liked the Chamberland deal Eric?

 

[Plainsman]

Re: Lieberman: U.S. should weigh Iran attack

That is one of the many reasons I'm not a Republican: Eric. Ben Nelson is better in many ways then Hagel, (and he does have actual honor) n' think about Zell Miller or Sam Nunn cornpared to the Eastern Lib Republicans.

Sorry I can't sit on the fence. It's not in me. I have to take the bad as well as the good with my party. All in all the Republicans represent my convictions, social and with world affairs.

With Iran, I feel there is no such thing as a "surgical strike". They are very smart and have been on this path since 1979, and have diversified their deadly assets. Any attack would galvanize their population against us, (that's basic human nature: Eric) and the Russians n' Chinese n' Europeans would rush to help them fight us. Tell me I wrong here: 'cause I'm not!!!

I will tell you I believe that your wrong. China and Russia wouldn't get involved as I think it's not in their best overall interest to do so over a single military strike. Seems that one brain cell you have working may be overloaded.

Even a covert knockin' out their sole gasoline refinery would be front page NY Times every day to enrage 'em, n' the rest of the world's Libs. N' we could count on our very own Democrats n' Chuck Hagel to impeach Mr. Bush. If we attack Iran, the Republican party will either cease to exist or will be in a minority similar to the 1930s until the 1990s. Liberals may be anti American, but they are very capable with the media and most Universities in their hip pocket. N' we all know how the American people are critical thinkers.

Who said anything about a refinery? Liberman was talking about training camps. Did you read the story?

We are in a Neville Chamberland period of time. Did ya know that FDR is on record to have liked the Chamberland deal Eric?

I did not know that.

 

[JB]

Re: Lieberman: U.S. should weigh Iran attack

We need to be prepared for any possibility. Only knowing that we are prepared will bring pause to our adversaries.

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Lieberman: U.S. should weigh Iran attack

I don't ever sit on the fence either: Eric, I hope that is ubundantly apparent from my posts here. I do vote the person not the party, however. It serves me to be independent as I live on the Left coast in a very Blue state, where the State of Washington Republican party is very weak. Many local Dems are preferable to local whimp Republicans. I may make a different decision if I lived in 'fly over' Country as you do.

I may be wrong about Russia and China as I am basing my opinion on their recent and not so recent history. Both these Countries are very oportunistic and generally compete with us at all levels in both business and war. They tend to resist us in most matters and try to profit from that side of things, (which they usually do). China needs oil badly and Iran has oil. Russia has oil, but likes to sell high technology. Where do ya think Iran got the majority of their nuclear technology Eric? Has Russia or China ever been on our side of any cornflict since 1945? I don't 'fight the tape': Eric. What do you base yer prediction on; as it would mean a change of direction for either country to support us in any cornflict? Did China or Russia support us in the Balkins? How about Iraq? BTW: staying out of it would be SUPPORT!!

Lieberman was makin' political points. His last election was won buy being a stand up statesman. You could take out training camps to send a message, and have all the negative cornsequences I just mentioned. I am never a beliver in ***** footin' when it come to unilateral actions. Training camps is what Clinton tried to take out and we all know how effective that was, (that is like poking a stick at a hornets' nest, I would either use a blow torch or do nothing), and the current circumstance calls for nothing, IMHO due to our profound weakness I have mentioned. If we really wanted to get Iran's attention, (the only reason to do anything: Eric), we could eliminate their gasoline capacity and imbargo as much incomming gas as we could imbargo. Russia would still likely supply 'em for a price, (based on their past cornduct: Eric), Turkey could supply them too (although less likely).

I'm no expert on much of anything other then finances, Eric. That said: I do know history, and historical tendancies guide my judjement. I have found that a reliable way to approach the world we live in. You may be correct in your opionion that Russia and China would stay away where their was money and power to be had at our expense which is different then there past cornduct. I would find it surprizing but not impossible. We shall have to agree to disagree. Respectfully, JR

 

[waterinthefuel]

Re: Lieberman: U.S. should weigh Iran attack

I think you'll find that confined to the Iraq theatre, the libs are fully onboard. But they won't go for crossing into Iran.

Fully onboard huh? Is that what they mean when they say that Bush lied, kids died? The war in Iraq was nothing but a lie from the beginning etc etc? No ties to 9-11 in Iraq, etc?

If so, I'd hate to see the wrath of the left if they weren't behind a war.

 

[rolmops]

Re: Lieberman: U.S. should weigh Iran attack

I think that talk is very cheap.
Mr Lieberman knows very well that the USA neither has the troops nor the money for an increase in the conflict in the middle east.The Chinese would have to lend us the money to finance that adventure and it would mean paying a very high price not just in interest,but also in Chinese influence on our daily lives.

 

[Plainsman]

Re: Lieberman: U.S. should weigh Iran attack

I don't ever sit on the fence either: Eric, I hope that is ubundantly apparent from my posts here. I do vote the person not the party, however. It serves me to be independent as I live on the Left coast in a very Blue state, where the State of Washington Republican party is very weak. Many local Dems are preferable to local whimp Republicans. I may make a different decision if I lived in 'fly over' Country as you do.

An independent is sitting on the fence in my eyes. Just because you are a registered whatever, doesn't mean you always have to vote that way.

I may be wrong about Russia and China as I am basing my opinion on their recent and not so recent history. Both these Countries are very oportunistic and generally compete with us at all levels in both business and war. They tend to resist us in most matters and try to profit from that side of things, (which they usually do). China needs oil badly and Iran has oil. Russia has oil, but likes to sell high technology. Where do ya think Iran got the majority of their nuclear technology Eric? Has Russia or China ever been on our side of any cornflict since 1945? I don't 'fight the tape': Eric. What do you base yer prediction on; as it would mean a change of direction for either country to support us in any cornflict? Did China or Russia support us in the Balkins? How about Iraq? BTW: staying out of it would be SUPPORT!!

I agree they may not be our best friends, but what have they done to hurt us? Iran got the Russian technology, as far as I know, legitimately.
They are staying out of Iraq, so from what you say, they are supporting us? I think bro haut has had a negative influence on your critical thinking

Lieberman was makin' political points. His last election was won buy being a stand up statesman. You could take out training camps to send a message, and have all the negative cornsequences I just mentioned. I am never a beliver in ***** footin' when it come to unilateral actions. Training camps is what Clinton tried to take out and we all know how effective that was, (that is like poking a stick at a hornets' nest, I would either use a blow torch or do nothing), and the current circumstance calls for nothing, IMHO due to our profound weakness I have mentioned. If we really wanted to get Iran's attention, (the only reason to do anything: Eric), we could eliminate their gasoline capacity and imbargo as much incomming gas as we could imbargo. Russia would still likely supply 'em for a price, (based on their past cornduct: Eric), Turkey could supply them too (although less likely).

So your saying let Iran keep the camps open and do nothing besides all out war? Did you get a hold of some of willy's stash? Was Israel's surgical strike on Iraq's nuclear facility a waste of time? There is a time for such strikes to send a message to them instead of being worried what the world thinks. They hate us anyway and the most part always have.

I'm no expert on much of anything other then finances, Eric. That said: I do know history, and historical tendancies guide my judjement. I have found that a reliable way to approach the world we live in. You may be correct in your opionion that Russia and China would stay away where their was money and power to be had at our expense which is different then their past cornduct. I would find it surprizing but not impossible. We shall have to agree to disagree. Respectfully, JR

Agreed to disagree

 

[12Footer]

Re: Lieberman: U.S. should weigh Iran attack

I think that talk is very cheap.
Mr Lieberman knows very well that the USA neither has the troops nor the money for an increase in the conflict in the middle east.The Chinese would have to lend us the money to finance that adventure and it would mean paying a very high price not just in interest,but also in Chinese influence on our daily lives.

The money thing is a very good point, Rolmops. And one I failed to even consider. It wouldn't be cheap. But when they attack, monetary concerns will not be of any.
Besides, I never considered the US (given it's current leadership) morally capable of a first strike on mocky... And no doubt,"Mr Mock-mood I'm in a jihaad" knows that, and is banking heavily on it as Sadamn did (to his discredit)

 

[Vlad D Impeller]

Re: Lieberman: U.S. should weigh Iran attack

Ahmadineajad (sp) does not rule Iran, he is a blithering idiot who was elected president by the Iranian people on false economic promises. The authority of an Iranian president is one of a paper tiger, the ayatollas are the ones pushing all relevant buttons in Iran.

 

[RubberFrog]

Re: Lieberman: U.S. should weigh Iran attack

Whan Barack Osama gets elected, he will know how to deal with these guys.