Posted on 04/26/2008 4:17:39 AM PDT by freerepublic_or_die
The nation's top military officer said yesterday that the Pentagon is planning for "potential military courses of action" as one of several options against Iran, criticizing what he called the Tehran government's "increasingly lethal and malign influence" in Iraq. Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a conflict with Iran would be "extremely stressing" but not impossible for U.S. forces, pointing to reserve capabilities in the Navy and Air Force. "It would be a mistake to think that we are out of combat capability," he said at a Pentagon news conference. Speaking of Iran's intentions, Mullen said: "They prefer to see a weak Iraq neighbor. . . . They have expressed long-term goals to be the regional power." Mullen made clear that he prefers a diplomatic solution and does not expect imminent action. "I have no expectations that we're going to get into a conflict with Iran in the immediate future," he said. Mullen's statements and others by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates recently signal new rhetorical pressure on Iran by the Bush administration amid what officials say is increased Iranian provision of weapons, training and financing to Iraqi groups that are attacking and killing Americans. In a speech Monday, Gates said Iran "is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons." He said war would be "disastrous" but added that "the military option must be kept on the table, given the destabilizing policies of the regime and the risks inherent in a future Iranian nuclear threat." Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, who was nominated this week to head all U.S. forces in the Middle East, is preparing a briefing soon on increased Iranian involvement in Iraq, Mullen said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
It’s about freakin time.
Yeah, I guess it is about time.
Only we’re broke.
How much longer can we put tired men and women out to fight and do it with a bankrupt treasury.
How long do we expect Iran to wage war against US before we do something? Do you want this to go on for another 30 years??
At long last. I hope they really do it instead of just talk about it.
Betcha this news has caused an outbread of serious hemroids in the dem’s party in Washington.
Anyone who thinks we’re going to send in troops is nuts. It would be a strike on their refinery and then the groups we have been training to overthrow the Mullahs would step in. They would be supported by air superiority-we can sink the Iranian Navy in about a half hour.
A few nukes and bunkerbusters won't cost that much -- compared to the savings of not having Iran export arms and troops to Iraq.
No invasion, see my tagline.
RuPaul would be sad.
“At long last. I hope they really do it instead of just talk about it.”
>>>>>>>.....................
CIC has learned from Nixon and Johnson: limited warfare, allow your enemy sancturary states to slowly bleed you,
we are repeating the mistakes of vietnam and no one in the GOP or Demorats will change this.
For the goal is continuous low level warfare not victory which is now never a goal of war.
Disgusted with our leadership in and out of the military.
Note(served 2 tours in nam with 101st and I hate what is happening in Iraq with this nation building BS)
Not gonna happen. It is way too late now. GWB has overspent, lost public and political support and continually demonstrated that he won’t even take out al Sadr, let alone Iran.
Much as Iran DESERVES to be attacked...I doubt we’ll do it. It would simply be too taxing on us, UNLESS nukes were employed.
Sounds fine with me.
Hope Israel puts it on a good target in Iran.
1. Our air and naval assets are virtually unengaged.
2. Our Treasury is not bankrupt. That is nonsense.
puhleeze..... spare me.
You'd be speaking german or japanese if you'd of been running the second world war.
How about we quit spending money on drug addict's disability payments, drunks on disability, artist putting religious statues in urine, bridges and roadways for union "no-show" jobs, education bureaucrats that don't teach, "housing projects" for slum lords...etc....
The men and "women" that are "tired" joined the ARMED FORCES.
They volunteered.
We haven't had a "war" where you read about 500-1000 casualties in a DAY.
How about you do all of us a favor and if you can read, grab a history book and look up some of the casualty rates for other wars.
In fact find out how many people died last year in auto accidents. Or the bloody week that Chicago just had.
who said anything about "going to".....how about "have". ?
“How much longer can we put tired men and women out to fight and do it with a bankrupt treasury.”
This one will be quick.
***How much longer can we put tired men and women out to fight and do it with a bankrupt treasury.***
Ah, yes, those “tired” soldiers who VOLUNTEER to go back time after time, and even the injured who sign up again to save your (deleted).
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.