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

Skip to comments.

Joe Lieberman: U.S. Prepared for Iran Strike
NewsMax.com ^ | Sunday, Jan. 22, 2006 10:51 p.m. EST | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

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."


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 109th; ahmedinijad; ayatollahs; bunkers; firststrike; iran; irannukes; iranstrike; iranstrikes; joelieberman; lieberman; mullahs; nukes; nutcases; shutupjoe; socialistnerd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-165 next last
To: Luis Gonzalez

Well, after 9/11, when the war on terror officially began, it was obvious that first step would be Afghanistan.

After bin Laden escaped to Pakistan, the question became who was next? Iraq or Iran?

Saddam Hussein became the next choice. Unfortunately, right after the fall of Saddam's regime, we made spectacular blunders that we are still paying for. Iraq's problems have slowed us down severely thusfar.

If we had made better strategic decisions immediately post-Saddam, Iraq would have gone much smoother, and Iran may have already been taken care of by now.


61 posted on 01/22/2006 10:08:56 PM PST by pcottraux (It's pronounced "P. Coe-troe.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: RTINSC

We don't fire warning shots.


62 posted on 01/22/2006 10:09:09 PM PST by 31R1O ("Everything with God and nothing without him")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145
Under Presidential Decision Directive 65 or 69 (sorry, virus wiped out my computer this summer, and I lost it) - signed by President Clinton, America changed their nuclear posture and PUT nukes on the table in response to terrorist activity.

Ironically, Clinton did that in response to threats being made by Saddam Hussein, in the event he used biological or chemical weapons against our troops if we had to invade to bring him into compliance with various UN resolutions.

Of course, since this was under the Clinton Regime, the Dems forget all about it and claim that Bush lied...blah...blah...blah.

63 posted on 01/22/2006 10:10:06 PM PST by TheWriterTX (Proud Retrosexual Wife of 12 Years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: John Lenin

Like the poster..where did you find it?


64 posted on 01/22/2006 10:11:12 PM PST by EnigmaticAnomaly ("Conservatives protect Americans from terrorists. Liberals protect terrorists from Americans.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Cacique

Their positions are marked on the Big Board.


65 posted on 01/22/2006 10:11:17 PM PST by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: pcottraux

Mistakes are unavoidable. The fact that we were (and still are) sabatoged by the Left has slowed us down more than any mistakes that we've made.


66 posted on 01/22/2006 10:11:28 PM PST by joseph20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: FreeKeys
Nuclear weapons require a nuclear response.

If Iran decides to play with the big boys, then it has accepted that responsibility. For better or worse, this is their choice.

A "first strike" nuclear attack from America is justified and would be the wisest choice.

67 posted on 01/22/2006 10:11:48 PM PST by Hunble (a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: endthematrix

The insurgency in Iraq fighting our troops right now are primarily from Iran and Syria. They are trained members of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. who have snuck across the border. I would think that rather than using the Iranian army, the Mullahs in retaliation to a strike against them would try to send as many terrorist militants as possible to sneak into Iraq to join Al-Zarqawi.


68 posted on 01/22/2006 10:12:22 PM PST by pcottraux (It's pronounced "P. Coe-troe.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
"It won't be just a few bombings."

Damn straight! The jets have to get there first, which means that air defenses must be silenced. When has the USAF ever done it's job lightly? Heck we should get rid of all our trash here in the States...just pack it up in a c-17 and dump in in their sandbox. America's environmentalist wackos would be proud!

69 posted on 01/22/2006 10:12:27 PM PST by endthematrix (None dare call it ISLAMOFACISM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
"...that doesn't make what he says untrue my friend..."

The most effective way to send out the announcement that an attack on Israel would be considered a danger to the national security of the US, and that we would retaliate is for Joe to do it.

And frankly, it's Joe's obligation to do it...dance with the ones that brung you.

The American Jewish support for the DNC is important, and Joe's obvious choice to rattle the sabers for the left.

If we were talking about Cuba instead of Iran, the saber rattling would come from Ros-Lethinen, the Diaz-Balart brothers and the rest of the Cuban contingency in DC.

70 posted on 01/22/2006 10:12:28 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

OK, re our troops in Iraq, perhaps so. I'm starting to like the sound of an EMP attack onn Iran more all the time.


71 posted on 01/22/2006 10:12:55 PM PST by SaxxonWoods (Regime change in Iran and Syria is required, and required now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: spokeshave

Let's hope our air power works better this time. The raids on the ball bearing plants just slowed them down and didn't have any appreciable long-term effect on war production. The U. S. post-war Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that people were easier to kill than machines.

Namsman sends.


72 posted on 01/22/2006 10:13:30 PM PST by namsman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145

Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations


"Executing a nuclear option, or even a portion of an option, should send a clear signal of United States' resolve. Hence, options must be selected very carefully and deliberately so that the attack can help ensure the adversary recognizes the "signal" and should therefore not assume the United States has escalated to general nuclear war, although that perception cannot be guaranteed."


73 posted on 01/22/2006 10:13:55 PM PST by RTINSC (I Get Plenty of Healthy Exercise Lighting My Cigarettes..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: FreeKeys

>Maybe the market tanked because the spit is about to hit the fan...

If israel attacks iran all hell will break loose in the ME and it's gonna be a long, long conflict if Russia and China come to Iran's rescue.

We are living in very interesting times.


74 posted on 01/22/2006 10:13:59 PM PST by TheBrotherhood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
"he is probably the last man in the Dem party that's worth paying any attention to at all. "

There's a couple of them actually.

75 posted on 01/22/2006 10:15:16 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: joseph20
Mistakes are unavoidable. The fact that we were (and still are) sabatoged by the Left has slowed us down more than any mistakes that we've made.

Yeah, that is true. I would say that if the rest of the world, including France and the entire UN were willing to contribute full help in Iraq, the problem would be over almost immediately.

It also didn't help that instead of just going in and taking out Saddam quickly, we got bogged down at the UN after we had already begun the threats and were building up for war. Iraq had ample time to prepare for our arrival.
76 posted on 01/22/2006 10:15:46 PM PST by pcottraux (It's pronounced "P. Coe-troe.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: EnigmaticAnomaly

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/images/iran-next.jpg


77 posted on 01/22/2006 10:17:04 PM PST by John Lenin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: 31R1O

"We don't fire warning shots."


We fired two in Hiroshima and Nagasaki..


78 posted on 01/22/2006 10:17:38 PM PST by RTINSC (I Get Plenty of Healthy Exercise Lighting My Cigarettes..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: RTINSC
I consider the usage of American ICBM's to be vital as a lesson to the rest of the world. When nuclear weapons are involved, America will always win.

How did America ever get into this situation, where only manned aircraft are used for a first strike?

North Korea, you are next!

79 posted on 01/22/2006 10:18:00 PM PST by Hunble (a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: okie01

Hey, Jacques Chirac has been playing the loose canon as of late. Maybe he's out to impress his new mistress what a real toughguy he is or somethng. Maybe his garlic was just a little strong that day. Who knows?

But France has been talking the talk lately. Personally, I'd like to see them taking the lead and showing off Europe's new military might. With his numbers tanked like they are, maybe playing the world's savior would be to his benefit.

(I can't believe I just wrote that.)


80 posted on 01/22/2006 10:20:16 PM PST by CheyennePress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-165 next last

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