Maybe the market tanked because the spit is about to hit the fan...
1 posted on
01/22/2006 9:18:29 PM PST by
FreeKeys
To: FreeKeys
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. But how much logistical support for terrorists in Iraq comes from Iran? Knocking out Iran might help us in Iran.
To: FreeKeys
Good old Joe, maybe somebody asked him to say that?
Somebody better tell the Mullas that Bubba ain`t POTUS anymote
3 posted on
01/22/2006 9:23:37 PM PST by
bybybill
(GOD help us if the Rats win)
To: FreeKeys
Now that's the type of Democrat I remember and grew up with! The old lunchbox Democrat, who, although pushed for healthcare, jobs, and education, STILL made national defense #1 priority and recognized the dangers of rogue regimes.
Expect the losers in Leiberman's party and the MSM to denounce him or try to spin the remarks to appeal to the fringe kooks.
To: FreeKeys
No doubt a plan is in place and a pre-emptive attack on Iran's nuke facilities could happen momentarily.
6 posted on
01/22/2006 9:27:15 PM PST by
RTINSC
(I Get Plenty of Healthy Exercise Lighting My Cigarettes..)
To: FreeKeys
We are hearing this from McCain, and now Joe L. The message is clear. Get ready, it's coming. The next warning will come during the State of the Union speech.
Israel does not have bombers with the range to handle such an attack. I wonder what kind of coalition can be cobbled together quickly?
If we don't do a very good job on all of Iran's capabilities, our troops in Iraq will be in grave danger.
8 posted on
01/22/2006 9:28:16 PM PST by
SaxxonWoods
(Regime change in Iran and Syria is required, and required now.)
To: FreeKeys
To: FreeKeys
Whoa there Joe.
To: FreeKeys
Here's something I've wondered about.
We get told we can't stop Iran's bomb project by bombing it because it's getting built in many different locations.
Let's say I want to stop someone from building cars, and they are building the car in many different locations. If I shut down the place where they are building the engine, they don't have a car. Or if I shut down the place where they make the brakes. Or if shut down the place they make the wheels.
If anything, spreading the operation far and wide makes the operation more vulnerable. They can't guard everything. And all that is required is to take out one key part of the operation.
To: FreeKeys
"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." Um, what about 100,000 Iranian and Syrian infantry swarming across into Iraq, Joe?
15 posted on
01/22/2006 9:34:12 PM PST by
endthematrix
(None dare call it ISLAMOFACISM!)
To: FreeKeys
Target Iran - Countdown Timeline
The Bush Administration has almost certainly not approved the timing of military operations against Iran, and consequently any projection of the probable timing of such operations is neccessarily speculative. The election of Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad as Iran's new president would appear to preclude a negotiated resolution of Iran's nuclear program. The success of strikes against Iran's WMD facilities requires both tactical and strategic surprise, so there will not be the sort of public rhetorical buildup in the weeks preceeding hostilities, of the sort that preceeded the invasion of Iraq. To the contrary, the Bush Administration will do everything within its power to deceive Iran's leaders into believing that military action is not imminent. 2001
To: FreeKeys
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." Bump
20 posted on
01/22/2006 9:39:41 PM PST by
A. Pole
(Captain Mandrake: "Condition Red, sir, yes, jolly good idea. That keeps the men on their toes.")
To: FreeKeys
Joe's just paying some paying some bills.
31 posted on
01/22/2006 9:46:57 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.)
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)
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.
To: FreeKeys
"Maybe the market tanked because the spit is about to hit the fan..." That was a small preview of the type of bearish trending which lies ahead. Short the indexes.
138 posted on
01/22/2006 11:22:23 PM PST by
M. Espinola
(Freedom is Never Free)
To: Dark Wing
146 posted on
01/22/2006 11:38:16 PM PST by
Thud
To: FreeKeys
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.
150 posted on
01/23/2006 1:13:32 AM PST by
MonroeDNA
(Look for the union label--on the bat crashing through your windshield!)
To: FreeKeys
"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." How can we do that without evidence of WMD's??? /sarcasm
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson