Posted on 09/17/2019 7:42:12 PM PDT by Kazan
On his nationally syndicated radio talk show “The Mark Levin Show” on Monday, host Mark Levin warned that if something serious isn’t done, Iran will take this attack as a first step.
“I will say this, if something isn’t done, something serious and significant isn’t done respecting Iran, they’re going to take this as a first step,” stated Mark Levin. “I’m just telling you. They’re going to take this as a first step. So, we’ll see what happens.”
Mark Levin’s comments came after a Saudi Arabian oil facility was attacked by “cruise missiles and drones,” FOX News reported, that “were launched from Iranian soil,” and after Iran seized control of another oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz.
Below is a transcript, in pertinent part, of Mark Levin’s remarks from his show on Monday:
“The Iranians are not going away.
“So what should the president do? Short of military action – and I’m not saying we should be short of military action, but if we are – what should we do? Should we lift our sanctions? No. There are five areas of waivers that the secretary of state’s office has argued should not be lifted, that is, they shouldn’t be imposed on Iran. Will the secretary of state change his mind now? I hope. There needs to be a lot of pressure on Iran.
“I read an article the other day – I don’t know if it’s right or not – that Iran’s pension funds are about to collapse, including with the military. Isn’t that a good thing? Wouldn’t that be great?
“So why would we give them a $15 billion bridge loan?
“Remember the gentleman who called last week? He had been from Eastern Europe, I believe. No, he was from France, I think – originally, now an American. He said, ‘Do you remember how Khomeini would up in Iran? Because the French government released him.’ The French make very, very stupid foreign policy decisions, which is why they’re a second- and third-tier country. I don’t think we need to be taking advice from Macron, who’s got 27 percent popularity in France, and has no background on anything, no background on anything.
“So the Iranians are pirates on the open sea. They took another oil tanker yesterday.
“If you go on the internet – you won’t read this in many newspapers because the media are the media – you’ll see they’re kidnapping British and Australians and others left and right now.
“This attack on Saudi Arabia should grab your attention because of its accuracy, the devastation and the technology involved.
“And as I told you before, maybe Rand Paul is not aware of this, the fifth fleet is harbored in Bahrain. Should we withdraw? Should we pull back? How about with China? They took over the South China Sea with their fake islands. Should we withdraw, pull back? Should we take our subs off of the Korean peninsula, remove them too? Where should we go? Where should we go? Just keep pulling back and back and back and let these various threats and enemies grow and grow and grow?
“Rand Paul asked a question over the weekend: ‘Why are we in Afghanistan?’ Is this guy an idiot? Does anybody know why we went into Afghanistan? Anybody? Everybody knows why we went into Afghanistan. Because the Taliban gave safe harbor to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, and if we take all of our troops out of Afghanistan, what do you think is going to happen?
“I mean, how many more times do we have to lose Americans, heroes, blood to go back and fight the same battles, go back and fight over the same territory? It’s— At one point we had over 140,000 troops in Afghanistan. We’re down to 14,000. We have about anywhere from 1,500 to 2,200 special forces in Syria. We have minimal presence in Iraq.
“We’re not an invading army. We’re not going to war with these countries. We’re trying to make sure we’re not attacked – yes, from 7,000 miles away – that we’re not attacked. We’re not colonialists. We’re not conquerors.
…
“I will say this, if something isn’t done, something serious and significant isn’t done respecting Iran, they’re going to take this as a first step. I’m just telling you. They’re going to take this as a first step. So, we’ll see what happens.
“But right now they’re controlling events – not the world – they’re controlling events.”
Let the Saudi’s handle it.
How are Iraq and Afghanistan working out for us?
First of all, that was 31 YEARS AGO. Secondly, that attack was designed to prevent Iran from defeating Iraq in their decade-long war. How did that work out for us in the long term?
trying to make a coherent statement out of your reply.
Iran’s missal development and nuke programs are well established. Do you deny their leaders have sponsored terrorism, threatened us and our allies, and are religious fanatic. Wake ups and smell the radiation.
I suggest you read the thread including posts 92-94 for some of Iran’s “non-threatening” act.
If Iran did this let the Saudi’s deal with it and hit them back. They have bought tens of billions of dollars in modern aircraft and military equipment from us and have been trained by us as well.
If Iran hits a US base, ship or facility then we knock the hell out of them, not a pinprick, but you really hurt them. Until then lets let Saudi boys do what they need to be doing rather than sending American boys to do their fighting.
That sh!t ain’t going to fly, dude. Stop being a tool of lying propagandists.
When are we going to see reports of Iranian soldiers storming that Saudi refinery and removing newborn babies babies from incubators and leaving them to die? :-P
Iran is lead by religious fanatics who have sponsored terrorism and who are developing nukes and already testing ICBMs and who believe they have a moral responsibility to end the world bringing on the last Imam. Maybe you should read more. You can believe it or not., Sleep well.
OK. Thanks for the warning. I’m sure I won’t lose a minute of sleep over that.
There is a big difference between eliminating the Iranian AF, navy and nuclear weapon development sites than an invasion. Nobody is talking about an invasion.
So you admit it worked and was an example of a successful limited military response. So you were wrong.
The problem would be that if Iran or SA decided to start sinking oil tankers in the strait, NO ships could get through-in a re-run of the Iran-Iraq War of the early 80’s. This would cause oil prices to spike because, like it or not, the worlds economy runs on oil and these countries are some of the biggest producers. If, say, Japan cannot get oil, they have no money to buy our, or anyone else’s goods, which will cause a worldwide downturn in economies. I’d like nothing better than to see them both ruin each other, but I don’t believe in cutting off my own nose to spite my face.
Sorry for the confusion. Go back to Post #163. I use the term “25+ years” in these posts because that’s roughly the period when globalists dominated the GOP after Reagan left office. That’s why I said “recent history” in a later post.
"Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."
From the Barbary Pirates to Iran hostage crisis to 9/11 to ISIS...Muslim radicals will always hate and seek to attack this nation.
Do the Muslim radicals in Saudi Arabia — and their paid whores in Washington — count, too?
Amen. That sums up my thoughts as well.
Japan has a very capable Maritime SDF. Let them take of this issue if the affects them.
Or let the Euroweenies sortie their navies and make sure their oil arrives.
IT is not worth American blood and treasure to take care of these people.
Or let them admit that they are our client states and start behaving accordingly.
“Head in the sand Isolationism is just as stupid and dangerous as W’s nation building.”
Isolationism is a natural reaction to decades of Dangerous Nation Building. Especially after the following administration simply gave it all away upon entering the office.
We are Infidels and will always be targeted by fundamental Muslims.
And being naïve Infidels helps the Muslims out greatly. -Tom
My thinking runs only to keeping the Straits clear, not to fighting a war. I agree that Japan and the Europeans should carry their own weight.
As someone who spent 32 years in the military and is a 100% disabled combat vet - and who was in Iraq BEFORE "A-Day" - that's what we called the 20th of March 2003 - the day air operations began - and as a veteran of three different wars/engagements...I tell you what: When we start actually FIGHTING a war and letting the generals fight the war instead of the idiot politicians (and yes - when it comes to WAR - Trump is an idiot politician - if he wants to send boys to fight - tell the generals to do something and then "hands-off") - then I'll be here behind my keyboard with you with my pom-poms in my hand.
But as someone who has lost friends - who has lost buddies and who has GOOD friends (Jacob Schick is one of them and if you don't know who he is - look him up - he's also in one of the last scenes of American Sniper) - I do not like the idea of sending American boys and girls over there to fight AGAIN when we aren't going to go all out.
I ESPECIALLY HATE the fact that the are getting young men killed protecting the very poppy fields that produce the black tar heroin that we are declaring war on in this country...because we have to keep warlords on our side - and Trump is continuing the very same policy in that regards that Obama did.
So - PROVE to me you can do THOSE THINGS right - and perhaps we can talk - but you better speak up - because the last time a politician got me into a war it cost me my hearing and I can't hear too well............
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.