Skip to comments.
Attack on Iran would be 'very destabilizing' -- US military chief
afp ^
| 7/6/09
| afp
Posted on 07/05/2009 9:33:26 PM PDT by Flavius
WASHINGTON (AFP) – A US military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities would be "very destabilizing," top US military commander Admiral Mike Mullen said Sunday, warning that any attack could have serious "unintended consequences."
"I've been one who has been concerned about a strike on Iran for some time, because it could be very destabilizing, and it is the unintended consequences of that which aren't predictable," the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff told the Fox News Sunday television program.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: amazing
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
1
posted on
07/05/2009 9:33:26 PM PDT
by
Flavius
To: Flavius
Would an Iranian nuke strike on Israel be OK?
To: Flavius
“and it is the unintended consequences of that which aren’t predictable”
Hormuz, nuff said.
To: Flavius
We definitely wouldn’t want a place that is already destabilized to become very destabilized.
4
posted on
07/05/2009 9:35:55 PM PDT
by
FlingWingFlyer
(Hey America! How's that "hope and change" thing working out?)
To: FlingWingFlyer
WE ARE THE MOST POWERFUL NATION IN THE HISTORY OF EARTH YOU WIMPY FRAEAKING MORON!!! GROW A PAIR AND DO WHAT HAS TO BE DONE!!!!!!!!!!!
I AM SO SICK OF IT. THESE PEOPLE ARE DESERT VERMIN. DON’T THEY REALIZE THAT??????????
5
posted on
07/05/2009 9:37:43 PM PDT
by
my small voice
(A biased media and an uneducated public is the biggest threat to our democracy)
To: Flavius
And what does the good Admiral think the consequences of Iran having nuclear weapons will be?
6
posted on
07/05/2009 9:39:39 PM PDT
by
DB
To: Islaminaction
I think a low yield nuke on AFP offices in Paris would be much more in order.
7
posted on
07/05/2009 9:41:53 PM PDT
by
Rembrandt
To: Islaminaction
Yeah, an Iranian stroke to the west would be stabilizing....
Idiots
8
posted on
07/05/2009 9:42:00 PM PDT
by
mylife
(The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
To: DB
Intended consequences for whoever they can get a bead on
Now, that makes good sense!
To: Flavius
Aren't most attacks on a country supposed to be destabilizing? Isn't that sort of the point?
"Well, sir, we're going to attack, but frankly sir, no one will probably notice. Maybe McDonald's won't open until a little later, maybe 9 am. But probably not."
To: Islaminaction
Would an Iranian nuke strike on Israel be OK? Of course it wouldn't. Bibi is looking after the best interests of his own nation, & I'm confident that he could handle Iran quite well w/o the US getting involved.
11
posted on
07/05/2009 9:47:01 PM PDT
by
ChrisInAR
(The Tenth Amendment is still the Supreme Law of the Land, folks -- start enforcing it for a CHANGE!)
To: Flavius
"I've been one who has been concerned about a strike on Iran for some time, because it could be very destabilizing, and it is the unintended consequences of that which aren't predictable,"If the unintended consequences aren't predictable, how can you be so sure they'd be destabilizing?
Waaaaaaaait a minute. Is this an example of, "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit."?
12
posted on
07/05/2009 9:48:14 PM PDT
by
Texas Eagle
(If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all. -- Texas Eagle)
To: Flavius
Did we wake you up? Go back to sleep.
13
posted on
07/05/2009 9:48:41 PM PDT
by
smokingfrog
( Don't mess with the mockingbird! /\/\ http://tiny.cc/freepthis)
To: Flavius
Mental Masturbation
14
posted on
07/05/2009 9:50:11 PM PDT
by
mylife
(The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
To: Flavius
Iran getting nuke missiles is not??
15
posted on
07/05/2009 9:52:36 PM PDT
by
GeronL
(freeping on a PS3)
To: ChrisInAR
Agreed, Bibi has to do what he thinks is best for Israel.
To: Flavius
"I've been one who has been concerned about a strike on Iran for some time, because it could be very destabilizing, and it is the unintended consequences of that which aren't predictable," the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff told the Fox News Sunday television program.
First, I had thought that someone who had risen this high would have quit making stupid statements -- "unintended consequences ... aren't predictable." Indeed!
Secondly, I wonder what Mr Chairman thinks would be the result of an Iranian attack on Israel.
17
posted on
07/05/2009 9:56:06 PM PDT
by
RobinOfKingston
(Democrats, the party of evil. Republicans, the party of stupid.)
To: Flavius
Ya know what would have been destabilizing?
Obama piping up for freedom.
What a concept
18
posted on
07/05/2009 10:03:59 PM PDT
by
mylife
(The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
To: Flavius
What is more destabilizing is the uncertainty and indecision around the question of what will be done if iran continues down the path it is on.
19
posted on
07/05/2009 10:12:45 PM PDT
by
paul51
(11 September 2001 - Never forget)
To: paul51
Why are we still pissin with Iran? I thought Obambi had a plan to ween us off dependence on foreign oil /s
If we dont need oil there is no longer any conflict. Right?
Freekin idiots
20
posted on
07/05/2009 10:18:51 PM PDT
by
mylife
(The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
