Lieberman Suggests Strikes Over Iran

[Passion]

Sen. Joe Lieberman says the United States should be prepared to take "aggressive military action" against Iran in response to its purported killings of U.S. troops inside Iraq.

 

"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," the Connecticut independent said during an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation." "And to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."

 

Mr. Lieberman, who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee, recently returned from a trip to the region and said there is evidence that "as many as 200 American soldiers" have been killed by Iranians and Iranian-trained forces. Mr. Lieberman remained firm when asked whether he was suggesting strikes against Iran.

 

"I am. And I want to make clear I'm not talking about a massive ground invasion of Iran, but we have good evidence," he said. "If they don't play by the rules, we've got to use our force and to me that would include taking military action to stop them from doing what they're doing."

 

Yesterday, the Iranian government confirmed that it was holding a fourth Iranian-American. Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said California peace activist Ali Shakeri was being detained, according to the Associated Press. The American and Iranian governments are at a standoff over Iran's plans for a nuclear energy program that could be used to produce fuel for nuclear weapons.

 

Mr. Lieberman, the 2000 Democratic vice-presidential nominee, has been a consistent supporter of the war in Iraq. His views on the war are largely blamed for his Democratic primary loss last year that led to his campaign as an independent in the general election.

 

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who is running for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, said sanctions are the most effective tool against the Iranian regime.

 

"I would talk to them, but I would build an international coalition that would promote and push economic sanctions on them," he said during an appearance on CNN's "Late Edition." "Sanctions would work on Iran. They are susceptible to disinvestment policy. They are susceptible to cuts, economic sanctions in commodities."

 

Mr. Lieberman said he would leave any such strategy to military generals, but that it could be accomplished through an air campaign. He said failure to stand up to Iranian aggression would further weaken the U.S. position in Iraq and raise the likelihood of acts of domestic terrorism.

 

"We cannot let them get away with it," he said. "If we do, they'll take that as a sign of weakness on our part, and we will pay for it in Iraq and throughout the region and ultimately right here at home."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...15444-9596r.htm

 

Thoughts?

[Guest Night Phantom]

Please no

[MarlinGuru]

He needs to shut up, now.

[FutureGM]

Well, Joe is certainly welcome to fly a plane leading those attacks if he feels so strongly about them.

 

I think the last thing we need to do is provoke Iran when Iraq is a mess as it is. Attacking Iran would be an act of war that would give them the excuse to attack/invade Iraq, step up operations in that country, or cut off oil shipments leaving the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf. You just never know.

 

Attacking Iran would also turn their general public against us. Currently they are very pro-American, unlike their government. Ahmadinejad's government was struck a blow in their latest elections, and this could continue in the future if we avoid military actions.

[BullDurham]

Though I get your gist, the main opposition leader, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, isn't exactly pro-American. Moreover, he has been indicted by Argentinian courts over his alleged role in the bombings of the Israeli embassy in 1992 and AMIA building in 1994. He has also said stuff about eliminating Israel from the face of the map, a la Ahmadinejad.

[HelmsE]

This is the last thing that needs to be done right now. Our military is already stretched with troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and attacking yet another nation, whether justified or not, will do nothing but hurt America's already low image abroad.

[Fishfan79]

I think Joe lives in the same dream-world that bush does honestly. I am happy to often support our allies but I wonder which country has more of his loyalties with Joe, the USA or Israel.

 

 

Statements like these over Iran will not help bring about peace in the middle east or help resolve the Iraq conflict, it only spreads a bigger chance of more conflict.

 

 

PS I do have to say he does speak out for his opinion at least, even if his opinion scares the hell out of me.

[legacyofCangelosi]

Joe is making statements based on his own views. And its an inescapable fact that as a Jewish person he doesn't quite like a nation who often talks about the elimination of Israel and the killing of Jews.

 

Richardson is also wrong about the economic sanctions, mostly because for that to work, their main trade partners would have to agree to the sanctions. I'm not sure that would happen necessarily. I believe Russia is a big one for them.

[Shaq-Man]

I think the last thing we need to do is provoke Iran when Iraq is a mess as it is.

Iran is already fighting a war with us.

[Big_Rob]

When I was in Baghdad serving as an artillery sergeant I decided to map out the effective ranges of the weapon systems in place at the time, just for kicks. We had enough systems in place in Iraq at that time (likely more now) to effectively level Tehran without doing anything more than aiming them that way and sending the mission down to the guns. The regular sorties of air support are more than enough as well.

 

That said, we don't need politicians stirring up any more sh*t than they already have.

[Guest FlummoxedLummox]

Joe is making statements based on his own views. And its an inescapable fact that as a Jewish person he doesn't quite like a nation who often talks about the elimination of Israel and the killing of Jews.

If that's his reasoning though, it's quite flawed as it would directly play into the hands of the Iranians. If his goal is to protect Israel, starting a full-fledged war with Iran would be the least effective way to do so. As soon as we attack Iran, they aim their entire offensive arsenal at Israel. And once that war starts, we'll pray for the good old days of Iraq.

[FutureGM]

I think the last thing we need to do is provoke Iran when Iraq is a mess as it is.

Iran is already fighting a war with us.

Not necessarily...

 

Unfortunately the Pasdaran(sp) in Iran is very independent of the wishes of the government. It is likely that they were behind the arrests of those British sailors who were in Iraqi waters.

[Hotcorner]

This stuff is why Lieberman lost the support of his party.

[catchoftheday]

well that would surely fix all our problems

[Shaq-Man]

Honestly, though, I'd rather fight a war with Iran before they get nukes than wait until after they have them.

 

Now I'm certainly not suggesting we attack Iran, but if Iran has nukes, Iran is guaranteed to use them. There isn't a government on the planet that is spending more money and effort on arming Islamic militants than Iran.

[FutureGM]

Honestly, though, I'd rather fight a war with Iran before they get nukes than wait until after they have them.

 

Now I'm certainly not suggesting we fight a war with Iran, but if Iran has nukes, Iran will use them. There isn't a government on the planet that is spending more money and effort on arming Islamic militants than Iran.

I don't see the evidence that they would use nukes. Pakistan and India hate each others' guts, and both have nukes, but they haven't lobbed nukes at each other yet. However, they might give nukes to a terrorist group. If they do that, they would have to make sure that the weapons wouldn't be traced back to them, otherwise they are dead.

[prinmemito]

Honestly, though, I'd rather fight a war with Iran before they get nukes than wait until after they have them.

 

Now I'm certainly not suggesting we attack Iran, but if Iran has nukes, Iran is guaranteed to use them. There isn't a government on the planet that is spending more money and effort on arming Islamic militants than Iran.

 

Their militants hate Al-Queda - they're opposites. In fact, I would bet the CIA is trying it's hardest to get the two to fight each other.

[FutureGM]

As far as I can tell, the only reason Iran wants nukes is so that they can have power and leverage over the rest of the region. That's the same as any other country that has recently developed nuclear weapons (Pakistan, North Korea, etc.).

[DaGreatOne]

Honestly, though, I'd rather fight a war with Iran before they get nukes than wait until after they have them.

 

Now I'm certainly not suggesting we fight a war with Iran, but if Iran has nukes, Iran will use them. There isn't a government on the planet that is spending more money and effort on arming Islamic militants than Iran.

I don't see the evidence that they would use nukes. Pakistan and India hate each others' guts, and both have nukes, but they haven't lobbed nukes at each other yet. However, they might give nukes to a terrorist group. If they do that, they would have to make sure that the weapons wouldn't be traced back to them, otherwise they are dead.

 

Thats not really a good comparison. They offset each other by both having nukes. There are some policy thinkers who say if every country had nukes we would be safe because no one country would nuke another country knowing they would face the same fate but thats living in a rational world. But really all it takes is one mad man to send this theory to the shitter.

 

The biggest worry with Iran is that they would give nuclear technology to a terrorist group. I really cant believe Iran would directly attack any other country with a nuclear weapon. It's irrational and the people would not stand for it.

[legacyofCangelosi]

Honestly, though, I'd rather fight a war with Iran before they get nukes than wait until after they have them.

 

Now I'm certainly not suggesting we fight a war with Iran, but if Iran has nukes, Iran will use them. There isn't a government on the planet that is spending more money and effort on arming Islamic militants than Iran.

I don't see the evidence that they would use nukes. Pakistan and India hate each others' guts, and both have nukes, but they haven't lobbed nukes at each other yet. However, they might give nukes to a terrorist group. If they do that, they would have to make sure that the weapons wouldn't be traced back to them, otherwise they are dead.

 

Well I mean there is plenty of rhetoric that leans in favor of Iran using the nukes against Israel. Either way, an offensive against Iran does not mean a total ground war. At this point it isn't a good idea, we need to try to get other nations to comply with economic sanctions against Iran. But if that fails an SC approved strike may have to be conducted.

[Fishfan79]

As far as I can tell, the only reason Iran wants nukes is so that they can have power and leverage over the rest of the region. That's the same as any other country that has recently developed nuclear weapons (Pakistan, North Korea, etc.).

That and a pride thing and to counter the fact that Israel has them too.

 

If they ever used them they would be totally destroyed and they know it of course. Still scarses the crap out of me if they do get them. Yet, at the same time nukes will slowly but surely be had by more and more countries around the world.

 

Heck you can get the plans for them online by google at this point pretty much for how they are done just the process of doing them would be the pain.

 

 

But if the US did go into Iran it would be a very bloody war, we would lose all chance at allies in the region pretty much (except israel of course) and the conflict would spread by many factors. I would also think that nobody else would go with us this time at all, not even the collation of the bribed (poland)