Lindsey Graham (R-Neocon) Says U.S. Should Consider “Neutering” Iranian Regime With Large Scale Military Attack on Nukes, Navy, Air Force, Revolutionary Guards
What the hell got into Grahamnesty?
HALIFAX — A U.S. lawmaker sent ripples through an international audience Saturday saying his country should be prepared to launch a military attack on Iran that would “neuter” the hard line regime.
17 comments:
Graham is posturing for 2012 and trying to put Obama in a position where he has to take decisive action on Iran or look weak.
You think this is just calculated political positioning, and yet you seem to think he is willing to pursue it to the end, with no concern at all for the moral implications of such a policy.
That is similar to the BusHitler histrionics the left indulged in a few years back.
I'm not saying I am confident you are wrong.
I am asking if you are relatively confident you are right?
Your point about my statement being similar to the charges leveled against Bush would be more on-point if Graham commanded our military.
Yes, I am relatively confident that I am right. Lindsay Graham cannot himself order military action. He is trying to make himself look strong on foreign policy while also pushing Obama to take decisive action or be ready to take the blame if Iran goes hot in the next two years.
I am not an Obama fan or a Lindsay Graham fan. I doubt Obama will take decisive action because he strikes me as a weak person. However, I agree that our politicians should push Obama to take decisive measures against Iran's nuclear program. They should also support Obama if he takes action to keep Iran from going nuclear.
ASA he grants amnesty to ahmedinijad--
don't trust anything he says-nor his motives--
C
He's supposed to be representing his constituents, not his own self interests. . .this has nothing to do with nat'l security beyond maintaining his position.. . .take sissy lindsey to the woodshed in 2012 and be done with this self indulging 'me', 'me', 'me' rino.
Anon.- he's supposed to be following the Constitution.
I think he is trying to repair his pansy commie-lib reputation, so I think you and I are in agreement on that.
Anonymous,
Then, let me rephrase the question; are you suggesting you believe Graham would not take action himself were he in the same position as Obama?
Describing Graham's affiliation as (R-Neocon) is spot on. I guess he's OK with $300/barrel oil and the resultant full-blown worldwide depression that such a large scale military attack would usher in.
If these bloodthirsty neocons keep up their warmongering rhetoric, then they'll ensure that Obama wins in a landslide in 2012 and the Dems win back the House. This is the perfect issue for the Dems to change the subject from the economy, healthcare, etc; portray themselves as the Party of Peace as opposed to Republican Party of War.
But maybe that's what RINOs like Graham really want. After all, amnesty would be a lot easier to ram through with a Dem-controlled White House and Congress.
I'll make my point:
If all Graham is concerned with here (in suggesting the USA take military action against Iran) is his reputation, then
THAT IS THE HEIGHT OF IRRESPONSIBILITY
In fact, considering it is war we are talking about here (and war can lead almost anywhere once it is begun) then Graham is not merely irresponsible, he is mentally ill, dangerous, a madman, evil, and one of the worst human beings on the planet.
I would expect that almost any leader, even someone like Barack Obama, whom I do not like much, takes the responsibility of waging war as a very heavy duty.
In fact, if it has not been made clear enough, I admire Obama for what he has done in Pakistan.
George Bush didn't do shit about Pakistan.
Pastorious, we are not far off. The major difference between us is that you seem to Graham more credit to Graham and his character than I do.
Pastorious, we are not far off. The major difference between us is that you seem to give [fixed it] more credit to Graham and his character than I do.
I wonder if this is not one of those cases where he did this at the secret bidding of the White House or State Department. Not suggesting a conspiracy, we do this kind of thing all the time: Deliver a message through a surrogate.
I still don't know what the point is.
Iranians are the most pro-US people in that region, and a military attack would completely blow it. We need to be funneling secret assistance to the Iranian opposition and allow them to bring it down from within.
If the opposition toppled the regime, they would publicly sing our praises and we would have a grateful partner, all without billions spent and American casualties.
SF.. in my industry I have more than a passing # of iranian americans and they all asked from 2001-03 'where are the marines?' But the people here and their families there comprise just that small minority who would feel that way. Think Cuba 1960.
IMHO for the Iranian people - Think PAKISTAN.
We have unalterable enemies among peoples in this world.
Iran is ONE. The overwhelming hatred exuded for us in 1979 is diminished ONLY in their disappointment in the theocracy, NOT their hatred for OUR way of life. Or our shared history
Worse there is NO ARGUMENT they are a genocidal racist bunch who has said OVER AND OVER WE ARE THE MAIN ENEMY, and Israel is just a brigade of the american army (the IRGC cat's paw Nasrallah's actual words)
Their big strategic thinker Hassan Abassi has said repeatedly that 'once we have the Americans and British cowed, the rest will run for cover' ... given the present need for oil BY THE WEST, and the state of economies right now, and given at the very least the regional aspirations of Iran, how can this be allowed to simply proceed with HOPE as our foreign policy ..hope that weapons to a tiny minority in Iran will overthrow a conscienceless, religiously arrogant and politically self confident regime who ACTUALLY BELIEVES ALLAH WILL CREATE A WAY FOR THEM TO BE VICTORIOUS
I seek no hand holding with the Iranian peoples. If they wish the mullocracy dead, they can do it, and we're glad to help.
But it will simply lead to slaughter. Those who stand against the Islamic republic are APOSTATE.
A relentless air campaign to decapitate that regime and obliterate the IRGC is the only way to give those people a chance they MIGHT be willing to take and be successful. This should certainly be done in conjunction with removal of the nuclear project.
It is in the long term and short term interest of the SAFETY of the american people to DO AWAY with the mullahs IF WE CAN.
IF
IF IF IF..we have the intelligence to make sure of what the hell we are doing.
ANYONE HAVE ANY CONFIDENCE IN THAT?
Not me. So how can we proceed?
Too many ifs. Leave them the hell alone is my answer.
Epa,
I agree.
I have come to believe Michael Ledeen is grievously mistaken in his assessment of the Iranian people.
SF, 'IF' ONLY...
The demonstrably DESIRED govt of Iran would avoid what they have been doing since 1979 AND LEAVE AMERICA AND HER INTERESTS ALONE.
...and if I won the lottery...
I'm probably missing your point, but I will admit all I know about Iran and Iranians is from what I've read.
Experience tells us that there are always unintended consequences, and they rarely break our way, so my default position is to avoid such foreign adventures.
Post a Comment