Article

2007-06-11 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2007-06-11 00:00|| || Front Page|| [7 views ] Top

#1 On Sunday, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut said the US should consider a military strike against Iran over its support of Iraqi insurgents.

"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," he said. "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."

JOE, a sane voice in the wilderness.

Posted by RD">RD 2007-06-11 00:49|| 2007-06-11 00:49|| Front Page Top

#2 He sounds more like a Republican than any Republican currently does. Iran has paid no price at all for waging a low grade war against America since 1979. That has to change.

Posted by Bugs Angomoper4109 2007-06-11 02:36|| 2007-06-11 02:36|| Front Page Top

#3 I was watching Face the Nation yesterday on CBS when Lieberman said we should attack Iran. Bob Schieffer just about peed his pants. He just couldn't believe that someone so high in the government would say something that actually makes sense. For that matter, neither could I. But I liked it.

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2007-06-11 14:54|| 2007-06-11 14:54|| Front Page Top

#4 I am for intervention. However, Teheran should be spared, and occupation is not an option. I would take out the main nuke sites and carpet bomb Qom. Most Iranians are well aware of the national wealth confiscated by the Ayatollahs. It exceeds by 30 fold, the funds that the Shah of Iran held before Carter stabbed him in the back. Bomb and pick up the pieces; escalate if the opposition can't prevent Ayatollah retaliation.

Since 1979, at least 2000 Americans have been murdered either on the orders of the Ayatollahs or by front groups controlled by them. The pretext for counter-aggression is there. I only hope that the President isn't coasting inoffensively into post-Presidency. If that is the case, future generations will pay.

Posted by McZoid 2007-06-11 16:09|| 2007-06-11 16:09|| Front Page Top

#5 I am for intervention. However, Teheran should be spared, and occupation is not an option.

I'm half-way with you McZoid. Occupation is most definitely NOT an option. There is ZERO need for any boots on the ground in Iran. However, I would like to see a dozen cruise missiles lobbed into Tehran to hit a full session of Iran's majlis (legislature). We really need to decap as much of their political leadership as possible. If we take out a few friendlies in the process, too bad. Their numbers are so minuscule as to make them negligible.

While Leiberman's comments were refreshingly candid, especially from a former democrat, they did not go far enough. Careful reading shows that he's only interested in nailing training installations near the Iraq border. Our retaliation needs to go a lot further than that.

Iran has gotten a free ride for far too long. Bush has placed enough different Iranian transgressions out in front of the American public of late whereby he's built himself an adequate case (for those who can't remember back to 1979), for hitting Iran right away. Let's all hope he's got the ostiones to do it.

Posted by Zenster 2007-06-11 16:20|| 2007-06-11 16:20|| Front Page Top

23:59 Pappy
23:40 ex-lib
23:35 ex-lib
22:42 Zenster
22:19 Zenster
22:16 Frank G
22:13 Zenster
22:12 Shieldwolf
22:09 Super Hose
22:05 Zenster
22:03 Super Hose
21:55 Shipman
21:48 Skunky Glins5285
21:42 Asymmetrical T
21:34 Dawg,Red
21:29 Muffler the Man
21:27 Muffler the Man
21:25 Juan in Texas
20:41 Fred
20:40 trailing wife
20:34 Frank G
20:23 occasional observer
20:19 occasional observer
20:18 Gary and the Samoyeds