US General: We Can Successfully Attack Iran

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlotte408
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Charlotte408

Guest
Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey said Tuesday that the United States can successfully attack Iran, if necessary. His biggest worry is that Iran will "miscalculate our resolve.
Dempsey, speaking to CNN during a worldwide tour, spoke one day after Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta warned that the American government will not allow Iran to produce a nuclear weapon. He said that if Iran continues to enrich high-grade uranium, it could produce a nuclear weapon within a year, an estimate formerly given by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak.
“My biggest worry is they [Iran] will miscalculate our resolve,” Dempsey said in Afghanistan. “Any miscalculation could mean that we are drawn into conflict, and that would be a tragedy for the region and the world.”
Besides repeating the often-used phrase“ all options are on the table,” General Dempsey went one step further and declared, "I am satisfied that the options that we are developing are evolving to a point that they would be executable if necessary.”
Click to expand...
freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2823549/posts

Perhaps bbarrick was right afterall… 😦
 
He has to say this, so that they will realize that there will be consequences for bad behavior by Iran.
 
Basically giving the green light for Israel to attack Iran.

America won’t do anything until they can convince Russia to step aside.

When’s the next Iranian election?
 
If Obama mindlessly follows Bushian “logic” and sleepwalks into this thing, a lot of Americans will face some unpleasant choices after the Strait of Hormuz closes.

“What do I spend my money on? Gasoline? Or things like house rent, food, medicine, and clothing?”
 
colmywaykurtz said:
If Obama mindlessly follows Bushian “logic” and sleepwalks into this thing, a lot of Americans will face some unpleasant choices after the Strait of Hormuz closes.

“What do I spend my money on? Gasoline? Or things like house rent, food, medicine, and clothing?”
Click to expand...
We will keep the strait open (or get it open if it closes temporarily)

What would you spend your money on if there is a nuclear exchange in the Middle East in 10 years?

The solution is to become energy self sufficient. Which we can be, if we allow the drilling in the US and don’t shut coal mines.
 
colmywaykurtz said:
If Obama mindlessly follows Bushian “logic” and sleepwalks into this thing, a lot of Americans will face some unpleasant choices after the Strait of Hormuz closes.

“What do I spend my money on? Gasoline? Or things like house rent, food, medicine, and clothing?”
Click to expand...
Tell Obama to allow drilling here in the Gulf of Mexico, and to OK the pipleline from Canada, and it won’t be as big a problem 😉
 
Do you think we’ve been underestimating Obama and the plan all along was to leave Iraq to lure Iran to attack so that we would have an excuse to bomb their nuclear facilities?🤷
 
Nelka said:
Basically giving the green light for Israel to attack Iran.

America won’t do anything until they can convince Russia to step aside.

When’s the next Iranian election?
Click to expand...
The next Iranian Presidential election will probably be in late Spring 2013. Ahmadinejad’s term ends in August 2013, he is constitutionally barred from another term.

29 March 2012 is the next Parlimentary election.

Followers of current events will probably recall the closely-watched and somewhat controversial Presidential election of 2009 wherein Ahmadinejad won his second term.

Pax,
OA
 
We’re hearing the drum beat ramp up just in time for elections and pulling out of Iraq. Do the war contractors miss the cash cow of Iraq already?

A nuclear Iran can’t seriously threaten the U.S., so I’m not buying it. This seems like nothing but 2003 WMD talk all over again, this time coming from a Nobel Peace prize recipient’s administration. I don’t know what’s sadder: that our government is talking this way so soon after the Iraq disaster ends, or that people seem to be buying it.

Peace and God bless!
 
Seems to me this is an example of “Talking loudly and carrying a little stick”, just the opposite of what we ought to be doing if we really do intend an attack on Iran (which I do not for a moment believe).

If you are going to hit an enemy, you might let some third-tier channel let them know it’s there to do, at most. More realistically, you just hit them without warning.

This pretty well tells me we have no intention at all of attacking Iran, and in my opinion, it tells Iran the very same thing.
 
Ghosty said:
We’re hearing the drum beat ramp up just in time for elections and pulling out of Iraq. Do the war contractors miss the cash cow of Iraq already?

A nuclear Iran can’t seriously threaten the U.S., so I’m not buying it. This seems like nothing but 2003 WMD talk all over again, this time coming from a Nobel Peace prize recipient’s administration. I don’t know what’s sadder: that our government is talking this way so soon after the Iraq disaster ends, or that people seem to be buying it.

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
Please keep in mind who made the comments. It is always the U.S. diplomatic position that “all options are on the table.” As it must be.

The Chairman was asked if the U.S. is capable of conducting effective combat operations in Iran, if necessary. His answer, which is of course true, is “Yes.”

That doesn’t mean we’re going to war. Recall that in 1993 it was the U.S. policy that North Korea cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.

North Korea apparently didn’t get that memo.

Pax,
OA
 
I would think that he knows that Iraq needs to attack soon, before another US president is elected. This gives him a little over a year to take over Iraq. Surely, plenty of time. And unfortunately, all the rest of the Christians will probably be martyred.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Seems to me this is an example of “Talking loudly and carrying a little stick”, just the opposite of what we ought to be doing if we really do intend an attack on Iran (which I do not for a moment believe).

If you are going to hit an enemy, you might let some third-tier channel let them know it’s there to do, at most. More realistically, you just hit them without warning.

This pretty well tells me we have no intention at all of attacking Iran, and in my opinion, it tells Iran the very same thing.
Click to expand...
We didn’t talk softly about Iraq leading up to the invasion. Just the opposite. Iran’s memory isn’t so short as to forget an occupation that ended this week. Iran is likely thinking it needs to step up the WMD programs since the U.S. has shown itself willing to start war on weak and fabricated evidence in the recent past. Better to actually have nukes ready in case an invasion does come.

I’m not advocating this, just pointing out some strategic thinking.

Peace and God bless!
 
Orleans_Attny said:
That doesn’t mean we’re going to war. Recall that in 1993 it was the U.S. policy that North Korea cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.

North Korea apparently didn’t get that memo.
Click to expand...
:cool:

The difference this time is Israel tends not to sit by while an enemy arms itself for the irradiation of the Jewish State.
 
incense said:
I would think that he knows that Iraq needs to attack soon, before another US president is elected. This gives him a little over a year to take over Iraq. Surely, plenty of time. And unfortunately, all the rest of the Christians will probably be martyred.
Click to expand...
Wait. I might have misunderstood you.

You think Iran is going to attack and “take over” Iraq? And you think a year is “plenty of time?”

Pax,
OA
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top