See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Strike on Iran Becoming More Likely, Former CIA Chief Says
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201 ... trike-iran-likely-hayden-says/
Published: Jul 25, 2010
Author: AP
Post Date: 2010-07-25 20:13:28 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 121
Comments: 7
WASHINGTON -- A former CIA director says military action against Iran now seems more likely because no matter what the U.S. does diplomatically, Tehran keeps pushing ahead with its suspected nuclear program. Michael Hayden, a CIA chief under President George W. Bush, says that during his tenure a strike was "way down the list" of options. But he tells CNN's "State of the Union" that such action now "seems inexorable." He predicts Iran will build its program to the point where it's just below having an actual weapon. Hayden says that would be as destabilizing to the region as the real thing. U.S. officials have said military action remains an option if sanctions fail to deter Iran. Iran says its nuclear work is for peaceful purposes such as power generation.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: christine (#0)
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
Actually, if North Korea is any guide, and I think it is, Iran obtaining a nuke weapon would be the most stabilizing thing that could happen, because then attacking them would be off the table for the US AND Israel, and the world could go about it's normal business with fewer concerns.
The "nuclear spoon" is what the Jews use to keep the Middle East in turmoil and this country at war. Some of the SE Asia countries are now thinking of nuclear, but one seldom hears about it. Odd.
That will be the end of this empire. Finally. Iran is no pushover. If I was the resistance commander in Iraq, that would be my signal to attack. I'm sure they are just biding their time there. Same with Afghanistan. .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files Live free or As everyone else has noted, this is too goofie for words. Everyone should have nuke power, and nuke weapons if they want them. Where's the problem?
Attacking Iran won't be tolerated by Russia or China. An attack on Iran by the USA will lead to WW3. An attack on Iran by Israel will also lead to WW3. Israel wants WW3, but they don't want to be seen as the country that actually started it. It is obvious the only real reason Iran's nuclear program is discussed is not because they see it as a threat, but that it is the only thing they can use to try to justify a war against them. There real goal is to invade Iran and take over their oil fields as they have done with Iraq's oil fields.
God is always good!
Is it the oil? Or is that just a plausible excuse, and later, maybe a spoil of war? AFA oil goes, why go to war over something that we buy willingly? We can't just steal it without there being even more problems created. We're joined at the hip with israel. No one of any consequence gets on the ballot unless they kiss AIPACs and israels ass. I'm thinking this is just another example of fighting israhells enemy for them. Iran is no threat to us, any more than the people of Iraq or Afghanistan are. Iran is basically a western country. Sure, they have their religious nutcases, but so do we. .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files Live free or
#2. To: christine (#0)
He predicts Iran will build its program to the point where it's just below having an actual weapon. Hayden says that would be as destabilizing to the region as the real thing.
#3. To: christine (#0)
#4. To: christine (#0)
But he tells CNN's "State of the Union" that such action now "seems inexorable."
CHIMPOUT!
die kill ~~ Me
God is a separatist. That's good enough for me.
#5. To: christine, 4 (#0)
#6. To: PSUSA (#4)
#7. To: RickyJ (#6)
CHIMPOUT!
die kill ~~ Me
God is a separatist. That's good enough for me.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest