Republican Looney Joe Lieberman Calls For Attack On Iran

Sen. Joe Lieberman Enjoying A Kiss With His Boss

Last week, we witnessed the Republican debate where nearly all candidates signaled their support for a "pre-emptive" nuclear attack on Iran. Perhaps the most troubling part was that they talked about it so casually, devoid of any serious understanding of the consequences. It was almost like a group of school boys talking about a hypothetical situation that they might face on a video game...and what they might do about it. It was clear that these men had no clue about what the hell they were talking about, nor did they have a clue about what is going on in the world.

Giuliani believes that he is an expert about terrorism and foreign policy just because he was in New York City on 9/11. But he is clearly no expert. He is certainly not the kind of man who I would want in the White House in any kind of crisis. Municipal politics are nothing like national or international politics. His comments about Iran seemed amaturish at best.... and the same goes for all of the candidates. Candidates from both Parties seem to be clueless about Iraq, and Iran, as well as other issues related to foreign policy.

Joe Lieberman Calls For War With Iran

Now we have Pro War Nut & Bush ally Joe Lieberman- another man with no military background- calling for a U.S. attack on Iran. Lieberman is under the delusion that airstrikes against Iran will stop so-called Iranian meddling in Iraq. This has to be one of the most idiotic ideas from Lieberman in a long time. He is another Chicken-hawk that doesn't understand what is happening in Iraq and Iran. How can he believe airstrikes will suddenly stop cross-border traffic between the two countries which may involve illicit activity, with or without the backing of the Iranian government? This claim of Iranian government involvement in the problems in Iraq has not even been adequately proven by the U.S., according to the British American Security Information Council. But even if the Iranian government was involved, airstrikes would have little or no positive impact. I guess Lieberman doesn't understand that any attack on Iran would lead to a wider war (probably something that he wants anyway). So-called meddling in Iraq by elements in Iran would only increase if Iran is bombed. The Iranians would then unleash their special forces, materials and money into Iraq full force, and they would make the current situation there look like a vacation by comparison. His call for airstrikes would have the opposite effect on the situation there. Bombing Iranian cities would not prevent Shi'ite militants from crossing back and forth between Iraq and Iran.... it would instead, open the floodgates. It would create a nightmare for U.S. troops in Iraq who are dying at a fast enough rate already.

The second flaw in his thinking is that he assumes that U.S. airstrikes would stop the Iranian nuclear program. The Iranian nuclear research sites are in hardened areas, some located deep underground. Most experts agree that a bombing campaign would not wipe out all of Iran's nuclear sites, not even with special nuclear bombs which can penetrate deep into the ground. (This is why the statements from Lieberman, Giuliani & others were so idiotic). So such a venture would not be worth the risks nor the consequences that will result. Furthermore, there is no sufficient proof that Iran is even building a nuclear weapon. So far, the only thing confirmed regarding Irans nuclear program is that they are engaged in research that appears to be for industrial use (which is legal under international law). If attacked, Iran would kick out all remaining UN inspectors, leaving no eyes and ears on the ground, and they would launch attacks against U.S. & Western targets all over the Middle East.

A Recent Iranian Missile Test

The threat of a strong counter-attack leads me to the third flaw in Liebermans thinking on this issue. Lieberman assumes that airstrikes would be all the U.S. would need to solve its problems with Iran (just a hugely idiotic idea in itself). He thinks that "boots on the ground" or U.S. soldiers going into Iran would not be needed. He is again under a delusion, believing that a U.S. attack on Iran would not bring strong retaliation. But military thinkers believe that if the U.S. does attack Iran, Iranian counter-attacks would be a certainty, and the U.S. would pay a much heavier price. The counter-attacks, such as missile launches, bombings, and naval attacks, would be so strong that a U.S. ground invasion would be necessary to stop the bleeding. In the end, a war with Iran would make the situation in Iraq look like Sesame Street. Lieberman's airstrikes would quickly escalate to a ground conflict. This is why military thinkers say that the U.S. should not launch airstrikes unless it is prepared for a full scale war requiring thousands of U.S. ground troops, including top of the line Army Divisions & equipment (and the U.S. does not have any of this available at the moment).

Lieberman's war talk has already drawn a response from the Iranians. The war talk could also make any negotiations difficult.

I am thankful.... we should all be thankful that Joe Lieberman is not the President. But it also shows the lack of difference between the two parties regarding war. Lieberman.... the Democrat in disguise, almost became VP in 2000. With that kind of foreign policy philosophy, it is hard to determine if the U.S. would have been better off with Gore/Lie-berman over Bush & Co.

As Bush & Co. continues its push for war with Iran... the sane people of this country must figure out a way to avoid another catastrophe. Whatever happened to the peace movement in this country? Why has it been so silent....and why hasn't it adapted to the new challenges?

What can we do to stop these megalomaniacs in our government from creating an even bigger disaster in the Middle East?