posted
Santorum: Attacking Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Won’t ‘Start A War’ By Ben Armbruster on Jan 10, 2012 at 11:36 am
Rick Santorum is doing his best to outdo Jon Huntsman as the GOP presidential field’s most militaristic candidate on Iran. Huntsman said last month that he’d launch a ground invasion to try to stop Iran from getting nukes. The former Pennsylvania senator rang in the new year earlier this month by telling NBC’s David Gregory that attacking Iran over its nuclear program is part of his plan. Santorum defended his plan a few days later, arguing that attacking Iran would “prevent a war.”
While one might reasonably argue back that attacking Iran would actually be the start of said war, Santorum doesn’t see it that way. Last night on CNN, he told John King that launching air strikes would not mean staring a war with Iran:
SANTORUM: Some have suggested by taking strikes, again, if that is absolutely necessary, to stop them from getting a nuclear weapon will start a war. I disagree. It will stop a horrible war that will happen when Iran will be funding terrorist organizations and other groups that will be waging jihad around the world, and particularly here in the homeland of this country.
So this is not a — this is not something that I take lightly. I take it very seriously. We’re going to give Iran every opportunity to step away from the brink of being a nuclear power, but if they do not, then we cannot let that happen.
So it appears that when Santorum wants to use the U.S. military to blow things up, that should not be classified as “war,” per se. A President Santorum will only use American bombs for preventing one. However, the Iranians probably won’t see it that way.
To deal with a serious subject so lightly that can have implacations for this country for several decades is the the stance of a nit wit.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by raybond: Santorum: Attacking Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Won’t ‘Start A War’ By Ben Armbruster on Jan 10, 2012 at 11:36 am
Rick Santorum is doing his best to outdo Jon Huntsman as the GOP presidential field’s most militaristic candidate on Iran. Huntsman said last month that he’d launch a ground invasion to try to stop Iran from getting nukes. The former Pennsylvania senator rang in the new year earlier this month by telling NBC’s David Gregory that attacking Iran over its nuclear program is part of his plan. Santorum defended his plan a few days later, arguing that attacking Iran would “prevent a war.”
While one might reasonably argue back that attacking Iran would actually be the start of said war, Santorum doesn’t see it that way. Last night on CNN, he told John King that launching air strikes would not mean staring a war with Iran:
SANTORUM: Some have suggested by taking strikes, again, if that is absolutely necessary, to stop them from getting a nuclear weapon will start a war. I disagree. It will stop a horrible war that will happen when Iran will be funding terrorist organizations and other groups that will be waging jihad around the world, and particularly here in the homeland of this country.
So this is not a — this is not something that I take lightly. I take it very seriously. We’re going to give Iran every opportunity to step away from the brink of being a nuclear power, but if they do not, then we cannot let that happen.
So it appears that when Santorum wants to use the U.S. military to blow things up, that should not be classified as “war,” per se. A President Santorum will only use American bombs for preventing one. However, the Iranians probably won’t see it that way.
To deal with a serious subject so lightly that can have implacations for this country for several decades is the the stance of a nit wit.
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is relying on a secret channel of communication to warn Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that closing the Strait of Hormuz is a “red line” that would provoke an American response, according to United States government officials.
The officials declined to describe the unusual contact between the two governments, and whether there had been an Iranian reply. Senior Obama administration officials have said publicly that Iran would cross a “red line” if it made good on recent threats to close the strait, a strategically crucial waterway connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman, where 16 million barrels of oil — about a fifth of the world’s daily oil trade — flow through every day.
Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said this past weekend that the United States would “take action and reopen the strait,” which could be accomplished only by military means, including minesweepers, warship escorts and potentially airstrikes. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta told troops in Texas on Thursday that the United States would not tolerate Iran’s closing of the strait.
The secret communications channel was chosen to underscore privately to Iran the depth of American concern about rising tensions over the strait, where American naval officials say their biggest fear is that an overzealous Revolutionary Guards naval captain could do something provocative on his own, setting off a larger crisis.
“If you ask me what keeps me awake at night, it’s the Strait of Hormuz and the business going on in the Arabian Gulf,” Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert, the chief of naval operations, said in Washington this week.
Administration officials and Iran analysts said they continued to believe that Iran’s threats to close the strait, coming amid deep frictions over Iran’s nuclear program and possible sanctions, were bluster and an attempt to drive up the price of oil. Blocking the route for the vast majority of Iran’s petroleum exports — and for its food and consumer imports — would amount to economic suicide
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
