Lindsey Graham: Attack on Iran Better Than Diplomacy

Iran attack

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is running for president as a super-hawk, but this is just ridiculous.

‘Who wins the war between us and Iran?’

The Senate Armed Services Committee held its own hearing today on the international nuclear agreement with Iran, which regrettably went about as well as the other congressional hearings on the issue. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a Republican presidential candidate and one of his party’s most unyielding hawks, got especially animated during an exchange with Defense Secretary Ashton Carter:

GRAHAM: Could we win a war with Iran? Who wins the war between us and Iran? Who wins? Do you have any doubt who wins?

CARTER: No, the….

GRAHAM: We win!

The senator seemed pleased with himself, though this doesn’t exactly help the Republican cause. For proponents of the agreement, the concern has long been that GOP lawmakers want to kill the diplomatic deal because they want a military confrontation with Iran. Republicans usually make a point to deny this, instead saying they prefer a “better” diplomatic solution.

Graham, however, is less subtle – his line of questioning suggested the United States would win a war, which makes war an appealing alternative.

Reminder: Iran is larger than Alaska, with a population of 80 million people. They have an active duty military numbering 545,000, with 1.8 million reservists.

By comparison, the entire U.S. Army consists of 475,000 soldiers. To say a war of aggression against Iran is a bad idea would be a massive understatement. Like Iraq, it’s halfway around the world. Unlike Iraq, they have the capability to defend their country – making Senator Graham’s proposed invasion very costly and bloody.

As usual Donald Trump says out loud what the rest of us are thinking: Trump: Graham a ‘total lightweight,’ couldn’t get a job in the private sector

UPDATE:
The Badr Organization, an Iranian-backed Shiite militia in Iraq, is in possession of at least one US M1 Abrams tank. The Iraqi government has lost control of many of those lately, mostly to ISIS.

  1. #1 by brewski on July 29, 2015 - 9:53 pm

    Well said Mr. Chamberlain.

    • #2 by Richard Warnick on July 30, 2015 - 6:26 am

      Amazing that even one person still thinks an illegal war of aggression is a good idea. You should have followed my update link to see photos of the Badr militia posing happily in front of their Abrams tank paid for by U.S. taxpayers (BTW one of these costs $4.3 million). The guy on the right is holding an AT-4 antitank weapon, recently supplied to Iraq and now in the hands of a Shiite fighter allied with Iran.

      I’ve previously posted photos of our tanks now owned by ISIS.

      Badr militia with Abrams tank

  2. #4 by Richard Warnick on July 30, 2015 - 8:54 am

    Michael Moore’s next documentary has been titled “Where to Invade Next.”

    • #5 by Larry Bergan on July 30, 2015 - 7:17 pm

      I’ll be darned. I was starting to think Moore was disillusioned enough to quit making movies. He must have been working real hard on this one; his website has been a skeleton of what it used to be. Just a couple of twitter comments here and there, videos that are left up for weeks. Not much going on there at all.

      I’ll be going to the theater for the first time in years.

  3. #6 by Richard Warnick on July 30, 2015 - 1:16 pm

    Fox’s Eric Bolling On US-Iran War: “Why Would That Be A Bad Idea?”

    After the epic fiasco in Iraq, right-wing talkers want another illegal war of aggression that would be ten times worse. Rest assured that none of them plan on going halfway around the world to die.

  4. #7 by Richard Warnick on July 30, 2015 - 3:12 pm

    Why Republicans Oppose the Iran Agreement: Follow the Money

    [O]nce you consider the money, the shallow dim-wittedness of the Republican opposition to the Iranian nuclear agreement becomes less of a mystery.

  5. #8 by brewski on July 31, 2015 - 4:16 am

    Every Arab state plus Israel agrees with Mr. Graham. When Israel and the Arabs are on the same side about anything, one should take notice.

    The Richard position is that we need a nuclear Middle East with Saudi Arabia and other getting nukes too in response to the pro-nuclear-Iran position of the US.

    All of the Middle East with nuclear bombs. What could possibly go wrong?

    • #9 by Richard Warnick on July 31, 2015 - 10:37 am

      You mean, they agree that the USA ought to attack Iran? That could be in the national interest of Israel and Sunni Arab states, but it certainly is not in our own interest. The USA needs to stop waging wars of aggression halfway around the world — the cost is far too high and illegal wars are counterproductive to our national security.

      Israel and Pakistan already possess nuclear weapons. Iran has no interest in developing nuclear weapons – the current regime regards them as un-Islamic.

  6. #10 by Larry Bergan on July 31, 2015 - 2:09 pm

    The hawks better hurry up and invade. It’s going to be much harder after everybody see’s Michael Moore’s film. That guy seems to know just when to start informing people. There’s no way healthcare would have passed without all the great information in his movie.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: