John McCain Warns of Iran 'Armageddon'

[STEED]

Sunday, April 2, 2006 11:09 p.m. EDT
John McCain Warns of Iran 'Armageddon'

2008 presidential hopeful John McCain said Sunday that the consequences of a military conflict with Iran over that country's nuclear program could be so serious they could lead to "Armageddon."

The Arizona Republican issued his dire warning after saying that before any military option against Iran is exercised, the world community must first put maximum pressure on Tehran through sanctions.

"We're going to the United Nations Security Council with our European allies," he told NBC's "Meet the Press." "We are seeking sanctions . . . . We must have sanctions against Iran."

McCain said that if sanctions fail, the U.S. must be prepared to resort to the use of military force.

"Would it be a difficult military option?" he asked rhetorically. "Sure, it would be a difficult military option. But you cannot remove it from the table."
Asked by "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert if the U.S. might find itself embroiled in two wars at once, McCain responded point blank:

"I think we could have Armageddon."

Without elaborating his the dire warning, the former Vietnam POW said there was still a chance that sanctions might work.

"If we handle this right, and our European allies stand with us, and the Russians and the Chinese stand with us, sanctions might do the job. And I am confident that this administration will exhaust every effort before contemplating seriously a military option."


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...2/231135.shtml

Just read this again one thing stands out he goes on about armageddon and would perfer sanctions. But has not ruled out war which as he put it could lead to armageddon. :hmm:

Views from the U.S needed.

[Skybird]

McCain is one of those american politicians that I respect, which does not mean I agree with him on anything, but I could deal with him. On Iran I heared him several times, and I fully support his approach. If you put the ultimate sanction - war - off the table, any negotiations and sanctions are doomed to fail, for Iran then knows that is must now fear anything really hurting it if it does not comply with global demands, or if it brakes the treaties that must be at the end of sanctions.

When McCains talks of armageddon, he probably refers to three possible perspectives.

First, as I always said, any strike against Iran most likely will and must include nukes, for certain target probably cannot be destroyed by other kinds of conventional bombs. now, do not understand this as that Skybird whishes to see the use of nukes. I do not. But I currently think, ignoring any ethics and values and humanitarian implications, that if you want to play the military card for full effect (effect: destruction and/or effective stopping of the nuclear weapon program, if there is one - so far it is not prooved by evidence!), the use of nukes cannot be avoided, else the objective will not be completed. Assuming that a ground invasion in selected areas to control the destruction of these facilties from on the ground is no option card on the table.

Second, he probaly refers to the uproar and massive hostility coming fromMuslim world which maybe will push far more aggressive and violant into Wetsern countries. "Pushing" understood in the widest meaning and understanding within this context.

Third, it could lead to inner conflicts within muslim nations that are considered to be Allies. If they are really Allies, let's not debate that here, but think of Pakistan for example. It is a nuclear power, and Musharaf already must use his full security apparatus to keep himself in power. If he falls and his regime with him, and extremists take over, there is a chance that they will use these nukes in retalation for the American attack. Next thought: Israel, and there you go...

[Oberon]

John McCain...wasn't he in Die Hard?

Oh, hang on...that was McClane...my bad

[Sheppard]

McCain is one of those american politicians that I respect

McCain is anything but. He's a grade A scoundrel; who cannot be trusted to have anything resembling ethics. Google "Keating Five" scandal.