The United States military has a plan to attack Iran in order to prevent the country from developing a nuclear weapon, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff revealed Sunday.

Adm. Mike Mullen, the top-ranking U.S. military officer, said a military strike would have severe downsides -- but so would a nuclear-armed Iran. He described the challenge as a choice between two very bad options.

"I am extremely concerned about both of those outcomes," he said.

But Mullen, speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press," said the military option is an important one. He said it's a decision that's up to the president to make.

"The military options have been on the table and remain on the table," he said. "It's one of the options that the president has. ... I hope we don't get to that, but it's an important option and it's one that's well understood."

Asked whether the U.S. military has an attack plan, Mullen said: "We do." He did not elaborate.
Mullen, who addressed the topic in the wake of new sanctions against Iran being imposed by the United States, European Union and United Nations, said there is a narrow space between those two options. He said that space involves sanctions, diplomacy and international pressure and that he remains "hopeful" the combination will yield positive results.

"It's those unintended consequences that are difficult to predict in what is an incredibly unstable part of the world," Mullen said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/01/mullen-says-military-strike-plan-iran/

Hopefully a regime change is part of the plan.

UAE ambassador backs strike on Iran's nuclear sites

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/07/uae-envoy-iran-nuclear-sites

Looks like the US is getting support possibly even pressure from
some of the other Arab regimes who also want to prevent a nuclear Iran.
They will either capitulate or their capability will be destroyed
by force and no one will be sad to see it go.

go for it...might as well piss everyone off.

Ya' know, if'n them Arabs don't want Iran to have nukes, how come they don't do somethin' themselves instead of sittin' on their royal assses bichin' about it.

They are the ones with all the wealth to hire them a decent Army.

I say, screw 'em or let Iran nuke 'em.

That is, unless Hussein wants his own war memory. So far, he hasn't gotten much credit for havin' much of an active hand in Afghanistan.

Won't piss everyone off. The majority of the world doesn't want a Nuclear Iran.

How would a "regime change" benefit you or anyone? How can you legally justify it?

Because they don't have the firepower, equipment or even Nukes to take Iran's nuclear bases out.

We could sell 'em all that and rent 'em the folks ta' do operate it all for 'em.

Key word, rent!

Yea, but they would n't give them back AND they don't have the training that we do. Besides we don't want them to look at our secrets like the Stealth Bomber, which is probably the bomber they would be using in this situation.

I was commenting not responding. There is a difference.

Is that the way it should be, just shut out anyone not from the Fox mold? Ever hear of the concept "Freedom of speech".

what is the fox mold? can we shut people out of it? how do you know about fox if you dont watch it?

I never said I didn't watch Fox, you assume too much.
The original poster requested I stop reading his posts and I reminded him I was free to read and comment or respond.

The Fox mold is simply radical conservatism. I was not intending "mold" to mean a fungus. Mold was supposed to mean that once a mold is cast, all products of that mold are the same. Most (not all) people who believe what Fox has to say are predictable in their social and political views.

Is that more clear for you? I regret the confusion.

I watch Fox on occasion as well as CNN, BBC, CBC and other news sources. I would never get all my news from one place. Now that is fair and balanced.

yea, i agree... fox probably has the most fair and balanced news.
not like that democrat loving msnbc...

lol i don't watch either one, i usually watch cnn. i'm neither repub or democrat, there's things i like about them both, and things i hate about both. need one right in the middle, and i'de be happy with it.

I agree
The much needed third party. Somewhere for people like General Colin Powell and Ron Paul, as well as many others.
I am neither left nor right either.

Actually yes I do believe Fox is Fair and Balanced, They just show the Republican and Independent sides which CNN, MSNBC and the rest refuse to show. Fox News, by the way is the most popular and trusted new network.

In the third week of January 2010, Fox News was the highest rated basic cable channel in primetime. This marked the first time that a news channel led the primetime ratings, beating out entertainment channels such as USA, TNT, and TBS.

Also in January 2010, Public Policy Polling reported that Fox News was the most trusted television news channel in the country with 49% of respondents stating they trust Fox News. Fox also scored the lowest level of distrust with only 37%, and was the only channel to score a net positive in that regard, with a +12%. CNN scored second in the poll with 39% of those polled stating that they trusted the news channel, and 41% stating distrust, a -2% net score.

For the year 2009 Fox News had the highest ratings in its history, topping its cable news competition in all day parts and seeing double-digit gains for all of its programs.

For the year 2007, FNC was the number-one rated cable news channel in the United States when rating based on Ratings, not cumulative audience. It was down one percent in total daily viewers and down three percent in the 25-54 year old demographic, but it still boasted most of the top-rated shows on cable news led by The O'Reilly Factor. Fox News ranked #6 of all cable channels.

FNC saw a large jump in ratings during the early stages of the Iraq conflict. By some reports, at the height of the conflict Fox News had as much as a 300 percent increase in viewership, averaging 3.3 million viewers daily.[33]

In 2004, FNC's ratings for its broadcast of the Republican National Convention beat those of all three broadcast networks. During President George W. Bush's address, Fox News notched 7.3 million viewers nationally, while NBC, CBS, and ABC scored ratings of 5.9, 5.0, and 5.1, respectively.

In late 2005 and early 2006, FNC saw a brief decline in ratings. One notable decline came in the second quarter of 2006 when Fox News lost viewers for every single prime time program, when compared to the previous quarter. The total audience for Special Report with Brit Hume, for example, dropped 19 percent. However, several weeks later, in the wake of the North Korean Missile Crisis and the 2006 Lebanon War, Fox saw a surge in viewership and remained the #1 rated cable news channel.

Fox still held eight of the ten most-watched nightly cable news shows, with The O'Reilly Factor and Hannity & Colmes coming in first and second places, respectively.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_news#Ratings_and_reception

The top couple paragraphs tell it all right there. The top rated and most trusted name in news.

I prefer to get my USA news -- when I have time to play newshound -- from sources outside of the US.

This is a reminder to stay on topic and not bait or insult other posters. I have removed several posts from this topic.

Site Mod
Pam

Attack? On IRAN ... ? With THIS CinC ... ? Yeah. Right ... when hell freezes over.