View Full Version : Has Iran replaced Al-Qaeda as the greatest terror threat?
Given the disclosures of the thwarted terrorist attack on US soil, has Iran replaced Al-Qaeda as our greatest threat?
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-iran-tied-terror-plot-washington-dc-disrupted/story?id=14711933
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/11/iranians-charged-over-terror-plot-in-us/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/2-arrested-in-alleged-plot-to-kill-us-ambassador-to-saudi-arabia/2011/10/11/gIQAykavcL_story.html
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-28/middleeast/world_meast_iran-navy_1_iranian-announcement-iranian-state-news-iran-today?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST
Proton Soup
Oct11-11, 03:23 PM
no. in fact the "weapon of mass destruction" rhetoric being used already in reference to a bomb is highly suspect. no way in hades am i going to in any way get behind a sorry excuse to get ourselves into yet another quagmire. just no. NO FREAKING WAY! just put this guy in jail and walk away.
It sounds more like a car bomb. The real issue is they planned to cross the Mexican border with a drug cartel - to commit a terrorist attack on US soil. We need to tighten our borders.
Proton Soup
Oct11-11, 03:37 PM
It sounds more like a car bomb. The real issue is they planned to cross the Mexican border with a drug cartel - to commit a terrorist attack on US soil. We need to tighten our borders.
yeah, and that's another thing. Eric Holder is currently embroiled in a little scandal called "Fast and Furious" where we've been shipping guns into Mexico funding their little terrorism war on the people of Mexico. this all stinks to high heaven, and we need to stop, get our bearings, and figure out just what the heck is going on in our government.
The real issue is they planned to cross the Mexican border with a drug cartel - to commit a terrorist attack on US soil. We need to tighten our borders.
Wow, how is that the real issue, and how is that what they planned?
I get that he wanted the cartel to carry out the bombing, and I would ASSUME they already have people in the united states, even as actual American citizens. Arbabsiar is a US citizen, he was just meeting with people in Mexico to make contacts with the cartel. He also flew to Mexico from Germany, and possibly planned on crossing the border to get back into the US but HE'S A US CITIZEN, so it's not like he was trying to sneak across. Assuming no warrants he would have no problem crossing back into the US at the border, NOR SHOULD HE.
Why do you want to move a terrorism issue to a border issue. Unless you have some proof that wasn't in your links that they planned on crossing the border to carry out this attack ,I just don't see how you stretch to that being the "real issue" after reading those 4 articles. Maybe I missed something in one of them.
Wow, how is that the real issue, and how is that what they planned?
I get that he wanted the cartel to carry out the bombing, and I would ASSUME they already have people in the united states, even as actual American citizens. Arbabsiar is a US citizen, he was just meeting with people in Mexico to make contacts with the cartel. He also flew to Mexico from Germany, and possibly planned on crossing the border to get back into the US but HE'S A US CITIZEN, so it's not like he was trying to sneak across. Assuming no warrants he would have no problem crossing back into the US at the border, NOR SHOULD HE.
Why do you want to move a terrorism issue to a border issue. Unless you have some proof that wasn't in your links that they planned on crossing the border to carry out this attack ,I just don't see how you stretch to that being the "real issue" after reading those 4 articles. Maybe I missed something in one of them.
From the links
"According to a criminal complaint unsealed Tuesday, Arbabsiar met with a DEA informant — who was posing as a representative of a Mexican drug cartel — to arrange the killing. At one point, the complaint says, Arbabsiar told the informant that he would need four men to carry out the ambassador’s murder and that he would pay $1.5 million for the operation.
As a down payment, Arbabsiar allegedly later arranged for $100,000 to be wired to an account that was secretly overseen by the FBI.
“Though it reads like the pages of a Hollywood script, the impact would have been very real and many lives would have been lost,” said FBI Director Robert Mueller."
This tells us we have a legitimate threat and very little chance of stopping a major weapon from crossing the border if these groups were to coordinate efforts.
Again, I don't see anything that would lead me to believe that the bomb as well as the 4 operatives would not already be inside the US. Cartels have tons of people and resources within the borders already, and I'm sure there are plenty of US citizen cartel members. (Though I'd assume they wouldn't be in this case.)
Again, I don't see anything that would lead me to believe that the bomb as well as the 4 operatives would not already be inside the US. Cartels have tons of people and resources within the borders already, and I'm sure there are plenty of US citizen cartel members. (Though I'd assume they wouldn't be in this case.)
Hepth, you are using logic and observation of facts to confront a discussion that is laden with emotion and has, as these things so often do, brought in side issues that, along with the emotion, are a distraction to any helpful discussion of the topic at hand. What I've noticed over the years is that what you are doing is, unfortunately, an exercise in what the military call "pissing up a rope".
Again, I don't see anything that would lead me to believe that the bomb as well as the 4 operatives would not already be inside the US. Cartels have tons of people and resources within the borders already, and I'm sure there are plenty of US citizen cartel members. (Though I'd assume they wouldn't be in this case.)
If the cartel was involved at any level - they need to be shut down aggressively. If they weren't involved - they need to understand the severity of consequences if they ever decide to participate.
Hepth, you are using logic and observation of facts to confront a discussion that is laden with emotion and has, as these things so often do, brought in side issues that, along with the emotion, are a distraction to any helpful discussion of the topic at hand. What I've noticed over the years is that what you are doing is, unfortunately, an exercise in what the military call "pissing up a rope".
I agree this is an emotional issue and the exercise you've described is applicable to both the security along the soft under-belly of the US border and our handling of Iran.
It's quite clear that if the border isn't secured - it will be exploited. That is the most immediate threat to the security of the US at this moment and both the Mexican government and the cartels need to understand it is unacceptable.
The second problem is the Iranian attitude that they can do whatever they want without consequence. IMO - we need to communicate to the people of Iran - some of them rallied against the leadership a few months ago - and let them know the dangerous path their leaders have chosen. It should be made clear that actions have consequences.
Personally, I think we should make it very clear to the people of Iran that their leaders have gone too far and if their military forces cross the border into Iraq when we leave - they will be met by 1,000 missiles.
I believe the people of Iran will make the sane choice - if given the opportunity and the motivation - enough is enough.
Proton Soup
Oct11-11, 06:14 PM
I agree this is an emotional issue and the exercise you've described is applicable to both the security along the soft under-belly of the US border and our handling of Iran.
It's quite clear that if the border isn't secured - it will be exploited. That is the most immediate threat to the security of the US at this moment and both the Mexican government and the cartels need to understand it is unacceptable.
The second problem is the Iranian attitude that they can do whatever they want without consequence. IMO - we need to communicate to the people of Iran - some of them rallied against the leadership a few months ago - and let them know the dangerous path their leaders have chosen. It should be made clear that actions have consequences.
Personally, I think we should make it very clear to the people of Iran that their leaders have gone too far and if their military forces cross the border into Iraq when we leave - they will be met by 1,000 missiles.
I believe the people of Iran will make the sane choice - if given the opportunity and the motivation - enough is enough.
we're currently killing people in at least 3 states surrounding Iran at the moment. and for all you know, we may also be conducting operations in Iran itself. so please, clam down and try to get some perspective.
we're currently killing people in at least 3 states surrounding Iran at the moment. and for all you know, we may also be conducting operations in Iran itself. so please, clam down and try to get some perspective.
I've long believed the key to dealing with Iran is to appeal to her people. We missed the last opportunity and now the door has swung wide open.
As for Mexico and the drug cartels - no mas!
The second problem is the Iranian attitude that they can do whatever they want without consequence. IMO - we need to communicate to the people of Iran - some of them rallied against the leadership a few months ago - and let them know the dangerous path their leaders have chosen. It should be made clear that actions have consequences.
If you replace Iranian/Iran with American/America that paragraph still makes entirely too much sense.
If you replace Iranian/Iran with American/America that paragraph still makes entirely too much sense.
Actually, an Iranian General seems to agree with you.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/09/masoud-jazayeri-wall-street_n_1002598.html
"Jazayeri said President Barack Obama's election promises of change have reached a dead end.
"The failure of the U.S. president to resolve the Wall Street crisis will turn this economic movement into a political and social movement protesting the very structure of the U.S. government," the official IRNA news agency quoted Jazayeri as saying Sunday.
"A revolution and a comprehensive movement against corruption in the U.S. is in the making. The last phase will be the collapse of the Western capitalist system," he said, according to IRNA."
Apparently the Iranian leaders think the US and it's leadership is weak?
Proton Soup
Oct11-11, 07:48 PM
Actually, an Iranian General seems to agree with you.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/09/masoud-jazayeri-wall-street_n_1002598.html
"Jazayeri said President Barack Obama's election promises of change have reached a dead end.
"The failure of the U.S. president to resolve the Wall Street crisis will turn this economic movement into a political and social movement protesting the very structure of the U.S. government," the official IRNA news agency quoted Jazayeri as saying Sunday.
"A revolution and a comprehensive movement against corruption in the U.S. is in the making. The last phase will be the collapse of the Western capitalist system," he said, according to IRNA."
Apparently the Iranian leaders think the US and it's leadership is weak?
no, he's saying it's corrupt.
no, he's saying it's corrupt.
I disagree - he's saying the President could not keep his promise - this implies weakness rather than corruption.
I disagree - he's saying the President could not keep his promise - this implies weakness rather than corruption.
The article said corruption, but is definately implying weakness. They're related though - corruption implies the need to accomplish things underhandedly, which is leadership weakness. A strong leader could do things in the open and by the rules and be just as effective.
The government corruption does extend beyond President Obama, but outwardly he's our figurehead so it all gets put on him.
I remember President Bush being called an evil warmonger - but was he ever called corrupt and weak by other countries? Instead I remember many references to being a cowboy (which has connotations of being strong, but perjoratively independent (but still not dependant on corruption)).
Char. Limit
Oct11-11, 10:47 PM
I find it funny how many conservatives want to "tighten the borders", apparently without realizing how much that would cost. Odd, considering they scream about anything else that costs any amount of money.
I find it funny how many conservatives want to "tighten the borders", apparently without realizing how much that would cost. Odd, considering they scream about anything else that costs any amount of money.
The general security of our country is one thing that most Republicans would buy into without too much problem - if it were done efficiently. I thought the willingness to spend money on security was one of the big beefs that collectivists have with the right? Why is this a suprise?
Personally, I am on the fence about it (hehehe). Can we effectively control our borders against plots like this? There is also the flip side - a fence works both ways. It keeps people out, but it also keeps people in. However, absent any real internal enforcement (aka Arizona-type enforcement) we need to be doing something to understand whom is in our country and why.
I find it funny how many conservatives want to "tighten the borders", apparently without realizing how much that would cost. Odd, considering they scream about anything else that costs any amount of money.
We need to put the resources somewhere and the Mexican border's a war zone. What's the alternative - wait until something happens and re-deploy to Iran?
Bobbywhy
Oct12-11, 04:20 AM
In my opinion, no, Iran has NOT replaced Al-Qaeda as our greatest threat. This alleged plot, if true, was to take place here, but not against the USA. It was alleged to be against a Saudi ambassador.
mheslep
Oct12-11, 12:59 PM
I find it funny how many conservatives want to "tighten the borders", apparently without realizing how much that would cost. Odd, considering they scream about anything else that costs any amount of money.I find $3600B/year of spending and $1600B/year of borrowing worth screaming about.
A full US southern border fence is estimated to cost about ten hours worth of annual federal spending. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/systems/mexico-wall.htm) Consider that against the costs imposed by illegal immigration and drug traffic across that border, and the benefit to US society if illegal flow could by cut from ~500,000/year to 50,000/year or so, and perhaps replaced by legal immigration.
In my opinion, no, Iran has NOT replaced Al-Qaeda as our greatest threat. This alleged plot, if true, was to take place here, but not against the USA. It was alleged to be against a Saudi ambassador.
Are you joking?
Proton Soup
Oct12-11, 02:04 PM
Arbabsiar is a bumbling idiot.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/suspect-in-alleged-iranian-terrorism-plot-had-key-connections/2011/10/11/gIQAV6rfdL_story.html
Proton Soup
Oct12-11, 02:05 PM
Are you joking?
why would he be joking? this is not a direct attack on the US, but on saudi arabia. it certainly doesn't even come close to justifying a war.
why would he be joking? this is not a direct attack on the US, but on saudi arabia. it certainly doesn't even come close to justifying a war.
If the Iranian Government plans or enables the bombing of a restaurant in New York or Washington DC - putting citizens (or even US Government officials) in harms way - it's an act of war. Perhaps they need to be more careful - in the future only plan to bomb Embassy locations in the US or the UN - so there's no chance of justifying a war?
Proton Soup
Oct12-11, 04:40 PM
If the Iranian Government plans or enables the bombing of a restaurant in New York or Washington DC - putting citizens (or even US Government officials) in harms way - it's an act of war. Perhaps they need to be more careful - in the future only plan to bomb Embassy locations in the US or the UN - so there's no chance of justifying a war?
oh, the war drums are being beaten fiercely on the news. the israeli ambassador is on CNN right now beating the war drum. perhaps the israelis should go fight their own war and leave us out of it. because this is an extremely weak case for a war.
Proton Soup
Oct12-11, 04:51 PM
Why Iran assassination plot doesn't add up for Iran experts
The US has blamed the specialist Qods Force in an Iran assassination plot. But those who track the group say the plot doesn't reflect the careful planning, efficiency, and strategy the Qods Force is known for.
By Scott Peterson, Staff writer / October 12, 2011
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/1012/Why-Iran-assassination-plot-doesn-t-add-up-for-Iran-experts
oh, the war drums are being beaten fiercely on the news. the israeli ambassador is on CNN right now beating the war drum. perhaps the israelis should go fight their own war and leave us out of it. because this is an extremely weak case for a war.
When you consider the Government has known about this for a few weeks to a few months - MIGHT there be more going on than we know at this point?
While I don't want to go to war with Iran - it's my opinion that we need to shake off the fear and be very specific in dealing with them.
we're currently killing people in at least 3 states surrounding Iran at the moment. and for all you know, we may also be conducting operations in Iran itself. so please, clam down and try to get some perspective.
Yesterday, you thought President Obama might "also be conducting operations in Iran itself".
I maintain the best way to deal with Iran is to inform their people of the activities and potential consequences.
Bobbywhy
Oct12-11, 05:08 PM
Are you joking?
No sir, I was not joking. If Iran could be proven to have sent its Quds force to assinate a Saudi Ambassador here on US territory (unlikely) and even if all your speculating about some big weapon carried across the Mexican-American border was delivered and detonated in a restaurant here in the USA it would NOT
a.) replace al Quaida as our greatest terrorist threat, and
b.) be a legal basis for declaring war on Iran
"Formally, a government would lay out its reasons for going to war, as well as its intentions in prosecuting it and the steps that might be taken to avert it. In so doing, the government would attempt to demonstrate that it was going to war only as a last resort (ultima Ratio) and that it in fact possessed "just cause" for doing so. In theory international law today allows only three situations as legal cause to go to war: out of self-defense, defense of an ally under a mutual defense pact, or sanctioned by the UN."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli
True, our country has a history of trumping up causes to make war. See the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution justifying the Vietnam War, The 9/11 attacks justifying the War in Afghanistan, and the WMDs of Saddam Hussein to justify the Iraq War.
Char. Limit
Oct12-11, 05:24 PM
Gleen Greenwald has a good article on this:
http://politics.salon.com/2011/10/12/the_very_scary_iranian_terror_plot/singleton/
I liked the article and agreed with basically all of what it said.
Proton Soup
Oct12-11, 06:01 PM
When you consider the Government has known about this for a few weeks to a few months - MIGHT there be more going on than we know at this point?
While I don't want to go to war with Iran - it's my opinion that we need to shake off the fear and be very specific in dealing with them.
ok. what specific action do you propose?
No sir, I was not joking. If Iran could be proven to have sent its Quds force to assinate a Saudi Ambassador here on US territory (unlikely) and even if all your speculating about some big weapon carried across the Mexican-American border was delivered and detonated in a restaurant here in the USA it would NOT
a.) replace al Quaida as our greatest terrorist threat, and
b.) be a legal basis for declaring war on Iran
"Formally, a government would lay out its reasons for going to war, as well as its intentions in prosecuting it and the steps that might be taken to avert it. In so doing, the government would attempt to demonstrate that it was going to war only as a last resort (ultima Ratio) and that it in fact possessed "just cause" for doing so. In theory international law today allows only three situations as legal cause to go to war: out of self-defense, defense of an ally under a mutual defense pact, or sanctioned by the UN."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli
True, our country has a history of trumping up causes to make war. See the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution justifying the Vietnam War, The 9/11 attacks justifying the War in Afghanistan, and the WMDs of Saddam Hussein to justify the Iraq War.
I agree, there isn't enough evidence to attack them. However, have you actually read the details of the plot or my posts? Who said the Quds forces were being sent to the US?
Also, what is the basis of your comments - dismissing the possibility of a weapon (big or small) crossing the southern border with Mexico? Do you think the border is secure? Do you think the drug cartels are incapable of moving weapons across the border - now or in the future? Do you find it acceptable this guy flew repeatedly between Mexico and Iran?
Next, who wants to declare war on Iran? In post 10 (my bold) - I wrote:
"It's quite clear that if the border isn't secured - it will be exploited. That is the most immediate threat to the security of the US at this moment and both the Mexican government and the cartels need to understand it is unacceptable.
The second problem is the Iranian attitude that they can do whatever they want without consequence. IMO - we need to communicate to the people of Iran - some of them rallied against the leadership a few months ago - and let them know the dangerous path their leaders have chosen. It should be made clear that actions have consequences.
Personally, I think we should make it very clear to the people of Iran that their leaders have gone too far and if their military forces cross the border into Iraq when we leave - they will be met by 1,000 missiles.
I believe the people of Iran will make the sane choice - if given the opportunity and the motivation - enough is enough."
******
We have sacrificed blood and treasure in Iraq and evidence exists Iran has aided the enemy against us in the region. Recently, Iran spoke of sailing their warships in the Atlantic. Now, we discover a terror plot connected to Iran that would have taken place in our nation's Capitol.
Accordingly, I think we should communicate very clearly to the leaders and the citizens of Iran - that which we know to be true - and allow Iran to make a specific choice moving forward.
Specifically, the border with Iraq should be declared off-limits when our troops are pulled out. If Iran chooses to be the aggressor and invade Iraq - they should suffer massive losses.
ok. what specific action do you propose?
Our zipper is down at the Mexican border - and the world knows it. That is a more immediate threat to US national security than Iran.
However, we need a plan to deal with Iran - given their increasing willingness to test the limits. I don't think the average person on the streets of Iran want war with anyone - especially the US. IMO - if the people of Iran understand the risk of following their leaders down this path - they might just "vote" them out.
Proton Soup
Oct12-11, 06:21 PM
Gleen Greenwald has a good article on this:
http://politics.salon.com/2011/10/12/the_very_scary_iranian_terror_plot/singleton/
I liked the article and agreed with basically all of what it said.
G-d bless his big sarcastic (http://politics.salon.com/2011/09/29/fbi_terror/singleton/) heart. because i just did not have the words for how stupid this all is.
Proton Soup
Oct12-11, 06:27 PM
Our zipper is down at the Mexican border - and the world knows it. That is a more immediate threat to US national security than Iran.
However, we need a plan to deal with Iran - given their increasing willingness to test the limits. I don't think the average person on the streets of Iran want war with anyone - especially the US. IMO - if the people of Iran understand the risk of following their leaders down this path - they might just "vote" them out.
IMO, it would help if you would read some Greenwald.
and as for Mexico, Eric Holder is already in hot water for operations there. funny how since his Fast and Furious operation that violence has only escalated there. i assume you've seen the beheading videos since you're sufficiently freaked out about it. and all the eviscerated bodies hanging from bridges as of late. sure, our zipper is down, but that leaves out the little details about us urinating on the Mexican people.
IMO, it would help if you would read some Greenwald.
and as for Mexico, Eric Holder is already in hot water for operations there. funny how since his Fast and Furious operation that violence has only escalated there. i assume you've seen the beheading videos since you're sufficiently freaked out about it. and all the eviscerated bodies hanging from bridges as of late. sure, our zipper is down, but that leaves out the little details about us urinating on the Mexican people.
IMO - our FBI (and the rest of the alphabet) have done a very good job of securing the ports. The border is another story. If we don't find an effective way to work with legitimate Mexican leaders now - we will have a much hotter border later.
It seems to me the drug cartels have a great deal to lose if they assist a foreign Government or a terrorist network inside the US. Accordingly, I don't think the leaders of those cartels would risk losing everything to make a days pay. It shouldn't be too difficult to communicate to them what is and isn't acceptable.
As for the Mexican leaders - it shouldn't be too hard for them to explain to their people why they had no choice but to allow US forces to conduct significant operations against a criminal empire operating within it's borders if the cartels fail to heed warnings.
Char. Limit
Oct12-11, 06:52 PM
G-d bless his big sarcastic (http://politics.salon.com/2011/09/29/fbi_terror/singleton/) heart. because i just did not have the words for how stupid this all is.
I'm not sure whether you're criticizing him or complimenting him... could you clarify on what "this" is that's so stupid? That would help.
Proton Soup
Oct12-11, 07:35 PM
I'm not sure whether you're criticizing him or complimenting him... could you clarify on what "this" is that's so stupid? That would help.
i'm complimenting him. this whole situation is farcical. i agree with him just as you do.
and i'm literally sitting here tossing up my hands in frustration. at the lack of incredulousness in the nation.
Proton Soup
Oct12-11, 07:38 PM
IMO - our FBI (and the rest of the alphabet) have done a very good job of securing the ports. The border is another story. If we don't find an effective way to work with legitimate Mexican leaders now - we will have a much hotter border later.
It seems to me the drug cartels have a great deal to lose if they assist a foreign Government or a terrorist network inside the US. Accordingly, I don't think the leaders of those cartels would risk losing everything to make a days pay. It shouldn't be too difficult to communicate to them what is and isn't acceptable.
As for the Mexican leaders - it shouldn't be too hard for them to explain to their people why they had no choice but to allow US forces to conduct significant operations against a criminal empire operating within it's borders if the cartels fail to heed warnings.
you realize we gave guns to the bad guys, right? we're running a terrorist op against mexicans.
What, the US gave guns to the bad guys? Well I never.
/lol
you realize we gave guns to the bad guys, right? we're running a terrorist op against mexicans.
We need to secure the border.
Char. Limit
Oct12-11, 08:01 PM
i'm complimenting him. this whole situation is farcical. i agree with him just as you do.
and i'm literally sitting here tossing up my hands in frustration. at the lack of incredulousness in the nation.
Ah, okay then. Just making sure!
You can never be sure of this stuff on the internet.
DoggerDan
Oct13-11, 03:12 AM
No sir, I was not joking. If Iran could be proven to have sent its Quds force to assinate a Saudi Ambassador here on US territory (unlikely)...
Oh, Gosh, you're kidding, right? Do you think ambassadors have crack 12-man security teams with outer, middle, and inner perimeters, with running escape plans at all times?
Well, I don't know. Perhaps they do. I would think perhaps a personal body guard, maybe. Two at most.
Bobbywhy
Oct14-11, 04:06 PM
As for the question in the OP, “has Iran replaced Al-Qaeda as our greatest threat?”, the Canadian Prime Minister says “Yes”.
Iran is the "most significant" threat to world peace and security, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday after the US accused Tehran of plotting to kill the Saudi ambassador to Washington.
http://news.yahoo.com/iran-most-significant-threat-world-canada-pm-170514586.html
I wonder how President Obama thinks the Iranians will interpret his announcement to leave Iraq by the end of 2011 today?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20123800-503544/obama-announces-end-of-iraq-war-troops-to-return-home-by-year-end/
"Obama announces end of Iraq war, troops to return home by year end"
Char. Limit
Oct21-11, 02:23 PM
I wonder how President Obama thinks the Iranians will interpret his announcement to leave Iraq by the end of 2011 today?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20123800-503544/obama-announces-end-of-iraq-war-troops-to-return-home-by-year-end/
"Obama announces end of Iraq war, troops to return home by year end"
Would you rather he didn't leave, and we just stayed in Iraq forever?
Would you rather he didn't leave, and we just stayed in Iraq forever?
I think announcing a pull out from Iraq 1 week after breaking the news of an Iranian sponsored terror plan in the US is idiotic.
Char. Limit
Oct21-11, 02:31 PM
I think announcing a pull out from Iraq 1 week after breaking the news of an Iranian sponsored terror plan in the US is idiotic.
So then, considering you think the President is "idiotic", how would you have done this?
So then, considering you think the President is "idiotic", how would you have done this?
Good question Char. The President could have said he'd intended to leave by the end of the year - but the increasing Iranian threat must first be addressed. He could have made it clear the Iranians are not welcome to Iraq.
Good question Char. The President could have said he'd intended to leave by the end of the year - but the increasing Iranian threat must first be addressed. He could have made it clear the Iranians are not welcome to Iraq.
Look up what Stuxnet did to Iran. I'm sure there are, erm :uhh:, things being done to keep Iran in its place.
Proton Soup
Oct21-11, 03:32 PM
i'm sure we're leaving iraq the same way we left korea
i'm sure we're leaving iraq the same way we left korea
A DMZ between Iraq and Iran? Good idea Proton Soup!
http://koreandmz.org/
mheslep
Oct21-11, 03:46 PM
i'm sure we're leaving iraq the same way we left koreaIf only. I'd like to see US troops in Korea drawn down or removed.
Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forces_Korea):
Army: 19,755
Navy: 274
Air Force: 8,815
Marines: 242
Iraq: (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/15/world/meast/iraq-brigade-withdrawal/index.html?iref=allsearch)
"we are on track, and we will meet our requirement to redeploy the last remaining military personnel from 41,000 down to zero by the end of the year."
Look up what Stuxnet did to Iran....
Or maybe we should look what media do to sensationalize. (http://www.infoworld.com/print/138796)
Proton Soup
Oct21-11, 04:41 PM
If only. I'd like to see US troops in Korea drawn down or removed.
Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forces_Korea):
Iraq: (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/15/world/meast/iraq-brigade-withdrawal/index.html?iref=allsearch)
i'll believe it when i see it.
mheslep
Oct21-11, 05:00 PM
i'll believe it when i see it.<shrug> Was 188K troops in 2008, 88K in 2010, 41K now. And the Iraqis don't want them to stay, unlike S. Korea.
DoggerDan
Oct21-11, 05:02 PM
If only. I'd like to see US troops in Korea drawn down or removed.
In addition to your numbers for Korea and Iraq, take a gander at these:
"As of 31 December 2010, U.S. Armed Forces were stationed at more than 820 installations in at least 135 countries.[29] Some of the largest contingents are the 85,600 military personnel deployed in Iraq, the 103,700 in Afghanistan, the 52,440 in Germany (see list), the 35,688 in Japan (USFJ), the 28,500 in Republic of Korea (USFK), the 9,660 in Italy, and the 9,015 in the United Kingdom respectively." From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces#Overseas
Seems we have a bad habit of staying long after the party's over.
Didn't see anything about troops stationed in Iran, but the article also says "These numbers change frequently due to the regular recall and deployment of units" so the numbers could change.
mheslep
Oct21-11, 05:38 PM
In addition to your numbers for Korea and Iraq, take a gander at these:
"As of 31 December 2010, U.S. Armed Forces were stationed at more than 820 installations in at least 135 countries.[29] Some of the largest contingents are the 85,600 military personnel deployed in Iraq, the 103,700 in Afghanistan, the 52,440 in Germany (see list), the 35,688 in Japan (USFJ), the 28,500 in Republic of Korea (USFK), the 9,660 in Italy, and the 9,015 in the United Kingdom respectively." From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces#Overseas
Though I agree with the notion that US troops are excessively deployed oversees, that accounting is a bit silly as it counts the Marine detachments, maybe a ~dozen strong, assigned for security at all of the US embassies. If one counts embassy security details I'm sure France has 'forces' in over a hundred countries too. Ron Paul flings that number around frequently; he should not.
gravenewworld
Oct21-11, 05:40 PM
Greeaaattt, let's spend more tax dollars trying to conquer the world to mold more fake democracies the way we see fit.
mheslep
Oct21-11, 05:53 PM
Who or what are the 'fake' democracies?
gravenewworld
Oct21-11, 08:37 PM
Who or what are the 'fake' democracies?
We already did it once in Iran, do we really need to do it again?
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/
Do we really want to spend a billions and billions of more tax dollars for more blow back up our butts?
Maybe we should just stay the hell out of other people's business and save billions in tax dollars in the process.
We already did it once in Iran, do we really need to do it again?
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/
Do we really want to spend a billions and billions of more tax dollars for more blow back up our butts?
Maybe we should just stay the hell out of other people's business and save billions in tax dollars in the process.
On the other hand, maybe we should have Iraq pay us back - from the sale of oil.
Bobbywhy
Oct21-11, 10:27 PM
Now that President Obama has said all US military will be out of Iraq by the end of this year WhoWee writes in post #51 above: “The President could have said he'd intended to leave by the end of the year - but the increasing Iranian threat must first be addressed. He could have made it clear the Iranians are not welcome to Iraq.”
I would like to know, please, what is the justification for the statement “Iranian threat”?
To analyze the relationship between Iraq and Iran it is useful to recognize the ethno-religious groups in their countries. In Iraq Shia Moslem Arabs are the majority, about 65%, followed by the Sunni Moslem Arabs (including Kurds), about 35%.
Iran is nearly 100% Shia Moslem, and mostly Persian. Since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 many Iraqi Shias have lived in and have been trained in Iran. Iran has provided logistic support for its “Shia brothers” next door. Presently the Iraqi government is a power-sharing arrangement with Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds rotating in the key positions. It seems natural to assume Iran today is far more satisfied with this configuration than it was with the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein, a Sunni.
From this I conclude that the US invasion of Iraq has actually helped Iran to join forces with the Iraqi Shia majority in opposition to the Sunni Moslem force based in Saudi Arabia. In my opinion it is presumptuous for any Westerner to decide who is not welcome to Iraq. That should be up to the Iraqis. More than presumptuous: purely arrogant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran
Now that President Obama has said all US military will be out of Iraq by the end of this year WhoWee writes in post #51 above: “The President could have said he'd intended to leave by the end of the year - but the increasing Iranian threat must first be addressed. He could have made it clear the Iranians are not welcome to Iraq.”
I would like to know, please, what is the justification for the statement “Iranian threat”?
To analyze the relationship between Iraq and Iran it is useful to recognize the ethno-religious groups in their countries. In Iraq Shia Moslem Arabs are the majority, about 65%, followed by the Sunni Moslem Arabs (including Kurds), about 35%.
Iran is nearly 100% Shia Moslem, and mostly Persian. Since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 many Iraqi Shias have lived in and have been trained in Iran. Iran has provided logistic support for its “Shia brothers” next door. Presently the Iraqi government is a power-sharing arrangement with Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds rotating in the key positions. It seems natural to assume Iran today is far more satisfied with this configuration than it was with the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein, a Sunni.
From this I conclude that the US invasion of Iraq has actually helped Iran to join forces with the Iraqi Shia majority in opposition to the Sunni Moslem force based in Saudi Arabia. In my opinion it is presumptuous for any Westerner to decide who is not welcome to Iraq. That should be up to the Iraqis. More than presumptuous: purely arrogant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran
Perhaps a price of $1Trillion to the US for enabling the opportunity to re-unite the Persian Empire would sound like a good deal?
DoggerDan
Oct23-11, 05:23 PM
Though I agree with the notion that US troops are excessively deployed oversees, that accounting is a bit silly as it counts the Marine detachments, maybe a ~dozen strong, assigned for security at all of the US embassies.
The Marine Corps Embassy Security Group provides all Marines stationed at U.S. Embassies. It's battalion-strength, which means it has been 300-1,200 Marines in it, total. In particularly, this Group has approx. 1,000 Marines stationed at 125 locations around the world. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usmc/msgbn.htm)
That's hardly "silly" when the total number of Embassy Marines is less than 1/2 of 1% of military personnel stationed overseas.
Greeaaattt, let's spend more tax dollars trying to conquer the world to mold more fake democracies the way we see fit.
Is that really how you view the mission of U.S. Embassies?
Do we really want to spend a billions and billions of more tax dollars for more blow back up our butts?
Maybe we should just stay the hell out of other people's business and save billions in tax dollars in the process.
The U.S. does a thriving business overseas. One of the principle jobs of an embassy is to represent U.S. interests abroad, including negotiating trade agreements, establishing inter-country trade laws, so that U.S. businesses can do business overseas. It's a vital part of our economy.
Admittedly, the mission statement of the Dept of State as a whole isn't very appealing: "Department Mission Statement: Advance freedom for the benefit of the American people and the international community by helping to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world composed of well-governed states that respond to the needs of their people, reduce widespread poverty, and act responsibly within the international system. --From the FY 2010 Agency Financial Report, released November 2010"
If I were a non-democratic country, I'd see that as a threat. I think we, as a country, should change it to more closely match this definition: ""The functions of a diplomatic mission consist, inter alia, in representing the sending State in the receiving State; protecting in the receiving State the interests of the sending State and of its nationals, within the limits permitted by international law; negotiating with the Government of the receiving State; ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and developments in the receiving State, and reporting thereon to the Government of the sending State; promoting friendly relations between the sending State and the receiving State, and developing their economic, cultural and scientific relations." - Article 3 from the Vienna Conventions on International Relations: http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf
This business of forcing democracy on other governments is for the birds, particularly when other forms have been successfully used for longer than we've been in business. And by the way, the U.S. is not a democracy, as we do not have more or less direct control over the affairs of our government. It's a republic, as we have ultimate authority over our government as a whole. If we as a people thought all of them were corrupt, we could vote the entire lot of them out of office in less than 6 years. Except the Supreme Court Justices, of course, however, they can be impeached by a newly elected Congress if necessary.
mheslep
Oct23-11, 06:57 PM
The Marine Corps Embassy Security Group provides all Marines stationed at U.S. Embassies. It's battalion-strength, which means it has been 300-1,200 Marines in it, total. In particularly, this Group has approx. 1,000 Marines stationed at 125 locations around the world. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usmc/msgbn.htm)
That's hardly "silly" when the total number of Embassy Marines is less than 1/2 of 1% of military personnel stationed overseas. ...DD, I meant that embassies on the average have a ~dozen Marines or so, as you also indicate, and that it is silly to include the Marine embassy guards in a discussion about excessive US troop deployments.
...This business of forcing democracy on other governments is for the birds, particularly when other forms have been successfully used for longer than we've been in business.What are these other successful forms?
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.