Register to reply

Has Iran replaced Al-Qaeda as the greatest terror threat?

by WhoWee
Tags: alqaeda, greatest, iran, replaced, terror, threat
Share this thread:
mheslep
#55
Oct21-11, 03:46 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,081
Quote Quote by Proton Soup View Post
i'm sure we're leaving iraq the same way we left korea
If only. I'd like to see US troops in Korea drawn down or removed.


Korea:
Army: 19,755
Navy: 274
Air Force: 8,815
Marines: 242
Iraq:
Quote Quote by Major Gen. Jeffrey Buchanan, Oct 2011
"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."
Andre
#56
Oct21-11, 03:54 PM
PF Gold
Andre's Avatar
P: 5,458
Quote Quote by lisab View Post
Look up what Stuxnet did to Iran....
Or maybe we should look what media do to sensationalize.
Proton Soup
#57
Oct21-11, 04:41 PM
P: 1,070
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
If only. I'd like to see US troops in Korea drawn down or removed.


Korea:


Iraq:
i'll believe it when i see it.
mheslep
#58
Oct21-11, 05:00 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,081
Quote Quote by Proton Soup View Post
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
#59
Oct21-11, 05:02 PM
P: 77
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
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_...orces#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
#60
Oct21-11, 05:38 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,081
Quote Quote by DoggerDan View Post
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_...orces#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
#61
Oct21-11, 05:40 PM
P: 1,405
Greeaaattt, let's spend more tax dollars trying to conquer the world to mold more fake democracies the way we see fit.
mheslep
#62
Oct21-11, 05:53 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,081
Who or what are the 'fake' democracies?
gravenewworld
#63
Oct21-11, 08:37 PM
P: 1,405
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
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.
WhoWee
#64
Oct21-11, 08:47 PM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by gravenewworld View Post
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
#65
Oct21-11, 10:27 PM
PF Gold
P: 1,882
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
WhoWee
#66
Oct21-11, 10:37 PM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by Bobbywhy View Post
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
#67
Oct23-11, 05:23 PM
P: 77
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
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/milita...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.

Quote Quote by gravenewworld View Post
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?


Quote Quote by gravenewworld View Post
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/ins...s/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
#68
Oct23-11, 06:57 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,081
Quote Quote by DoggerDan View Post
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/milita...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.

Quote Quote by DoggerDan
...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?


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Al Qaeda's #2 killed by US Current Events 11
Report says war on terror is fueling al Qaeda Current Events 3
Rice warned of Al Qaeda threat before 9/11 Current Events 49
Is al-Qaeda to launch an attack in USA? Current Events 7