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

[Bobbywhy]

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]

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]

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?

 

[WhoWee]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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]

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 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]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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]

G-d bless his big 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]

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]

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.

 

[Adyssa]

What, the US gave guns to the bad guys? Well I never.

/lol

 

[WhoWee]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[WhoWee]

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_...f-iraq-war-troops-to-return-home-by-year-end/

"Obama announces end of Iraq war, troops to return home by year end"

 

[Char. Limit]

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_...f-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?

 

[WhoWee]

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]

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?

 

[WhoWee]

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.

 

[lisab]

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 , things being done to keep Iran in its place.

 

[Proton Soup]

i'm sure we're leaving iraq the same way we left korea

 

[WhoWee]

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]

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.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forces_Korea" :

Army: 19,755
Navy: 274
Air Force: 8,815
Marines: 242

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."

 

[Andre]

Look up what Stuxnet did to Iran...

Or maybe we should look what http://www.infoworld.com/print/138796

 

[Proton Soup]

If only. I'd like to see US troops in Korea drawn down or removed.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forces_Korea" :


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]

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]

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]

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.