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

  • News
  • Thread starter WhoWee
  • Start date
  • #51
149
0
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.
 
  • #52
lisab
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,887
616
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.
 
  • #53
100
1
i'm sure we're leaving iraq the same way we left korea
 
  • #55
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
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" [Broken]:
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"
Major Gen. Jeffrey Buchanan said:
"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."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
4,465
72
Look up what Stuxnet did to Iran....
Or maybe we should look what http://www.infoworld.com/print/138796 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #58
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
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.
 
  • #59
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.
 
  • #60
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #61
1,104
25
Greeaaattt, let's spend more tax dollars trying to conquer the world to mold more fake democracies the way we see fit.
 
  • #62
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
Who or what are the 'fake' democracies?
 
  • #63
1,104
25
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.
 
  • #64
149
0
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.
 
  • #65
Bobbywhy
Gold Member
1,722
50
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
 
  • #66
149
0
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?
 
  • #67
DoggerDan
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 [Broken]

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #68
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
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.

DoggerDan said:
...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?
 

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

Replies
49
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
52
Views
9K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
44
Views
6K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
48
Views
5K
Replies
24
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Top