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

[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.

 

[gravenewworld]

Greeaaattt, let's spend more tax dollars trying to conquer the world to mold more fake democracies the way we see fit.

 

[mheslep]

Who or what are the 'fake' democracies?

 

[gravenewworld]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?