Iran may use terrorism if attacked
An interesting article in the WashPost kicking around the likelihood of Iran responding with terrorism if we attack them. The article states:
Here is food for thought, though. If the UN does get the backbone to do what is right in Iran if they do not comply on their nuclear ambitions, imagine having to take military action against Iran with Iraq next door if we had not gone into Iraq. Talk about having to look over your shoulder. If you look on the map you will see that Iran resides directly between Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran must feel like the inside of an Oreo cookie.
As tensions increase between the United States and Iran, U.S. intelligence and terrorism experts say they believe Iran would respond to U.S. military strikes on its nuclear sites by deploying its intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams to carry out terrorist attacks worldwide.With the UN finally meeting a modicum of their responsibilities regarding Iran, the stakes are on the rise that something may come of this. Of course, the UN will talk big and make votes but they will not likely back up any of it especially considering the friendship between Iran, Russia and China.
Here is food for thought, though. If the UN does get the backbone to do what is right in Iran if they do not comply on their nuclear ambitions, imagine having to take military action against Iran with Iraq next door if we had not gone into Iraq. Talk about having to look over your shoulder. If you look on the map you will see that Iran resides directly between Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran must feel like the inside of an Oreo cookie.
posted by All_I_Can_Stands @ 10:09 PM
18 Comments:
At 10:49 PM,
LA Sunset said…
As tensions increase between the United States and Iran, U.S. intelligence and terrorism experts say they believe Iran would respond to U.S. military strikes on its nuclear sites by deploying its intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams to carry out terrorist attacks worldwide.
I am thinking here, what else is new? They have been doing this by proxy, since the overthrow of the Shah.
I think it'll take more then that to scare the world. Now, if they would say, "we'll drive the price of oil up so high that you'll all have deep recessions and your kids won't be able to go to college, then that would be cause for alarm. But to say "we'll use terrorism against the U.S."; I say, so what?
At 11:42 PM,
All_I_Can_Stands said…
I wonder what it will take to get through the stupor the US is in? I thought after 9/11 we were awake for a long time, but we went back to sleep right after the 9/11 anniversary.
At 12:45 AM,
LA Sunset said…
Maybe even a little before the anniversary.
At 7:26 AM,
Merete said…
The US is totally INSANE if they start bombing Iran. And for what? For developing nukes, which the US have themselves. How can you tell someone that they are not allowed to have nukes when you have it? Doesn't make sense at all! The US must show a good example and get rid of their own nukes before demanding such a thing. Or did I lose something that USA is the world police now or maybe you are in direct contact with God? I don't get it!
If there are someone to be afraid of it's the United States of America! War mongers #1! We kill for oil!
And does America really know what storm it's heading into with attacking Iran - when they already are in the quagmire in Iraq AND in Afghanistan...
What if suddenly North Korea decides it's time to send a missile over to your home turf? Do you really have enough soldiers to protect you there at home while leading 3 other wars simultaneously?
This smells like world war III to me and it stinks!! Leave Iran out of this, they have done you NO harm. You will never be able to win this war and you have no idea what you are getting into.
"Iran MAY use terrorism if attacked"?! All hell will break lose!! If we haven't seen terrorist attacks before, just be prepared for the war to suddenly be on US soil. It will be the beginning of the end.
At 9:11 AM,
All_I_Can_Stands said…
Merete, thanks for stopping by. I noticed that on your blog and in your comments here that you have not supplied solutions to the hostility against the US. I can only assume that you think it is a good policy to do nothing.
I wonder how you felt about Kosovo? Or was that ok because it was a democrat and no oil was involved?
At 4:58 PM,
Merete said…
It's difficult to find a good solution for all the animosity the US is feeling from all sides.
But it sure as hell wouldn't hurt:
*Stop bullying the poor countries in the name of God.
*Respect other religions even if you don't believe in it, treat people like humans and not animals.
*Stop stealing other countries resources like oil and diamonds.
*Put the money into research and development instead of war. How can we stop being so dependent on oil and go over to electric power instead?
*Solve the Israel/Palestinian conflict! That should maybe be #1 on the list. Israel needs to back off and get out of the middle east. It was a huge mistake to give them the country. MAYBE they should have been given a part of Germany instead since it was Germany that harassed the Jews? It just seems to me that they more belong to Europe than in the middle east.
*Get rid of all nukes before demanding others not to develop nuclear technology.
*Stop being so arrogant and try not to be the world police.
*Stop the death penalty.
*Help feeding the world, every 3 sec somebody dies of hunger. While the rich gets richer, the poor gets poorer. Help distributing food to the ones that really needs it. NOBODY should die of hunger in year 2006!
*Obey the rules the United Nations has set and all other countries are obeying.
*Help stop all genocide and cruelty against humans in other parts of the world, don't just get involved because of oil and greed.
*Stop being worlds #1 polluter.
And yes, Kosovo was way different than Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. Not because Clinton was a Democrat and no oil was involved, but because:
*The whole wide world agreed something needed to be done with the genocide the Serbs were conducting.
*The US had the UN in their back, the UN actually agreed and gave them an OK signal to start bombing.
*Clinton actually had a war plan! They stuck to the plan and it worked!
*Minimum of dead people on both sides. As far as I can remember not even one American or British soldier were killed in action?
*The people were happy to be helped by the Americans.
*The war only lasted for a few months, then they got the hell out of there.
At 9:36 PM,
Anonymous said…
merete,
I couldn't believe the list of solutions you gave for dealing with all the animosity toward the U.S.
1. bullying in the name of God - I don't recall Bush calling for a holy war directed by God against all infidels. In fact, I believe that sounds like another group of people. Bush gave a list of reasons for invading Iraq, and God wasn't one of them.
2. treat people of other religions like humans, not animals - That's just laughable considering current U.S. tolerance for people of all religions, races, gender confusions, etc.
3. stop stealing resources like diamonds and oil - I've got news for you. We BUY them.
4. stop being so dependent on oil (spend money on research and development) - We have spent money on research. We discovered that if we drill in ANWR, we could greatly reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
5. Israel belongs in Europe, not the Middle East - FALSE - Israel belongs in the Middle East because that is where their homeland was for thousands of years before the modern time. Jews ended up in various parts of Europe before WWII because they had migrated there for various reasons, and wanted to return to their homeland after the atrocities they faced during the war and the time surrounding it. (By the way, the current President and several before him have diligently tried to solve the Israel/Palestine conflict. You talk as though the U.S. has been ignoring it.)
6. Get rid of all nukes before demanding it of others - And leave ourselves completely vulnerable to those other countries who have them, many of whom seek to due us harm?
7. stop being arrogant and policing the world - True, Americans can be arrogant, and I think we are too involved in many of the problems of the rest of the world.
8. get rid of death penalty - How would that help with world animosity? We aren't going around putting other nations' citizens to death, just our own who brutally murder others of our own citizens.
9. help feed the world - We give more food to other nations than any other country in the world.
10. obey rules of the UN - Last time I checked we were obeying the UN's rules. Can you name some that we are not?
11. help stop genocide and cruelty to humans in other parts of the world - You can't have it both ways; do you want us to stop arrogantly policing the world, or not?
12. world's #1 polluter - Name five countries that have better overall living conditions and cleaner environments than the U.S.
At 11:14 PM,
All_I_Can_Stands said…
r2w, fantastic answers. I especially like #3.
I will answer a few as well and I hope , Merete, you do not feel ganged up on. This is a discussion, but there are more conservatives that leave comments. While I may get more aggressive elsewhere, I like to keep my blog civil. Thanks for continuing to comment. We may disagree and passionately, but debate is good.
*Stop bullying the poor countries in the name of God.
This does not happen. Afghanistan was done in the name of 3000 9/11 victims. Some were killed instantly on impact either on the plane or around it. Some were killed trying to escape. Some were killed trying to safe others. Some were killed by choosing to jump rather than burn.
Iraq was legal due to many UN resolutions as well as being justified by Saddam's breaking of the cease fire agreement multiple times.
*Respect other religions even if you don't believe in it, treat people like humans and not animals.
I believe the religion the US respects the least is Christianity. The media falls all over itself currying favor to Islam.
*Solve the Israel/Palestinian conflict! That should maybe be #1 on the list. Israel needs to back off and get out of the middle east. It was a huge mistake to give them the country. MAYBE they should have been given a part of Germany instead since it was Germany that harassed the Jews? It just seems to me that they more belong to Europe than in the middle east.
Israel had that land for nearly 3000 years until the Romans took it away, then the Muslims moved in. Then it went back and forth in the Crusades. Why shouldn't Israel have their land back? Why do you favor the Palestinians? It seems like if your logic is that Israel can just be moved to Germany or elsewhere, that the Palestinians can just be moved elsewhere. There is a lot of land available it Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia. Why don't their brothers give them some land and have it settled?
*Get rid of all nukes before demanding others not to develop nuclear technology.
Since between Russia, China and the US, the US is the most trustworthy country they should be last to give up their nukes or at the same time. First would be suicide.
*Stop being so arrogant and try not to be the world police.
If the UN would do its job at all instead of constantly downing the US, or if when they did their job they would concentrate on the job instead of raping local women or taking huge kickbacks then maybe the US would not need to be the world's police.
*Help feeding the world, every 3 sec somebody dies of hunger. While the rich gets richer, the poor gets poorer. Help distributing food to the ones that really needs it. NOBODY should die of hunger in year 2006!
Ok, let's spread capitalism around the world. It is much better to teach them to fish for themself instead of giving them fish.
*Obey the rules the United Nations has set and all other countries are obeying.
Neither the US nor any other country should yield its sovereignty to the UN. The UN has proven itself useless and impotent. It is on its last leg. Let it die a quick death. Pull the plug.
as for Kosovo
Clinton's plan was just as vague as Bush's. They kept asking him when our troops would be back and were never given a clear answer. Because he was a Democrat, and conservatives are fair minded both they and the libs were silent on that. And guess what? We are still in Kosovo. Yes, there were fewer deaths of allied forces because the major part of the war was a bombing campaign only.
Then when the non-Muslim side was weakened, the Muslim side attacked them and UN "peacekeeping" forces stood by and did nothing.
At 10:46 AM,
LA Sunset said…
Merete,
Your arguments on Kosovo are not accurate. Let's take them point by point:
*The whole wide world agreed something needed to be done with the genocide the Serbs were conducting.
Wrong. Russia was not happy in the least. There wasn't much they could do, but do not mistake their inaction, for approval.
*The US had the UN in their back, the UN actually agreed and gave them an OK signal to start bombing.
Wrong. The UNSC condemned the actions by the Serbians, but did/would not authorize this action against Serbia. It was NATO that acted, not the UN.
*Clinton actually had a war plan! They stuck to the plan and it worked!
Wrong. Bombing does not a war make. Bombing is just that, bombing. War is much more complex than just bombing. Ask the Chinese how that plan worked, because their consulate was bombed by mistake.
*Minimum of dead people on both sides. As far as I can remember not even one American or British soldier were killed in action?
Wrong. While it is true that military casualties on the NATO side were very light, much of that is attributed to the fact that is was not a war, but a bombing campaign. You will not lose as many in that kind of operation, because you do not commit the numbers that a ground campaign requires.
As for Serbian military and civilian casualties, there were thousands. How many thousands will depend on which sources you read.
*The people were happy to be helped by the Americans.
Yeah, the Serbians were real happy. Just ask them.
Anyway, I hope this helps you understand the flaws in your arguments. I advise you to hit the books again and learn more about something before you use bad information to support weak and faulty claims.
Have a wonderful day.
At 11:40 AM,
All_I_Can_Stands said…
LA, I was hoping you would add some commentary on Kosovo. From some of your posts at PYY I knew you were well versed in the subject. Thanks for commenting. I know how busy things are for you.
Great points. I guess since the UN did not authorize it, that was "another" illegal war.
At 6:27 PM,
Merete said…
Wow, you guys like bashing me. Not even one of my points were accepted. I wonder what you think should be done then to help decrease the animosity towards your country if I am so far off?
And I wonder if any of you guys have ever put your feet outside your Über-superiour country?
Ok, let me answer a few of these points:
treat people of other religions like humans, not animals - That's just laughable considering current U.S. tolerance for people of all religions, races, gender confusions, etc.
>laughable like Abu Graib and Guantanamo Bay I assume?
Back at the Israel/Pal. conflict. Yes, it has been highly ignored by the Bush admin. But maybe it's b/c the Jews are so infiltrated into the American gov. and that they bacically owe the media. In this way they can fuck over the Palestinians over and over again without anybody caring.
Nice wall they are building outside their little stolen country BTW. That will really work!
And yes, I feel sorry for the Palestinians and not the Jews!
6. Get rid of all nukes before demanding it of others - And leave ourselves completely vulnerable to those other countries who have them, many of whom seek to due us harm?
>Duuh! Look in the mirror! America is the biggest threat right now! YOU are the ones seeking others harm!
But good idea if you all got rid of them at the same time. We don't need nukes today.
10. obey rules of the UN - Last time I checked we were obeying the UN's rules. Can you name some that we are not?
>Yes, going to war with Iraq! The UN said NO and you didn't give a shit and went to war anyway (let's revenge daddy, y'all!)
I'm not gonna discuss every little point here, and I'd might remember a few things wrong about the Kosovo war. I should have checked the facts before making a fool of myself here. It was NATO indeed and not the UN.
But the point is that that war simply was better planned, costed less, had fewer casualties on both sides and the war actually ended - within a few months!
And have a wonderful day under the beautiful sunset in LA as well. Boy are you lucky!
I am waiting for your brilliant solutions!
At 9:21 PM,
Anonymous said…
merete,
I don't know if anyone really likes "bashing" you; speaking for myself, I just disagreed with virtually every one of your points. I enjoy the opposition you and others bring to this blog because it gives me a chance to exercise one of the most important guaranteed U.S. freedoms - political speech.
As far as stepping outside my Uber-superiour country, yes - I have visited 2 other countries and hope to visit many more in my lifetime.
Answering some of your points, you bring up Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo as examples of treating people of other religions like animals. When you first made your point, I thought you were referring to American policy, which of course does not include treating others like sub-humans. As far as Guantanamo goes, the detainees there, who are those with known links to terrorist groups, are treated very respectfully when it comes to allowing them to practice their religion. There have been no documented cases of mistreatment of prisoners due to their religious beliefs.
Abu Ghraib was an example of prison guards humiliating prisoners for sport. The perpetrators of these actions were dealt with, and again, what happened there was definitely not U.S. policy. Americans were outraged at what they saw. I don't see outrage coming out of Arab nations when their inhabitants capture, torture, and behead Americans and people from other nations.
I believe you are right when you say we don't need nukes today, which is exactly why the U.S. speaks up when other nations continue to defy the U.N. and non-proliferation treaties and decide to create nuclear programs of their own.
You say the U.S. disobeyed a UN rule when we invaded Iraq after the UN told us "no." That is not the reality of the situation. The U.S. asked the UN to enforce its own rules concerning Iraq, and the UN refused. The U.S. asked the UN to back a coalition, and the UN refused. The decision of the U.S. to go to war was not an example of breaking a UN rule. The UN has no right to tell any nation that it cannot act in its own best interest in the matter of national security.
By the way, the "revenge daddy" argument is completely bogus since, over the years, President Clinton and every major player in the Democratic party made the exact same arguments for ousting Sadaam Hussein that George W. Bush did.
As far as suggestions for doing something about world animosity toward the U.S., I have none. When people stop trying to get here by the millions each year, both legally and illegally; when people from all over the world stop desiring to come here to be educated and to better themselves financially; when the U.S. military stops showing up to help in every major natural disaster throughout the world; when U.S. citizens stop giving millions of dollars to help victims of natural disasters throughout the world; when the world stops looking to America as the bastion of freedom, an example for the rest of the freedom-loving world to follow; I will concede that we have a PR problem that needs to be dealt with.
At 10:42 PM,
All_I_Can_Stands said…
Merete, I will give you a point. (*Stop being worlds #1 polluter.) We are number 1 in everything including air pollution. We are in the best position to find a solution, but I will argue that if the US economy falls, the rest of the world falls hard. We must move toward answers to pollution that do not involve an aggressive to our strong economy. I would love to see us go Hydrogen due to cleaner air and so we can stop being dependent on foreign oil.
And I wonder if any of you guys have ever put your feet outside your Über-superiour country?
It is great to be an American. I am thankful for that, not arrogant. It is the greatest country ever. Yes I have been to six other countries and will visit my seventh in the next two weeks. My wife has been to 12 other countries and kisses the ground every time she comes back (in spirit of course).
I am amazed at how you justify your hatred of Jews. As for their infiltration of our government, it is almost exclusively on the liberal side. The vast majority of Jews in the US are Democrats, especially in the media.
laughable like Abu Graib and Guantanamo Bay I assume?
Abu Graib was a shame, but it was a few idiots like Lyndie Englund and her boyfriend, not official policy.
Guantanamo is a bastion of liberal propoganda. Every time you see a picture of the place it is the dog run and steel cages that were there in the beginning while they built a real nice prison building. The whole dog run area is no longer used and overgrown with weeds but those pictures do not continue the charade the media tries to convey.
r2w, your last point is great. I would be interested in knowing how the US can be so terrible if everyone wants to be here (legally and illegally like r2w said)
At 10:45 PM,
All_I_Can_Stands said…
oops, forgot the word threat in my first paragraph. The sentence should read:
"We must move toward answers to pollution that do not involve an aggressive threat to our strong economy"
At 2:30 PM,
Anonymous said…
The UN was created as a direct result of Hitler's unprovoked aggressions and imperial aspirations in World War II, and was charged with preventing another such dangerous global action.
Recently in the UK, US Secretary of State Condi Rice confessed that the Bush Administration launched an unprovoked invasion and occupation of Iraq to effect a unilateral "regime change" for political and ideological purposes - the same crime for which the Hitler Administration was justly condemned at Nuremberg. The action against Iraq was and is illegal under the Nuremberg principles, the UN Charter and United States law.
As regards Guantanamo Bay and religious-based abuse, the cases are documented and many. Also contrary to the argument made here, Guantanamo detainees are not all with "known links to terrorists" otherwise they would have all been charged and prosecuted by now, five years down the line.
Once again, truth is the casualty here.
On to pollution. If the Bush GOP were to stop bilking taxpayers via Halliburton and stop giving out welfare checks to the wealthiest 1% of Americans and tax-evading corporations, then the pollution problem could be handled. Your short-sightedness in worrying about hurting our economy now is misplaced. Bush and the GOP have done much to hurt our economy, but you remain silent on that. They have driven the US so close to defaulting on its Treasury notes that now for the fourth time in his tenure Bush raised the debt ceiling, now to an astronomical $9 trillion, and with more increases likely by the time he leaves office. So long as you enable this former coke-fiend by championing his policies which include the rape of the American economy, you can be assured that your children and grandchildren will inherit a disgusting mess.
And why bother with Iran? Didn't I just hear one of your guys say that Mexico is the greatest threat to national security?
Send in the clowns? Don't bother, they're here.
At 3:30 PM,
All_I_Can_Stands said…
Recently in the UK, US Secretary of State Condi Rice confessed that the Bush Administration launched an unprovoked invasion and occupation of Iraq to effect a unilateral "regime change" for political and ideological purposes - the same crime for which the Hitler Administration was justly condemned at Nuremberg.
You must have been watching Jon Stewart or an SNL skit. This did not happen in the real world.
As regards Guantanamo Bay and religious-based abuse, the cases are documented and many.
Documented by groups like Amnesty International whom you can only trust to be anti-American. You cannot trust them for anything else.
stop giving out welfare checks to the wealthiest 1% of Americans
Quite an alternate definition for allowing people to keep their own money which was earned by hard work and taking risks.
Your short-sightedness in worrying about hurting our economy now is misplaced. Bush and the GOP have done much to hurt our economy, but you remain silent on that.
Instead of talking of my short sightedness, we should be talking about liberal blindness. The economy is smoking along and libs like you can only criticize. We are at a 4.7 unemployment among other fantastic economy indicators. If a Democrat were in office, the media would be declaring this economy the success story of the century.
I am with you on the defecit. Just don't try and convince me that if Democrats were in office things would be better. Don't try pointing to Clinton's surplus, because the GOP controlled congress during that time.
And why bother with Iran? Didn't I just hear one of your guys say that Mexico is the greatest threat to national security?
Gee, I didn't know there could only be one threat at a time. How easy! How simple life is now that this rule is in place and everybody will honor it. Wow. Does this work at the personal level too? If I have a health problem, that means I don't have to worry about my wife getting a health problem until mine is resolved. How wonderful that we can only get hit by one problem at a time.
At 7:07 PM,
Anonymous said…
You must have been watching Jon Stewart or an SNL skit. This did not happen in the real world.
Yes, it was that same skit where she admitted to "thousands of tactical errors" in Iraq that has recently gotten Rumsfeld all nervous. I think Chris Farley was playing the part of Tony Blair. Gotta love SNL. At least Bush waits a few weeks before trying to re-write history. You should take some pointers on that.
Documented by groups like Amnesty International whom you can only trust to be anti-American. You cannot trust them for anything else.
Because you know we can implicitly trust people who say "we know where the weapons of mass destruction are" (Rumsfeld) and "we will be greeted as liberators" (Cheney) and "I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information" (Bush). Yeah, Amnesty International and Red Cross, those horrible lying deceiving America-hating institutions.
Quite an alternate definition for allowing people to keep their own money which was earned by hard work and taking risks.
The majority of wealth accumulation at that level, when not illegally gained through tax-evasion, is interest-based, not on putting in a long day at work. All their supposed "risks" are tax-sheltered, so stop trying to convince me of the hardship they endure to attain their wealth. Trickle-down economics has long been shown to be a sham, so much so that GHW Bush called it "voodoo economics" so you should just stop coming to the rescue of the corporate robber barons and their spoiled protege. They're not doing you any favors. Bush's tax cuts should be considered poison by any self-respecting fiscal conservative.
Instead of talking of my short sightedness, we should be talking about liberal blindness. The economy is smoking along and libs like you can only criticize. We are at a 4.7 unemployment among other fantastic economy indicators. If a Democrat were in office, the media would be declaring this economy the success story of the century.
Unemployment numbers are good these days, but are about as reliable as polls when it comes to true measure of the country. We already had the economic success story of the century, and it wasn't on a Republican watch. How you consider a drastic reduction in our manufacturing base a "fantastic economic indicator" is beyond me. If a Democrat were in office today he would be facing impeachment for the unnecssary deaths of 2500 American soldiers and misspent $300 billion dollars in the failed misadventure of Iraq. Our last Democrat faced impeachment for lying about a blowjob, so this is simple mathematics.
I am with you on the defecit. Just don't try and convince me that if Democrats were in office things would be better. Don't try pointing to Clinton's surplus, because the GOP controlled congress during that time.
And now the GOP controls everything and we're $9 trillion dollars in debt and growing. $3 billion spent on interest payments every day. Are you sure you want to rush so quickly to take credit for that? We have no idea if things would be better with Democrats in office, just as we cannot know if things would be worse or the same. All we have is history to look at, and from that we can draw an assumption that it would be better. If you're wanting to use history to defend Republicanism, you must be willing to accept it for all things.
Gee, I didn't know there could only be one threat at a time. How easy! How simple life is now that this rule is in place and everybody will honor it. Wow. Does this work at the personal level too? If I have a health problem, that means I don't have to worry about my wife getting a health problem until mine is resolved. How wonderful that we can only get hit by one problem at a time.
That's certainly how Bush seems to operate. He's the one playing the simpleton route, not me. First it was Bin Laden. Nah, forget him. Then it was Iraq. Now it's Iran. Too bad it's never been Saudi Arabia (home of 15 of the 9/11 hijackers) or North Korea (the one really rattling the nuclear sword).
At 7:37 PM,
Anonymous said…
I have looked over your page at I think it is the worse one I have ever seen!
Post a Comment
<< Home