CNN: Iran May Hit Back at U.S.

[RDS]

U.S. is treading on dangerous ground if they attack Syria.

Washington (CNN) -- The United States has obtained intelligence indicating that Iran "may be planning" a retaliatory strike against the American Embassy in Baghdad if the United States launches a military strike against Syria, a senior U.S. official told CNN.

He said that Iran has "a lot of Shi'a friends" in Iraq that would be willing to carry out an attack.

The official was responding to a Wall Street Journal report that the United States intercepted an order from Iran to militants in Iraq to attack the embassy "and other American interests in Baghdad," if the United States struck Syria militarily for alleged chemical weapons use.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/06/politics/syria-us-iran/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

 

[ChuckBerry]

There is always the possibility of a retaliation against military action. Is the retaliation reason enough not to engage in the military strike, if the military strike is necessary?

The answer to that question depends on what side of the debate you fall on. IMO threats of retaliation are never sufficient reason to avoid an attack if it's strategically necessary.

Does the U.N. and the world think that use of chemical weapons in warfare is sufficient reason to punish those that use them? Having chemical weapons is good enough reason for sanctions. Using them ought to be good enough reason to attack.

 

[washunut]

There is always the possibility of a retaliation against military action. Is the retaliation reason enough not to engage in the military strike, if the military strike is necessary?

The answer to that question depends on what side of the debate you fall on. IMO threats of retaliation are never sufficient reason to avoid an attack if it's strategically necessary.

Does the U.N. and the world think that use of chemical weapons in warfare is sufficient reason to punish those that use them? Having chemical weapons is good enough reason for sanctions. Using them ought to be good enough reason to attack.

I agree with you when it comes to treats of retaliation.

I do not agree that this is about the use of chemical weapons. If it were we would have been in this position when Syria first used them months ago. The world is not about to back Obama because he said something stupid during a campaign stop last year, simple as that. Others will not follow the U.S. if it feels that the action is unserious as this one seems to be.

I call what Iran is doing is less a treat and more of a dare.

 

[RDS]

There is always the possibility of a retaliation against military action. Is the retaliation reason enough not to engage in the military strike, if the military strike is necessary?

The answer to that question depends on what side of the debate you fall on. IMO threats of retaliation are never sufficient reason to avoid an attack if it's strategically necessary.

Does the U.N. and the world think that use of chemical weapons in warfare is sufficient reason to punish those that use them? Having chemical weapons is good enough reason for sanctions. Using them ought to be good enough reason to attack.

The use of chemical weapons cannot go unpunished. It is still unclear who had deployed the chemical weapons. Any punitive response should be taken under the auspices of the United Nations.

 

[MMC]

U.S. is treading on dangerous ground if they attack Syria.

Iran may be planning to retaliate if U.S. strikes Syria, official says - CNN.com

Well there really should be no reason to worry. According to Eco. Al Nutjoba isn't worth any concern in Iraq.

An Iraqi Shi'ite militia group said on Friday it would attack U.S. interests in Iraq and the region if Washington carries out a military strike on Syria.

"All their interests and facilities in Iraq and the region will be targeted by our militants if the United States insists on attacking Syria," a spokesman for the Iraqi militia group al-Nujaba'a told Reuters by telephone, without giving details.

Al-Nujaba'a is an umbrella group which includes Iraqi Shi'ite militants who have crossed into neighboring Syria to fight alongside troops loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Assad is from the Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shi'ite Islam.

The group includes fighters of the Asaib al-Haq and Kata'ib Hezbollah militias and the Mehdi army militia of anti-U.S. Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, which was mostly disbanded after its defeat by Iraqi and U.S. forces in 2008.....snip~

Iraqi militia vowes to attack U.S. interests if Syria hit

http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...attack-u-s-interests-if-syria-hit-w-13-a.html

Per this BS Right here. Course the US has now put out a travel Warning as Well for Iraq.

 

[MaggieD]

I agree with you when it comes to treats of retaliation.

I do not agree that this is about the use of chemical weapons. If it were we would have been in this position when Syria first used them months ago. The world is not about to back Obama because he said something stupid during a campaign stop last year, simple as that. Others will not follow the U.S. if it feels that the action is unserious as this one seems to be.

I call what Iran is doing is less a treat and more of a dare.

I can't help but think that a better solution would have been NOT to disclose which side we believe used the chemical weapons. But to warn:

We know who you are. We know where you are, where you're going and what you're doing. We are watching you from the sky, from the air and on the ground. We have infiltrated your ranks. Our intelligence is deadly accurate. You know who you are. Be afraid. If chemical weapons are used again, there will be no warning. We will carpet bomb your crazy asses. And you will be dead.

 

[washunut]

I can't help but think that a better solution would have been NOT to disclose which side we believe used the chemical weapons. But to warn:

I think if the President really thought a small attack is what was warranted he should have struck quickly and went on T.V. to explain why. Turning it into a circus shows (at least to me) he really did not want to do it but was stuck because of his campaign speech on the topic.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The use of chemical weapons cannot go unpunished. It is still unclear who had deployed the chemical weapons. Any punitive response should be taken under the auspices of the United Nations.

What of the use of a miliatry coup? Not only can that "sometimes" go unpunished it can even go officially unnoticed. We placed sanctions upon South Africe due to racial apartheid yet Saudi Arabia is cool having an official policy of massive sexual discrimination. Moral relativism and selctive outrage are quite telling in our foreign policy. Naturally Pakistan housing UBL was OK as was there jailing of the Dr. that helped us to eliminate UBL - that regime having nukes, supporting terrorists and allowing lawless "tribal zones" still earns it US aid.

 

[MMC]

I can't help but think that a better solution would have been NOT to disclose which side we believe used the chemical weapons. But to warn:

Mornin Maggie :2wave: .....well back in March the UN stated they thought the Rebels had used chems. Then in May the Rebels came back claiming it was Assad. Then in July the Russians took in a 100 page report to the UN with satellite tracking on where the homemade rocket came from. Which coordinates all coincided where the Rebels/Terrorists were located and were getting their asses handed to them by Assad.

Then in August the Rebels again send pics to Kerry who goes all touchy feely when seing the pics of the dead children.

Yet Kerry has no words or tears for all the Christian Children that were massacred by the Rebels. Which at that time was not committed by Al Nusra. But by the MB and Salafists that are part of the Rebels and the FSA.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I can't help but think that a better solution would have been NOT to disclose which side we believe used the chemical weapons. But to warn:

Um, the latest WMD attack came after the warning, that is why Obama now looks like such a fool. You do not first draw a "red line" and then decide what happens if (when?) it gets crossed. Much like passing a law and then discussing the possible sentence to be invoked should it ever be violated.

 

[MaggieD]

Um, the latest WMD attack came after the warning, that is why Obama now looks like such a fool. You do not first draw a "red line" and then decide what happens if (when?) it gets crossed. Much like passing a law and then discussing the possible sentence to be invoked should it ever be violated.

I'm talking about Obama's original statement. Can't turn back the clock, of course.

Imagine the force of will we might have shown had Obama made MY warning (or similar) and gone to Congress for pre-authorization. This assumes, of course, that Congress would have voted unreservedly to back him up.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I'm talking about Obama's original statement. Can't turn back the clock, of course.

Imagine the force of will we might have shown had Obama made MY warning (or similar) and gone to Congress for pre-authorization. This assumes, of course, that Congress would have voted unreservedly to back him up.

But that is not what actually happened - now is it? I agree that congress should have been the one to establish U.S. policy and then Obama to sign and announce that policy to the world.

EDIT: What we are now seeing is Obama busy trying to get all of that toothpaste back into the tube.

 

[MMC]

But that is not what actually happened - now is it? I agree that congress should have been the one to establish U.S. policy and then Obama to sign and announce that policy to the world.

EDIT: What we are now seeing is Obama busy trying to get all of that toothpaste back into the tube.

"Ooooh".....you mean this is where he found out that he is nothing and that he does not come before the Office of the Presidency. That the Office of the Presidency will always be protected over his personal ambitions as well as all of his screw ups. Kinda like laying a backhanded bitchslap to his azz. :shock:

 

[DDD]

But that is not what actually happened - now is it? I agree that congress should have been the one to establish U.S. policy and then Obama to sign and announce that policy to the world.

EDIT: What we are now seeing is Obama busy trying to get all of that toothpaste back into the tube.

What an expression!! :lol:

 

[MMC]

What an expression!! :lol:

Mornin DDD. :2wave: I thought mine was better. :mrgreen:

 

[ttwtt78640]

"Ooooh".....you mean this is where he found out that he is nothing and that he does not come before the Office of the Presidency. That the Office of the Presidency will always be protected over his personal ambitions as well as all of his screw ups. Kinda like laying a backhanded bitchslap to his azz. :shock:

This where Obama has discovered that having the "whole world" (aka France) behind him is not quite the "mandate" needed to get congress to fund his "mini war" plans.

 

[DDD]

Mornin DDD. :2wave: I thought mine was better. :mrgreen:

Sorry MMC! Ttwtt I think beat you to it. So analogous to what appears to be happening. The campaign was working fast, he was copying Clinton probably, and got himself in Libya, Egypt, just that he thought it would be just another country liberated:



"Ooohh, you thought that you are gonna always win with the same pre media post military campaign pattern!"

So now Obama is putting all that toothpaste back to the tube!

 

[MMC]

This where Obama has discovered that having the "whole world" (aka France) behind him is not quite the "mandate" needed to get congress to fund his "mini war" plans.

Well.....now he has more than just France. After the G-20 He now gets his 11th backer.

Germany joins US in blaming Assad for attack.....

Germany has joined the United States and ten other members of the Group of 20 biggest economies in blaming the Syrian government for a chemical attack against civilians last month.

Germany had been the only European member of the G-20 not to co-sign a joint statement issued Friday at the end of the G20 meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia.

The statement calls for a strong international response against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad but stops short of explicitly calling for military action against the Syrian government.....snip~

Germany joins US in blaming Assad for attack

 

[ttwtt78640]

Well.....now he has more than just France. After the G-20 He now gets his 11th backer.

Germany joins US in blaming Assad for attack.....

Germany has joined the United States and ten other members of the Group of 20 biggest economies in blaming the Syrian government for a chemical attack against civilians last month.

Germany had been the only European member of the G-20 not to co-sign a joint statement issued Friday at the end of the G20 meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia.

The statement calls for a strong international response against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad but stops short of explicitly calling for military action against the Syrian government.....snip~

Germany joins US in blaming Assad for attack

You are counting cheerleaders as backers, not those willing to send money or military aid.

 

[MMC]

You are counting cheerleaders as backers, not those willing to send money or military aid.

Well France had that all worked out see.

They figured the Saud, Qataris, and the Sunni could pay for things. Plus then the Rebels can hook them up for what they can steal out of Assad's coffers.

Its all joy joy with the French.....plus they wont get stuck holding the bag to go and Punish Assad ALL alone.

 

[[]D e e v e s]

The use of chemical weapons cannot go unpunished. It is still unclear who had deployed the chemical weapons. Any punitive response should be taken under the auspices of the United Nations.

Nope, won't happen, not with Veto from Russia.

 

[SBu]

U.S. is treading on dangerous ground if they attack Syria.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/06/politics/syria-us-iran/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Right, Syria isn't the problem...Iran is. We have been fighting proxy wars with them for a decade, why not deal with the problem instead of beating around the bush.

 

[MadLib]

Right, Syria isn't the problem...Iran is. We have been fighting proxy wars with them for a decade, why not deal with the problem instead of beating around the bush.

Iran is too powerful for us to go to war with. If we can eliminate Tehran's sphere of influence (by eliminating their only client state in the Arab world), they will hopefully contract and then collapse Soviet-style.

 

[SBu]

Iran is too powerful for us to go to war with. If we can eliminate Tehran's sphere of influence (by eliminating their only client state in the Arab world), they will hopefully contract and then collapse Soviet-style.

They can probably get a nuke before the time necessary for them to collapse would run it's course. Iran is not that powerful, we are just that over extended. Still, nothing we couldn't solve I believe. A much better situation is taking care of Iran first, and letting Syria collapse. Iran can live without Syria, the opposite is not true.

 

[ecofarm]

U.S. is treading on dangerous ground if they attack Syria.

Iran may be planning to retaliate if U.S. strikes Syria, official says - CNN.com

I think if the Iranian regime had the ability to significantly strike a US embassy, they would immediately. There's no reason to believe that the Iranian regime is holding back. It's absurd to buy the "we've an army just waiting to strike!!", pathetically enough, an embassy.

The Iranian regime is a bug about to be squashed.