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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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:
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.
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 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.
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.
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:
"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:
Mornin DDD. :2wave: I thought mine was better. :mrgreen:
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
You are counting cheerleaders as backers, not those willing to send money or military aid.
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.
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.
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.
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?