Iran willing to attack on U.S. soil

[JSt0rm]

I saw this article yesterday and I thought "How fvcking stupid do you think we are?" and of course the answer is "quite stupid indeed".

I was reading one of Grandma Doppel's recipes yesterday she left and the basic ingredients are:

• 10 years of demonizing Iran, starting with the Axis of Evil speech
• 10 years of working up the US people into a fearful tizzy with terrorist alerts and terrorism this, terrorism that
• 10 years of regular talk, but little to no evidence of Iran's nuclear ambitions
• Reports that Iran, not surprisingly quite upset with the US, is now "more willing" to attack it via terrorism

1) Mix Ingredients
2) Bake at 911 degrees Fahrenheit
3) Take preemptive war out of oven and serve hot, do not allow to cool

Very good

 

[JTsyo]

THe only problem with this theory is the U.S. didn't take any Oil rights in Iraq for efforts there. It was a big fail on our part.

Though a lot of money was transferred from US taxpayers to defense contractors.

 

[monovillage]

Very good

I thought he could have started with the Khomeini and the American hostages back in 1979 wasn't it?

 

[cybrsage]

Ladies and gentlemen... I present to you, Yellow Cake :

Reminds me of the "Black Bush" skits.

 

[piasabird]

How can Iran be a sovereign nation if we dont believe in borders?

Iran can attack the USA if they want.

Just expect a counter-attack.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Humm, time to invest in Jennings & Rall...

 

[Bowfinger]

I thought he could have started with the Khomeini and the American hostages back in 1979 wasn't it?

I don't think anybody is suggesting Iran is a swell country and that we should be BFFs. The issue is the credibility of the warmongers who cry that Iran is so suicidal they're eager to not only attack us, but to directly attack us on American soil. (Remember, these are the same people who made the same claims about Iraq, that it had a fleet of UAVs ready to strike America's heartland. How did that pan out?) Iran has to realize that they will be the first target if that happens, and that our response will blast them even further back into the Stone Age.

Face it, these are BS merchants who want America in a perpetual state of war and terror. It's great for business, and it's great for those in our government who want to grab more power and take away more of our rights. One would think that those who most loudly decry big government would be the most suspicious of such claims, yet as soon as Uncle Sugar says "Booga, booga" they dive under their beds and scream for government to protect them.

Wise up, guys. We've heard this song before. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[bfdd]

we are willing to attack Iran on Iranian soil. i don't see what the big deal is? saying you would do something and doing something are very different.

 

[MrColin]

Check out these disturbing images from Iran. May not be suitable for children or SFW. You will be horrified, this clearly calls for a preemptive invasion:

http://youtu.be/98j0I7e5OHE

 

[al981]

I thought he could have started with the Khomeini and the American hostages back in 1979 wasn't it?

or was it the US and its buddies initiating trouble by overthrowing iranian democracy and stealing its oil in the 50's.

oh look, more history.

 

[al981]

THe only problem with this theory is the U.S. didn't take any Oil rights in Iraq for efforts there. It was a big fail on our part.

well, it's no theory. it's straight from neocon bolton's mouth

 

[JEDIYoda]

we are willing to attack Iran on Iranian soil. i don't see what the big deal is? saying you would do something and doing something are very different.

Willing to attack and doing so are two different things...wouldn`t you think?

 

[Rainsford]

I think America is certainly more "right" in our dealings with Iran, and I definitely take our side in this conflict, but I'm not sure why this is being treated as surprising or shocking or like a new threshold has been crossed.

We're talking about two nations that have had basically NO diplomatic relationship for decades now and have more or less been in a low grade conflict the entire time. Recently we've made it very clear that we're willing to attack them under certain conditions, including scenarios where we haven't been attacked first, and we clearly have the capability to carry out those threats. I would be astonished if the Iranians HADN'T decided they were also willing to attack us.

I'm not suggesting any moral equivalence here, but if you threaten a country with attack, chances are very good they'll be considering doing the same to you. Considering our country is vastly more powerful than Iran, blustery rhetoric like that employed by the OP (suggesting we completely destroy their country for all time if they do ANYTHING against us) would seem to make our position look weaker than it really is. If they're making threatening noise, that's because that's mostly all they CAN do. We only need to remind those involved that the fact that we're still on words is something they should be very happy about.

 

[cwjerome]

People in Iran say dumb things, some people in the US say dumb things... and people get all twichy. Calm down folks, if Iran were to "attack" the US we would swiftly retaliate and they know that. After the last 10 years or so, I think the world knows we won't take any shit.

 

[monovillage]

I think America is certainly more "right" in our dealings with Iran, and I definitely take our side in this conflict, but I'm not sure why this is being treated as surprising or shocking or like a new threshold has been crossed.

We're talking about two nations that have had basically NO diplomatic relationship for decades now and have more or less been in a low grade conflict the entire time. Recently we've made it very clear that we're willing to attack them under certain conditions, including scenarios where we haven't been attacked first, and we clearly have the capability to carry out those threats. I would be astonished if the Iranians HADN'T decided they were also willing to attack us.

I'm not suggesting any moral equivalence here, but if you threaten a country with attack, chances are very good they'll be considering doing the same to you. Considering our country is vastly more powerful than Iran, blustery rhetoric like that employed by the OP (suggesting we completely destroy their country for all time if they do ANYTHING against us) would seem to make our position look weaker than it really is. If they're making threatening noise, that's because that's mostly all they CAN do. We only need to remind those involved that the fact that we're still on words is something they should be very happy about.

Just a bit blustery, but I would want them to know beyond any shadow of a doubt that any attack upon the U.S. is going to be one of the last things the regime ever does. I wouldn't want them to think that they'd get a measured or equivalent response.

 

[Karl Agathon]

Just a bit blustery, but I would want them to know beyond any shadow of a doubt that any attack upon the U.S. is going to be one of the last things the regime ever does. I wouldn't want them to think that they'd get a measured or equivalent response.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[JSt0rm]

Check out these disturbing images from Iran. May not be suitable for children or SFW. You will be horrified, this clearly calls for a preemptive invasion:

http://youtu.be/98j0I7e5OHE

The horrors.

 

[bradley]

We could be one last false flag attack from WWIII. In the last 114yrs, the US has become what it feared most.

First, the draft needs to be reinstated. Then dig up T. Roosevelt, hit him right in the nads with a big stick. That's just for starters.

 

[EagleKeeper]

well, it's no theory. it's straight from neocon bolton's mouth

Yet you can not point to any oil actually being pumped for US interests.

Remember, the US companies were actually shut out of the awards for Iraq oil & pumping

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Then there are other people who seem to think that everything has to be wrong. Both aren't very smart and neither understand the purpose of assessments.

(snipped to prevent wall of text in my reply)

This is nothing but an informational tool to be carefully considered but it is never a mandate for a particular action. If Iran seems to be willing to attack on US soil that means Iran seems to be willing to attack on US soil. What Obama or any other President does about it is completely another matter.

As far as Iraq goes that was not a failure of the intelligence agencies, but a deliberate subversion of them for political goals. Few will remember, but before the war a number of senior analysts quit. I suspect the reason is that there was a considerable effort from the top down to get a desired result. That is not how it ever was supposed to be, but sadly that happens. Now if you want to say that Obama is using the agencies to start a war with Iran that's up to you, however I do not think he is driven to start another major conflict.

I don't think I was implying that all assessments are wrong. Or that Obama a is trying to start a way...just pointing out it's basically just government PR, not anything factual. But we (as a country) have a big problem in that more and more, the government relies solely on the "anonymous gov official" to talk about "secret evidence" to advance whatever agenda they want, and the media just laps it up and passes it along, without the ability to do any real fact checking.

Once it gets on the news, a large portion of the country believes it, putting blind trust that these government officials wouldn't lie.

That is a big problem, since as we have seen time and time again, the "secret evidence" is wrong, or cherry picked, or deliberately misinterpreted to advance an agenda. but since no one calls out this BS, the government gets away with it.

The few times actual real data comes out (like post invasion of Iraq, or like the official US reports released by wikileaks) we see that a fair amount of the time, the government is lying. But most people don't care, since they have already believed the "official" government story leaked anonymously (and without any proof).

Just look at today, the ACLU is suing the government for details on the legal justification and procedure for the killing of Awlaki. The government has released no real details, no evidence, just sent forward various government officials (both anonymous and not) that just say "we have secret info saying he's guilty".

The government so far has denied the ACLU anything, saying it's classified. So on one hand, the government has full ability to lie and say whatever they want to sway public opinion, and yet cannot (so far) be compelled to release the actual documents and facts. Do you see a problem with that?

It's so secret that we can't admit we did it (or how we authorized it), but they can go on TV and say "he's guilty" by saying there is "secret evidence" and it was done legally (trust us, it was, but we can't tell you how!) to convince the population it was all legal and OK. Just don't ask for any evidence proving their case, because it's all secret!

Anyone and everyone should have huge red flags waving with this kind of behavior.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't give a rats ass, you can tell it to a progressive or liberal that does. I just stated that an attack on the U.S. should result in the total destruction of the enemy.

That's simply not a viable position. What constitutes an attack? You can't have an all or nothing stance because that leaves you with no room to maneuver.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That's simply not a viable position. What constitutes an attack? You can't have an all or nothing stance because that leaves you with no room to maneuver.

It's best to keep options open and allow a proportional response. That was one of the incredible miscalculations with Iraq, or perhaps not if war was the goal. In any case it's a foolish policy that leaves no options.

 

[monovillage]

That's simply not a viable position. What constitutes an attack? You can't have an all or nothing stance because that leaves you with no room to maneuver.

I'd call an attack a terrorist action that kills American citizens and is sponsored by, or known by a sovereign nation. What room to maneuver and why?

 

[monovillage]

It's best to keep options open and allow a proportional response. That was one of the incredible miscalculations with Iraq, or perhaps not if war was the goal. In any case it's a foolish policy that leaves no options.

No, the mistake we made in Iraq was trying to nation build, we should have gone in, killed Hussein and his sons and got out. End of story.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No, the mistake we made in Iraq was trying to nation build, we should have gone in, killed Hussein and his sons and got out. End of story.

War doesn't work like that. It's not waged against individuals but nations including those who mean us no harm. It always brings about unintended consequences. Regardless of that it was a squandering of resources and lives, and no enemy could have more effectively drawn our attention away from or reduced our ability to contend effectively in what should have been our sole focus, Afghanistan.