http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/11/alleged-plot-to-kill-saudi-ambassador-drives-us-push-to-isolate-iran/
"And Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the U.S. would work with its allies to "send a very strong message that this kind of action, which violates international norms, must be ended."
In a separate interview with the Associated Press, Clinton said the plot "crosses a line," and that she and President Obama were calling international leaders to tell them what happened. She said they want to "pre-empt" any efforts by Iran to deny responsibility, as well as "enlist more countries in working together against what is becoming a clearer and clearer threat" from Iran, according to the Associated Press. She said the reaction could "further isolate Iran."
I would assume that the investigation has revealed independent details connecting the conspiracy to the Iranian government besides the statements of the suspect. Otherwise, our officials would be more circumspect in their public statements today.
However, if it is true that the Iranian government was involved in a terrorist plot to set off a bomb in a US restaurant and kill a foreign ambassador, along with many others, is that not an act of war? if so, it makes Hillary Clinton's statement today look pretty lame to say the least.
We are going to work with our allies to send a very strong message? In one breath, she says Iran has "crossed a line". Then she talks about measures that "could further isolate Iran".
C'mon, Hillary! Even Bill would at least blow up an aspirin factory over that one.
Am I advocating that we launch a military attack against Iran? Well, I suppose not. What I am saying is that the moment of reckoning is getting closer and closer. Unless the Iranian people are able to rise up and overthrow the barbarians that run that country, somebody is going to have to do it eventually.
8 comments:
We have been at war with Iran for many years. Our troops are being maimed and killed by those trained by the Iranians. Personally I do not want to see our people put boots on the ground, (which would be stupid at this pont), but I am not against the use of strategic forces against military only targets.
It is past time for a reckoning in my view.
This is a test by Iran. If we reply to their act of war, with naughty, naughty, naughty, we will appear weak. This is the Islamist way, to test for weakness of the enemy. So far, we have acted with weakness. Now, if a strong leader was in the White House, which is not the case, the citizens of the United States would hear a message like this: Mess with us again and your "Ass is Glass."
Squid
Yes Squid, we need another strong leader to start yet another war. Your paranoia is frightening. We have certainly shown our strong leadership in Iraq and Afghanistan. Your brain is glass.
I have an idea:
First, the U.S. should launch a military strike of some nature against Iran in retaliation.
Second, as soon as this decision is made, the Pentagon should provide complete details to the media.
Teams from Fox News, MSNBC and CNN should invited to film the designated units as they train for the mission, profile the names, home addresses, family and friends of each soldier and officer involved. The military press officers should provide detailed accounts of the intended targets, designated dates of operation, mode of transport. The State Department should provide copies to the media of all confidential diplomatic cables on the subject.
All the media should run non-stop, round the clock speculative "analysis" about the likely Iranian air, sea and ground defenses, the military units most likely to take the brunt of our attack, and how they are prepared to respond, relying on undisclosed inside sources.
Or, perhaps this 24-hour media blitz should be curtailed, since any sane government would keep the nature and details of its response under wraps until it is implemented.
Did anyone know about the raid to kill bin Laden in the weeks leading up to the operation?
Yes the media needs to be kept completely out of the loop. I wonder how many of our people have been lost due to the enemy watching CNN. Our news media is better for our opponents than having a mole on our command staff.
You are so right Cabbie. But as long at the political opposition is demanding that the president state in public, in no uncertain terms, what we are going to do to Iran, the pressure is on to say something revealing.
After Pearl Harbor, it was simple. The president asked congress to declare that "a state of war exists between the United States and the empire of Japan." The military details of course were not publicized. My parents learned about Doolittle's raid on Tokyo AFTER it happened.
But, unless we are going to declare war, formally, exactly what we ARE going to do is rather muddled. Until we actually strike, the less said about what we are going to do the better.
Like Squid says, if we simply tell Iran they shouldn't have done that, we will appear weak. So, until we have a strike force in the air, we shouldn't expect our president to say much at all.
(If it were my decision, I would ask for a plan to make a devastating surgical strike specifically targeting the Quds forces, with minimal civilian casualties. We want to hit those directly responsible, weaken the regime, and NOT provide a target to whip up civilian fervor for the regime).
I agree. I have thought that we could ask (order) the regular Iranian forces to attack instruments of the regime (Pasdaran, Quds, etc.) but who knows if something like that would work. Playing armchair general is even more stupid than playing Monday morning QB.
Something decisive and utterly devastating should be done though if we are to avoid looking like weaklings.
If Iran had picked a bit more competent instrument then we would have had another attack on our soil.
On a side not I have alway believed that our Mohammedan enemies (of whatever stripe), were allied with, or at least had a working relationship with the narco gangs.
They had a working relationship with Lt. Col. Oliver North on Reagan's watch. The narco gangs are beginning to be a threat of a similar magnitude, beaten back in Columbia, bloodied but unbowed in Mexico. From the viewpoint of an Islamic Republic (not the same as a caliphate, but still dangerous) I suspect the narco gangs would be "useful idiots" at best.
Post a Comment