How EXACTLY Is Iran A Threat To The United States?

[The Question]

I'm watching Tucker Carlson at the moment, and some joker is on claiming that Iran is a direct threat to the United States.

I don't see it.

So explain how Iran has the capability of striking the United States with anything other than Hezbollah cells, which our government is (supposedly) enforcing all of its draconian surveillance against.

 

[bad dog]

We should wait till they have nukes to find out. :roll:

 

[The Question]

^^So are their nukes ICBM-delivered, then? They're gonna send a missile halfway around the world when they've got an even more hated enemy a whole lot closer?

And what about North Korea? Aren't they even further along with the nuke thing, and aren't they just as defiant about it, and aren't they openly developing the technology and resources for weapons? Why does our government have the hard-on for Iran when N. Korea's already practically givin' us the lap dance?

 

[bad dog]

I dont know whats going on in N.Korea for sure but my step is in S.Korea in the US Airforce. Something is going on behind the scenes that the rest of us do not know much about. The N. korean Missle have been less than great.

Iran may not be a threat to the usa directly but we are all on this rock together and the USA is not the only ones who do not want them to have nukes.

 

[Ogami]

Well Question, America is dependent on oil. Iran seeks to extend their hegemony over the Arab World through their violent interpretation of the Koran and Sharia Law.

Iran is no more a direct threat on the United States than Germany was when she invaded Poland, or Japan was when she invaded China.

Helpful?

-Ogami

 

[The Question]

Well Question, America is dependent on oil. Iran seeks to extend their hegemony over the Arab World through their violent interpretation of the Koran and Sharia Law.

Great, give me a statement from their government to that effect, and then demonstrate that they're capable of supporting that intention through action.

Iran is no more a direct threat on the United States than Germany was when she invaded Poland, or Japan was when she invaded China.

In other words, she isn't a direct threat to the U.S. At all.

 

[Captain Jack]

Let's see:

Iran can sink oil tankers if they so desire.

Iran can destroy Israel, as well as reach as far as France, I believe.

Iran can supply weapons to Iraqi insurgents, and other terrorists.

So, yes, they can do damage.

 

[The Question]

Let's see:

Iran can sink oil tankers if they so desire.

Which they could have done for a long damn time now. Have they?

Iran can destroy Israel,

Israel's problem, not ours.

as well as reach as far as France, I believe.

France's problem, not ours.

Iran can supply weapons to Iraqi insurgents, and other terrorists.

They can, but until we know that they are... not our problem.

So, yes, they can do damage.

You seem to be having some difficulty with the word, 'directly.'

 

[Captain Jack]

Iran can buy long range missiles, and deliver a nuclear strike on American soil.

Iran supplies weapons and money to Hezbollah.

Iran destroying Isreal IS our problem since they are close allies with the US in the Middle East.

Iran can destroy oil tankers, and refinaries better now than ever before, and are flexing their muscles more now than in a long time. Iran's threats alone affect oil prices, and that affects our economy.

 

[The Question]

Iran can buy long range missiles, and deliver a nuclear strike on American soil.

They can. But until they do, they're not a direct threat.

Iran supplies weapons and money to Hezbollah.

Which has yet to directly threaten the U.S.

Iran destroying Isreal IS our problem since they are close allies with the US in the Middle East.

Iran destroying Israel is not our problem, since that particular ally costs us more than they benefit us.

Iran can destroy oil tankers, and refinaries better now than ever before, and are flexing their muscles more now than in a long time. Iran's threats alone affect oil prices, and that affects our economy.

But their effect on our economy isn't currently a direct threat -- and never would be until or unless they are our only source of oil in the region.

 

[Grammour Boy]

HEH WE SHOULD KILL EVERYBODY IN EVERY OTHER COUNTRY AS THEY MAY ONE DAY REPRESENT A THREAT

BWHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

 

[bad dog]

HEH WE SHOULD KILL EVERYBODY IN EVERY OTHER COUNTRY AS THEY MAY ONE DAY REPRESENT A THREAT

BWHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

You just get right after that little lady.

 

[Ogami]

The Question's attitude is the same of the fellow shopowners of the Jews during Krystalnacht. Question will allow the Jews of Israel to be wiped out, because then that means the appetite of the Islamic fascists will be whetted. Give them what they want, Question argues, and they'll leave us alone.

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

What will the Question say, as they saw through your neck with a dull blade? Appease the islamic fascists all you want, you are still their enemy. And will you will die at their hands, still protesting your impartiality? You'd probably die angry, angry that others didn't come to save you.

Precisely the fate you'd leave the people of the Middle East to at the hands of Islamic fascism. I'm glad we don't agree, although it's ironic that I'm the only one you don't have a "go along to get along" attitude towards.

Wash your neck.

-Ogami

 

[Grammour Boy]

You just get right after that little lady.

SARCASM IS LOST ON YOUR OBTUSE LITTLE HEAD, AIN'T IT BOY?!?

 

[The Question]

Give them what they want, Question argues, and they'll leave us alone.

Really? And where did I argue that?

Precisely the fate you'd leave the people of the Middle East to at the hands of Islamic fascism.

I think they can, and should, defend themselves.

I also think that we are not them; and, furthermore, that we do not owe them. If anything, they owe us.

 

[Ogami]

The Question wrote:

Really? And where did I argue that?

Since you argued that 5 million jews should defend themselves alone against 500 million arabs.

I think they can, and should, defend themselves. I also think that we are not them; and, furthermore, that we do not owe them. If anything, they owe us.

Much of the left is united in fighting their common enemy. Not islamic fascism, of course, but President Bush.

-Ogami

 

[Tyrant]

I'm watching Tucker Carlson at the moment, and some joker is on claiming that Iran is a direct threat to the United States.

I don't see it.

So explain how Iran has the capability of striking the United States with anything other than Hezbollah cells, which our government is (supposedly) enforcing all of its draconian surveillance against.

It isn't.

 

[Tyrant]

http://www.juancole.com/

You'd think that after the Iraq WMD debacle that people would question the claims of Iran's boogeyman a-bomb project.

 

[The Question]

The Question wrote:

Really? And where did I argue that?

Since you argued that 5 million jews should defend themselves alone against 500 million arabs.

I think they can, and should, defend themselves. I also think that we are not them; and, furthermore, that we do not owe them. If anything, they owe us.

Much of the left is united in fighting their common enemy. Not islamic fascism, of course, but President Bush.

-Ogami

Are you high -- again? This isn't about Bush. This is about the U.S. not committing slow suicide for leech "allies" anymore.

 

[Ogami]

Well my attention does tend to drift on political topics, that is the nature of threads. Let's look at your original post again:

I'm watching Tucker Carlson at the moment, and some joker is on claiming that Iran is a direct threat to the United States.

Tucker Carlson lost the bowtie but he's still a total dork. He and his guests suck. (Congratulations on being in his audience of 6, though.)

Iran became a direct threat to the United States when their radical government took our embassy hostage for OVER A YEAR during the cowardly Jimmy Carter administration. The Ayatollah's slogan "American can do nothing" became a rallying cry for Islamic jihad. Furthermore, Iran's deliberate and obvious attempt to attain hegemony over the entire Middle East (as noted by countless commentators from the entire political spectrum) makes them a direct and deadly threat to the United States, our allies in the region, and our interests globally.

I don't see it.

I'm curious as to what Question thinks about American troops being in Germany, South Korea, Okinawa, Bosnia, or any other place they're stationed worldwide. Do you also believe there is no direct threat to the United States in those places, so we should pull all the troops home?

So explain how Iran has the capability of striking the United States with anything other than Hezbollah cells, which our government is (supposedly) enforcing all of its draconian surveillance against.

Fortunately for the United States, we do not have a president who waits while threats to us build and build and build until we are doomed by events. Bush has acted to head off threats from the area quite well, and the harder we push, the harder the Islamic fundamentalists push back. Liberals act like this is a great surprise, these people are bent on power and domination of the region, not because they suddenly don't like Bush.

You say it's not about Bush? It's all about Bush to the left, and we'd be seeing a very different take from the left on the Middle East and the War on Terror if a Democrat were prosecuting it. I think that's sad, but that's politics as usual from the hate-filled left.

-Ogami