Iran threatens retaliation if America attacks

Ooooo boooh. Like, of course, right now they are being friendly and helpful. This sort of thing is like a cancer warning me that if I have it operated it will become twice as cancerous to spite me.

That's ok...I would respond with, "if any American interests anywhere in the world are harmed, the black rock in mecca will be disintegrated". POOF!!!!

Cowards!!! Like the United States wouldn't have all bases covered on that issue. Khamenei must not be up on military strategy. Our military leaders know the nature of the Islimic beast and the "U.S. intrests" would be throughly covered. Ayatollah Kham is a big dofus if he thinks that the jihadists are going to have a easy time of it.
This is a sign that he Iranian government and their military isn't up to the task of a head to head confrontation with the United States militarily. Kham dosen't know it but, he just raised Iran's dress and exposed their undergarments. He needs to shut his mouth and use the puppet president to do the talking.
Dofus!

Current Iranian Government Foreign Policy - A comparison with inadequate man syndrome.

Example 1. Said man wants a big fierce dog to show how tough he is, he keeps warning everyone he is getting one.

Which is a display of;

Example 2. Shouting threats and stamping feet in an attepmt to gain respect.

Advice - Shut up little man otherwise you might get a smack you are not expecting.

If you attack us we will blow up your grocery stores, bus stations and malls because it is allowed under our religion that we target them!

The infidel US spends more money than the rest of the world combined to make sure a missle can enter a 2nd floor window on the west side of a building from 1500 miles away to avoid killing innocents...

Test time - Anyone spot the difference?

Moose

I posted this yesterday, but it's just as fitting for this post:

Everyone here and everywhere else should remember that Iraqis and Iranians fought each other to a standstill for 10 years. US and coalition forces swept through Iraq the first time like a hot knife through butter as the fearsome Iraqi army fell to their knees begging to be captured due to starvation and dehydration. Then, years later, the same forces swept through, showed no sign of stopping this time, and drove the mighty Sadam into a rat's hole as the whimsical 'Baghdad Bob' kept spouting "there's nothing to see here ...no US tanks in the streets ...just ignore we're being invaded!"

These people are all hot air. Each one keeps shouting louder than the one previous. Just keep these as reminders whenever a little bit of doubt wants to creep in ...we will eventually (hopefully sooner rather than later) deal with this blowhard and if we were as barbaric as they are, we would display his ugly head on a pole so high as to make anyone who doubts we mean business to truly tremble in pants-filling fear.

Ironman, you could become my next ex-husband!!!!!

Free Woman;

"Oh BOY!!!"

Since when (and I hope it is when and not if) we destroy the Iranian nuclear program, the US will NOT be invading Iran, we have to accept that they will do all they can to make us pay for our actions. What could they have up their sleeve?

Certainly Hezzbollah can kill some Israelis, and in turn screw up Lebanon still further. Perhaps Israel will extend its counterstrikes into Syria, but I doubt it, since the US will want to restrain them, and they will oblige, because the Iranian nukes are made primarily for Israel. Any attacks on shipping through Hormuz will be temporarily disruptive, but no more. I am sure the Iranian navy and coastal batteries would provide an interesting afternoon for the fleet. Iranians will infiltrate Iraq and Afghanistan still further. In other words, Muslims will pay for Iran's stupidity. They will try to drive up oil prices any way they can, perhaps through proxies in Saudi Arabia attacking infrastructure. Frankly, the worse the oil situation gets, the sooner Americans will realize action is really necessary to develop new energy sources. Maybe this will be a big favor from Iran after all.

Maybe they have something else up their dirty sleeve? Ahmadinejad is just so triumphal about the whole thing, what if they have some scheme that no one has considered? Suppose they got their hands on a few nukes already?

"Suppose they got their hands on a few nukes already?"

If they EVER used nukes, you can bet the USA would respond in kind, and with a lot more effect. Most of their military locations would be reduced to cinders, and possibly their cities as well. Israel would use their nukes against Iran is Iran gave nukes to ANY of their client terrorist groups.

The mullahs that run Iran might welcome the next world. but somehow I doubt that the general public in Iran is as anxious as they are to meet Allah, so internal revolt is a distinct possibility. Note that the suicide bombers as NEVER the leadership, always the stupid folowers.

Quijybo,

I really believe that they have some nukes already, mid way through last year they made lots of celebratory noises about being able to strike back at the great Satan.

I read it that they had managed to purchase at least one nuke from North Korea, we should also remember those Ukranian missiles that ended up in Iran.

I wavered back and forth about the current Iranian situation. I felt reluctant to rush into a military solution because up until the recent Iranian elections I would have been in favor of resuming diplomatic relations with Iran as Iran had what looked like the best chance to shed the silly Islamic Republic thing as a failure and pursue democracy. Since then I have learned it is not just this Iranian President, but the Iranian people too who want nukes and are strongly nationalistic. And democracy in the Middle East has been proven itself to be an excuse for legitimizing Terrorist controlled states run by Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, etc.. The Palestinian elections have sent a clear message about what kind of hostile position the people of the Middle East want to take towards the rest of the world.
I'm not a supporter of defending Israel, 'nuff said on that--its just my opinion and not part of this discussion. But the vitriol this Ayatollah and the Iranian President have said/threatened have sent a clear message to to me as a post 9/11 American that Iran must be acted on. Try sanctions first and if it becomes necessary then try the bunker busters. Not since Afghanistan have I approved of the Bush administrations willingness to use military force as I do now with Iran.

One thing is for sure is we can all learn from a bit of history. IraN is no IraQ. Iran is not a cakewalk operation by any means. The human waves sent against Iraq in the 80's war were a most effective weapon and the zealotry of Islamic ideology persists. There is no short supply of volunteers from other Islamic nations too.

I guess what we need before we proceed is a clear conscience. We have to commit to this wholeheartedly and realize that it will take a ground war to complete and that Iran will use what are ordinarily termed civilians as weapons. We have the weapons to neutralize this particular threat, we just need the backbone to carry it out. I would think an embedded press PR stunt would not go over too well in this kind of war...

Utilmately, I for one am convinced by these kinds of words of the Islamics that it must and will be done.

I think quijybo raises an important issue, the rhetoric we are hearing from Iran would appear to indicate that they have something a bit more potent than cavitating torpedoes and stealth boats. We should keeep this in mind, nuclear technology is over 60 years old, wide spread and with enough money you can buy anything.

If they EVER used nukes, you can bet the USA would respond in kind, and with a lot more effect.

Posted by: kenprice at April 26, 2006 12:05 PM

This is probably very true but we need to keep in mind that a nuclear strike of even limited size will have a global impact and effect lives in the US as well as countries that are close to Iran.The best option is to utilize conventional forces to challenge the regieme and to do it quickly before the situation escalates and drags more countries into the conflict.

Right now we need a sustained air campaign to take out military and government infrastructure. Failure to do so will put millions of lives at risk and jepordize the long term stability of Israel and possibly the world.

What I fail to understand is what is taking those with their hands on the levers of power so long to initiate a response, do we really have to wait until they detonante a nuclear device in a western city or over Israel.

GreatShaitan,

I am not sure I am convinced of the necessity for a ground invasion at this point. I am not saying it will not be necessary, but I think the current situation lends its self to an air campaign and then a fall back to a safe point to see how the situation develops.

The reason for this line of thinking is that there is still the possibility of the people of Iran rising up and and overthrowing the theocracy should the Mullahs loose the ability to enforce Islamic law.

I agree though that something needs to be done sooner rather than later.

We fully expect that Iran will "retaliate if America attacks", that's a given!

GreatShaitan
Human wave tactics went out with Napolean. Militarily, Iran is no match for the U.S. and that is a fact, not my personal estimate. As many have already observed here there is not a need to march around patrolling in Iran to render them a little less dangerous. You are wrong about the necessity for a "ground war".

Iran will harm US interests anywhere in the world if America launches an attack.

Such a comment from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is more significant than comments by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as "The Supreme Leader" is head of the Military and not the president.

Even though the IAEA reports this Friday, the Iranians know that Russia and China will veto any attempt at sanctions.

Isreal is the one in immediate danger, I wonder who will have the courage to take action against Iran.
France, Britain, Germany, or any of the other European countries perhaps ?

I think we willl just have to wait and see

These muslim idiots are forgetting the old saying, what goes around ,comes around. And I think America's "come around" is way worse than their "goes around".

This will be going to the UN (in)Security Council this week. Russia or China will veto the use of force when the issue arises.

Force will be the only path available. The problem is that satellite photos suggest that their nuclear facilities are so far underground that conventional weapons and bunker busters will not destroy the targets. Therefore, a tactical nuclear strike is an option. How viable or palatable that is to liberals remains to be seen. Fortunately, they are not calling (or launching) the shots on this one.

Offer the next hippie a one way ticket to Tel Aviv when he chants, "Hands off Iran!" If Iran goes nuclear, he won't be coming back!

Let us suspend reality for a moment and suppose Iran intended to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes. They could still give the radioactive waste to Palestinians or any terrorist group.

PS: Why does a nation sitting on a sea of oil need to develop an alternative energy source???

Therefore, a tactical nuclear strike is an option. How viable or palatable that is to liberals remains to be seen. Fortunately, they are not calling (or launching) the shots on this one.

Posted by: McCain2008 at April 26, 2006 01:57 PM

The real worry is that those opposed to military action for whatever reason manage to stop even a conventional attack at this point.

Every option needs to be availiable when dealing with this situation. But to go nuclear at such an early stage in the conflict would in my opinion cause more harm than good.

Militarily Iran is no match for the west even if you factor out our nuclear potential.

Human waves may be tactically as outdated as Napoleonic era but they have been used by the Chinese in North Korea and The Iranians in Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#Human_Wave_Attacks_in_the_Iran-Iraq_War
Beaming TV images of the wholesale slaughter necessary to repel that into homes throughout the world will not make everyday people feel better about war, in fact it may be used politically to make people have second thoughts.

I don't say the intention of ground troops would be to police Iran, it would be to achieve the goal.

I can't imagine how ground war is ruled out if the only legitimate targets, nuclear research/enrichments sites are unreachable by air strikes and GBU-28 weapons. Surface nuking is all very "Dr. Strangelove" and all that, but the realities of fallout affecting other countries makes it less than likely option.

Iranians charging Amercian lines is a one way ticket to martyrdom which is right up the Islamists alley.

I think nuking Iran is a no option-option. Perhaps special forces somehow entering the underground nuclear sites after ariel bombardment and then destroying those sites.

I think ground war is not an option since the Americans are tied up every where else unless the Euros want to contribute the boots....HA!

Don't forget about the "new" bunker buster bomb to be tested near Las Vegas in June.

Of course, this story never seems to appear on the news, and whenever it appears in the Press here in Britain, it is always portrayed as the Iranian David who wants to live in peace, being threatened by the American Goliath. There might be romance in the FA Cup about the Davids slaying the Goliaths, but if the Ahmadinejads slay the West, it'll be no romance, only a never-ending nightmare of Sharia for all of us. Our Press and media are devoted to bashing Blair at every opportunity, but never tell us what we are up against. No wonder the folks in Britain are so uninformed and so unprepared for what is about to hit them if nothing gets done about Ahmadinejad. But that is how our Press and media want the British people to be - gullible and uninformed as regards Islam, and this knowledge gap is never better emphasised than when uninformed relatives of those killed in atrocities like Bali etc appear on television meekly asking some unseen deity "What drives the hatred in these people?", and it is all because they're never told why simply out of political correctness, and worse still, they come to media-driven conclusions like "It happened because of Israel, Government policy, neocons, poverty - anything but Islam". And because of this PC-driven culture and the espousers of it in the press and media, our politicians dare not say a wrong word about Islam. To do so would amount to political suicide, and because of that basic fact, more blame has to be put on the shoulders of the voters than the politicians themselves, because the average British voter still regards those who criticise Islam in any shape or form as bigots, fascists and racists, even after all the terror atrocities we have seen in the last decade alone. If Blair described Islam in anything remotely like the terms used by Sir Winston Churchill in the River War, he'd be forced to resign courtesy of the most vicious campaign of character assassination ever waged by a media. Likewise, if Winston Churchill were immortal, he would be unelectable in the world of today because the passages of his book "The River War" would be used to relentlessly smear him and describe him as another Hitler (now that would really rankle him). The MSM would probably compare it with Mein Kampf. Look at how Robert Kilroy-Silk lost his jobs, both on TV and in the media for daring to criticise Islam in his column in the Daily Express two years ago. We didn't win the Cold War with the intention of one day having Iranian nukes targetting our cities. But that will happen, and worse, and all thanks to our Blair and Bush-bashing, PC-obsessed, political axe to grind Press and media.

Paper Tigers.......That's all I have to say about Iran.

Before the twin towers had even crumbled or the final bomb blast ripped through a double decker bus, Bush and Blair were fawning over Islam as "The Religion of Peace".

Obviously, we must extend protection to Mosques and Muslims. However, it is wholly unnecessary for politicians to state that Islam is peaceful, if they know better! Sadly, most do not (yet).
They seem to spew these conciliatory sentiments like an orphan from Olver Twist...
"Thank you, Islam. May I have another?"

Who gets their butt kicked and then defends their attacker? That is ridiculously-self annihilating-political correctitude.

"he [Churchill] would be unelectable in the world of today because the passages of his book "The River War" would be used to relentlessly smear him..."
-- from a posting above

And his description of Muslims does not date, but impresses more and more, the more you read it. Why should it date? Islam has remained Islam. There has been no new interpretation of Qur'an or Hadith. Nothing new in Islam or the beliefs of Muslims. All that is new is the ability of Muslims to conduct Jihad, mainly due to the trillions of dollars receved because of an accidet of geology.

Don't the Iranian ayatollahs understand that we can then respond in even greater kind should they resent seeing the nuclear amibitions go 'poof' and get cute?

Or do they think that Afghanistan and Iraq were flukes?

Or that Americans and their allies are afraid of their fatalistic idiocy?

They may need to re-read the history of the months July - August 1945.

Kamikazis are a nuisance we've fricassied before.

"The Americans should know that if they assault Iran their interests will be harmed anywhere in the world that is possible," the supreme leader of the country, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said today.
===============

Yeah, yeah, yeah.......

Lets just get it started so we can clean up this mess and start living again.

Iraq's bill is aspproaching $400,000,000,000 that is 400 hundred billion dollars. $1,333 for every American.

Nukes cost a lot less and are a lot more effective. Just ask Japan.

Do not depend on Bush doing anything but keeping his oil buddies in American and the ME making billions off America.

We get 20% of our oil from the ME. We can save 20% of our energy if forced into it like America did during WWII.

Abandon the ME and leave it to europe and asia.

Do you think that plans have not been made by the US federal government to keep the illegal Mexicans in America and then take over Mexico and South America and their oil????????

Problem solved.

Prepare.
Be armed.
Be ready.

The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.

kamikazis are a nuisance we've fricassied before.

Posted by: profitsbeard at April 26, 2006 08:43 PM

LOL :-)

Iran will harm US interests anywhere in the world if America launches an attack,
WHAT, they have been launching attacks on American embassies for the last 25 years, how long do they expect us to sit back and do nothing, we are not that stupid, or are we????

Spirit of 1683 & Hugh,
I wasn't aware of the Churchill comment you both mentioned so I checked it out and I think it bears mentioning for others who may not be familiar with it. Interesting stuff and so true.

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=137

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property‹either as a child, a wife, or a concubine‹must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science‹the science against which it had vainly struggled‹the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."