Richard Clarke speaks on Iran

[cynatnite]

"Iran is the No. 1 world sponsor of terrorism," said Richard Clarke, ABC consultant and former national security official.

"Iran has a host of instruments they could throw at us, and they are much better organized and well-equipped than al Qaeda. And in the event of a U.S. attack on Iran, you could expect attacks on the U.S."

The United States believes Iran is attempting to produce nuclear weapons. Iran denies the accusation, saying it intends only to generate electricity. The U.N. Security Council has demanded Iran give up uranium enrichment, a crucial part of the nuclear weapons production process. Washington is pressing for sanctions if Tehran, Iran's capital, continues its nuclear program.

Clarke said that Iran had three terrorist organizations it sponsored or controlled. The most important is the Lebanon-based paramilitary organization Hezbollah, which destroyed the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 and killed 241 Marines. Hezbollah is suspected in the 1996 attack on the Khobar towers in Saudi Arabia.

Iran also has control over Shiite militias in Iraq and has its own special forces called the Qods Force. These three organizations make al Qaeda look like a kindergarten, Clarke said.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1798825&page=1

[Warpy]

1. Ask someone well versed in Turkish history about war against

Persia (Iran). The Ottomans fought several, most to a tie, and won one. The head of the Empire said that another victory like that one would destroy the empire. It can be argued that successive wars against Iran were what finally did the Ottoman Empire in.

Clarke is right about them, but if we leave them alone, they are likely to moderate. The problem now is that they're being pushed into hardening the already hard line. They'll continue to put the biggest nut cases they can find into office because they feel that's what they need against Stupid and his band of war crazy radicals.

There are so many reasons we need to get this gang out of office, but their insane policy toward Iran is one of the biggest ones. I doubt we can survive 3 more years of their having unchecked power.

[C_U_L8R]

3. Bush is intentionally provoking them

hoping to elicit a response.
Typical schoolyard bully tactics.

[Guaranteed]

6. Yup. He WANTS more terrorist attacks. nt

[cynatnite]

5. I do think Iran is dangerous

But bush's policies have only worsened it. If Gore or Kerry was in office negotiations would already be underway and we wouldn't be facing this threat from bush.

I'm far more afraid of bush than I ever could be of Iran. I'm hoping someone can keep this nut's finger off the button.

[Roland99]

2. Richard Clarke has become quite the apologist.

I'd listen to Lieberman over him.

[MsMagnificent]

4. He's always been an ultra-hawk

I'm not surprised.

However, did he or anyone else for that matter discuss with what army we're going to use to attack and occupy Iran? We're active in 2 countries right now and can't even handle what we're already into, so how could we possibly, if sane, invade yet another country?

[berni_mccoy]

7. No invasion... just bombing/nuking

Bush doesn't plan to invade. Just bomb/nuke their infrastructure and oil supply.

[MsMagnificent]

13. Is that all? Oh, *whew* then

;)

:hi:


And if they step up the aggression to our bombing? What then, I wonder.
They would truly be insane to use nukes, but I think the American people will stop that.

Clarke, even though still a hawk, is no dummy that's for sure.
IF we weren't already in the position we are presently in I'd be more amenable to considering a certain amount of aggression.
But * has cried 'Wolf' so many times already I cannot believe anything for sure, which could end up being the worst thing * has done to America. It's exactly akin to the Wolf parable, when the wolf really comes...

Bottom line, for me, is that Iran is at least 5 years away and *'s regime 2.5 years (he'll never be impeached as long as we are still in one-party rule) -- let the next, hopefully more honest administration look into it;
and God help us all if it's another Neo-Con government...

[Roland99]

14. And the Iranian populace will magically rise up and overthrow the mullahs.

As Hersh's contact was quoted as saying, "What are they smoking?"

[cynatnite]

8. Clarke is not advocating invading Iran

He's warning what would happen if the US would attack. I trust his knowledge.

"U.S. policymakers have to be thinking a move ahead," Clarke said. "They have to assume: If we attack Iran, Iran will attack us. So what's step two? Do we bomb Iran even more? Where does that get you?"

[Disturbed]

9. "Just bomb/nuke their infrastructure and oil supply."

Iran's response to that might be?

[Cha]

12. Good..when I saw Richard

Clarke on Jon Stewart's he seemed to be pree-ty savvy!

[MasonJar]

10. He is not promoting war against Iran; he is letting us know that if

we attack the country, they will retaliate here and abroad against us. Just now on majority report Sam and his guest are discussing the possible attack on Iran. They have said that Iran was moderating until Bush and his Axis of Evil. After that the Iranians elected this hardliner nut (Iranian equivalent of Bush.) I believe Bush is looking for a legacy; Iraq didn't do it so now he's going to try Iran. They call him messianic (sp).

[LittleClarkie]

11. Plus an army that isn't just going to collapse when we get there

You think Iraq is a quagmire. You haven't seen a real quagmire yet. Even my Republican friend think that would be folly. Iran has a younger generation that is moving toward democracy. If we went in there now, we'd fuck up what could evenually happen without us.

Thrillsville.