Welcome to PatsFans.com

Requesting a serious discussion about Iran

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PressCoverage, Sep 27, 2007.

  1. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    for all our disagreements, there are some rather smart people in this forum...

    that being said, i would like to pool knowledge concerning the growing hints of inevitable U.S. conflict with Iran, and discuss scenarios, predictions and realities our overstretched, financially strapped nation would face if the neocons have their way...

    i'll start by asking some specific questions: ...

    1) is it not true that Iran has medium range ballistic missile batteries throughout their massive nation capable of hitting American targets in the region within minutes notice? 2) do the drum-beating optimists here honestly believe our air force will neutralize every missile battery they possess? 3) and lastly, are you bottom-line war proponents willing to sacrifice a U.S. base or air craft carrier for the "hope" of regime change in that country?

    i ask more based on what you've read and learned, not what you feel... please...
  2. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0



    Given some of your comments toward me on other threads on this forum I do not know if you would like to include my observations in your call for discussion, but I do have specific views and recommendations on this issue.



    //
  3. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    Go away, come back when you can act like a grown-up!:mad:
  4. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,720
    Likes Received:
    158
    Ratings:
    +503 / 2 / -9

    I think the whole world should condem and shun Iran until they can get some Homosexuals shipped in to become part of their population and learn their culture.
    :bricks:
  5. FreeTedWilliams

    FreeTedWilliams pfadmins PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,309
    Likes Received:
    48
    Ratings:
    +118 / 31 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    Thier is a very large Iranian population in the United States, and unlike other Arab countries, the people of Iran, (before Jimmy Carter) can remember living in a Western style culture. So if the muslim were overthrown, I don't think it would be that hard to install a representative government there.

    Iran is behind everything that is going on in Iraq, they are supplying both the terrorists and the weapons and they must be stopped. If anyone didn't think that Aminijadad wasn't insane before, I think his perfomance in NYC has sealed the deal.
  6. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    What a wonderful opening paragraph from someone purportedly interested in a "serious discussion"... :rolleyes: Anyway...

    Before I address this question, let's make one thing clear: Oftentimes when someone talks about "ballistic missiles" (i.e. intercontinental ballistic missiles, ballistic missile submarines, etc.) they often really mean "nukes". Iran may have medium range missiles, and these missiles may technically be considered "ballistic missiles" (I am not going to debate that notion at this time but I am not sure I agree with it 100% either), they are not laden with a nuclear payload. So we're still talking about conventional weaponry.

    To answer the question... Considering we have recently established a base of operations about 10 minutes from the Iranian border, then yes I would certainly agree we have bases within striking distance with virtually no notice.

    I don't think that would happen, nor do I think that would be an objective.

    It is impossible to answer a question based on a faulty premise. While I believe an Israeli or joint Israeli/American strike on Iran will happen sooner or later, it will not be with the goal of regime change. It will simply be a surgical strike on various strategic nuclear sites designed to set Iran back about 25 years or so. Iran simply does not have the capability to take out an entire aircraft carrier or U.S. base - and God help them if they did.

    Now that I've answered your questions, perhaps you could answer mine: What's the problem with doing that..? Would you rather just sit back and do nothing while Iran develops nuclear weapons...?
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2007
  7. Tunescribe

    Tunescribe PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    16,356
    Likes Received:
    266
    Ratings:
    +667 / 5 / -14

    #61 Jersey

    I once met an Iranian who coached for that country's olympic team while the Shah was in power. He was a bright guy, coached track and field at the high school level here. We talked for a bit about Iran and in conclusion he told me something I'll never forget. He clenched his right fist, held it up to my face and said, "Iranians understand only one thing: THIS on the nose, real hard."
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2007
  8. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    His speech really showed that he was nuts. His religious ramblings were disturbing. I don't want anyone to have nuclear weapons but I find it impossible to say we should be allowed to have them, while we forbid others from having them. Says who? How can we try to enforce non-proliferation when we're spending tens of billions to upgrade our planet-killing arsenal? Once again, we speak from our arses.

    That being said, regardless of who was the leader in Iran, the presence of US forces next door in Iraq leave the Iranians no choice but to do everything in their power to evict our assets there. What do you expect them to do, sit there and do what they're told? What would you do if you were in their shoes? If the Chinese were in Canada, would we sit around and wait for them to cross into Montana and Maine? I doubt it.

    This is all a mess of our own making. The US blaming the Iranians is like a crook blaming a guy who lives in Dorchester for buying a .44 to protect his family from burgulars.
  9. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,958
    Likes Received:
    181
    Ratings:
    +414 / 5 / -2

    Iran uses a Shahab (type 3 & 4) Missle that is basically a juiced up, newer version of the Scud. It's not nuclear, but can carry bio & chem. Anyhow, the Shahab carries a 2,000-2,500 lbs warhead, and isn't all that accurate, nor reliable like most of our weapons systems are. The problem with the info you get from IRan, is that you don't really know how accurate it is. For all we know they could have Chinese long range missles, that would be far more powerful and accurate. Militarily Iran doesn't stand a chance in a face up fight. They're more capable than the IRaqi Army was, but still not a contest for our weapons and technology. The problem with fighting Iran, which I oppose, is twofold. First, it would mean chaos and casualties in Iraq. Iran has influence in Shialand, and they could make life tough there, while also lobbing in some missles at our bases. Second, any military action versus Iran would have the wrong effect on it's populace. As it is right now, there is a sizable pro-democracy (I know "but they are democratic") class in that country. It's namely made up of the younger age group. Attacking their homeland might spurn them to become nationaistic, and thus supportive of their government.
  10. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,958
    Likes Received:
    181
    Ratings:
    +414 / 5 / -2


    Many middle easterners say the same thing about the people in there country. It has to do with being raised under oppressive rule. Some have said that this is why we've had problems in Iraq. That our equality and civility don't work there. That we needed more of an iron fist, or should have puppeted a Hosni Mubarak type government there.
  11. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

  12. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    that's fine... but why comment at all then?... anyhow, take care...
  13. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,831
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +20 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    Okay...

    We all are aware of this administration's policy about the middle east.

    it can be summed up in one word "PILLAGE" . I submit to y'all, the Pillage People:

    http://www.springtheme.com/images/villagepeople.jpg



    they want to attack Iran in the worst way, and could care less if it starts a global war. There is only one thing left for them to do, convince the american public. Its a drn good thing that the people of this fine nation are not easily manipulated, and don't believe every talking point they hear. Its a wonderful thing when politicians will stand up for the people instead of corporations who profit from such a conflict.....Oh.....wait...


    we are FUKCED!
  14. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0



    Since you started the thread I was giving you the chance to say whether you wanted to hear from me. You answered. Fine, indeed.


    //
  15. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    What a moronic statement.
    Iran has a democracy. Right now. People will say it's somewhat restricted, but how is it any different from our democracy, where only the elite can truly be elected to Congress or the White House?

    We could care less about spreading 'freedom'. Iran used to have a Western democracy until we toppled it in 1953 simply because we didn't like their policies. We prop up dictators in South American and elsewhere who support our policies, and topple democracies that go against what we want.

    Don't kid yourselves.
  16. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    A strike may put Iran's nuke program back a couple of decades; but how far back will it put US/ME relations? Striking Iran in that manner seems like getting a new credit card to pay the balance off on the one you have. It only delays the problem while making it that much worse. I'm going on the assumption that no matter what, Iran will eventually have nukes and that they'll get them before we have a working missile defense system or a solid means of detecting smuggled nukes at our borders.

    As it stands now we have the technology to know with 100% certainty where the fissile material from a detonated bomb originated. This means that if Iran makes a bomb and passes it off to an independent terrorist group, we'll know it was them. They need to know that our response to that will be cataclysmic for their entire nation, period. That, peace overtures, and any diplomatic delays to their nuke program we can win are our only sensible, long-term solutions IMO. M.A.D. worked to mitigate our troubles with the 'crazy' Commies in the USSR. It'll work here too at least until the magic missile shield is ready. (The missile shield I'm more than willing to pay more in taxes for, LOTS MORE, btw.)
  17. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,958
    Likes Received:
    181
    Ratings:
    +414 / 5 / -2

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
    I agree bud. Striking Iran would have more of a negative effect than it would positive. Penny cheap, dollar foolish. I've said before, both in here and elsewhere, that I think Iran will eventually go nuclear, and that there is very little we can do about it. What I would tell them in the hall when no one is looking, or even in public maybe, is that should they use them, they'll be glass. :D
  18. fleabassist1

    fleabassist1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    3,104
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    #12 Jersey

  19. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

  20. Wotan_the_Wanderer

    Wotan_the_Wanderer Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    882
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Yes, Iran has "medium range missiles" though a clarification on what medium range is necessary. They test fired a missile with a range in something like 2,300 km in late spring/early summer of this year. I'm not sure what the results of these tests revealed and I'm also not that sure about the size, extent and capacity of their various missile weapons program and arsenal since the date and opinions tend to be rather disparate. In addition to their domestic program, they also have Chinese missiles as well as North Korean missile and domestic off-shoots. The DPRK missiles are junk. You'll recall that Saddam shot off a series of North Korean Scuds during the first Gulf War on towns like Haifa, Israel. They failed to detonate and a great deal of the damage was done by the falling debris and our own Patriots missile interceptors than the Scuds. You'll also recall the broo-ha-ha over North Korea's testing of the so-called "long range missiles." Well, this ended in utter embarrassment for the North Koreans when the so called state of the art, long range missile that would "threaten" US shores and livlihood failed to even make it into international waters. The Chinese missiles I suspect are more reliable and advanced provided they make is past Mattel's recall notice.
    :rolleyes:

    I'm downplaying such a threat only because I think this is looking at it from a misguided vista. If the US and Iran were to engage in military conflict, why the hell would the Iranians do so conventionally by a mean it simply could not match and one which is destined for quick and utter failure. Rather than try to match American firepower via lobbing missiles, Iran would solicit al-Qaeda and Hezbollah to do their war bidding at a level that would make the insurgency in Iraq look mild in comparison. Let's not forget that Hezbollah has proven in the past its effectiveness in combating the US during the 80s when it killed some 250 Marines in Beirut with one incident.

    Said all this and especially considering that the US war-planners and strategist know well the nefarious, unconventional course such an armed conflict would have on US civilians throughout the region, the world at large and on homeland US in particular, I just don't see that there's a military solution for many reasons.

    Sure, Russia and China have expressed their agreement in the Security Council that they too do not want to see a nuclear Iran, something an overwhelming majority of the world agrees upon, yet when it comes down to the meat and bones of the matter, ie a military solution, there's no way in hell they'll sign off on it. Increasingly, we know that the post-cold war era is one that's become polycentrist and as such, we should not neglect that Iran has applied for membership to the Shanghai Consortium, a group that can be said to resemble NATO of the Asia. Russia and China are already leading members along with Pakistan, and other oil rich former USSR blocs nations and have conducted joint military exercises together. Though China would most likely sit on the fence and see how the situation plays out so that it can later scoop in without having offended anyone in an effort to most capitalize on resources, Russia will veto any military action brought in front of the Security Council to protect one of its Shanghai allies.

    Further, even within the EU nations, there'll be some resistence. Understand that Germany and particularly Italy have a great deal to lose in terms of lost trade should Iran be turned into a battlefield. Italy's trade alone with Iran is somewhere in the $1.3 billion area annually, and Germany's annual trade with Iran isn't that far behind. UK and France also conduct significant amount of trade with Iran, but we know UK will stand by the US and we're getting every indication that France has its own agenda when it recently chose to side publicly with the US on the issue.

    Thus, there's just too much to lose by the so-called economic leaders of the globe to support a military solution in Iran and the cost in lives should the US go bilaterally or multilaterally with US and UK and/or US, UK, France and Israel would be too great.

    Also, the US militarily is in no shape to engage Iran due to our forces having been over-deployed for years in Afghanistan and Iraq. What also came as a reviting revelation of late is Washington Post reporter Dana Priest's assertion that her military sources have told her that the "military would revolt" if orders to attack Iran were issued.

    So the issue then comes down to a diplomatic solution, and it always has been about finding the right diplomatic solution just as it was with during the North Korean nuclear stand-off.

    Lastly, what perplexes me the most now, is the course Congress has chosen to pursue when it officially branded the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a "terrorist organization." It again reeks of politicking on a crucial matter and reeks again of ignorance much like Congress signing off on Bush's plan to invade Iraq. Do our leaders simple refuse to learn from their own mistakes? Do they not realize that the AGIR represents the great majority of the Iranian armed forces whereby labeling the major, controlling military apparatus of Iran a terrorist outfit only brings the various factions within Iran's military and political complexes together against the US and her allies? Can they not tell the difference between the Basij and Quds forces?

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>