• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran accused over Washington terror plot

theplaydrive said:
It's not "weak" to show restraint.
Click to expand...

You're thinking like an American Liberal, not like an Iranian firebrand government honcho, which makes your perception of, "weak", irrelevant.
 
apdst said:
You're thinking like an American Liberal, not like an Iranian firebrand government honcho, which makes your perception of, "weak", irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Actually, I'm thinking like someone who's interested in a conservative foreign policy and you are clearly unaware of many conservatives who feel the same way if you think that's a "liberal" position. I agree that the Iranians would perceive it as weak. I, however, am not an Iranian. And no, my perception is not irrelevant because I don't believe in starting wars just because the Iranians will think I'm weak if we don't. That's probably one of the dumbest reasons to start a war ever.
 
apdst said:
If they devised a plan, like the one the IDF used in the 6-Day War, they could hit our air assets, while they're still on the ground and do a lot to even the playing field.

Unlikely? Possibly. Impossible? Nothing is impossible.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, positively, no doubt about it...impossible!

Our airforce is ENORMOUS compared to Iran's. And the vast majority of it is where Iran cannot reach it. On top of that, they would not surprise us so easily.

Look, our air assets alone could bring Iran's entire military to it's knees within a few weeks. But don't think we'll do it. It's not weakness by any stretch. Major operations like that are costly. We have more important concerns at home.
 
So, Obama has presided over a number of legally questionable assassinations and people feel the Iranians see him as weak at this point in time?

Oh partisanship, never change.
 
EagleAye said:
Absolutely, positively, no doubt about it...impossible!

Our airforce is ENORMOUS compared to Iran's. And the vast majority of it is where Iran cannot reach it. On top of that, they would not surprise us so easily.

Look, our air assets alone could bring Iran's entire military to it's knees within a few weeks. But don't think we'll do it. It's not weakness by any stretch. Major operations like that are costly. We have more important concerns at home.
Click to expand...

I think we should drop fake bombs full of cheezy poofs and signs that say "coulda blowed up your ****! Ha hah!"

This would be constructive.

It would demonstrate our ability to penetrate their defenses, without providing them with anything for their propaganda machinery.

And what would Iran do about it?

Be mad, really really mad.
 
Ben K. said:
So, Obama has presided over a number of legally questionable assassinations and people feel the Iranians see him as weak at this point in time?

Oh partisanship, never change.
Click to expand...


I think it's a bit over simplistic to say continuing and expanding drone missile strikes automatically make a President look strong or, at least, NOT weak. It takes a bit more than that....
 
Instead of denying-denying-denying, Iran should step up and say they are attempting to locate Gohlam Shakuri, the supposed Iranian official who is party to this terrorist plot. Of course they will deny. They know it is going to be very difficult to tie the government to this plot...but, nonetheless, the Iranian government should move to show the United States that they will investigate the matter on their own.

I could imagine sensible people having a conversation like this:

Us -- "Hey! What the hell's going on?? We have what we think is reliable information that a member of your government coinspired with an American citizen to assassinate the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the U.S. We've got the American citizen in custody; the other guy has returned to your country. How about a little help here to investigate what's going on? Sounds like you might have a loose cannon.

Them -- You've got to be kidding me. That's just impossible. The Iranian government is absolutely not involved in any plot to assassinate anyone. We'll put out an APB on this guy; and when we have him, we'll let you know so you can come here to interrogate him. If he's gone rogue, we want to know about it as much as you do."

But, of course, that ain't happenin'. Ha!
 
Ockham said:
I think it's a bit over simplistic to say continuing and expanding drone missile strikes automatically make a President look strong or, at least, NOT weak. It takes a bit more than that....
Click to expand...

And regime change in Libya...
 
EagleAye said:
Absolutely, positively, no doubt about it...impossible!

Our airforce is ENORMOUS compared to Iran's. And the vast majority of it is where Iran cannot reach it. On top of that, they would not surprise us so easily.

Look, our air assets alone could bring Iran's entire military to it's knees within a few weeks. But don't think we'll do it. It's not weakness by any stretch. Major operations like that are costly. We have more important concerns at home.
Click to expand...

Not if Russia and/or China decided to intervene. They're quite the oil buddies with Iran.
 
Ben K. said:
And regime change in Libya...
Click to expand...

Well according to the current White House administration, we had little to nothing to do with Libya. It was the U.N., the UK and France.
 
justabubba said:
the proof of iranian government involvement in this is as solid as the presence of WMDs in iraq

mossad false flag? probably too clumsy
saudi false flag. more likely. at least as likely as this actually being an iranian enterprise
Click to expand...

There's little proof the government of Iran had any involvement....so it obviously must be the evil JEWS or the Saudi's even though there is significantly less (zero) proof suggesting that to be the case then there is suggesting it's Iran.

God I love the logic of people like this.
 
Erod said:
Not if Russia and/or China decided to intervene. They're quite the oil buddies with Iran.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't intervene "militarily," but they would raise a major stink about it. There would be tremendous political fallout from striking Iran. It simply isn't worth it for one (that we know of) assassination attempt of a "foreign" diplomat on US soil.

Personally, I would prefer that the highly-educated and cosmopolitan people of Iran get rid of the Iranian government themselves. They don't trust the government and certainly don't "like" it at all. They're a bit disgusted with the Khomeinis "telling them who they voted for." I'd prefer for them to take care of their own business.
 
MaggieD said:
I could imagine sensible people having a conversation like this:

Us -- "Hey! What the hell's going on?? We have what we think is reliable information that a member of your government coinspired with an American citizen to assassinate the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the U.S. We've got the American citizen in custody; the other guy has returned to your country. How about a little help here to investigate what's going on? Sounds like you might have a loose cannon.

Them -- You've got to be kidding me. That's just impossible. The Iranian government is absolutely not involved in any plot to assassinate anyone. We'll put out an APB on this guy; and when we have him, we'll let you know so you can come here to interrogate him. If he's gone rogue, we want to know about it as much as you do."

But, of course, that ain't happenin'. Ha!
Click to expand...

Yup. That's pretty much SOP in political circles. Even Pakistan knows how to play that game.

Of course, the obvious follow on phone call goes something like this, "We found him. Yes. Sorry, but he's dead. Yes, I know you wanted to interrogate him, but that's real difficult when he's dead. Well, apparently he fell in the shower. No. Let's see...he broke both legs during the fall and then fractured his skull multiple times. Finally, he drowned in two inches of bath water. Clearly it was a tragic accident. What? Yes, that's our official stance, it was an accidental death..."
 
Personally, I am somewhat skeptical of this as it is too sloppy for Iran. This isn't Iran's style. From the article:

Mr Holder described the plot as an "international murder for hire scheme" involving a plan to pay an assassin from a Mexican drug cartel $US1.5 million to carry out the killing.

If Iran wanted to assassinate someone, why would they use a Mexican drug cartel?

Why was the entire thing planned on US soil? That's quite risky. I mean, if you want to assassinate a diplomat, it'd be pretty easy to do, but everyone knows that US security, police, and intelligence are on the look out for even a mention of terrorism, thus your chances decrease greatly.

Finally, if Iran had succeeded, what would they have gotten out of it? How would it have furthered their interests? The plot would have been investigated and would have been linked back to Iran, thus they could have had Saudi Arabia and Israel wanting to attack them and everyone knows that if Israel attacks Iran, America is right there with them. Thus you'd have the world's superpower (US), a regional superpower (Israel), and a major regional power (Saudi Arabia) all bombing the crap out of your country. While the Iranian government may act crazy, they aren't stupid. Thus, I have to wonder why Iran would even do this. (Please note that I am not saying its impossible, but it looks a bit strange is all.)
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Personally, I am somewhat skeptical of this as it is too sloppy for Iran. This isn't Iran's style. From the article:

Mr Holder described the plot as an "international murder for hire scheme" involving a plan to pay an assassin from a Mexican drug cartel $US1.5 million to carry out the killing.

If Iran wanted to assassinate someone, why would they use a Mexican drug cartel?

Why was the entire thing planned on US soil? That's quite risky. I mean, if you want to assassinate a diplomat, it'd be pretty easy to do, but everyone knows that US security, police, and intelligence are on the look out for even a mention of terrorism, thus your chances decrease greatly.

Finally, if Iran had succeeded, what would they have gotten out of it? How would it have furthered their interests? The plot would have been investigated and would have been linked back to Iran, thus they could have had Saudi Arabia and Israel wanting to attack them and everyone knows that if Israel attacks Iran, America is right there with them. Thus you'd have the world's superpower (US), a regional superpower (Israel), and a major regional power (Saudi Arabia) all bombing the crap out of your country. While the Iranian government may act crazy, they aren't stupid. Thus, I have to wonder why Iran would even do this. (Please note that I am not saying its impossible, but it looks a bit strange is all.)
Click to expand...

on the other hand, what countries are motivated to gin up an excuse for the USA to take out iran's nuclear facilities
 
justabubba said:
on the other hand, what countries are motivated to gin up an excuse for the USA to take out iran's nuclear facilities
Click to expand...

Well, I think that may be going a bit too far as the US doesn't have the manpower to invade Iran and Israel is busy dealing with the current Arab Spring and protests in their own nation, as well as trying to kill the Palestinian UN bid. So the usual suspects have their hands full at the moment.
 
EagleAye said:
Absolutely, positively, no doubt about it...impossible!

Our airforce is ENORMOUS compared to Iran's. And the vast majority of it is where Iran cannot reach it. On top of that, they would not surprise us so easily.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what the Egyptians thought, too. Look how that turned out for them.

Don't think they couldn't surprise us. We are talking about the same country that missed 130 thousand Soviet troops invading Afghanistan.

And, never under-estimate your enemy.

Look, our air assets alone could bring Iran's entire military to it's knees within a few weeks.

But don't think we'll do it. It's not weakness by any stretch. Major operations like that are costly. We have more important concerns at home.
Click to expand...

We're not going to do it, because Obama doesn't have the nads.
 
I never knew having brain cells was exclusive to having nads.
 
MKULTRABOY said:
I never knew having brain cells was exclusive to having nads.
Click to expand...

Of course you didn't. ;)

A leader needs to have both. Obama barely has one of the two.
 
apdst said:
apdst said:
If they devised a plan, like the one the IDF used in the 6-Day War, they could hit our air assets, while they're still on the ground and do a lot to even the playing field.
Click to expand...

[EagleAye said something to the effect of No Way Possible]

Yeah, that's what the Egyptians thought, too. Look how that turned out for them.

Don't think they couldn't surprise us. We are talking about the same country that missed 130 thousand Soviet troops invading Afghanistan.

And, never under-estimate your enemy.
Click to expand...

I hope you're just being sarcastic, or perhaps only considering US aircraft in Iraq. Otherwise, you're very funny, and we must consider the following:

Distance from Tehran to New York: 6,121.44 miles or 9,851.24 kilometers. You must add 3,000 more miles to hit Pacific Coast US aircraft.

Iranian strike aircraft combat ranges

- Mirage F1
Combat radius: 425 km (230 nm, 265 mi) hi-lo-hi at Mach 0.75/0.88 with 14 × 250 kg bombs
- Mig-29 (note: I couldn't find combat radius for the mig-29, so the max range - larger value than combat radius - is provided)
Range: 1,430 km (772 nmi, 888 mi) with maximum internal fuel
- F-14
Combat radius: 500 nmi (575 mi, 926 km)
- F-4E
Combat radius: 367 nmi (422 mi, 680 km)

Important Note: Iran does NOT have air-to-air refueling capability. Aircraft ranges are absolute.
Note: the F-4E and F-14 aircraft have not been supplied with spare parts for decades. It's doubtful that any are flyable.

If we presume Iran sends its 40 Mig-29s on a one-way suicide mission they'll run out of fuel and crash 8,421.24 kilometers short of their target.

Thanks for the laugh, dude. That was a very funny exercise.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom