• 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 is heating up . . . [W:259]

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,664
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
An Iranian military commander said that his country has detailed contingency plans to strike nearly three dozen U.S. military bases in the region should Iran be attacked, Iranian media reported Wednesday.Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force, told reporters the U.S. has 35 bases around Iran and all are "within the reach of our missiles" and could be hit "in the early minutes after an attack," according to an English-language report from Iran's semi-official Fars News Agency. The bases were no threat but instead an "opportunity" for the Iranian military, Hajizadeh said last month, according to Fars.
Hajizadeh's claims come as the IRGC conducts a major military exercisein which it has fired a barrage of missiles at "mock enemy bases" set up in the Iranian desert. Another IRGC commander, Brig. Gen. Hossein Salami, told reporters Tuesday the main aim of the drill "was to demonstrate the Iranian nation's political resolve to defend [its] vital values and national interests," according to Iran's state-run Press TV.

Iran: We Can Hit 35 US Bases in 'Minutes' - ABC News

This may be the next President's first challenge. So help me God!! If we send troops in there, I'm marching in the streets.
 
Iran: We Can Hit 35 US Bases in 'Minutes' - ABC News

This may be the next President's first challenge. So help me God!! If we send troops in there, I'm marching in the streets.


Why? Don't you want the Iranian people to be free of the mullahs?


BTW, don't let the saber-rattling scare you. Before we took Iraq down, people were saying "OMG! WW3!!!" and "Nukyuler Epoxyclips!" and "Oh they'll shoot missles at Israel and the whole Middle East will go up in FLAMES!!! Russia and China will get involved!! EEK!!" and so on....


Didn't happen.
 
The last thing both Romney and Obama want is Iran causing trouble before the election.


Tim-
 
If Obama wins and has to take down Iran, I hope the democrats will then realize and admit that it would have been 10 times more difficult if Saddam Hussein was still in Iraq. I have always thought that was part of the rationale behind closed doors though I have zero evidence of it. It was just the more logical conclusion I could reach.
 
we need to nation build here at home. if Iran's regime is to change, it has to be done by Iranians. outside pressure will do more to help the current regime than anything else.
 
If we send troops there, it will be just as big a mistake as sending troops to Iraq. Actually, it would be bigger because Iran is bigger and has a better military.

That said, Iran does make a lot of threats. Then again, a lot of states in history have made threats, but what every government must do is determine which threats are credible because if we take every threat as credible then we would enter wars that were unnecessary every other day and that would be stupid, expensive and sad for all the families who lose their sons and daughters for no good reason.

The problem with how the American government, mainstream media and much of the public treat Iran's threats is that all three tend to three all of Iran's threats as credible. The thing is, there isn't much reason to believe that their threats are credible. It's also worth noting that Iran consistently says that it is preparing itself to attack IF IT IS ATTACKED. That qualification waters down the threat even further. As far as I'm concerned, concerns about Iran are much ado about nothing.
 
we need to nation build here at home. if Iran's regime is to change, it has to be done by Iranians. outside pressure will do more to help the current regime than anything else.

We did it in 1953, we can do it again.
 
Probably the only way we would put boots on the ground other than rescue missions for downed pilots would be if the oil fields were ignited and we had to provide protection for the teams to go in and put those things out. Rumor has always been that Iran maintains explosives on their well heads and have vowed to blow up everyone if the US ever attacks it. I am skeptical that is true, but some could go up with all the ordinance flying around.
 
If we send troops there, it will be just as big a mistake as sending troops to Iraq. Actually, it would be bigger because Iran is bigger and has a better military.

That said, Iran does make a lot of threats. Then again, a lot of states in history have made threats, but what every government must do is determine which threats are credible because if we take every threat as credible then we would enter wars that were unnecessary every other day and that would be stupid, expensive and sad for all the families who lose their sons and daughters for no good reason.

The problem with how the American government, mainstream media and much of the public treat Iran's threats is that all three tend to three all of Iran's threats as credible. The thing is, there isn't much reason to believe that their threats are credible. It's also worth noting that Iran consistently says that it is preparing itself to attack IF IT IS ATTACKED. That qualification waters down the threat even further. As far as I'm concerned, concerns about Iran are much ado about nothing.

I certainly don't support any war either, but I think the bigger issue than threats at this time is the nuclear capabilities being developed.
 
Well, Iran may be able to "hit" 35 American bases (Which I doubt very much) in minutes but in that same time frame we could turn his country into one big ashtray, so... No one ever said the despots were the brightest crayons in the box, eh? :)



Tim-
 
Probably the only way we would put boots on the ground other than rescue missions for downed pilots would be if the oil fields were ignited and we had to provide protection for the teams to go in and put those things out. Rumor has always been that Iran maintains explosives on their well heads and have vowed to blow up everyone if the US ever attacks it. I am skeptical that is true, but some could go up with all the ordinance flying around.

or if they invaded the country who we consider a friend, and our duty to protect. I just hope to God this doesn't get us even more entrenched in the armpit of the world than we already are.
 
we need to nation build here at home. if Iran's regime is to change, it has to be done by Iranians. outside pressure will do more to help the current regime than anything else.

Well they are building a 3 story deep underground steel reinforced concrete "gas and sewer line" facility next to the West Wing and the POTUS is going to be kicked out of the Oval Office for a year as that whole part of the WH complex undergoes major renovations, so at least we are building something in the US. :)
 
I certainly don't support any war either, but I think the bigger issue than threats at this time is the nuclear capabilities being developed.
Well, according to the IAEA, there isn't any solid evidence that Iran is actually develop nuclear weapons. Therefore, any arguments about Iran based on them developing nukes is based on assumptions (sounds like Iraq at all?). Now, do I think they're developing nukes. Probably, but then again, they could just be bluffing with their secretive behavior. That said, even if they are developing nukes, the consequences of that development have been greatly exaggerated by the government and the mainstream media. There isn't any solid historical or current evidence that nukes would set off arms race in the ME, there isn't any solid evidence that Iran would hand off nukes to terrorists and there isn't solid evidence that Iran would use nukes as a "first strike" (aka attacking Israel unprompted).

I agree that Iran should not have nukes, but the problem is so comically exaggerated by the mainstream media and the government. Iran needs to be watched, worked with and contained, not attacked and I frankly think that the alarmist rhetoric of people like Obama and Romney makes the situation more dangerous than it has to be.
 
Well, Iran may be able to "hit" 35 American bases (Which I doubt very much) in minutes but in that same time frame we could turn his country into one big ashtray, so... No one ever said the despots were the brightest crayons in the box, eh? :)

Tim-
Well, they are bright, which is why they aren't going to attack anything unless they are attacked first. They understand that the United States could destroy it and they don't want to be destroyed.
 
I certainly don't support any war either, but I think the bigger issue than threats at this time is the nuclear capabilities being developed.

Forgive me if I'm ignorant. but I've never understood how it would be any different if Iran received Nuclear Weapons. Plenty of other crazy/suicidal regimes have had them (Soviet Union under Stalin and Communist China under Mao Tse-ung to name two) and they were never launched. Why would now be any different?
 
Forgive me if I'm ignorant. but I've never understood how it would be any different if Iran received Nuclear Weapons. Plenty of other crazy/suicidal regimes have had them (Soviet Union under Stalin and Communist China under Mao Tse-ung to name two) and they were never launched. Why would now be any different?

That's true, but MORE rogue nations having nukes is NOT a good thing.
 
I believe the immediate urgency has been prompted by their effort to develop a rocket capable of carrying a warhead combined with a belief they are close to having warhead grade uranium.
 
Well, according to the IAEA, there isn't any solid evidence that Iran is actually develop nuclear weapons. Therefore, any arguments about Iran based on them developing nukes is based on assumptions (sounds like Iraq at all?). Now, do I think they're developing nukes. Probably, but then again, they could just be bluffing with their secretive behavior. That said, even if they are developing nukes, the consequences of that development have been greatly exaggerated by the government and the mainstream media. There isn't any solid historical or current evidence that nukes would set off arms race in the ME, there isn't any solid evidence that Iran would hand off nukes to terrorists and there isn't solid evidence that Iran would use nukes as a "first strike" (aka attacking Israel unprompted).

I agree that Iran should not have nukes, but the problem is so comically exaggerated by the mainstream media and the government. Iran needs to be watched, worked with and contained, not attacked and I frankly think that the alarmist rhetoric of people like Obama and Romney makes the situation more dangerous than it has to be.

I totally agree with most of your assessment except what I colored in red. Why do you think that and how would you know that? Maybe they aren't exaggerating at all. I would not doubt if Iran has bad intentions against Israel at all. They say they will do it if they have opportunity. Who are we to doubt the words out of their own mouths?
 
I agree, but I don't believe it will make a large difference if they develop a Nuclear Weapon. I don't trust the Iranian's, but I don't distrust them either.

LOL! I think you are a minority there. I think it's like giving a gun to a 5-year-old.
 
Why is IRan an enemy of the USA?

Iran hasnt attacked anyone in over 200 years
 
LOL! I think you are a minority there. I think it's like giving a gun to a 5-year-old.

What do you know about Iran and its people - and where did you source that information?
 
Back
Top Bottom