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.
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.
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.
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, 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 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, 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.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-
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?
That's true, but MORE rogue nations having nukes is NOT a good thing.
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 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.
LOL! I think you are a minority there. I think it's like giving a gun to a 5-year-old.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?