• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Shouldn't the US fear Iran too?

alphieb

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
31
Location
Vincennes IN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal


Why is Iran not an issue as well? Their leader was talking about how Israel should be removed from the map? Now thats a good leader for ya. You know they hate us equally for our relationship with Israel as well.

http://www.americanthinker.com
 

syzygy

New member
Joined
Jan 1, 2006
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
alphieb said:


Why is Iran not an issue as well? Their leader was talking about how Israel should be removed from the map? Now thats a good leader for ya. You know they hate us equally for our relationship with Israel as well.

http://www.americanthinker.com
we do fear them. there are a number of european states mediating the nuclear issue because they have established diplomatic contacts (embassies and all) whereas we do not. our relationship is still frosty.

iran has a popularly elected assembly and president, grudging political reforms, a number of political action groups, prominent opposition figures, and, ofcourse, the autocratic cadre of non-electable mullahs who are the ultimate power in the country.

these are important differences between saddam's iraq and the current iran, although there are ofcourse painful similarities too.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
iran has a popularly elected assembly and president
You sure about that? Seems to me that I recall the mullah's disallowing any candidates of which they did not approve and Iran winding up, as usual, with an election consisting of one candidate for each office.
 

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,226
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
syzygy said:
iran has a popularly elected assembly and president, grudging political reforms, a number of political action groups, prominent opposition figures, and, ofcourse, the autocratic cadre of non-electable mullahs who are the ultimate power in the country.
Iran is a theocratic Islamic state that is ruled by a small cadre of elite Shi'a clerics. To be a candidate for an elected office in Iran, one must be pre-approved by the 'Council of Guardians'. This council is appointed by the 'Supreme Leader' (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) and consists of six Shi'a clerics and six lay persons steeped in Islamic jurisprudence.

This purposeful vetting process rejects candidates who are not neo-conservative and regime friendly. It also has the effect of making successful candidates beholden to the ruling regime. Of the 89 Iranian women who petitioned for candidacy in 2005, all were rejected by the Council of Guardians. To say then that Iran's secular officials are elected by popular vote is perhaps technically true... but ignores the fact that all slated candidates must be vetted and sanctioned by the ruling clerics.

As for grudging reforms... the president of Iran last week outlawed all forms of Western music in Iran. The ruling clerics have obviously decided that Iran must return to the hardline days of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.



 

syzygy

New member
Joined
Jan 1, 2006
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
oldreliable and tasha:

i agree with your comments, doubts, and questions.

but i think the fact that these electoral processes exist, despite the
restrictions, undercuts the mullah's pretensions and makes a sham of
their autocratic control.

you can't have both a representative system and an autocracy, where
one leans to progressive reforms while the other tugs to maintain the
opposite.

what is an islamic republic but a monstrous hybrid that blends two
irreconcilable forms. islam proceeds from the dictates of the quran
which cannot be reformed through democratic elections. yet in this
so-called theocracy there is a republican element that allows for
individual choice, for the very reforms upon governance the quran
says are not possible.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
but i think the fact that these electoral processes exist, despite the
restrictions, undercuts the mullah's pretensions and makes a sham of
their autocratic control.
Sounds to me like its just the other way round: the mullahs control of the electoral processes undercuts the pretensions and makes a sham of any elections.

you can't have both a representative system and an autocracy, where one leans to progressive reforms while the other tugs to maintain the
opposite.
Iran does not have a true 'representative' system; they have, as described above, a sham representative system. They've been doing it since '79.
 

assassinatedpres20

New member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Location
under U.S. dictatorship
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
We should not fear them, as much as we should respect them. We are going half way round' the world to try and change ways that are so deeply inbedded in the middle-eastern religions that they are almost instinctive.
The only way this war is going to end is when our Gov't actually respects the fact that ppl do have other beliefs.
 

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,226
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
assassinatedpres20 said:
We should not fear them, as much as we should respect them. We are going half way round' the world to try and change ways that are so deeply inbedded in the middle-eastern religions that they are almost instinctive.
The only way this war is going to end is when our Gov't actually respects the fact that ppl do have other beliefs.
I was not aware that we are at war with Iran. More to the point, what do Iran's religious beliefs have to do with violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of which Iran is a signatory?
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
If Israel feels like Iran is a threat then they should take care of them. The United States shouldn't have to babysit Israel. Israel has the greatest airforce in the world, I think they can take care of themselves.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
FinnMacCool said:
If Israel feels like Iran is a threat then they should take care of them. The United States shouldn't have to babysit Israel. Israel has the greatest airforce in the world, I think they can take care of themselves.
There are over 350 possible installations in Iran with nuclear capability. And the upper Northern areas of Iran cannot be reached by Isreali airplanes...

Then what?...
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
There are over 350 possible installations in Iran with nuclear capability. And the upper Northern areas of Iran cannot be reached by Isreali airplanes...

Then what?...
Nuclear capability. . .yes. Whether they can actually be used to make nuclear weapons is disputable. If they didn't, we could leave it up to Israel. If they did we could STILL leave it up Israel. We're a little tied up at the moment. No reason for our soldiers to be killed when other countries specifically Israel are perfectly capable of handling it themselves.

As if we had enough problems in Iraq, we shouldn't now start going to start having problems with Iran. If Iran was the real threat and Iraq wasn't, then you can blame Bush for that.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
FinnMacCool said:
Nuclear capability. . .yes. Whether they can actually be used to make nuclear weapons is disputable. If they didn't, we could leave it up to Israel. If they did we could STILL leave it up Israel. We're a little tied up at the moment. No reason for our soldiers to be killed when other countries specifically Israel are perfectly capable of handling it themselves.
As earlier stated, there are 350 POSSIBLE places...Last I checked, crystal balls are not in production..

Also, you are thinking in too simple terms...

Iran gets nuclear bombs +Iran bombs Isreal=Isreal retaliates(America plays Pontius Pilate)...

Buy whats the answer to this equation?

Iran gets nuclear bombs + Iran gives bombs to Al Qaeda=??????

I think Isreal isn't the only player on that side of the equation...

FinnMacCool said:
As if we had enough problems in Iraq, we shouldn't now start going to start having problems with Iran. If Iran was the real threat and Iraq wasn't, then you can blame Bush for that.
Quite the opposite...Bush would be the one without sin on his soul for this...

The US is NOT one of the countries seeking direct negotiations with Iran in response to its failure to recognize its own signature on the Non-Proliferation Treaty...That would be the European nations(can't remember which exact ones) and Russia...

If Iran becomes a real threat than that would be a TOTAL FAILURE of diplomacy by those nations...They have been negotiating for 5+ years now...

And where has that gotten anyone?...
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
As earlier stated, there are 350 POSSIBLE places...Last I checked, crystal balls are not in production..

Also, you are thinking in too simple terms...

Iran gets nuclear bombs +Iran bombs Isreal=Isreal retaliates(America plays Pontius Pilate)...

Buy whats the answer to this equation?

Iran gets nuclear bombs + Iran gives bombs to Al Qaeda=??????

I think Isreal isn't the only player on that side of the equation...
The issue is not as simple as you make it out to be. Iran has had a long history of having a nuclear program. Whether they actually are planning to make a weapon is, as I have said before, disputable. The only reason Iran is in the spotlight right now is because of Iran's dumbass president who wants to get killed. We've really just got to be sure we're doing the right thing here.

Quite the opposite...Bush would be the one without sin on his soul for this...

The US is NOT one of the countries seeking direct negotiations with Iran in response to its failure to recognize its own signature on the Non-Proliferation Treaty...That would be the European nations(can't remember which exact ones) and Russia...

If Iran becomes a real threat than that would be a TOTAL FAILURE of diplomacy by those nations...They have been negotiating for 5+ years now...

And where has that gotten anyone?...
Your right lets just bomb them.

The reason they are negotiating is because we really need to be sure we're doing the right thing here.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
cnredd said:
There are over 350 possible installations in Iran with nuclear capability. And the upper Northern areas of Iran cannot be reached by Isreali airplanes...

Then what?...
Why can't their planes reach Northren Iran? They have both KC-130's IAF Boeing 707s that they use for refueling all the time. They have several good fighter/bombers that have range upward of 6K Kl.


http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2848/hercules.htm
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
FinnMacCool said:
The issue is not as simple as you make it out to be. Iran has had a long history of having a nuclear program. Whether they actually are planning to make a weapon is, as I have said before, disputable. The only reason Iran is in the spotlight right now is because of Iran's dumbass president who wants to get killed. We've really just got to be sure we're doing the right thing here.
If the only reason was because of a Pesident that's been in office less than two years, then there wouldn't be any negotions with Iran for 5+ years...so that's not the reason...

FinnMacCool said:
Your right lets just bomb them.
Read what you're responding to again before you go shootin' off with the extremes...

If Iran becomes a real threat than that would be a TOTAL FAILURE of diplomacy by those nations...They have been negotiating for 5+ years now...

Those nations would be (logically) more inclined to bomb Iran than the US due to THEIR failure in negotiations...

Of course, that won't happen because they rely on the US to wipe their ass time & time again...

FinnMacCool said:
The reason they are negotiating is because we really need to be sure we're doing the right thing here.
Hey!...You got something right!...:2wave:
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
cnredd said:
can't remember which exact ones)
Who else? France and Germany.

FinnMacCool said:
The reason they are negotiating is because we really need to be sure we're doing the right thing here.
er, what? Please try that one again...

They are negotiating because we really need to sure we're doing the right thing...

Color me confused? :confused: Some clarification would be appreciated!
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
If the only reason was because of a Pesident that's been in office less than two years, then there wouldn't be any negotions with Iran for 5+ years...so that's not the reason...
No. . .the reason Iran is in the spotlight now is because their resident asshole said that he wanted Israel whiped off the map and that the holocaust never happened.

Read what you're responding to again before you go shootin' off with the extremes...

If Iran becomes a real threat than that would be a TOTAL FAILURE of diplomacy by those nations...They have been negotiating for 5+ years now...

Those nations would be (logically) more inclined to bomb Iran than the US due to THEIR failure in negotiations...

Of course, that won't happen because they rely on the US to wipe their ass time & time again...
Your right. They would rely on us which is what they shouldn't be doing. We're gonna have to say to them "**** you. You complain about us whenever we do a shitty job so do it yourself. We get bombed because of bullshit stuff you guys do. We've had enough. **** off."
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
er, what? Please try that one again...

They are negotiating because we really need to sure we're doing the right thing...

Color me confused? Some clarification would be appreciated!
:rolls eyes: I'm sure you knew what I was saying but I'll respond anyways just to humor you people.

They are negotiating because they have to be sure they are doing the right thing.

The "We" came into the picture because I was incorrectly under the assumption that this thread was asking whether we should take military action against Iran instead of negotiate. Need me to explain anything else to you?
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Pacridge said:
Why can't their planes reach Northren Iran? They have both KC-130's IAF Boeing 707s that they use for refueling all the time. They have several good fighter/bombers that have range upward of 6K Kl.


http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2848/hercules.htm
I'm only the messenger on this one...I can only go by what I've read...I'm also the most ignorant person in the world when you start talking about military numbers and letters...For all I know, "KC-130" is a prevent defense formation for the Chiefs...:doh

Here's what I went by...

DEBKA-Net-Weekly 182 just out on Friday, November 19, was the first publication to name the Nour garden suburb of Lavizan in northeast Tehran as yet another covert site Iran has concealed from the IAEA. There, not only is enrichment going forward but also tests on lethal gases and weaponized biological agents.

According to DEBKAfile’s Washington sources, the Pentagon’s most recent game model on military measures to dispose of Iran’s nuclear threat concludes it will be necessary to topple the Islamic republic’s regime at the same time.

The first stage would be a bombing mission against the regime’s primary prop, the Revolutionary Guards.

The second stage would be the destruction of known and probable nuclear sites – a much harder mission given the hundreds of sites known and unknown number and carefully camouflaged underground behind cunning window-dressing. US intelligence estimates as many as 350 sites. It does not have precise knowledge of which are the most important or even which are active. ...


Co-opting Israel’s air might to the operation poses problems too. The Israelis are found to know as little about the locations of installations as the Americans. To reach Iran, Israeli warplanes would have to fly east over Saudi Arabia and Jordan, or north over Turkey. The distance of some targets, such as Iran’s nuclear sites in the Caspian Sea region, is too great for Israeli planes to make the round trip.

Notwithstanding these impediments, America cannot afford to give up its military option and must keep it afloat as a deterrent, say the authors of the Pentagon game model.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1545143/posts

The actual report the above site is referring to...

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=940
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
:rolls eyes: I'm sure you knew what I was saying but I'll respond anyways just to humor you people...Need me to explain anything else to you?
Get pissy if you want to, but honest-to-god, I had no clue as to what you were trying to say.

They are negotiating because they have to be sure they are doing the right thing.
You clearly have no appreciation for how ME politics works.

Now buzz off.:moon:
 

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,226
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Pacridge said:
Why can't their planes reach Northren Iran? They have both KC-130's IAF Boeing 707s that they use for refueling all the time. They have several good fighter/bombers that have range upward of 6K Kl.
Israeli warplanes cannot engage targets deep in Iran and make it back to Israel without refueling. Where to refuel? Iraq or Saudi Arabia? I don't think so. An American aircraft carrier? That would make the US complicit in the attack. Another aspect is that airborne Israeli refueling craft would have to circle the rendezvous point for an indeterminate period. This would surely be detected by Arab ground radar or Saudi AWACS aircraft. Ergo... the element of surprise is thus compromised.

IMHO The only way for Israel to mask a preemptive attack would be to position submarines in the Persian Gulf and strike hard with cruise missiles. At least 15 of the 'critical' Iranian nuclear facilities would have to be destroyed to ensure a successful mission.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Tashah said:
Pacridge said:
Why can't their planes reach Northren Iran? They have both KC-130's IAF Boeing 707s that they use for refueling all the time. They have several good fighter/bombers that have range upward of 6K Kl.
Israeli warplanes cannot engage targets deep in Iran and make it back to Israel without refueling. Where to refuel? Iraq or Saudi Arabia? I don't think so. An American aircraft carrier? That would make the US complicit in the attack. Another aspect is that airborne Israeli refueling craft would have to circle the rendezvous point for an indeterminate period. This would surely be detected by Arab ground radar or Saudi AWACS aircraft. Ergo... the element of surprise is thus compromised.

IMHO The only way for Israel to mask a preemptive attack would be to position submarines in the Persian Gulf and strike hard with cruise missiles. At least 15 of the 'critical' Iranian nuclear facilities would have to be destroyed to ensure a successful mission.
Interesting points. I'm obviously working from an opinion based on limited information. One of my dads friends son's was a US Air force pilot and he trained, or helped train, some Israeli pilots. He was sold on how great the IAF was and what state of the art equipment they had. I was a little surprised to find, in doing some quick research, that they didn't have better air tankers. Perhaps the logistical issues you assert are the very reasons they haven't invested in them.

If Israel can do it with submarines do they still need the US's help?

Personally I thinks it's in the US's interest to protect Israel. Partly due to the belief that it's in our best interest and partly because I think it's simply the right thing to do.
 

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,226
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Pacridge said:
Interesting points. I'm obviously working from an opinion based on limited information. One of my dads friends son's was a US Air force pilot and he trained, or helped train, some Israeli pilots. He was sold on how great the IAF was and what state of the art equipment they had. I was a little surprised to find, in doing some quick research, that they didn't have better air tankers. Perhaps the logistical issues you assert are the very reasons they haven't invested in them.
Israel has a world-class Air Force and has developed many highly technical peripherals for its fighter craft. Many of these Israeli innovations such as the Litning Pod were used extensively by the USAF in the invasion of Iraq. You must understand that the IAF is trained primarily for the defense of Israel proper. Therefore, the need of air-tankers is somewhat problematic.

Pacridge said:
If Israel can do it with submarines do they still need the US's help?
Help no, but acquiescence yes. US submarines in the Persian Gulf would certainly detect foreign submarines operating in the same waters. The US would almost certainly have to be notified that Israeli offensive operations were immanent to prevent fratricide incidents.

Pacridge said:
Personally I thinks it's in the US's interest to protect Israel. Partly due to the belief that it's in our best interest and partly because I think it's simply the right thing to do.
I agree and... thank you.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
alphieb said:


Why is Iran not an issue as well? Their leader was talking about how Israel should be removed from the map? Now thats a good leader for ya. You know they hate us equally for our relationship with Israel as well.

http://www.americanthinker.com
The current Iranian leadership have made inflammatory statements like "Israel should be wiped from the map" and then they state they are pursuing nuclear technology for "peaceful means." The statements from the Iranian leadership make me very uneasy and I am beginning to view them as a potential aggressor who could start a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran which could draw other major, nuclear armed powers into the situation. After making such statements towards Israel, if I were the Israelies, I would build up my nuclear arsenal even further, increase military spending much more and start developing an anti-missle defense system, because it seems to me, that the Iranian leadership do not wish to negotiate in good faith and are a genuine and real threat to the very existance of Israel. The only way for Israel to survive is by being able to guarantee the complete and totally extinction of everyone in the Middle East. So then, any arab nation who acquires a nuclear weapon will know that if they use it on Israel, they too will be wiped from the map and exterminated. This, Israel must do in order to survive. Then, when their is a change in mentality in the Arab world, only then can such honest and genuine negotiations could begin and bring about a true lasting peace and nuclear weapons reduction.
 

FreeThinker

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
1,001
Reaction score
34
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
alphieb said:


Why is Iran not an issue as well? Their leader was talking about how Israel should be removed from the map? Now thats a good leader for ya. You know they hate us equally for our relationship with Israel as well.

http://www.americanthinker.com
The liberals in america make us impotent against such things. Their incessant ranting about the minimal deaths in Iraq have the american public so tired of hearing about it that we as a nation are unwilling to deal with another iraq type problem.

I am not of course saying we should start bombing Tehran. But serious steps need to be taken to prevent iran from becomming another 3rd reich. Steps such as sanctions.

Of course the moment there is an embargo when iran refuses to allow a UN inspection team in, the New York Times is going to run a front page story about iranian children starving to death due to the evil empire (america's) sanctions.
 
Top Bottom