Iran Threatens U.S. With 'Harm and Pain'

Originally Posted by Bradylama

The problem concerning Iran, as Wesker pointed out, is ending their nuclear capability, and since the Iranians aren't nearly as close to getting the bomb as people think they are, it's simply a matter of locating all of their nuclear facilities, and taking them out from the air. Not the easiest of tasks, but it's not as if we wouldn't have enough time.

The Iranians are full of shit IMO, as is all governments. But according to them, they'll have a bomb on the 8th of next month...

Source:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...5/165149.shtml

Quote:

Khamenei: Iran Will Have Bomb in April

April 8, 2006 could turn out to be an ominous date in history - that's the day Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei says that Iran will have a nuclear weapon.

Late last year Khamenei gathered his top advisers for a strategy meeting and told them "it has been promised that by April 8, we will be in a position to show the entire world that we are members of the club."

This presumably refers to nuclear weapons, according to National Review Online Contributing Editor Michael Ledeen, who offered an inside look at the top-level meeting.

Among the assessments by Iran's leaders:

* The U.S. is seriously divided and President Bush is paralyzed, unable to make any tough decisions - and therefore unable to order an attack against Iran.
* Israel is also divided. Netanyahu has opposed Sharon (the meeting took place before Sharon's stroke) and no strong government is possible, so Israel too is unable to order an attack against Iran.
* Since the mullahs are confident that Iran will soon acquire nuclear weapons, there is no longer any need to play stalling games with the West.

But if the Iranian leadership has come to believe it has little to fear from the West, there are clear signs of trouble within the regime, Ledeen reports.

Khamenei is said to be fighting a losing battle with cancer, and a succession struggle is already underway. The government has stepped up repression of groups suspected of opposing the regime, and President Ahmadinejad recently canceled most foreign travel by government officials, which is "not the sign of a confident mullahcracy," Ledeen writes.

What's more, the Iranians may be misreading the U.S., says Ledeen. He writes that the perceived "paralysis" of America is "nothing more than a replay of the usual blunder committed by our enemies, who look at us and see fractious politics," only to learn that "free societies are quite capable of turning on a dime and defending their interests and values with unanticipated ferocity."

Another bullshit story or not? Who knows! But, Iran is becoming a joke to most people here in the states I think, because they come off like all talk with no substance... :eyebrow:

There's nowhere I can't reach.

How much you want to bet that their bomb opens up with a flag that says "Boom" when it enters Israeli airspace?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Don't really care one way or another! I am all for them keep shooting themselves in the foot until someone does take action against them for not knowing when to shut up. Whether it's militarily or sanctions...

Seems there's way too many people with their heads in the sand, trying to think there's nothing seriously wrong with those nutjobs! Well, the nutjobs with power over in Iran. The people themselves seem okay, but really, everything that their government says just screams insane!

EDIT: Not to say my government is any better. But shit, those in Iran seem to need a straight jacket or something...

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

In Vietnam, America had superior air, sea, and army power and they still lost terribly.

America didn't lose 'terribly' - America lost because the politicians who were telling the military what to do wouldn't allow the military to do what it needed to do to cripple the enemy, which it was certainly capable of doing with great ease.

The U.S. Army was never defeated militarily by the Vietnamese, but rather, it was defeated by the politicians and civillian protesters at home.

Morale is a motherfucker.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Sound's familiar. "Dolchstosslegende" anyone?

What I really don't get is why western politicians didn't accuse Iran of producing nukes (which the Non-Proliferation Treaty they signed does not allow) right from the start, instead of voicing concerns about the civil nuclear program (which Iran has every right to mantain). They want us all scared and out of our minds about oh-so-evil Islam and WMDs anyway, why the foreplay?

Most amazing jew boots

While you could make an emotional comparison to Dolchstosslegende, Vietnam was not the same situation, and placing the blame is a matter derived from observable evidence rather than the scape-goating of a non-nationalist ideal.

Vietnam was ultimately a war that politicians commited American resources to, without actually committing themselves to winning said conflict. The concerns, then, would be that the escalation of said conflict outside of Vietnamese borders would potentially start World War 3 as the Russians directly intervened on behalf of the North Vietnamese, or the Laoations. Keep in mind, that Cassus Belli for the United States was that the existance of a recognized government (South Vietnam) was under threat of invasion, and that it required protection.

The resulting problem, then, was that Americans were forced to engage in a limited conflict where they could not win, yet were forced to continue engaging in said conflict because politicians did not want to seem soft on the spread of Communism. Does that sound familiar?

FELIPE NO

Quote:

And I'd like to see how the U.S. does without the powerhouse manufacturing cache that is China.

The US dooes most of its defence manufacturing in the US, does it not?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I think he meant economy in general, you know, all that offshoring by US firms.

@ Bradylama
Yes, the way you put it is conclusive and I agree with you, but Phoenix' argument sounded more like "we would have won if the civilians had know their place and kept quite", which for one thing is half of the truth at most (since after a victory in 'nam, WWIII might have been next) and was very remnicent of aforementioned mentality in Germany after WWI.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Cyrus XIII

Yes, the way you put it is conclusive and I agree with you, but Phoenix' argument sounded more like "we would have won if the civilians had know their place and kept quite", which for one thing is half of the truth at most (since after a victory in 'nam, WWIII might have been next) and was very remnicent of aforementioned mentality in Germany after WWI.

Night Phoenix is right. The U.S. won the battle of the Tet offensive, but civilians, such as Walter Cronkite, painted the tet offensive as a picture of doom and gloom, portraying the image of a defeated US military, which in turn fed the anti war crowd red meat, causing opinion to turn against the war. There is no real comparison the post WWI germany, a nation which was soundly defeated by its foes, a nation in deep economic and mental depression. The US was never close to being defeated in this way.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

What ultimately led to the Dolchstosslegende was that Germany was never invaded. While they were on the losing side of the war at the time of Germany's surrender, the people still held out a hope of resistance and stalemate. Yet, despite never being invaded, the Germans were divided and marginalized by the Treaty of Versailles. This was inconceivable to the Germans, as to those at the home front, the war wasn't lost.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Kalekkan

It'll be interesting to see if China and Russia go along with sanctions against Iran or veto. They are both political and economic allies however it's believed that in the long-term Russia would lose benefits from not going along with the sanction and most don't seem to think that China would stand up alone for Iran.

question... what make Russia and China give support over US to bring Iran over security council? I feel there is a missing link here. I couldnt understand why Russia and China turn their back on Iran. Perhaps US pressed them over certain issues?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Or perhaps adding a nuclear power to a region strife with social unrest doesn't serve the purposes of Russia and The People's Republic. Keep in mind, the Russians have been bending over backwards to try and convince the Iranians to preserve a civil nuclear program by refining all Uranium used in Iran on Russian soil. That way, Iran could transition to a nuclear economy while circumventing the ability to develop nuclear weapons.

That's not what Iran wanted. When push comes to shove, the Russians and Chinese can't afford a nuclear Iran.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

And I'd like to see how the U.S. does without the powerhouse manufacturing cache that is China.

Its not like its a one way thing either. It might even be worse to china to lose the US as a trading partner, but lets be realistic, its not going to happen.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

question... what make Russia and China give support over US to bring Iran over security council? I feel there is a missing link here. I couldnt understand why Russia and China turn their back on Iran. Perhaps US pressed them over certain issues?

Russia is the deal-breaker here in my opinion. Iran supports Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism which in the long run is not in Russia's best interests. With the Chechnya region so close to Moscow, they have much to worry about in the case of a strong Islamic fundamentalist terrorist movement. There are also the neighboring countries which could grow to be a threat. Also, the western nations are pretty united in regards to imposing sanctions against Iran. Russia does not want to be in bad relations with them in the long-term. At the same time they have to worry about trying to keep balance in eurasia and positive relations with China. So Russia doesn't want to alienate the west and they don't want to alienate Iran or China either. I expect that they will try to abstain on most decisions and sit on the fence. Any action whatsoever will likely lead to negative long-term effects for them. The question is though, which has a better future? Will Iran, with its current regime, still be a good ally after everyone has their guns pointed at them?


Then there is China, if Iran has no other major powerful allies then what would China have to gain from supporting them? The current Chinese government would support the best business decision in this case which would likely be to eat the hefty investment that they put in Iran's oil. This is unfortunate for China as they will need that oil to continue their growth at a rate which they are comfortable with. However, their growth cannot continue if there is nobody to buy their products. Their economy is tied heavily to US consumerism as well as many other nations. Basically, China is going to take a hit on costs of their overall production but it's better to do that than to lose all of their clients.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

The U.S. Army was never defeated militarily by the Vietnamese, but rather, it was defeated by the politicians and civillian protesters at home.

Morale is a motherfucker.

Wow, and I always thought that the US was defeated because the GIs were not trained in jungle and were no match for the hit and run tactics of the Viet Cong and their local knowledge.

Invading Iraq was very easy, since the country is only a flat desert, but the Iran has many mountains which is great for hit and run tactics.

Here you can see a topographic map of the Middle East.
http://vlsi.ee.duth.gr/~nkroup/mypage/iran/map.jpg

Powerful as many world power may be, no one is invincible! Remember:
We thought that the US was invincible, but they were defeatet by the Viet Cong in Vietnam.
We thought the Soviet Union was invincible, but they were defeated by the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Weak as the Iran may be, do not underestimate her!

I know, those Mullahs there may be wackos, but I think that even they know that if they nuke America, that Ameica would nuke 'em back.

How ya doing, buddy?

Quote:

Wow, and I always thought that the US was defeated because the GIs were not trained in jungle and were no match for the hit and run tactics of the Viet Cong and their local knowledge.

That was the case in the beginning of the war, but as the Army began focusing on small, coordinated unit tactics, they began beating back the Vietcong every time. Of course, what was ultimately the problem was that there could never be enough troops to secure every village, every road, and every jungle.

Militarily, we had the Vietnamese beat. The AK-Ms were much better infantry weapons at the time, but what American troops lacked in small arms they made up in air power, artillery, and mobility. It wasn't necessary to kill the enemy directly when you could pin them down and call in a fire mission to destroy an entire acre. The Viet Cong were destroyed as an effective fighting force during the Tet offensive.

Further historical corrections:

Quote:

We thought that the US was invincible, but they were defeatet by the Viet Cong in Vietnam.

America was defeated by limited conflict. It was like sending the military into a war with their hands tied behind their back, and the Army was never able to defeat the enemy at its roots, i.e. North Vietnam.

Quote:

We thought the Soviet Union was invincible, but they were defeated by the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The Soviets were defeated by the combined facts of low cost effectiveness, and the inability of the Russians to project air power as the Afghans were supplied Stinger missiles by the CIA. They were never defeated by the Taliban. In fact, the Taliban was only one of a myriad of guerilla groups fighting the Russians, and when the Russians left, Afghanistan descended into a civil war between these armed factions. It was ultimately the Taliban, though, that rode into Kandahar and declared themselves the ruling faction of Afghanistan. People supported the Taliban because they would rather have theocratic order than warring chaos.

Quote:

Weak as the Iran may be, do not underestimate her!

In the scenario presented by destroying Iran's nuclear capability, the only concern for the West is Iran's air power, which compared to NATO, is practically non-existant. An occupation of Iran is absolutely unfeasable.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Wesker

They have missles that can hit most parts of Europe, and even with conventional warheads this can wreak havoc. Their Su-24 Fencer bombers are very effective low level attack jets that can esily hit Israel and beyond, not to mention U.S. carrier groups. They on't be the pushover that Iraq was.

No Iranian missle will ever touch an American carrier group. Our carriers are far to well defended for that to happen. The anti-missle defense systems on those ships can shoot down planes or missles at more than 1 mile out.

Iran is going to get put in her place, one way or another. They are weak compared to any of the other military powers in the world, especially so compared to the United States. Besides, if Iran were stupid enough to actually use that nuclear weapon on Israel or any other world power they would seal their own fate. Anyone remember the Samson Option?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Gumby

No Iranian missle will ever touch an American carrier group. Our carriers are far to well defended for that to happen. The anti-missle defense systems on those ships can shoot down planes or missles at more than 1 mile out.

You seem very sure of this. It might be justified if Iranian missiles were of an Iranian design. Unfortunately for that ever-so-sure premise, the Iranians have probably been sold Russian SS-N-22 Sunburn anti-ship missiles, which are designed specifically to get through the anti-missile defenses of American carrier battle groups.

Also, when talking about planes and missiles in this Jet Age we live in, one mile isn't really all that far.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

The NIMITZ-class self-defense measures include: missiles, guns, and electronic warfare. The NATO Sea Sparrow Missile System is comprised of two launchers with eight missiles each. Sea Sparrow is a radar-guided, short-to-medium range missile capable of engaging aircraft and cruise missiles. NIMITZ-class also has Close-In Weapon System mounts for short range defense against aircraft or missiles. Each mount has its own search and track radar, and a six-barrel, 20-millimeter Gatling gun capable of firing 3,000 rounds per minute

Source Here

These systems have proven to be extremely effective inconjuction with each other in defending our carriers. As for my reference to 1 mile that is the range of the gatling guns.

Most amazing jew boots

Not to mention that the rest of the battle group is designed to protect the carrier. That's why they exist. They'd never touch our carriers, don't kid yourselves. (Yes, before someone brings up the USS Cole, I'm talking about conventional warfare.)

I was speaking idiomatically.

And what if the warhead was detonated outside of the intercept range? The explosion and turbulent waters may not be enough to sink the battle group, but the threat of Fallout is certainly enough to force it to withdraw.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Use of a nuclear weapon on a CBG? Right, that's very conventional warfare.

FELIPE NO

In case you haven't noticed, sir, the very source of this dilemma would be the Iranian's desire to acquire nuclear weapons.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

In case you haven't noticed, sir, the very source of this dilemma would be the Iranian's desire to acquire nuclear weapons.

You must be in the realm of fantasy to think that a nation would use a nuclear weapon to force the withdrawal of a carrier group via fallout. Besides the cost in building a nuclear weapon, the ecological effects to the countries own region would be horrible. They maybe crazy but they aren't that stupid.

Besides nuclear weapons are not conventional weapons, their main purpose is used as a deterrent. No country outside of the United States has anything close to a conventional nuke.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Perhaps that's why a nuclear deterrent would keep American CBGs out of the Persian Gulf.

Seeing as how Wesker was talking about Iran's capability to deliver nuclear arms, we're apparently talking about two entirely different things.

Most amazing jew boots