It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How fast is Iran catching up to U.S. in terms of military?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kamangir
Iran's military is nowhere near as strong as the US's. Whether Iran is catching up technologically I think that's true for most things (e.g. missiles, nuclear, tanks, artillery, air defence, infantry equipment) and false for others (e.g. air power, high-tech weapons like lasers). Frankly, I suspect that much of the US defence budget is wasted.

But I think that's really the wrong question to ask. Iran only needs to improve so that the costs of invading Iran outweigh the benefits. By developing military, as Iran now is, the costs are rising every day and, arguably, even today it would not be worth the US invading. Iraq is a cakewalk compared to Iran.

I think military spending doesn't reveal the whole picture. Once technology has been researched, it can be "acquired" for a fraction of the cost. The cost of Iran's acquisition of certain Russian and US technology is much less than when it was first developed by those states. Besides, there are many other force multipliers, e.g. terrain, doctrine, morale, logistics.

I don't think the CIA has much of a clue about Iranian military spending to be honest. Their intelligence penetration of Iran is woeful. Until a couple of years ago, the CIA put Iranian spending at around $10 billion but then they halved it out of the blue. That's simply incredulous if you consider Iran's current security situation. Personally, I think Iranian spending is around $12 - 13 billion with an addition $1 - 2 billion on military R&D not covered by the main budget. If half of that was spent on Russian combat aircraft and air defence for three years, the US would never seriously consider attacking Iran.


The CIA knows more about your country than you do. Thats why they are in the business of spying. They are dam good at it too. As for catching up to the US. Your country is nowhere near the US in ANY category. It would take you another 200 years to have the submarine capability we had in the 70's. That goes for basically everything else to. Do you even have an aircraft carrier?

Budget wasted, hahahaha anymore baseless cliams?

As for invading, why does everyone think we want to INVADE Iran. If we went to war with Iran, it would be the same thing as Iraq, complete utter air dominance, naval dominance and ground forces dominance. Then we would have to deal with the always cowardly last ditch urban guerilla warfare just like the scum terrosists are doing know, and they are LOSING by the way.

Train




posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by NumberCruncher

Originally posted by Kamangir

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Iran ofcourse can not compete with the US directly but they still can give a hard fight which might turn out in a defeat of the US.(they cant suddenly pull out of all theire spec ops and troops around the world)


The US does not need huge numbers to win wars, even the current total of troops that we have in Iraq would be enough to defeat the Iranian military, technology is a great force multiplier. Not to mention the fact that you cant win a war without air superiority.


Yeah, the US military is exceptionally strong. But the current US troop strength in Iraq is insufficient to take Iran, let alone occupy it. Artillery conquers, infantry occupies, as they say.

BTW the Russians won WWII without clear air superiority. Their operational and strategic doctrine did not really rely on airpower.



The US couldnt occupy Iran with martial law type scenario , but they could certainly (easily) destroy all there major military muscle, and they could certainly hold large parcels of land area (low population areas).


BTW the Russians won there side of WW2 majorly because of US supplied equipment.


I suppose they could launch a raid into Iran with the troops they have in Iraq currently. But how effective would that be? What if Iran avoids a symmetric engagement? What if the raiding force gets sucked in beyond its mission objectives? With a greater force engagement I don't think the neutralisation of Iran's military capability would be worth the costs (more on this below).

On a side note, I don't think the other option of airstrikes on Iran's nuclear infrastructure would be effective either. It stands to reason that Iran has multiple, independent underground defensible enrichment programmes which US intelligence is not even aware of. The known sites at Bushehr, Natanz and Arak are only the tip of the iceberg. Iran has had access to centrifuge technology since 1987; God knows what they have been able to hide in that time. Enrichment can be carried out in appartment blocks (how many thousands of these are there in Iran?) or inside mountains (even nuclear weapons would not achieve much against a mountain). The real problem is Iranian acquisition of nuclear knowledge and technology which can only be neutralised by regime change.

Take a look at a map of Iran. The US has the logistical capability to invade from Iraq or from the Gulf of Oman into Baluchistan (Azerbaijan and Afghanistan could not support more than token forces, while Turkey and Pakistan would not realistically provide anything more than token, covert support). Frankly, the Baluchistan axis is not very fruitful (the logistical trail would alone not be worth the effort given the distance from the enemy's centre of gravity).

So Iraq is pretty much the only feasible jump-off point. The US would have to cross hundreds of kilometres of mountainous terrain where the effects of armour and airpower are considerably blunted. (Besides, airpower has never in any war degraded more than 10 - 15% of the enemy's inventory. This was true even in Desert Storm where the Iraqi armoured and mechanised formations were concentrated and exposed in the middle of the desert. Nor was the US ever able to take out a single Iraqi missile launcher in either of their Iraqi campaigns.)

Iranian infantry is effectively equipped with MANPADS and ATGW, is highly motivated and numerous. They have night-fighting capability and body armour is currently being adopted, albeit quite slowly (not as good as the US's but even that goes a long way). It's going to be a knife fight. Expect it to be like the later campaigns of the WWII Pacific Theatre: Iwo Jima; Okinawa; the proposed invasion of mainland Japan. The Tehran metropolitan area which is the enemy's centre of gravity. It alone has a population of 13 million (about half of Iraq's population in 1/20th of the area). The US military has never taken a city of that size in its history.

Realistically, guarding the logistical trail adequately will alone use up the current troop levels in Iraq (120,000). What happens if the Iranians launch an Iraqi insurrection? More troops will have to be provided to cover such contingencies. What happens if Iran blocks the Straits of Hormuz and bombs the Arab Persian Gulf oil facilities, sending oil to stratospheric prices and causing a global economic meltdown?

I have no doubt that if the US is very determined to win, at all costs, it will take Iran. But I very much doubt that the casualties it will incur and the aftermath they will have to deal with will make it worth the costs of doing so.

Yes, Lend-Lease did help the Russians a lot, especially trucks. But the Russians would have won anyway I think; it would have been quite a bit more costly though and would have taken longer. Faulty German command was the most important contributory factor by far to Russian victory.


Sep

posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
The CIA knows more about your country than you do. Thats why they are in the business of spying. They are dam good at it too. As for catching up to the US. Your country is nowhere near the US in ANY category. It would take you another 200 years to have the submarine capability we had in the 70's. That goes for basically everything else to. Do you even have an aircraft carrier?

Budget wasted, hahahaha anymore baseless cliams?



Our Iranian friend there came forward with a logical and in my opinion liberal over view of the Iranian armed forces. Why would you post in this aggressive manner?

Regarding CIA knowing everything about Iranian military power it took the CIA until September 1986 to discover where the Iranian F-14 spare parts were coming from. 8 years after the Islamic Republic revolution. Now this was in the 80s when Iran's intelligence work was sloppy and they were amateurish and in middle of a war. Can you honestly believe that the CIA has now somehow managed to improve its recourses in the Middle East? By all accounts it’s not getting any better, but if you have information contrary to that please share it with us.

As for taking "200 years" to reach your submarine capabilities, Iran started to research submarines in the mid 90s and has now released mini-subs. That’s a rather fast improvement. With the help of the Russians and the technology acquired from them, perhaps that Iranian navy may become some sort of the threat to that of the US submarine fleet in the waters surrounding Iran in mid term future.

Regarding aircraft carrier, Iranian military doctrine strictly evolves around the idea of defensive wars rather than offensive ones. Aircraft carriers are of no use in a defensive war for Iran. Hence there is no need to spend billions of dollars on building a machine that does not fit in with the country's doctrine.

Regarding the "budget wasted" claim it is a well know fact that if a country is trying to be ahead of all others in the world, it is doomed to make mistakes which others do not follow. The military technology made by the US takes billions of dollars every year to make. Other countries which do not necessarily need to be "taking the lead", can simply copy ideas or buy the technology for a small fraction of the price which took to make them.


Originally posted by BigTrain
As for invading, why does everyone think we want to INVADE Iran. If we went to war with Iran, it would be the same thing as Iraq, complete utter air dominance, naval dominance and ground forces dominance.


This may be news to you, but you invaded Iraq. You achieved air dominance because Iraq did not have any operational aircraft. No one is doubting your ability to gain dominance in the air. However with a free and democratic country such as yours, where the panicky and soft public run the politics, running a war is very difficult. You may gain air dominance but it will be at the price of quite a few aircrafts. You may gain naval dominance, but it will probably be at some price taking into consideration that Iraq's navy was none existent while Iran's navy is one of the strongest in the region. The anti-ship missiles which are developed and purchased by Iran are something to look out for as this is one field where rapid progress has taken place. Regarding ground force dominance, this is one that can be argued. Iran can very well give the US a run for its money. It could give the US ground forces a little shove which in these days seems its more than the US public can handle. The ground forces of Iran should be taken seriously, because of the rapid advances in this region. There is not tank in Iranian inventory, which can stand up in a fight with the Abrams, but the anti-tank missiles in the possession of Iran are fairly advanced.


Originally posted by BigTrain
Then we would have to deal with the always cowardly last ditch urban guerilla warfare just like the scum terrosists are doing know, and they are LOSING by the way.


The terrorising of a civilian population is a despicable act. The killing of civilians can in no way be justified and I agree with you that the killing of Iraqi civilians by terrorists is a "cowardly" act.

This being said guerrilla warfare should not be confused with terrorism. Guerrilla warfare suits Iran's terrain perfectly as Iran is a very mountainous country. The guerrilla warfare in Iran, if it ever comes to it, would be fought by the 10 million-man militia, called the Basij. They are trained in all forms of warfare and are well-armed for a guerrilla army. Even if 10% of this militia actively pursues to fight a war, then the current situation in Iraq will seem like a day in heaven.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   
I see,
Kamangir, let me please explain some:


Originally posted by Kamangir
Iran was a superpower after the Arab conquest at times e.g. Safavid Iran under Shah Abbas, Afsharid Iran under Nader Shah.

You also forget that there was a significant period of Seleucid rule between the fall of the Achaemenids and the emergence of the Arsacids.


Thats what I meant with 1000 years or even more as a superpower. That includes Shah Abbas, Afsharid and Nader Shah.
Achaemenians ruled the known world for 220 years
Ashkanian for 475
Sassanian 410
Taherian 52
Safarian 22
Samanian 30
etc...

I count the years written above: 1209 years of being superpower



Hamvatan, I would advise you to stop the Arab fixation. It's no better than some people blaming the Jews for their problems. If Iran is not doing well it is the fault of Iranians, not Arabs. Plenty of other countries have recovered from worse. Besides, the Mongol and Timurid invasions of Iran were much much worse for Iran than the Arab conquest.


I do not agree with you about the Mongol and Timurid invasion. Altough they killed many civilians they were not much worse than the Arabs. The Arabs tried to change Iranian culture, language, religion etc..
The Mongols and Temurids did not do that. They were just looking for treasures: gold and silver! Arabs not. Look how many countries became Arabs!!!!


Claiming that Iran has only lost 8 battles is laughable. It's much much more. Iran lost more than 8 battles only in the nineteenth century.


Offcourse we had more battles, maybe 2000?, but 8 battles we lost which the invadors conquerd Iran. The army of Cyrus the Great lost 7 battles within 2 or 3 years! But the enemy did not conquer Iran.



You say Iran was the centre of democracy?! Are you kidding me?

I do not know how many times you have written the Persian/Babylonian/Assyrian/Roman/Greece/Chinese/Egyptian history.
Persia was the only country with almost the same freedom and democracy we have today!!! According some historians during the Achaemenian dynasty the people lived in a democracy that we can not even dream about it today! Thats why they call Cyrus the Great, Darius the Great and some other Persian kings heroes of democracy.
I'm sure you will find it back in history books.
I can tell you the story right now, but I don't think that other members are interrested in that story.

BTW, the Arabs ruled Iran for 184 years!



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
The CIA knows more about your country than you do. Thats why they are in the business of spying. They are dam good at it too.


Maybe. But I really don't think they have good intelligence on Iran.
The CIA itself has admitted serious problems. The fact is that the CIA does not have sufficient human intelligence assets to build up an effective picure. UAVs, satellites and signals monitoring only go so far. I think Iraq and Afghanistan clearly show the limits of the CIA.

In a country the size of Iran and with a pretty effective intelligence agency itself (trained by the CIA and Mossad), I'm sure Iran has many secrets from the US. It may interest you to know that the entire CIA spy network was "neutralised" in Iran several years ago. Since then, their intelligence capability in Iran has been severely weakened.

www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2005/02/13/wiran13.xml

www.theage.com.au...



As for catching up to the US. Your country is nowhere near the US in ANY category. It would take you another 200 years to have the submarine capability we had in the 70's. That goes for basically everything else to.


Wow. Great argument there. It's good that you are patriotic. But it would be good if you provided at least some evidence on such claims. No one denied that the US military is very much superior to Iran's. Iran does not need to be as powerful as the US militarily, it only needs to be powerful enough to defend against a US attack.

Iran is steadily developing militarily and fielding weapons systems that are closing the gap in most areas. This is the case for example with artillery where Iran has developed units of similar capability to those in the US inventory. Also, Iran's Zolfaqar MBT programme is slowly but surely closing the gap with the Abrams. In others the gap is growing. Iran's aircraft projects are not closing the gap with US projects such as the F-22 or the F-35.

Your submarine example is silly. Iran possesses very capable subs. Iran's Kilo SSKs are are highly effective (only Germany's Type 212 is superior in that role). They are designed for silent operation in littoral waters. I don't think the US Navy has a superior SSK. That's because US subs are designed for missile attack. The Iranians are not interested in making subs that fire MIRVed nuclear SLBMs or cruise missiles because it does not, as yet, want to project power. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

Iran's indigenous submarine programme is currently aimed at producing a diesel-electric SSK based on the Kilo. Several midget submarines have been launched and a full-size unit is being built, reportedly with elements of the Kilo built in. It won't be as good as the Kilo, for sure, but it will be a step forward.



Do you even have an aircraft carrier?


Why would Iran want an aircraft carrier? They are for power projection. Iran need only concern itself with defence. Iran has effective anti-ship missiles though. They will pose a threat to US CBGs.



Budget wasted, hahahaha anymore baseless cliams?


Yes, budgets are wasted. This is what happens in bureaucracies. It's called rent seeking. Can you really bo so naive as to think that a significant portion of that huge budget is not being wasted?



As for invading, why does everyone think we want to INVADE Iran. If we went to war with Iran, it would be the same thing as Iraq, complete utter air dominance, naval dominance and ground forces dominance. Then we would have to deal with the always cowardly last ditch urban guerilla warfare just like the scum terrosists are doing know, and they are LOSING by the way.

Train


Keep telling yourself that. Stick your head in the sand like an ostritch. In the cold light of day, the US is showing that it does not have the capability to control a weak country like Iraq (or rather a small part of Iraq). The insurgency is only growing stronger.

Your jingoistic peacocking thinly covers your insecurity over the situation. You're not fooling anyone.

Besides, why is guerrilla warfare cowardly? It's simply the intelligent course of action; one should fight to one's strengths.

Professional military officers never talk like you do. They are usually quite prudent: Powell; Shinseki; Abizaid. Being gung-ho costs lives.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Let's say that 99% of the Iranian nation hates the current regime. If USA or other Allied and non-allied army invade Iran, the Iranian nation will not tolerate any invasion! Not even if they hate their current leaders, they will just support them. Why? because Iran is in danger!

About the Iranian miltary forces, I see that many of the ATS members think that the Iranian army is full of cowards and clumsy soldiers! But you are wrong! Remember Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war? the Western and non Western countries supplied him weapons, he had the best weapons to fight against Iran.
Altough Iran had the 5th strongest non-nuclear army before 1979, after the revolution the Iranian military forces went thru a reorganisation and they were not finished with reorganisation and Saddam invaded Iran. The war was unexpected. But the Iranians stand their ground and defeated Saddam! SO, please do not understimate the Iranian troops!



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by aria
Before the 1979 revolution Iran was the 5th non-nuclear military power in the world with the most advanced U.S. weapons like missles, f-14, cobra's, chinook's, Bell's, tanks, submarines, fragetts etc... But today the F-14 are retired except in Iran and with some Russian Mig-29 you can not shoot any F-15,16,18, .... down.

I think if we had still the Shah as our leader we had after USA the second modern/advanced military in the world by now.


I doubt Iran would be that powerful.

Iran was seemingly powerful under the Shah. But it was totally dependent on the US. It had little or no indigenous capability. These were not Iranian achievements to be proud of but US hand-outs. Just like the lazy Persian Gulf Arabs today sit on their arse and buy inordinate amounts of Western weaponry with their oil wealth.



About Israel, that nation has been from 539 B.C. till 1979 A.C. our best friend and allied. Even in the Iraq-Iran war they were the only one who supplied us with weapons and put their pilots lifes in danger to help Iran with the war. While United States, Sovjet Union, Arab countries, China and Europe were helping Saddams Iraq, Israeli F-16's flew many mission above Iraq and shoot Iraqi military ground-stuff down to help us! PLEASE do not forget it!


There are no friends in international relations; there are only interests. It was in Israel's interests to weaken an Arab country that was seeking to increase its power and develop nuclear weapons. They were not helping Iran because they like us; they were only interested in neutralising a threat to them.

When it is in their interests to hurt Iran, they will do that. The question is: do you want Israel to bomb YOUR country? Who will suffer most from such a course of action and its consequences? The clerics and Hezbollahis? I doubt it.



So they are not endangering us, but the Islamic regime is endangering them. former president Rafsanjani said once: if Israel use nuclear bomb on the Islam world they will kill only a couple of million moslims, but if we drop a nuclear bomb on them, there is no Israel anymore! And what do you think about presindent Ahmadinejad's words about wiping Israel off?!!!!


Israel makes threats of military action against Iran every day. Shaul Mofaz even went on Radio Israel to tell Iranians in Persian that Israel will attack Iran!

Besides, Rafsanjani did not make a direct threat against Israel. It was phrased in the hypothetical as a warning. These are all just political games. Rafsanjani was the first to condemn Ahmadinejad when he said that Israel should be wiped off the map.



About USA, well, hell, they did not burn IRI flag. It was IRI who burned USA flag.


Who overthrew Mossadegh? Did Iranians ever dislike the US before then? You cannot blame Iranians for responding badly to US attacks. Where is your pride? If someone punches you, do you hang your head like a coward and walk off?



Face it or not, we will never be able to defeat US military forces! But an US invasion would be the second Vietnam!


I would not be so sure.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by aria
Devilwasp:

What I meant by that quote was that China is after USA the second country in the world that spend more mony on their military than on something else.

Some countries does have technology that others don't have. For example look at the JSF project. Both of the fighters can fly vertically. Before the project started there was only one jetfigher in the world who could fly vertically: the British Harrier. Indeed, in some cases other countries have better technology than the US. Israeli Army uses US Abrahams; but smarter version (that they modified): two doors at the back-side of the tank; in case of any danger the crew can exit the tank with no difficulty.

I can give you tens of examples, but you are absolutely right!


Israel uses the Merkava MBT. It is distinct from the Abrams. In fact, it was developed before the Abrams!



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by aria

Originally posted by NR

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
I do not agree with that. I'm not saying that under Shah everything was perfect, no political system is perfect. Not even in the West. But At least it was far far better than the Islamic Republic regime.


The current regime is bad. But, let's face facts, the Shah's regime was bad too. That's why the overthrow of the Shah was a popular revolution. Most Iranians wanted rid of the Shah because he not only oppressed his people, by the end of the 1970s the economy had nosedived and the gap between rich and poor was huge. It was not just Hezbollahis who wanted the Shah to go, but liberals too. I'm guessing your family was part of the elite who benefited.



After the Arabs overthrowned the last Sassanian King some 1400 years ago, Iran lived in poverty and dictatorship of Arab Khalifs and new-moslim Persian kings. In the past 13 centuries Iran had only 3 good kings:


  • Nader Shah Afshar
  • Reza Shah Pahlavi the Great
  • Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi



Again, it seems you are blaming Islam for Iran's troubles. This is not the case at all. Islamic Iran has in the past been a superpower. Islam is not the reason for Iran's poor performance.

Where is Shah Abbas? Are you seriously saying Nader Shah helped Iran? He was a military genius but he left Iran in deep trouble. He was not a good administrator and he did not develop Iran. Mohammad Reza Shah was also a failure. He was a weak and cowardly leader who was kicked out by his own people. I agree that Reza Shah was a good leader. While he was an autocrat he did a lot to develop Iran. His son was not fit to lick his boots.



Mohammad Reza Shah followed his fathers foot steps. Unlike what you mentioned in your quote he fought against poverty, he gave to peasants lands, $1,- was almost 2 Iranian toman and everyone could buy houses, cars, clothes, etc... The people were richer than the Dutch nation.


This is false. The Netherlands was much richer than Iran in the 1970s. Income inequality was terrible. The elite benefited but most Iranians were poor. Many lived in urban slums. The majority of Iranians were illiterate. Many Iranian villages did not have access to schools, roads or electricity. Land reform was implemented badly (the land holdings given to each farmer were too small) so that Iran actually became a food importer after it.



In those days there were almost 70.000 girls who were legally selling their bodies in whole Iran, Islamic Republic made that 600.000 only in Tehran (source: Islamic Republic News Agency)


Please, that's laughable. That's just propaganda. It's completely unbelievable! You are trying to say that something like 15% of Tehrani women are prostitutes?!



In those days there were almost 22.000 addicted people in whole Iran, Islamic Republic made that 2.000.000!!! (source: Islamic Republic News Agency)


You know yourself that Iranians smoke a lot of drugs and drug addiction has always been a significant problem. Maybe it has increased somewhat but I'm sure millions smoked taryak under the Shah too.



Under the Shah Iran had an economical growht of 38.2% each year, Islamic Republic made that to 6.3% a year (source: IMF, globaledge.msu.edu)


That's incorrect. Growth under the Shah was something like 9% on average in the 1960s and early 1970s (in 1974 growth was 42% but only because oil prices increased a lot in that year). By the late 1970s that growth had ground to a halt. Under the Islamic Republic, Iran grew slowly for many years, mainly due to the Revolution and the Iran-Iraq War. Recently, Iran has been growing quite well at 6 - 7%. Not bad at all.



Under the Shah every Iranian could visit Western countries without any Visum/Visa, today they triple check IRI passport (source: no source needed)


Ok.



I'm not saying that under Shah everything was perfect, no political system is perfect. But At least it was far far better than the Islamic Republic regime.


They both failed Iran. It is only right that they both be thrown in the dustbin.



My grandfather was an IIAF F-14 pilot: General Ayat Mohagheghi, executed by Islamic Republic. Reason: he was a supporter of Shah.


I'm sad that your grandfather was executed. I'm sure he loved his country and served it well. But the fact is that he was partly to blame for what happened. The Shah's generals made a deal with Khomeini and let him take over; Khomeini turned around and killed them. They were naive.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Dear Kamangir;

It seems that we disagree in many terms. In your opinion my information is incorrect and im my opinion some of your opinion, actually all of them are incorrect.

Here we go:



Israel uses the Merkava MBT. It is distinct from the Abrams. In fact, it was developed before the Abrams!
So what? the T tanks of Iran, in which country were they built? Not Iran. So, this is the same situation as the Merkava.


I doubt Iran would be that powerful.Iran was seemingly powerful under the Shah. But it was totally dependent on the US. It had little or no indigenous capability. These were not Iranian achievements to be proud of but US hand-outs. Just like the lazy Persian Gulf Arabs today sit on their arse and buy inordinate amounts of Western weaponry with their oil wealth
Believe me Iran was that powerful. I had 4 uncles and 1 grandfather in the IIAF. Beside that there are military books about world military forces which were printed in the 70's. In the Netherlands I've seen many of this books in libraries.
There are two differences between the Iranian forces before 1979 and after 1979. Before: Iran purchased the most advanced weapons. Today Iran can not purchase advanced Western weapons so they have to build it by themself. USA has got many years of experiences on building advanced weapons. How about Iran? I'm proud of what they're making, but in some cases experiences will defeat technology and quality will defeat quantity.



There are no friends in international relations; there are only interests. It was in Israel's interests to weaken an Arab country that was seeking to increase its power and develop nuclear weapons. They were not helping Iran because they like us; they were only interested in neutralising a threat to them.
During Iran-Iraq war Saddam threated Israel because Israel was helping Iran. We can find the answer about the good relationship between Israel and Persia in history books


When it is in their interests to hurt Iran, they will do that. The question is: do you want Israel to bomb YOUR country? Who will suffer most from such a course of action and its consequences? The clerics and Hezbollahis? I doubt it.
I don't want Israel to bomb Iran. But I also don't want Iran to bomb Israel.
Who will suffer the most? at least not the leaders who are making threads toward another nation!



Israel makes threats of military action against Iran every day. Shaul Mofaz even went on Radio Israel to tell Iranians in Persian that Israel will attack Iran!
Still it was the IRI who started with that kind of nonsence



Besides, Rafsanjani did not make a direct threat against Israel. It was phrased in the hypothetical as a warning. These are all just political games. Rafsanjani was the first to condemn Ahmadinejad when he said that Israel should be wiped off the map.
Then Rafsanjani was stupid to say that. He could say: "Israel watch out or we will attack you with our f-14's" instead of attacking you with a nuclear weapon.



Who overthrew Mossadegh? Did Iranians ever dislike the US before then? You cannot blame Iranians for responding badly to US attacks. Where is your pride? If someone punches you, do you hang your head like a coward and walk off?
Mossadegh?! Do you really think Mossadegh could have done the job better? I doubt it.



The current regime is bad. But, let's face facts, the Shah's regime was bad too. That's why the overthrow of the Shah was a popular revolution. Most Iranians wanted rid of the Shah because he not only oppressed his people, by the end of the 1970s the economy had nosedived and the gap between rich and poor was huge. It was not just Hezbollahis who wanted the Shah to go, but liberals too. I'm guessing your family was part of the elite who benefited.
The overthrowing of Shah was a political game if you understand. From the European side he had to be overthrowned because Iran was a danger to European economics. If you lived in Europe by now you would understand it. Plenty of information about that.
From the U.S. side the regime had to be changed because of the fact Shah could not stop the communism and islam could!
again if you were in Europe you could watch the documentaries about that on TV



Mohammad Reza Shah was also a failure. He was a weak and cowardly leader who was kicked out by his own people. I agree that Reza Shah was a good leader. While he was an autocrat he did a lot to develop Iran. His son was not fit to lick his boots.
I don't know how old you are, but it seems you have slept long enough to miss the Iranian development under Mohammad Reza Shah. Its a shame.The most of the proud we have today we have earned from Mohmmad Reza Shah. We had status in the entire world. What do we have today? They call us poor Iranian terrorists!



This is false. The Netherlands was much richer than Iran in the 1970s. Income inequality was terrible. The elite benefited but most Iranians were poor. Many lived in urban slums. The majority of Iranians were illiterate. Many Iranian villages did not have access to schools, roads or electricity. Land reform was implemented badly (the land holdings given to each farmer were too small) so that Iran actually became a food importer after it
This is incorrect. I live in The Netherlands and believe me what I said before was true. The Dutch economy grew at full strenght in the 90's.
In the 70's they could not afford themselfs gasoline to drive! In the 70's The Netherlands asked Iran 20 billion dollars. Iran had no debts. If The Netherlands had a better economy, then why asking Iran for money? Still today they haven't payed us back as far as I know.
The majority of Iranians were middle class people who could afford almost everything. I come from the province Fars. In fars every vilage had one school and had access to roads. What are you talking about?
Ok, 90% of the villages had no electricity, but certifications were given to them to apply electricity, and you know what? All the villagers in province Fars did reject that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You can find that proof in Ostandarieh Fars.

Land reforms was implemented badly? Have you seen the Iranian-American channel called Voice of America? One of the presentators name is mr Baharlou. He's a son of a former greatland holder. They had to give lands to villagers. Just call him and ask him about the land reforms in profince Fars!



In those days there were almost 70.000 girls who were legally selling their bodies in whole Iran, Islamic Republic made that 600.000 only in Tehran (source: Islamic Republic News Agency)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please, that's laughable. That's just propaganda. It's completely unbelievable! You are trying to say that something like 15% of Tehrani women are prostitutes?!
Laughable? Don't you read ISNA or IRNA? or don't you watch IRIB? Propaganda? On whose side? the opposition while the IRI announced that kind of facts?



In those days there were almost 22.000 addicted people in whole Iran, Islamic Republic made that 2.000.000!!! (source: Islamic Republic News Agency)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know yourself that Iranians smoke a lot of drugs and drug addiction has always been a significant problem. Maybe it has increased somewhat but I'm sure millions smoked taryak under the Shah too.
Thats correct. But did you read the history facts? Have you seen the IRI accusation of Shah in 1980? One of the accusations are 22.000 addicted people and 70.000 whores! They blamed Shah for this. Did you read the history books were has been written that the British gave Iranian youth free opium in the 18th century? Are you forgotten that today in Iran Heroine and coc aine are cheaper than Marlboro?



Under the Shah Iran had an economical growht of 38.2% each year, Islamic Republic made that to 6.3% a year (source: IMF, globaledge.msu.edu)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's incorrect. Growth under the Shah was something like 9% on average in the 1960s and early 1970s (in 1974 growth was 42% but only because oil prices increased a lot in that year). By the late 1970s that growth had ground to a halt. Under the Islamic Republic, Iran grew slowly for many years, mainly due to the Revolution and the Iran-Iraq War. Recently, Iran has been growing quite well at 6 - 7%. Not bad at all.
What you are telling is incorrect. To see the facts just have a look in books like World Economics and IMF history. Then you realize it.



They both failed Iran. It is only right that they both be thrown in the dustbin.
If both failed, who do you want to become their successor? The lefties like tudeh and mujahedeen? please shoot me before that happens



I'm sad that your grandfather was executed. I'm sure he loved his country and served it well. But the fact is that he was partly to blame for what happened. The Shah's generals made a deal with Khomeini and let him take over; Khomeini turned around and killed them. They were naive.
Note: not all of the generals did do that. Indeed, some of them did made a deal with khomeiny. But most of them were supporting the Shah and were ready to prevent the revolution. But shah did not want more casualties and left the country. I don't see Khamenei leaving the country without killing thousand of Iranians.

You see, we both have different opinions. I look in some sources while you look in other sources. I see things different and you see things different. Like mujahedeen. I see them as traitors they see themself as heroes!!
In my opinion I'm telling the truth and only facts. In your opinion I'm not so sure.

[edit on 5-12-2005 by aria]



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 08:26 PM
link   
OK, aria you are entitled to your opinion. I am glad we can disagree without attacking each other.

Personally, I would want a secular democracy without a monarchy. The strongest force for that has always been Jebhe Melli of Dr Mossadegh.

The last thing I want to say is:

Khak bar sare Monafeqin!



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kamangir

The last thing I want to say is:

Khak bar sare Monafeqin!

That I totally agree with you.

A democracy without monarchy is just your opinion and I respect that.
In my opinion I think a democracy with a monarch is the best choise. Not only because we had the longest monarchy of the world in terms of years and the fact that we had the first monarchy in the world, but because a monarchy brings stability to a country or region. Look at the monarch countries in the world (Japan, Norway, NL, SPN, SWD, BLQ, UK, DNM)There are some terms and conditions to reach that: a democratic lawsystem.
Republican countries like France, they have democracy but there is not much of stability in that country in the last decade.

What I just meant doesn't mean that in every monarchy the stability works!
Look at KSA and some Afriqan countries.

I hope Iran gets her freedom and democracy as soon as possible because freedom and democracy belong to all of us. If we get that we can rebuild our country without hatred toward another nation and modernize Iran.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join