Iran’s Supreme Leader: Jihad Will Continue Until America is No More

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

All of which pushes the argument back into the nuclear weapon realm. Its the only way Iran can damage the US or Israel to the extent they like to lip off about. IT forces the discussion to the front where if Iran is going to consistently push that game plan then why should the US or Israel not target and remove that section of their military planning?


As for their air defense its geared towards western technology that is about 20 years old. Its on par with technology used by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey, etc.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

All of which pushes the argument back into the nuclear weapon realm. Its the only way Iran can damage the US or Israel to the extent they like to lip off about. IT forces the discussion to the front where if Iran is going to consistently push that game plan then why should the US or Israel not target and remove that section of their military planning?


As for their air defense its geared towards western technology that is about 20 years old. Its on par with technology used by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey, etc.

OK in the imaginary realm of nukes......

How will they deliver a meaningful barrage of nukes to the USA?

They dont have the ICBM's capable of reaching the USA, let alone hitting the target.

Iran should not be able to strike Western Europe before 2014 or the United States before 2020—at the earliest.

Source

When you look at the this with any shred of logic and NOT EMOTION then you can see what a ridiculous prospect Iran attacking the USA would be.

It would be like a pussy cat trying to claw a lion.

All this is propaganda to back up an argument for "Pre-Emtive action" aka "Our leaders are now psychics" aka "An attack on a sovereign nation against international law" aka "One of the last countries without a centralised private bank to be invaded by the rothschild owned west".

a reply to: OneManArmy

Why do you think a country who acquires nuclear weapons is going to have a goal of mass production of said nukes in an effort to go head to head with amounts? You are ignoring a key element of a nations need for military weapons. Why does the nation who is developing them need them and does possession of those items fit into their overall defense strategy? Will a nation use nuclear weapons on a non nuclear armed nation? Nope - and that mindset has been a part of our and the former USSR's nuclear strategy. Its one of the KEY reasons during the cold war the assumption of a nuclear attack on the US or USSR coming from a nation allied with either was viewed as an attack on the US/USSR by the military forces of the US/USSR.

Does Iran need a nuclear deterrent? Nope.
Why? Because they have no chance of catching up to Russia or the US in terms of quantity and quality not to mention deployment abilities.

All it takes is one nuke being sold to a 3rd party, given to a 3rd party, snuck into a nation and detonated. At no point has Iran ever claimed they will invade and conquer / occupy. They, along with terror groups in the Middle East have been consistent with "destruction of" and not occupation.

When dealing with a 9th century mindset who views civilian casualties as acceptable so long as they belong to the enemy or their own if its in the service of the government it does not require 3000 nukes... or 300 nukes... or 30 nukes... or 3 nukes...

It takes just one.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: OneManArmy

Why do you think a country who acquires nuclear weapons is going to have a goal of mass production of said nukes in an effort to go head to head with amounts? You are ignoring a key element of a nations need for military weapons. Why does the nation who is developing them need them and does possession of those items fit into their overall defense strategy? Will a nation use nuclear weapons on a non nuclear armed nation? Nope - and that mindset has been a part of our and the former USSR's nuclear strategy. Its one of the KEY reasons during the cold war the assumption of a nuclear attack on the US or USSR coming from a nation allied with either was viewed as an attack on the US/USSR by the military forces of the US/USSR.

Does Iran need a nuclear deterrent? Nope.
Why? Because they have no chance of catching up to Russia or the US in terms of quantity and quality not to mention deployment abilities.

All it takes is one nuke being sold to a 3rd party, given to a 3rd party, snuck into a nation and detonated. At no point has Iran ever claimed they will invade and conquer / occupy. They, along with terror groups in the Middle East have been consistent with "destruction of" and not occupation.

When dealing with a 9th century mindset who views civilian casualties as acceptable so long as they belong to the enemy or their own if its in the service of the government it does not require 3000 nukes... or 300 nukes... or 30 nukes... or 3 nukes...

It takes just one.

It takes just one to sign its own death warrant.
War is waged until one side is no longer able to fight.

What is one nuke going to do to end the USA's ability to fight?

What a nuclear capability would do for Iran is to give it a fair bargaining piece.

The only reason the USA bullies Iran is because they dont have a nuclear arsenal.
The USA/UK/Israel junta doesnt mess with countries that do. They like to pick on small states, they are the atypical school bully in the playground. USA is the brawn, UK is the finance and Israel is the brains.

a reply to: OneManArmy

When you look at the this with any shred of logic and NOT EMOTION then you can see what a ridiculous prospect Iran attacking the USA would be.

It would be like a pussy cat trying to claw a lion.

I think it's worse than that really, for suggesting Iran could or would attack the US direct with Nuclear anything. Once that genie is uncorked, and especially if one actually struck civilian leadership to remove that element of moderation to the response? The one who did it wouldn't just be attacked and a war ensue. They would be physically erased from existence as if they had never been.

It's not bravado, it's a statement of simple fact and it's the literal core purpose of one leg of the U.S. (and Russian) Nuclear Triad. Iran wouldn't start a war, hitting the U.S. that way. They'd simply say "Please, kill me, I don't even want ashes of me left". This is why:

What is the Trident submarine?

Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarine, nuclear- powered, able to remain submerged for long periods without surfacing, virtually undetectable when submerged.

Length: 560 , beam: 42 feet.
Crew: 15 Officers, 140 Enlisted men

What is its mission?

From the US Navy website:
"Strategic deterrence has been the sole mission of the fleet ballistic missile submarine since its inception in 1960. Trident provides the nation's most survivable and enduring nuclear strike capability.

To say just ones on patrol in blue water at any given moment can unleash more firepower than has ever been in the history of man isn't a bragging point, but a point of physics for a real thing.

How many US Navy Tridents are there?

18, 10 in King's Bay, Georgia, 8 at Bangor, Washington. According to the 1994 "Nuclear Posture Review," this number is to be reduced to 14 when START II goes into effect. START II was ratified by the Russian Duma in April, 2000. Usually, at least five of the 18 Trident submarines are on patrol in the Atlantic and Pacific at any given moment. They carry 960 nuclear warheads.

Source

Pop a nuke? I think Military necessity takes over and Iran knows that as well as anyone. No one even has the equipment available to cover every US missile submarine at sea on routine patrols. Not at the same time. It's the ultimate "You did what?!" response to the unthinkable.......to insure it remains unthinkable, IMO.

An additional link here shows a more updated view putting the figure at 70% for U.S. nuclear deterrence within the Sub fleet and planned toward the end of the century that way.

Even the Russians wouldn't deal with Iran if they were that stark raving mad, IMO. That's what it would take. Hollywood level madness.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: OneManArmy

When you look at the this with any shred of logic and NOT EMOTION then you can see what a ridiculous prospect Iran attacking the USA would be.

It would be like a pussy cat trying to claw a lion.

I think it's worse than that really, for suggesting Iran could or would attack the US direct with Nuclear anything. Once that genie is uncorked, and especially if one actually struck civilian leadership to remove that element of moderation to the response? The one who did it wouldn't just be attacked and a war ensue. They would be physically erased from existence as if they had never been.

It's not bravado, it's a statement of simple fact and it's the literal core purpose of one leg of the U.S. (and Russian) Nuclear Triad. Iran wouldn't start a war, hitting the U.S. that way. They'd simply say "Please, kill me, I don't even want ashes of me left". This is why:

What is the Trident submarine?

Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarine, nuclear- powered, able to remain submerged for long periods without surfacing, virtually undetectable when submerged.

Length: 560 , beam: 42 feet.
Crew: 15 Officers, 140 Enlisted men

What is its mission?

From the US Navy website:
"Strategic deterrence has been the sole mission of the fleet ballistic missile submarine since its inception in 1960. Trident provides the nation's most survivable and enduring nuclear strike capability.

To say just ones on patrol in blue water at any given moment can unleash more firepower than has ever been in the history of man isn't a bragging point, but a point of physics for a real thing.

How many US Navy Tridents are there?

18, 10 in King's Bay, Georgia, 8 at Bangor, Washington. According to the 1994 "Nuclear Posture Review," this number is to be reduced to 14 when START II goes into effect. START II was ratified by the Russian Duma in April, 2000. Usually, at least five of the 18 Trident submarines are on patrol in the Atlantic and Pacific at any given moment. They carry 960 nuclear warheads.

Source

Pop a nuke? I think Military necessity takes over and Iran knows that as well as anyone. No one even has the equipment available to cover every US missile submarine at sea on routine patrols. Not at the same time. It's the ultimate "You did what?!" response to the unthinkable.......to insure it remains unthinkable, IMO.

An additional link here shows a more updated view putting the figure at 70% for U.S. nuclear deterrence within the Sub fleet and planned toward the end of the century that way.

Even the Russians wouldn't deal with Iran if they were that stark raving mad, IMO. That's what it would take. Hollywood level madness.

Exactly!!!
To say that Iran would be removed from the face of earth is not an understatement, its a statement of fact.
Just look at the reaction to 911.

There are a lot of things I could well be wrong about in life, but one thing I know for sure is that the Iranians arent idiots.
They are not Emo suicidal morons. They are very cultured, steeped in great history and can be credited with many of mankinds great inventions, and greatest civilisations. They are not to be dehumanised, they are just like us, with crazier leaders. But even crazy leaders need to get the support of their subjects.

Of all the rhetoric that comes from the world stage
there is still one idea, of which i am not yet convinced that Iran,
would NOT do,,
and that is
"Do you really believe the Iranian's hate Israel so much
that they would sacrifice their entire population?"

,after all there still stoning there "people",,,so???

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Gianfar


Keep using the economic disaster excuse... When it does not pan out that way what excuse will you use next? Iran's self importance in terms of oil is one of their problems, and those who think Iran removal from OPEC would be a disaster need to learn history.

Iran barely has the means to defend itself from the US / Iran so to make a threat against the United States accomplishes what exactly? To demonstrate to the Iranian people how they are viewed as expendable by the Iranian government? When the Iranian government has to base its existence on agitating its own people to shift focus, it says their government is not as stable as they think it is.

Something Iranians would know about if they were allowed to view something other than Iranian state media.

You've made some good points there, all of which I would agree with, nevertheless, this does not negate the most obvious point that further war involving the US would raise the cost of oil per barrel significantly with the effect of causing a renewed recession that could likely trigger a global depression. I won't even go into the farthest implications of this on your family, which I'm sure is your greatest concern. The State Dept., NSA and White House advisors discuss these things in terms of global dynamics and regional power paradigms.

All of the verbal bluster and gunboat tactics are for public consumption. Americans are being deceived as much as the Iranians are. I appreciate the patriotic fervor you preach, but honestly, a person consumed with such dogmas isn't someone I would go to for the larger picture.

a reply to: Gianfar

Well thats what they said about the Iraq war as well. But id say most likely result is Saudis would increase there production since they would love Iran to be removed from the picture. Saudis would do whatever is necessary to see Iran removed. They stabilized the price as well during Iraq war in fact gave free gas to US troops i dont think it be any different for Iran this would put there religion in total control of the middle east. And thats what all the fighting is over Sunni and Shia. Funniest part is its a minor difference really just not to Muslims.

a reply to: BobAthome

What moves a person to the point of killing themselves while standing in the middle of a market with women and children around all in the name of religion? What forces Iranian leadership to use school aged children to walk hand in hand across a mine field in order to clear a path for their army?

When you can answer those questions then we can move on to answering yours about Iranians hating Israel so much that they would sacrifice their entire population. As if Iranians would get a choice of their life being sacrificed or not from their government.

a reply to: Gianfar

This has nothing to do with patriotic fervor and the fact you think it does tells me you don't have an adequate grasp of the issue raised.

When you hear Israel or the Us talk about Iran its in specifics - nuclear program this, terror funding that.

When you hear Iran discuss Israel and now the US its specific - the destruction of both countries. NOT government, countries. That would include the people who reside in those 2 countries.

Trying to apply normal government observations to Iran's government would be like trying to apply apples to a basketball. They aren't the same, nor are they compatible. The concept behind the USSR's approach to the US was MAD. While the USSR has patriotic fervor as well, there is a difference between patriotic fervor and religious zealot fanatic.

Killing Israeli's or Americans is not in the same as killing in the name of religion, which is what Iran uses to justify its actions.

When people who defend Iran begin to understand the difference the safer we all might be.

a reply to: Xcathdra


The children who cleared mine fields formed part of the mass “Basij” movement that was called into being by the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. The Basij Mostazafan – the “mobilization of the oppressed” – consisted of short-term volunteer militias. Most of the Basij members were not yet 18. They went enthusiastically and by the thousands to their own destruction. “The young men cleared the mines with their own bodies,” a veteran of the Iran-Iraq War has recalled, “It was sometimes like a race. Even without the commander’s orders, everyone wanted to be first. Now a little known fact Ahmadinejad appears in public in his Basiji uniform. During the war, he served as one of the Basiji instructors who turned children into martyrs. The generation that fought in the Iran-Iraq War has come to power along with Ahmadinejad.

Oh and one more thing when they joined they got a plastic key it supposedly opened the gates of heaven for them.

a reply to: dragonridr

Excellent info - Thank you.

Imo it supports what I have been saying. The mindset in that area of the world is a lot different than the west and when you throw religion into the mix they might as well be Klingons.

Death before dishonor and fighting to the last man.

One has to ask one self what the heck is our CIA doing with all the millions we spend on it? Why is this Iranian lunatic still breathing? CIA fail is why.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: BobAthome

What moves a person to the point of killing themselves while standing in the middle of a market with women and children around all in the name of religion? What forces Iranian leadership to use school aged children to walk hand in hand across a mine field in order to clear a path for their army?

When you can answer those questions then we can move on to answering yours about Iranians hating Israel so much that they would sacrifice their entire population. As if Iranians would get a choice of their life being sacrificed or not from their government.

The information coming through media doesn't offer the deeper look which is where the facts lay. Ahmadinijad was born a Jew In a Jewish town.

He converted to Islam while attending a university. Having adopted the conservative Islamic view which sees Isreali politics as being evil (according to Quranic verses) he sought acceptance as a politician by using the sort of bluster that would completely demonize Isreali practices and illustrate Jewish racist stereotypes, validating his Islamic conversion. Ahmadinejad is always trying to compensate for his Jewish beginnings through grandiose anti-Jewish speeches for votes from ultra conservatives and Shiite extremists.

Governments and individual politicians often condemn societies they oppose or compete with for influence and resources and call for their punishment or destruction. Just as the US and Israel calls for Iran to submit to their rule or suffer the consequences of nuclear bombing. It's unlikely that Iran would ever attack Israel or that the US or Israel would nuke Iran, due to far reaching consequences on all sides.

You seem to be conditioned by propaganda and prejudiced by your American made world view. While eagerly pointing out the specifics of your country's competitors, you fail to mention the specific details of war crimes committed by the US and the fact that troops abusing the human rights of Iraqis and Afghans are perpetrated by Christians. Religous Americans who justify war crimes, rape, murder..etc under sanctioning Religous beliefs. I had a conversation with a preacher who said that war and human rights abuses were necessary to subdue the Arabs in accepting the salvation of Jesus.

The terrorism of Muslims, Jews and Christians is still terrorism. There's no excuse or humane rationale. It's all convoluted and when I see opinions that are biased its not surprising that the average person is easily deceived by his own government.

Just think, if people refused to be brainwashed into fighting unnecessary wars (all wars are unnecessary) the elites wouldn't have the power to manipulate and enslave.

.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Gianfar

Well thats what they said about the Iraq war as well. But id say most likely result is Saudis would increase there production since they would love Iran to be removed from the picture. Saudis would do whatever is necessary to see Iran removed. They stabilized the price as well during Iraq war in fact gave free gas to US troops i dont think it be any different for Iran this would put there religion in total control of the middle east. And thats what all the fighting is over Sunni and Shia. Funniest part is its a minor difference really just not to Muslims.

As I've said before Saudi Arabia is a US proxy state being armed as a military countermeasure against Iran, in the event of war. Iraq is also a sort of client/proxy state fed by American tax money, US military material support in a similar manner that Israeli receives thirty billion a year from the American people. It's a Cold War in the Middle East, with Russia and the US developing their illegitimate proxy states to compete for mineral resources.

originally posted by: Xeven
One has to ask one self what the heck is our CIA doing with all the millions we spend on it? Why is this Iranian lunatic still breathing? CIA fail is why.

Actually executive orders 12333,13335 and 13470 is what prevents the CIA from doing what you are suggesting. The only way to bypass is for a state of war to exist, at which point the Ayatollah becomes a legitimate military target as part of Iranian command and control.

Iran has always been faithful to Allah. Perhaps, you should read the Koran for yourself. But, I think it is time that someone pulls up one of those 100-years Muslim conspiracy threads on here. All Muslims, so help them Allah, will unite under true God, to rid this world of Allah's enemy (which is anyone who knowingly or unknowingly serves Satan, and that would include everyone in america...) Of course, there is still time for salvation and redemption in america before Judgment Day comes. So far, no one is taking me very serious. God Himself has warned you.

a reply to: iosolomon

So far, no one is taking me very serious. God Himself has warned you.

By God you mean you dont you? You do say you are God all the time right?