New Iran missiles can reach London

WorldNetDaily ^ | September 25, 2004 | Unknown

[LSUfan]

Iran said today it has successfully test-fired a long-range "strategic missile" and delivered it to its armed forces, saying it is now prepared to deal with any regional threats and even the "big powers."

Iran's new missiles can reach London, Paris, Berlin and southern Russia, according to weapons and intelligence analysts.

[Physicist]

We have to ask ourselves was deposing Saddam worth letting Iran and NK go nuclear?

If we were going to invade Iran, or at least surgically remove their nuclear capability, where would we attack from?

Think about it.

As for North Korea, what prevents us from attacking them is South Korea.

[Spirited]

Think someone will tell the Brits?

Last I heard from Brit friends this was Bush's unnecessary, crazy (your choice) war.

[LSUfan]

Not only that, NK is not ABOUT to go nuclear. It's been assumed since 1998 that they have had between 1 and 3 bombs.

That's the real lesson here. NK is untouchable, but at least isolated.

If the Ayatollahs get nukes they will also be untouchable, but they will also continue their support for Jihadist terrrorism around the world at the same time. A dangerous combo.

[grey_whiskers]

Troll, troll, troll your post
gently down the thread
Your account ID's brand-new
What was that you said?

[jimbo123]

Libbie like 2fast4u wanted us to attack Iran with the Taliban in charge of Afghanistan, Saddam in charge of Iraq and the ISI in charge of Pakistan. But it's a moot point anyway. The liberals support a nuclear armed NK and Iran since they always cheer for the bad guys.

[katiedidit1]

Can't blame 3 yrs of Bush for what has been going on in Iran, N.Korea etc.
Iraq was a threat...don't ever doubt that... read about the UN scams.. turning the other cheek!! if you think Iran is dangerous..imagine what would happen if Saddam had nukes? and remember the assasination attempt on Bush 41

[Kadric]

Actually Iraq would make a very logical base for ballistic missile interceptors to cover Europe and the Mediterranean. Since if they are based in northern Iraq they would be able to intercept during the boost phase which is a lot easier.

[af_vet_1981]

Kim Jong Il and the mullahs can see that with 150,000 troops in Iraq we are prevented from dealing with either of them. Once Iran goes nuclear, the world is going to be a much more dangerous place. We have to ask ourselves was deposing Saddam worth letting Iran and NK go nuclear?

How did you propose the coalition of the willing, led by President Bush, stop Iran and North Korea from going nuclear as they did Iraq and Libya ?

[RS]

"We have to ask ourselves was deposing Saddam worth letting Iran and NK go nuclear?"

Not sure what you mean ? Are you suggesting if we didnt go after Saddam that Iran and NK would play nice ?

...Or we should have gone after Iran and NK and left Saddam alone to go nuclear ?

[Gucho]

"New Iran missiles can reach London"

Brag about it Nov. 3rd Iran.

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

We have to ask ourselves was deposing Saddam worth letting Iran and NK go nuclear?

I'll bet my wife that the only way Iran EVER goes nuclear is with a number of Israeli detonations over Teheran.

[Lijahsbubbe]

The longer I watch things, the smarter President Bush and his cabinet become.

They're way ahead of all of us, and Israel is also.

[Gucho]

"Once Iran goes nuclear, the world is going to be a much more dangerous place."

Not yet. U.S. troops on both boundries of Iran.

[hansel]

"It seems harder and harder to justify Iraq when NK and Iran are about to go nuclear and minute.
...Kim Jong Il and the mullahs can see that with 150,000 troops in Iraq we are prevented from dealing with either of them. ...

We have to ask ourselves was deposing Saddam worth letting Iran and NK go nuclear?"


Where do you think our bases will be if we needed them for confronting Iran if they tried anything funny? Iraq. Not stupid at all.

Check out a map. We have Iran surrounded since we are in Afghanistan (Iran's East) and Iraq (Iran's West). If we blockaded with our navy the Caspian sea above and the sea below, Iran would be isolated.

Iran isn't nuclear yet. With NK, we've got 6 way talks with all their surrounding countries.

[cdrw]

We also have to ask ourselves if a full frontal assault against either of those two would have solved the problem. Saddam made himself the low hanging fruit. Any one of them we attack is going to spell trouble from the others (like we're seeing Iran instigating insurgency in Iraq now).

Now that Saddam is out of the way and we've got direct access to the Iranian borders from multiple sides we are in a much better strategic position to deal with them. "W" could never have explained this rationale to the public but I have no doubt his strategic advisers had very good reasons, long term reasons, for getting Saddam out of the way first.

[af_vet_1981]

Not yet. U.S. troops on both boundries of Iran.

Shhh ! You are not supposed to help him with the answer ... He seems to think President Bush as been bogged down in Iraq ...

[Gandalf_The_Gray]

We're in a far superior position to strike quickly against the Iranian nuclear facilities and ballistic missile sites than ever before.

We now occupy an unsinkable aircraft carrier the size of Texas in the middle of the Middle East, and the rats think GW is dumb!

Regards,
GtG

[Gucho]

"when NK and Iran are about to go nuclear and minute."

NK is all bluster. Iran best do some heavy duty reconsideration before going nuke weapons.

[hiredhand]

Iran said today it has successfully test-fired a long-range "strategic missile" and delivered it to its armed forces, saying it is now prepared to deal with any regional threats and even the "big powers."

Yeah...well....we'll find out now won't we... :-)