Posted on 09/25/2004 5:50:59 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Which building in Tehran?
I rather imagine the brit subs have more than enough missiles that can hit any target in tehran down to one as small as three by three foot, we share with our friends.
Tony can probably push that button himself. And take out the households of at least three or four dozen mad mullahs.
maybe more.
Our NEWEST team ally, may have the capacity to attack Iran this week as well. Iraq that is. You know our newest ally?
"This is my first post so I know I'll get creamed for it, but here goes:
It seems harder and harder to justify Iraq when NK and Iran are about to go nuclear and minute."
No, I won't cream you for your opinion. Here is mine. Those 118,000 troops (we're talking about 150,000 soon) will soon be making a march across the Iranian border. The reality is that we needed Iraqi for the strategic location. We also needed Iraqi for the oil, but not as some think of us piping and shipping it to the US simply for economic gain. Keep in mind, Iran is something like our 6th largest oil supplier. We can't just start dropping bombs on the or they shut the oil off.
NK is a no-win now. The time to have stopped them was in the very early Clinton years. They had 3-4 nukes even by 1994. As much as I dislike Clinton I have to admit that an invasion was not a smart plan but feeding Kim Jong either with bribes was definately stupid.
An invasion of NK would be a mistake. We are better off further arming SK and keeping our B2s in place in the Pacific. Keeping our troops in SK is a mistake, they are nothing but a road bump when NK attacks. Our missle shield is operational in Alaska. So NK can rattle all they want. We must continue working on that shield & pressuring countries like Russia & China economically to stop selling them advanced weapons.
Iran is surrounded.
Bordering Iran,
We control the Persian Gulf.
We have bases in Iraq.
We have bases in Turkey.
We have bases in Afghanistan.
Pakistan is friendly.
Turkmenistan is friendly.
Across the Gulf, US CentCom is HQ'd in Qatar.
We have bases in Kuwait as well.
Iran is surrounded. Literally.
They don't have any friendly bordering country, unless you count the tribal areas between Iran and Pak and Afghanistan. But NO friendly governments. None.
Totally agree with all of your points except China doing something about NK. RIght now NK is costing us money and attention. China intends to surpass the US as the next superpower. We don't want in NK and the Chinese know this.
"The King of Terror from the skies has arrived"
I was thinking of the Nostradamus stuff myself lately! Eerily accurate. Remember watching that documentary movie in the late 70's. IN the documentary, they intepret that Iran launches a nuke missle on NYC and that Iran conquers part of southern Russia. Actually, Iran does not have to conquer Russia, they are working side by side.
Exactly !
Wake me up when they can reach Paris and Berlin.
Bet your Koran on it. Sub-launched, launch site to target range-at your pleasure!
Both are and will be taken care of.
One of the guys I work with is South Korean.
When the time comes, China will step in and take care of N. Korea. While we feel that N. Korea is ruled by a madman, so does the rest of the world. The Chinese don't want a nuclear armed madman on their doorstep.
Right now there is a lot of crazy dynasty change going on in N. Korea and a whole lot of folks are getting killed or about to be killed. You can count on the fact that different countries are playing sides and offering various forms of assistance to secure a more favorable outcome.
As to Iran, as I posted earlier, we are selling specialized bombs to Israel.
The major nuclear weapons labs are working on a new class of deep-penetrator nuclear bombs with a yield of only 0.5 kT that have a rocket motor in the back and a special nosecone that can penetrate several hundred feet into the soil before the low-yield bomb goes off. Because these bombs are GPS-guided, they don't need a high explosive yield to get destructive results.
"Iraq had nothing to do with Al Queda. Read the Senate Intelligence Committee report."
Please reread the Senate Intelligence report for yourself. It did say that, while they found no direct link between Iraq and September 11, 2001, they found many links between Iraq and Al queda. Many.
In other words, Iraq did have a lot to do with Al queda.
Where do you get that KSM was tortured? Sounds like spin based on Abu Graib to me in order to try and create something false again.
Are you seriously advocating invading NK and Iran instead of Saddam, all the while ignoring that Saddam is on Iran's doorstep and had bio and chemical weapons, to say nothing of a much larger army?!
Man, you have not a clue. NK is isolated and can be taken out at any time he goes "balistic" but Saddams large conventional army used to flank us or cut our supply lines would have been an unparalled disaster.
In todays modern weapon world, a small army can do great damage with better positioning. Best to eliminate the mobile modern force before you play wack a mullah.
Imagine how much you would have had to worry about if the US was "bogged down in Iran" with Saddams army pouring over the border playing "local insurgent".
Bush is doing great, a little too late, but he can not be blamed for having to do the Job Clintoon failed to do that gave the Jihadi 8 years to build up AFTER they declared war.
It is now VERY risky, but nothing better than a last minute save in a tight ballgame. Bush may just pull it off yet. The Jihadi have not played their ace in the sleeve yet, they have nukes now, just not small or powerful ones. Iran is enriching plutonium, and making the materials for H-bombs. That is what they need to make suitcase nukes and city busters.
Bush is starting way behind the 8 ball but has been pulling us out of the hole Very well.
Hats off to him and all the votes from my house.
Four words for Iran- fused silica parking lot.
You won't get creamed from here - your question was well thought out and logical.
The chief arguments, as I see it, for invading Iraq are:
1. Our forces are now strategically positioned to deal with Iranm Syria, Saudi Arabia, or any other place in the area that might fall under Jihadi control.
2. By stationing ourselves there, we take the War on terrorism to their turf. The Jihadis have spent considerable lives, energy, political capital and money trying to attack us in Iraq. They would have been able to apply all of these resources to another attack in the American homeland if they had not been forced into a war on their own turf. The leftist media love to portray Bush as a dummy and a stooge. He is excellent at playing the part - but 'dumb' is about the last word in the vocabulary that is appropriate to describing G. W Bush
"And, knowing that, the brave Brits, the US, and Israel (the only true warriors left on the planet!) need to take the reactors out ASAP. Screw the opinion of the UN."
Nice to know you think so highly of the Australians
We did not understand your message,please transmit again on November 23.....HE he he...
Ray
"Iran is surrounded.
Bordering Iran,
We control the Persian Gulf.
We have bases in Iraq.
We have bases in Turkey.
We have bases in Afghanistan.
Pakistan is friendly.
Turkmenistan is friendly.
Across the Gulf, US CentCom is HQ'd in Qatar.
We have bases in Kuwait as well.
Iran is surrounded. Literally.
They don't have any friendly bordering country, unless you count the tribal areas between Iran and Pak and Afghanistan. But NO friendly governments. None."
That may be true to a point, but Iran now has huge influence in both Afghanistan and Iraq that was previously surpressed by the regimes
While I'd love to see a carrier group in the Caspian sea, I'd don't think we're that good. :-P
No because there ain't no way we could defend Iraq from a ground invasion from Iran, with insurgents messing in our rear area. Oh sure we'd rule the air but I don't think that would be enough to prevent a disaster on the ground.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.