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.

[risk]

Maybe just maybe on the second part. Bush will have another four years to finish the war on terror. It could have been done by now, and if it's still being fought after his second term in office, we should all demand better of the next president. We've made progress over the last three years, but we've been far too cautious. The days right after 9/11 were opportunities for much slaying of dragons; the moment is lost to us now.

[Cboldt]

September is going to be the deadliest month yet. August was the worst yet. Things are going downhill.

Your credibility is in the crapper. Your hand-wringing is without realistic justification.

[snowsislander]

I would agree with you that any Israeli operation against Iran would be far more messy than 1981 & would require a triad of special forces,air strikes & cruise missiles to have a decent chance of success,you cannot rule out the Israelis launching one-from the looks of it,Washington does'nt seem interested.So may as well,go it alone.

My own guess would be that the Israelis will not have to go it alone. It's one of those operations that must succeed; my own guess is that we will ensure its success.

[lt.america]

First, let me welcome you to FR and give you my opinion on the situations you have brought up. I believe that Iran is going to be dealt with in a swift and decisive manner in a post 9/11 world (Israel will take the lead if we don't). There is no cookie cutter approach for NK. The UN dropped the ball on NK nuclear oversight and what everyone must understand is once you decide to act against NK, you have assigned every person in Seoul to death (they will rain down an artillery round a second for over 24 hours).

Positioning troops in Iraq will lead to a more stable Middle East in the long run. Only through threat of military force have we been able to keep NK north of the 38. I believe troops in Iraq will have the same affect in the Middle East. Now I have been known to make a mistake or to in my strategic assessments, but I think you may be able to bank on this.

[MarkEsq]

How scary is this....???

I wonder what we'd be doing if we weren't in the middle of an election and Bush wasn't concerned about being accused of starting another war by Kerry.....

[ZULU]

"Actually, Iran does not have to conquer Russia, they are working side by side."

I know.. But Beslan, like 9-1-1, may have changed all that.

We can only hope.

[Taildraggin]

A while back, someone signed up at a Motorcycle board as "2fast4u". He got hammered into oblivion in short order. Same idiot?

[MikefromOhio]

you are a moron...go back to DU stupid

[MikefromOhio]

if you really want World War 3 to turn into World War 4, be my guest and go after Iran. We are having enough issues with terrorists in Iraq....going into Iran at this time would kill a lot of US troops....not by the Iranian army, but during whatever occupation afterward due to all the terrrorist groups that would be cut loose if that were to happen....

not saying it cant or wont be done, but now is not the time....and I am afraid that unless we want to go it alone, we might have to wait until they nuke someone....

[sarah_f]

Nice.

If London's muslim sleepers don't succeed in gassing the Tube or flying a plane into Big Ben, the muslims in Iran can just launch a missile.

Grand Mosque construction starts as soon as the fires cool.

[Indie]

SKYBIRD SKYBIRD

DAYWORD: JERICHO
ACTIVATION CODE: MEGADDON
AUTHENTICATION: TRINITY

ZOT!!!!

[Arpege92]

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

Excuse me, but letting Iran and NK go nuclear? You ask that question as if Bush had something to do with it. Where the hell has the UN been all of this time? Oh I know, they've been too busy screwing over the folks of Iraq by allowing Saddam to pay them off.

[monday]

"The moderates, reformers and college students have been silent recently."

Check this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1227597/posts

[Arpege92]

"I don't rely on the UN to protect me."

Who said anything about the UN protecting the United States. I'm talking about how accountable they are in turning a blind eye to Iran's nuclear program.

"The hell with the UN."

Ditto!

[followerofchrist]

I'll wait a couple months before I believe the sky is falling again.

[monday]

"Your LIBERAL Brain and Mouth just Betrayed You!
DEMON-RAT...T R O L L!"

He raises some good points. If you cannot answer them, at least refrain from calling names.

2fast4u North Korea is already nuclear and South Korea would be in danger of a nuclear strike if we were to invade, so that is not a possibility. South Korea also wants to pursue a policy of appeasement toward North Korea. Since they are the ones that will pay the price, we have to accede to their wishes.

Iran will not ever be allowed to develop nuclear weapons because Israel will not allow it. They destroyed Iraq's nuclear weapons program long before the US invaded by taking out their nuclear power facility. They will do the same with Iran should it become necessary.

One other point to consider. Iran's ruling Mullahs are none too popular. Much of the Mullahs saber rattling is designed to draw the US into conflict so that ordinary Iranians will support them out of patriotism. No reason to give them what they want. Close to half a million Iranian students are demonstrating against their own govt today.

[monday]

"Is our Military unable to handle multiple encounters? No."

The Army is stretched very thin right now. This isn't even up for debate. Even the White house will admit this. Invading and occupying Iran or North Korea isn't even an option right now without instituting a draft. This is because it takes troops on the ground to occupy a country.

Thankfully our Navy and Air Force still have resources to spare. We are not defenseless.

I am simply pointing out the truth. Sorry if it offends you.

[monday]

The definition of a troll is someone who says something outrageous and false simply in order to provoke a negative response.

Recently I have noticed that posters have been labeled a troll simply for having a different point of view than the majority of posters on a particular thread. Free Republic has increasingly become a forum where discussion and debate is no longer allowed. It's rather sad.

[Malsua]

I am simply pointing out the truth. Sorry if it offends you.

It doesn't offend me, what I was trying to point out was that the same folks that talk about how "over extended" we are ignore the point that it doesn't matter unless they are advocating that we should have invaded somewhere else instead. No one will be opening a hot war on our soil lest they risk becoming a glowing wasteland for 5000 years, so other than terrorism, the homeland doesn't need defending from armies.

There won't be a draft either unless some nutcase lobs a kilotoner+ in our direction.