Originally posted by EBE154
reply to post by BlackProjects
the only evidence you have about an iranian connection with iraqi roadside bombs are various news reports from government controlled news channels
which 'claim' that the military has found actual evidence... so why don't they just show us the 'clear evidence'? strange isn't it?
Refreshing to find
someone who is capable of rational critical thinking.
There are simply
way too many people buying into the official line without actually thinking about things.
We
know that western media is used as a propaganda engine, so why do so many people refuse to think critically about what they see on TV?
Edit to add:
Funny how this part of the original article never gets any attention:
Iran has always insisted it would never launch any attack against a foreign country but has also warned of a crushing response to any aggression
against its soil.
Read that over a few times.
Iran would never launch an attack on a foreign country.
It has no history of invasion. It's war with Iraq was primarily due to Saddam's expansionist agenda backed by US interests.
Additionally, one does not have to win a war to deliver a crushing response.
Some of you have rather misguided ideas as to how effective anti-missile systems are. The Phalanx is just about useless against a ballistic missile
because it will chew the missile apart, but the warhead is very likely to continue along it's
ballistic trajectory and hit the target anyway.
If you don't understand that, you might need to brush up on your physics.
The Patriot Anti-missile system has been largely over hyped in order to sell the system to other countries.
Techincal Article on Patriot Preformance
From 1991 through 1993, we carried out a detailed study of the performance
of the Patriot system in attempting to destroy Iraqi Scud (Al-Hussein) missiles
during the 1991 Gulf War. This work was based in large part on analyses
of news media videos of Patriot-Scud engagements. We found that the actual
success rate for Patriot against the Iraqi missiles was very low, and most
likely was zero.
The PAC-3 Missile has since been introduced which features "Hit To Kill" technology. This means that the target missile (and warhead) is much more
likely to be destroyed upon successful interception. What very few people are talking about is the fact that it also greatly reduces the chances of a
successful interception since now the missile must physically impact the target.
SO!
If I was a US grunt on the ground, I'd be very happy to prey that no one in office is stupid enough to press this particular confrontation. I
wouldn't be very optimistic, though.
[edit on 5-9-2007 by BitRaiser]