Iran Test-Fires More Missiles in Persian Gulf; Rice Issues Warning

Originally posted by dariousg
reply to post by centurion1211

 

Does it mean Nuclear retaliation? Are we back to that as an only option?
Seriously? I never said it is the only option. I said we, and every other ally, would have a LEGITIMATE reason to retaliate. Not like what you are preaching.

OMG. I guess we could instead send you over to iran with hat in hand to beg for their forgiveness. Or maybe you think we should try "sanctions" after they blow up one of our cities or bases? Are you really that terrified of getting hurt, yourself, that you are unable or unwilling to ever stand up and fight to protect yourself, your family, your country? If so, there's only one word left to describe that situation - pitiful.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by dariousg
reply to post by centurion1211

 

Now this is a military view if I have ever seen one. Kill them first, regardless of the facts or how those facts have been manipulated by the powers that be. Just kill them. Killlllllllllllllllllllllll THEM! Then they can't kill us.

I'm done.

Also ...

Sometimes world events forces a military solution on us. Should we have attempted to just negotiate with Japan after Pearl Harbor? Of course not. But your philisophy could put us in exactly the same position of having to react (still with the military) after being attacked - this time with WMD's.

Using the police metaphor again, I believe you'd still want the police to arrest the people planning to burn your business, even if it was based only on information the police had received (unknown if factual at the time) that they were planning to burn your place. IMO it would be insane to do otherwise.

You see, you are taking things in a completely different direction. If SOMEONE ATTACKS US then I say we need to fight. I'm not one of those 'peace loving' people that do whatever you say they do in your previous response to me.

Using the police metaphor again, if there is actual EVIDENCE beyond a shadow of a doubt that can be provided that Iran was actually mobilizing their forces to march on the U.S. and attack us then I would want the police to step in. However, who is going to provide this evidence? God forbid we believe anything that this current administration would present as 'fact'.

The only problem with this approach is this: people like the ones running the show in the White House right now act first on their created evidence and then apologize for their actions after the fact. How many tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi's have died because of these lies? How many of our service men and women? How many more will die? All on the idea that we were going in to prevent Sadam from using the WMDs that the administrations intelligence showed that he had.

Oh wait, that was proven to be a bunch of crap. Now who benefitted from this invasion of Iraq? Hmmmm, could it be that Cheney and Haliburton made a nice little chunk of change? Wouldn't they make a lot more if they went into Iran, the SECOND LARGEST oil producer on this planet? Of course they would.

You have to begin to question the reasons behind the push before you just jump to the conclusion that Iran is truly a threat to the people of the U.S.

reply to post by centurion1211


Or maybe you should learn and understand the definition of appeasement and it's implications. Aiding and abetting. For example, allowing trade to increase ten fold with Iran within one's presidency could be considered "appeasement".

Remember the the term "Nazi sympathizers or appeasers"? Just because people don;t want to jump to the conclusion that the best way to deal with Iran is bombing the hell out of them does not make them appeasers.

reply to post by centurion1211


Dude, THEY HAVE NO WMDs! This is the SAME BS that was preached to everyone about IRAQ!!!

Study your facts first. IRAN HAS NO WMDs! They are a decade away from even coming close to a nuke. Attacking them now is for selfish reasons only. Not for any form of defense.

Why would I head over to Iran with hat in hand and ask for forgiveness? Did we attack them unprovoked? You see, you are not making any sense or you are just not getting the argument.

reply to post by TruthWithin


Exactly! Just because I am trying to give a word of caution to the approach people should take when considering Iran does not make me an appeaser. If we were at war with them I would support our troops. Just like I support them in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do I support the administration and their lies for getting us into those wars? Hell no. I don't agree with why we are in those wars at all.

So, I just had to agree with what you are saying here.

Originally posted by dariousg
Study your facts first. IRAN HAS NO WMDs! They are a decade away from even coming close to a nuke. Attacking them now is for selfish reasons only. Not for any form of defense.

Where do you get YOUR facts? Nobody knows how close Iran is to getting a nuclear bomb - some estimates say a few months, others 10 years. The problem is that we'll never know (until they test one) because they are unwilling to cooperate. If they have nothing to hide then suspend enrichment and let the inspectors have full access and put the world's mind at rest. Iran can have nuclear power no problem at all - but it's going about it all wrong.

As for Iraq....they did have WMD's. They killed 5,000 Kurds and 20,000 Iranian soldiers with nerve gas in the 80's. Is that WMD enough for you? The problem was that we DIDN'T KNOW what the hell they had left because they wouldn't let the UN inspectors do their job. We had to find out - because they sure weren't going to tell us.....and they were busy going around invading other countries. Yes, there was a lot of exaggeration, propaganda and pure BS flying around regarding Iraq and WMD...but the fact remains, nobody really knew what they had. So it's all very well being wise after the event, but that's missing the point.

And you're correct, we're seeing the same sort of exaggeration, propaganda and pure BS involving Iran and WMD now. But, again, it doesn't change the basic fact that Iran is proving itself to be totally untrustworthy.

And yes, I know what you're going to say, and I agree - certain other countries aren't exactly forthcoming when it comes to their nuclear tech either. But, once more, it shouldn't mean we let Iran off the hook!

centurion1211
Since we're keeping it simple for you, let's use a police and crime metaphor.

If the police got information that a group of eco-nazis was planning to burn down your business because it wasn't "green" enough for them (didn't fit their ideology), do you think the police should:

a) wait for them to actually burn your place down and then go try to find them and bring them to justice?

or

b) actively work to stop the crime before they destroy your property?

Unfortunately, choice "a" is what would most likely happen in today's world. However, hopefully you can see that choice "a" really does you no good and costs you the most in the long run. The most you'll ever receive is the knowledge that if the catch the bad guys, they'll probably be convicted and sent to prison to "pay" for their crime. Meawhile, you get to start over - if you can.

Also, hopefully you can understand all the real parallels in the above metaphor. Here's some hints if you're still struggling with these concepts:

The police represent the U.S. by being armed and actively cruising around the areas were the criminals live and operate and telling criminals that they will be arrested if caught. The eco-nazis represent the iranians by knowingly being threatening and destructive based on their ideology (i.e. religion). They also have a willingness to share with and use other criminal elements (i.e. terrorist organizations).

Yes, the U.S. used 2 nuclear weapons to end a fight to the death world war over 50 years ago. We can see in the history books what happened and why and what the devastation from those weapons was like.

Precisely the reason we must keep states and groups with the will to use them and lack of fear of their own deaths from ever being able to acquire nuclear weapons.

What you say makes sense, but in regards to Iran you're argument is mute, because Iran is no threat. Everything from the US and Israeli admins is nothing more than propaganda and lies. Both America and Israel are more of a threat to wolrd peace than Iran, if you're metaphor is anything to go by.

Iran has done nothing to justify being attacked. Fact!, the US government has no evidence whatsoever that they are developing nuclear weapons, even the CIA has released a report saying as much. There's also the double standards of the US and Israeli admins. They are both run by criminals and hypocrites, whose only contribution to this world, is fraud, corruption, lies, death and destruction. If I had to have dinner with any of them. I'd pick the Iranian President everytime. He may have a big mouth, but at least he isn't a criminal. If you have evidence that says other wise, please provide it!!!!!

Curio
And yes, I know what you're going to say, and I agree - certain other countries aren't exactly forthcoming when it comes to their nuclear tech either. But, once more, it shouldn't mean we let Iran off the hook!

Both the US and UK governments lost their moral compass a long time ago and they are not fit to dictate to a cockcroach, let alone tell other countries what they can and can't do.

Originally posted by dariousg
reply to post by mrmonsoon

 

Could you please explain to me how testing your defensive weapons are begging to be attacked? Why are they testing them in the first place?

I'll tell you why. Because they feel threatoned! The police state for the world (the U.S.) is telling them that they can't have this or that. They can't have nuclear power for their people. Well, how else are they to get power to their people? They have limited powering resources and nuclear power seems to be the best option.

But noooooooo. Big brother says that they are a threat and that they will be crushed if they try to provide a better life for their people. Who are we to say what other people in their OWN country can do?

If they do get stupid enough to create a bomb and use it then they will be retaliated against. That's how it happens. All of this fear and war mongering is making me sick. What makes me sicker is the fact that people like you are swallowing it hook, line and sinker. Pathetic.

So a Ballistic missile the can go 1200+ miles is a defensive missile?????

They feel threatened, perhaps if they did not almost weekly directly and or indirectly threaten another country, they would not have anything to fear?

Yes, when they finish building a bomb, I think they are too cowardly to use it.
They will give it to one of their lapdogs, Hamas, Hezbollah and they will do the dirty work.

Further, are you really so unrealistic as to think Israel will just sit and wait to be nuked???

No, they will prevent it by the only method available to them; prevent Iran from getting/making nuclear weapons and any cost.

The real end difference is you support Israel waiting to be destroyed by Iran and I support Iran being prevented from doing so.

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
So a Ballistic missile the can go 1200+ miles is a defensive missile?????

If that's how far away their attackers live, then yes it's a defensive weapon.

You don't have a real defense until you can return an attack to the aggressors homeland.

reply to post by mythatsabigprobe


Actually, that is wrong.

A defensive weapon is one meant to stop enemy weapons, fired at you, from destroying you.

Shooting a missile at someone else is an offensive weapon, it is meant to attack someone, not stop the weapons attack.

reply to post by mythatsabigprobe


maybe we can Ask the Israelis/US to get rid of their offencive missiles
that can strike Iran

that way everyone only has defensive missiles,
looks like another Iraq where they got the Iraqis to disasemble almost all their new Missiles before attacking.

Best defence is always a good offence

reply to post by mrmonsoon


So then all weapons are offensive. I guess you've got no reason to own a gun then...

Hahahahaha!!!!

What a joke.

Iran and the Photoshop Threat: Tehran isn’t hiding its weapons of mass digital manipulation

In an Iranian Image, a Missile Too Many

This last is really indicative of just how much of a real "threat" the Iranians pose. Here they are, testing medium and long-range Shahab missiles, and releasing photos of the launch –except that only three out of the four missiles shown taking off are real. The fourth has been superimposed on the original photo using Photoshop, a computer program that manipulates digital images.

Are we really supposed to take the alleged Iranian "threat" – which Barack Obama deems "the greatest strategic challenge to the United States in the region in a generation" – seriously? Not unless Photoshop is reclassified as a "weapon of mass destruction."

quiet...Iranian speaking
source of fake picture = Frans-Presse
IRGC released only a video...have you watched it?
wtf, who cares, media talks about it = oil price hits $150

Here's the original Iranian photo, that started all this photoshop nonsense, except it isn't photoshopped. It clearly shows 4 missile launchers, but only 3 missiles in flight. Maybe the 4th missile did fail, or simply hadn't been fired when the photo was taken. Either way there's no sign of a photoshopped image on that website. But as usual, the western media doesn't half like to blow things out of proportion. Anything that makes Iran look bad, is a good thing. How sad!

www.sepahnews.com...







[edit on 14-7-2008 by kindred]

OK, I just took the trouble to read all these ridiculous posts, to see if anyone else ever mentioned this. Nope. The missile test to worry about was the single missile fired from an off shore freighter. It was exploded at the apogee, and not at ground level. Why the apogee? NEMP. With ONE nuclear missile, fired from a freighter off shore of America, they could send America back into the Stone Age. Instantly. How, you ask? All our new cars, our trucks, our computers, our everything, is now utilizing microtechnology. One blast of Nuclear Electro Magnetic Pulse at 100,000 volts will FRY anything powered up at the moment. Very low Amps, but enought voltage to fry anything in a direct line of sight. Thus the apogee, or highest point of the flight. This would also knock out electronics in southern Canada, and northern Mexico. Only first world countries are using electronics, or have grown to depend on them. This wouldn't hurt Mexico, nor any of the ME countries if we did it back to them. Unlike Oceans' 11, it really doesn't just magically return to normal in an hour. Never does. You have to replace. When Bush learned of this test, he was shocked. We have no defense against it. Further, a nuclear tipped cruise missile fired from a freighter would fly under the radar, no interception possible. Personally, I am not really concerned about it. Iran will be a big loser in the war that the Mad Jeanie is going to start with Israel. Soon. Israels leaders are already stating this. Possibly after the November elections, so as not to influence the US elections toward Obama bin Sadden. And Iran will not have to throw the first punch, they are simply pointing a gun, and aiming.

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
Something I have noticed more lately is how many people accept the idea of "preemptive war". I remember taking great pride in the fact we never attack another country unless we are attacked first.

Attacking a sovereign nation that poses no direct threat is illegal by any standard. Well ofcourse Iran is not a direct threat to our national security. Our national defense is being used as a goon squad to steal the natural resources of another country for private interests.

"Preemptive war" as a doctrine would never have been accepted without 9/11.

Nuclear weapons change many sane peoples thinking. A threat from a radical nation such as iran has to be dealt with and swiftly. You would be protesting when the nuclear bombs start to fall and it wouldn't matter then.

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
Something I have noticed more lately is how many people accept the idea of "preemptive war". I remember taking great pride in the fact we never attack another country unless we are attacked first.

Attacking a sovereign nation that poses no direct threat is illegal by any standard. Well ofcourse Iran is not a direct threat to our national security. Our national defense is being used as a goon squad to steal the natural resources of another country for private interests.

"Preemptive war" as a doctrine would never have been accepted without 9/11.

And of course, the 9/11 operation, just like The Big Event, was carried out by, none other than, the CIA.

reply to post by kindred
Just one question; are you an intelligence officer for a mid-east country?