It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran building rocket bases in Venezuela

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Thats the test where Iran claims to have a 2000 km missle. That would be needed to reach Miami. But they don't have a missle that can do 2000 km it was hoaxed along with the photos from the event.


Why are you worried about Iranian missiles reaching Miami? Holy fearmongering, batman


I don't think you need to worry. If I were a middle-power nation with nuclear weapons, why would I waste my money developing old-generation ICBM technology that has a good chance of not even surviving to the target?

If I were you, I'd be more concerned about smuggling a nuke through Mexico, placing it onto a semi trailer, and then turning a few city blocks into a crater. Considering the US government puts more effort into patrolling the Canadian border than the Mexican one, this isn't exactly impossible to do. In fact, lots of organizations could smuggle whatever they want into the US, whenever they want. There used to be KGB splinter groups with various WMD located around the US as a deterrant against American invasion (probably FSB agents replaced them).

If I were you, I would be concerned about a much larger threat than Iran; try, the world. In fact, the US should re-institute their WWI-era isolationist policies and learn to stay out of global affairs. The world would be a much better place then without millions of people dying or displaced from resource wars, and we would actual use technology to progress as a species instead of building them in some international, West vs everyone else arms race. Imagine that!




posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


I would be more worried about China arming the cartels which they are. Venezuela, North Korea and Iran are Bushes wet dream of wars he wanted. Bush played along with the propaganda that those countries put in news papers everyday to promote his crazy war on terror and push his patriot act. Funny thing is he passed all those terrorist laws and never has the US government prosecuted a terrorist with those charges. But they have prosecuted many Americans with them.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Surfrat
 


Wow you sure are a warmongerer? What right does the U.S have to intervene in Venezeula. The article clearly states that it is to prevent air attacks which Venezeula has the right to do. This is designed to defend their sovereignty.

Why would Chavez order an attack against the U.S.A in the first place? There is no benefit to him, his government or his people and I garauntee you -that just like when the poor Venezeulans came down from the Barrio's when a U.S ochestrated coup overthrew Chavez- there will be maximum resistance from the people.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Surfrat



So, now Iran sets up missile bases pointed toward the US and our South American and Central American allies. It’s game on for Chavez. We must take action very soon.
This should be a full blown invasion. I do not believe that the Venezuelan people would intervene with any resistance. We cannot wait for the 1st shot.


www.jpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


Read article does not say pointed at US so stop your gung ho talk



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by brewing
 

I'm going to break down this paragraph piece by piece and debunk it.



Irans gets others to fight their battles...most notably Hamas. And don't believe for a minute that Iran wasn't an agressor during the Iran/Iraq war. If Saddam hadn't started it the Ayatolla would have eventually. And while we are at it...I don't know if you consider storming a certain country's embassy and holding the unarmed occupants hostage for 1 1/2 years passive but it kind of showed agression to me.

- While the link between Hezbollah and Iran has been evidently proven correct the link between Hamas and Iran hasn't.
- Iran had no reason to invade Iraq and your argument is relying on purely speculation. The fact is that Iraq invaded Iran for strategic purposes, mainly being a demand for a greater access to the Persian gulf and increased oil. Irans military was severly hurt by the Islamic revolution as many officers fled Iran or were executed and they would not have been able to invade Iraq. Infact the only reason they didn't loose large portions of territory is because of the many Persians who were convinced by the Iranian propoganda machine, to die a martyr running to the frontlines in suicide missions.
- You can blame the West for the hostage crisis. Why? The West and the C.I.A enacted an act of agression in 1953. They overthrew the democratically elected leader Mohhamed Mossadeq and installed a brutal dictator/puppet know to you as the Shah. He was hated by the majority of the populace and when he was overthrown many students were angry at the West and were worried that they were going to organize another coup from the embassy. This is the reason for the hostage crisis.
Did you know the C.I.A trained SAVAK (The Shah's secret police) in modern interogation techniques or torture. Infact they killed 1000 political prisoners.

I have to say I have never seen so many brainwashed warmongerers spreading blatant propaganda in an ATS thread with so little evidence to back up their claims.
edit on 17-5-2011 by SpeachM1litant because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by standupamerica32
 


How is that serious? If you don't want the threat write to your congressman to pull out all carriers and US bases in the persian gulf. They are doing it because we are doing it to them.

You dont want missles pointed at you, stop sending carriers to the persian gulf.


That's idiotic.
Of course we're going to keep our weapons and make us get rid of them.
Being a country is all about gaining advantages, and having more say-so.

Duh we're going to make them remove theirs and keep ours, it's a smart move.
Is it hypocritical? Not really sense every nation works in its own interest first and foremost.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by DuceizBack
 


What is a nation-states self interest however? Is it to run its internal politics and economics effeciently maximizing living standards(both material and non material which includes freedom and the pursuit of hapiness) while maintaining security and stability within its own geographically defined borders and protecting these borders from threats when it only poses a serioud threat. The constitution would suggest this is the reason.

If this is the purpose of the contemporary nation-state in relation to America then power projection, conflict escalation, a large military and world dominance would be contrary to the establishment of this nation-state. Infact it would be counter-productive leading to a weakening of its own national security as its military resources are stretched across a larger fronteir constantly occupied in the engagment of semi-war (small/medium wars fought with no end).

So in essence American strategic interests actually undermine interests of the people which inhabit the state thus undermining the nation-state and its legitamacy.

I enjoyed your sense of cynicism and I agree with you. Even if it is counter productive and contrary to the establishment of the nation-state and the American republic- the few controlling government will pursue power projection and global dominance status in order to benefit the few at the top ot the pyramid. However you must be careful wihen atributing the reasons for this. It is not in the nation-states self interest and it is not in the peoples self interest. It is in the self interest (often economic) of the few who control the politics of the country.
edit on 17-5-2011 by SpeachM1litant because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by JBA2848
I notice all the information on Irans missles come from this launch.



That is the photo that was edited to add more missles in because all of the missles never launched and in order to hide it they cut and pasted over the unlaunched missles.




2009 CRS Report for Congress
www.fas.org...



Iran said it successfully test fired a 2-stage solid-fuel missile with a 2,000 kilometer range in
November 2008. At the time, a Pentagon spokesman said he could not confirm the launch
occurred, but that this was consistent with the fact that Iran continues to develop a ballistic
missile program that poses a threat to Iran’s neighbors in the region and beyond.


www.globalsecurity.org...



Shahab-3, 3A/ Zelzal-3

May 21, 2010

The opinions and evaluations stated here in are only the authors and cannot be construed to reflect those of any Government agency, company, institute or association. It is based on public information, circumstantial evidence, informed speculation, declassified U.S. intelligence community documents, official Iranian and North Korean government documents and histories, oral histories, interviews and reverse engineering analysis. As with all data regarding the Iranian and North Korean strategic space and ballistic missile programs, this analysis is subject to revision--and represents a work in progress.

Shahab-3, 3A / Zelzal-3

The Iranian Shahab-3 ballistic missile means Meteor-3 or Shooting Star-3 in Farsi [alternatively designated Zelzal (Earthquake)] is derived from the 1,350-1,600 kilometer range North Korean No-dong missile. The Shahab-3 reportedly has a range of between 1,350 and 1,600 kilometers and is capable of carrying a 1,000-760-650 kilogram warhead. Through Spring 2010 there was an estimated 300 Shahab-3's of various types deployed in Iran.



Seems the only one who says they have a missle that will go 2000 km is Iran?
edit on 16-5-2011 by JBA2848 because: (no reason given)


From your own source

Longer range versions of the Shahab-3, variously referred to as Shahab-3 variants, the Shahab-
3A, Shahab-3B, and Shahab-4, and a BM-25, may have range capabilities of 1,500-2,500
kilometers. These missiles potentially could reach targets throughout the Middle East, Turkey,
and into southeastern Europe. Some have reported that perhaps several dozen or more of these
missile types may be deployed and operational. Some Chinese, North Korean, or Russian
involvement is suspected. In 2006, Iran announced the successful test of a Fajr-3 MRBM
comparable to the Shahab-3, although U.S. and Israeli intelligence analysts reportedly expressed
skepticism.


Who knows what in the hell they are working on or who they are receiving much needed help from. The capabilities are there and there are developing greater capabilities as we speak. The process takes time and they have been steadily advancing in Venezuela for years. Give them a few more years and some more help from Russia, China or N. Korea and see what they are capable of. We can only speculate without first hand access to facilities.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


And you were saying?

"although U.S. and Israeli intelligence analysts reportedly expressed skepticism."

Also read the Congressional Report saying the Pentagon can not confirm a missle that can travel over 1600 km. And that Congressional report is from 2009.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by DuceizBack

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by standupamerica32
 


How is that serious? If you don't want the threat write to your congressman to pull out all carriers and US bases in the persian gulf. They are doing it because we are doing it to them.

You dont want missles pointed at you, stop sending carriers to the persian gulf.


That's idiotic.
Of course we're going to keep our weapons and make us get rid of them.
Being a country is all about gaining advantages, and having more say-so.

Duh we're going to make them remove theirs and keep ours, it's a smart move.
Is it hypocritical? Not really sense every nation works in its own interest first and foremost.


How are we going to make them remove theirs?
They are placing it in veneuzela so we can't remove it.
They are a country and trying to use and gain an advantage.
Don't cry about it if they find some advantage well good for them.

We placed carriers over their, and now they placed missles in veneuzela. So what? They are trying to get an advantage too, no biggie. I honestly dont think those missiles can reach the USA anyway



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by JBA2848
Besides Venezuela does not even have roads connecting many of there cities. You have to take a plane to fly from city to city. Hell they don't even have addresses for homes or buildings because they don't even have a mail service. They could be raided and taken over before they even knew a army was there.
edit on 16-5-2011 by JBA2848 because: (no reason given)


Not that I am a Chavez fan boy, but I do hate it when people blatantly tell falsehoods to denegrate another people or country.

Ipostel is their national postal service assisted by numerous privately owned courier firms, the country has over 100,000km of roads, 30,000km of which are paved, it is one of the most urbanised countries in Latin America and their military, while not being top of the pile, is significant and has had recent help off both Iran and Russia.

EDIT: As for the OP, if true, how do we know these are "missile" bases and not bases to be used for space launches? The EU has a base for such operations in French Guyana, because it is nice and close to the equator. Maybe Iran wanted the same and Russia was to much of an unreliable "friend" to work with?
edit on 17/5/11 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   
this is old news! i made a post about this some time ago!



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Well my source is some one who is living there and was deported back to Venezuela from the US. He was married to a family member of mine. And you should try to ship something to Venezuela some time. You have to ship it to a government building in the country then they must travel to that building in order to get it. My family member went there and lived there with him for over six months twice but decided not to go back again. The red shirt wearing Chaves crowd scared her because of her being American. Even right now at this moment over half the country is without power. There really a modern country? When my family ember was there the power was out half the time. The hotel would give them a small candle and a pack of matches to find there way. And this was the rich resort hotels. Just to travel from one city to the next they have to get government permission slips to board planes to fly to another city or island. And thats not because of the deportation to the country that is there standard procedure.

Power rationing.
www.thisdaylive.com...

Even the area where these missles are supposedly being built are without power.
english.eluniversal.com...
edit on 17-5-2011 by JBA2848 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


Oh granted, it may be a cack postal service, by all accounts, but they still have one!

And yes, I am aware of the power outages, general poverty levels etc and I am not trying to paint a rosy picture, just saying that your post wasn't entirely accurate.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by DuceizBack
 


There are two directions a nation can take in terms of foreign relations:

It can pursue cooperation involving cultural, economical and technological exchanges with other countries.

Or it can work against other countries by overtly (or outrightly) attacking their culture, economy and technology.

I would rather pursue a path of cooperation with other countries. Why? Because I have already accepted the fact that we all share a single world, and my own country will never have the amount of brainpower and will to advance human progression.

Our species has only ever achieved the gestalt effect of progression through cooperation between nations. We have only gone backwards when people work against each other.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Because the US had been meddling in Iranian relations since the 50s and put Iran under a fascist dictatorship so the oil could keep flowing to American interests and not Soviet or British. Perhaps you should do some homework on modern Iranian history and the Shah before you start making such claims about "aggression".



Come on Dude...I know all about US meddling in Iran so don't be condescending. Admittedly...it didn't work out to well for us. However, the results of the Iranian revolution hasn't worked out too well for Iran citizens either.

And if you don't know what happened during the attempted hostage rescue than you haven't done your homework. It's not a big secret what happened.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   
If the article is actually correct, which I highly doubt, what would be the point in wasting millions or billions of dollars building launch facilities just to have them destroyed before they even get fuel into these low grade missiles? Again, if they are actual launch sites the debated area would be under constant satellite surveillance and the minute they even begin to fuel any kind of nuclear delivery system capable of hitting U.S. targets they would be immediately taken out by highly precise Minuteman (LGM-30) long range ballistic missiles launched from the continental U.S. Or on the other hand they could be destroyed much quicker through the use of the Trident II D-5 SLBM series of missiles fired from a nuclear submarine parked off the coast of Venezuela.

It would be completely futile and a massive waste of money.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Jocko Flocko
 


depends on if the missiles are mobile are not. if they are mobile then ballistic missles are usless...plus if we fire missles at veneuzela we would be starting another war with veneuzela..



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


You haven't the slightest clue about America's current delivery systems that can be re-tasked even after takeoff during flight do you? Ballistic missile mobile launchers from Iran... you are kidding me right? The only nation in the world that has perfected mobile launch systems is Russia. Such systems are way beyond the technological means of Iran who can hardly get a delivery system off the ground 50% of the time without it blowing up.

Seriously fella, go do some reading.

www.janes.com...
edit on 19-5-2011 by Jocko Flocko because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Jocko Flocko
 


First of all we dont know if the missle launchers iran has are russian made or not. Yes i know about the delivery systems. Mobile launchers are always moving. That is why russian ICBMs are always on the move, at least the topol-m.

My main point was the us wouldnt be able to launch a missle into veneuzelan airspace without starting another war with veneuzela. Just because the usa may have the capability doesnt mean they should use it.



new topics




 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join