posted on March 31, 2006 04:38:09 PM new
This is exactly why we should have never gone into Iraq. There are much more pressing issues and problems to deal with than the "threat" that Iraq posed for America. The Bush Administration has taken their eye off the ball. No Osama, Iran now has missiles than can hit several targets including US Military bases while going undetected, North Korea continues their nuclear ambitions, the United States are less prepared for a terrorist attack now than before 9/11 (hell, we can't even respond to a National Emergency properly). By many estimates the Bush Administration has killed more innocent Iraqi's in 3 years than what Hussein did in 20. Our military is spread thin, our National Security is a joke and/or up for sale, and the Bush Administration has squandored billions on a war that has no end in site.
-----------------
Iran Test-Fires Missile Able to Duck Radar By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 37 minutes ago
Iran's military said Friday it successfully test-fired a missile not detectable by radar that can use multiple warheads to hit several targets simultaneously, a development that raised concerns in the United States and Israel.
The Fajr-3, which means "victory" in Farsi, can reach Israel and U.S. bases in the Middle East, Iranian state media indicated. The announcement of the test-firing is likely to stoke regional tensions and feed suspicion about Tehran's military intentions and nuclear ambitions.
"I think it demonstrates that Iran has a very active and aggressive military program under way," State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said in Washington. "I think Iran's military posture, military development effort, is of concern to the international community."
Gen. Hossein Salami, the air force chief of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, did not specify the missile's range, saying how far it can travel depends on the weight of its warheads.
But state-run television described the weapon as "ballistic" suggesting it is of comparable range to Iran's existing ballistic rocket, which can travel about 1,200 miles and reach arch-foe Israel and U.S. bases in Iraq and the Persian Gulf region.
"Today, a remarkable goal of the Islamic Republic of Iran's defense forces was realized with the successful test-firing of a new missile with greater technical and tactical capabilities than those previously produced," Salami said on television, which showed a brief clip of the missile's launch.
"It can avoid anti-missile missiles and strike the target," the general said.
He said the missile would carry a multiple warhead, and each warhead would be capable of hitting its target precisely.
"This news causes much concern, and that concern is shared by many countries in the international community, about Iran's aggressive nuclear weapons program and her parallel efforts to develop delivery systems, both in the field of ballistic missiles and cruise missiles," said Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev.
"The combination of extremist jihadist ideology, together with nuclear weapons and delivery systems, is a combination that no one in the international community can be complacent about," Regev said.
Yossi Alpher, an Israeli consultant on the Mideast peace process, said the news "escalates the arms race between Iran and all those who are concerned about Iran's aggressive intentions and nuclear potential."
"Clearly it's escalation, and also an attempt by Iran to flex its muscles as it goes into a new phase of the diplomatic struggle with the U.N. Security Council."
Andy Oppenheimer, a weapons expert at Jane's Information Group, said the missile test could be an indication that Iran has MIRV capability. MIRV refers to multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles, which are intercontinental ballistic missiles with several warheads, each of which could be directed to a different target.
"From the description, it could be a MIRV. If you are saying that from a single missile, separate warheads can be independently targeted then yes, this is significant," he said.
"But we don't know how accurate the Iranians are able to make their missiles yet, and this is a crucial point," Oppenheimer said.
"If the missile is adaptable for nuclear warheads, then they are well on the way," he added. "But they have not made a nuclear warhead yet. The current estimates are it could take five years."
Iran's existing ballistic rocket is called Shahab-3, which means "shooting star." It is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.
Israel and the United States have jointly developed the Arrow anti-ballistic missile system in response to the Shahab-3.
Iran launched an arms development program during its 1980-88 war with Iraq to compensate for a U.S. weapons embargo. Since 1992, Iran has produced its own tanks, armored personnel carriers, missiles and a fighter plane.
Last year, former Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said Tehran had successfully tested a solid fuel motor for the Shahab-3, a technological breakthrough in Iran's military.
Salami, the Revolutionary Guards general, said Friday the Iranian-made missile was test-fired as large military maneuvers began in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea. The maneuvers are to last a week and will involve 17,000 Revolutionary Guards as well as boats, fighter jets and helicopter gunships.
The tests come amid growing concern over Iran's nuclear program. The United States and its allies believe Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons, but Tehran denies that, saying its nuclear program is for generating electricity.
The U.N. Security Council is demanding that Iran halt its uranium enrichment activities. But an Iranian envoy said its activities are "not reversible."
posted on March 31, 2006 07:22:54 PM new
I don't see why people like rusty get so EXCITED over Iran....heck THEIR GUY, kerry was proposing we HELP IRAN by giving them nuclear fuel.
LOL....yea, let's vote for him in 2008. LOL LOL LOL
IF kerry wanted to help Iran with their NW program......why would people like rusty be so upet about THE WORLD/THE UN dealing with the problem now?
He must not trust them or the UN to handle Iran correctly. But no matter what Bush does or doesn't do....he's bitching.
------------
Please press th * button if you'd like to hear peepa's ranting/ravings again.
Thank you for calling the State Mental Hospital in PA
We appreciate your willingnes to give our patients a chance to practice their constitutional right of free speech.....no matter HOW ill they are.
posted on March 31, 2006 07:41:57 PM new
Kerry said he wanted to assist them in their power issues, not Nuclear Weapons Linda.
Next... Iran is trying to muscle the UN. Saying that they tested a missle that no one can confirm and offering no verification of accuracy is a good gamit in the game. Puts everyone on edge and backs them off a bit. If Isreal decides to make a force play, I have a plan... we get the hell out of Iraq immediately because that's a fight we don't want to be involved in.
Thing is, I don't think that Iraq is really into self destruction. Just as Russia was not into self destruction during the cold war. I think it's about national ego. They don't have the support and respect of the major arab nations. No one "has their back" so to speak. They have to look bad to ward off those that they see as a threat. Nukes are pretty good at creating that intimidation factor.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
posted on March 31, 2006 11:19:21 PM new
Has America attacked any nation with nuclear armament? The faster Iran develops nuclear capabilities the likelihood of attack from America diminishes. Would Iran start something that will ultimately lead to their demise, for what, to martyr a nation and the populous in the name of Allah.
posted on April 1, 2006 03:19:36 AM new
"Would Iran start something that will ultimately lead to their demise, for what, to martyr a nation and the populous in the name of Allah."
Most likely..these camel jockeys are doing it all the time with flying planes into buildings,car bombings,sucide bombers-this would just be on a bigger scale.These towelheads get all excited and giddy about meeting Allah and his 73 virgins.
posted on April 1, 2006 07:22:05 AM new
No, fenix - I am not mistaken.
kerry wanted to give them the needed fuel so they could continue on with their nuclear weapons program.
And, imo, anyone who actually believes Iran needs a nuclear program so they will have the ability to heat and have light in their country....is NUTS. They're sitting on the biggest oil reserve in the ME. LOL OIL could be used by them.
No...they were THEN working, just as they continue to do, on their NW program. And THEY'RE not denying it...why would YOU?
edited to add the relivant part from an article in the Washington Post
Aug.24, 2004
"Kerry first outlined the idea of providing nuclear fuel to Iran in a speech in June -- a proposal favored by many Europeans -- but Edwards, who twice described the concept as a "bargain," was more explicit in suggesting the Kerry administration would actively try to reach an agreement with the Iranians.
"At the end of the day, we have to have some serious negotiating leverage in this discussion with the Iranians," he said, noting that Kerry would press the Europeans to do much more than "taking rewards away" if the Iranians fail to act.
Iran has insisted that it be allowed to produce nuclear fuel, which would give it access to weapons-grade material.
Under Kerry's proposal, the Iranian fuel supply would be supervised and provided by other countries.
[ edited by Linda_K on Apr 1, 2006 07:32 AM ]
posted on April 1, 2006 07:34:39 AM new
Linda - why don't you find for me the statement where I denied that Iran was developing nuclear weapons. What is with the new tactic here where you argue statements that people have not made?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
posted on April 1, 2006 07:37:27 AM new
From the Washington Post - August 20, 2004
A John F. Kerry administration would propose to Iran that the Islamic state be allowed to keep its nuclear power plants in exchange for giving up the right to retain the nuclear fuel that could be used for bomb-making, Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards said in an interview yesterday.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
WASHINGTON Even while top Iranian officials are calling for the development of nuclear weapons within the next four months, Sen. John Kerry insists as president he would provide Tehran with the nuclear fuel it wants for a pledge to use it for peaceful purposes only.
YEAH. Peaceful purpose...NOW in 2006 the REAL truth comes out....from Iran...they believe they're ENTITLED to have NW. And we were RIGHT....it wasn't for energy. Peaceful purposes only LOL. Yeah wrong on that one too.
john kerry is an idiot who would have sold our country out. And he almost was able to.
During the debate with President Bush Thursday, Kerry remarked that the U.S. should have given Iran the nuclear fuel it wanted.
"I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes," Kerry said in a critique of the Bush administration's handling of Tehran's nuclear program, which the Iranians claim is only for civilian purposes.
-------
Please don't try to deny it any more. There's NO twisting this now. Iran has been quite clear with the UN/World that they INTEND and WILL have NW. They believe they have the RIGHT to have a NW program.
The rest of the World disagrees with that.
And kerry WANTED to give the the NW FUEL...that WOULD enable them to get their NW programs going.
[ edited by Linda_K on Apr 1, 2006 07:51 AM ]
posted on April 1, 2006 07:52:44 AM new
Well, I aknowledge that was a dumbassed statement. Every other time he talked about Iran he stated that we should assist them in their nuclear power research in exchange for them giving up their nuclear weapon programs. That I dont have a problem with. The statement he made in the debate though was just stupid.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
posted on April 1, 2006 08:03:10 AM new
Stupid? We're in agreement on that one then.
But also extremely dangerous. Doing as he proposed would have sped up their program.
And please note...it was on his website too. And not the ONLY time he said the same thing. A google search will prove that. He said it many times....his supporters were just hearing it from the BIASED NYT and the WA Post...who obviously say it in a MUCH different way...WITHOUT quoting him.
That's why I've said in the past....they don't give American's the TRUE picture...because they've always been against republican administration....especially ones who go to war.
So...imo, they don't give readers the REAL story...they twist it to make it sound so much different.
And that, is very sad. Journalists are SUPPOSED to report the news....not try to change voters minds by twisting the circumstances of ANY event.
posted on April 1, 2006 08:21:13 AM new
LInda - I don't read the Post or the Times. I got the statement I quoted by googling "Kerry Iran Nuclear Weapons" The statements I heard were direct from his mouth during various interviews.
(The only thing I generally read papers for is the local news and the business sections)
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
posted on April 1, 2006 08:40:07 AM new
Wow Linduh... You really are farsighted aren't you?
Let's see... As i have said many many times... Bush should have kept his eye on the ball. He should have finished the job in Afghanistan, taken Osama out. An overwhelming percentage of Americans supported the war in Afghanistan. Conservatives and Liberals rallied behind George Bush. Countries all over the world rallied behind America after 9/11. Did you forget that? If I'm not mistaken, over 90% of Americans supported this President immediately after 9/11 pushing for the removal of the Taliban. I wanted nothing more than to kick their asses. But... your Administration had other plans. They were focused on taking on Iraq since Bush was governor of Texas. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. So, before you go on blathering about me not having a plan... I have been against the Iraq war since before the Shock and Awe campaign began. Mission Accomplished??? NOT!
You never bother offering solutions to any of the problems. All you manage to care about is taking away rights from hardworking Americans. Your only mission is to agree with this moronic President you admire so much. You actually have the nerve to say you believe every word Bush says. Talk about zero credibility. Bush is nothing more than a walking disaster. Everything he touches gets destroyed. It is quite sad, and it isn't only liberals who see it. I know plenty of true conservatives that are utterly embarrassed they voted for this criminal. More and more Americans are seeing what the Republican party is moving towards, and that is fascism. Here is the mentality of the Bush Administration... "Let's pass the buck onto future generations. Write the check now, and let the next guy worry about the problem."
And just curious, but what solutions have the Republicans and Bush Administration offered? They only positives that this Administration have managed to provide are to corporations. They have assaulted middle America. They have stolen middle America's sons and daughters, ripped away lives from hard working families, ripped away arms, legs, and other body parts from soldiers who are honorably doing their jobs that this Administration sent them to do based on lies. How do you defend an Administration who could care less about military service? How can you defend and Administration who cuts Veterans benefits? Linda used to claim that Bush didn't cut Higher Education benefits to students, well... how about those cuts now? Linda, you are nothing but a joke. You have never once provided one idea, one strategy to help Americans. Instead, you only attack those you disagree with.
[ edited by rustygumbo on Apr 1, 2006 08:42 AM ]
Yeah wrong on that one too.