Iran Says It Test Fired Missile That Could Hit Israel, U.S. Bases in Mideast

[Doomsday101]

TEHRAN, Iran — President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran test-fired a new advanced missile with a range capable of reaching Israel and U.S. Mideast bases, sending a provocative message days after President Barack Obama pressured Tehran to accept his offer for a dialogue.

The U.S. has criticized Iran's missile development and said such launches stoke instability in the Middle East.

The solid-fuel Sajjil-2 surface-to-surface missile tested has a range of about 1,200 miles, far enough to strike at southeastern Europe. It is a new version of the Sajjil missile, which Iran said it had successfully tested late last year with a similar range. Many analysts said the launch of the Sajjil was significant because solid fuel missiles are more accurate than liquid fuel missiles of similar range, such as Iran's Shahab-3.

"Defense Minister (Mostafa Mohammad Najjar) has informed me that the Sajjil-2 missile, which has very advanced technology, was launched from Semnan and it landed precisely on the target," state radio quoted Ahmadinejad as saying. He spoke during a visit to the city of Semnan, 125 miles east of the capital Tehran, where Iran's space program is centered.

Ahmadinejad is running for re-election in a June 12 vote and has been criticized by his opponents and others for antagonizing the U.S. and mismanaging the country's faltering economy. Iran said Wednesday that its constitutional watchdog has approved three prominent candidates to challenge Ahmadinejad, setting up a showdown between reformists and hard-liners.

Iran's nuclear and missile programs have alarmed Israel. The country's new prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, pressed Obama to step up pressure on Tehran when the two met in Washington on Monday. Israeli officials had no immediate comment on the Iranian missile launch.

Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for Israel's elimination, and the Jewish state has not ruled out a military strike to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat.

After he met Netanyahu, Obama declared a readiness to seek deeper international sanctions against Iran if it shunned U.S. attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program. The American president said he expected a positive response to his outreach for opening a dialogue with Iran by the end of the year. So far, the Obama administration has received a mixed response from Ahmadinejad.

In Washington, the White House had no immediate response to the purported missile test.

Most Western analysts believe Iran does not yet have the technology to produce nuclear weapons, including warheads for long-range missiles. The U.S. released an intelligence report about 18 months ago that said Iran abandoned a secret nuclear weapons program in 2003 under international pressure and has not restarted it.

Israel and several other countries have disputed the finding, but many in the West at least agree that Iran is seeking to develop the capability to develop weapons at some point. A group of U.S. and Russian scientists said in a report issued Tuesday that Iran could produce a simple nuclear device in one to three years and a nuclear warhead in another five years after that.

The study published by the nonpartisan EastWest Institute also said Iran is making advances in rocket technology and could develop a ballistic missile capable of firing a 2,200-pound nuclear warhead up to 1,200 miles "in perhaps six to eight years."

Iran says its missile program is merely for defense and its space program is for scientific and surveillance purposes. It maintains that its nuclear program is for civilian energy uses only.

After the testing of the Sajjil in November, a senior U.S. military official said Washington believed Iran was testing the first stage of what would be a two-stage rocket. Multiple stages allow long-range missiles to use less fuel.

Ahmadinejad touted the launch in the final weeks of a presidential campaign that could influence Iran's response to the U.S. outreach. Two of the three candidates approved by Iran's constitutional watchdog to run in the June election are reformists who favor improving ties with the West.

Hard-liners have used the Guardian Council in the past to block reformist candidates, but Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mahdi Karroubi were likely too high-profile to reject. The watchdog also approved a well known conservative candidate, Mohsen Rezaei, a former leader of Iraq's elite Revolutionary Guards who has joined his reformist competitors in criticizing Ahmadinejad for mismanaging Iran's economy.

The group rejected 471 other candidates who wanted to run, including illiterate peasants, a 12-year-old boy and 42 women, the Interior Ministry said in a statement.

Reformists, who believe they have a strong chance of defeating Ahmadinejad, have criticized the president for spending an inordinate amount of time and energy slamming the West. They say his behavior has isolated Iran and believe he should have focused on battling rising unemployment and inflation in the country.

Mousavi, a former prime minister who is seen as the leading challenger to Ahmadinejad, has said he would reshape Iran's policies and restore the country's dignity.

[burmafrd]

Where are the Messiah's defenders saying all we have to do is speak nicely?

[Doomsday101]

Where are the Messiah's defenders saying all we have to do is speak nicely?

No doubt he hands them the olive branch they test fire missiles, I guess Iran is not as mesmerized by Obama like so many here are.

[joseephuss]

Where are the Messiah's defenders saying all we have to do is speak nicely?

No one ever said that all we have to do is speak nicely. That has never been stated as the solution to solve this all. And obviously not speaking to him at all has gotten us to where we are today.

[burmafrd]

Obviously to the naive maybe. You give these guys no credit at all for meaning what they say about Israel and elsewhere.

Guys like you said the same thing about Mein Kampf.

[iceberg]

Where are the Messiah's defenders saying all we have to do is speak nicely?

burm - you make it next to impossible to talk about it rationally when the 1st thing you do is start mouthing off and calling the president names.

[burmafrd]

Tough- if you don't like it see if I care. That is what they claimed from Day One that he Could TALK them into what we want.
If you don't like me calling him the messiah so what?
That is the way his worshippers have treated him.

[iceberg]

No one ever said that all we have to do is speak nicely. That has never been stated as the solution to solve this all. And obviously not speaking to him at all has gotten us to where we are today.

well, here's where i disagree and lean more to doom and burm - them being who they are and us being who we are got us here today.

talking to them - doesn't work.
not talking to them - doesn't work.

just because obama is riding a PR high doesn't mean they give a DAMN about who our president is - if we still back israel we're the enemy cause they want israeal dead.

can you talk your way through that? think a good sitdown and some love to say hitler would have worked? could obama have averted the holocaust?

no.

but if we went in there and tore germany up early on (if even possible) that could have stopped it.

to have talking work, you have to be open to other thoughts. they don't seem to be doing that, so i fail to see how more talk will work. if he wants to try, have at it, but given past experience, have another plan ready to roll "just in case".

[Doomsday101]

No one ever said that all we have to do is speak nicely. That has never been stated as the solution to solve this all. And obviously not speaking to him at all has gotten us to where we are today.

Talk was never going to change anything, I think to many look at Iran and put their own western views on them I don't think Iran looks at the world the same as the western world does and as far as talk fine as long as they stop developing their nuclear program if not there is nothing to talk about expect stronger sanctions against Iran and or military action to take out their nuclear facilities. All we are doing right now is giving Iran the time they need to complete the job

[iceberg]

Tough- if you don't like it see if I care. That is what they claimed from Day One that he Could TALK them into what we want.
If you don't like me calling him the messiah so what?
That is the way his worshippers have treated him.

you can call him hanna montanna your personal love god for all i care burm. just realize that doing so makes you look just as stupid as who you're trying to "insult".

if that gets you off, just clean up when done, big boy.

[joseephuss]

Obviously to the naive maybe. You give these guys no credit at all for meaning what they say about Israel and elsewhere.

Guys like you said the same thing about Mein Kampf.

Where did that come from?

I actually do give credence to his threats. I for years have thought that Iran was a bigger threat than Iraq. I just don't understand how refusing to talk to a country solves anything. Talking to them may not solve the issues, either, but it is at least giving forth an effort. And I certainly wouldn't limit dealing with Iran to just talking. That is some made up limitation that you seem to think people have.

[burmafrd]

TR said it best about speak softly and carry a big stick. BUT the other side has to believe that you will USE that stick if necessary. Right now I doubt Iran and company believe Obama has the stones to use it.

[joseephuss]

Talk was never going to change anything, I think to many look at Iran and put their own western views on them I don't think Iran looks at the world the same as the western world does and as far as talk fine as long as they stop developing their nuclear program if not there is nothing to talk about expect stronger sanctions against Iran and or military action to take out their nuclear facilities. All we are doing right now is giving Iran the time they need to complete the job

That is all we have been doing for years. Nothing has been done to stop them from working on nukes.

[burmafrd]

We TALKED to Iran through intermediarries for years. Other countries talked to Iran. Where has all that talk a gotten us.

By the way Ice just because that is YOUR opinion means nothing to me. You claim to say that you know what other people are thinking and believing. How arrogant is that- to me that makes YOU look ridiculous.

[burmafrd]

We needed to hit Iran years ago when they first started just like the Israeli's hit Iraq in the early 80's. We wimped out in the 90's with Billy Boy and Bush let the idiot MODERATES talk him out of doing anything.
And that is where we are now. Anyone thinking TALK would have changed anything......

[Doomsday101]

That is all we have been doing for years. Nothing has been done to stop them from working on nukes.

Talking will not do it either Iran is not interested in what the US says all the talk comes off as weakness. Iran needs to be given an ultimatum and that ultimatum needs to be more than saber rattling. They must stop all nuclear development or we take them out no and's if's or buts that Iran will understand loud and clear

[iceberg]

Where did that come from?

I actually do give credence to his threats. I for years have thought that Iran was a bigger threat than Iraq. I just don't understand how refusing to talk to a country solves anything. Talking to them may not solve the issues, either, but it is at least giving forth an effort. And I certainly wouldn't limit dealing with Iran to just talking. That is some made up limitation that you seem to think people have.

probably cause talking has been tried. it's not like they got their "rep" overnight, jose. it's not like bush screwed it all up what was "golden" before. it's not like there's not been war, strife and threats from that region since that region was there.

if people make open threats to take out a country as soon as they can, i see no reason to talk to them. they're already showing you they're simply NOT reasonable. in my experience when someone is that unreasonable talk is useless. give them what they want is the only way to make them happy and even that won't work cause they'll go do the same again elsewhere, only now it's some elses problem.

but yes, some people think you say "talk to them" means you don't have or won't use alternate plans if/when that fails. i think obama talking is a waste of time and i think his open apologies for us being "us" hurts us in their eyes. but he's the president and should do what *he* feels is the right thing to do.

i can only hope he does learn fast and stops fostering the image that we're the bad guys in the world by us apologizing for who we are to people who just don't give a damn and want us dead.

[JBond]

It's a good thing our community agitator and chief scrapped our missile defense systems. It appears that Obama's plan is working well.:cool:

Iran Test Fires Missile (http://cowboyszone.com/story/0,2933,520779,00.html)

TEHRAN, Iran — President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran test-fired a new advanced missile with a range capable of reaching Israel and U.S. Mideast bases, sending a provocative message days after President Barack Obama pressured Tehran to accept his offer for a dialogue.

The U.S. has criticized Iran's missile development and said such launches stoke instability in the Middle East.

The solid-fuel Sajjil-2 surface-to-surface missile tested has a range of about 1,200 miles, far enough to strike at southeastern Europe. It is a new version of the Sajjil missile, which Iran said it had successfully tested late last year with a similar range. Many analysts said the launch of the Sajjil was significant because solid fuel missiles are more accurate than liquid fuel missiles of similar range, such as Iran's Shahab-3.

"Defense Minister (Mostafa Mohammad Najjar) has informed me that the Sajjil-2 missile, which has very advanced technology, was launched from Semnan and it landed precisely on the target," state radio quoted Ahmadinejad as saying. He spoke during a visit to the city of Semnan, 125 miles east of the capital Tehran, where Iran's space program is centered.

Ahmadinejad is running for re-election in a June 12 vote and has been criticized by his opponents and others for antagonizing the U.S. and mismanaging the country's faltering economy. Iran said Wednesday that its constitutional watchdog has approved three prominent candidates to challenge Ahmadinejad, setting up a showdown between reformists and hard-liners.

Iran's nuclear and missile programs have alarmed Israel. The country's new prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, pressed Obama to step up pressure on Tehran when the two met in Washington on Monday. Israeli officials had no immediate comment on the Iranian missile launch.

Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for Israel's elimination, and the Jewish state has not ruled out a military strike to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat.

After he met Netanyahu, Obama declared a readiness to seek deeper international sanctions against Iran if it shunned U.S. attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program. The American president said he expected a positive response to his outreach for opening a dialogue with Iran by the end of the year. So far, the Obama administration has received a mixed response from Ahmadinejad.

In Washington, the White House had no immediate response to the purported missile test.

Most Western analysts believe Iran does not yet have the technology to produce nuclear weapons, including warheads for long-range missiles. The U.S. released an intelligence report about 18 months ago that said Iran abandoned a secret nuclear weapons program in 2003 under international pressure and has not restarted it.

Israel and several other countries have disputed the finding, but many in the West at least agree that Iran is seeking to develop the capability to develop weapons at some point. A group of U.S. and Russian scientists said in a report issued Tuesday that Iran could produce a simple nuclear device in one to three years and a nuclear warhead in another five years after that.

The study published by the nonpartisan EastWest Institute also said Iran is making advances in rocket technology and could develop a ballistic missile capable of firing a 2,200-pound nuclear warhead up to 1,200 miles "in perhaps six to eight years."

Iran says its missile program is merely for defense and its space program is for scientific and surveillance purposes. It maintains that its nuclear program is for civilian energy uses only.

After the testing of the Sajjil in November, a senior U.S. military official said Washington believed Iran was testing the first stage of what would be a two-stage rocket. Multiple stages allow long-range missiles to use less fuel.

Ahmadinejad touted the launch in the final weeks of a presidential campaign that could influence Iran's response to the U.S. outreach. Two of the three candidates approved by Iran's constitutional watchdog to run in the June election are reformists who favor improving ties with the West.

Hard-liners have used the Guardian Council in the past to block reformist candidates, but Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mahdi Karroubi were likely too high-profile to reject. The watchdog also approved a well known conservative candidate, Mohsen Rezaei, a former leader of Iraq's elite Revolutionary Guards who has joined his reformist competitors in criticizing Ahmadinejad for mismanaging Iran's economy.

The group rejected 471 other candidates who wanted to run, including illiterate peasants, a 12-year-old boy and 42 women, the Interior Ministry said in a statement.

Reformists, who believe they have a strong chance of defeating Ahmadinejad, have criticized the president for spending an inordinate amount of time and energy slamming the West. They say his behavior has isolated Iran and believe he should have focused on battling rising unemployment and inflation in the country.

Mousavi, a former prime minister who is seen as the leading challenger to Ahmadinejad, has said he would reshape Iran's policies and restore the country's dignity.

edit. sorry for the repost. Didn't look far enough down the board.

[vta]

Where did that come from?

I actually do give credence to his threats. I for years have thought that Iran was a bigger threat than Iraq. I just don't understand how refusing to talk to a country solves anything. Talking to them may not solve the issues, either, but it is at least giving forth an effort. And I certainly wouldn't limit dealing with Iran to just talking. That is some made up limitation that you seem to think people have.

Good Cop:
Clinton tried to play nice with Iran and got a face full dead Marines in Saudi Arabia. Instead of reacting accordingly, it was treated as some kind CSI investigation that led to nothing.

Bad Cop:
Yes, Iran has always been a bigger threat than Iraq, which is why the U.S. planted itself in Iraq and in response, why Iran is passing peach pits and screaming out it's 'threats'. As if targeting Israel or a U.S. military base wouldn't result in a massive, unrecoverable beating for Iran.

This is aggressive diplomacy.

[JBond]

can you talk your way through that? think a good sitdown and some love to say hitler would have worked? could obama have averted the holocaust?



The appeasers tried that in the run up to WWII. It did not work so well. The same party today is trying the same methods and are achieving the same results. Not surprising. Their play book is kind of thin on ideas that work.

[burmafrd]

And the nitwits opposing the Missile Defense program have what to say?

[Doomsday101]

And the nitwits opposing the Missile Defense program have what to say?

You have to remember they live in fantasy land where all everyone holds hands and we all live together as one. Sweet ideal but so far from reality.
I think Walt Disney made a movie like that once. :laugh2:

[joseephuss]

You have to remember they live in fantasy land where all everyone holds hands and we all live together as one. Sweet ideal but so far from reality.
I think Walt Disney made a movie like that once. :laugh2:

I love living there.:D

A missile defense system is found in fantasy land, too. It is a great theory and something to strive for, but the reality is that we are decades away from having the technology for a workable missile defense system. And even further from having one capable of working in space. Plus the biggest threat on the U.S. itself is a nuke attack that is smuggled in, not one being delivered by a rocket.

I don't think we should completely cut a missile defense system. I don't mind them cutting back on funding somewhat to focus on other things that are more important and obtainable at this time. Even if it were fully funded I would not count on a missile defense system that worked a high percentage of the time getting done any time soon.

[Doomsday101]

I love living there.:D

A missile defense system is found in fantasy land, too. It is a great theory and something to strive for, but the reality is that we are decades away from having the technology for a workable missile defense system. And even further from having one capable of working in space. Plus the biggest threat on the U.S. itself is a nuke attack that is smuggled in, not one being delivered by a rocket.

I don't think we should completely cut a missile defense system. I don't mind them cutting back on funding somewhat to focus on other things that are more important and obtainable at this time. Even if it were fully funded I would not count on a missile defense system that worked a high percentage of the time getting done any time soon.

On December 5, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) performed a successful intercept test of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) missile defense interceptor.[1] The GMD interceptor destroyed an incoming ballistic missile launched out of Kodiak, Alaska, in space over the Pacific Ocean. President-elect Barack Obama has stated that he will cut investments in "unproven" missile defense systems.[2] His statement implies that the missile defense program's interceptor systems rely on unproven technology. The December 5 test, along with other MDA tests, demonstrates that the implication behind this statement is inaccurate.

The GMD interceptor, launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, was flown to a point in space in the path of the incoming missile and, by the force of collision, the interceptor's kill vehicle destroyed the missile reentry vehicle. This direct hit, absent an explosive warhead, is called a kinetic energy intercept. Further, a variety of sensor systems were used to track the incoming missile from different locations. These systems included a transportable AN/TPY-2 radar located in Juneau, Alaska; a Navy Aegis ship in the Pacific with its SPY-1 radar; an Upgraded Early Warning Radar at Beale Air Force Base in California; and a Sea-Based X-band radar, also in the Pacific. Finally, the broader missile defense system's command and control system permitted military operators to launch the California-based interceptor from Fort Greely, Alaska.

The kinetic energy intercept technology used in the December 5 test is the same used in most other interceptors now under development by MDA. These include the Patriot PAC-3 system, the Standard Missile-3 sea-based interceptor, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, and the Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV) system. The latter program seeks to reduce the size and weight of the kill vehicles so that each interceptor missile can carry more than one kill vehicle. Since 2001, MDA has run 47 intercept tests with kinetic energy technology, and 37 have been successful.

Missile Defense Critics

Missile defense critics are likely to dismiss the positive implications of this test for the overall missile defense program. While the results of a single test should not be used to justify either the continuation or termination of any defense technology program, the critics' likely arguments will lack merit.

For example, critics may argue that the GMD system can be defeated by easily incorporated countermeasures designed to confuse the defense. The December 5 test attempted to deploy a "threat representative" target that would have required the interceptor to discriminate between the real target and false targets generated by the incoming missile. The countermeasures on board the target missile, however, did not deploy.[3] Nevertheless, the GMD interceptor is designed to discriminate between real and false targets. The December 5 test raises the question of whether--contrary to the assertions of some critics--such countermeasures are easily accessible to relatively primitive missile powers like Iran and North Korea.

The critics may also argue that the December 5 test was not an operational test and therefore does not justify the fielding of GMD interceptors in Alaska and California. While this criticism is accurate, it fails to acknowledge an important fact: Traditional operational tests cannot be used in the development and fielding of the overall missile defense system because the overall system consists of integrated components that must be built and fielded in order to be tested. For instance, consider the wide variety of sensors and the elaborate command and control system used to support the December 5 test of the GMD interceptor.

Finally, the critics may contend that this GMD interceptor is different from the model that the U.S. is proposing be deployed in Poland and therefore should not be construed as justifying the fielding of the interceptors slated for Poland. The fact is that both the interceptor used in the December 5 test and the interceptors the U.S. is proposing for Poland are both GMD interceptors. The only significant difference between the two is that the interceptors for the site in Poland will include two stages, while the one used in the test has three stages.

Proven Technology

President-elect Obama has stated that fielded missile defense systems' technology must first be proven; the MDA's ballistic missile defense test regime is meeting that challenge. The MDA's technology--kinetic-energy kill vehicles--is being used in an array of interceptors and has been tested on numerous occasions with a 75 percent success rate. President-elect Obama should acknowledge the continuing progress on kinetic-energy missile defense technology and continue to invest in and field the missile defense interceptors that incorporate this technology.

Baker Spring is F. M. Kirby Research Fellow in National Security Policy in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.

[joseephuss]

I trust Robert Gates' opinion on the matter. He has gone through the data and recommended cutting funding for certain portions of a missile defense system. Not all, but some.

[Doomsday101]

I trust Robert Gates' opinion on the matter. He has gone through the data and recommended cutting funding for certain portions of a missile defense system. Not all, but some.

Gates said a lot of things for the Bush administration as well nad has done a 180 on. He serves at the will of the president he will do as the President ask.

[Bob Sacamano]

Talking will not do it either Iran is not interested in what the US says all the talk comes off as weakness. Iran needs to be given an ultimatum and that ultimatum needs to be more than saber rattling. They must stop all nuclear development or we take them out no and's if's or buts that Iran will understand loud and clear

we should be giving out threats ourselves

such as our nuclear weapons will do more than just take out a site

we should be giving them doomsday type ultimatums

[JBond]

we should be giving out threats ourselves

such as our nuclear weapons will do more than just take out a site

we should be giving them doomsday type ultimatums

Who would make the threats? Hilldog and Obama? :lmao2:

That should scare them.

[Doomsday101]

we should be giving out threats ourselves

such as our nuclear weapons will do more than just take out a site

we should be giving them doomsday type ultimatums

We are not threatening to wipe and Entire County off the map. Iran and its deep seeded ties with Hamas and Hezbollah are well known so yes we should be giving ultimatums to prevent nations such as Iran from ever having that capability

[burmafrd]

The Missile Defense System is meant to deal with Iran and threats like it poses. The PAC-3 System and its improvements should be able to take care of a few missiles like Iran can toss. But you listen to those like Josee its better to throw up your hands and do nothing.

By the way Gates ALSO said the missile system needed to be fielded.

[joseephuss]

The Missile Defense System is meant to deal with Iran and threats like it poses. The PAC-3 System and its improvements should be able to take care of a few missiles like Iran can toss. But you listen to those like Josee its better to throw up your hands and do nothing.

By the way Gates ALSO said the missile system needed to be fielded.

When did I say do nothing? I didn't, but thanks for putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head. You like to over generalize and stereo type. I guess it suits you and your agenda.

I am all for doing something with regards to Iran. I thought talks should have been done long ago instead of actually doing nothing. Now it may be too late to initiate talks. It may be time to take it to another level. Let's see where the current administration actually goes from here.

[burmafrd]

Saying the Missile defense system should not be put in place is a big part of doing NOTHING.

If you want to bother, try doing some research by going into the Aviation Tech forums and those areas. You will find a lot of info that never makes it into the MSM (what a surprise). The people there are a lot more optimistic about Missile Defense. We would have 10 interceptors ready to go and they would have a very good shot at shooting down the missile. And remember- it is almost certain this missile would be NUCLEAR. And you want to do nothing about it once its fired.

[Bob Sacamano]

We are not threatening to wipe and Entire County off the map. Iran and its deep seeded ties with Hamas and Hezbollah are well known so yes we should be giving ultimatums to prevent nations such as Iran from ever having that capability

I'm saying we should say that if one Iranian missile leaves it's base as part of an attack, we will wipe their entire country off the map with our arsenal

this *****footing crap has got to stop

[DFWJC]

Israel is going to turn those idiots to glass.

[Jon88]

Israel is going to turn those idiots to glass.

They need to hurry up because I'm tired of these idiots making threats. They're about to get their *** bombed.

[WarC]

Sure we call it a Missile Defense System, and thats what we believe it would be. But we're also just as sure that Iran wants nuclear technology for weaponization.

Now flip the coin. Do you think Russians or Iranians think the US Missile Defense System is defensive in nature, or hostile in nature? And how many Iranians and Russians are convinced that Iranian nuclear technology is peaceful advancement?

Theres people here talking about "they live in a dream world! its fantasy thinking!", I can almost picture some russian language or arabic forum right now where the more conservative members are lambasting their own progressives .

Missile Defense System entails US military bases on foreign soil in foreign countries. Countries very CLOSE to countries that see us as hostile - So while we may readily accept the idea of a defense system, they don't - They see it as a threat, as we perceive THEIR weapons systems as a threat. Conservative Iranians have the stated belief to wipe out Israel just as people in this very forum have stated beliefs that we should straight up nuke them. In the face of that kind of mutual distrust, isn't it entirely to be expected that they would push hard for nuclear weaponization in turn?

Escalation of conflict is mutual.

I don't say this stuff to bash anybody or make anybody feel foolish, I am just saying that what we'd dismiss as a dream is just another mans reality waiting to happen. We reap what we sow.


Flip the last decade around; Pretend the USSR was still around and its been invading South American countries after South American Terrorists set off a nuke in Moscow. And now Brazil says "we're deveoping nuclear technology and we're going to test fire missile delivery systems that will reach Cuba if the Soviets keep this up!" Would you not support Brazil? Would you not consider the USSR as hostile, and their "Missile Defense System" in Soviet Annexed Columbia as hostile?

[WarC]

Israel is going to turn those idiots to glass.

Yeah, sooner or later it will come to that. Israel will strike and then it becomes a question of "What will Iran/Syria/Russia do next?" Then our immediate fate is more or less in their hands. Thats crap!

[burmafrd]

WarC your so called analysis is a joke as regards missile defense.
I have just one question for you to answer- its in two parts:

A. How many missiles does Russia have?

B. How many interceptors are going to be put in place- easily seen and verified?

[Doomsday101]

I'm saying we should say that if one Iranian missile leaves it's base as part of an attack, we will wipe their entire country off the map with our arsenal

this *****footing crap has got to stop

And I believe you deal with Iran through strength not weakness. They do understand that message. If they choose to continue the nuclear development then it should be taken out waiting until the job is complete is too late.

[Bob Sacamano]

And I believe you deal with Iran through strength not weakness. They do understand that message. If they choose to continue the nuclear development then it should be taken out waiting until the job is complete is too late.

oh, ok

it will be even too late if they develop a missile defense system

[Doomsday101]

oh, ok

it will be even too late if they develop a missile defense system

I'm not talking strictly the missile defense system but dealing with Iran is a fashion they understand. As for the Missile defense system I think it is very critical we continue to with it as some of these countries like Iran and N. Korea are making strides in getting the needed technology. It would be pretty stupid to wait until they have that then say we need to develop a system to defend against it. We have made major strides in the program to cut it now is being extremely short sighted

[JBond]

Sure we call it a Missile Defense System, and thats what we believe it would be. But we're also just as sure that Iran wants nuclear technology for weaponization.

Now flip the coin. Do you think Russians or Iranians think the US Missile Defense System is defensive in nature, or hostile in nature? And how many Iranians and Russians are convinced that Iranian nuclear technology is peaceful advancement?

Theres people here talking about "they live in a dream world! its fantasy thinking!", I can almost picture some russian language or arabic forum right now where the more conservative members are lambasting their own progressives .

Missile Defense System entails US military bases on foreign soil in foreign countries. Countries very CLOSE to countries that see us as hostile - So while we may readily accept the idea of a defense system, they don't - They see it as a threat, as we perceive THEIR weapons systems as a threat. Conservative Iranians have the stated belief to wipe out Israel just as people in this very forum have stated beliefs that we should straight up nuke them. In the face of that kind of mutual distrust, isn't it entirely to be expected that they would push hard for nuclear weaponization in turn?

Escalation of conflict is mutual.

I don't say this stuff to bash anybody or make anybody feel foolish, I am just saying that what we'd dismiss as a dream is just another mans reality waiting to happen. We reap what we sow.


Flip the last decade around; Pretend the USSR was still around and its been invading South American countries after South American Terrorists set off a nuke in Moscow. And now Brazil says "we're deveoping nuclear technology and we're going to test fire missile delivery systems that will reach Cuba if the Soviets keep this up!" Would you not support Brazil? Would you not consider the USSR as hostile, and their "Missile Defense System" in Soviet Annexed Columbia as hostile?

Your entire point about missile defense is moot because king Obama scrapped the system. Obama does not care how many troops he puts in harms way and he will be damned if he is going to develop anything that might make Americans safer. That is just who he is. That is the change idiots voted for. Hopefully in the next election we will get a president the rest of the world takes seriously and who understands his Constitutional duty regarding the common defense of our country.