Iran: Our New Missiles Can Now Hit Parts of Europe

[Nbadan]

05:38 2004-10-06

Iran has increased the range of its missiles to 1,250 miles, a senior official was quoted as saying on Tuesday, putting parts of Europe within reach for the first time.

Military experts had earlier put Iran's missile range at 810 miles, which would allow it to strike anywhere in Israel.

"Now we have the power to launch a missile with a 2,000 km (1,250 mile) range," the news agency IRNA quoted influential former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani as saying. "Iran is determined to improve its military capabilities."

"If the Americans attack Iran, the world will change ... they will not dare to make such a mistake," Rafsanjani was quoted as saying in a speech at an exhibition on Space and Stable National Security.

more...

News from Russia (http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2004/10/06/56451.html)

I don't think the new missiles can hit France yet, sorry boobleheads.

[whottt]

Too bad Iran doesn't realize we're not exactly happy with Europe right now.

Can they at least hit Spain?

[JoeChalupa]

We need to take them out!

[Marcus Bryant]

And John Kerry wants to give them nuclear material.

[JoeChalupa]

And Bush just let them get away with it.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Oh no, what's an American/American-ally locked country gonna do?

Let's see: US in Iraq, Afghanistan, US Navy in the waters around Iran, US allies Jordan and Turkey hanging out.

What has Bush done? I mean it's not like he hasn't effectively surrounded and isolated Iran...

I guess he's a bad president though, unless he runs and gives them more nuclear material like Kerry wants (which, BTW, the Iranians already said to fuck off about earlier this week).

[exstatic]

Surrounding them does nothing if they have WMDs and missiles. We must INVADE! Sanctions won't work!

Oh, I forgot. Halliburton is doing business with them via a Cayman islands subsidiary, Halliburton Products & Services Ltd. Call it all off. We only invade if Halliburton needs business, not if they already have it.

[whottt]

You don't seem to get it Exs...
#1.It's very dicey proposition to invade a country with nukes, in fact I think the next time we do it will be the first. That's why we didn't want them to get them.


#2.With the current align of the mideast we really don't have to invade Iran. They cannot move. Should we have to, they are surrounded.

The difference between us and the others...and what you should care about as an American...we have people that are going to try and use nuclear attacks against us...No one else does. These homicide bombers...I don't care if you think we let them do it or not..they still exist...if they are willing to kill themselves they are willing to do it with a nuclear bomb...

It's not all about Haliburton and Oil and War profiteering, even if that is being done, these terrorists are real. It's not some political game so Bush and Cheney can make money. Figure it out...

And then ask yourself why in the fuck are Kerry and Edwards ignoring this and trying to discredit the current admit...Either they are incrdibly stupid and naive or it's purely to get elected. Either way I am gonna go with Bush because I sincerely believe he will do what ever it takes to protect this country. I do not get that same vibe from Kerry.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Yeah, Halliburton runs this country :rolleyes

Look, Iraq had 11 years of UN resolutions to comply with it that it didn't. What's Iran been facing? Has diplomacy failed there?

What's Kerry's solution? Oh yeah... "let's give them nuke material so they don't have to manufacture their own." :shootme

I know you're more educated than most on this forum, I figured you'd realize the potential for a revolution of the people in Iran. I guess we shouldn't take that into account in strategic planning.

And finally, as much as some of you scream that we're overcommitted between Afghanistan and Iraq, where do we get the troops for Iran.

Oh yeah, Kerry will add 40,000 to the Armed Forces (without a draft ;) ), and double the size of Special Forces (where these magical SF enrollies will come from, I don't know).

Actually, on second thought, knowing liberal mantra, they'll water down the training regimen for SF (like they have done to the public school testing program and every other social agenda - we'll just give it to them) and make the commanding officers just pass everyone, no matter the risk they would be to themselves and others.


it's okay Johnny, I know you can't go into a room in a tactical environment without sweeping your gun muzzle across the back of the heads of the other guys in your unit, but we'll pass you anyway. I know when things are in a pinch, you'll come through.

[Yonivore]

Iran: Our New Missiles Can Now Hit Parts of Europe
Yeah, well, our old missiles can hit all of Iran.

[Nbadan]

#1.It's very dicey proposition to invade a country with nukes, in fact I think the next time we do it will be the first. That's why we didn't want them to get them

First of all, an all out invasion of Iran is out of the question with our current active duty, reserve and National troop levels, and once we found the troops without a draft to do it, it would take a minimum of two years to train the necessary number of troops to get the job done right.


So whott we are talking about here then is surgical missiles strikes on strategic Iranian nuclear complexes. The ramifications being that Iran is no Iraq militarily. They have conventional missiles that can not only hit Israel, American bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other parts of the Middle East, but now also parts of Europe.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

We will never go into a country WITH nuclear weapons.

Why? When their backs are to the wall, a la Hitler in the bunker, guess what's gonna happen?

Little red button. That's your ramification Dan, though dumbass liberals seem to think we should be doing stupid things like invading Iran and/or massing more troops in South Korea (so that if NK feels they're fixing to be attacked, they can wipe out all our troops and half of SK with one nuclear strike).

[JoeChalupa]

So then the message to other countries is that if you build nukes, once you have them you are home free?

Just asking.

[JoeChalupa]

And why do you have to refer to liberals as dumbasses?

I'd say it is a safe bet that there are conservative dumbasses as well.

But I like to stay civil and not resort to petty name calling.

[Yonivore]

We will never go into a country WITH nuclear weapons.
Never say never.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I am highly skeptical we would go into any country with nukes. The caveat would be if they had a limited number of them and we could take them out with precision strikes (the advance notice/warning of which they wouldn't be able to detect - not UNTIL the sites were already hit) prior to engagement.

As I said, any leader with his back to the wall, aka facing imminent defeat, would have no reason NOT to use said nukes. That's what makes them a credible deterrent. Same thing as mutually assured destruction, but in a different sense.

In the case of Iran, the best way to topple that regime is to let the surging generation next (20s-30s) to topple it from within (I imagine the gameplan would include internal "escalation" by CIA ops).

In Saddam's case, he had his people so brutally oppressed between the Ba'athists and Al-Feyadeen, that when the time came to take his ass out the best way was a good old US of A armed forces ass whipping.