Iran Turning Up The Heat in Persian (?) Gulf

[Nbadan]

TEHRAN (MNA) -- Iranian Navy commander Rear Admiral Abbas Mohtaj on Thursday dismissed a report that Israeli submarines had entered the Persian Gulf to attack the Bushehr nuclear power plant, asserting that Iran would deliver a strong response to any hostile action in the Persian Gulf.

“Anyone who wishes to do an evil act in the Persian Gulf will receive a resolute and forceful response from us,” the rear admiral told the Mehr News Agency.

...

“Such a plan may have been tentatively proposed, but it would not be practicable in the operational stage. “Today, the Naval Forces have full control over all surface ships and submarines which enter the Persian Gulf waters.”

On the recent decision by the National Geographic Society to use an unacceptable name for the “Persian Gulf”, he stated that the idea of changing the name of the Persian Gulf is also part of the psychological warfare program orchestrated by the U.S. that is meant to sow discord among Persian Gulf littoral states because there would be no room for the U.S. to rampage through the Persian Gulf if regional countries united.

more...

Tehran Times (http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=1/8/2005&Cat=2&Num=004)

Anyone heard of the Sunburn Missile? let me refresh your memories...


I was shocked when I learned the facts about these Russian-made cruise missiles. The problem is that so many of us suffer from two common misperceptions. The first follows from our assumption that Russia is militarily weak, as a result of the breakup of the old Soviet system. Actually, this is accurate, but it does not reflect the complexities. Although the Russian navy continues to rust in port, and the Russian army is in disarray, in certain key areas Russian technology is actually superior to our own. And nowhere is this truer than in the vital area of anti-ship cruise missile technology, where the Russians hold at least a ten-year lead over the US. The second misperception has to do with our complacency in general about missiles-as-weapons –– probably attributable to the pathetic performance of Saddam Hussein’s Scuds during the first Gulf war: a dangerous illusion that I will now attempt to rectify.

Many years ago, Soviet planners gave up trying to match the US Navy ship for ship, gun for gun, and dollar for dollar. The Soviets simply could not compete with the high levels of US spending required to build up and maintain a huge naval armada. They shrewdly adopted an alternative approach based on strategic defense. They searched for weaknesses, and sought relatively inexpensive ways to exploit those weaknesses. The Soviets succeeded: by developing several supersonic anti-ship missiles, one of which, the SS-N-22 Sunburn, has been called “the most lethal missile in the world today.”

The Sunburn missile has never seen use in combat, to my knowledge, which probably explains why its fearsome capabilities are not more widely recognized. Other cruise missiles have been used, of course, on several occasions, and with devastating results. During the Falklands War, French-made Exocet missiles, fired from Argentine fighters, sunk the HMS Sheffield and another ship. And, in 1987, during the Iran-Iraq war, the USS Stark was nearly cut in half by a pair of Exocets while on patrol in the Persian Gulf. On that occasion US Aegis radar picked up the incoming Iraqi fighter (a French-made Mirage), and tracked its approach to within 50 miles. The radar also “saw” the Iraqi plane turn about and return to its base. But radar never detected the pilot launch his weapons. The sea-skimming Exocets came smoking in under radar and were only sighted by human eyes moments before they ripped into the Stark, crippling the ship and killing 37 US sailors.

Information Clearinghouse (http://informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm)

Most of our navy is in the Persian Gulf right now. There's a good possibility that Russia might want to get back at us for what we did to them in Afghanistan by handing the Iranians a few of these easily concealable, highly accurate and deadly weapons.

More ominiously, this whole scenario fits perfectly into the prediction I made a week ago In my Predictions for 2005 thread (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8491) about trouble in the Persian Gulf involving Iran.

[Useruser666]

Tehran Times (http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=1/8/2005&Cat=2&Num=004)

Anyone heard of the Sunburn Missile? let me refresh your memories...



Information Clearinghouse (http://informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm)

Most of our navy is in the Persian Gulf right now. There's a good possibility that Russia might want to get back at us for what we did to them in Afghanistan by handing the Iranians a few of these easily concealable, highly accurate and deadly weapons.

More ominiously, this whole scenario fits perfectly into the prediction I made a week ago In my Predictions for 2005 thread (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8491) about trouble in the Persian Gulf involving Iran.


Uh, cold war is over. And I would hope your predictions would atleast not contradict themselves.

[Yonivore]

Uh, cold war is over. And I would hope your predictions would atleast not contradict themselves.
Really, U666, why do you even try?

[MannyIsGod]

Dude, your lack of knowledge of somethings is hillarious.

Having a missle is one thing, being able to use it effectivly is another. The Aegis system in the 80s and the Aegis system now are 2 very differnt things, and I'm not worried about Iran launching at the US either way.

US Naval ships are in very little danger from any threat Iran may or may not have.

BTW, Russian military hardware has always been overestimated in effectiveness. Then everytime we get our hands on some of it, we're amazed at just how much it sucks.

[MannyIsGod]

You know, i'm bored, so I'm going to fuck around with this and show you how flawed the thinking is.

from the same article you posted.....



The 1987 surprise attack on the Stark exemplifies the dangers posed by anti-ship cruise missiles. And the dangers are much more serious in the case of the Sunburn, whose specs leave the sub-sonic Exocet in the dust. Not only is the Sunburn much larger and faster, it has far greater range and a superior guidance system. Those who have witnessed its performance trials invariably come away stunned. According to one report, when the Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani visited Moscow in October 2001 he requested a test firing of the Sunburn, which the Russians were only too happy to arrange. So impressed was Ali Shamkhani that he placed an order for an undisclosed number of the missiles.


That right there, precludes it from coming in undetected like the French Excocets. Once the AEGIS spots it, SAMs take care of the rest.



The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or: a 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes "violent end maneuvers" to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder "just in time."


Dude, this guy doesn't even talk about the fact that the Phallanx system doesn't detect shit, the AEGIS does. The phalanx is simply the last phase of the AEGIS system, a final attempt at hitting a target.



The US Navy's only plausible defense against a robust weapon like the Sunburn missile is to detect the enemy's approach well ahead of time, whether destroyers, subs, or fighter-bombers, and defeat them before they can get in range and launch their deadly cargo. For this purpose US AWACs radar planes assigned to each naval battle group are kept aloft on a rotating schedule. The planes "see" everything within two hundred miles of the fleet, and are complemented with intelligence from orbiting satellites.


This guy claims to have done research? Well, my understanding is that the Sunburn is neither sub capable, nor airborne, it's only launched from a seaborne platform. Not only that, but the this would be a tacticle situation, not a stratigic one and satelite info would play little to no role. The AWACS would see any incoming ships or airplanes, but any tracking of the missle would be done by the AEGIS system, that's what it's designed for.

He then goes on to compare the Sunburn to the Scud and there is NO comparison to be made.

Bad Bad BAAAAD article.

[MannyIsGod]

BTW, The Stark is a Perry Class, which are NOT fitted with the AEGIS system.

The guy you use as a source can't even get the most important aspect of the ships defense right? Nice, really nice.

Only the Arleigh Burke class and Ticonderoga class have the AEGIS system. Try again.

[MannyIsGod]

OH, to be fair there is an airborne varient of the missle, but it's adapted to the SU-33, and Iran has none of those. However, it's not a stretch to say it could be delivered with other planes, but it wouldn't be as effective.

[MannyIsGod]

"In 10 scenarios, real Anti-Ship Missiles and supersonic Vandal target missiles (Mach 2.5) were intercepted and destroyed under realistic conditions. RAM Block 1 achieved first-shot kills on every target in its presented scenarios, including sea-skimming, diving and highly maneuvering profiles in both single and stream attacks."

"With these test firings RAM demonstrated its unparalleled success against today's most challenging threats. Cumulatively to date more than 180 missiles have been fired against anti-ship missiles and other targets, achieving a success rate over 95%"

The SeaRAM is a drop in replacement for the Phalanx system. The RAM missle itself is a mach 2, second generation derivative of the Sidewinder and Stinger missles. It features BOTH infrared and radar based target tracking, allowing for use against future low radar cross section (stealthy) anti-ship missles.

The effective range of the RAM missile is 11 miles. The CIWS part of the SeaRAM can track multiple targets and fire multiple missles at a single target. Each SeaRAM platform holds 11 RAM missiles.

lalalalallalalalallalalal

[Hook Dem]

WOW! Dan taken to school by Manny!!!! :lol

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Damn, I was going to direct a military buddy of mine to register and provide his thoughts on what a dumbass Dan is in this whole thread, but I think I'll save him the time.

Good job Manny. Dan, you might be wrong when even the non-conservatives on this board are making you look, well, dumb.

Iran won't act up, they know our military is only a stone's throw away, and if it really came down to it we could turn their whole country to glass.

[Nbadan]

That right there, precludes it from coming in undetected like the French Excocets. Once the AEGIS spots it, SAMs take care of the rest.

Fuck you Manny. In order for the SAMs to knock out a Sunburn missile the Navy has to be able to detect it and catch it, something not easy to do when its skimming the water in the clutered Persian Gulf going Mach 2+. Your arrogance is simply amazing.

[Nbadan]

Dude, this guy doesn't even talk about the fact that the Phallanx system doesn't detect shit, the AEGIS does. The phalanx is simply the last phase of the AEGIS system, a final attempt at hitting a target.

Face it Manny, you have no idea how the AEGIS system really works, much less where it is being deployed...


Once a hostile missile has been detected, Aegis BMD will launch its Standard Missile-3 interceptor from its MK41 Vertical Launching System (currently deployed on Aegis cruisers and destroyers). An evolution of the SM-2 Block IV interceptor, the SM-3 is a hit-to-kill missile comprised of a three-stage booster with a kill vehicle. As the SM-3 burns through its three stages, its GPS-Aided Inertial Navigation System will set it on an intercept trajectory with the hostile missile. SM-3 will also receive target updates from the Aegis destroyer.

Once close enough to the ballistic missile, the SM-3 will fire its kill vehicle, the Kinetic Warhead (KW), from its nosecone. The KW will immediately begin to search for its target. It will acquire the ballistic missile using a high-resolution seeker, and maintain an accurate trajectory using its internal navigational system. As it closes on its target, the KW will identify the missile’s payload, and shift its aimpoint to ensure a lethal hit. When the KW finally slams into the enemy warhead, the kinetic energy of the high velocity impact will ensure complete destruction of the threat.

Since 1999, MDA has conducted five SM-3 flight tests. Four have been successful. The most recent test was on December 11, 2003, when a SM-3 from the Aegis cruiser USS Lake Erie tracked, targeted, and destroyed a short-range target missile launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Kauai, Hawaii. Impact occurred at an altitude of 137 kilometers and a closing speed of approximately 3.7 kilometers per second. The entire operation, from detection to destruction, took four minutes.

President George W. Bush recently called on MDA to deploy a preliminary defense shield—including sea-based assets. In September 2004, the Navy will deploy an Aegis destroyer in the Sea of Japan capable of detecting and tracking missile launches from North Korea and China. In the event of a hostile launch, the destroyer will be able to transmit data to ten ground-based interceptors located in Fort Greely in Alaska and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California (also scheduled for deployment in September 2004).

In 2005, the first fully operational Aegis BMD system will be deployed on an Aegis destroyer. MDA will conduct rigorous tests, using this initial deployment to integrate the AN/SPY-1 with SM-3 and improve the accuracy of the interceptor. In 2006, the Navy will deploy nine Aegis ships outfitted with SM-3 missiles and configured to carry out ballistic missile defense operations from almost anywhere in the world.

Missilethreat.com (http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/aegis_usa.html)

2006? Common Manny admit it, your nothing but a con-man selling our forum readers your snake-oil for comfort. Not only is the latest version of the AEGIS system not in the Persian Gulf region, its not even finished yet. Nice.

[Nbadan]

This guy claims to have done research? Well, my understanding is that the Sunburn is neither sub capable, nor airborne, it's only launched from a seaborne platform.

Wrong again. There is a air-born version, but this isn't the toughest obstacle facing Naval Defenses in the Persian Gulf...


But US naval commanders operating in the Persian Gulf face serious challenges that are unique to the littoral, i.e., coastal, environment. A glance at a map shows why: The Gulf is nothing but a large lake, with one narrow outlet, and most of its northern shore, i.e., Iran, consists of mountainous terrain that affords a commanding tactical advantage over ships operating in Gulf waters. The rugged northern shore makes for easy concealment of coastal defenses, such as mobile missile launchers, and also makes their detection problematic.

TheTruthSeeker (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2439)

So, here we have Naval ships, possibly even carriers, just a few miles from the Iranian shore with its mountainous terrain, and Manny wants us all to believe that a imaginary AEGIS system, not even tested or deployed yet in the Persian Gulf region, is capable of spoting, targeting, and intercepting a launched missile going 2.5+ times the speed of sound and can do it all in just mere seconds.

Yeah right, and Santa Clause and the Easter bunny are real.


A senior fellow at the Jamestown Foundation, a Washington based think-tank, Fisher reported that the SS-N-22 may be capable of a dive speed of Mach 4.5 that would help it evade U.S. naval defenses. The Sunburn anti-ship missile is perhaps the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world," wrote Fisher in a review of the Chinese navy. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.5 speed with a very low-level flight pattern that uses violent end maneuvers to throw off defenses. After detecting the Moskit, the U.S. Navy Phalanx point defense system may have only 2.5 seconds to calculate a fire solution -- not enough time before the devastating impact of a 750-lb. warhead."

Now we can begin to understand the effect this type of weapon might have on our Navy. If this missile can move so quickly that it would penetrate our current Phalanx point defense system would not have the time to plot a solution and fire in time to destroy the missile before it hits one of our ships.

But, what would happen if one of these weapons were outfitted with a warhead that was nuclear rather than conventional? What would happen if one or more of these missiles were outfitted with a warhead of the size mentioned, above, equal to 200,000 pounds of TNT? This terrible possibility is covered by another article.

Cuttingedge.org (http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1449.cfm)

[Useruser666]

OMG Dan! This "source": http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1449.cfm

It has a "Resources to Help Your Understanding" list on the right side of the page with four books listed.

"The AntiChrist"

"Secret Records Revealed"

"Israel Islam and Armageddon"

"Wicca: Satan's Little White Lie"

There is also a key point that has been over looked about our missle defense capability.

Our military doesn't want people to know what it can do!!!

Any info about these systems the average joe can get a hold is probably pretty limited. They don't want the enemy to get exact numbers. This is especially true for new and or very hot developing technologies.

[MannyIsGod]

LMAO.

Dan, you're too much.

I guarntee you I know much more about the AEGIS system than you know. It's the cornerstone radar system in place on those ships. It's a lot like the huge radars we have that track balistic missles over the pole. It doesn't rotate like other radars because it's a solid 4 walled object that energizes a different part of the system in a pattern to imitate a rotating dish. It is increidbly accurate and effective.

The AEGIS system was not part of the Perry Class Frigate which you talked about in the gulf, the USS Stark(which should through the legitimacy of the entire article out. If the author misses such a key fact, how can I believe everything he bases on that cornerstone?). The whole purpose of the system was to provide protection for carrirer groups against an antimissle threat. the AWACS system is great at detecting planes and ships and used for cordination, but for missles there is nothing on par with even the older AEGIS system.

The system has been so effective against missles, they decidced to use it as a Ballistic Missle defense platform, hence the last of what you posted.

I conceeded that there is an airborne version of the Sunburn, but that it was adapted to the SU33, of which Iran owns 0. I don't know why these articles make such a big thing about a missle that goes Mach 2, because the Navy has been dealing with missles of that speed since the 60s. The main threat against them outside of submarines throughout that time was considered russian naval aviation and their ASM.

The sunburn is a great missle by all indications, but if we overestimated it it wouldn't be the first time we overestimated russian hardware.

Either way, just like the NASA thread earlier this month, you are blowing this way out of proportion. Keep posting anything related to technology, it's fun making you look like an idiot.

[MannyIsGod]

BTW, dumbass, the AEGIS has been around since the late 70s.

[ChumpDumper]

I think we're getting a bit bogged down in minutae here.

The real question is this, is Israel planning an attack on the nuke plant and what might be Iran's response?

[MannyIsGod]

Israel can't attack without flying over Iraq, and as much as we give them a political blowjob, that isn't going to happen.

I don't think the F16's they have can strike that far either way without tanker support anyhow, and I know we're not going to give them that.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Iran, consists of mountainous terrain that affords a commanding tactical advantage over ships operating in Gulf waters. The rugged northern shore makes for easy concealment of coastal defenses, such as mobile missile launchers, and also makes their detection problematic.

That's why we have those cool things called satellites, UAVs, not to mention Special Forces recon. I guarantee you we have Iran's coastal defenses mapped out better than the streets of San Antonio.

The funny thing about this is Dan is linking such far out and whacked up web sites to justify his take.

To quote 3-4 military friends of mine: "it's fun to read all the worst case scenarios about Iran and other countries, and their weapons versus our planes and ships. It's fun to read, because people really don't know the full capabilities of our technology, our vehicles, weapons, or defenses."

A buddy of mine who works at Lockheed (think F16 and now JSF) says that the true capabilities, from maneuverability to speed, of all of our aircraft, let alone our missile defense and tactical capabilities, is classified and kept that way very very well.

In short, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about Dan (as usual), so just shut up.

[ChumpDumper]

Israel can't attack without flying over IraqThey were talking about submarines, but who knows if they actually have them.

[Yonivore]

They were talking about submarines, but who knows if they actually have them.
I know.

[Hook Dem]

The funny thing to me is that we have people on this board that think they are smarter than those who invent these programs. I think not!

[ChumpDumper]

I know.Or have them in the gulf as the "Tehran News" says.

[MannyIsGod]

Israel does have submarines, but I seriously doubt they have the ability to operate themthat far from harbor. I could be wrong.

Yes Hook, and you're the opposite. You do nothing but put complete faith in those very people. I have a feeling neither extreme is a good stance.

[Hook Dem]

Israel does have submarines, but I seriously doubt they have the ability to operate themthat far from harbor. I could be wrong.

Yes Hook, and you're the opposite. You do nothing but put complete faith in those very people. I have a feeling neither extreme is a good stance.
You have no earthly fucking idea what I believe. Thats a cop out when you are at a loss of words.

[MannyIsGod]

Translation?

[ChumpDumper]

I can't give a full translation, but I can clearly discern the word "whippersnapper" in there.

[Hook Dem]

http://tinypic.com/17ecxx

[MannyIsGod]

alrighty.

[Yonivore]

Or have them in the gulf as the "Tehran News" says.
I know that too...

[MannyIsGod]

Dude, if Israel can operate that far from port, I'm impressed.

I used to keep up with all the rumors and blah blah blah over military stuff, but I simply dont care as much anymore.

[Yonivore]

Dude, if Israel can operate that far from port, I'm impressed.

I used to keep up with all the rumors and blah blah blah over military stuff, but I simply dont care as much anymore.
You forget who Israel's allies are? With a little help from their #1 friend, Israel could operate anywhere on the face of the planet. ;o)

[ChumpDumper]

So, do you know if they are going to attack?

Thats the only thing that matters.

[Yonivore]

So, do you know if they are going to attack?

Thats the only thing that matters.
Yes...I know.

[MannyIsGod]

yes, and In those years I remember actions that prevented Sadaam from having WMDs. But you know, nothing beats an all out unesscesary invasion!!!

[Yonivore]

In those years I remember actions that prevented Sadaam from having WMDs.
Really? Illuminate us.

Other than making him cry like a baby and scream like a girl in 1991, he'd pretty much been working toward having WMD's again ever since.

[MannyIsGod]

duh i forgot about how hehad so many when we invade. MY BAD.

[Yonivore]

duh i forgot about how hehad so many when we invade. MY BAD.
Well, from what I read -- in the report you guys point to as proof Saddam Hussein posed no threat -- he would have been able to field chemical and biological weapons within days (possibly hours) if the sanctions had been lifted -- which you may have forgotten was what his pals the French and Russians were lobbying for (Gee--I wonder why that was?) The report also detailed -- that's right DETAILED - terrorist ties and relationships the author believed was an attempt to move their WMD knowledge base and pre-cursor materials to the global terrorist arena.

Combine that with the biggest scandal in the history of the world (Oil for Food and how that might have distracted the UN and other complicit parties to maybe take their eye off the ball), and you have the makings of a real mess if we HADN'T taken the initiative and invaded.

I quoted a very relevant portion of the David Kay report, in here, the other day -- did you just ignore it? Let me find it...

You really should quit relying on the media and read the report yourself. It's very illuminating.

[Yonivore]

The final report of the Iraq Survey Group told us that Saddam destroyed his WMD stocks in 1991 and didn’t produce any significant amount after that. There was much crowing by anti-war commentators that this proved there were never any WMD in Iraq after all, and renewed calls for President Bush's head for misleading the country.

But that report also said that Saddam was using the money he had siphoned off from the oil-for-food programme to buy WMD material; and that he had re-started a ballistic missile programme forbidden by the UN. These findings alone showed that Saddam had been in breach of the UN resolutions, the legal basis for war. Moreover, the report also said that Saddam had destroyed his WMD stocks in 1991 ‘ in order to conceal Iraq’s WMD capabilities’; and also that in 1998, the weapons inspectors had detected VX-related compounds on ballistic missile warhead fragments, and had discovered a document describing the use of ‘special weapons’ by the Iraqi Air Force. All these things - along with repeated references to Saddam’s intention to resume WMD production when the sanctions that were falling apart finally ended - indicated that Saddam was still very much in the WMD business. Yet none of them was paid any attention, or even in some cases reported at all, by the media.

[Yonivore]

Here's what David Kay said:

"We know there were terrorist groups in state [Iraq] still seeking WMD capability. Iraq, although I found no weapons, had tremendous capabilities in this area. A marketplace phenomenon was about to occur, if it did not occur; sellers meeting buyers. And I think that would have been dangerous if the war had not intervened."

[ChumpDumper]

So they're attacking?

When?

What happens then?

[ChumpDumper]

Well, from what I read -- in the report you guys point to as proof Saddam Hussein posed no threat -- he would have been able to field chemical and biological weapons within days (possibly hours) if the sanctions had been liftedEr, were there not supposed to be stockpiles already there, regardless of sanctions?

[MannyIsGod]

The UN sucks, but the resolutions that we ignore with isreal provided a basis for war here.

[Yonivore]

Er, were there not supposed to be stockpiles already there, regardless of sanctions?
There's no conclusive proof there wasn't...

Go read the report. It also lends credence to the theory that WMD's were moved to Syria before the invasion...maybe as recently as 2 months prior to the invasion.

But, even if not, the stockpiles would have comfortably fit into a space the size of a two-car garage. So, you tell me, is it possible they're still there?

[Yonivore]

The UN sucks, but the resolutions that we ignore with isreal provided a basis for war here.
A war where? Here, in the U.S.? You're stupid.

[ChumpDumper]

But, even if not, the stockpiles would have comfortably fit into a space the size of a two-car garage. So, you tell me, is it possible they're still there?You tell me, is it possible they were destroyed?

[Yonivore]

You tell me, is it possible they were destroyed?
Sure! But when? Saddam Hussein never accounted for the weapons that were known to exist in 1998, when inspectors left.

Who had the burden of proof? I say, since Saddam Hussein was under various UNSC resolutions and the provisions of the '91 cease-fire agreement, to FULLY and UNCONDITIONALLY disclose the existence and disposition of ALL weapons of mass destruction, the burden was on him to show the world what happened to the weapons we know existed but were never accounted for.

Go ahead, you make an opposite argument.

[ChumpDumper]

So we went to war on a hunch.

Ok.

[MannyIsGod]

Collin Powell at the UN, the famous hunch arguement.

Yoni, here signifies the way your using UN resolutions to justify actions in this thread, yet choose to ignore them in other places.

It seems compassionate conservatives are not only conservative through convinience, they also start wars the same way!