IRAN HAS REALLY POWERFUL MISSILES NOW!
Remember during the Bush administration how liberals used to demean our concern over Iran by insinuating it was a stupid third-world country that didn't have the ability to hurt us? Well... turns out CONSERVATIVES WERE RIGHT -- LIBERALS WERE WRONG... Again!
WASHINGTON, Feb 1 (Reuters) - A U.S. attempt to shoot down a ballistic missile mimicking an attack from Iran failed after a malfunction in a radar built by Raytheon the Defense Department said.
The abortive test over the Pacific Ocean coincided with a Pentagon report that Iran had expanded its ballistic missile capabilities and posed a "significant" threat to U.S. and allied forces in the Middle East region.
The Missile Defense Agency said that in Sunday's test both the target missile, fired from the Marshall Islands, and the interceptor, from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, had performed normally.
"However, the Sea-Based X-band radar did not perform as expected," Officials will investigate the cause of the failure to intercept.
The SBX radar is a major component of the ground-based midcourse defense, the sole U.S. bulwark against long-range missiles that could be tipped with chemical, biological or nuclear warheads.
DEFENSES AGAINST IRAN
To counter the Iranian threat, the United States has expanded land- and sea-based missile defense systems in and around the Gulf, according to U.S. officials.
Oh, and check out my 2/3/10 Podcast where I talk about this in great and revealing detail! (It's a long podcast, but the part on Iran starts at the 20:00 minute mark). THIS IS A HUGE STORY AND THE MEDIA'S TOTALLY MISSING IT!
To counter the Iranian threat, the United States has expanded land- and sea-based missile defense systems in and around the Gulf, according to U.S. officials.
Even more so?. Honestly put yourselves in the position of Iran's negotiators or strategists; You have:
- Troops of a hostile power in the eastern (afghanistan) and western borders (Iraq) with permanent bases across the persian gulf in Kuwait.
- A naval presence of two hostile powers in its coasts (aircraft carriers in the case of the U.S., and Israeli submarines)
- U.S. sanctions for over 25 years.
- The U.S. embassy in Teheran was used as the central hive for espionage in the region.until 1979
- Its nemesis in the region, has a fleet of submarines that can launch U.S. supplied nuclear missiles.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/12/israel1
"Israeli and American officials have admitted collaborating to deploy US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines, giving the Middle East's only nuclear power the ability to strike at any of its Arab neighbours."
What would you logically do?
D, if it was me, I would have a very low profile. With that much firepower at my door I sure would not p_ _ _ anyone off by doing anything stupid. but I'm not and they have made some pretty strong comments in the past. They continue to snub their nose at everyone; not just the west. I realize that mistakes have been made in the past by everyone, yes, I said everyone, but somewhere along the line, someone needs to stop the stupidity.
I know that a lot of people would say it's America's fault; they need to apologize.I have to say that arguement is getting old. It seems like these days it's all our fault; no one else did anything Thats just my opinion. I do not care who did what, what matters to me is that the animosity stops and that belongs to both sides.
Well words come and go, they don't mean much, the thing is How would you respond (actions) To this situation? And it seems to me that over the years Iran has followed the logical course, installing anti aircraft systems to stop any aerial attacks, trying to obtain a nuclear deterrant to eliminate Israel's nuclear monopoly, etc..
If the U.S. federal government would NOT interfere in a region that's very old and ridiculously complex to understand politically, these kind of feuds would not take place. This ridiculous idea of having the U.S. as a replacement for the british empire and meddling its nose in every interethnic, tribal, national conflict in that region is a waste of time, treasure and good will, as it makes the U.S. seem just like the empirialistic forces that have always struggled for control of the region.
Ejehm that's not a valid option, and I don't understand your Italian analogy. . Point is, as long as the Islamic Republic of Iran sees itself threatened (it has been for the past 30 years), it'll try to defend itself.
It was even invaded by Saddam Hussein using weapons provided by the U.S. in the 80's. Here's Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Meanwhile, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a fiery Shia radical, is leading his country toward becoming the first nuclear jihadist state. Ahmadinehad believes he has been chosen by Allah to usher in worldwide Islamic rule. But in a 2005 speech in Tehran to leaders of the terror groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the Iranian president did not ask his audience to imagine a Muslim-ruled America, but a world without America. Excerpt from the book "The Blood of Lambs" by ex-terroist Kamal Saleem. ENOUGH SAID FOR ME AND NO MORE TO SAY ON THE SUBJECT!
Meanwhile, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a fiery Shia radical, is leading his country toward becoming the first nuclear jihadist state. Ahmadinehad believes he has been chosen by Allah to usher in worldwide Islamic rule. But in a 2005 speech in Tehran to leaders of the terror groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the Iranian president did not ask his audience to imagine a Muslim-ruled America, but a world without America. Excerpt from the book "The Blood of Lambs" by ex-terroist Kamal Saleem. ENOUGH SAID FOR ME AND NO MORE TO SAY ON THE SUBJECT!
Well, the title of the president doesn't carry the same weight in every country, and as I wrote before, words come and go; Actions are what matter. The U.S. government and Israel have acted in a belicose manner towards the IRI for decades, aiding Sadd. Hussein's invasion of Iran in the 80's, stationing troops near Iran's frontiers, sending naval units to the persian gulf of which a few are equipped with nuclear missiles (dolphin class israeli submarines), imposing trade sanctions (the us treasury in 84), and engaging in terrorist actions :
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/821634.html
"A senior nuclear physicist involved in Iran's nuclear program who died under mysterious circumstances two weeks ago was killed by the Mossad, according to a report released in a U.S. website this weekend."
Really the only logical response by any country (regardless of whether the IRI is in anyone's sympathies or not) under these circumstances will be to become more belicose towards those hostile powers.
D, if it was me, I would have a very low profile. With that much firepower at my door I sure would not p_ _ _ anyone off by doing anything stupid. but I'm not and they have made some pretty strong comments in the past. They continue to snub their nose at everyone; not just the west. I realize that mistakes have been made in the past by everyone, yes, I said everyone, but somewhere along the line, someone needs to stop the stupidity.
I know that a lot of people would say it's America's fault; they need to apologize.I have to say that arguement is getting old. It seems like these days it's all our fault; no one else did anything Thats just my opinion. I do not care who did what, what matters to me is that the animosity stops and that belongs to both sides.
Well words come and go, they don't mean much, the thing is How would you respond (actions) To this situation? And it seems to me that over the years Iran has followed the logical course, installing anti aircraft systems to stop any aerial attacks, trying to obtain a nuclear deterrant to eliminate Israel's nuclear monopoly, etc..
If the U.S. federal government would NOT interfere in a region that's very old and ridiculously complex to understand politically, these kind of feuds would not take place. This ridiculous idea of having the U.S. as a replacement for the british empire and meddling its nose in every interethnic, tribal, national conflict in that region is a waste of time, treasure and good will, as it makes the U.S. seem just like the empirialistic forces that have always struggled for control of the region.
If the U.S. federal government would NOT interfere in a region that's very old and ridiculously complex to understand politically, these kind of feuds would not take place.
US policy is not the root cause of feuds in the Middle East; I think there's a little more involved
11The angel of the LORD said to her further,
"Behold, you are with child,
And you will bear a son;
And you shall call his name Ishmael,
Because the LORD has given heed to your affliction.
12"He will be a wild donkey of a man,
His hand will be against everyone,
And everyone's hand will be against him;
And he will live to the east of all his brothers."
Your military is little more than a flying museum, and would last a matter of days against any of your most powerful rivals.
...Your answer is to become more belicose?
You lost me somewhere between medium sized catbox with a gulf coast view and "become more belicose."
...Because that's worked out so well for you after 30 years.
Well, the thing is, Iran has been "bullied" for decades, and has gotten more and more belicose as the years have passed seeing military capability as an important component in guranteeing its existance. Doing things such as killing their top nuclear scientist in a bomb blast, that seems to have been orcchestrated by the Mossad, doesn't give the iranian government apparatus many reasons to abandon a ballistic missiles program or obtaining a nuclear deterrant..
To this day the IRI stands, so in the broadest sense, it has worked. Despite briberies, threats, invasions, trade sanctions, assasination of government officials, etc... the IRI still exists,causing much wrath to the U.S. and Israeli governments.
If the U.S. federal government would NOT interfere in a region that's very old and ridiculously complex to understand politically, these kind of feuds would not take place.
I meant the standoff between the U.S. and Iran about the latter's weapons programs. It's impssible to just overlook the fact that Iran is militarily surrounded by U.S. forces, military forces that have been historically antagonistic to the IRI.
US policy is not the root cause of feuds in the Middle East; I think there's a little more involved
Yes of course, but the U.S. presence in the region only complicates things more by getting involved (for example in the Kurdistan) in intertribal/interethnic feuds no foreigner can genuinely understand.
While I agree with much being said here, at least on entirely objective levels -- and Jay, you continue to crack me up, however serious the subject matter ...
... don't you think that it's to the U.S.'s strategic advantage right now to maintain a central presence in that area, and certainly not just because of Iran's "bellicose" threats ... but also because of the very real 1) unpredictability of Russian leadership, not to mention a vast majority of the former USSR's territories/former military facilities and/or assets containing or "keeping secure" vast amounts of weapons-grade uranium, decaying nukes & chem/bio-weapon applications they seem all-too happy to either auction openly, OR sell on the black market, AND 2) threats posed by China/North Korea/Pakistan/India in general ... but, especially in the case of any either current OR future collective political/military effort by an Iran-China partnership?
Think, at least in terms of the latter, what Iran might be able offer China during its meteoric rise in infrastructure-building, largely funded by their equally alarming international trade/market-domination, which includes a rather desperate and uncompromising thirst for oil to fuel its exploding "red capitalism" agenda ... and what China might be able to offer Iran in return -- hmmm ... aside from really cheap and massive man-power, maybe some really swell "nuclear" and "missile" technology, materiel ... and maybe just a bit of turn-key hardware, too.
I'm thinkin' that, more than worrying about who we're pissing off pretty much ANYwhere (but especially in France, grin), we may want to focus a little harder on maintaining as much "presence" as we can in that general region. Not so much to "defeat terrorism against the U.S." (tho, hey -- why shouldn't that be a goal?), but to make damned sure that we're there and thus have the ability to do what might have to be done if these two countries, especially, decide to do some REAL dealing in order to get rid of us.
China's already got us by the proverbial balls, economically ... so, it's not a stretch that they'd reach out to Iran ... in fact, these two have already been dancin' around the bedroom for a while now. Therefore, I'd kind of like at least SOME of our more nasty assets pre-positioned in the region ... and, quite frankly, don't CARE what the rest of the world "thinks" about it.
The day the U.S. started actin' like a Care Bear vs. a grizzly bear on the international stage, is the day our national security started to fail -- merely because a wishy-washy, PC-driven overly "NICE" superpower ... isn't a superpower for long.
If there's no fear over attacking us -- and there is less and less EVERY day under this administration -- then ... attack they will.
And attacking, they ARE.
Personally, I'm a little annoyed by that.
(Oh, and if you're about to ask me who "they" are -- pick your poison.)
