• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Iran tests missiles

Sinsear

Sinsear

Diamond Member
Story Here

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran test-fired nine missiles on Wednesday and warned the United States and Israel it was ready to retaliate for any attack over its disputed nuclear projects.

Washington, which says Iran seeks atomic bombs, told Tehran to halt further tests. Iran, the world's fourth largest oil producer, says its nuclear program is only for electricity.

Iran later announced night-time missile maneuvers, and its missile tests rattled oil markets, helping crude prices to rebound about $2 a barrel after recent falls.

Speculation that Israel could bomb Iran has mounted since a big Israeli air drill last month. U.S. leaders have not ruled out military options if diplomacy fails to end the nuclear row.

Revolutionary Guards air force commander Hossein Salami said in televised comments that thousands of missiles were ready to be fired at "pre-determined targets." Missiles were shown soaring from desert launchpads, leaving long vapor trails.

"We warn the enemies who intend to threaten us with military exercises and empty psychological operations that our hand will always be on the trigger and our missiles will always be ready to launch," he said, according to ISNA news agency.

"Another night missile maneuver is taking place right now," Salami told state television later. He did not elaborate.

The White House told Iran to "refrain from further missile tests if they truly seek to gain the trust of the world."

But the United States gave no hint to leaders of a Group of Eight rich nations meeting in Japan this week that it planned to attack Iran, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said.

In Washington, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, asked if the United States was any closer to confrontation with Iran, told reporters: "No, I don't think so."

Another senior U.S. official said the Bush administration had not exhausted the use of diplomacy to try to convince Iran to rein in its nuclear program.

"We view force as an option that is on the table but a last resort," U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, William Burns, said.

Burns also told a Congressional panel that Iran had made only "modest" progress in its nuclear program because of U.N. sanctions, while warning Tehran that it would pay dearly if it pursued its current course.

"It is apparent that Iran has not yet perfected enrichment (of uranium), and as a direct result of U.N. sanctions, Iran's ability to procure technology or items of significance to its missile programs ... is being impaired," he said.
Click to expand...


I hope Israel was watching closely, as it seems they are well within range of these missiles. US targets in the ME are also in range.
 
Seems like this is just posturing. Iran has nothing to gain from a war with the US or a US ally.

On a side note, am I the only one that smirks a little when I read them bragging about 1200 mile range considering that the US has missiles that have 8000 mile range and using a sub based missile could strike anywhere on the globe?
 
They can get them off during peace time. Unfortunately if they raise them in war time there is little hope for Iran to get many off before the rain begins.
 
Jesus. Its like watching 2 retards in a fight.
Back in 02 or 03 I think it was Iran went to the Bush Administration and offered a certain set of conditions with which to proceed with its goals. Bush of course refused to accept such "unmonitored and dangerous" activities. Fast forward a few years after thatwhen tensions were high the Bush Administration made some demands of Iran. Demands which strangely were almost identical to what Iran had proposed just a few years earlier.

This whole issue just reeks of big balls, saber rattling and foolishness.
 
Iran is basically posturing and responding to the Israeli air drill. And GWB now looks like he will actually try diplomacy since any military options are slim and next to none. But in the case of GWB&co, they will first have to understand what diplomacy is.

And with GWB&co. and Israel being nearly the only two remaining forces in the world that are Iran hostile, any US or Israeli Pearl Harbor type sneak attack on Iran would reap world condemnation on both the US and Israel. Economic embargoes and regime change do cut both ways. And the great Israeli hope is that it can goad the USA into doing its heavy lifting for it by getting GWB to attack Iran. And while the megalomania of Cheney would dearly love to attack Iran, larger world reality simply makes it impossible.

The rest of the world simply awaits 1/20/2009, the end of GWB&co, and a hopeful return to sanity.
 
Originally posted by: lupi
We should definitelt fold to russia and scrap any missile defense plans.
Click to expand...

No, we should not fold to Russia. We should press Russia on honoring their contracts with western companies and on human rights. We should scrap missile defense in Europe because it is a boondoggle and annoys our allies.
 
Israel put on their little show a couple weeks ago and this is Iran's response, nothing surprising here.

So how high did oil spike this morning?
 
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: lupi
We should definitelt fold to russia and scrap any missile defense plans.
Click to expand...

No, we should not fold to Russia. We should press Russia on honoring their contracts with western companies and on human rights. We should scrap missile defense in Europe because it is a boondoggle and annoys our allies.
Click to expand...

Wait....what? Why should Russia concede to let western companies into its country. Are we in turn going to allow Russian companies to compete in the west also?

All this tension seems to stem from one thing...profits for big business.

We keep telling other countries that they have to do things our way and that they have to allow our megacorps to operate in their sovereign nation but then get pissy or flat out refuse when any country that we don't like wants to do business with someone else that we are doing business with.

Edit: Examples would include western European countries like France and Germany doing business with Iraq prior to the invasion and Congress getting their panties in a wad over Dubai running the ports here.

I guess free market capitalism is only a right of US corporations. When other countries want to use a free market system to get goods/services cheaper, they are bitch slapped by the US.
 
oilsheik: d00d, price of oil dropping, do something quick!
iranguy: k, just shot off couple rockets
oilsheik: looks like that did the trick, price seems to have stop dropping and slowly picking up again
iranguy: cool, i keep finger on rocket. lemme know
oilshiek: kthxbai
iranguy: np
 
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
-snip-
Wait....what? Why should Russia concede to let western companies into its country. Are we in turn going to allow Russian companies to compete in the west also?

All this tension seems to stem from one thing...profits for big business.

We keep telling other countries that they have to do things our way and that they have to allow our megacorps to operate in their sovereign nation but then get pissy or flat out refuse when any country that we don't like wants to do business with someone else that we are doing business with.

Edit: Examples would include western European countries like France and Germany doing business with Iraq prior to the invasion and Congress getting their panties in a wad over Dubai running the ports here.

I guess free market capitalism is only a right of US corporations. When other countries want to use a free market system to get goods/services cheaper, they are bitch slapped by the US.
Click to expand...

^ This all sounds very compelling, except I do not believe there is any prohibition against Russian companies doing business here (contrary to your assertion).

Can you find proof that Russian companies are not allowed to compete here?

TIA

Fern
 
More incentive for Israel not to start another illegal war.
 
Its somewhat more of a shot across Israel's bow than anything else. In theory, Israel could use its superior planes and jamming technologies to bomb Iran with almost total impunity. But if Israel pulled that stunt, it would somewhat justify Iran using its long range missiles against Israel. And even if somewhat illegal it would justify the use of chemical weapons directed at Israeli population centers. Israel has somewhat of a missile defense shield, but I doubt it would be effective.
 
Originally posted by: jpeyton
More incentive for Israel not to start another illegal war.
Click to expand...
What war is legal?
Who determines legality; morals or does one country stand up before the Hague and ask for a trial to present evidence against another that they should be allowed to go to war.

 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Its somewhat more of a shot across Israel's bow than anything else. In theory, Israel could use its superior planes and jamming technologies to bomb Iran with almost total impunity. But if Israel pulled that stunt, it would somewhat justify Iran using its long range missiles against Israel. And even if somewhat illegal it would justify the use of chemical weapons directed at Israeli population centers. Israel has somewhat of a missile defense shield, but I doubt it would be effective.
Click to expand...

Not really, then we are really talking escalation. Israel would nuke Iran out of existence were that to happen.
 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Its somewhat more of a shot across Israel's bow than anything else. In theory, Israel could use its superior planes and jamming technologies to bomb Iran with almost total impunity. But if Israel pulled that stunt, it would somewhat justify Iran using its long range missiles against Israel. And even if somewhat illegal it would justify the use of chemical weapons directed at Israeli population centers. Israel has somewhat of a missile defense shield, but I doubt it would be effective.
Click to expand...

Israel attacking Iran's nuclear weapon facilities, a military target, "justifies" a chemical weapons strike against Israeli civilian population centers?

Justifies it from whose point of view? The mullah's and Amedinijad? Or do you mean in general that a military strike on a military target with minimal casualties (and ideally zero casualties) morally justifies a targetted strike on civilians likely to result in tens of thousands of deaths?

Before I explode I'd like to get your clarification on which usage of the word you meant.
 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Its somewhat more of a shot across Israel's bow than anything else. In theory, Israel could use its superior planes and jamming technologies to bomb Iran with almost total impunity. But if Israel pulled that stunt, it would somewhat justify Iran using its long range missiles against Israel. And even if somewhat illegal it would justify the use of chemical weapons directed at Israeli population centers. Israel has somewhat of a missile defense shield, but I doubt it would be effective.
Click to expand...

Iran would never launch chemical weapons against Israeli civilians in retaliaion for a strike against military targets. The odds of getting their country nuked to little radioactive pieces would be FAR to high.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top