US warns Russia against selling missiles to Iran

[Evander]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...a_st_pe/us_russia_iran
see also:
"Lou Dobbs: U.S. Govt. Helping to Fund Iran Nuclear Projects"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sL9xwcIDlvw

Gee, US officials must be *shocked* that Russia is selling weapons to Iran. Hey, wait a minute, let's turn back the clock:
Representative James Traficant from Ohio, speaking before the House on April 29, 1997, exclaimed:
"America gives billions to Russia. With American cash, Russia builds missiles. Russia then sells those missiles to China. And China, who gets about $45 billion in trade giveaways from Uncle Sam, then sells those Russian-made missiles to Iran. Now Iran, with those Russian-made missiles sold to them by China, threatens the Mideast. So Uncle Sam ... sends more troops and sends more dollars... Mr Speaker, this is not foreign policy. this is foreign stupidity." (Griffin, 305)

Let's turn back the clock a few years more:
In his address to the graduating class at Annapolis in 1983, Secretary of the Navy, John Lehman, said: "Within weeks, many of you will be looking across just hundreds of feet of water at some of the most modern technology ever invented in America. Unfortunately, it is on Soviet ships."

"As Professor Sutton [author of "National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union", 1973] observed in his book, The Best Enemy Money Can Buy, the guns, ammunition, the weapons, and the transportation systems that killed Americans in Korea and Vietnam came from the American-subsidized economy of the Soviet Union. The trucks that carried these weapons down the Ho Chi Minh Trail were manufactured in American-built plants" (Griffin, 303)

Let's turn back the clock even more:
"During World War II, under the Lend-Lease program, the United States sent to the Soviets more than $11 billion in aid, including 14,000 aircraft, nearly half a million tanks and other military vehicles, more than 400 combat ships, and even HALF THE ENTIRE U.S. SUPPLY OF URANIUM which was critically needed for the development of the atomic bomb. (Griffin, 295)

Excerpts from "The Creature from Jekyll Island", G. Edward Griffin, 2008 - 21st printing

 

[theeedude]

Russia can sell missiles to Iran against US wishes, just as US decided to place missiles in Poland against Russia's wishes. S-300 is a defensive surface to air missile system. All countries have a right to defend themselves.

 

[brandonb]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Russia can sell missiles to Iran against US wishes, just as US decided to place missiles in Poland against Russia's wishes. S-300 is a defensive surface to air missile system. All countries have a right to defend themselves.

I agree. S-300 is like our patriot system. Its for anti missile and anti air, it is not used to launch warheads at Israel.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Russia can sell missiles to Iran against US wishes, just as US decided to place missiles in Poland against Russia's wishes. S-300 is a defensive surface to air missile system. All countries have a right to defend themselves.

Agree. I think the little country Georgia should have a 1/2 dozen of These to defend itself from its more powerful neighbors.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: senseamp
Russia can sell missiles to Iran against US wishes, just as US decided to place missiles in Poland against Russia's wishes. S-300 is a defensive surface to air missile system. All countries have a right to defend themselves.

Agree. I think the little country Georgia should have a 1/2 dozen of These to defend itself from its more powerful neighbors.

Ok, then sell them to Georgia. It will be annexed before they are deployed.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Russia can sell missiles to Iran against US wishes, just as US decided to place missiles in Poland against Russia's wishes. S-300 is a defensive surface to air missile system. All countries have a right to defend themselves.

The idea that "a good offense is a good defense" applies here. Iran bolstering its defense systems means that they will be more immune from attack and that will disrupt the balance of power in the Middle East. Right now if Iran would choose to develop nuclear weapons, an attack by Israeli or United States air forces would be relatively easy. Iran knows this and they are more likely to keep their nuclear program civil in nature. But should the S-300 system be installed, that mission would be much more difficult. Iran is a hostile nation and no nation of good intentions should be supplying it with military arms at this time.

ABM systems in Poland are a different story, they are to defend against potential missile attacks by nations such as Iran and having such systems in place grows more and more important as a significant number of nations around the world have nuclear arsenals and the means to deliver them via missiles.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: senseamp
Russia can sell missiles to Iran against US wishes, just as US decided to place missiles in Poland against Russia's wishes. S-300 is a defensive surface to air missile system. All countries have a right to defend themselves.

The idea that "a good offense is a good defense" applies here. Iran bolstering its defense systems means that they will be more immune from attack and that will disrupt the balance of power in the Middle East. Right now if Iran would choose to develop nuclear weapons, an attack by Israeli or United States air forces would be relatively easy. Iran knows this and they are more likely to keep their nuclear program civil in nature. But should the S-300 system be installed, that mission would be much more difficult. Iran is a hostile nation and no nation of good intentions should be supplying it with military arms at this time.

ABM systems in Poland are a different story, they are to defend against potential missile attacks by nations such as Iran and having such systems in place grows more and more important as a significant number of nations around the world have nuclear arsenals and the means to deliver them via missiles.

That's not how Russia views it. It views it in exactly the terms you view S-300 in Iran, that if there is ABM in Europe it will make Russia's nuclear deterrent less effective, and in turn make it more vulnerable to an offensive attack. Russia has asked for these missiles to not be deployed, and even offered some cold war installations closer to Iran as alternate sites, but was completely blown off. Now there isn't really a reason for Russia to go along with US wishes.
Bottom line is it's not Russia's job to make US and Israel feel safe in attacking Iran. If anything Russia should itself deploy S-300 systems in Iran (with Iranian permission) to protect Russian citizens working on the nuclear projects there.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: senseamp
Russia can sell missiles to Iran against US wishes, just as US decided to place missiles in Poland against Russia's wishes. S-300 is a defensive surface to air missile system. All countries have a right to defend themselves.

The idea that "a good offense is a good defense" applies here. Iran bolstering its defense systems means that they will be more immune from attack and that will disrupt the balance of power in the Middle East. Right now if Iran would choose to develop nuclear weapons, an attack by Israeli or United States air forces would be relatively easy. Iran knows this and they are more likely to keep their nuclear program civil in nature. But should the S-300 system be installed, that mission would be much more difficult. Iran is a hostile nation and no nation of good intentions should be supplying it with military arms at this time.

ABM systems in Poland are a different story, they are to defend against potential missile attacks by nations such as Iran and having such systems in place grows more and more important as a significant number of nations around the world have nuclear arsenals and the means to deliver them via missiles.

That's not how Russia views it. It views it in exactly the terms you view S-300 in Iran, that if there is ABM in Europe it will make Russia's nuclear deterrent less effective, and in turn make it more vulnerable to an offensive attack. Russia has asked for these missiles to not be deployed, and even offered some cold war installations closer to Iran as alternate sites, but was completely blown off. Now there isn't really a reason for Russia to go along with US wishes.
Bottom line is it's not Russia's job to make US and Israel feel safe in attacking Iran. If anything Russia should itself deploy S-300 systems in Iran (with Iranian permission) to protect Russian citizens working on the nuclear projects there.

There's a critical difference between the situation in Iran and the situation in Eastern Europe that makes that viewpoint not make much sense. The idea of U.S. ABM sites in Poland making Russia's nuclear deterrant less effective just isn't true; there is no way the deployment of a view sites in Poland is going to defend anyone against hundreds of Russian missiles each with multiple MIRVs. The ABM system to be deployed in Poland will be good for defense against one or at most several missiles, the characteristic of a terrorist attack or an attack by a small nation like Iran or North Korea. Russia is playing politics by getting up in arms over the installation of the sites in Poland; it does not in any way reduce the idea of MAD, it's just something for Putin and others to complain about.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: senseamp
Russia can sell missiles to Iran against US wishes, just as US decided to place missiles in Poland against Russia's wishes. S-300 is a defensive surface to air missile system. All countries have a right to defend themselves.

The idea that "a good offense is a good defense" applies here. Iran bolstering its defense systems means that they will be more immune from attack and that will disrupt the balance of power in the Middle East. Right now if Iran would choose to develop nuclear weapons, an attack by Israeli or United States air forces would be relatively easy. Iran knows this and they are more likely to keep their nuclear program civil in nature. But should the S-300 system be installed, that mission would be much more difficult. Iran is a hostile nation and no nation of good intentions should be supplying it with military arms at this time.

ABM systems in Poland are a different story, they are to defend against potential missile attacks by nations such as Iran and having such systems in place grows more and more important as a significant number of nations around the world have nuclear arsenals and the means to deliver them via missiles.

That's not how Russia views it. It views it in exactly the terms you view S-300 in Iran, that if there is ABM in Europe it will make Russia's nuclear deterrent less effective, and in turn make it more vulnerable to an offensive attack. Russia has asked for these missiles to not be deployed, and even offered some cold war installations closer to Iran as alternate sites, but was completely blown off. Now there isn't really a reason for Russia to go along with US wishes.
Bottom line is it's not Russia's job to make US and Israel feel safe in attacking Iran. If anything Russia should itself deploy S-300 systems in Iran (with Iranian permission) to protect Russian citizens working on the nuclear projects there.

There's a critical difference between the situation in Iran and the situation in Eastern Europe that makes that viewpoint not make much sense. The idea of U.S. ABM sites in Poland making Russia's nuclear deterrant less effective just isn't true; there is no way the deployment of a view sites in Poland is going to defend anyone against hundreds of Russian missiles each with multiple MIRVs. The ABM system to be deployed in Poland will be good for defense against one or at most several missiles, the characteristic of a terrorist attack or an attack by a small nation like Iran or North Korea. Russia is playing politics by getting up in arms over the installation of the sites in Poland; it does not in any way reduce the idea of MAD, it's just something for Putin and others to complain about.

That's not how they see it. They see it as a real threat that will force them to spend more money on nukes to respond. US has obviously chosen to ignore those concerns, just as Russia has chosen to ignore US concerns over S-300 sales. It is also very interesting that US, which has stealth bombers and fighters is getting hot and bothered over some 20 year old Soviet SAM system.

 

[filetitan]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: senseamp
Russia can sell missiles to Iran against US wishes, just as US decided to place missiles in Poland against Russia's wishes. S-300 is a defensive surface to air missile system. All countries have a right to defend themselves.

The idea that "a good offense is a good defense" applies here. Iran bolstering its defense systems means that they will be more immune from attack and that will disrupt the balance of power in the Middle East. Right now if Iran would choose to develop nuclear weapons, an attack by Israeli or United States air forces would be relatively easy. Iran knows this and they are more likely to keep their nuclear program civil in nature. But should the S-300 system be installed, that mission would be much more difficult. Iran is a hostile nation and no nation of good intentions should be supplying it with military arms at this time.

ABM systems in Poland are a different story, they are to defend against potential missile attacks by nations such as Iran and having such systems in place grows more and more important as a significant number of nations around the world have nuclear arsenals and the means to deliver them via missiles.

That's not how Russia views it. It views it in exactly the terms you view S-300 in Iran, that if there is ABM in Europe it will make Russia's nuclear deterrent less effective, and in turn make it more vulnerable to an offensive attack. Russia has asked for these missiles to not be deployed, and even offered some cold war installations closer to Iran as alternate sites, but was completely blown off. Now there isn't really a reason for Russia to go along with US wishes.
Bottom line is it's not Russia's job to make US and Israel feel safe in attacking Iran. If anything Russia should itself deploy S-300 systems in Iran (with Iranian permission) to protect Russian citizens working on the nuclear projects there.

There's a critical difference between the situation in Iran and the situation in Eastern Europe that makes that viewpoint not make much sense. The idea of U.S. ABM sites in Poland making Russia's nuclear deterrant less effective just isn't true; there is no way the deployment of a view sites in Poland is going to defend anyone against hundreds of Russian missiles each with multiple MIRVs. The ABM system to be deployed in Poland will be good for defense against one or at most several missiles, the characteristic of a terrorist attack or an attack by a small nation like Iran or North Korea. Russia is playing politics by getting up in arms over the installation of the sites in Poland; it does not in any way reduce the idea of MAD, it's just something for Putin and others to complain about.

That's not how they see it. They see it as a real threat that will force them to spend more money on nukes to respond. US has obviously chosen to ignore those concerns, just as Russia has chosen to ignore US concerns over S-300 sales. It is also very interesting that US, which has stealth bombers and fighters is getting hot and bothered over some 20 year old Soviet SAM system.

lol there is a reason for that, US stealth was shutdown in Yugoslavia with technology older then the one being proposed for sell here.

Stealthiest of the world's aircraft was brough down by two SA-6 surface-to-air missiles
http://www.aeronautics.ru/f117down.htm

 

[novasatori]

Originally posted by: filetitan

lol there is a reason for that, US stealth was shutdown in Yugoslavia with technology older then the one being proposed for sell here.

Stealthiest of the world's aircraft was brough down by two SA-6 surface-to-air missiles
http://www.aeronautics.ru/f117down.htm

there's a lot more to it than it simply being shot down by an sa-6
if you read what happened you would know the f-117 was tasked the same flight path multiple times previously so all they had to do was wait and aim...it was more gross negligence in mission planning/tasking than failure of stealth

its also the least stealthiest of current stealth aircraft in the US arsenal, why do you think it was retired?

Also I don't particularly think either side is right here, we should be unifying against possible threats together instead of trying to fuck each other over.

 

[filetitan]

Originally posted by: novasatori

Originally posted by: filetitan

lol there is a reason for that, US stealth was shutdown in Yugoslavia with technology older then the one being proposed for sell here.

Stealthiest of the world's aircraft was brough down by two SA-6 surface-to-air missiles
http://www.aeronautics.ru/f117down.htm

there's a lot more to it than it simply being shot down by an sa-6
if you read what happened you would know the f-117 was tasked the same flight path multiple times previously so all they had to do was wait and aim...it was more gross negligence in mission planning/tasking than failure of stealth

its also the least stealthiest of current stealth aircraft in the US arsenal, why do you think it was retired?

Also I don't particularly think either side is right here, we should be unifying against possible threats together instead of trying to fuck each other over.

agreed, we all share the same blood color after all.

 

[gevorg]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

There's a critical difference between the situation in Iran and the situation in Eastern Europe that makes that viewpoint not make much sense. The idea of U.S. ABM sites in Poland making Russia's nuclear deterrant less effective just isn't true; there is no way the deployment of a view sites in Poland is going to defend anyone against hundreds of Russian missiles each with multiple MIRVs. The ABM system to be deployed in Poland will be good for defense against one or at most several missiles, the characteristic of a terrorist attack or an attack by a small nation like Iran or North Korea. Russia is playing politics by getting up in arms over the installation of the sites in Poland; it does not in any way reduce the idea of MAD, it's just something for Putin and others to complain about.

I completely agree that the missile "defense" sites in Poland would not make a significant difference to deffer Russian nukes, BUT:

The radar systems of those sites will give a much better intelligence/recon data on whats going on in western Russia. Much better than current intelligence systems like satellites. Only the top-level highly encrypted gov't communications will be protected, while the rest of the country will be highly vulnerable. This is why Russia has the full right to object and do something to balance power.

 

[Aimster]

There is no 100% stealth aircraft.
S-300 is a great system.
It will take out 5-10 of our aircraft.
We have 6,000 more

/thread

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Jesus Christ! You guys are going to kill us all!!

Here's the information we have. The US warns Russia against selling missiles to Iran. James Traficant says that the US gives Russia and China billions in tax breaks. We have a history of selling weapons with Russia and yet we are pissed at them for selling those weapons to our 'enemy'. We even have a history of selling arms to Iraq and Iran for crying out loud!

Am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy here? Are you guys unaware of what a 'War' really is or do you love to watch things die? Its like you guys are watching a real life TV show about violence and refuse to change the channel..

To the OP, this Traficant character is great! "Beam me up, Mr. Speaker" XD. No surprise he's been federally indicted.

 

[theeedude]

Also, the whole Lend Lease program was not just for the benefit of USSR. If USSR didn't win the war on the Eastern front with American Lend Lease help, a lot more Americans would have died trying to win it on the Western. Probably orders of magnitude more than were killed by Russian equipment in all of Cold War conflicts combined.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: Aimster
There is no 100% stealth aircraft.
S-300 is a great system.
It will take out 5-10 of our aircraft.
We have 6,000 more

/thread

The US doesn't want to attack Iran without a good reason at the moment, and the S-300 may well be effective against fast strikes from Israel.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: senseamp
Russia can sell missiles to Iran against US wishes, just as US decided to place missiles in Poland against Russia's wishes. S-300 is a defensive surface to air missile system. All countries have a right to defend themselves.

Agree. I think the little country Georgia should have a 1/2 dozen of These to defend itself from its more powerful neighbors.

Ah yes, that poor little aggressor there. Let's then also give some nukes and biological weapons to Al Qaida to defend themselves against the US :roll:

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: senseamp
Russia can sell missiles to Iran against US wishes, just as US decided to place missiles in Poland against Russia's wishes. S-300 is a defensive surface to air missile system. All countries have a right to defend themselves.

Agree. I think the little country Georgia should have a 1/2 dozen of These to defend itself from its more powerful neighbors.

Ah yes, that poor little aggressor there. Let's then also give some nukes and biological weapons to Al Qaida to defend themselves against the US :roll:

Great Strawman.

Also, remember that we did sell Saddam Hussein chemical and biological weapons. We even let him bomb/gas his own people with our weapons and we didn't care. The crimes he was convicted of in 2005 happened under our watch, with our weapon.

The US has a history of playing both sides and then having it blow up in our faces. Afghanistan, Iran-Iraq, South America, etc etc. At Russia is somewhat honest, they only play the side that's anti-US.

 

[wwswimming]

Iran had a democratically elected leader named Mossadegh, until he was deposed by
the US and England. Who installed the Shah & Savak, America's dictatorship in Iran.

 

[ericlp]

At its peak the Imperial Iranian Air Force, that of the Shah, had more than 450 modern combat aircraft, including then state of the art F-14A Tomcat fighters and about 5,000 well-trained pilots. On the eve of the Iranian Revolution in 1979 the Air Force, numbering close to 100,000 personnel, was by far the most advanced of the three Iranian military services and among the most impressive air forces in the developing world. Reliable information on the Air Force after the Revolution was difficult to obtain, but it seemed clear that by 1987 a fairly large number of the existing fleet had been cannibalized for spare parts.

Throughout the 1970s, Iran had purchased sophisticated aircraft for the Air Force. The acquisition of 77 F-14A Tomcat fighters added to 166 F-5 fighters and 190 F-4 Phantom fighter-bombers, and gave Iran a strong defensive and a potential offensive capability. Before the end of his reign, Shah Reza Pahlavi placed orders for F-16 fighters and even contemplated the sharing of development costs for the United States Navy's new F-18 fighter. Both of these combat aircraft were dropped from the revolutionary regime's military acquisitions list.

Hmmm, and were telling Russia what to do? Good Luck! I guess we get pissed if there's no $$$$ in it for us.

Wait till China starts selling it's used hardware to Iran and it will be sooner then you think!

Hong Kong, China ? Is China preparing to export its J-10A fighter aircraft to Iran? Most likely, say military observers in Moscow and Tehran. The Russian "Kommersant Daily" reported that an Iranian aviation company agent had confirmed that China would export to Iran 24 J-10A fighters between 2008 and 2010, at a price of US$1 billion.

Allowing this information to surface at this time appears intended to embarrass, and warn, the United States. China is sending the message that it too can play the arms export game -- reminding the United States to think twice about its arms sales to Taiwan, especially Block 52 F-16 fighters.

I'm gonna LMAO when the USA thinks it can tell China what to do.