What to do about Iran missle tests?

[gimil]

I say the US should airdrop porn mags and booze into Iran. more effective than nukes.

Would white western tits not enrage such a religious state?

[gimil]

do nothing? Its not our fight?

YAY, lets all go into isolationism!!!

i say that we let them ttest their nukes on themselves, see if they die. If they dont, np - they dont have missiles that work. If they do work, np, theyre dead.

Very mature t-o-m, changing my quote. Why dont you run along and yet the grown ups have a reasonable discussion without studip kids trying to ruin it.

[Pedronicus]

Would white western tits not enrage such a religious state?

the CIA would have to make sure all models didn't have blue eyes / blonde or ginger hair (collars and cuffs)

[Juan_Bottom]

So, the US government is saying today that Iranian pictures of missle tests were doctored to include more missles than they actually tested. Anyone?

[jay_a2j]

Nothing! The US is already much too involved in stuff they shouldn't be. Since when is the US the judge and jury of all nations in whether they can test fire missiles or not??? I am starting to see the arrogance that other nations see when they look at the US.

[Juan_Bottom]

Nothing! The US is already much too involved in stuff they shouldn't be. Since when is the US the judge and jury of all nations in whether they can test fire missiles or not??? I am starting to see the arrogance that other nations see when they look at the US.

DITTO on the arrogance part!

But I think that the U.S. is trying to justify attacking Iran, to justify it in the eyes of the American people. Trouble is, we just fell for it with Iraq.

[radiojake]

Nuke em.

aren't you the intelligent one

[muy_thaiguy]

Nuke em.

aren't you the intelligent one

Now read the post I made on page two.

[Jenos Ridan]

Hasn't Iran signed that non-proliferation treaty or what it's called? Promising not to sell or spread nuclear weapons in any way.

You're German, right? Assuming Iran did, you should know better than anyone how a dictator will sign a treaty only to break it later.

Or are you just that naive and ignorant of history?

India has not signed it afaik, but they're a close ally of the USA so I guess that makes it alright then.

Inquery: Relevance?

And has anyone considered offering them help with their program, supposedly it was to be only for generating electrical energy.

Russia. But I don't trust Putin as far as I can throw him. Also, last I heard, Iran was banned from even doing anything at that plant. A (toothless, meaning one the US, UK and allies will have to enforce with or without their permittion as usual) UN resolution to that effect if I remember.

I read an article some time ago where a method for generating nuclear power was described that does not require on Uranium and does not leave weapon-grade Plutonium as a by-product. It made use of a radioactive material that is a good deal lighter than Uranium, is far cheaper to obtain, less dangerous to handle and does not lead to the risk of a meltdown in the reactor. Persuade them to use that and all will be splendidly fine, they could be at the forefront of a revolution in energy-production.

Sounds interesting, but please don't be sooo naive as to think this is what Iran is after; they launched missiles and have refused to simply turn off the power plant, I think their intent is clear.

[Juan_Bottom]

You're German, right? Assuming Iran did, you should know better than anyone how a dictator will sign a treaty only to break it later.

Or are you just that naive and ignorant of history?

Oh, do you mean like what Bush is doing????

Inquery: Relevance?

India has a much MUCH more out of control government, and Nuclear bomb program. Their military actually does hold some sway over their government(not unlike Iran), and they have been known to lie about their program. From tests, to sales.
But, they are still an American ally..........

Russia. But I don't trust Putin as far as I can throw him. Also, last I heard, Iran was banned from even doing anything at that plant. A (toothless, meaning one the US, UK and allies will have to enforce with or without their permittion as usual) UN resolution to that effect if I remember.

Putin, while in power, allied Russia with Iran by putting Russia's currency reserve into Iran's oil bank. But he wasn't the only nation to do so. CHINA for example. Right now, I trust Putin over Bush. Either he is starting, or blocking WWIII. I vote for blocking.
But, Russia does cooperate with the U.N., so any 'help' that Iran would recieve would pass through the U.N.. What was it they offfered for 'help' again? Was it 109 Bars?

Sounds interesting, but please don't be sooo naive as to think this is what Iran is after; they launched missiles and have refused to simply turn off the power plant, I think their intent is clear.

SOUNDS that way. Wish we had some proof though, huh? Otherwise, aw man, could be JUST LIKE IRAQ.

Anyone else follow Iran's version of the story? Their suit that they brought against the U.S. for example? Or how about the fact that they PASSED their last inspection by the UN?

[Jenos Ridan]

You're German, right? Assuming Iran did, you should know better than anyone how a dictator will sign a treaty only to break it later.

Or are you just that naive and ignorant of history?

Oh, do you mean like what Bush is doing????

Problem, Iran does not have free elections. Bush will be out in a year, Ahmeninajad will be out when he is either too old or too despised by the up-coming aspiring leader. Anyway, that was MeDeFe's question to answer.

Inquery: Relevance?

India has a much MUCH more out of control government, and Nuclear bomb program. Their military actually does hold some sway over their government(not unlike Iran), and they have been known to lie about their program. From tests, to sales.
But, they are still an American ally..........

But has the Indian government, nationals thereof, or any other such group offically or "unoffically", threatened US nationals or even taken US nationals hostage?

Nope. But Iran has. Recently, gunboats have threaten US Naval Ships. And in the late 70's-early 80's, they held several hostages for over a year.

They have a recent history of violence, both in deed and in word, against the US. India does not.

Russia. But I don't trust Putin as far as I can throw him. Also, last I heard, Iran was banned from even doing anything at that plant. A (toothless, meaning one the US, UK and allies will have to enforce with or without their permittion as usual) UN resolution to that effect if I remember.

Putin, while in power, allied Russia with Iran by putting Russia's currency reserve into Iran's oil bank. But he wasn't the only nation to do so. CHINA for example. Right now, I trust Putin over Bush. Either he is starting, or blocking WWIII. I vote for blocking.
But, Russia does cooperate with the U.N., so any 'help' that Iran would recieve would pass through the U.N.. What was it they offfered for 'help' again? Was it 109 Bars?

You'll trust a KGB Stalinist who three years ago nationalised nearly all private media in Russia over a legitimate elected leader? I know Bush is not the most competitant leader out there but it least he isn't a flat out dictator.

Then why don't you go live there if you don't like it here?

Sounds interesting, but please don't be sooo naive as to think this is what Iran is after; they launched missiles and have refused to simply turn off the power plant, I think their intent is clear.

SOUNDS that way. Wish we had some proof though, huh? Otherwise, aw man, could be JUST LIKE IRAQ.

Anyone else follow Iran's version of the story? Their suit that they brought against the U.S. for example? Or how about the fact that they PASSED their last inspection by the UN?

Why did they test the missiles? Can anyone answer me that? What is their intent: they refuse to shut the program down, make repeated hostile public statements, harass US vessels in non-territorial waters, have a history of violence towards the US, sponcered (and likely still do) Hamas, test launched missiles with ranges that can hit as far as the Mediterranean...............

Wake up sheeple, they want the bomb! Disregard the last twenty or so years of history on the matter at your own peril, but why do they act belligerent if they want to develop a peaceful technology? Naiveity is dangerous, as history shows us repeatedly.

[InkL0sed]

Ugh, every time someone says the word sheeple, I just want to go to sleep.

[Backglass]

I know Bush is not the most competitant leader out there

And THAT"S the understatement of the year.

It's very interesting when you think about it, the slaves who left here to go to America, because of their steadfast and their religion and their belief in freedom, helped change America - Dakar, Senegal

There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably Tennessee -- that says, fool me once -- shame on -- shame on you. You fool me...uh...you can't get fooled again.

[sgom]

this is a dumb action by iran simply because there are bigger kids in the yard, so they reakon a missile could reach israel so what, israel has many more and has had for years.iran has been trashed in the press and in diplomatic circles its just their way of regaining some personal pride by flexing muscles let them get on with it.lets not forget how much weaponry and technology they got from america during the iran contra affair before we start telling them what they can and cant do.

[jay_a2j]

You're German, right? Assuming Iran did, you should know better than anyone how a dictator will sign a treaty only to break it later.

Or are you just that naive and ignorant of history?

Oh, do you mean like what Bush is doing????

Snap! And its so true! Bush is just invading nation after nation all in the name of the "war on terror". An fabricated war, a war that has no defined enemy and can never be won.

[gdeangel]

You're German, right? Assuming Iran did, you should know better than anyone how a dictator will sign a treaty only to break it later.

Or are you just that naive and ignorant of history?

Oh, do you mean like what Bush is doing????

Snap! And its so true! Bush is just invading nation after nation all in the name of the "war on terror". An fabricated war, a war that has no defined enemy and can never be won.

Actually Bush has been able to pursue this war only by peddling the liberal mantra that Gimil sums up so nicely. If it's anything like Germany in the 30's, its been turned upside down with a populace that grew up being told that "winning" is not an end worth pursuing. He did not, and still has not created a definition of victory that is within the power of the forces America controls to realize. Eventually he may stumble on the formula in one place - as apparently things are heading in Iraq - only to get it completely wrong somewhere else - as in the case in point with Iran.

And who can blame Americans for thinking that winning isn't important. "Winning" WWII and WWI did not do much for world security. The former game us the cold war, the latter Nazism.

But back on Iran, this is a place where the adversary (and I don't say enemy) is very clearly defined. Taking out the missile / nuclear program would be simple, but for the risk of creating further ire in the minds of Muslims focused on the U.S. Have we already gone so far down that road that it doesn't matter? Maybe it's appropriate to just say, oh well, they hate us, and get on with the security mission. Because it seems you either build the shield in E. Europe, in which case Russian starts bristling, or you eliminate the deployment capabilities in Iran.

If the shield is the way to go, how do you get around Russia? Or if breaking Iran is the way to go, would it be better to wait for some third party like Isreal do break Iran's capabilities in an unsanctioned preemptive strike, or for the US to do it, of even to have a "multinational force" do it?

[jay_a2j]

You're German, right? Assuming Iran did, you should know better than anyone how a dictator will sign a treaty only to break it later.

Or are you just that naive and ignorant of history?

Oh, do you mean like what Bush is doing????

Snap! And its so true! Bush is just invading nation after nation all in the name of the "war on terror". An fabricated war, a war that has no defined enemy and can never be won.

Actually Bush has been able to pursue this war only by peddling the liberal mantra that Gimil sums up so nicely. If it's anything like Germany in the 30's, its been turned upside down with a populace that grew up being told that "winning" is not an end worth pursuing. He did not, and still has not created a definition of victory that is within the power of the forces America controls to realize. Eventually he may stumble on the formula in one place - as apparently things are heading in Iraq - only to get it completely wrong somewhere else - as in the case in point with Iran.

And who can blame Americans for thinking that winning isn't important. "Winning" WWII and WWI did not do much for world security. The former game us the cold war, the latter Nazism.

But back on Iran, this is a place where the adversary (and I don't say enemy) is very clearly defined. Taking out the missile / nuclear program would be simple, but for the risk of creating further ire in the minds of Muslims focused on the U.S. Have we already gone so far down that road that it doesn't matter? Maybe it's appropriate to just say, oh well, they hate us, and get on with the security mission. Because it seems you either build the shield in E. Europe, in which case Russian starts bristling, or you eliminate the deployment capabilities in Iran.

If the shield is the way to go, how do you get around Russia? Or if breaking Iran is the way to go, would it be better to wait for some third party like Isreal do break Iran's capabilities in an unsanctioned preemptive strike, or for the US to do it, of even to have a "multinational force" do it?

If the "adversary" is so well defined, then why have so many Iraqi civilians died? Probably have killed more civilians than we have "terrorists". "War on terror" is a war that can not be won! Do you think that any nation on Earth can wipe out terrorism? And as I said, this war is a fa sad. The truth behind 911 would open a lot of eyes. If the US government was involved in 911, what does that say about this government? Since the evidence is so obvious that 19 men with box cutters could not have possibly pulled it off without inside help, we have to ask why? What was so important to our government to aid in the killing of nearly 3,000 of its own citizens?


Enter the New World Order.

[Backglass]

"War on terror" is a war that can not be won!

Yup...same with the "War on drugs". Asinine.

[andre the giant]

Bomb them with porn, booze and bacon. Once the Iranian people get a taste of what infidel-ism is all about, they will raise up and overthrow their radical militant leaders.

[Juan_Bottom]

Anyway, that was MeDeFe's question to answer.

Fair enough.

But has the Indian government, nationals thereof, or any other such group offically or "unoffically", threatened US nationals or even taken US nationals hostage?

I would say yes. But that really may just be me. And I would say yes because,..
India's Nuke program was(is?) illegal. They did it behind the UN's back. And once they got the bomb, they began contracting to other nations(illegally for the same reason) for Nuclear power. But the were never added to any "sic'em" list by the U.S., and today enjoy a strong relationship with our government. And let's not forget that Pakistan also has the Bomb, and that is one of the most destable areas in all the world. If there is any serious threat of nuclear war in the world, it's right there.
But again, these may only be reasons for me.

Nope. But Iran has. Recently, gunboats have threaten US Naval Ships. And in the late 70's-early 80's, they held several hostages for over a year.

They have a recent history of violence, both in deed and in word, against the US. India does not.

I disagree again. Iran is sueing the U.S.(Russia is sueing too) for funding Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, to do attacks in Iran, and Russia. The Russian terrorists were caught, and are star witnessess. If they were really a bloodthirsty nation, I doubt very much so that court is where they would settle this. I would say that the U.S. has been the aggressor lately.

Putin, while in power, allied Russia with Iran by putting Russia's currency reserve into Iran's oil bank. But he wasn't the only nation to do so. CHINA for example. Right now, I trust Putin over Bush. Either he is starting, or blocking WWIII. I vote for blocking.
But, Russia does cooperate with the U.N., so any 'help' that Iran would recieve would pass through the U.N.. What was it they offfered for 'help' again? Was it 109 Bars?

You'll trust a KGB Stalinist who three years ago nationalised nearly all private media in Russia over a legitimate elected leader? I know Bush is not the most competitant leader out there but it least he isn't a flat out dictator.

Over our elected leader, yes. Adin was elected too, elections don't mean squat. If they did, our nation wouldn't be so F-ed up right now. And! I didn't say that I trust Putun over our Nation, but that in this matter, I think he may have just saved my ass from getting drafted into WWIII.

Then why don't you go live there if you don't like it here?

Why don't you buy a rifle and attack Iran, if you hate them so much?

Why did they test the missiles? Can anyone answer me that? What is their intent: they refuse to shut the program down, make repeated hostile public statements, harass US vessels in non-territorial waters, have a history of violence towards the US, sponcered (and likely still do) Hamas, test launched missiles with ranges that can hit as far as the Mediterranean...............

STOP!!!!!! Isreal is the aggressor there, everyone knows it. Don't let American media fool you!
Plus, it was Iranian TV that reported the missle launchings,..... so? It's not like it was a secret test or anything....

Wake up sheeple, they want the bomb! Disregard the last twenty or so years of history on the matter at your own peril, but why do they act belligerent if they want to develop a peaceful technology? Naiveity is dangerous, as history shows us repeatedly.

The last thing I am is sheeple. If I were, then maybe I'd buy the story that Iran wants the bomb. Dude chum on, there seriously is no proof other than our government saying it. Which is what happened with Iraq. And the last round of UN inspections didn't even find anything. It's just our word against theirs. And on the world scene, more and more nations are taking their money out of our World Bank, and putting it into the Iranian Oil Bank. That is a vote of 'no confidence.'