Iran launches 1200 mile range missile

Originally Posted by g hall:
Israel is one of the only functioning democracies in The Middle East and it has been attacked on several occasions by surrounding Arab/Muslim states.

Iran is effectively a theocracy and the believers who run it believe in an apocalyptic second coming with all believers ascending to heaven and the infidels going the other way

A nuclear weapon or any other Armageddon type weapon is not the best thing that these people should have control over

The abuse of women and girls in Iran has been well documented suffice to say what sort of state hangs from the jib of a crane a girl who has been raped by a local leader and then accused of adultery

If people stopped and thought without letting their anti Americanism take hold who in their right minds could support such a regime

What about Saudi Arabia and China ?
All have appaling human rights records but they are supported or have business dealings with the U.S.

And what about Zimbabwe ?

If we're not prepared to oust Mugabe(I wonder why not) then it's hipocrisy if we attack Iran because of human rights.

You can't attack Iran on the basis of that.

And America doesn't has a poor human rights record too for that matter.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by Wowbanger TIP:
Moreover the fact that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction does not mean that Iran, or any other psychotic nation, is not trying to acquire them.

There is no proof they are trying to acquire any nuclear weapon.

Can I walk down the street and assault someone because I fear they might attack me ? No.

Originally Posted by Wowbanger TIP:
As for the camps built by the US government, clearly they will need to bang some people up if the economic situation continues to deteriorate, either that or let Alex Jones Taliban turn Montana into Afghanistan. It would be remiss of them not to.

Showing your true colours I see. What a statement !
Exactly why should people be put in camps if the economic situation worsens ?
If it worsens here in the UK, would you be happy to be taken to a camp ? :-)

Originally Posted by Wowbanger TIP:
Still no doubt you would be delighted to see a nuclear armed Iran, so they can save you from the evil NWO. Don't go in any tall buildings now will you? and watch out for the black helicopters, the truth is out there.

[/quote]

Stop talking utter sh*te.....

[Rep]

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
What about Saudi Arabia and China ?
All have appaling human rights records but they are supported or have business dealings with the U.S.

And what about Zimbabwe ?

If we're not prepared to oust Mugabe(I wonder why not) then it's hipocrisy if we attack Iran because of human rights.

You can't attack Iran on the basis of that.

And America doesn't has a poor human rights record too for that matter.

We are discussing Iran but for what its worth Saudi Arabia, China and Zimbabwe also have regimes which could do with changing the first two might be a bit more difficult then the latter but certainly Mugabe should be in the dock at the Hague on crimes against humanity

as for the good ole US of A it's human rights record is tarnished but whose isn't

The yanks do need to be more aware of how the are perceived abroad and stop having a foreign policy of my enemy's enemy is my friend
as I've said too many people let their anti Americanism get the better of them

[Rep]

Originally Posted by g hall:
We are discussing Iran but for what its worth Saudi Arabia, China and Zimbabwe also have regimes which could do with changing the first two might be a bit more difficult then the latter but certainly Mugabe should be in the dock at the Hague on crimes against humanity

as for the good ole US of A it's human rights record is tarnished but whose isn't

The yanks do need to be more aware of how the are perceived abroad and stop having a foreign policy of my enemy's enemy is my friend
as I've said too many people let their anti Americanism get the better of them

The fact that you don't support a regime doesn't mean you should wage war against it.

As you say "the good ole US of A it's human rights record is tarnished but whose isn't"

so every country including the USA should be attacked ?

Let's live in the real world please....

I'm starting to struggle to understand your position - are you in favour of attacking Iran even though they have no nuclear weapon and there is absolutely no evidence they have an intention they would use one ?

You say "too many people let their anti Americanism get the better of them".

It's not a case of being "anti-American" and it's not the fault of the American people - it's the new world order and miltary industrial complex who have this pre-emptive strike policy against innocent countries that pose no threat whatsoever.

Yes Saddam was no angel (though he was supported and sold weapons by the Americans), but the consequence of attacking Iraq has made life a lot worse for those who haven't been killed (over 1 million so far).

Iraq was not about "democracy" - it was about oil, no bid defence contracts, and their plan the build bases there(which they have already done - please explain why ?.....) and to escalate the conflict in the Middle East - hence neo-con quotes from McCain about the "100 year war"

Are people so blind they can't see the same WMD lie in full view that was (one of) the supposed justifications for attacking Iraq ? :-)

[Rep]

I think some people posting on here have been too pessimistic about what is going to happen. I don't share the scepticism about Iran having nuclear weapons - I think it is clear that they are developing them. If they are not, and their intentions are entirely peaceable, why did they launch the Shahab missile with a 1,200 mile range? Surely this is a very foolish and provocative thing to do. If their intentions are not warlike.

Yes, if the Americans or the Israelis bomb the Iranian nuclear facilities there will be a backlash against the west throughout the Islamic world, but I think in a world where western people die and embassies are burned because a Danish newspaper published some cartoons, and a western schoolteacher gets imprisoned for allowing a teddy to be named Mohammed, this violent reaction would be little different from the future violence currently being planned against the west, anyway.

Some posters were worried about the Iranian threat to block up the Straits of Hormuz and the way this would send the price of oil up. The price of oil is rising anyway, as a result of it running out. It is a matter of national security for the west to, as fast as possible, develop reliable alternatives, for example biofuels. We've been there before, with Exocets being fired into tankers in the Straits of Hormuz and Persian Gulf, the Bridgeton incident and other things back in the 1980s. The world didn't end because of it.

A response to this might include further air strikes against Iranian missile facilities within range of the Strait and the Gulf, and robust western naval patrols to eliminate Iranian naval forces from the coastal areas.

Some poters were sceptical that a future US President Obama wouldn't be able to fight this. The media don't seem to be paying much attention to the other side. I suspect the Republicans may well win, and I feel that McCain will probably be just as robust in his response as Bush, perhaps more so.

I think that it is quite probable that Obama or McCain, there is no choice and the Americans are going to have to attack Iran.

[Rep]

I'll care when Israel gets rid of its nukes.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by Stephen Booth:
I think some people posting on here have been too pessimistic about what is going to happen. I don't share the scepticism about Iran having nuclear weapons - I think it is clear that they are developing them. If they are not, and their intentions are entirely peaceable, why did they launch the Shahab missile with a 1,200 mile range? Surely this is a very foolish and provocative thing to do. If their intentions are not warlike.

Yes, if the Americans or the Israelis bomb the Iranian nuclear facilities there will be a backlash against the west throughout the Islamic world, but I think in a world where western people die and embassies are burned because a Danish newspaper published some cartoons, and a western schoolteacher gets imprisoned for allowing a teddy to be named Mohammed, this violent reaction would be little different from the future violence currently being planned against the west, anyway.

Some posters were worried about the Iranian threat to block up the Straits of Hormuz and the way this would send the price of oil up. The price of oil is rising anyway, as a result of it running out. It is a matter of national security for the west to, as fast as possible, develop reliable alternatives, for example biofuels. We've been there before, with Exocets being fired into tankers in the Straits of Hormuz and Persian Gulf, the Bridgeton incident and other things back in the 1980s. The world didn't end because of it.

A response to this might include further air strikes against Iranian missile facilities within range of the Strait and the Gulf, and robust western naval patrols to eliminate Iranian naval forces from the coastal areas.

Some poters were sceptical that a future US President Obama wouldn't be able to fight this. The media don't seem to be paying much attention to the other side. I suspect the Republicans may well win, and I feel that McCain will probably be just as robust in his response as Bush, perhaps more so.

I think that it is quite probable that Obama or McCain, there is no choice and the Americans are going to have to attack Iran.

Why do you think it is clear Iran are developing nuclear weapons ?

Because the pro-war mainstream media say so ?

This brings me onto the next claim by the prostitute mainstream media - that it has a 1200 mile range.

Read this article:

Faux and Bolton Team Up to Tell Lies About Iran

Of course, up to you who you believe but when you consider "Saddam Hussein was capable of hitting the United States with chemical weapons within 45 minutes, a lie still posted on a White House propaganda web page." then who do you believe ? (if you haven't woken up yet)

You may sound respectable but if you expect people to believe the same government that lied to the people over Iraq, then you obviously have no basis for doing so and that could be considered very foolish indeed.

[Rep]