LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteDo they realize that Israel will not accept a nuclear Iran. So they send a few non-nuclear ballistic missiles, big deal. Most will get shot down and it is by far better then a nuclear explosion in Teli Viv.
Channel News Asia - 8 hours ago
Iran warns of preemptive strike to prevent attack on nuclear sites
DOHA : Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani warned that Iran might launch a preemptive strike against US forces in the region to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities.
"We will not sit (with arms folded) to wait for what others will do to us. Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly," Shamkhani told Al-Jazeera TV when asked if Iran would respond to an American attack on its nuclear facilities.
"America is not the only one present in the region. We are also present, from Khost to Kandahar in Afghanistan; we are present in the Gulf and we can be present in Iraq," said Shamkhani, speaking in Farsi to the Arabic-language news channel through an interpreter.
"The US military presence (in Iraq) will not become an element of strength (for Washington) at our expense. The opposite is true, because their forces would turn into a hostage" in Iranian hands in the event of an attack, he said.
Shamkhani, who was asked about the possibility of an American or Israeli strike against Iran's atomic power plant in Bushehr, added: "We will consider any strike against our nuclear installations as an attack on Iran as a whole, and we will retaliate with all our strength.
"Where Israel is concerned, we have no doubt that it is an evil entity, and it will not be able to launch any military operation without an American green light. You cannot separate the two."
A commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards was quoted in the Iranian press earlier Wednesday as saying that Tehran would strike the Israeli reactor at Dimona if Israel attacks the Islamic republic's own burgeoning nuclear facilities.
"If Israel fires one missile at Bushehr atomic power plant, it should permanently forget about Dimona nuclear center, where it produces and keeps its nuclear weapons, and Israel would be responsible for the terrifying consequence of this move," General Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr warned.
Iran's controversial bid to generate nuclear power at its plant being built at Bushehr is seen by arch-enemies Israel and the United States as a cover for nuclear weapons development.
The latest comments mark an escalation in an exchange of threats between Israel and Iran in recent weeks, leading to speculation that there may be a repeat of Israel's strike against Iraqi nuclear facilities at Osirak in 1981.
Iran insists that its nuclear intentions are peaceful, while pointing at its enemy's alleged nuclear arsenal, which Israel neither confirms nor denies possessing.
Shamkhani told Al-Jazeera it was not possible "from a practical standpoint" to destroy Iran's nuclear programs because they are the product of national skills "which cannot be eliminated by military means."
He also warned that Iran would consider itself no longer bound by its commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in the event of an attack.
"The execution of such threats (to attack Iran's nuclear installations) would mean that our cooperation with the IAEA led to feeding information about our nuclear facilities to the attacking side, which (in turn) means that we would no longer be bound by any of our obligations" to the nuclear watchdog, he said.
Diplomats said in Vienna Tuesday that the IAEA would not say in a report next month whether Iran's nuclear activities are of a military nature, nor will it recommend bringing the case before the UN Security Council.
The IAEA board is due to deliver the report on Iran's nuclear activities during a meeting at the organization's headquarters in Vienna from September 13 after the last of a group of IAEA inspectors returned from Iran last week.
The UN's nuclear agency is conducting a major probe into Iran's bid to generate electricity through nuclear power.
The Islamic republic has agreed to temporarily suspend uranium enrichment pending the completion of the IAEA probe, but is working on other parts of the fuel cycle and has recently resumed making centrifuges used for enrichment.
- AFP
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori...101754/1/.html
Do they realize that Israel will not accept a nuclear Iran. So they send a few non-nuclear ballistic missiles, big deal. Most will get shot down and it is by far better then a nuclear explosion in Teli Viv.
That one comment about US soldiers in Iraq being Iran's hostages...have to wonder about that one. How well defended are US positions in Iraq? What if the Iraqi people supported an Iranian invasion? The only good thing about Sadam was that he kept enough order and stability to prevent the spread of Iranian influence. Is US-occupied Iraq stable enough to do so? Iran has a large army and they would have the force of momentum if they invaded Iraq, especially if the US is busy fighting brush fires in Iraq. Unless the Gulf Arab states joined their militaries with the US to fight off an Iranian invasion, Iran's threat may not be entirely futile. As for the Israelis, I really doubt the US would accept Israeli help in fighting the Iranians because it could cause more problems than it solves (Arabs may decide to throw in with the Iranians instead of the US). The ballistic missile threat is a joke however. Like you said Praxus, the Israelis would shoot down most of them anyways.
well lets go back to the 1st gulf war when it was stated as fact im assuming that Iraq had the 4th largest military in the world. Where does Iran lie in the rankings so to speak lol.
Yeah I agree that them claiming the US troops in Iraq currently are basically their hostages is as much a stretch IMO as saying they'll launch on Israel's nuclear facility.
I'd also like to know how many Carrier groups and Air Force wings we have over there still. As any Iranian offensive would no doubt be suicide on the majority of their armor. Plus we would notice a build up on the border regions.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
--Benjamin Franklin
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.--John Adams
Look at the Iran/Iraq border there are dozens of miles of open desert before they get anywhere near our forces. They would get butchered!Iran has a large army and they would have the force of momentum if they invaded Iraq
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/front_p...raq-relief.jpg
This being said Iran is already waging a proxy war against us. Al Sadar!!!
Last edited by Praxus; 19 Aug 04, at 18:52.
Originally Posted by Praxus
Praxus , not to be a smart ass and disagree with you but the desert area is on the west iraqui border, the iranian -iraqui border is mainly mountainous on the north-central sector and on the southern sector they have some high lands and plains , even the gulf coast is rocky,also acording to the map you posted.
I agree they would have a hard time creeping on us but that's not because of the landscape.
That's why we use Saudi Arabia to go in , that's the flat deserted side.
(the mapping color coding usually intensifies with altitude:yellow for sea level, deserted areas, ligt brown for deserted higher regions, green for plains,hills and forested areas, dark brown high altitude areas , mountains)
Last edited by zimbrul; 19 Aug 04, at 19:46.
Iran per se is no threat. It is no match to the US in either weapnry or technology. In fact, it will be a pushover.
However, what is worrisome and would have to be seriously considered is the Islamic population all the way from African North Coast to Afghanistan and how the cat will jump. It is not their weapons that is worrisome, it is their death wish and the psychotic pleasure to die to just see Paradise! This type of brainwashed population is so crazy that they can do anything.
"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."
I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.
HAKUNA MATATA
I'm reminded of the Chinese bolsters in the early-mid 70s that they could have nuked Moscow in retalliation for any 1st Soviet strike. We now learned that they did not have that capability until late 70s/early 80s even though they have demonstrated the technology and even positioned nuke tipped IRBMs in Western China.
Even though the rockets had the range and they've tossed quite a few in tests, the Chinese never admitted it that those rockets never landed where they wanted them to land (we just took their word for their accuracy). They could have missed target zero by as much as 50 miles and hence, their reliance on big nukes (3-5 megaton range vs our 80-120 kt range).
I would suggest strongly that readers look at the facts strongly before deciding whether this is a bluff or an actual threat.
Chimo
Colonel,
But Iran threatned that they'll launch conventional IRBM's on Israel's nuke reactor. Say if they launch a salvo of IRBM's and even if one of em successfully reaches the nuke reactor (I'm not that positive about Israels' BM defence), we have potential disaster at hand.
A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!
I have very little confidence in Iranian IRBMs being as precise as a nuke reactor building. If we go by historic evidence, Early generation IRBMS can barely hit a city with a 5 megaton warhead. If they carry a nuke, it would be one thing but they don't.
I also point to you our discussion on how ineffective Chinese M9/M11 batteries are at closing down a runway on Taiwan. And these missiles are generations ahead of Iran is producing.
Chimo
But they might try it. TBH i see as much ability for them to hit their target as i see Israel being able to knock them out of the sky. Something will get through to somewhere.
If they hit the reactor we have a big civilian and environmental incident, if they don't we still have a massive diplomatic / military incident.
So, whilst it might be bluster its might be pretty effective at achieving Iran's aims.
Hmmmm, sounds like they made a direct threat against Americans in the area to me.
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
All we can do is sniker at the Iranians while they say this. If they do pre-emptively strike successfully they will give us everything we ever wished for, an excuse to toss out the mullahs. I have one question though, will the liberal leftwing nuts complain about Iran's pre-emptive strike just as much as they did with past U.S. pre-emptive strikes?
The libs only complain about Republicans, it's ok when they do it.
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
Iran actually has considerable capability if need be. They still maintain large stocks of highly lethal mustard and nerve agents not to mention a full fledged biological warfare program! They also got a large consignment of moskits delivered to them last year along with another battery of S-300 grumble/ grizzly series. Also the Shahab III is now in mass production. All this plus a fairly well developed weapons industry ( compared to third world standards), and off and on Russian support. The IRIAF still flies 350 Aircraft. But besides all this, who is to say that A.Q. khan did not hand them the blue prints along with the triggers for a miniaturised warhead design????It will be foolish and down right ridiculous for us ro assume that Iran is still non nuclear. After what they revealed ( hint hint...wink wink wink...) during last years standoff about A.Q. Khans 'nuclear walmart ' and its discount pricing!
Now if any of you boys can imagine for a moment what would the iraqi shia's feel when the U.S. or its lackey israel attack Iran?
Get real boys this is all bullshit rhetoric on both sides. In all honesty there is no doubt that the U.S. will prevail in a confrontation despite heavy casualties even if there are, but does it have the balls to hold Iran or for that matter the entire area from Iraq to Aghanistan??? Iranian ppl will unite in the face of illegal aggression just like they did when Reagan buffooned Saddam into Attacking Iran in 1980! They will rally behind these mullah's! Iran is a fairly united country with basically no sectarian/ ethnic issues like Iraq and Afghanistan, where we can pit one camel jockey against the other!
Think about it!
P.S. if Iran was such an easy pushover, than the chimp would have ordered an attack on Iran 2 years ago! The fact is that these buffoons in the White house don't have the guts to go all out. They know their limit. Iran is a huge country and controlling a 70 million population will require a minimum 300,000 man U.S. military force deployed for years and years something no one in the U.S. is willing to even ponder about! The same goes for North Korea.
I think these buffoons should first wrap up or try to wrap up Iraq and Afghanistan first. Iran or North Korea for now are very elusive trophies for these Neocons.
Last edited by lulldapull; 20 Aug 04, at 04:21.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: