Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Iran missiles can reach London
WorldNetDaily ^ | September 25, 2004 | Unknown

Posted on 09/25/2004 5:50:59 PM PDT by LSUfan

Iran said today it has successfully test-fired a long-range "strategic missile" and delivered it to its armed forces, saying it is now prepared to deal with any regional threats and even the "big powers."

Iran's new missiles can reach London, Paris, Berlin and southern Russia, according to weapons and intelligence analysts.

(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: armsbuildup; iran; missiles; napalminthemorning; southwestasia; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-156 next last

1 posted on 09/25/2004 5:51:00 PM PDT by LSUfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
Gonna' be one big parkin' lot.

Don't the Ayatollahs keep somebody around who can think about the consequences of this stuff?

2 posted on 09/25/2004 5:51:57 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

That's why world need NMD and TMD .


3 posted on 09/25/2004 5:52:51 PM PDT by Nepalis (Bomb to Fallujah , everyday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
Axis of Evil alter.....

Israel buys smart bombs & smart bunker buster bombs from US--Wonder what they will use them for?????

I can see no possible connection........well maybe a little.

4 posted on 09/25/2004 5:55:40 PM PDT by Robert357 (D.Rather "Hoist with his own petard!" www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1223916/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

LONDON! Paris is far enough.


5 posted on 09/25/2004 5:56:13 PM PDT by Henchman (Kerry lied, good men died!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

"Don't the Ayatollahs keep somebody around who can think about the consequences of this stuff"?

They seem to be following the North Korea model lately. Make insane statements and see what the reaction is.


6 posted on 09/25/2004 6:00:11 PM PDT by Arkie2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

Another outburst by the Worlds dumbest man,Soon to be extinct.


7 posted on 09/25/2004 6:00:20 PM PDT by Fast1 (Kerry for an Islamic America..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

Thy better have a million of them…


8 posted on 09/25/2004 6:05:21 PM PDT by elfman2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arkie2

That must be it ~ the North Korean model of thought ~ next thing you know we'll be hearing about the starving Iranians.


9 posted on 09/25/2004 6:05:50 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
We have been using kid gloves in our dealings with Iran, in hopes of appealing to the moderates there who could overturn the radical government. I think it's now too late for that to happen. The moderates, reformers and college students have been silent recently.

It's apparent they are going to use their weapons, probably to get israel.

Time to obliterate them. It's a shame so many of their population will have to die.

10 posted on 09/25/2004 6:06:56 PM PDT by glockmeister40
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

Can British missiles reach Tehran?


11 posted on 09/25/2004 6:08:21 PM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham ("Ich glaube, du hast in die hosen geschissen!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
Thank you Jimmy Carter.

5.56mm

12 posted on 09/25/2004 6:09:19 PM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: LSUfan

Great!!!!

Not only is Iran on Israel's Things To Do List. Now it's on the UK's as well.

Why don't we make it a joint effort?

Supply some E-3 Sentries and the latest generation nukes. With Iran a sheet of radiated green glass. That will at least stop the influx of Iranians into Fallujah.

Jack.


14 posted on 09/25/2004 6:15:41 PM PDT by Jack Deth (Mostly Harmless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2fast4u
You don't think that uprooting Saddam in Iraq hasn't sent a message to the other named countries of the "Axis of Evil"? Libya didn't do a mathematical computation of force availability to come to terms. We can take out the weapons of Iran and North Korea at any time we desire without committing one troop on the ground. Who are those great armies going to fight with?
15 posted on 09/25/2004 6:16:33 PM PDT by watchinginawe ("I AM THAT I AM."...God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mr Ramsbotham
Can British missiles reach Tehran?

Yes, they have four (4) nuclear ballistic submarines with Trident D2 missiles on it.

I doubt they keep them bottled up in the Atlantic. I would bet one is in the Indian or Med. Oceans.

I would also bet that they can still deliver air-to-ground nukes (B51/W53 bombs) still in inventory.

16 posted on 09/25/2004 6:16:42 PM PDT by DCBryan1 (Bigus Dickus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 2fast4u

Nope. We now have Iran bracketted. 130,000 US troops and several airfields to their west in Iraq. 20,000 US troops and a few airfields to their east in Afghanistan. Plus the 5th Fleet to the south.

We're in a far superior position to strike quickly against the Iranian nuclear facilities and ballistic missile sites than ever before.

That is one reason why Iraq was so important. It's in the geographical center of gravity for the entire Middle East.


17 posted on 09/25/2004 6:17:49 PM PDT by LSUfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
Go Vols.

And, knowing that, the brave Brits, the US, and Israel (the only true warriors left on the planet!) need to take the reactors out ASAP. Screw the opinion of the UN.

18 posted on 09/25/2004 6:19:11 PM PDT by Glenn (The two keys to character: 1) Learn how to keep a secret. 2) ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2fast4u
It seems harder and harder to justify Iraq when NK and Iran are about to go nuclear and minute.

It's getting harder and harder to justify WW2 with that logic.

19 posted on 09/25/2004 6:19:13 PM PDT by Jim_Curtis (Liberals lie at the premise, accept their premise and you can only lose the argument.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 2fast4u

You signed up today? Go back to DU, troll.


20 posted on 09/25/2004 6:21:33 PM PDT by jimbo123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 2fast4u
We have to ask ourselves was deposing Saddam worth letting Iran and NK go nuclear?

If we were going to invade Iran, or at least surgically remove their nuclear capability, where would we attack from?

Think about it.

As for North Korea, what prevents us from attacking them is South Korea.

21 posted on 09/25/2004 6:26:44 PM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

Think someone will tell the Brits?

Last I heard from Brit friends this was Bush's unnecessary, crazy (your choice) war.


22 posted on 09/25/2004 6:27:36 PM PDT by Spirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim_Curtis

Not only that, NK is not ABOUT to go nuclear. It's been assumed since 1998 that they have had between 1 and 3 bombs.

That's the real lesson here. NK is untouchable, but at least isolated.

If the Ayatollahs get nukes they will also be untouchable, but they will also continue their support for Jihadist terrrorism around the world at the same time. A dangerous combo.


23 posted on 09/25/2004 6:29:03 PM PDT by LSUfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: 2fast4u

Troll, troll, troll your post
gently down the thread
Your account ID's brand-new
What was that you said?


24 posted on 09/25/2004 6:29:25 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Physicist

Libbie like 2fast4u wanted us to attack Iran with the Taliban in charge of Afghanistan, Saddam in charge of Iraq and the ISI in charge of Pakistan. But it's a moot point anyway. The liberals support a nuclear armed NK and Iran since they always cheer for the bad guys.


25 posted on 09/25/2004 6:30:30 PM PDT by jimbo123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: 2fast4u

Can't blame 3 yrs of Bush for what has been going on in Iran, N.Korea etc.
Iraq was a threat...don't ever doubt that... read about the UN scams.. turning the other cheek!! if you think Iran is dangerous..imagine what would happen if Saddam had nukes? and remember the assasination attempt on Bush 41


26 posted on 09/25/2004 6:32:22 PM PDT by katiedidit1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 2fast4u

Actually Iraq would make a very logical base for ballistic missile interceptors to cover Europe and the Mediterranean. Since if they are based in northern Iraq they would be able to intercept during the boost phase which is a lot easier.


27 posted on 09/25/2004 6:33:35 PM PDT by Kadric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 2fast4u
Kim Jong Il and the mullahs can see that with 150,000 troops in Iraq we are prevented from dealing with either of them. Once Iran goes nuclear, the world is going to be a much more dangerous place. We have to ask ourselves was deposing Saddam worth letting Iran and NK go nuclear?

How did you propose the coalition of the willing, led by President Bush, stop Iran and North Korea from going nuclear as they did Iraq and Libya ?

28 posted on 09/25/2004 6:34:08 PM PDT by af_vet_1981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 2fast4u

"We have to ask ourselves was deposing Saddam worth letting Iran and NK go nuclear?"

Not sure what you mean ? Are you suggesting if we didnt go after Saddam that Iran and NK would play nice ?

...Or we should have gone after Iran and NK and left Saddam alone to go nuclear ?


29 posted on 09/25/2004 6:34:20 PM PDT by RS (Just because the Pajama Posse is out to get him doesn't mean he's not guilty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

"New Iran missiles can reach London"

Brag about it Nov. 3rd Iran.


30 posted on 09/25/2004 6:34:21 PM PDT by Gucho
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2fast4u
We have to ask ourselves was deposing Saddam worth letting Iran and NK go nuclear?

I'll bet my wife that the only way Iran EVER goes nuclear is with a number of Israeli detonations over Teheran.

31 posted on 09/25/2004 6:38:24 PM PDT by CROSSHIGHWAYMAN (Anybody but Kerry!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 2fast4u

The longer I watch things, the smarter President Bush and his cabinet become.

They're way ahead of all of us, and Israel is also.


32 posted on 09/25/2004 6:38:41 PM PDT by Lijahsbubbe ( MSM, We are watching you......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_1981

"Once Iran goes nuclear, the world is going to be a much more dangerous place."

Not yet. U.S. troops on both boundries of Iran.


33 posted on 09/25/2004 6:40:07 PM PDT by Gucho
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 2fast4u

"It seems harder and harder to justify Iraq when NK and Iran are about to go nuclear and minute.
...Kim Jong Il and the mullahs can see that with 150,000 troops in Iraq we are prevented from dealing with either of them. ...

We have to ask ourselves was deposing Saddam worth letting Iran and NK go nuclear?"


Where do you think our bases will be if we needed them for confronting Iran if they tried anything funny? Iraq. Not stupid at all.

Check out a map. We have Iran surrounded since we are in Afghanistan (Iran's East) and Iraq (Iran's West). If we blockaded with our navy the Caspian sea above and the sea below, Iran would be isolated.

Iran isn't nuclear yet. With NK, we've got 6 way talks with all their surrounding countries.


34 posted on 09/25/2004 6:40:41 PM PDT by hansel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 2fast4u
We also have to ask ourselves if a full frontal assault against either of those two would have solved the problem. Saddam made himself the low hanging fruit. Any one of them we attack is going to spell trouble from the others (like we're seeing Iran instigating insurgency in Iraq now).

Now that Saddam is out of the way and we've got direct access to the Iranian borders from multiple sides we are in a much better strategic position to deal with them. "W" could never have explained this rationale to the public but I have no doubt his strategic advisers had very good reasons, long term reasons, for getting Saddam out of the way first.
35 posted on 09/25/2004 6:42:43 PM PDT by cdrw (Freedom and responsibility are inseparable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Gucho
Not yet. U.S. troops on both boundries of Iran.

Shhh ! You are not supposed to help him with the answer ... He seems to think President Bush as been bogged down in Iraq ...

36 posted on 09/25/2004 6:44:08 PM PDT by af_vet_1981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

To: LSUfan
We're in a far superior position to strike quickly against the Iranian nuclear facilities and ballistic missile sites than ever before.

We now occupy an unsinkable aircraft carrier the size of Texas in the middle of the Middle East, and the rats think GW is dumb!

Regards,
GtG

38 posted on 09/25/2004 6:45:23 PM PDT by Gandalf_The_Gray (I live in my own little world but I like it 'Cruz they know me here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: hansel

"when NK and Iran are about to go nuclear and minute."

NK is all bluster. Iran best do some heavy duty reconsideration before going nuke weapons.


39 posted on 09/25/2004 6:47:04 PM PDT by Gucho
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
Iran said today it has successfully test-fired a long-range "strategic missile" and delivered it to its armed forces, saying it is now prepared to deal with any regional threats and even the "big powers."

Yeah...well....we'll find out now won't we... :-)
40 posted on 09/25/2004 6:50:30 PM PDT by hiredhand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #41 Removed by Moderator

To: 2fast4u

"We can take out the weapons of Iran and North Korea at any time we desire
How would we do that? Once produced they will be scattered around the country."

Another good reason why pre-emptive strike has been brought into the game plan.


42 posted on 09/25/2004 6:53:56 PM PDT by Gucho
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: 2fast4u
It seems harder and harder to justify Iraq when NK and Iran are about to go nuclear and minute.

Let's see....We are on the ground at Iran's East and West boarders not to mention having control in a seconds notice of the waters of the Gulf. We have secured the second largest supply of oil in the world so that if Iran or Saudi Arabia say have a little disruption of oil supply it will not send the world into an economic tailspin. Not to mention the little fact that Saddam did have and use in the past, and we have found some of his WMDs. Nor to mention the fact that he was training terrorist and had given haven to islamic terrorist, nor to mention the fact that he felt he had a bone to pick with the US and revenge was very much on his mind.

No strategically I would say that we are right where we want to be...cleaned out one dangerous snake who wanted revenge, secured oil flow in case there are disruptions in other oil supplies (say in case of war or internal uprising(maybe with a little help from our friends at the CIA)) and surrounded a second perhaps more dangerous target with the hope that just the threat alone will cause cooperation and if not...so be it.

I would not want to be Iran at this moment unless Kerry gets elected.

As for North Korea thanks to clinton they are a problem, but we have or are in the process of moving back many of our troops from the boarder and are strengthening our presence in the sea. If I was North Korea I would be more worried about that than if we had left our troops on the boarder within their quick range and grasp.

I think that Afghanistan, Gulf War I and II have shown that we use air power first so moving the troops indicates that we are preparing in case of war. But to be honest I think that China will clean out that nest of snakes before they let us do it. They will not want us on their boarder and the threat that we might go after them might be just what it takes for China to get serious.

I would have to say Yes going after Saddam was well worth it and has placed us right where we need to be on the ground splitting up the islamic world. LOL!

43 posted on 09/25/2004 6:55:28 PM PDT by Lady Heron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 2fast4u

"Iran...That's what B2's are for. As soon as I saw them doing anything nuclear I'd bomb it. Why we've played around with them is beyond me."

Just keep watching and don't blink.


44 posted on 09/25/2004 6:55:53 PM PDT by EEDUDE (Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

Yes it is in the Fremont district.


45 posted on 09/25/2004 6:57:56 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite (Liberalism IS a mental disease, thanks to Gramsci, Marcuse and others from the Frankfurt School.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2fast4u
I couldn't care less about coalitions.

A student of military history I see ...

NK I agree, we were stuck because of SK. I guess our only hope would have been sending in spies to sabotage, James Bond like.

I'm sure Oliver Stone or Michael Moore could make that happen in a movie but real life keeps a different set of schedules ...

Iran...That's what B2's are for. As soon as I saw them doing anything nuclear I'd bomb it. Why we've played around with them is beyond me.

As simple as a game of NukeWar. Fortunately for all of us, patriotic adults are still in charge. They are trying to avoid the deaths of millions of human beings. Sorry if that makes it a bit complicated but we have to wait a few months ...

46 posted on 09/25/2004 6:58:11 PM PDT by af_vet_1981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

LOL, whoops...I meant for this reply to be in another thread :-\


47 posted on 09/25/2004 6:58:48 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite (Liberalism IS a mental disease, thanks to Gramsci, Marcuse and others from the Frankfurt School.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: 2fast4u

So, are you suggesting that Iran wouldn't have gone nuclear if Saddam would have been left in power? Also, If a Mullah drops a bomb, it will be the last coming from Iran, and hence, in a sense, the world will be a much safer place.


48 posted on 09/25/2004 6:59:15 PM PDT by Blogger (The only difference between Terry McAuliffe and Michael Moore is about 300 pounds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Don't the Ayatollahs keep somebody around who can think about the consequences of this stuff?

No, this is a complete and total religious war for them. They must be permanently removed from office, so to speak.

49 posted on 09/25/2004 6:59:31 PM PDT by af_vet_1981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Yes, his name is Jimmy Carter.


50 posted on 09/25/2004 6:59:37 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (US socialist liberalism would be dead without the help of politicians who claim to be conservatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-156 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson