Skip to comments.New Iran missiles can reach London
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 ...
Don't the Ayatollahs keep somebody around who can think about the consequences of this stuff?
That's why world need NMD and TMD .
I can see no possible connection........well maybe a little.
LONDON! Paris is far enough.
"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.
Another outburst by the Worlds dumbest man,Soon to be extinct.
Thy better have a million of them
That must be it ~ the North Korean model of thought ~ next thing you know we'll be hearing about the starving Iranians.
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.
Can British missiles reach Tehran?
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's getting harder and harder to justify WW2 with that logic.
You signed up today? Go back to DU, troll.
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.
Think someone will tell the Brits?
Last I heard from Brit friends this was Bush's unnecessary, crazy (your choice) war.
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.
Troll, troll, troll your post
gently down the thread
Your account ID's brand-new
What was that you said?
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.
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
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.
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 ?
"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 ?
"New Iran missiles can reach London"
Brag about it Nov. 3rd Iran.
I'll bet my wife that the only way Iran EVER goes nuclear is with a number of Israeli detonations over Teheran.
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.
"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.
"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.
Shhh ! You are not supposed to help him with the answer ... He seems to think President Bush as been bogged down in Iraq ...
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!
"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.
"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.
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!
"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.
Yes it is in the Fremont district.
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 ...
LOL, whoops...I meant for this reply to be in another thread :-\
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.
No, this is a complete and total religious war for them. They must be permanently removed from office, so to speak.
Yes, his name is Jimmy Carter.
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.