Iran Test-Fires Missiles Capable Of Hitting Israeli, U.S. Bases

FOX News ^ | July 9, 2008

[Fennie]

TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran test-fired nine long- and medium-range missiles Wednesday during war games that officials said aimed to show the country can retaliate against any U.S. or Israeli attack, state television reported.

The exercise was being conducted at the mouth of the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway through which about 40 percent of the world's oil passes. Iran has threatened to shut down traffic in the strait if attacked.

Gen. Hossein Salami, the air force commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, said the exercise would "demonstrate our resolve and might against enemies who in recent weeks have threatened Iran with harsh language," the TV report said.

Footage showed at least six missiles firing simultaneously, and said the barrage included a new version of the Shahab-3 missile, which officials have said has a range of 1,250 miles and is armed with a 1-ton conventional warhead.

That would put Israel, Turkey, the Arabian peninsula, Afghanistan and Pakistan within striking distance.

"Our hands are always on the trigger and our missiles are ready for launch," the official IRNA news agency quoted Salami as saying Wednesday...

[Steely Tom]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2042779/posts

[ASA Vet]

That version is already posted in “breaking news.”

[mkjessup]

Of course the appeasers and the yellow bellied crowd won’t believe there is any threat from Iran until we see a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv.

Then what will they say to the dead, “we’re sorry, we can’t believe Iran would DO that!!!!” ?

[rhombus]

Then what will they say to the dead

They'll say it was Bush's fault, of course.

[Steely Tom]

That version is already posted in “breaking news.”

OK.

[ASA Vet]

Now the newer version is also in “breaking news.”

[roses of sharon]

Yikes, I hope the messiah asks Iran to stop this foolishness!/s

[b4its2late]

This ought to push oil back up.

[MichiganCheese]

We already KNOW what our missles are capable of.

[SECURE AMERICA]

It’s coming.

[edcoil]

Interesting isn’t it. Iran notifies the US of its upcoming war games and missile tests - oil drops a few days before, lot of buying then the tests and oil goes up again.

[FFranco]

Now there is no question that we need War With Iran. Iran Must be Taken Out before they attack Israel. President Bush or President McCain have the moral courage to do what is necessary and declare war on Iran, Obama doesn’t.

[SunkenCiv]

Iran Test-Fires Missiles, State Media Reports
New York Times and Reuters | July 9, 2008
Posted on 07/09/2008 12:11:30 AM PDT by bd476
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2042799/posts

BREAKING NEWS - IRAN ATTACKS MEK CAMP ASHRAF IN IRAQ
AntiMullah & Sources Inside Iran | July 8th, 2008 | Alan Peters & Iran Sources
Posted on 07/08/2008 9:22:37 PM PDT by FARS
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2042766/posts

[mkjessup]

Then what will they say to the dead
They'll say it was Bush's fault, of course.

And if Bush fails to take action against Iran, and/or inhibits Israel from taking preemptive action against Iran, it will be his fault.

[ICE-FLYER]

Hey Iran THUGS...Congrats on RANGE...when you can demonstrate that you won’t actually hit Mecca with your bottle rockets but instead actually come within a mile of your target I will START to worry.

[rhombus]

And if Bush fails to take action against Iran, and/or inhibits Israel from taking preemptive action against Iran, it will be his fault.

And Clinton's fault, and Bush's fault, and Reagan's fault and Carter's fault?

[mikey_hates_everything]

But in May Obama said Iran is not a threat. So there, it’s not.

[sheik yerbouty]

That’s because Obama is the threat..

[G8 Diplomat]

They could hit the ENTIRE Middle East:

[MindBender26]

Any missile with a 1000 pound conventional warhead and a range of more than 40 miles is worthless as anything other than a fear weapon unless it has some form of terminal guidance, which these do not.

The real problem is that they can replace the conventional warhead with bio or nuc.

[mkjessup]

And if Bush fails to take action against Iran, and/or inhibits Israel from taking preemptive action against Iran, it will be his fault.
And Clinton's fault, and Bush's fault, and Reagan's fault and Carter's fault?

No, Bush's fault because it is on Bush's watch that Iran has revealed it's nuclear intentions, is seeking to obtain an operational nuclear capability, is currently threatening to wipe out Israel, threatening to attack our ships, close the Straits of Hormuz, etc.

Or do you think that Bush should sit on his ass, do nothing, and then when the Iranians nuke Israel, he goes on TV and blames his predecessors for it?

Back to you Sparkplug.

[Napoleon Solo]

So these little tiny freaks of nature expect to fire missiles and not have them tracked? What do they think the intended parties will be doing, dancing in the streets as they fall down? I DON’T THINK SO! Do you think that the intended parties don’t have ways to shoot down the incoming? And maybe so soon that the incoming will fall back onto Irani lands?

[Napoleon Solo]

And there is something wrong with it hitting the 99% of the Middle East that should be destroyed?

[SlayerOfBunnies]

> Gen. Hossein Salami

No way in the world this guy is really named General Salami. What is this, the Iranian pron network? Lol.

[SolidWood]

They could reach also China, India and Eastern Europe.

[cowdog77]

And there is something wrong with it hitting the 99% of the Middle East that should be destroyed?
_________________
My thoughts exactly (Israel representing the 1%)

[G8 Diplomat]

If Iran hits a Saudi or Gulf oilfield, oil prices will soar through the roof. If they fire on tankers in the Gulf, oil will go through the roof. If they hit Iraq or Afghanistan, all our progress and hard work will be destroyed. Yes, there are consequences to hitting certain areas of the ME. I used the word “entire” more to highlight the thing’s large range rather than to say hitting the whole ME is a bad thing.

[rhombus]

Sparkplug? Is there some subtlty there? Or just an attempt to be insulting? How nice, bold text, underlining and now name calling. I get it, you're pi$$ed off - probably motivated by fear. If your tantrums are oh-so important, why not carry a Chimpy McBush sign in the street? That always accomplishes a lot. If it feels good do it.

OK Bush's fault. What of it? Do you somehow feel that the problem has been solved now that you've assessed blame? I guess positioning troops almost entirely around Iran and being patient with the Europeans isn't enough for you. Tell me, should Bush have attacked Iran straight off or should he have asked for Congressional approval? Should he have asked for a Declaration of War? And then when the answer was no, what? Do tell me what your dream leader would have done? And don't leave out your dream plan for Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and North Korea while you're at it... not to mention handling the US post-911 recession economy. I await your further inciteful insults... or we could try a civil conversation.

[G8 Diplomat]

Oh, and let me add that if they hit a US military base in Bahrain, Turkey, or Kuwait, that will also screw things up for us.

[mkjessup]

Sparkplug? Is there some subtlty there?

What kind of 'subtle' are you suggesting? Do you consider 'Sparkplug' to be insulting? How about 'Sparky'? You're quite the sensitive soul now aren't you?

Or just an attempt to be insulting?

Hey look here, if I wanted to be insulting, you would know it and I wouldn't start off the insults with 'Sparkplug'.

How nice, bold text, underlining and now name calling.

What name calling? As for bold text or underlining, you got a problem with that?

I get it, you're pi$$ed off - probably motivated by fear.

Fear? Sounds more like you (uh oh, more bold text!) are becoming fearful of defending the indefensible policies of our illustrious President in regards to the Persian portion of that ol' Axis of Evil (arrrgggghhh it's more UNDERLINING!!! run Rhombus, RUN!) you remember that don't you?

If your tantrums are oh-so important, why not carry a Chimpy McBush sign in the street? That always accomplishes a lot. If it feels good do it.

Go back and read my posts in this thread and cite ANYTHING that qualifies as a 'tantrum'.

Now take a look in the damn mirror because you are engaging in classic projection.

OK Bush's fault. What of it? Do you somehow feel that the problem has been solved now that you've assessed blame?

Do you feel that you have defended the legacy of George W. Bush by attacking anyone who criticizes him?

I guess positioning troops almost entirely around Iran and being patient with the Europeans isn't enough for you.

Don't make me laugh. Those troops positioned 'around Iran' happen to be a little busy these days with continuing to pacify insurgents in Iraq, and rogue Taliban groups in Afghanistan. As for the Europeans, you think that U.S. policy towards Iran should be formulated and based on being patient with the EUROPEANS?!? You sound like John F'in Kerry suggesting that America should seek the approval of the world community before employing military force. What is wrong with you?

Tell me, should Bush have attacked Iran straight off or should he have asked for Congressional approval? Should he have asked for a Declaration of War? And then when the answer was no, what?

Under the War Powers Act, the President can commit United States Armed Forces for up to 90 days before Congress can do a damn thing about it. And if Bush had the 'nads to do it, he could have taken out Iran's nuclear capability LONG ago, and all he had to do was call in then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Peter Pace and tell him "Pete? You got 89 days after tonight to take out the Iranian nuclear capability, decapitate their leadership, and eliminate Iran as a threat to Middle Eastern stability. Can you do it?"

And you can bet General Pace would have said "can do Mr. President".

What a shame Bush didn't have the spine to fight for the re-appointment of General Pace to the Joint Chiefs Chair position, essentially forcing Pace to retire from the Corps.

Do tell me what your dream leader would have done?

I'll tell you what he would not have done:

- He would not send mixed signals over and over again, first stating that the military option was not off the table with Iran, THEN stating that he has no intention of attacking Iran. Bush has done this continuously and has undermined his own credibility which was already crumbling regarding Iran.

- He would not state that Iran 'must not be allowed to obtain a nuclear capability' while allowing the IAEA to essentially call the shots regarding what is considered the official 'status' of Iran's nuclear efforts, and allowing our own intelligence agencies to release a questionable report suggesting that Iran shelved it's nuclear program in '03 (when everyone KNOWS they did no such thing).

- He would not allow the leader of an official terrorist supporting state (Iran's Ahmadinejad) to fly into New York City to spew his venom at a world audience without taking the opportunity to shoot the sonuvabitch out of the sky. Iran is our enemy, we have been at war with Iran for years, and shooting down Ahmadinejad would have been no different than taking out Admiral Yamamoto in '43 (which FDR apparently had no problem with).

There are three items for you to chew on.

And don't leave out your dream plan for Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and North Korea while you're at it...

We have plenty of time to deal with those. The topic of this thread is Iran, but if at some point you want to talk about Bush's sell out of the North Korean people, I'm up for it.

not to mention handling the US post-911 recession economy.

Irrelevant to this thread, but again: we can talk about the excessive spending policies of Lyndon Baines Bush anytime you want to.

I await your further inciteful insults... or we could try a civil conversation.

First, point out what 'insults' you allege I have made. As for a civil conversation, everything was going along just fine until you puked up post #29, dig?

Holy crap, try the decaf, ok?

[forYourChildrenVote4Bush]

“Then what will they say to the dead...”

First, they will blame the Republicans, than they will erect a plaques, and later they will build a Museum....

after that, we will all go back in our cocoon and wait for the next museum to build.

Thats usually the procedure...

[rhombus]

Wow, a lot to read. OK so your vote is a first strike and everywhere else is unimportant. That’s what I wanted to hear. Good luck finding that candidate for President. Maybe we can get Andy Jackson back somehow. But hell ya, I would have supported Bush if he played it your way too. Would we now be in Iran-free paradise? Who knows. As for the other stuff I’ll share a cup of decaf with you. You didn’t exactly de-escalate with your last posting either so I’ll meet you half way... despite your first strike. Hey... I’m jokin’. ;-)

[mkjessup]

I don’t need the decaf, far from it. But for your convenience, re-read the following applicable posts below to refresh your memory on that whole ‘insults’ / ‘name-calling’ / ‘tantrum’ stuff:

To: Fennie

Of course the appeasers and the yellow bellied crowd won’t believe there is any threat from Iran until we see a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv.

Then what will they say to the dead, “we’re sorry, we can’t believe Iran would DO that!!!!” ?

4 posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2008 12:33:23 PM by mkjessup

---

To: mkjessup
Then what will they say to the dead

They’ll say it was Bush’s fault, of course.
5 posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2008 12:34:59 PM by rhombus

---

To: rhombus
Then what will they say to the dead
They’ll say it was Bush’s fault, of course.

And if Bush fails to take action against Iran, and/or inhibits Israel from taking preemptive action against Iran, it will be his fault.
15 posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2008 1:06:17 PM by mkjessup

---

To: mkjessup
And if Bush fails to take action against Iran, and/or inhibits Israel from taking preemptive action against Iran, it will be his fault.

And Clinton’s fault, and Bush’s fault, and Reagan’s fault and Carter’s fault?
17 posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2008 1:09:40 PM by rhombus

---

To: rhombus
And if Bush fails to take action against Iran, and/or inhibits Israel from taking preemptive action against Iran, it will be his fault.
And Clinton’s fault, and Bush’s fault, and Reagan’s fault and Carter’s fault?

No, Bush’s fault because it is on Bush’s watch that Iran has revealed it’s nuclear intentions, is seeking to obtain an operational nuclear capability, is currently threatening to wipe out Israel, threatening to attack our ships, close the Straits of Hormuz, etc.

Or do you think that Bush should sit on his ass, do nothing, and then when the Iranians nuke Israel, he goes on TV and blames his predecessors for it?

Back to you Sparkplug.

---

---

Oh right, now you say you were ‘jokin’.

Got it.

Yep, kinda looks like we’re done here.

[rhombus]

Yeah we’re mercifully done... hope you feel better ‘cuz that’s what that was all about.

[mkjessup]

Whatever Sparky.

[PsyOp]

Not only is that the range of the missiles, I think it also represents their circular error of impact.

[Napoleon Solo]

You forgot the final “if”. If the Iranis do any of what you state, they will no longer exist. Iran will become a parking lot and all of its history will only be found in books, if at all. Oil will then stabilize and go down to its rightful levels and there will be peace in the Middle East since those freaks will realize the gloves are off and political correctness will go down the drain. We, the rest of the world will most likely not start it but this time, we will finish it or we will all go down together.

[grey_whiskers]

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!

NO more calls, please.

We have a winner!