Iran Has 12 Strategic Cruise Missiles

[The Caspian Hare]

So who's going to deter Iran from using those twelve, measly, non-threatening cruise missiles once we withdraw from the region to focus on domestic issues?

And you can't say Israel. Remember:

It is not the job of the US to stick our nose in everyone elses business.

[ETA: I was unclear. To clarify, they couldn't deter much without the military aid they get from us.]

Edited April 15, 2005 by Redneck

[ForRizzle]

Its nobody's job to police Iran. I hate they are aquiring nukes and long range missiles. But its not up to us to police that and be hypocritial by saying we can have them but you cant. It will be up to them to detour themselves knowing complete and utter destruction awaits them if they use or give them to other to use.

[dmgspycat]

What a joke!!! You guys are all worried about some missles they probably got from us back in the 1980's when the corrupt Reagan/Bush team traded them for the hostages so they could win the Whitehouse...now just think about that for a sec....these people broke National Security rules to trade with an enemy so they could beat Jimmy Carter in a race for the Whitehouse! Republicans traded with terrorists with the help of the right-wing CIA to make the Democratic President look bad...on inauguration day for Reagan and Bush the Iranians let the hostages go.

For you knuckleheads that agree with these tactics, this is how people like Osama Bin Laden are made! Also for those of you that belittle Jimmy Carter I tell you that in the last 40 years America has never seen a Statesman do more good for the world after leaving office...as opposed to either Reagan or Bush. So if you are worried about Iran you can thank Reagan /Bush...two of the most corrupt people to ever set foot in the Whitehouse for a plethora of reasons.

[I am me]

So who's going to deter Iran from using those twelve, measly, non-threatening cruise missiles once we withdraw from the region to focus on domestic issues?

And you can't say Israel. Remember:

It is not the job of the US to stick our nose in everyone elses business.

[ETA: I was unclear. To clarify, they couldn't deter much without the military aid they get from us.]

573653[/snapback]

maybe Iran have aquired these missiles to keep the USA from screwing with them in the first place. we have messed with Iran for decades, it isn't something that just started out of the blue. why do you think NK is so adamant about its nuke program after bush put them on blast in the news? it is all defensive measures. these countries are scared because they think they are the next Iraq.

[Celumnaz]

maybe this is just an advertisement.

We have cars to sell, we have radios and we have missles. Come buy!

N. Korea's advertising too.

That way they don't have to worry about retaliation.

At least these things seem to work. Clinton had to send over our experts to get the Chi-coms' missles working... all falling out of orbit.

[The Caspian Hare]

What a joke!!! You guys are all worried about some missles they probably got from us back in the 1980's

Hidden deep within the article(the first paragraph) is the insignificant little fact that the missiles originated from the Ukraine and were transferred in 2001.

when the corrupt Reagan/Bush team traded them for the hostages so they could win the Whitehouse...now just think about that for a sec....these people broke National Security rules to trade with an enemy so they could beat Jimmy Carter in a race for the Whitehouse! Republicans traded with terrorists with the help of the right-wing CIA to make the Democratic President look bad...on inauguration day for Reagan and Bush the Iranians let the hostages go.

Iran-Contra, a.k.a. the arms-for-hostages scandal took place in Reagan's second term, not prior to his election.

Also for those of you that belittle Jimmy Carter I tell you that in the last 40 years America has never seen a Statesman do more good for the world after leaving office

Ah, but Jimmy Carter in the White House took a hawkish foreign policy that would make George Bush proud. He, not Reagan, began the arming of the Afghan rebels, and he initiated the Carter doctrine declaring that any attempt to threaten the oil supplies of the Persian Gulf would be an attack on the vital interests of the United States, and would be repelled by any means.

From his 1980 State of the Union Address:

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

Both the current Bush and his father have followed a policy established by that "liberal" Jimmy Carter, using military force to secure our supply of foreign oil.

[dmgspycat]

What a joke!!! You guys are all worried about some missles they probably got from us back in the 1980's

Iran-Contra, a.k.a. the arms-for-hostages scandal took place in Reagan's second term, not prior to his election.

573821[/snapback]

Not true...arms for hostages was done prior to the election in 1980. Remember the hostages were released on innauguration day? What are you saying they were released for? Did you think it was just a payoff? Just curious.

[I am me]

What a joke!!! You guys are all worried about some missles they probably got from us back in the 1980's

Iran-Contra, a.k.a. the arms-for-hostages scandal took place in Reagan's second term, not prior to his election.

573821[/snapback]

Not true...arms for hostages was done prior to the election in 1980. Remember the hostages were released on innauguration day? What are you saying they were released for? Did you think it was just a payoff? Just curious.

573919[/snapback]

I think they knew Regan was going to do something about it.

[The Caspian Hare]

That claim that Reagan, as a candidate, made a deal with Iran in exchange for a delay in the release of the embassy hostages is at this point nothing more than an allegation, largely revolving around that book by Gary Sick. The Iran-Contra scandal was bad enough without embellishing it with flimsily supported charges.

[dmgspycat]

That claim that Reagan, as a candidate, made a deal with Iran in exchange for a delay in the release of the embassy hostages is at this point nothing more than an allegation, largely revolving around that book by Gary Sick.  The Iran-Contra scandal was bad enough without embellishing it with flimsily supported charges.

574019[/snapback]

Hmmmm. I think it was Haynes Johnsons " Sleepwalking Through History". Could be wrong. BTW, did you know that Jimmy Carter fired George Bush of the CIA and 700 of his subordinates during his Presidency? Not of any relevance to the topic really , just wanted to say it. The CIA begged Carter not to fire Bush but to let him continue...so as not to hurt his political aspirations? That's why Turner took over. Guess who was involved in the first hostage rescue attempt...Ollie North...alot of us believe he was partly responsible for sabotaging the mission.

[zephyr]

There seems to be some confusion about the times of different events here.

The Iran-Contra affair, also known as 'Irangate', took place during the second term of Reagan's presidency. The release of the hostages had nothing to do with that and had taken place a few years before, at the beginning of Reagan's first term in office, as correctly mentioned by a few posts here. The money the Americans received (Oliver North was at the center of this deal) for the sale of the spare parts to Iran went straight to the Contras fighting the Sandanista government of Nicaragua.

As for a war breaking out involving Iran and the US; I don't think anybody is crazy enough in either country to launch a dangerous campaign like that. Such a war would certainly not involve only Iran and the US, but would easily spread like butter on a warm toast. It's a big and potentially fatal error to compare Iran with Iraq or N.Korea; and I'm not only talking in military terms here, but political, economic and social ones as well. Who do you think could afford oil at several hundred $$ a barrel as a result of such a war (if any oil was allowed to leave the Persian Gulf)? What do you think the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan and the US involvement in those countries would turn out to be if Iran were attacked? What would be the reactions of and the effect on other Middle Eastern countries? Let's not even talk about Chinese, Russian and the European responses and involvement in such a fatal war (China's hunger for Persian Gulf oil and their dependence on that oil for their economy's very survival is a well known fact). I think; or at least I hope everyone is well aware of the delicate situation here; that's why I tend to sleep quite well at night, without the fear of a war, especially now that the lunatic next door is no longer around!

[dmgspycat]

There seems to be some confusion about the times of different events here.

The Iran-Contra affair, also known as 'Irangate', took place during the second term of Reagan's presidency. The release of the hostages had nothing to do with that and had taken place a few years before, at the beginning of Reagan's first term in office, as correctly mentioned by a few posts here. The money the Americans received (Oliver North was at the center of this deal) for the sale of the spare parts to Iran went straight to the Contras fighting the Sandanista government of Nicaragua.

As for a war breaking out involving Iran and the US; I don't think anybody is crazy enough in either country to launch a dangerous campaign like that. Such a  war would certainly not involve only Iran and the US, but would easily spread like butter on a warm toast. It's a big and potentially fatal error to compare Iran with Iraq or N.Korea; and I'm not only talking in military terms here, but political, economic and social ones as well. Who do you think could afford oil at several hundred $$ a barrel as a result of such a war (if any oil was allowed to leave the Persian Gulf)? What do you think the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan and the US involvement in those countries would turn out to be if Iran were attacked? What would be the reactions of and the effect on other Middle Eastern countries? Let's not even talk about Chinese, Russian and the European responses and involvement in such a fatal war (China's hunger for Persian Gulf oil and their dependence on that oil for their economy's very survival is a well known fact). I think; or at least I hope everyone is well aware of the delicate situation here; that's why I tend to sleep quite well at night, without the fear of a war, especially now that the lunatic next door is no longer around!

574562[/snapback]

Well thats what this is all about anyway right? It is the oil and every industrialised nation needs it...the US aren't the only bad guys in town. There have been others before we arrived on the scene...virtually all of them are responsible for coups and assassinations which in turn is always bad for the population in the middle east.

I am mad at my own country because those responsible for the gas crisis in the 1970's during Carters Presidency were top Republicans...those were our ships at sea just refusing to make delivery thus causing what appeared to be a shortage. Those in power here now are a part of that same crowd...why should we trust them? Why should we trust their war-mongering? I don't...but they will do anything to control that oil...so will every industrialised nation...but we are sooo holy and soooo christian ha ha. I wish the best for all the worlds people and I hope one day we will not need to exterminate a countrys leader/people for this oil any longer.

[Babs]

Health hazard warning:

'Watching those dangerous extremist lunatics on Fox all day can be hazardous to your health'!

573160[/snapback]

I thought they were "fair and balanced". CNN always cries to the left.

[wunarmdscissor]

I thought they were "fair and balanced". CNN always cries to the left

lol come on at least admit it its blatantly obvious .

i canm admit the BBC here is left leaning and sky news is right leaning , its a fact no news broadcaster it seems is impartial.

fox news is blatantly and unashamadly bias

[Babs]

Yeah, I gotta say I can't believe some of the stuff they say ...it's like they read my mind.

I guess you are right. All the media can be a little lop-sided.

[mrmonsoon]

They have a lot more than that. It was reported by cnn, about a year ago.

It seems that when the saber rattling between Israel/US and Iran started for real, the announced they had cruise missiles that could go about 12-1500 miles.

These were their own developments based on the Russian tech in the missiles they purchased.

They even brought a bunch out on display.

The purpose was to threaten Israel and the US forces in the area-as well as England and France-they are within range of the missiles-ie if we are attacked(the nuclear reactor destroyed) they will fight back.

[I am me]

Yeah, I gotta say I can't believe some of the stuff they say ...it's like they read my mind. 

I guess you are right. All the media can be a little lop-sided.

576889[/snapback]

a little?????????

all media is highly biased towards the government. some are just a little more right leaning and some a little more left leaning.

[Babs]

Yeah, you might be right there.

[Walken]

So Iraq has 12 cruise missles? The US has hundreds of nuclear missiles. On the other hand, I think we've already seen that Iraq is not a very stable nation.

[Babs]

Zephyr....Who are these crazy leaders you have that everyone is talking about zep? Could you tell us about the mullahs or molars...or whatsas?? I don't remember how you call it. Who are these guys and what do they stand for?

[The Caspian Hare]

ho are these crazy leaders you have that everyone is talking about zep? Could you tell us about the mullahs or molars...or whatsas?

Molars are teeth. Mullahs - Islamic clergy/religious scholars. Many in Iran are very conservative and wield significant political power.

Edited April 20, 2005 by Redneck

[Babs]

ho are these crazy leaders you have that everyone is talking about zep? Could you tell us about the mullahs or molars...or whatsas?

Molars are teeth. Mullahs - Islamic clergy/religious scholars. Many in Iran are very conservative and wield significant political power.

579713[/snapback]

I thought that would be a funny. What's conservative in Iran?

Edited April 20, 2005 by Babs

[Azag-thoth]

So Iran have nukes. Good for them. I think that this is what USA want the world to think. Remember Iraq. Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Just propaganda to allow the USA/illuminati shadow goverment to take then next step to the NWO.

[mrmonsoon]

So Iran have nukes. Good for them. I think that this is what USA want the world to think. Remember Iraq. Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Just propaganda to allow the USA/illuminati shadow goverment to take then next step to the NWO.

579869[/snapback]

It was theorized that Iran bought suitcase nukes durning Russia's fire sale (sale of lots of high tech equipment becouse it needed money fast).

If You REALLY don't think I ran has or is developing a nuclear weapon, here is something else to worry about.

China has made deals with Iran worth 10-20 billion over 5-10 years for oil, natural gas and other energy sources.

Why would that matter?

It now becomes in China's best interest to keep the present government and status quo in Iran. China's need for resources(oil and others) has gone through the roof.

What was the US reaction when A country threatened to stop all traffic from leaving the persian gulf....4 US battle groups-all within striking distance of that country. For that matter two wars and the removal of the government-remember who that was (Iraq).

Well, China has a large navy, many planes and a lot of nukes and the ability to transfer that tech to others.....are u seeing my point.

[Babs]

Id like to put Iran on the back burner and N. Korea, too, as we have so much to contend with, however, if Iran gets nukes, we will have to nuke them. Then we all pay.

So, even though I want to put them on the back burner, we have to watch this nuke-craving they have. Unfortunately, we may not be able to put them on the back burner... I do think that an undeveloped country, Iran and their fanatical mullahs, are a real threat to the world, with a nuke.

Also, Iran, supports Syria with money and guns and ideals, they are the big daddy. I would really like to get Syria straightened out first.

Edited April 20, 2005 by Babs