Iranian ICBM Pending, Administration Says

#1
"A top Bush administration official" told the Associated Press that Iran is "trying to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile."

This new missile, when operational, would be capable of striking Europe and, possibly, the United States, he said.

He added that the missile would be capable of lofting a nuclear warhead or a biological warhead.

He said that the new missile is being developed with the assistance of North Korea, China, and unnamed states which were formerly part of the USSR.

"Bush Administration Suspects Iran Developing ICBM"

http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=2643887
 
#2
Either another reason to move east a few miles, if the source is anything like reliable or another 'mission impossible' from our friends in the White House.

S'funny when you look at it, you invent something over fifty years ago then spend the next 100 years ensuring the rest of the world 'uninvent it'. What goes around, comes around suppose.
 
#4
Looks like this thread is coming true...............
...................If you want to listen to King George II's administration yet again. Look where thats got us so far.

My only prediction is it aint going to get any better.
 
#5
An unfriendly, middle eastern government with WMD capable of hitting europe with no warning. Is it just me, or does that does sound like somthing I heard before, I can't remenber where........ 8O


will the US public accecpt it AGAIN?.........

What am I saying :?:

of course they will :oops:
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#6
Not_Whistlin_Dixie said:
"

"Bush Administration Suspects Iran Developing ICBM"

http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=2643887
..course they are you sap. This'll be the same administration(slight return)
that assured the world that Saddam was weeks from developing WMD and successfully deluded the American people into thinking that he also bankrolled 9/11 ?

How come every damn post I read of yours is about the Iranian threat to the American Way sport ?

read my lips: A) Iran is no threat to the British people
B) There are no British interests threatened by Iran
C) Only one country in the Middle East would benefit from a
war between the US (and satraps) and Iran .

guess who ?


Hint: Ariel Sharon is currently in charge.
 
#7
The only reason to send british troops to iran is too help them close their afgan borders to stop heroin coming through which is a direct threat to this country .
 
#8
I agree that Sharon is a slimey excuse for a turd but the fact is Iran isn't exactly a friendly place - remember all the terrorists they produced in the 80s? The Iranian seige? The US embassy bombing?

Plus they're probably in Iraq at the moment having a go at our boys. They deserve everything they get...
 
#9
Goatman said:
Not_Whistlin_Dixie said:
"

"Bush Administration Suspects Iran Developing ICBM"

http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=2643887
..course they are you sap. This'll be the same administration(slight return)
that assured the world that Saddam was weeks from developing WMD and successfully deluded the American people into thinking that he also bankrolled 9/11 ?

How come every damn post I read of yours is about the Iranian threat to the American Way sport ?

read my lips: A) Iran is no threat to the British people
B) There are no British interests threatened by Iran
C) Only one country in the Middle East would benefit from a
war between the US (and satraps) and Iran .

guess who ?


Hint: Ariel Sharon is currently in charge.
I report these US government pronouncements because I believe that they are significant; my posting does not necessarily imply that I personally endorse the statements of the US government or its functionaries.

For instance, I'm of the view that the fact that the US government apparently claims that development of an Iranian ICBM is underway is significant regardless of whether the claim itself is true or not.

One reason why these announcements might be important is because they might imply that the US government has already decided that it will launch, or, at least, assist, a strike against Iraq and is attempting to prepare a receptive climate of public opinion.
 
#10
Yet another 'biting of ones own arrse' syndrome.

Check out what kit the IIAF uses http://www.iiaf.net/ and who err sold it to them. OK, the kit sold to them is now totally out of date and most of it is in the knackers yard but one can come to the same conclusion as was the Mujahideen and funding and fingers in pies and biting the hand that the fingers were attatched to and etc....you get the drift.

Top tip, USA, stop fcuking about with the world, stop basing foriegn policy on Hollywood, stop trying to suggest to the old world you have new ideas to solve world peace, stop treating the world as though they are all stupid.
One day it will pi55 on your bonfire. Oh, thats right, it is.
The Worlds policemen? They couldnt stop a disabled pikey chav from scrumping apples from an orchard. History, believe it or not is longer than 200 years and some naughty men have a longer memory.

Mr McGoo specs.
 
#11
I agree that Sharon is a slimey excuse for a turd but the fact is Iran isn't exactly a friendly place - remember all the terrorists they produced in the 80s? The Iranian seige? The US embassy bombing?
What about the Stern Gang in Palestine during the 40s? And Rummy was flogging CBW tech to the Iraqis when they were fighting the Ayatollah in the 80s! Now Gadaffi (Q'dafy?) is our bestest mate for giving up WMDs he never had - he was itching to reach a settlement with the West during most of the 90s but it was not seen as convenient by the Spams at the time.

Friendships (and enemyships) are negotiable and expendable, and all the talk about "not negotiating with terrorists" is b@llocks!

Anyone who thinks the world has irrevocably changed since the 19th century is seriously deluded. :twisted:
 
#12
Thanks to their Chinese/NK friends they have been supplied with new ballistic missile technology. The Iranians will soon have the means to strike Berlin and other targets in the 4000 - 6000 km range. If the Chinese provide them with the technology to create a nuclear warhead for their ballistic missiles then they will be able to pose an entire new level of threat to the world's oil supply and would be a greater threat to Israel.
 
#13
tom, do you believe that? If so, may I refer you to the readings of Stalin, Mao and any other non white, pickup driving nation.

The USSR of old were a liberal state compared to the 'Regime Change' we know as the USA.

Harsh but fair. Just who is brain washed?
 
#14
Flasheart yes I do believe the Iranians will soon be able to hit Europe. But I am not worried that Europe will be struck by an Iranian nuclear weapon because Europe will cave in to any Iranian demands and will toe the mad mulluha's line. Meanwhile the US will have our ABM system in place so Iranian ICMB's wont be much of a threat to CONUS. We will just have to worry about suit case nuclear bombs.
 
#15
tomahawk6 said:
Flasheart yes I do believe the Iranians will soon be able to hit Europe. But I am not worried that Europe will be struck by an Iranian nuclear weapon because Europe will cave in to any Iranian demands and will toe the mad mulluha's line. Meanwhile the US will have our ABM system in place so Iranian ICMB's wont be much of a threat to CONUS. We will just have to worry about suit case nuclear bombs.
tomy you are becoming very cynical, too much time on arrse I suspect
 
#16
Thanks to their Chinese/NK friends they have been supplied with new ballistic missile technology.
Defence or attack motives? It's strange to think that any other country might want an insurance policy too, I could be wrong though.



The Iranians will soon have the means to strike Berlin and other targets in the 4000 - 6000 km range.
And why would they want to?

Are you saying that a countries Govn would use a cover story of a terrorist org to conduct their business? That would be below the belt and the likes of us civilised countries would never use those kind of tactics, would we? Would certain Third world countries (Iran isn’t btw) be wrong in following the example of certain 'top shelf' nations when it comes to dirty tactics? When they perceive their survival, I'm sure Queensbury rules don’t enter into it. If a powerful nation wishes to appear as the 'head boy', it has to act in a manner that is beyond reproach when it comes behaviour. If it doesn’t, it shouldn’t be surprised when 'other' nations play them at their own game.

Has anyone in the current administration in the White House asked themselves 'If I was a Muslim/undermined country/third world nation, what p isses me off the most and why?

To me, that aint being soft, that’s day one, week one of understanding the 'enemy'.

Of course, the flip side is, if you believe everything that your Govn tells you then you deserve everything that’s owed to you. With that, the remainder of the planet becomes a rather concerned and worried observer.
 
#17
Crossed posts.

Europe will cave in to any Iranian demands and will toe the mad mullah’s line.
But the mad mullahs aint truly p issed off with Europe. Target is the States. I'm sure they won’t shoot their load towards an area that firstly isn't a major threat. (Several reasons, one being that the old sage that is Europe has had a bit of experience with dealing with 'threats'. Collectively and individually, 'Europe' has had a bit of history with conflict and the diffusing/dealing with. The usurper to the crown on domineering the globe is a mere young pup and has a bit to learn in the idea of status quo (and I don’t mean the 12 chord strum merchants of 'Rockin all over the World').

Slag Europe off all you want but it's had its fair share of conflict and has sort of learned a few things regarding equilibrium.

Remember, it's all too easy to sit in an armchair 6000 miles away and conduct 'world' politics by proxy when the quantum cause and effect has little bearing on the day to day life of your average 24 stone citizen.

Ever played the game of 'Risk'? http://www.hasbro.com/pl/page.viewproduct/product_id.9615/dn/games/default.cfm

If you have, you will be well aware that one of the hardest continents to 'hold' is Europe. America only gets a high score because its origins are err American and it appeases the home market to believe that the continent of North America is 'hard to maintain and defend'. I'll bet fending off large moustachioed blokes from the south and slanty eyed Kayak borne fish eaters from the NW is a 24 hour job.

Joking aside, the paranoia fed to the populace has led to quite a lot of situations around this planet earth from a continent sitting back with the comforting feeling for many a year that it's only threat to it's shores has been a few Nippon balloons carried by the winds aloft and a cigar smoking revolutionary who lives next door to the Florida Keys.

How surprised are they and how much they feel embarrassed when someone reaches from afar with a note stating 'STOP TRYING TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO AND HOW TO ACT IN MY OWN COUNTRY'. I do not in any way condone certain actions towards the USA but I am attempting to look a bit deeper than 'nuke the feckers attitude'.
Even more confusing when that someone still has a big bag of kit, $$$ account or dictatorship provided by comfy armchair chess players.

BTW, not totally anti American, just pro rest of the world really.
 
#18
tomahawk6 said:
Thanks to their Chinese/NK friends they have been supplied with new ballistic missile technology. The Iranians will soon have the means to strike Berlin and other targets in the 4000 - 6000 km range. If the Chinese provide them with the technology to create a nuclear warhead for their ballistic missiles then they will be able to pose an entire new level of threat to the world's oil supply and would be a greater threat to Israel.
You mean they'll be able to do to Israel what Israel can now do to them ? During the Cold War we called it MAD and it was officially a good thing. Why is it different now ?
 
#19
Why would any state, controlled by mullahs or not, choose to launch nuclear missiles at the West when they know their sandpit, fly-infested little empires would be removed from the map by the inevitable retaliation? The only risk is from terrorists detonating a warhead. The rest is pure, unadulterated propaganda with no basis in logic or strategy.
 
#20
the americans are upset because if the iranians get nukes they cant be pushed around .And it looks like they will get them before the USA can launch another war .If I was iranian i'd want nukes as well.
Hating israel makes great internal politics its far enough away so no
chance of revolutionary guard starting a border incident ,but close enough
and small enough to fantasize about winning a war against them if they had to fight them which they dont .
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads