Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Iran has warned it could close the strategic Strait of Hormoz if it became the target of a military attack over its nuclear program.
Strait of Hormoz, the entrance to the strategic Persian Gulf waterway, is a major oil shipping route.
Meantime, a recent study by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), a prestigious American think tank, has found that a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities "is unlikely" to delay the country's program. Fars News Agency :: Cleric Reiterates Iran's Crushing Response to Aggressors
Iran has warned it could close the strategic Strait of Hormoz if it became the target of a military attack over its nuclear program.
Strait of Hormoz, the entrance to the strategic Persian Gulf waterway, is a major oil shipping route.
Meantime, a recent study by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), a prestigious American think tank, has found that a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities "is unlikely" to delay the country's program. Fars News Agency :: Cleric Reiterates Iran's Crushing Response to Aggressors
Addressing thousands of worshippers on Tehran University Campus here on Friday, Sediqi repeated the Thursday remarks of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, and said Tehran never intends to start a war by attacking other countries, but it enjoys such a strong military might that it can defeat and push back any enemy move against the country.
"Our country has never intended to make an aggression against any other country and we don't have any such intension now either. But if anyone decides to make a hostile move against our ruling system, culture, revolution and people, our powerful army and other armed forces, including the glorious Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) and Basij (volunteer forces), and in one word our nation would slap the aggressor in the face so hard and responds to such an aggression with such an iron fist that would make enemies repent their action and give them a lesson," the cleric stated.
This made me laugh since this is Iran's Airforce..
Iran Air Force - YouTube
Iranian Air Defence Radar: ‘Unknown aircraft you are in Iranian airspace. Identify yourself.’
Aircraft: ‘This is a United States aircraft. I am in Iraqi airspace.’
Iranian Air Defence Radar: ‘You are in Iranian airspace. If you do not depart our airspace we will launch interceptor aircraft!’
Aircraft: ‘This is a United States Marine Corps FA-18 fighter. Send ‘em up, I’ll wait!’
Iranian Air Defence Radar: (no response … total silence)
sometimes i can't word things exactly the way i want but i saw this post by a paul c on the iranian situation and thought bingo!:
Iran's neighbours are Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Aremenia, Turkey and Iraq. Thirty years ago Iraq attacked Iran. That's the last military action Iran has been involved in, minus the USS Vincennes violating Iranian waters and shooting down an Iranian airliner. They do semi-secretly support Hezbollah, but hey, the CIA and Mossad play those games too.
Is it a good thing for regional stability for Iran to have such an aggressive nuclear program? Not at all. But then, it isn't good for Israel to have actual nuclear missiles either. Nor is it good for the US to be prosecuting wars on two of Iran's borders. However the world has survived these things, and it will survive a nuclear Iran just as it has survived a nuclear Pakistan and a nuclear North Korea, and a nuclear South Africa, and an (infinitely more dangerous) nuclear Soviet Union. This is Dyer's point, no more, no less.
To be fair, the world will survive an American attack on Iran as well, but I for one have seen enough wars of stupidity to last a lifetime, and really, does the economy need another five trillion dollar hit right now?
Actually, it hasn't turned out bad for Iran at all. Iranian-Afghani relations were atrocious when the Taliban was in power. In 1998, after several Iranian diplomats and thousands of Shiite minorities were killed by the Taliban, Iran massed over 200,000 troops on the border and looked as though it was going to invade. And, of course, eliminating the Sunni Hussein regime and allowing it to be replaced with, naturally enough in a Shiite-majority country, mostly Shiites (who, no surprise, are on good terms with Iran) must have pleased Tehran immensely. There was no helping Afghanistan, of course, but the idiocy of invading Iraq has greatly improved Iran's strategic position in the region.
Israel's always talking big but there's no way they'd go after Iran directly unless they knew the US could back them up and we can't. I almost wish they'd do it so we don't have to put up with their crap any more.
The iranian regime has a lot of internal pressure, as evidence by the recent protests that were violently repressed.
What the rest of the world is doing is exercing constant pressure on Iran until the regime gets toppled. It's been having limited success so far but this muscle flexing is better than all out war. Iran might not be anywhere near the US militarily but it's still a big bite to take on by the already streched out american military and the civilian deaths would be catastrophic.
I'd be nice not to be in a continuous state of war for a change and it starts with people opposing military interventions instead of cheering them on.
WMD in Iraq? Because they weren't found, you and countless others try to use that as proof that they never existed.Military folks I know that have been to Iraq have told me that they of course were there, that mass graves of saddam's own people were found, and he had used WMDs on them.
However, the dang smartest thing I was told by military is this....I was reminded that there was, of course TIME...in between the inspections that Saddam had allowed. In some of that time, I was told that saddam and his people had moved weaponry into Syria, that they could not afford to have found for inspections. I don't know. I was not there, nor were most of us, but sounds like a no-brainer, to me.
Um, yeah. No one disputes that Iraq once possessed chemical weapons. The al-Anfal campaign is well-known. The issue in 2003 was the claims that:
*Saddam Hussein is (note the present tense) amassing vast stockpiles of WMD
You know, the Bush Administration long ago admitted Iraq had no WMD program in 2003 and, in fact, no WMDs. Even Bush himself admitted in, seven long years ago:
Quote:
In July [2004], Bush said, "We have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction," a sentence construction that kept alive the possibility that the weapons might yet be discovered.
Yesterday, Bush used the clearest language to date nailing the question shut. "Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there," he said, his words placing the blame on U.S. intelligence agencies.
That's right, seven years after Bush admitted Iraq had no WMDs, you're still insisting they did.
But what you're claiming is that President Bush was wrong when he grudgingly conceding that there were no WMDs because some E-4 you know who was in Iraq says otherwise?
Get a clue already. After seven years, get a clue!
personally, i don't think it was such a good idea to encourage the ouster of mubarek, considering that he was against the militant muslim brotherhood. i see that we have frozen all his assets while he is on trial (wikipedia)
On 17 March 2011 Senator John Kerry, head of foreign relations committee of the congress, officially confirmed that the government of the United States froze assets worth $31 billion belonging to Mubarak, including property and bank accounts.[87] John Kerry later retracted his statement saying he meant Gaddafi not Mubarak.
On 12 February 2011, the government of Switzerland announced that it was freezing the Swiss bank accounts of Mubarak and his family.[88] On 20 February 2011, the Egyptian Prosecutor General ordered the freeze of Mubarak's assets and the assets of his wife Suzanne, his sons Alaa and Gamal Mubarak, and his daughters in law Heidi Rasekh and Khadiga Gamal. The Prosecutor General also ordered the Egyptian Foreign Minster to communicate this to other countries where Mubarak and his family could have assets. This order came two days after Egyptian newspapers reported that Mubarak filed his financial statement.[89] The Egyptian regulations mandate government officials to submit a financial statement listing his / her total assets and sources of income during governmental work. On 21 February 2011, the Egyptian Military Council, which was temporarily given the presidential authorities following the 25 January 2011 Revolution, declared no objection to a trial of Mubarak on charges of corruption. In February 2011, Voice of America reported that Egypt's top prosecutor has ordered a travel ban and an asset freeze for former President Hosni Mubarak and his family, as he considers further action
(which, of course, has turned out to be prosecution)
then some libyan missiles went missing (story here)
this seems to go with the stupidity of our mexican guns distribution program. it doesn't seem like much that is happening is actually intended to protect the interests of the united states.
and i strongly disagree with obama's decision to start destroying our nuclear stockpile. when you have an unstable world, i don't think that is a very good idea. i think we have proven to be a pretty good steward of nuclear weapons, having not used them except to end a world war. sometimes the best offense is a good defense.
remember. gaddafi renounced his nuclear weapon program and then we killed him. maybe it isn't such a good idea to even talk about disarming in an unstable world.
i think our foreign policy is absolutely clueless, and has been for quite some time.
you have to wonder if the intent isn't to destabilize the region.
i strongly disagree with obama's decision to start destroying our nuclear stockpile. when you have an unstable world, i don't think that is a very good idea. i think we have proven to be a pretty good steward of nuclear weapons, having not used them except to end a world war. sometimes the best offense is a good defense.
President Obama has not decided to destroy the U.S. nuclear stockpile but to reduce it. You know, like just about every other President since LBJ.
Somehow I'm guessing we'll be able to cope at the target level of 3,000-3,500 warheads...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
