Russian missiles delivered to Iran: Ivanov

[maddezmom]

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia has delivered new anti-aircraft missile systems to Iran and will consider further requests by Tehran for defensive weapons, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said on Tuesday.

"We have supplied the modern short-range anti-aircraft systems TOR-M1 in accordance with our contracts," Ivanov told reporters "Iran is not under sanctions and if it wants to buy defensive ... equipment for its armed forces then why not?"

A defense ministry source later told Reuters deliveries of hardware under the $1 billion deal, which has been criticised by the West, have not yet been completed.

more:http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070116/ts_nm/russia_iran_missiles_dc_1

[wakeme2008]

1. Not been completed is not the same as not shipped

Sounds like Iran is buying good air defense missles... Oh Bushie.....

[Tellurian]

100. So, Russia is lining up behind it's client Iran

allowing Iran to defend itself against the petrol thugs coveting their resources.

I'm not understanding why Saudi Arabia is allowing the US this foothold in the ME.

[salin]

2. maybe W needs to go to an eye doctor

you know the old looked in Putin's eyes thingy.

[Supersedeas]

36. seeing the soul takes time I guess

[hang a left]

3. I am sure the Iran is just not going shopping now.

For their sake, lets hope that they have on a spree since March 2003.

I'm a poet and didn't know it.

[Igel]

11. They've been on a buying and development spree

since the '90s. They have a very large military beholden to a small number of ideologues in a pseudo-democracy, an ideology that has fundie paranoia at its core--Satan and non-believers always consciously conspire to hurt the righteous, and if they deny it it simply shows how deep into the conspiracy they actually are.

They've been trading and dealing with whomever they can to acquire the technology to repel any invasion or attack, real or imagined, while pursuing the traditional practice of mimicking a puffer fish, making themselves seem as large as possible to scare off predators. They've been manipulating things to the extent they can to make sure that wherever possible groups favorable hold sway; if they can't actually get a government to be favorable to them , they try neutralize opposition by the implicit threat of Shi'ite non-civil disobedience.

[wordpix]

70. sounds scary but somehow...familiar. Almost like this is what OUR gov. has morphed into

:scared:

[daleo]

76. Sounds rather like the Bush administration

"They have a very large military beholden to a small number of ideologues in a pseudo-democracy, an ideology that has fundie paranoia at its core..."

[nolabels]

97. I really don't think that country, Iran, would be imagining anything

Seems to me there be quite a long history of MANY countries trying go in there and control their oil resources. And before that many an army trampling through the region for sundry of reasons as far back as history . Really not much different than the evolution of a plant species becoming bitter and poisonous in an effort to discourage the herbivores

[formercia]

4. Big trouble for attacking aircraft.

http://www.defense-update.com/products/t/tor.htm



Tor M1 9M330 Air Defense System
(Russia)

Tor M1 air defense short range missile systemThe TOR-M1 surface-to-air missile system is a mobile, integrated air defense system, designed for operation at medium-, low- and very low –altitudes, against fixed/rotary wing aircraft, UAVs, guided missiles and precision weapon. The system is capable of operating in an intensive aerial jamming environment. The system is comprised of a number of missile Transporter Launcher Vehicle (TLV). A Russian air defense Tor battalion consists of 3 - 5 companies, each equipped with four TLVs. Each TLV is equipped with 8 ready to launch missiles, associating radars, fire control systems and a battery command post. The combat vehicle can operate autonomously, firing from stationary positions or on the move. Set-up time is rated at 3 minutes and typical reaction time, from target detection to missile launch is 5-8 seconds. Reaction time could range from 3.4 seconds for stationary positions to 10 seconds while on the move. Each fire unit can engage and launch missiles against two separate targets.

[Solo_in_MD]

5. Not as bad as you might think

ASPJ, ECM, ARMs, decoys etc really do impact performance of SAM systems. Then there is the training question. SAM operators are like sonar operators. It takes a fair amount of experience to get good at it.

I would doubt that even if they have arrived in Iran they would be set up and functional in an IADS within 6 months. Also question how good the crews will be, unless they are native Russian speakers.

[formercia]

6. Russian 'trainers'

much like the Russian fighter pilots that flew for the North Vietnamese. The Iranians are pretty sharp and would come up to speed within a Year, but you're right about the skill level needed to work in an intense EW environment.
I would bet the Iranian crews have been training in Russia for a while now.

[Barrett808]

14. I don't think there's any system that can defeat F-117 ECM

That sh*t is so sophisticated it's almost like Star Trek technology.

[Lost4words]

19. You have been reading the manufacturers lit havent you?

[rinsd]

21. So Russian claims on effectiveness are more trustworthy?

For a weapon system they just sold?

[Lost4words]

25. Who ever said that, and who is talking to you?

If anything I would be skeptical about any manufacturers claim or Governments claim for that matter.

Its hard to get funding for these projects if any flaws or weakness are mentioned. Its called SELLING!

[rinsd]

30. Educate thyself

There's plenty of info out there on the various weaknesses of various combat systems.

Instead of making some snide remark about someone's gullibility in believing hype just do the research.

[Orsino]

93. "Write him a check for forty-two million tumtums..."

http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/IngPat.shtml

No, I don't believe that Russian ECCM/radar will successfully defend against Stealth attacks, but it is frightening to see which side of the coming war Russia is betting on.

[Barrett808]

22. Nah, I've just had a few conversations with people in the know

I came away from those very impressed.

[Lost4words]

20. They said the same about the wild weasel F4

[rinsd]

23. That was not the design of the F-4

The F-4 was not designed as a ECM or stealthy aircraft. It was bait.

They would fly ahead of the bombers/fighter-bombers getting SAM sites to paint and launch at them then counterattack with anti-radiation missiles.

[Lost4words]

26. I stand corrected, I havent spent my life following such matters.

I'll leave that to you.

[rinsd]

33. Ooo a condescending comment.

You got nailed for talking about things you weren't even remotely familiar with.

I am no expert but I knew the basics and simply read up on what I thought to be true.

Is that so freaking hard? To actually verify something technical before opening one's mouth about it?

[Lost4words]

40. Geeze ,you made your point, no more beatings please.

enough already.

[Lost4words]

35. I have more posts on this thread if you like.

I know little about aircraft and less about military systems but I would be willing to bet that a Phantom could fly the triangle off an F117. And a damn site better looking as well. I am sure the new shit could target the F4 miles away and score a hit and I guess (know) thats what it is all about.

In Time they will eliminate the pilot all together, it has already started.

All this fantastic technology designed to Kill and Destroy. But if our planet looses the ability to sustain us what will we have to relay on then? What will an F117 do for us then?

I am out of my element on this thread so I will excuse myself.


But my best analogy was the British Army and Navy thought the colonists could not stand against the might of the crown. And we kicked their asses with desire and squirrel guns. That kind of hubris (we cant be beat) will get you every time.

[rinsd]

38. The revolutionary war was not that simple.

"But my best analogy was the British Army and Navy thought the colonists could not stand against the might of the crown."

Occupational army vs. battle army. See War of 1812 when the Brits kicked the crap out of us.

"And we kicked their asses with desire and squirrel guns."

They kicked our asses for years. The revolutionary war wasn't won at Lexington or Trenton. It was years of the Americans getting their asses kicked while they learned to be a modern army. Shortly before the French Navy stepped in to assist is when the American army began to turn the tide.

[Lost4words]

43. You are a Military kind of guy arent you?

I dont know why but I get that impression. Sorry I stepped on your tail.

I thought my analogy to the revolutionary war against the British was a fairly good one. My point was that even if ,as you state correctly, the Revolutionary war was protracted we won against THE GREATEST MILITARY POWER on earth at the time. To the shock of the british and their military experts. Thank God for the French and their help as well.

Best of Luck to you!
Later Comrade

[martymar64]

61. I come from a military family

However, I didn't comment about the American Revolution analogy, which I see as merely another theater of the Anglo-French War that started with the 100 Years War and pretty much ended with Napoleon Bonaparte. I am a student of history and history points to many instances of overextension by empires, from the Peloponnesian War and the Greco-Persian War and Alexander's foray into India all the way to Dien Bien Phu, Stalingrad, and the Suez crisis.
When an indigenous culture is faced with the choice between siding with domestic foes and foreign foes, the domestic foes will unite against the foreign foes almost every time.

[Lost4words]

63. I'll bite, What is your point? I didnt respond to you. I think you are mistaken.

But thanks so much for your opinion.

8643

[martymar64]

71. The point is . .

that we as a nation shouldn't be so gung-ho about our supposed invincibility. Other nations have fallen into this trap only to discover that they can be defeated, case in point, the Third Reich. We may have a technologically advanced military, but the term "shit happens" sometimes applies. Unintended events and consequences could render all of our plans useless. Without our Navy sitting in the Persian Gulf, our position in the region would be untenable. Supplying the land forces would become much more difficult, and as Napoleon said, an army marches on it's stomach. We could resort to nuclear weapons, but once that happens, things could escalate beyond our control, bringing in possibly Russia and China. Then all bets are off.

And BTW, you sent your response to my post. If you're responding to someone else's post, then please press the correct buttons.

[Zhade]

75. I think you two are sane and on the same page.

NT!

[Lost4words]

79. Yes

[Lost4words]

78. If you check my post #43 is a reply to #38 you did not post #38!

I am not for escalation, and I did hit the correct buttons I am against this war totally and have been from the start I am not a hawk! recheck you are in error addressing your post to me, sorry.

you replyed to my post which wasnt addressed to you! really,, recheck.

:hi:

[anotherdrew]

55. civilian cell phone towers permit location of f-117's just fine

it's a several years old revelation now.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

67. Well, there's always obsolete Soviet SAMs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-117#Combat_losses

So if by Star Trek you mean that campy 60's sci-fi show with the silly special effects, you might be right.

[jpak]

8. Bigger trouble for cruise missiles....

n/t

[MGD]

7. Those will do little to no good against the F-22, F-35, F-117, or the B-2.

what's more, the minute they turn their radar on, they'll get a HARM missile flown into their position.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-88_HARM

[formercia]

9. They will do what the Yugoslavs did

use a bunch of cheap microwave ovens as decoys.

[MGD]

12. Decoys didn't do them much good although that was ingenious of them

We still have highly advanced ECMs too when it gets right down to it.

[Lost4words]

18. Gung Ho Dude, bring it on.

And the British couldnt be defeated by bands of gorillas in the colonies. That is in effect what you are saying. The British had the greatest Army and Navy at the time, who would think a bunch of colonists with flint lock squirrel guns could stop the greatest power in the world.



If there were a world war the Russian could deploy their satellite killer satellites and with no global communication most of this Hi-tech gear would be worthless. And it would come down to who is defending their home and how many are there.

There is no TOTAL defense, ever.

[SteppingRazor]

24. Whoa! The British went to war with apes?!

I had no idea! :silly:

[IA_Seth]

45. dude, you should see giraffe warfare, its even worse!!11! n/t

[formercia]

52. I don't know about apes

but the British Colonial Empire is scattered with graves of Pommies that never made it home. A few became wealthy but it cost more to defend the Empire than they ever made in commercial profits. Bush Gang should have studied History.

Fearless Leader was a History major, but then the frat rats used cheat sheets.

[Lost4words]

17. Yea and our military is headed by the best and brightest.

You just hold on to that thought as long as you can.

The F117 is a joke BTW. They aint makin no more wobblin gobblins!

[rinsd]

28. "The F117 is a joke BTW."

By what standard?

A new non combat-tested anti-air system is gonna shred our air groups but a combat proven fighter-bomber with all of one or two combat losses in nearly 20 years of service and thousands of combat sorties is a joke?

Its being replaced by the F-22 (or more likely the JSF) as the military continues to search for a one size fits all aircraft.

[MGD]

29. Your really do hate America , don't you?

"The F117 is a joke BTW."
It worked just fine a few years ago when it was the only aircraft able to penetrate the airspace of downtown Bagdad where it flawlessly delivered bombs on target despite the wide assortment of anti-aircraft weapons arrayed against it and other coalition aircraft there. Hardly a "joke", the F-117 would work just fine over Iran as would the B-2.

"They aint makin no more wobblin gobblins!"
Nope, but they are making the F-22 and the F-35 and the F-117 is still capable enough until those sytems go fully operational as evidenced by the F-117s near perfect performance record. Then there's the B-2 which is also stealthy of course and possesses a perfect performance record and, once their air defense net is destroyed by stealth planes, there's the the B-52 and the AC-130 as well as every other fighter/bomber in our inventory as well as the tomahawk cruise missile and who knows how many satellites in outer space.

[raysr]

31. Wow, we've got hawks in our midst!

[krispos42]

44. The joys of the big tent

You get ALL the opinions! :-)

This is further proof that, as Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (R) put it...

"...tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to Vermont, where it belongs.

is a myth.

California scares me, I eat meat and potatoes, I like leather, play first-person shootershate sushi, drink diet cola, drive a union-made Oldsmobile, and own guns. And there a lot of Democrats like me out there. Just check out the Gungeon one day to see.

[Zhade]

74. Why does California scare you? Too liberal and too many gays like me?

What could possibly scare you about my state?

[krispos42]

77. Not too many gays, that's for sure

Riots, wildfires, mudslides, earthquakes, pollution (air should be transparent, thank you very much), taxes, traffic, Schwarzenegger as governor(!), and crime all come to mind.

And no snow, unless you're in the mountains someplace. Damn, that's just wrong. It should at least be nippy with the Christmas lights up! :-)

And with global warming coming, the Central Valley may soon become the Central Sea again.

I'm not a beach bum, so being on the shore is not a factor. I'm not a sun-worshipper, so being sunny and warm year round is not an issue either. I don't usually partake of cultural events, so not being by an major arts & culture section doesn't bother me. And I don't do expensive cuisine, so fine dining is lost on my palate as well. I mean, face it, I'm happy with a movie and dinner at Granite City Brewery or Chili's. Or maybe Buffalo Wild Wings.

People pay big bucks to live by or in a city so they can do those activities. I'm disinclined (not to mention unable) to buy a small house for close to a million dollars for the privilage of living in a traffic jam while breathing brown air WHEN I would take zero advantage of the benefits of living there.

It would be different if I were a different person, like a Hollywood exec or a health nut or a big-time lawyer or businessman or art dealer or whatever, where you put up with the increased costs for the positives. But I am but a humble night-shift machine operator with modest aspirations of one day finishing my degree, and I can do that just as easily here in the Cities.

And the 4°F it is here just keeps the state from getting crowded! :-)

I worry about gays about as much as I worry about mice eating too much garlic.

[Zhade]

84. A little too into stereotypes, but otherwise a sound explanation!

NT!

[krispos42]

98. Thank you

I thought ranting against vegans, über-environmentalists, mystics, and the fung shwei (sp?) people would be stupid, unfair, and trite. Although to be fair, the residents of Greater Minnesota do kind of live up to stereotype. Not Fargo, but you get the idea. I was tuned into a local sports station and they were talking about the Minnesota Wild NHL team. I actually heard one of the guys refer to Wayne Gretzky as "The Great One", and his co-host went "Oh, you betcha." :-)

The vegan treehugging California stereotype has been way overplayed. Although the freeway chases are cool! I just happen to side with Lewis Black on this one.

[Lost4words]

46. A piper cub could have penitrated Bagdar airspace warboy!

[Sapere aude]

50. I remember the B-52s that got hit with SAMS in Hanoi and Haiphong. You think Russia has improved

their anti missiles any since the 70's? You think they learned how to defend against stealth weapons? You think Iran is a third rate nation with no military? You think fighting them will be easier than fighting Iraqi insurgents? You think the world is going to roll over and support anything Bush does? What do you think?

[martymar64]

51. You bring up cruise missiles

I'm no expert so bear with me. Some of the planes and the cruise missiles are launched from ship, right? These ships, missile cruisers and aircraft cariers are based in the Persian Gulf, correct? Isn't it also correct that Iran now has quite a few Sunburn, Yakhonts, and Exocet anti-ship missile mobile batteries located throughout the mountains on the Persian Gulf coast of Iran? The use of subsonic Exocets were demonstrated in the Falklands War when five Exocets fired managed to sink two British warships. The SUPERsonic Sunburns and Yakhonts have yet to be used in battle.
Now it has been widely attributed that at present, there are no effective countermeasures to the Sunburn or Yakhonts missiles, they were specifically designed to nullify the Aegis and Phalanx anti-missile systems.
With that information in mind, what would prevent Iran, in response to an attack from the US, from using these missiles to sink our ships in the Persian Gulf, causing massive loss of life and preventing the launch of planes and cruise missiles from these ships, and also disrupting the supply line that these ships represent to our troops in Iraq? These missiles could also sink a tanker or two in the Straits of Hormuz, preventing any warships from being able to escape along with preventing the flow of oil from all of the nations in the Gulf. The elimination of those ships in the Gulf could prove to be a crucial turning point in the war for our side on the scale of the Russian counterattack at Stalingrad.
Again, I'm no expert, but I can put two and two together.

[MGD]

57. The sunburn scenario has already been wargamed to death around here.

Last I knew, the final determination was that our carrier groups could stay out of range and still succesfully launch air attacks until the strategic objectives are met i.e. destroying nuclear capabilities. Furthermore, we have plenty of land based airfields surrounding Iran right now. The Sunburn and the Exocet will do nothing against these.

[martymar64]

87. If carriers are in the Persian Gulf, they are within range.

Out in the Indian Ocean, then probably not.

[martymar64]

88. As for "wargamed to death"

Please provide me a link from a bona-fide expert and not just a post with someone's opinion that PROVES that Sunburns and/or Exocets would be useless. I'll look at it.

[Pavulon]

90. That System was our DRONE (link)

Was initially designed as a joint project with US and Russian defense contractors. Its purpose, a drone to test weapon systems. You understand that means we designed it to blow up with our weapon systems.

Dont read rense read janes defense. Here is a link

http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/russia/delivry/zvezda.htm

The Russian missile's victory led to some criticism of the deal on the grounds that the US government was subsidizing the Russian defense industry. Additional complications were caused by the US desire to extend the range of the missile, which required additional development work.<9> In spite of these complications, the first batch of four missiles that was used up in the testing was followed by a second batch of nine, and Boeing wanted to sign a third, longer-term contract to procure MA-31s in October 1998. Under that contract Boeing would purchase 20-50 missiles a year for five years. Final conversion work, which included installing telemetry and other specialized apparatus, would be done at the Boeing facility in St. Louis.<10> Zvezda-Strela's general director claimed that it could deliver up to 65 Kh-31 missiles per year, if required.<11>

[martymar64]

99. I read the article

It said nothing about the effectiveness of US countermeasures, only about procurement attempts , and it is NOT the Sunburn.
From your article the following quote:

"In the mid-to-late 1990s Zvezda-Strela took part in an abortive cooperative venture with McDonnell-Douglas (later Boeing) to produce a supersonic cruise missile target for the US Navy. After an attempt to procure 3M80 Moskit missiles from NPO Raduga failed due to Russian insistence that missiles could be sold only as part of a deal also involving Sovremennyy-class destroyers . . ."


Additionally, much has been said about our Defense industry modifying drone to make them EASIER to intercept by our anti-missile systems, ala Star Wars. Some companies will do anything to get those big fat defense contracts, even cheat.

We've discussed this before and you didn't convince me then and you don't convince me now.

Nice try though.

[MGD]

104. You answered your own question already marty.

Accepting the fact that we are not confident in our countermeasures against the Sunburn, we can still conduct Naval air operations from standoff distances outside the immediate gulf region. This forces the Iranians to launch their antiship missiles from an airborn platofrm which means they have to penetrate the airspace perimiter of a carrier group and that's easier said than done; furthermore, I never said the Sunburn was useless. It would certainly have an impact on the battle plam but I don't believe a single missile is going to define the eventual outcome of the battle especially since we have plenty of land based airfields from which to conduct air operations against Iran. Anti-shipping missiles will, in fact, be useless against land based assets and infrastructure.

[Mika]

80. Check out the documentary "Why We Fight", and you'll see that..

.. the F-117 precision strikes were anything but.

[MGD]

105. I don't think the argument revolves around the F-117's bombing precision and accuracy

but, rather, around its stealth capabilities and its overall combat effectiveness. It is my contention that this plane has served us very well in many conflicts and has proved its overall worth beyond argument. furthermore, for being the first of its kind, it has served us quite well.

[MessiahRp]

10. Well Iran is a soveriegn country and if we continue to threaten, invade and attack those

they have every right to stockpile on defense weapons.

We're *giving* them the reason to obtain weapons that they wouldn't otherwise have a reason to obtain.

Rp

[MGD]

13. Iran is a rogue nation pursuing nuclear weapons technology in violation of UNR 1737

"We" aren't giving "them" reason to do anything, they are giving us the reason.

[Lost4words]

16. Maybe they are just trying to have a defence from a rouge nation, yes/no?

[raysr]

27. By parking all those war ships off their

coast isn't giving a reason to build up their defense???? What about * statements?

[MGD]

39. Those war ships are supporting operations in Iraq and haven't bothered Iran...yet

"What about * statements?"
What * statements?
spelling

[Spazito]

32. Can I assume from your post that you are in favor of an attack

by the US and/or Israel, be it by air or ground?

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MGD]

37. Feel free to ignore me if it bothers you but please dispense with the flame bait.

If you have anything relevant to the topic to discuss, feel free to share it; however, if this is the extent of your debate, we're through talking.

[Lost4words]

48. ThankYou

I thought it was me. Needless to say I have made good use of the extended Ignore functions recently.

out of here

[benEzra]

69. All I saw upthread was correction of some uninformed statements

I can't believe I'm hearing this shit on DU, with your knowledge of weapon systems and your underlying zeal for an attack on Iran, you should be posting on freeptown, they'd really like you.(MGD)

All I saw upthread was correction of some seriously uninformed statements about various U.S. aircraft and avionics systems. Yes, the newest U.S. air assets could take an Iranian air-defense system apart. That doesn't mean attacking Iran would be wise, or that anyone making such a statement supports an attack on Iran. It's like pointing out that U.S. submarines are better than Iranian ASW, or that our missiles are more accurate than theirs. All true, and all almost completely irrelevant to whether attacking Iran would be a good idea or a bad one.

[Lost4words]

101. Please you have me confused with either MGD risind or some other poster

I have NO zeal for War, war equipment or violence. I am 8643 I am a liberal democrat I hate war, I hate war profiters.

Wars kill the little people in the middle not those who start them.

I personally would rather DIE myself than take the life of another for no reason.


There IS NO JUSTIFICATION for murder.


Nor was I seriously uninformed with my reply regrading the F4 wild weasel which did utilize ECM (electronic counter measures)ECM is more than target setting or getting.

During bombing raids over Germany B-17s would drop chaff ( shredded aluminum cans) to confuse the Germans radar, that in effect was an ECM (electronic counter measure).

I dont believe in technologies ability in every situation as do the ones I replied to on this thread.

I an getting pretty tired of defending myself against 2 or 3 gung ho war boys and their glorious war toys and the hubris that makes them think we are invincible.

I sited an example ot when might did not work and there are many more examples.

So please dont confuse me with the HAWKS OK!

8643 had a chance to play war, NAM was my time and I got pretty close, But Canada was only a few 100 miles away and much more likly to see me than Hanoi.

My Father served in the Army Air Core, Pacific theater, during WWII and I have the greatest pride in that fact. But there hasnt been a declared war since then.

You may call me stupid, and you might be correct, but you cant call me a hawk.

8643 edit spelling

[Sapere aude]

41. You know that for sure? Also why did we live with Russia and China as nuclear powers?

I have not seen evidence of Iran's nuclear desires. I have only heard this administration and they constantly lie to us so I don't accept them as a source. We have lived with other nuclear powers before. We negotiate treaties and make sure that to use nuclear force means the destruction of yourself. There is no need to go to war over this and besides the reasons give to attack Iran are a cover for PNAC just as the lies about Iraq were. Most importantly, Iran is a military power. We could not defeat Iraqis and Vietnamese and I doubt that we could defeat Iran. We will be thrust into a hell that none of us can imagine if we let Bush have his way.

If we were in Iran's position and the U.S. was threatening us we would arm ourselves to. Why is that such a stretch to understand why Iran is arming itself against U.S. imperialism?
So there!

[MessiahRp]

42. Hmmm... let's see

We sent ships there to provoke them and have constantly used rhetoric to put them on the defensive. We invaded their neighbor without consent of the UN and deposed said neighbor's government based on lies. After said invasion we destabilized the region and helped stoke the fire of a sectarian civil war that may cross Iran's borders.

We have sent their neighbors and rebels weapons in the past to depose their government because we disagree with them and have helped run coups that forced changes in leadership in Iran.

Oh and all of this while we refuse to reduce the insane amount of Nukes our country chooses to harbor.

Yeah, we should be pissed at them for choosing to defend themselves. :eyes:

Rp

[0007]

83. ....and we must not talk to Iran, because they are evil, and

incorrigible. Iran also talks to that evil Cuban dictator l and is head over heals in love with Hugo Chavez.

[The Stranger]

54. Oh please -- the U.S. seized their consulate, which is an act of war.

Try to think at least a little critically when swimming through the psy-ops and propaganda.

[MGD]

58. Iran shouldn't have been harboring terrorists within their embassy I guess.

It will be interesting to see what happens when a Democrat is elected President. It will be fun watching all the back peddling on the bullshit like this bearing in mind that the last Democratic President used his war powers more than any other President before him. He committed acts of war against no less than 8 countries and fought two countries simultaneously in 1999 (Iraq and Kosovo). He also very nearly started a second Korean war and he authorized covert military ops in Columbia. You really should consider the true and complete history of the Democratic party before you start speaking for us all.

"Try to think at least a little critically when swimming through the psy-ops and propaganda."
I could make the same argument to you.

[Zhade]

73. Just making this up as you go along, eh?

I'm sure you have evidence to support your "terrorist" mimicry of the administration, right?

(Here's a hint: FOX News doesn't count.)

[The Stranger]

82. The post was about the U.S.'s attack on an Iranian consulate, not the history of

U.S. presidents. The U.S. also parked enough Navy ships to blow half of Asia off the map just in Iran's front yard, called it (as an entire nation) "evil" (which sounds like a fucking four year old), and has salivating semi-transparent Neo-Nazis on television every night calling for war with Iran. Who in the fuck is provoking whom?

And the use of "harboring terrorists" is laughable. Clearly, posters here see through the "terrorism" construction, newspeak, and all it connotes. Try to do the same.

[Solo_in_MD]

66. I've read several pieces that claim it was not accredited as a consulate

and the furor seems to have died down about it...don't know whom to believe about it.

[The Stranger]

81. If it was "accredited" by Iran, I think it suffices, as it is their consulate.

Unless Junior and the Neocon junta have to be the decider on what countries' consulates are "accredited" now.

. . . don't know whom to believe about it.

Well, then believe the Neocon propaganda?

[Pavulon]

91. De ja vu...

I find the act funny in a history repeats kind of way. Maybe they can trade , well they oil for terrorists to get their people back.

(this is a humor oriented post)

[Megahurtz]

94. And not only that

but the U.S. has their own Nuclear Arsenal. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zhade]

85. Show ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE to back that up.

Otherwise, you're MAKING it up.

[SOS]

86. 1737 is a Chapter 7 Article 41 resolution which bars military action.

Should US warships be off the coast of North Korea in regard to UNSC resolution 1718, also under Article 41?

[Lost4words]

15. What are the GPS #'s for the pig farm?

:evilgrin: 8643

[rinsd]

47. 8643. why block my responses to your reponses.

If you want to put me on ignore feel free to do so but to block my responses is bullshit.

[Megahurtz]

53. That is exactly why

I for one am not in favor of "The New Revamped Ignore Mode".

[rinsd]

56. Its not the feature per se but the usage.

I could see using it for chronic battlers but to do so right in the middle of a conversation stinks.

[Megahurtz]

59. Yes, this is how the feature gets abused.

I knew this would happen.

[rinsd]

60. Yeah but so far its one incident

With someone I've never seen post before so its not that big a deal for me.

[Lost4words]

65. What are you refering to??

What is it about Ignore that is presenting a problem for you, I trully do not understand your point.

What exactly is it, that You Knew would happen?

pls clarify

[Megahurtz]

92. Nothing about it is presenting a problem for me

in particular, I haven't been blocked out of anything, so far.
I like to see everyone's viewpoint and I am against censorship in general.
That's why I prefer the former "Ignore" mode.

I think the new "Ignore" mode has a potential for hyper-sensitive or over-zealous types
to block anyone out on a whim, just because their viewpoint is different than another's.

It just feels too controlling to me.

[Lost4words]

64. Good for you, Send your objections to the admin. I love it!

:loveya:

[MGD]

62. He did it to me too right after making a snide ad hominem. I of course reciprocated.

Who really gives a fuck anyways?

[superconnected]

68. Well, he didn't do it to me, but I'm still putting him on ignore

for it.

Thanks for pointing out what he does.

[rinsd]

49. This is even more disturbing

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16648850/

Iran gets military gear in Pentagon surplus sale
Sensitive weapon, F-14 parts surprisingly easy to acquire at auctions

Updated: 9:36 a.m. PT Jan 16, 2007
WASHINGTON - The U.S. military has sold forbidden equipment at least a half-dozen times to middlemen for countries — including Iran and China — who exploited security flaws in the Defense Department’s surplus auctions. The sales include fighter jet parts and missile components.

In one case, federal investigators said, the contraband made it to Iran, a country President Bush branded part of an “axis of evil.”

In that instance, a Pakistani arms broker convicted of exporting U.S. missile parts to Iran resumed business after his release from prison. He purchased Chinook helicopter engine parts for Iran from a U.S. company that had bought them in a Pentagon surplus sale. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, speaking on condition of anonymity, say those parts made it to Iran.

[oblivious]

89. OK, say the US attacked Iran. What would they actually bomb?

The IAEA, which is still carrying out inspections, has been able to find no evidence of non-peaceful use of nuclear research or facilities. So there would be no point in bombing existing facilities.

If the US or Israel knew of other secret facilities, surely they would have told the IAEA and inspectors would have demanded access. So there would be no point in bombing suspected facilities before the IAEA had had a chance to inspect them.

There would be no point in bombing the uranium enrichment facilities, because it is the knowledge that is dangerous. Iran could set up new facilities very quickly after a bombing, this time with no NPT safeguards. The scientists with the knowledge would be unlikely to sit around in the enrichment plant knowing bunker buster bombs were on their way.

So I would like to know what the point would be of a massive bomb/missile attack.

And I would like to hear a reporter ask Bush that on camera.

The question is rhetorical, since I know very well it's about OIL.

[raebrek]

95. My two cents worth

The US has the most training against the equipment made by the former Soviet Union. We did that training for years. I believe the new smaller Russia can't really afford to make a lot of new high tech stuff while in a poor economy. To me that means it is still old stuff for Iran. Stuff we know. Now the stuff the French make may not be the greatest in anti aircraft or anti ship but it is far less known to the US. In the long run maybe the better deal if Iran is worried about the US.

[TheLastMohican]

96. A very misguided assessment

The USAF never flew against multi-layered AA defense saturated with S-300 and TOR-1Ms.
You can't simulate that no matter how hard you try. The only thing left now is to pray the cowboy doesn't decide to embark on another stupidity.

[Lost4words]

103. Common sence is refreshing. thanks TheLastMohican!

[Lost4words]

102. Im not gonna bother, outta this thread for ever.