'US is within our firing range'

[Goobieman]

'US is within our firing range'
09/02/2007 13:58 - (SA)
Tehran - A top Iranian cleric said on Friday the United States was within Iran's "firing range", a day after supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed to hit back at US interests worldwide if attacked.

"Americans have surrounded us but it works to our advantage. They are within our firing range in the east, west and elsewhere," Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati said in his Friday prayer sermon carried live on state radio.

'US is within our firing range': World: News: News24

And they say we dont -need- a NMD :roll:

 

[Just Me 2]

Perhaps Iran should worry a bit more since it has been PROVEN they are helping the insurgents in Iraq.

 

[niftydrifty]

And they say we dont -need- a NMD

Who's "they?"

 

[Goobieman]

Who's "they?"

Anyone that argues:
-Country X will never send a missle our way because we'll obliterate them
-Country send a missle, they'll give it to terrorists
-Missiles (in general) arent the threat, terrorists with nukes are the threat

There are numerous people here on this board, that hold these position, as any reading of any related topic on this board will show.

And, of course, there are also the pundits from which these people got their ideas to that effect.

 

[niftydrifty]

well, they may be wrong. we might just need it, now. the best NMD would be an administration that takes diplomacy seriously.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Deterrance via bigger and more accurate arsenals only works with rational enemies who prefer life to be being obliterated. That does not apply to extreme militant Islamofacists who think the highest glory is in dying for their cause. Iran's leadership falls pretty well into that group.

I just hope we or somebody is overtly or covertly negotiating with Israel on the time and method to take out Iran's nukes.

 

[Goobieman]

well, they may be wrong. we might just need it, now. the best NMD would be an administration that takes diplomacy seriously.

Diplomacy doesnt stop mssiles once they are launched, so I'll just take your post to that effect as yet another mindless stab at the Bush administration.

 

[DivineComedy]

Who's "they?"

I have been asking for an honest answer as to who the pronouns are for years, ever since the day after October 29, 2001, and I can’t get an honest answer as to who the magical “they” are, and later on I even found more pronouns that I would like to know who they are:

1997: “Those who desire to face up to the Zionists conspiracies, intransigence, and aggressiveness must proceed towards the advance centers of capabilities in the greater Arab homeland and to the centers of the knowledge, honesty and sincerity with whole heartiness if the aim was to implement a serious plan to save others from their dilemma or to rely on those capable centers; well-known for their positions regarding the enemy, to gain precise concessions from it with justified maneuvers even if such centers including Baghdad not in agreement with those concerned, over the objectives and aims of the required maneuvers." (On the 29th anniversary of Iraq’s national day (the 17th of July 1968 revolution). President Saddam Hussein made an important comprehensive and nation wide address) President Saddam's speech on July 17 1997

“On the basis of what we said about Iraq while confronting aggressions, the world now needs to abort the US aggressive schemes, including its aggression on the Afghan people, which must stop.
Again we say that when someone feels that he is unjustly treated, and no one is repulsing or stopping the injustice inflicted on him, he personally seeks ways and means for lifting that justice. Of course, not everyone is capable of finding the best way for lifting the injustice inflicted on him. People resort to what they think is the best way according to their own ideas, and they are not all capable of reaching out for what is beyond what is available to arrive to the best idea or means.
To find the best way, after having found their way to God and His rights, those who are inflicted by injustice need not to be isolated from their natural milieu, or be ignored deliberately, or as a result of mis-appreciation, by the officials in this milieu. They should, rather, be reassured and helped to save themselves, and their surroundings.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

Can you help me get some honest answers?

*****

As to this topic I would just like to say:

“Do unto all men as you would wish to have done unto you; and reject for others what you would reject for yourself."

"None of you [truely] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself."
An-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths: ISNA.net

Do the Iranian black stone idolaters want us believers to mindlessly chant:

Death to Iran
Death to Iran
Death to Iran?

 

[Doremus Jessup]

'US is within our firing range': World: News: News24

And they say we dont -need- a NMD :roll:

This was the next paragraph, I think you may have overlooked it:

He was referring to the US military presence in neighbouring Iraq and Afghanistan as well as in the Gulf waters off southern Iran.

How would a National Missile Defense stop this?

"The smoking gun may be in the form of a mushroom cloud." Some people didn't believe the sh!t last time around. :doh :2wave:

 

[Goobieman]

This was the next paragraph, I think you may have overlooked it:
How would a National Missile Defense stop this?

Yer right -- I did overlook that.

But, given that they are planning to launch their own satellites in the immediate future, it doesnt really matter -- if you can put a satellite in orbit, you can put a nuke into an ICBM and drop it onto US soil.
Iran plans satellite launch, magazine reports - CNN.com

 

[Gibberish]

What here is not obvious information? Are we supposed to be surprised Iran is on the defensive and saying they have the power to defend themselves if attacked?

It would be suicidal of Iran to attack the US directly. I highly doubt they will do such. They will keep playing the politics game and supplying those that are attacking American soldiers, if we could control the country we spun into anarchy then there wouldn't be this problem in the first place.

 

[Goobieman]

It would be suicidal of Iran to attack the US directly. I highly doubt they will do such.

Dunno about you, but I dont see any reason to make that assumption.
It would be just as suicidal for them to attack Israel -- do you really think they wont?

 

[Kelzie]

What here is not obvious information? Are we supposed to be surprised Iran is on the defensive and saying they have the power to defend themselves if attacked?

It would be suicidal of Iran to attack the US directly. I highly doubt they will do such. They will keep playing the politics game and supplying those that are attacking American soldiers, if we could control the country we spun into anarchy then there wouldn't be this problem in the first place.

Which would be sound logic most of the time, given most civilizations. However, fundamental Islamists has shown themselves most willing to die for their cause. And that's who is controlling Iran.

 

[Gibberish]

Dunno about you, but I dont see any reason to make that assumption.
It would be just as suicidal for them to attack Israel -- do you really think they wont?

No I don't, at least not in their current state. They need to be prepared militarily and have strong allies to pull anything thing of the sort off without being another Iraq. Though no one can be for certain since Iran's military capabilities is widely unknown.

Though the leaders of Iran seem aggressive they are power hungry and greedy and I personally doubt they are so quick to give that up.

 

[Gibberish]

Which would be sound logic most of the time, given most civilizations. However, fundamental Islamists has shown themselves most willing to die for their cause. And that's who is controlling Iran.

Yes they are that but they are also greedy and power hungry. People such as this tend to not give up their power and money so lightly. I will agree they will ahve no problem sending the citizens of Iran to their deaths but they will not do such without first securing their safety and current lifestyle.

 

[Goobieman]

No I don't, at least not in their current state. They need to be prepared militarily and have strong allies to pull anything thing of the sort off without being another Iraq. Though no one can be for certain since Iran's military capabilities is widely unknown.

I'm not sure what the consensus is on a time line, but it wont be long before they have nuclear weapons and the ability ti deliver them by missile potentially anywhere in the world. That's all the 'prepatation' they need if their goal is to immolate the infidels.

And there isnt any reason to think that's not their goal.

So, I vote to not take the chance that they'll act rationally and make sure we have the ability to shoot down their missiles.

All in favor?
Opposed?

 

[BudLizard101]

No I don't, at least not in their current state.

How many times has Tehran said they will wipe Israel off the map? Last time someone said they wanted to eradicate the Jews, the world didn't listen and the Holocaust happened. Is the world to repeat the mistake again?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Yes they are that but they are also greedy and power hungry. People such as this tend to not give up their power and money so lightly. I will agree they will ahve no problem sending the citizens of Iran to their deaths but they will not do such without first securing their safety and current lifestyle.

Don't be so sure. People who base their values on irrational criteria are not generally given to using rational criteria when risking their fortunes and/or their lives. And they could rationally conclude that the impotence of the U.N., the capitulation of the Israelis to national opinion, and the general lack of will to win on the part of the Americans would play into their hands. They could easily believe that a couple of well placed nuclear bombs, etc. would frighten everybody into submissions and would give them complete control.

Look even at the much publicized and heralded television program "24" this season. The USA was more than willing to hand over their best agent in a negotiation with terrorists rather than try to defeat the terrorists. And given our track record lately, why would Iran think that was not real?

 

[Gibberish]

I'm not sure what the consensus is on a time line, but it wont be long before they have nuclear weapons and the ability ti deliver them by missile potentially anywhere in the world. That's all the 'prepatation' they need if their goal is to immolate the infidels.

And there isnt any reason to think that's not their goal.

So, I vote to not take the chance that they'll act rationally and make sure we have the ability to shoot down their missiles.

I have to agree we should be proactive. I do belief we should not make any type of aggression until Iraq under control.

I guess I am merely hoping that their leaders lust for greed and power will over come their lust for death of their enemies and at the same time are intelligent enough to see that any attack on the US or our allies will result in their death or imprisonment.

 

[Gibberish]

How many times has Tehran said they will wipe Israel off the map? Last time someone said they wanted to eradicate the Jews, the world didn't listen and the Holocaust happened. Is the world to repeat the mistake again?

Hitler wanted to rule the world and killed more then just Jews.

Is the world to attack everyone that makes verbal attacks? The Jewish population has been at war for thousands of years with one group or another wishing to annihilate them. The elimination of Iran will not stop this. We should not let Iran attempt it either.

In the case for Israel's safety the best offensive is a strong defensive.

 

[jallman]

Which would be sound logic most of the time, given most civilizations. However, fundamental Islamists has shown themselves most willing to die for their cause. And that's who is controlling Iran.

I don't think enough people care to realize that these radicals have proven themselves to be unstable, volatile, and irrational in their hatred of the free world. They strap bombs to their own bodies and blow themselves up like lemmings just to kill a few innocents. In case some of you people didn't get that the first time, let me repeat THEY BLOW THEMSELVES UP JUST TO HURT OTHERS!!!

Now, you tell me that a society that creates that kind of dysfunction can be trusted to show sound logic on a global scale. I'm not buying it.

In any event, in the interest of freedom and democracy, an irresponsible government like that should be removed before they harm more than just themselves and the a handful of others. These people could do serious harm on a global scale and would without hesitation if they were allowed.

 

[BudLizard101]

Hitler wanted to rule the world and killed more then just Jews.

Is the world to attack everyone that makes verbal attacks? The Jewish population has been at war for thousands of years with one group or another wishing to annihilate them. The elimination of Iran will not stop this. We should not let Iran attempt it either.

In the case for Israel's safety the best offensive is a strong defensive.

"As WorldNetDaily reported in January, Ahmadinejad told a crowd of theological students in Iran's holy city of Qom that Islam must prepare to rule the world."
WorldNetDaily: Iranian missiles can carry nukes

So what are we supposed to do? Wait until the nuke is in the air and hope for the best? And no, the elimination of Iran will not stop this, but it'll give everyone else something to think about.

How would you go around not letting Iran attempt it? And for Israel's safety, the best defense is an amazing offense... it worked before, and trust you me, if it comes down to it, it will work again.

 

[Gibberish]

I don't think enough people care to realize that these radicals have proven themselves to be unstable, volatile, and irrational in their hatred of the free world. They strap bombs to their own bodies and blow themselves up like lemmings just to kill a few innocents. In case some of you people didn't get that the first time, let me repeat THEY BLOW THEMSELVES UP JUST TO HURT OTHERS!!!

Yes they do but these are the pawns. An attack directly on the US linked to country with government. As of now there is no direct link to the Political leaders of Iran. Yes there is evidence to support that they are responsible but no solid proof that cannot be argued.

The clerics have no problem sending pawns to blow things up and kill people. Performing a large scale attack will bring the fight directly into their lives, which I don't think it their goal. They want to annihilate Israel and the US while still surviving and maintaining control.

The Radical Islamic leaders are not on a suicide mission, they only send their pawns on them.

 

[cherokee]

I don't think enough people care to realize that these radicals have proven themselves to be unstable, volatile, and irrational in their hatred of the free world. They strap bombs to their own bodies and blow themselves up like lemmings just to kill a few innocents. In case some of you people didn't get that the first time, let me repeat THEY BLOW THEMSELVES UP JUST TO HURT OTHERS!!!

Now, you tell me that a society that creates that kind of dysfunction can be trusted to show sound logic on a global scale. I'm not buying it.

In any event, in the interest of freedom and democracy, an irresponsible government like that should be removed before they harm more than just themselves and the a handful of others. These people could do serious harm on a global scale and would without hesitation if they were allowed.

You my friend are a wise man.
No matter what volker says.......:mrgreen:

 

[Kandahar]

'US is within our firing range': World: News: News24

And they say we dont -need- a NMD :roll:

First of all, the quote that you cited is discussing Iraq and Afghanistan. Would our NMD protect Iraq and Afghanistan from missiles?

Second of all, how much time/money will it cost to establish even the most basic NMD over the continental US, that deals only with missiles that AREN'T trying to purposely evade it?

Third of all, are there no military projects where that time/money could be more efficiently spent?

Fourth of all, I already know that you're going to say that just because there are other ways we can be attacked is no reason not to defend against THIS method of attack. This is irrational for a number of reasons.

A) There are many ways to defend against OTHER methods of attack that are much more cost-effective and immediate, B) Even a fully-functional NMD is so laughably easy to circumvent that it simply isn't worth the tens of billions it would cost to implement even if we DIDN'T have other national security concerns, C) By this time this program even becomes operational, it will already be obsolete because missiles themselves are already becoming an obsolete technology for our enemies.

Finally, please tell me you aren't taking the words of some random Iranian cleric as justification for a multibillion dollar boondoggle.