Hatrack River Forum: Iran + 'Successful Missile Test' + Israel buying bunker busters = !?

This is topic Iran + 'Successful Missile Test' + Israel buying bunker busters = !? in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=027707

Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :

Iran Says It Tested 'Strategic Missile'

quote:
The report by state-run radio did not say whether the test involved the previously announced new version of the Shahab-3 rocket, capable of reaching Israel and U.S. forces stationed in the Middle East, or a different missile.

"This strategic missile was successfully test-fired during military exercises by the Revolutionary Guards and delivered to the armed forces," Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani was quoted as saying.

The exercises were held Sept. 12-18.

Shamkhani refused to give details about the missile for "security reasons," but he said Iran was "ready to confront all regional and extra-regional threats," according to the radio.

This, combined with this is rather worrisome. However, according to the article, they still insist that their nuclear program is peaceful (!?). Also in the article, Isreal is buying "5,000 smart bombs, including 500 1-ton bunker-busters".

Something else for our next president, whoever it is, to contend with.

*digs a hole, hides in it* [Angst]

--j_k

Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :

This is why I want Bush to win this time.

Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :

Digging Holes, are we talking about the same person who refused to do anything about Pakistan when they openly admitted to selling nuclear secrets to Iran among others? The same Bush who burned all his brigdes in a hurry to invade Iraq, leaving no possibility for alliances against Iran? The same president who has demonstrated a lack of willingness to seriously address nuclear proliferation?

Posted by JaimeBenlevy (Member # 6222) on :

What do you think Kerry will do that'll be any better against Iran?

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :

Yup, Dubya burned all his bridges.

Really, folks. Rhetoric about 'with us or against us' is only slightly more foolish (maybe) than rhetoric about how Bush did not get allies against Iraq.

There are only two other nations aside from the one we've got with us in Iraq (G.B.) that didn't sign on, France and Russia. I'm not counting the host of other nations either in Iraq with us or not (such as Australia, Japan, formerly Phillipines and Spain, Italy, etc.), but those two could be considered the 'big' ones-aside from China, whom no one thought would get seriously involved anyway.

French and Russian illegal business connections are just as damning if not a good deal more so for their modern and recent nature than those that members of the Bush Administration has had with Saddam Hussein. Rhetoric that disregards any less than objective reasons those two nations may have had for opting out is again as foolish and short-sighted as 'with us or against us'.

J4

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :

Iran's insistence on a "peaceful nuclear program" when coupled with an ill-defined "strategic missile system" is going to make a number of countries in the Mid-East very nervous.

What it means is the overall tension level is going to go up a notch or three.

-Trevor