Iran issues stark military warning to United States

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good Point...

"we may not know for sure who to retaliate against. Was it North Korea? Or Iran? Or Al Qaida?"

Does anyone else find it rather ironic that most of the countries we (gun-owning Americans) can't trust, are for the most part all members of the U.N.?
OR..that the U.N. hq is currently located here? Or that the U.N. could have just as easily been hit instead of the WTC?.....

Anyhow, back to the point........

IMHO, none of the countries that want to annilate us will even attempt to launch a military based operation against us...Not until we are financially and militarily inadequate...:rolleyes: ...kind of sounds like the current Iraq situation....
 
Nedrecksavant wrote:

but until they attack us out the fricken blue...we know how this ends. The last thing we need to do is start something with iran due to how big a perceived threat they are
Click to expand...

So what, we wait until after the damage has already been done, then do something about it? What good does that do for the people who die when we let them throw the 1st punch? And its not just a perceived or imagined threat here. It is an actual threat. If you haven't noticed, there are ALOT of radical muslims out there trying to get on the holy war bandwagon against the US, with more jumping on and following suit daily. The longer we wait, the longer we go without devistating retaliation, the more they think us weak and exploitable. And as their contempt and hatred grow, so does their boldness.

And YES, they realize that nuking us would bring swift death.....they just don't care....
 
Anthony,
Does anyone else find it rather ironic that most of the countries we (gun-owning Americans) can't trust, are for the most part all members of the U.N.?
Click to expand...
Not really. Most countries we do trust are in the UN also. Most countries period are in the UN.

tyme,
If they attack us with conventional weapons then it doesn't matter what platform they used to launch them. I really don't think Iran wants to start a war they can't finish on their own hook. They don't think like us and they don't share our world view...but they're not stupid.
If they see thet the benefits of sinking a carrier outweigh the risk then they'll act in their own best interest just as we would do.
Of course sometimes a country will find themselves led by someone err...less than rational*coughBush* and then all bets are off....
 
Goslash27 and others.

/rant

I would like to ask a simple question. Why is it, that no matter what happens, no matter the event or who is in reality at fault, you absolutely MUST make an attack against Bush in some way? Snide little comments, or remarks, but the Bush-hate just HAS to work its way into the debate?

I don't like John Kerry. I didn't like other presidents, but I did not take every opportunity to bash them any chance I got, especially when they weren't even in the TOPIC of the conversation....

I guess it just shows your true character, or lack thereof, and your immature nature. No matter WHO IS IN OFFICE, they are still the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. The office deserves respect. Part of the problem with this country is that no one has any respect or reserve. They make digs at the country and its leaders every chance they get. You don't think that causes others to think the same way? You are helping to convince people that it is OKAY to act this way. WE GET THAT YOU HATE GWB for whatever reason. Can you try to be a little more mature about it? Attack the issues or his decisions in open debate.....not the man. I don't see you running on the '08 ballot.....if you think you'd do better, do what is necessary and do something about it..../end of rant
 
"The office deserves respect"

The political appointment or the tv show? Cuz last time I checked the presidential officed "deserved" respect, as in past tense. Respect is something earned, not afforded to those prone to mistakes. He had an opportunity and had he 'played his cards right' wouldn't be in the gargantuan pile of manure that he's in right now. He's since gotten the reputation of being a sellout facist who's got the governing ability of a golfball. He's earned it and I hope he and his father are proud, they worked so very hard on it.
 
yet Bush has delayed, ignored, and seems strangely unwilling..except by public insistance..to secure our borders in the name of national security...this seems strangely corrupt to me...just what is going on in the dark recesses of his mind...???
 
Referring to post 34


I am not trying to say anything mean. But if that is true then the world trade center is still standing as it was rated to have a fire of that size inside.

I was under the impression that EMPs from the nukes that were tested were side effects. I was also under the impression that if fired higher that they have much more power as more energy would hit the correct area.

I have seen way to many smart people fail to see little things to feel safe. The 4-5 rockets that NASA had fail due to metric-imperial are all good examples of this.
The leaves in NO are another, they should have worked. But they failed as the math done failed to include the type of soil under them.


You act as if an EMP strike will do very little or nothing. I don't care for the idea that old data is being used as the base of so much info.


"It does not harm electronics that are shielded by a grounded case (Faraday cages)."
How do you ground to part of the environment that is being exposed to a charge?

I have seen houses that had everything that ran on power blown up when lightning hit the grounded power panel. I have also seen houses burned to the ground from the transformer failing. Why didn't it work?

I still feel that we are not looking deep enough, and something is going to fail.

Like the fire blocks in the world trade center, the firewalls were foam and two sheets of 5/8s drywall. Yet it was rated to have an airliner hit it, they calculated the impact and the Temp of the fire. But the idea of flying matter blasting off the firewalls never came into their minds.

So saying that a grounded case will save everything. All your doing is making me feel that something is being over looked.
 
Derius,
To answer your question, not everybody here has the same instinct to alleigance that you do. Many of us are more independent and won't hesitate to call a jackass a jackass regardless of what he does for a living.
Did you show the same fealty to Clinton when he was president?
Does that unwavering support extend to every elected official?
If you are truly unhappy with Bush W and are just hiding it for the moment are you going to wait until the Republican party's credibility is destroyed before you say anything?
Just curious. You handle things your way and I handle them mine.

CSS,
Your fears may well be justified, but stating your concerns as fact merely puts bad information out there.
They know very well how EMP works and thoroughly understand the mechanism behind it. It can be guarded against regardless of how powerful it may be. More importantly, we know what components are at risk and which aren't. A magnet is simply not affected by radio waves no matter how powerful they may be.
 
GoSlash27:
I disliked Clinton intensely. But I didn't use that dislike to show my disdain at every level and every opportunity, as some do with Bush. Having said that, I dislike Bush. Intensely. But I don't attribute anything and everything as being his direct fault. It is disingenuous at best.

Csspecs:
Please do a search on "Faraday Cage." It is a rather simple device that will protect your electronics, if constructed properly, from any and all EMP effects. As a side benefit, it will also protect your "caged" equipment from most forms of passive electronic eavesdropping (see also, Tempest).
 
I wish our country would read a little more "The Prince" and a little less "Utopia."

Or, those who are anti-defend ourselves could just move to one half of the country (more like 1/10). Just remake some part of LA or San Fran to look like NYC, move all the idiots over there and let them deal with themselves, while the rest of the country actually defends itself. Then we'll see what happens.

Ah well, we all know how likely that is
 
Lat time I looked this country was a democratic republic. Foks are entitled to thier opinion and vote. If folks dont like a democratic republic perhaps they could find a nice thoelogical facist conservative country to live in :D
 
Antipitas,
My dislike extends to the whole rotten administration, not just Dubya. I don't see him as some evil ogre intent on selling out the country. I see him as more of an okay if not very bright guy who happens to be in with a bad crowd. Despite that, I believe that a leader is responsible for the decisions made in his name.
 
History is the answer

When Genghis Khan changed the Persian Empire he destroyed the most advanced culture in the world.:barf:

They (Iran) want it back and they are tired of the West and are going to push and push. It is a Crusade and it is going to be ugly. :eek:

Genghis Khans forces killed most of the persian population in Bagdad in the 1200's. Bagdad (Iraq) has not had that type of loss until USA and British Forces in the 90's killed over 100.000 troops of the Republican Guard.:(

They are the decendents of the Persion Empire and they all want it back.
Iraq, Iran, Saudi's.

Just like the Azteca's in the Americas, they want the Empire they never could have.
All they need to do is multiply by breeding and they will have it by the gross numbers, in the Southwest.

WU
 
Last edited:
GoSlash27 wrote:

Derius,
To answer your question, not everybody here has the same instinct to alleigance that you do. Many of us are more independent and won't hesitate to call a jackass a jackass regardless of what he does for a living.
Did you show the same fealty to Clinton when he was president?
Does that unwavering support extend to every elected official?
If you are truly unhappy with Bush W and are just hiding it for the moment are you going to wait until the Republican party's credibility is destroyed before you say anything? Just curious. You handle things your way and I handle them mine.
Click to expand...

I support the president, WHOMEVER it happens to be. Unwaiveringly. It is part of duty to country. That does NOT mean that I personally agree with every single thing they do, or every decision they make. Some of them are admittedly downright BAD, but that does NOT mean that american citizens should go around sowing dissent, especially in these times, by calling the president to task publicly, or calling him a jackass, the devil, ect. We claim to be the greatest, most patriotic nation in the world, yet this stuff happens? Makes other countries point and laugh to see us battling each other......it is sad...

And for the record, I personally disagreed with MOST of Clinton's actions while in office. I thought he was a horrible president. But I did not speak out disgracefully in public at every opportunity, attacking the man, nor did I take every opportunity, real or imagined, for childish name calling and finger pointing at the president....;)
 
I am not sure it is fear we should feel.

But we should have some major concern considering how we have messed up in Iraq. This is a very bad time for us and the sun is setting on a once great nation.

S Wu
 
http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/2006/04/frightening-truth-of-why-iran-wants_16.html

Daily briefing

Sunday, April 16, 2006
The frightening truth of why Iran wants a bomb

Amir Taheri, The Telegraph:
Last Monday, just before he announced that Iran had gatecrashed "the nuclear club", President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad disappeared for several hours. He was having a khalvat (t?te-?-t?te) with the Hidden Imam, the 12th and last of the imams of Shiism who went into "grand occultation" in 941.

According to Shia lore, the Imam is a messianic figure who, although in hiding, remains the true Sovereign of the World. In every generation, the Imam chooses 36 men, (and, for obvious reasons, no women) naming them the owtad or "nails", whose presence, hammered into mankind's existence, prevents the universe from "falling off". Although the "nails" are not known to common mortals, it is, at times, possible to identify one thanks to his deeds. It is on that basis that some of Ahmad-inejad's more passionate admirers insist that he is a "nail", a claim he has not discouraged. For example, he has claimed that last September, as he addressed the United Nations' General Assembly in New York, the "Hidden Imam drenched the place in a sweet light".

Last year, it was after another khalvat that Ahmadinejad announced his intention to stand for president. Now, he boasts that the Imam gave him the presidency for a single task: provoking a "clash of civilisations" in which the Muslim world, led by Iran, takes on the "infidel" West, led by the United States, and defeats it in a slow but prolonged contest that, in military jargon, sounds like a low intensity, asymmetrical war. READ MORE

In Ahmadinejad's analysis, the rising Islamic "superpower" has decisive advantages over the infidel. Islam has four times as many young men of fighting age as the West, with its ageing populations. Hundreds of millions of Muslim "ghazis" (holy raiders) are keen to become martyrs while the infidel youths, loving life and fearing death, hate to fight. Islam also has four-fifths of the world's oil reserves, and so controls the lifeblood of the infidel. More importantly, the US, the only infidel power still capable of fighting, is hated by most other nations.

According to this analysis, spelled out in commentaries by Ahmadinejad's strategic guru, Hassan Abassi, known as the "Dr Kissinger of Islam", President George W Bush is an aberration, an exception to a rule under which all American presidents since Truman, when faced with serious setbacks abroad, have "run away". Iran's current strategy, therefore, is to wait Bush out. And that, by "divine coincidence", corresponds to the time Iran needs to develop its nuclear arsenal, thus matching the only advantage that the infidel enjoys.

Moments after Ahmadinejad announced "the atomic miracle", the head of the Iranian nuclear project, Ghulamreza Aghazadeh, unveiled plans for manufacturing 54,000 centrifuges, to enrich enough uranium for hundreds of nuclear warheads. "We are going into mass production," he boasted.

The Iranian plan is simple: playing the diplomatic game for another two years until Bush becomes a "lame-duck", unable to take military action against the mullahs, while continuing to develop nuclear weapons.

Thus do not be surprised if, by the end of the 12 days still left of the United Nations' Security Council "deadline", Ahmadinejad announces a "temporary suspension" of uranium enrichment as a "confidence building measure". Also, don't be surprised if some time in June he agrees to ask the Majlis (the Islamic parliament) to consider signing the additional protocols of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Such manoeuvres would allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director, Muhammad El-Baradei, and Britain's Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, to congratulate Iran for its "positive gestures" and denounce talk of sanctions, let alone military action. The confidence building measures would never amount to anything, but their announcement would be enough to prevent the G8 summit, hosted by Russia in July, from moving against Iran.

While waiting Bush out, the Islamic Republic is intent on doing all it can to consolidate its gains in the region. Regime changes in Kabul and Baghdad have altered the status quo in the Middle East. While Bush is determined to create a Middle East that is democratic and pro-Western, Ahmadinejad is equally determined that the region should remain Islamic but pro-Iranian. Iran is now the strongest presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, after the US. It has turned Syria and Lebanon into its outer defences, which means that, for the first time since the 7th century, Iran is militarily present on the coast of the Mediterranean. In a massive political jamboree in Teheran last week, Ahmadinejad also assumed control of the "Jerusalem Cause", which includes annihilating Israel "in one storm", while launching a take-over bid for the cash-starved Hamas government in the West Bank and Gaza.

Ahmadinejad has also reactivated Iran's network of Shia organisations in Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Yemen, while resuming contact with Sunni fundamentalist groups in Turkey, Egypt, Algeria and Morocco. From childhood, Shia boys are told to cultivate two qualities. The first is entezar, the capacity patiently to wait for the Imam to return. The second is taajil, the actions needed to hasten the return. For the Imam's return will coincide with an apocalyptic battle between the forces of evil and righteousness, with evil ultimately routed. If the infidel loses its nuclear advantage, it could be worn down in a long, low-intensity war at the end of which surrender to Islam would appear the least bad of options. And that could be a signal for the Imam to reappear.

At the same time, not to forget the task of hastening the Mahdi's second coming, Ahamdinejad will pursue his provocations. On Monday, he was as candid as ever: "To those who are angry with us, we have one thing to say: be angry until you die of anger!"

His adviser, Hassan Abassi, is rather more eloquent. "The Americans are impatient," he says, "at the first sight of a setback, they run away. We, however, know how to be patient. We have been weaving carpets for thousands of years."

------------------------------------------------

25
 
I'm thinking the EMP attack taking out the entire US is a pipe dream. The bomb would have to be very,very strong to make a good EMP pulse and only the US, Russia and maybe China has the know how and material to make the real big bad super megaton bombs. Other countries may have nukes but few can make good high yield nukes. I'm thinking one or two nukes to take out Israel, If they try anything nuclear against the US, we bomb them back to the stone age and they got to know it. Contrary to popular belief most countries fear pushing us too far, we are the only country that actually used nuclear weapons against civilians, TWICE. Honestly, I'm hoping Iran is doing some nuclear saber rattling to get attention and political favors. Thanks to the US giving North Korea aid and fuel when they went nuclear, any country can play "crazy Nuke dictator" to get what they want.

One creepy thing is the whole "End of Times" thing. I'm not real religious and I'm not a big Nostrodomus guy, but even I'm noticing how things are going in that direction. Ironically I just realized they are remaking the Omen movie and its coming out on June 6, 2006. Before the Iraq war, before 9/11, before the bird flu, before the multiple calls from government officals saying we should be stocking up on cans of tuna, I would have said that releasing an Omen remake on 6/6/06 was a clever marketing trick done in poor taste, now I just get a bad feeling that something big is coming. Maybe not the end of the world, but I wonder that maybe Iran is crazy enough to start WWIII.
 
Heres one pundits view

Policy on Iran nukes seems to be off-target

April 16, 2006

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Happy Easter. Happy Passover. But, if you're like the president of Iran and believe in the coming of the "Twelfth Imam," your happy holiday may be just around the corner, too. President Ahmadinejad, who is said to consider himself the designated deputy of the "hidden Imam," held a press conference this week -- against a backdrop of doves fluttering round an atom and accompanied by dancers in orange decontamination suits doing choreographed uranium-brandishing. It looked like that Bollywood finale of ''The 40-Year-Old Virgin,'' where they all pranced around to "This Is The Dawning Of The Age Of Aquarius." As it happens, although he dresses like Steve Carell's 40-year-old virgin, the Iranian president is, in fact, a 40-year-old nuclear virgin, and he was holding a press conference to announce he was ready to blow. "Iran," he said, "has joined the group of countries which have nuclear technology" -- i.e., this is the dawning of the age of a scary us. "Our enemies cannot do a damned thing," he crowed, as an appreciative audience chanted "Death to America!"

The reaction of the international community was swift and ferocious. The White House said that Iran "was moving in the wrong direction." This may have been a reference to the dancers. A simple Radio City kickline would have been better. The British Foreign Office said it was "not helpful." This may have been a reference to the doves round the atom.

You know what's great fun to do if you're on, say, a flight from Chicago to New York and you're getting a little bored? Why not play being President Ahmadinejad? Stand up and yell in a loud voice, "I've got a bomb!" Next thing you know the air marshal will be telling people, "It's OK, folks. Nothing to worry about. He hasn't got a bomb." And then the second marshal would say, "And even if he did have a bomb it's highly unlikely he'd ever use it." And then you threaten to kill the two Jews in row 12 and the stewardess says, "Relax, everyone. That's just a harmless rhetorical flourish." And then a group of passengers in rows 4 to 7 point out, "Yes, but it's entirely reasonable of him to have a bomb given the threatening behavior of the marshals and the cabin crew."

That's how it goes with the Iranians. The more they claim they've gone nuclear, the more U.S. intelligence experts -- oops, where are my quote marks? -- the more U.S. intelligence "experts" insist no, no, it won't be for another 10 years yet. The more they conclusively demonstrate their non-compliance with the IAEA, the more the international community warns sternly that, if it were proved that Iran were in non-compliance, that could have very grave consequences. But, fortunately, no matter how thoroughly the Iranians non-comply it's never quite non-compliant enough to rise to the level of grave consequences. You can't blame Ahmadinejad for thinking "our enemies cannot do a damned thing."

It's not the world's job to prove that the Iranians are bluffing. The braggadocio itself is reason enough to act, and prolonged negotiations with a regime that openly admits it's negotiating just for the laughs only damages us further. The perfect summation of the Iranian approach to negotiations came in this gem of a sentence from the New York Times on July 13 last year:

"Iran will resume uranium enrichment if the European Union does not recognize its right to do so, two Iranian nuclear negotiators said in an interview published Thursday."

Got that? If we don't let Iran go nuclear, they'll go nuclear. That position might tax even the nuanced detecting skills of John Kerry.

By comparison, the Tehran press has a clear-sightedness American readers can only envy. A couple of months back, the newspaper Kayhan, owned by Ayatollah Khamenei, ran an editorial called "Our Immortality And The West's Disability," with which it was hard to disagree: Even if one subscribes to the view that sanctions are a sufficient response to states that threaten to nuke their neighbors, Mohammad Jafar Behdad correctly pointed out that they would have no serious impact on Iran but would inflict greater damage on those Western economies that take them seriously (which France certainly won't).

Meanwhile, the Washington Post offers the likes of Ronald D. Asmus, former deputy assistant secretary of state under President Clinton, arguing "Contain Iran: Admit Israel to NATO." "Containment" is a word that should have died with the Cold War, and certainly after the oil-for-food revelations: Aside from the minimal bang for huge numbers of bucks, you can't "contain" a state. Under the illusion of "containment," events are always moving, and usually in favor of the fellow you're trying to contain. But the idea that the way to "contain" Iran is to admit Israel to NATO elevates "containment" from an obsolescent striped-pants reflex to the realm of insanity.

All the doom-mongers want to know why we went into Iraq "without a plan." Well, one reason is surely that, for a year before the invasion, the energy of the U.S. government was primarily devoted to the pointless tap-dance through the United Nations, culminating in the absurd situation of Western foreign ministers chasing each other through Africa to bend the ear of the president of Guinea, who happened to be on the Security Council that week but whose witch doctor had advised against supporting Washington. Allowing the Guinean tail to wag the French rectum of the British hindquarters of the American dog was a huge waste of resources. To go through it all again in order to prevent whichever global colossus chances to be on the Security Council this time (Haiti? The South Sandwich Islands?) from siding with the Russo-Chinese obstructionists would show that the United States had learned nothing.

Bill Clinton, the Sultan of Swing, gave an interesting speech last week, apropos foreign policy: "Anytime somebody said in my presidency, 'If you don't do this, people will think you're weak,' I always asked the same question for eight years: 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?' If we can kill 'em tomorrow, then we're not weak, and we might be wise enough to try to find an alternative way."

The trouble was tomorrow never came -- from the first World Trade Center attack to Khobar Towers to the African Embassy bombings to the USS Cole. Manana is not a policy. The Iranians are merely the latest to understand that.




WildilovethatguyAlaska
 
...but that does NOT mean that american citizens should go around sowing dissent, especially in these times, by calling the president to task publicly, or calling him a jackass, the devil, ect. We claim to be the greatest, most patriotic nation in the world, yet this stuff happens?
Click to expand...
Difference of opinion. I do not believe that unquestioning obedience of authority is patriotic, I believe that it enables tyranny. I do not understand how anybody that claims to love their country can counsel others to show support for someone who is harming it.
As I said, you handle things your way and I handle them mine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top