Iran test fires longer-range missile

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/10/20/iran_missiletest041020.html

TEHRAN - Iran said Wednesday it had test fired a more accurate version of its Shahab-3 missile, believed capable of hitting American bases in the Persian Gulf and Israel.

Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani made the announcement Wednesday following a weekly cabinet meeting.

Last month Iranian officials said the missile, whose name is Persian for "meteor," has a range of 2,000 kilometres. Experts had believed it could reach a maximum of 1,300 kilometres.


FROM OCT. 5, 2004: Reach of missiles now 2,000 km: Iran

Iran has insisted the missiles are for defensive purposes, to be used to counter an Israeli or U.S. attack against its nuclear facilities.

more

[skylarmae]

1. we need to put our money where our mouth is on this Iran thing

and if Israel is really our friend, why are we allowing this country,
part of the 'axis of evil' to develop this capability? Taking out the facilities gets my vote..... I wonder, can they be trusted?

[bemildred]

3. Can what be trusted? The facilities? Israel?

FWIW, no Iran cannot be trusted, but then who can? So far, it has
not been shown that they have violated international law or their
treaty obligations. What is the casus belli for an act of war
against them? We already started a war based on aimless fears in
Iraq, and it has not worked out well.

WRT "taking out the facilities", perhaps there are problems with
feasability and the possible consequences, else it would have been
done already?

[Zhade]

32. One problem: it's illegal for us to do so.

Just because this government WANTS to take out Iran's facilities (however complete they are) does not mean we have the right to.

It's 2 wars, by the way - let's not forget we invaded Afghanistan when a police action would have sufficed, had this administration deigned to prove their case by offering us the evidence concerning who pulled off 9/11 that we were promised.

There is NO justified reason for attacking Iran, even if they have nukes. They may be hardliners, but they are not suicidal. Even armed with such, they will not launch upon completion. They want to survive, with us weakened by our own imperial overstretch.

NO reason to attack Iran. NONE. I'm saying it now, and I'll say it until they actually threaten us: NO REASON TO ATTACK IRAN!

[bemildred]

38. Are you talking to me?

If so why?
It appears to me that we agree (mostly)?
Or is it the guy I was responding to?

[Zhade]

40. I'm sorry. I wasn't clear. I agree completely.

The "one problem: it's illegal" comment was in regards to "taking out facilities". I'm basically agreeing with you that we can't, because we have no reason to attack.

Hope that clears it up! :)

[bemildred]

44. Copacetic. nt

[Bandit]

4. You vote for war??????

Is that you Bush*? Sounds like you....:shrug:

[DELUSIONAL]

11. Israel bombed USA ship Liberty -- killing crewmen

Israel is for Israel -- and if the US happens to have the same interests then the two nations might walk the same path.

One cannot forget that they do have a record of deliberately bombing the USS Liberty and crewmen died as a result of this deliberate attack. They have been "forgiven" but the surviving crew does not forget the attack.

The US should not hand over her sovereignty to Israel because of religious right wing belief of an End Time.

Leaders in the US need to consider the welfare of her citizens first.

The attack on the USS Liberty was a lesson -- Israel is as dangerous as any other country -- and Israel has her own vested interests which may not coincide with the interests of the US.

The families of the murdered sailors feel as much grief as the families of the murdered soldiers in Iraq. Each individual died in service to their country.

[reprobate]

35. Well said, D. For myself, I'll feel much safer when Kerry is elected.

[Zhade]

42. Er...Kerry's pretty much right where b*sh is on Israel.

It sucks - you'd think he'd be willing to buck AIPAC.

[reprobate]

48. Yes, but 4 more of bush? That's suicidal. The USA would implode.

[Zhade]

49. No kidding! He'd hasten the fall of the American empire.

While it'd be good for us not to be an empire, I'd prefer that come about a bit less traumatically.

[King_Crimson]

47. Totally in agreement...

The USS Liberty incident is one that should NEVER be forgotten...yet there are so many who are not even aware of it.
For those unaware, go here... http://www.ussliberty.org and see what "friends" the Israelis are.

[Gyre]

29. Israel is not our 'friend'.

They may be our ally, but you turn your back on them at your peril. 'Friends' care about each other. Israel only cares about the US to the extent that we arm them with US taxpayer dollars, cover their asses militarily when they start a war ('67 war), and block the UN from ever sanctioning them for atrocious conduct. What has Israel done for the US, ever? 'Friends'? I don't think so.

You believe we ought to attack Iran preemptively? At who's expense pray tell? We arm Israel to the teeth and they become the biggest punk on the planet and violator of human rights. And you think we ought to attack Iran because they develop a defensive capability designed to counter Israeli aggression? (Remember the invasion of Lebannon? Didn't think so.) If Israel keeps on doing the "lets you and him fight" routine w/ the US and Iran, and we make the mistake of following their 'suggestions', it's going to get a serious thumping before or while we trounce Iran. Iran has got absolutely nothing to lose by attacking Israel under that scenario and it would be legally justifiable.

Gyre

[reprobate]

37. Wouldn't be so sure about the "trounce" part.

Sure we could inflict much damage with air attacks (if we have made enough munitions since not long ago we were running out). But Iran is not the toothless iraq. It is a thriving nation with a large army and a hole bunch of antiaicraft missles and guns.

It is also right across the border from iraq and its border is not far from bagdad. I would guess that it's manpower could be in bagdad within 24 hours. Meanwhile our troops are stuck in the new bases, since going out is so dangerous. Wouldn't take too many missles to do horrendous damage to them, and inflict massive casualties on us.

When will we learn what the europeans have known for half a century, that there are no winners in war, only dead and grieving people who had nothing to do with starting the war in the first place.

[Tight_rope]

31. See....that's the probably with "SOME" people...always want to start shit!

Iran has done nothing to the US, likewise nor did Iraq. Now, we already have a fucking mess in Iraq. I guess you want to see the US start WWIII.

[madrchsod]

2. is the balance of power finally

being put in place in that region or will the israeli/united states attack iran next year? bush and sharon will certainly attack iran next year-then the religous wars really start. do you feel safer?

[bemildred]

5. Frankly, I don't see how they can, but that is "reality based".

Edit: one of the major dimensions of the Iraq fandango is that we are
hamstrung in dealing with problems elsewhere in the World, like
Iran, and various countries that would have once went out of their
way to avoid annoying us now politely ignore us or publicly flip
us off.

[Poll_Blind]

6. October suprise- a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities? (links)

What had been at just above a simmer has heated up measurably in the last few days/weeks with our sale to Israel of a number of munitions designed specifically to take out hardened concrete structures like those of most nuclear power plants/facilities.

Two threads linking articles which relate this growing danger, and its possible impact on the election should a strike come to pass prior to it:

"Israel ready to move against Iran's nuclear facilities"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=914556

"Isreal/US joint mission to strike Iran"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2508706

I am very concerned that Israel, possibly with the assistance of the US, will strike Iran before the elections.

PB

[shadu]

8. I would think Iran anticipates this possibility

How will they respond when it comes to pass?

[Poll_Blind]

10. They will defend themselves with conventional weapons, but...

...they won't be able to touch Israel who will come in with technology and airpower. Very few Israelis will be killed and many Iranians will. The US has 4 _major_ bases in Iraq. Those will be used to either provide Israel with a convenient refuelling stop or used to mass aircraft for joint strikes.

At some point, sensing it is next in line, Syria might try to invade Iraq which, I believe, may actually be supported by the Iraqis. From that point on the whole middle east will slowly keel over. I doubt they actually have nuclear weapons or would use them. Yes, I believe Israel would use nuclear weapons before Syria/Iran would. However, in a desperate situation, who knows what could happen?

[Gyre]

30. Another preemptive attack before 11/2

cannot be justified to the world community. Attacking Iraq took a good deal of premeditation and public posturing in advance. No way this is going to happen before this election. The cited article is merely a "what if". No sources are cited and it says itself that it's speculation. If we were going to attack Iran we would have alot more in the gulf than a single carrier group (which is all that's stated in the article as being there). Total fear-engendering BS in my opinion.

Gyre

[shadu]

7. YES!

Let's hope they have deep inventory and
stealthy placement. The demon is at the door
and they have every right to protect themselves.

[RivetJoint]

9. Yea, it's always

good to cheer the military achievements of Iran.

[daleo]

13. "Peace through strength"

That was the theory that conservatives liked when I was growing up. The idea being that if each country was powerful enough to deter an attack, there would be no need to fear anyone else, and thus no need for war.

Bush's theory is "Peace through conquest". If you just invade, attack, or otherwise incapacitate any potential enemies you will be safe from attack. But, it is a big world out there.

"Peace through justice" is the naive belief that peaceniks like myself have generally preferred.

I suppose all three theories have problems, but theory number 2 seems like it is the least likely to work for very long. It has a built in feedback effect. After conquering a country, you have to devote resources to holding it down. Meanwhile, countries that you haven't gotten around to invading yet are furiously arming themselves in fear of your attack, which only makes you more likely to attack, which only makes the remaining countries that you haven't yet attacked all the more keen to arm. Well, you can see where this is going.

[Forkboy]

15. Personally I never cheer the military advancements of anyone

[RivetJoint]

18. That was my point.

[getoffmytrain]

12. huh?

[Minstrel Boy]

17. If Iran lacked a credible deterrance,

Americans would be dying there, too.

[getoffmytrain]

21. Do you really

think we/the world is going to allow Iran to develop nukes? Please correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Kerry also say that he will not allow Iran to get nukes?

[Minstrel Boy]

22. "we/the world"

Frankly, that's where you get into trouble. "We" ain't the world. Your "We" is the US and Israel. What I care about is deterring the "on the Tehran!" maniac crusaders.

I'm not an advocate of nuclear proliferation, but since nuclear power is apparently the only kind the neo-imperialists respect, there are days I wish Canada had a few silos of our own. Y'know, just in case.

[getoffmytrain]

23. I hear ya...

Trust me...

But, when I say 'the world', I also believe that Europe has a vested interest in Iran not having nukes.

[Minstrel Boy]

25. I hear ya, too. But I also think

Europe has a vested interest in Iranian oil contracts, which would be torn up by another "regime change." Given the choice of an Iran with nukes and an Iran under US occupation, I think most would take the former.

Iran, I suspect, would prove a more stable and responsible nuclear power than Pakistan.

[Tight_rope]

33. I'm with you...."EVERY COUNTRY SHOULD HAVE WMD!

Then we don't have the underground selling of WMD. And no more spying. Everybody will be cool, because we all know what we all have. Don't have to worry about keeping up with the Jones!

[Voice_of_Europe]

45. agree

And if 2 enemies are actually stupid enough to nuke each other out it's only a benefit to the rest of the world and the gene pool of humanity.

[RivetJoint]

50. Yeah! It's not like Pakistan and India nuking each other

would affect ANYONE else at all. I mean no one else would have to worry about the effects of the nuclear blasts...

Good effing grief.

[sweetheart]

14. so what

Iran has never attacked the USA. We have attacked them, through
our proxy client state iraq, and through a direct overthrow of their
government in the 50's. Let's be clear about who the aggressor is in all this.

Leave them the hell alone. If they ARE developing such weapons, it is merely to deter stupid hubris on "our" part.

An attack would give them political license to drop all pretense of
diplomatic detente, and to develop and launch direct attacks against all carriers and bases in the region. THe USA would lose 1000's in
such an attack. Land based missiles near the straight of hormuz
can take out US warships, whilst bases are pulverized by the iranian
airforce and missiles.

This is a dangerous sentiment that we need to attack iran AGAIN. RAther we should leave them alone, and they'll stop growling like a
cornered dog.

It worries me to see so many people advocating "preventive" war here
on DU. Aggressive war is the most heinous criminal act, and why
anyone can claim to be liberal minded, whilst supporting it, makes
me wonder (**cough** freep** cough**). (not you NNOLHI, the thread)

[RivetJoint]

19. Seizing our embasssy

and holding 50-something Americans hostage for over a year was an attack on the US, IMHO.

[Minstrel Boy]

24. How long is your historical memory, or is it merely selective?

What would you call the CIA-backed overthrow of the democratically-elected Premier of Iran, Mohammad Mossadegh, in 1953? Would you call that an attack? How many tens of thousands of Iranians died under the Shah on its account?

Or Iran Air Flight 655 - heard of it? 290 innocents were killed in July 1988 when the USS Vincennes shot it out of the sky. A mistake was made in identifying the plane, but the US never accepted responsibility, and never paid reparations to the Iranian families.

If the roles were reversed, how would you feel?

Perspective. It's a helluva thing.

[Aidoneus]

36. the nest of spies is a pretty low rung on the priority ladder, I'd say

Holding the entire nation hostage for decades was an attack on them, so I guess there were some things that they had coming. Somebody beat me to the Shah reference, but there are others. How about shooting down Iran Air 655? I know--"we're special", different rules, blah blah..

[Kenneth ken]

41. how many of them died?

none if I remember correctly.

An attack on Iran would be another bad move by the US; wrse than Iraq.

here's a story about war games and Iran:

Wargaming The Mullahs

[getoffmytrain]

20. I'm of the opinion..

that Iran is jockeying for aid with the development of their nukes instead of the concept of using them as a deterrent. Iran seeks to gain political leverage and abandon the program for billions of dollars. Instead of a detterent, the nuke development seems to be putting Iran at greater risk... so much for a deterrent. Further, if Iran and the USA engaged in a nuclear conflict, Iran would be annihilated.

While it's clear that nukes are terrible, and the world would be better off if not a single one existed, the concept of nukes in the hands of a radical Islamic dictatorship is not a pretty concept to ponder.

We can discuss up and down, the rights/wrongs of using military action to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons... and it matters not, because... there is no doubt that no president of the USA or Sharon, or any other Israeli leader for that matter, is going to allow Iran to possess nukes, and this applies to Kerry as well.

If Kerry wins and Iran continues to seek nukes, Kerry WILL use military action to stop them.

[TheKingfish]

27. Umm no he wont

Thats called political rhetoric.

[Zhade]

43. That's kinda what Republicans say about North Korea.

The whole "they just want a handout" argument. Never mind that the real reason NK wants nukes is to keep us out of NK. One of the prime demands Kim Jong-Il has made is that the United States sign a non-aggression pact declaring we will not attack or invade unless provoked.

This government declined to agree not to wrongly attack another country.

Is it any wonder both NK and Iran are working toward these kinds of weapons? They want to survive!

b*sh has truly made this world a more dangerous place.

[Tight_rope]

34. If the US doesn't stop fucking with other countries..there will be

more 9/11's. The people of the US need to sit back and rethink what really lead to it being hit on 9/11. How many years has the US destroyed other countries with the bullshit statement of it being a humanitarian issue. THE US HAS NEVER DONE ANYTHING FOR OTHER COUNTRY UNLESS IT HAD SOMETHING TO GAIN FINANCIALLY! The rest of the world is getting tired of the BIG BULLY!

[Voice_of_Europe]

46. /clap

I can only agree...
The more desperate and angry the middle east grows... the more 9/11 things will happen.
And even with all the security measures in place one could think of ten different ways to inflict mass destruction/death when you think for a few minutes.

You can't lock yourselves in, nor can you rule the world. No country can... and that's a good thing.

[Supersedeas]

16. time to kick the Weapons of Mass Distraction - couldn't Iran wait until

after November to raise this ugly truth.

[tlcandie]

26. Nukes in anyone's hand isn't good.. period! No matter

if they are in the hands of US/Iran/Israel fundamentalists... feel free to fill in the blank here!

Isn't it interesting that all those patriarchial types who suppress sex because it's such a BAD/EVIL thing use poisoned phallic weapons to kill/maime/ destroy life?

Please refer to Dr. Helen Caldicot's website/books for more information on the crazed sexual links/insinuations used in conjunction with their WMDs and wars. It's like they've substituted the destruction of life for sex and go all orgasmic and stuff over their power of creation albeit death instead of life.

[NNN0LHI]

28. Why hasn't Bush addressed this new development I wonder?

I thought he was all hot and bothered about these "axis of evils" having WMDs? Looks like another classic Bush flip-flop to me.

Don

[tinanator]

39. the Bushes and Iran have always had a rather convenient relationship

nothing new under the sun here.