Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rpm on October 05, 2004, 01:34:52 PM
-
In Iran.
By Parisa Hafezi
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran has increased the range of its missiles to 1,250 miles, a senior official was quoted as saying Tuesday.
The range would puts parts of Europe within reach for the first time. Military experts had earlier put Iran's missile range at 810 miles, which would allow it to strike anywhere in Israel.
"Now we have the power to launch a missile with a 2,000 km (1,250 mile) range," the news agency IRNA quoted influential former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani as saying. "Iran is determined to improve its military capabilities."
"If the Americans attack Iran, the world will change ... they will not dare to make such a mistake," Rafsanjani was quoted as saying in a speech at an exhibition on Space and Stable National Security.
WMD's, clear and present danger...why isn't Bush invading?
-
Originally posted by rpm
In Iran.
WMD's, clear and present danger...why isn't Bush invading?
Give us time...first things first, and all that, ya know.:D
-
Originally posted by rpm
In Iran.
WMD's, clear and present danger...why isn't Bush invading?
Last I checked, they didn't try to invade another country, then threatened to kill all of humanity with oil well fires that they'd light, don't have 14 UN sanctions, hadn't hadn't beaten their poor Olympics performers (I could go on but you get the point)..but be patient, one country at a time.
-
Originally posted by rpm
In Iran.
WMD's, clear and present danger...why isn't Bush invading?
wouldn't that be a "rush to war?"
We need to wait 12 years first and get the UN involved.
-
Missiles are not Weapons of mass destruction.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by NUKE
wouldn't that be a "rush to war?"
We need to wait 12 years first and get the UN involved.
So he's flipflopped on preemptive strikes for national security? They have aluminum tubing, too!
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Last I checked, they didn't try to invade another country, then threatened to kill all of humanity with oil well fires that they'd light, don't have 14 UN sanctions, hadn't hadn't beaten their poor Olympics performers (I could go on but you get the point)..but be patient, one country at a time.
if this his the official rules :
Free General Noriega !
:D
I'm really not serious :)
-
Originally posted by straffo
if this his the official rules :
Free General Noriega !
:D
I'm really not serious :)
LOL! :D That was good! Almost as if I had thought of it! ;)
-
Originally posted by rpm
So he's flipflopped on preemptive strikes for national security? They have aluminum tubing, too!
Now you are being just dumb. Iraq was a threat that couldnt be dealt w/ diplomaticaly so force was used.
Preemptive action does not rule out using diplomacy first......it never has.
-
will never forget saddam lighting all those oil fires and killing the enviroment.
POS
-
too late
Bush saw a 'q' and not an 'n'
-
Originally posted by rpm
In Iran.
WMD's, clear and present danger...why isn't Bush invading?
because we had to stop iraq first. i know that "clinton really helped out military nevermind what the military says" but even with the awesome gender sensitive force we field today we generally have to taking kicking the piss out of the bad guys one nation at a time. im waiting with baited breath to see how long after the four weeks it will take us to clean irans clock the "war" will be labeled a "failure" by whomever is running for dem pres in 2008.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Now you are being just dumb. Iraq was a threat that couldnt be dealt w/ diplomaticaly so force was used.
Preemptive action does not rule out using diplomacy first......it never has.
have some hope my brother in arms. someday well get rid of all the diplomats and finally get the world turned right side up. :)
-
No worries rpm......It should not interfere with the liberal weekly plans.......
Mondays motage' of Tree Hugging and Whale Saving
Tuesday's Protests
Wednesdays Whacky weed blow out
Thursdays Trash the Government day
Fridays Free for all against the troops anywhere day
Saturdays PETA Party followed by Bashing Troops and beer
Sundays crusifying of all religeous people followed by singing "Kum Ba Ya no lord" on the local courthouse steps with a sunday lunch of bean sprouts and spinich pizza
:aok
-
john heinz-kerry will have to get permision from france, his wife, and the UN to "invade" iran.
-
..and while you're putting down UN, the USA has vetoed once again in UN to save Israel.
So why exactly is UN performing badly? :rolleyes:
-
How convenient that we happen to be right next door.
"Column right, march!"
-
Originally posted by VOR
How convenient that we happen to be right next door.
"Column right, march!"
well last time i had to actually study maps couldnt find the big "quagmire" in iraq but we better be careful it may extend into iran on secret media expert maps. also wed better make sure not to trip over the bones of all those "iraqi freedom fighters" weve been killing on the borders or iran trying to sneak into...iraq. :)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Now you are being just dumb. Iraq was a threat that couldnt be dealt w/ diplomaticaly so force was used.
Threat to who? No WMD.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Threat to who? No WMD.
none yet. and if he wasnt hiding anything why did he act like he was? if theres no wmd why are all wmd related scientist and doctor not yet detained still hiding or being hidden?
-
All Saddam had to do was allow inspectors. He would not. Why would you not be worried?
-
hum maybe have you ever though about the fact that our military is kinda overstreching itself?
-
Originally posted by anonymous
none yet. and if he wasnt hiding anything why did he act like he was? if theres no wmd why are all wmd related scientist and doctor not yet detained still hiding or being hidden?
Give it up... there isn't any.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
All Saddam had to do was allow inspectors. He would not. Why would you not be worried?
As I recall he demanded to withdraw american UN inspectors, due to spy suspections.
Not so surprisingly US denied this and keenly wanted to keep theirs in Iraq.
-
Originally posted by spitfiremkv
too late
Bush saw a 'q' and not an 'n'
:lol
-
Originally posted by Fishu
As I recall he demanded to withdraw american UN inspectors, due to spy suspections.
Not so surprisingly US denied this and keenly wanted to keep theirs in Iraq.
If Iraq had nothing to hide, why would they be worried about spies? Maybe they were afraid the "spies" would actually find that Iraq was not keeping it's end of the deal.
Can anyone guess why inspectors were kicked out if Iraq? How about venturing a guess as to why the inspectors were allowed back into Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Give it up... there isn't any.
according to who? has iraq been thoroughly searched yet? its a big place. ive been there on the ground. whats it going to be? its a disaster waiting to happen and total chaos on the ground or its been searched from one end to the other and the investigation is complete? or maybe well take your route and say its a disaster but in the midst of all the chaos the inspection teams are given a "free pass" by everyone and theyve concluded their job is done?
-
Ripsnorting:
'No WMD stockpile find' in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3664838.stm)
Bush administration officials say a draft report has concluded there were no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction to be found in Iraq.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
If Iraq had nothing to hide, why would they be worried about spies? Maybe they were afraid the "spies" would actually find that Iraq was not keeping it's end of the deal.
Can anyone guess why inspectors were kicked out if Iraq? How about venturing a guess as to why the inspectors were allowed back into Iraq.
So.... if US doesn't have anything to hide, why doesn't it let red cross etc. inspect guantanamo prison as they wish it to be done?
..and of course US was spying on french prior to Iraq war.
Like listening to Chirac's phone conversations.
At least Israelis have thought it to be good idea to spy on US soil... but alas, americans didn't like the idea.
So let me sum this up again... that gives the french a right to listen US presidents calls, right?
Or is the easier equation better: double stantards...?
-
Originally posted by Fishu
So.... if US doesn't have anything to hide, why doesn't it let red cross etc. inspect guantanamo prison as they wish it to be done?
..and of course US was spying on french prior to Iraq war.
Like listening to Chirac's phone conversations.
So let me sum this up again... that gives the french a right to listen US presidents calls, right?
Or is the easier equation better: double stantards...?
wow, amazing points you have made!
What does anything you have said have to do with Iraq?
-
Originally posted by Fishu
So.... if US doesn't have anything to hide, why doesn't it let red cross etc. inspect guantanamo prison as they wish it to be done?
..and of course US was spying on french prior to Iraq war.
Like listening to Chirac's phone conversations.
At least Israelis have thought it to be good idea to spy on US soil... but alas, americans didn't like the idea.
So let me sum this up again... that gives the french a right to listen US presidents calls, right?
Or is the easier equation better: double stantards...?
the red cross did inspect gitmo.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
So.... if US doesn't have anything to hide, why doesn't it let red cross etc. inspect guantanamo prison as they wish it to be done?
..and of course US was spying on french prior to Iraq war.
Like listening to Chirac's phone conversations.
At least Israelis have thought it to be good idea to spy on US soil... but alas, americans didn't like the idea.
So let me sum this up again... that gives the french a right to listen US presidents calls, right?
Or is the easier equation better: double stantards...?
you must sleep soundly at night knowing that the french would never eavesdrop on their allies and the only people that would dare do such a thing are the evil bad americans. :rofl
-
Originally posted by rpm
In Iran.
WMD's, clear and present danger...why isn't Bush invading?
Iraq is next door remember????
-
Originally posted by anonymous
the red cross did inspect gitmo.
"as they wish it to be done"
-
Originally posted by rpm
In Iran.
WMD's, clear and present danger...why isn't Bush invading?
Maybe because he fears to get such a great and impressive "victory" like in Afghanistan and Iraq?
-
Originally posted by slimm50
Give us time...first things first, and all that, ya know.:D
Yeah, can only mess up one country at a time.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by babek-
Maybe because he fears to get such a great and impressive "victory" like in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Hey Napoleon,
I've got an original idea for ya. Go invade Russia again and see how it works out for you.
-
without Bush we would not know the non-existens of WMA,
so we have to be thankfull to Bush & co.
;)
R
Gh0stFT
-
Originally posted by Wolfala
Hey Napoleon,
I've got an original idea for ya. Go invade Russia again and see how it works out for you.
The question is who acted like Napoleon? (... ok - I have to apologize to the french people here for comparing something like Bush with an historic important person like Napoleon ;) )
Napoleon invaded Russia and was able to win military battles and to capture Moscow but not the peace after these military victories.
So finally all these victories were useless.
He lost the political battle.
The same is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan - where after the official "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"-gag of the great hero Bush the fightings are still going on.
The puppet regimes of Karsai and Allawi have no real power over "their" countries.
So - after these are the results in battered and small countries like Iraq or Afghanistan - do you really want the same szenario in a much larger country like Iran with its 60 million people?
Its easy to start a war - and also to win military battles with all the material the USA has.
But to start a war without thinking what will happen after the victory is extremely stupid.
Q.e.d. by Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
..and while you're putting down UN, the USA has vetoed once again in UN to save Israel.
So why exactly is UN performing badly? :rolleyes:
Because the UN sucks. Simple enough.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
As I recall he demanded to withdraw american UN inspectors, due to spy suspections.
Not so surprisingly US denied this and keenly wanted to keep theirs in Iraq.
Probably because the US is expected to clean up the mess when the UN screws up. Or because the US was the country that provided the vast majority of forces and resources to deal with Saddam the last time, with all due respect to the countries who provided forces and resources to help make it happen. Because when you have sanctions against you and you lost the war, you don't get to pick who does the inspections that verify compliance with the cease fire that saved your ass. Because the US had large numbers of troops in the areas most likely to be affected if Saddam used such weapons, because the UN, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar asked us to.
-
And the Americans keeps on blocking their ears with their hands and go "LALALALALALA".
What do you guys think about what Rumsfeldt said according to Alqaida and Iraq?