Iran fires more missiles, posing dilemma

Obama's solutions: (1) Talk to the Iranians; (2) Apply sanctions; (3) Blame Bush; (4) Change my name to Neville Chamberlain.

Iran is only defending itself. It has been seriously threatened, and it is demonstrating it has serious defences.

Iran minds its own business. It has attacked, or even seriously threatened, no one.

The people concerned with "handling" Iran are themselves the people who've attacked others and occupied their territories.

The U.S. occupies two countries (including a long stretch of Iran's border) threatens a third daily (Iran), and has begun making noises about a fourth (Pakistan). It keeps a huge fleet off the coast, and it apparently has the CIA working with a terrorist group in Eastern Iran, trying to start trouble.

Israel has attacked every neighbor it has, some more than once. It still holds millions in abusive occupation. It has broken every international law and convention you care to name. Its arrogant prime minister hurls threats and practices bombing runs.

Who is the real threat here?

We have the solid information from someone high in the American intelligence establishment, risking his or her position to see that we are informed, telling us clearly that Iran's weapons program no longer exists.

But even if it did have a weapons program, so what? Israel has nuclear weapons - obtained in part through theft in the U.S. years ago. Iran is almost surrounded by nuclear powers.

We lived with MAD in Europe for decades. Today Europe is a peaceful, thriving place.

The only thing that would change in the Middle East with Iranian weapons is a new balance of power, removing Israel's absolute veto over its every neighbor and the technical advance of any other nation in the region.

Israel's last half century is a complete dead-end. It has no peace. It has earned a worldwide reputation as a rogue state. Clearly something new needs to be introduced to end this abusive, go-nowhere situation.

More proof that the White House is no place for on-the-job training. Maybe Hopey should try to be an effective US Senator from Illinois first. Lord knows he hasn't been that.

Lets hope the Irarian situationis resolved before we hae a new President--

Derrick,
Bush's North Korea solution: 1)Include them in the Axis of Evil, 2) Not talk with them, 3) Watch them test nuclear bombs, 4) take them off the state sponsor of terror list and give them free fuel, 5) Deny these actions are tantamount to appeasement.

Ralph Peters has a classic column in today's New York Post, titled "Intellectuals Lie, the Powerless Die".
Peters points out that talky-talk to thugs only helps the thugs, that while intellectuals drone on from their penthouse suites, only force stops the thugs from more killing.
See http://www.nypost.com/seven/07092008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/intellectuals_lie__the_powerless_die_119080.htm

Maybe Barack can fly to Iran and make a speech without a teleprompter...'ummm, missiles are uhh, uhh, ummm, scary and uhh, ummm.....

That'll show em'

Paulo

Why play games? We should tell them that if they launch another missile, we will wipe them off the face of the earth. We should then follow through with that promise. Case closed. Who wants to be next?

In related news, the photo the Tribune used today on page 1 to illustrate the Iran rocket launching has now been found out to be a faked, photoshopped image. See www.michellemalkin.com.

The media (the ones who boast of fact-checkers) as usual fell for the fake, which was caught by us amateur bloggers.

It's amazing how many dimwitted people believe all this sabre rattling on "both" sides of this is productive. The rights answer? Kill them all. Makes you a little afraid to have these same people as neighbors. If they had a neighbor who they felt they could just not get along with, would they decide to nuke their neighbor? When did the rabid right decide "non-communication" become a tool to peace? Singing bomb bomb bomb Iran is not and never will be the answer.

Great sound advice from Jim. Lets just bomb bomb bomb everyone who decides to protect themselves from imperialist countires such as our own. Who are we to say that no other country can obtain these weapons?
Through American arrogance Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and so many other rogue countries were created by us and right wing weapons technology trades, CIA rogue operations etc!! It was us who created Bin Laden, it was us who created the Taliban, it was us who created these hostilities towards the west. It is time for a different approach. Through our arrogance we have created a new generation of Jihadists that will be around for many many years! The only way to stop them is to stop creating them! But of course the right doesnt see it that way. All they see is the end result of bad negotiating and secret ops. The beginnings of WW3 were started the day Bush took office in 2000!

Let them have their bomb. If they used it, we could make Iran our 53rd state. Then the environazi's could ban drilling there.

I love when Iran talks trash. The morons actually think we're afraid of them. Israel has the capability to shut them up forever if they dare strike a blow. Cmon Iran, Throw the first punch and give Israel an excuse to end your miserable existence.

Bill R., I know your solutions are all based on your personal political philosophy, but even you admit that "both" sides (I'm assuming you mean left and right) are wrong in the extreme in this. You gave the right your typical wrist slap, but what about the left?
Tell me you didn't LOL when you read the leftist Canadian perspective provided by Chuckman?
Do you guys REALLY believe that Iran launching more nuclear missiles than it would ever need to "test" is just "defending itself?" Do you really think we should leave Israel to be destroyed by Hezbollah, Hamas and the other terrorist groups that Iran supports because they're so awful for the region? Iran has attacked no one? really? Even though every rocket launched from Lebanon into Israel by Hezbollah was provided by Iran? Explain that one, Canuck.
Chuckman is such a hardcore leftist that he went and tipped the hand that Bill R.and Barack never come right out and say. What the REAL objective of the left's policy toward the Middle East is: wipe Israel off the map.

Also note that Chuckman just tried to tell us that the missiles we've seen tested over the last two days "don't exist."
telling us clearly that Iran's weapons program no longer exists. Sure, pal.

Shahab III was first tested 10 years ago, and has been in industrial production for some years.

The war games that these missile firings are a part of, have been going on repeatedly by all sides for years.

I just don't get exactly what is the news here. I don't see how test-firing a 10 year old missile adds/detracts from the existing security situation, or proves/disproves the efficacy of any particular approach to Iran.

For a reality check, see
http://www.bibijon.org/iranimage/

Iran's finger is always "on the trigger", says Hossein Salami of the Revolutionary Guard. "we have hundreds and even thousands of missiles ready to be fired against predetermined targets."
"We will chase the enemies on the ground and in the sky and we are able react strongly to enemy's threats in shortest possible time."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/09/iran.missiles/index.html?eref=ib_topstories

Yep, just trying to defend themselves, alright. And remember, Chuckman's source tells us this weapons system doesn't exist.

Scot Blakeley, have you joined the Jihad yet? If this country is so bad, and you're so embarrassed, then why are you still here? It's so bad in America, people risk their lives daily to get here, so let somebody eager to enjoy the plethora of advantages that you so obviously take for granted take your spot.

hey name calling Jeff, be nice to the Canuks they are the NUMBER ONE supplier of oil to the United States and covering our soldiers backs in Afghanistan you dote! Typical right wing name calling and trying to degrade another country by nick naming them. Rude, immature and arrogant as usual. And you wonder why the world hates Americans. Just look in the mirror dude!

Bill R., I know your solutions are all based on your personal political philosophy, but even you admit that "both" sides (I'm assuming you mean left and right) are wrong in the extreme in this. You gave the right your typical wrist slap, but what about the left?
Posted by: Jeff | July 10, 2008 11:41 AM

You seem to miss the point. It's not left or right, it is Iran vs Israel and the US. How can anyone doubt that this is in response to Israels war games and our tough talk?

Do you guys REALLY believe that Iran launching more nuclear missiles than it would ever need to "test" is just "defending itself?"

No I don't believe that. However...I believe this is just a dangerous game we all play and ignoring it, does absolutely no good. When did communication become obsolete? The claims of "you just can't talk to them" seems hollow. Please explain what talks have taken place? Also...this only plays to their advantage. As oil costs rise with tensions....they only stand to gain by this. Do you really believe we can just kill them all? Is that really your answer to this?

Here we go again with "Your either with us or not" mentality of the RCK right wingers!
Sorry RCK, but I do love my country but not all of its policies. Especially the ones perpetrated by the right to secretly fund rogue countires weapons agendas that in turn became our enemies and used against our own men and woman in service! If this is what you call patriotism, I suggest it is you that should leave and go join all of the Jihadists that your right wing admirals, CIA and Presidents created!
Also, I would like to note that I never said I was embarrased or that The United States was a bad place. As usual the right putting words in other peoples mouths to suit their own aggresive agendas.
Last time i checked The Bill of rights, i have every right to voice my opinons as i see fit. I understand you would like to eliminate these rights, so again I suggest it is you who should leave and find a dictatorship country somewhere else.

Jeff,

Checked your link and the quote says:

"We want to tell the world that those who conduct their foreign policy by using the language of threat against Iran have to know that our finger is ..." up our bum!

How did you want him finish that sentence?

http://www.bibijon.org/iranimage/

Jeff,
If I use your logic, Smith & Wesson, Winchester, other gun manufacturers, and retailers are responsible for the murders on our streets in America. Do you hold the Iranians to a different standard because of their skin color? Religion?

bill r., talking to Iran sounds like nice rhetoric, but what are you going to talk to them about? In my view, there are two pressing issues - (1) the threat of a nuclear weapons program, and (2) their meddling in Iraq. Iran denies the basic premise of both. I don't know how you "talk" to someone about a subject they deny exists.

Specifically to their nuclear program, I think the US is taking the right course - going through the UNSC. I know they are generally toothless and agonizingly slow, but I think having a unified front against a country that hid a nuclear program for 20 years contrary to their obligations under the NPT is better than unilateral confrontation from the US. If that is true, what is the point of engaging Iran in unilateral discussions? Any discussion would have to be consistent with the UNSC position or risk undermining it. And if you are just going to parrot the UNSC, is their really a point? I'm not against talking to anyone. I am opposed to empty rhetoric about talking to people as if that were policy in and of itself.

Jeff,
Chuckman says the weapns PROGRAMS no longer exist. It is possible they still possess the weapons SYSTEMS but they are no longer actively producing and developing NEW weapons. Next time you are on your own and I won't hold your hand and walk you thru the point he's trying to make.

bill r., talking to Iran sounds like nice rhetoric, but what are you going to talk to them about? In my view, there are two pressing issues - (1) the threat of a nuclear weapons program, and (2) their meddling in Iraq. Iran denies the basic premise of both. I don't know how you "talk" to someone about a subject they deny exists.
Posted by: Herbie H. | July 10, 2008 12:30 PM

I absolutely agree that they are our pressing issues. Do you doubt that they have issues that we also deny exist?

I am opposed to empty rhetoric about talking to people as if that were policy in and of itself.

Posted by: Herbie H. | July 10, 2008 12:30 PM

So you believe that no communication is effective policy in and of itself? That's absurd.

I'm not against talking to anyone.
Posted by: Herbie H. | July 10, 2008 12:30 PM

But it seems Herbie...you are. Maybe talking won't work..that's very possible...but shouldn't we make an agressive effort? The longer the tensions exist...the higher the price of oil will rise. Who suffers and who benefits from that?

Both sides like to exaggerate Iran's missile arsenal (Bush, Cheney, McCain and Israel). Iran exaggerates to deter anyone from attack. The neocons in the US and in Israel exaggerate to scare people and build the case for war. However, there really isn't anything new here.

Bush and McCain are just looking for excuses to blow up Iran and start WW3.
McCain doesn't have the temperment to be President, he's got anger management issues that he really should seek psychological help for:
-
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/politics-usa-politics-mccain-iran.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Yah Scot, you are entitled to you're opinion. I won't begrudge you that. What makes me sick is people like you who are so insecure about themselves, you require the acceptance of others in order to justify your own self-worth.

Why should Americans' care what other countries think of them? This is the most advanced and successful country in the hisory of the world. I'll go out on a limb and suggest that this is not because we've sought assistance and advice from Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia or South America.

For the record, I think what Iran does is their business & I hope they are stupid enough to lob a nuke at Israel. Then I can sit back and watch Israel destroy them with our weapons.

Israel will carry the water for the rest of the world and receive condemnation from spineless countries that will secretly pat them on the back in closed door sessions. Forget the claims of abusive occupation and broken international laws. The real threat is a nation run by crazed religious thugs with a history of using children to clear mine fields. Anyone trusting them to bargain in good faith is a fool.

For the record, I think what Iran does is their business & I hope they are stupid enough to lob a nuke at Israel. Then I can sit back and watch Israel destroy them with our weapons.

Posted by: RCK | July 10, 2008 1:31 PM

The Neocon nuts (Bush, Cheney and McCain) and their friends at Fixed News Channel have been trying to trump up a war with Iran for over a year now.
I guess $5 dollar a gallon gas isn't good enough for the neonuts, they want gas to cost $10 a gallon so their pals at the Big Oil companies can really make a killing.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq9Dmoiwxo
-

I have to laugh at RCK's lame attempt to insult me and my securitites! What makes me sick is people like you who constantly and consistanly make lame assumptions about other people. As stupid as you are regarding "Sitting back and watching Israel destroy them" this is also typical of your right leaning base to not ever think of the consequences of such thought processes. Iran bombs Isareal. Israel bombs Iran, Pakistan jumps in, N. Korea jumps in, Russia jumps in China jumps in and, well, there will be no place for you to sit back anymore buddy! Good sound advice you have to offer. War war war is the answer in your book and frankly people like you make me sick to my stomach!

Hope that all of you advocating that we start firing on Iran ASAP take a closer look at your world maps.
There are more than 145,000 U.S. soldiers in direct harm's way when Iran retaliates. If you think we'll take out all of their weapons on the first strike, you're morons.
When they fire back, they're not going to shoot at Podunk, Illinois, or Nackofnowhere, Georgia, they're going to fire on the big chunk of our military that's within less than 1,000 miles of their missiles, short, medium and long-range. Iraq and Afghanistan border Iran. Are you so willing to sacrifice them so we can hit maybe one or two targets in Iran? Great way to support the U.S. troops, people.

Is the great Obama up for any of this? This ain't the Class D League.

What causes the kind of World-View that folks like Chuckman are driven to proselytize? Damn. You gotta work to think like that. Chimerical and Chilling, all at the same time.

You talk about no experience - but I remember when Jesse Jackson when over to Iran and brought back the hostages?? If you all could appreciate a president that has the gift of intelligence instead of being a corporate "puppet" - maybe your back yard will not be nuked into non-existence. You are a FOOL to think you can continue to bully everyone everywhere. All third world countries - as you call them - are continuing to move up the ladder and you cannot continue to leave them out of the mix!! You better try to get along!

bill r., I never said that no communication is an effective policy. You have to look at the circumstances and what you are trying to achieve. As I said above in terms of the nuclear issue, there is ongoing communication with Iran through the UNSC, which I think is the better route than unilateral communications with the US. Unilateral communications may in fact or be perceived as sending mixed or undermining messages to those of the UN. Further, I think the message is more powerful coming from a united world body than just the US. Thus, on that issue, at this point, I don't support unilateral discussions with Iran. If you disagree, that is fine. Please explain why. As for the meddling in Iraq, as I said above, Iran denies the basic premise, so I don't know where you would get with that. In fact, the US and Iran have held ministry level talks about "stabilizing" Iraq, which went no where, as obviously Iran didn't and is not going to admit to being part of the problem.

Herbie, the problem with communications with Iran is BUSH! The guy cant even speak english correctly let alone discuss "nu-cu-lear" disbandment!
They do not and will not bend to his BS. Someone with intellegence would be better suited to further open discussions. Obviously that is not McCain. Why would Iran speak to the man who sang about bombing their country???

RCK, Scot doesn't live here. He lives up in Canada, he's posted it several times before.
Jackson, your comparison is as ridiculous as usual. Iran is not a manufacturer of weapons who legally sells its product to all who can legally purchase it (as Smith & Wesson is). Iran is a sovereign nation who has shown a scary willingness to not just supply weapons and support to terrrorist groups like Al Qaeda and Hezbollah in the past, but to also give them safe harbor within their borders. It's apples and oranges. When a nation gives safe harbor to terrorists it is essentially enabling terrorism itself.
Bill, diplomacy is the delicate task of balancing competing interests. There should be talks with Iran (as there are now) but not non-conditional talks that serve to accomplish nothing but increase Iran's notoriety. Any solution that all the nations work out simply must include Iran agreeing to stop enriching uranium, not just for Israel's safety but for the world's.
Steve, the Shahab 4 rocket program does, indeed, still exist. Russian scientists who have seen it say it could reach Europe.

Um, Scott, I take no pleasure in having to correct an intellectual like you, but disbandment isn't a word. I think the word you were looking for is disarmament.

but not non-conditional talks that serve to accomplish nothing but increase Iran's notoriety.
Posted by: Jeff | July 10, 2008 3:16 PM

I beg to differ Jeff.....It seems somewhat obvious to me that this has already occured. Iran as a threat is not a new problem. We have had many years to deal with this....I don't see much progress..do you? What "is" wrong with a new approach?

Thank you Jeff and Herbie for keeping this civil. I wish it was always this way.

Hey Jeff, you may not get pleasure out of correcting intellectuals however I do get pleasure out of correcting psuedo intellectuals such yourself. I have to laugh, obviously you don't have a dictionary at home.
Disbandment means: to break up or dissolve. Good try though.

You just proved my point, Scot! The context you used it in is entirely wrong, unless you want to dissolve or break up a missile. You can't expect to be taken seriously when you criticize Bush for saying nuc-cul-lear out of one side of your mouth and then use the wrong word for disarmament out of the other side. I want to keep this discussion civil and on the up and up, too, but it's really, really hard with you, Scot. You get very angry, very easily when anyone dares to disagree with one of your posts and it's why most people just ignore you on this board.

I'd also add that you very clearly have a deep, personal hatred of George W. Bush, too, Scot. You would probably have a lot more productive discussion with the conservative posters, here, if you would leave Bush out of it and debate the actual issues. Many people on the right have major problems with him, too, but when you display hatred as a political philosophy all because of one man that you don't even know they're just going to tune you out.

I see Mr "I'm afraid to sign up for the military" Jeffy is on here pushing John McBush's warmongering on Iran again.

What the matter Jeffy, is 100 years in Iraq not good enough for you and Grampy McCain?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFGit_tZDqs
-

Hey Jeffy, as soon as you quit talking tough and sign up for the military yourself we'll actually take you seriously and quit laughing at you.

Democrat Jimmy Carter, could've settled Iran, down years ago. Look what Americas, contending with now. Yet some still have enough nerve to vote Democratic. Are they counting on Obamas, inexperience?

Yet some still have enough nerve to vote Democratic. Are they counting on Obamas, inexperience?

Posted by: Mark | July 10, 2008 7:15 PM

Yeah, let's all just vote for Mr "bomb bomb Iran" McCain, that'll work...I mean it worked out so well for McCain's nutty neocon pals (Bush and Cheney) in Iraq, right?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nqtL-P8kzo
-

Every preisdent from Truman thru Bush41 had to have the nerve to press a button to launch a nuclear strike against the USSR that possibly could wipe us off the map in order to preserve our freedom. They would do this, even though the vast majority of Soviets did not hate American. Probably a higher % of Iranians hate America than the Soviets. Yet, if Iran were to launch a nuclear strike or use one of their terrorist groups to do so, would a President Obama have the "nuts" to strike back. My hunch is no and guess what, the next president better be able to do that, just as all the president's in the cold war had the balls to do it.

When does one end the talk and start walking the walk? One must remember that with certain individuals in our history talk has just allowed these despots the opportunity to build up their war machines. A recent example is of course Adolph Hitler. Apppeasement to anyone who has a goal of world domination will never work. So you can talk all you want but you are still going to be killed unless you defend yourself. The despots' greed for power overcomes any common sense and trying to talk sense to them will not have any effect. Sure, some of these despots have toned down but the last one of any note was in Libya and his was more for his greed of power and money or at least to maintain them using some sense. Some people can be comprising and some cannot. The question here is Iran willing to compromise or not.