good heavensJun 4th, 2007 - 19:24:05

'Iran has no missiles worth attacking this way - they have nothing which would reach Europe, and as Iran indicates, the Europeans are their trading partners. Economics trumps all.'

More sweeping proclamations stated with the authority of the blissfully ignorant.

Report this comment

pbJun 4th, 2007 - 20:08:16

'Iran has no missiles worth attacking this way - they have nothing which would reach Europe, and as Iran indicates, the Europeans are their trading partners. Economics trumps all.' More sweeping proclamations stated with the authority of the blissfully ignorant.
----

As is customary, no facts to support your side of the argument - just name-calling. Must be a Republican. Or a jerk;, or both.

(Remove extra link spaces)
www.rferl.org /featuresarticle /2007/06/91d940d7-c4ee-4897-988b-b4d19677daf9.html

(That's an interesting discussion, with both points of view. The Iranians have no reason whatever to militarily threaten Europe, at this point, as all it would do is potentially unite European interests against them more strongly. In addition to having a missile, Iran would need the technology of mounting a nuclear warhead atop it, and guiding it accurately. That's a lot more complex than just achieving 'range'. Russia has MIRV's; another dimension entirely in terms of anti-missiles to defend against it. Baker-Hamilton not only indicated the way to deal with Iraq, but is a template for dealing with other nations as well.

Based on your usual tone here, the concept of diplomacy is not in your repertoire, so not much point explaining how diplomacy, combined with privately-communicated implied threats of sanctions or other trade and economic 'dis-incentives', can work over time. Bush cannot make a good photo-op out of dealings in private, but Dr. Rice understands the principle. I admire her stamina in having to repeatedly try to offset Bush's continued failures in communication and policy).

Report this comment

@pbJun 4th, 2007 - 23:05:42

'Iran has no missiles worth attacking this way '

So weshould wait until they get the absolute latest hardware before we do anything to counter the threat. You were railing on about 'PREVENTION' yesterday and how the 'Bush administration failed' to prevent a sucessful attack on the USA, now you are trying to pretend that the threat isn't there and isn't going to increase if the mullahs have their way.

'As is customary, no facts to support your side of the argument - just name-calling. '

Well as is customary you are wrong. Just plain wrong. They have medium range missiles now (Capable of hitting Israel) and are working with the Russians and North Koreans to extend their range:

Washington Post

TEHRAN - Iran has increased the range of its missiles to 1,250 miles, a senior Iranian official was quoted as saying on Tuesday, putting parts of Europe within reach for the first time.

Military analysts had estimated Iran's missile range at 810 miles, which would allow it to strike anywhere in Israel. But Iran's official Islamic Republic News Agency quoted Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the country's influential former president and the head of a government oversight body, as saying: 'Now we have the power to launch a missile with a 2,000-kilometer range. Iran is determined to improve its military capabilities.'

Russians help Iran with missile threat to Europe

By Con Coughlin
Last Updated: 12:04am BST 16/10/2005

Former members of the Russian military have been secretly helping Iran to acquire technology needed to produce missiles capable of striking European capitals.

The Russians are acting as go-betweens with North Korea as part of a multi-million pound deal they negotiated between Teheran and Pyongyang in 2003. It has enabled Teheran to receive regular clandestine shipments of top secret missile technology, believed to be channelled through Russia.

Western intelligence officials believe that the technology will enable Iran to complete development of a missile with a range of 2,200 miles, capable of hitting much of Europe. It is designed to carry a 1.2-ton payload, sufficient for a basic nuclear device....

Iran's longest-range missile is the Shahab 3, which, with an 800-mile range, could hit Israel. The North Korean deal will allow the Iranian missile to reach targets far into Europe - including Rome, Berlin, and much of France.


The New York Sun

New Iran Missiles Can Hit Europe

By BENNY AVNI
Staff Reporter of the Sun
April 28, 2006

UNITED NATIONS - As the U.N. Security Council prepares to receive a critical report on Iran's illicit nuclear program on Friday, the mullah regime has taken delivery of missile technology that can extend the range of its warheads to reach most of Europe, as well as parts of Russia and China, an Israeli intelligence official said Thursday.

The chief of the Israeli army's military intelligence unit, Brigadier General Amos Yadlin, said Iran has already received the first shipment of surface-to-surface missiles that were purchased as part of a comprehensive deal with North Korea. The range of the BM-25 Korean missiles is 1,550 miles, and they are capable of carrying nuclear warheads, according to Ha'aretz, which first reported on General Yadlin's warning.

'What we do know about Iran's ballistic missiles program is they have been working very hard with North Korea and others to extend their range and accuracy, and that's a concern,' the American ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, told The New York Sun.

'Must be a Republican. Or a jerk;, or both.'

Grabbing on to a losing argument that is factually incorrect must make you an idiot or a democrat... (I know, redundant)

'Based on your usual tone here, the concept of diplomacy is not in your repertoire, so not much point explaining how diplomacy,'

Based on your usual cut and paste commentary you haven't paid attention to a word I have said. I posted a diplomatic solution for getting leverage over the Iranians via their enablers in the security council and I am sick of repeating myself.

Report this comment

pbJun 5th, 2007 - 01:16:19

'Capability' and commitment are two different things. The Iranians would feel like they'd accomplished something by obtaining the capacity, but that does not mean that they'd use it. They're still a minor power, and would easily be overwhelmed. An attack on Israel would provoke as large a response as an attack on any European city. This is the time for Bush to get COHESION between our allies, and stop the go-it-alone attitude. It's 5 years too late for that; but better late than never.

With the Russians, mutual deterrence worked for MANY years. The Russian generals were not amongst the world's sanest people, but they understood that it was mutual annihilation. The REAL Iranian leaders have no death wish.

I am FAR more concerned with the situation with Putin, vs. the situation with Iran. It's in Putin's ultimate interest NOT to see Iran fully empowered - they have had enough experience with former allies turning against them, and have their own homegown Muslim problems. Putin is no doubt seeing potential sales to Iran as leverage against Bush; which shows just how badly the Russian situation has degraded for the U.S. If you watch Putin in taped speeches, he's quite calm (no Khruschev with the shoe), and this is all calculated to get Bush to back off. Bush's changing strategy would cause this Russian fire to go out quickly, as Putin would have established the fact that Russia wields influence, in Bush's eyes.

The North Koreans are a separate problem, and no doubt are current Iranian missile suppliers, since they need hard currency and oil. Speaking of which, the latest North Korean missile tests have not been 'exciting'. We should have leaned on China to cut a deal to keep the North Koreans supplied with food and oil (again, in China's own interest as well), in return for a cessation of missile sales.

The problems of downsizing a warhead, and accurate guidance systems, are a giant step up from being able to launch. The entire discussion is about 'range' thus far.

I'm actually concerned that the snowball is rolling downhill, and we're at the bottom, hollering about it, instead of taking steps to melt it. Contrast the current situation with the end of 2000 (and Clinton DID try to take out bin Laden), and I see everything as significantly worse. We're really not on different sides of the gross argument that this worldwide terrorism/weapons business needs to be deterred. The difference is that my view is that attempting to blow the other guy up first is not optimal, if you don't do it correctly. Bush's efforts in both Afghanistan and Iraq give me ZERO reassurance that we could pull it off; never mind deal with world opinion that would follow, and a distinct rise in terrorist activity in retribution.

(Note that I wrote that entire thing without calling you any names - try it sometime - it's good exercise).

Report this comment

pbJun 5th, 2007 - 01:26:38

We've been over the Security Council issue, and it won't work. Each nation dealing with Iran has their own agenda and self-interest. Iran has been under sanctions for many years. Their weak spot is refined petroleum products, but with the oil supply situation as difficult as it is, getting support for those sanctions, particularly from China, will be impossible.

Perhaps getting Saddam out was a 'good idea'; but what's worse than a 'good idea' is one without a chance of success. Bush's Iraq strategy, for example.

Were you truly seeking to see other nations join with the U.S. for pressure or sanctions, you should be angry at Bush for having been partly responsible for destroying those relationships. Many of these foreign leaders are difficult to deal with, which is why President Clinton, in a duet with Bush Sr., would make a fine team to go about reconciliation.

That cannot happen, regrettably, with this Admin. in power - too much ill will exists. PM Blair is leaving office with a 6 percent approval - that's what happens when you don't have the right-wingers (as in this country) covering your butt. Cooperating with Bush, at this point, is seen as politically risky - he's odd-man-out on climate change at G-8, and you can pick up the May 2007 Vanity Fair to see how his lobbyist/insider appointments have massively set back anti-pollution and environmental efforts in the U.S.

At this point, most of the world does not believe a word that Bush says - and you can count me amongst, along with a majority in the U.S. This compromises his leadership (now, THERE's an understatement).

Report this comment

@pbJun 5th, 2007 - 02:50:25

''Capability' and commitment are two different things.'

So what happened to 'prevention'? I believe my point was that you and yours would have been whining and seething that Bush was fear mongering or war mongering or taking away our civil liberties in the face of a manufactured threat if he had taken genuine steps to prevent 9/11 before hand. It appears that you are proving my point here in the face of a genuine threat that is repeated on a daily basis.

'he Iranians would feel like they'd accomplished something by obtaining the capacity, but that does not mean that they'd use it.'

The Iranian regime has threatened Europe:

TEHRAN, Iran - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Friday threatened any country that supports Israel, and said the United States and its allies had “imposed a group of terrorists” on the region with their support of Israel.

The Iranian leader also called the U.N. Security Council “illegitimate,” ahead of the planned circulation of a draft resolution on Iran next week.

'This is an ultimatum'
Speaking to tens of thousands of supporters at a pro-Palestinian rally in the capital, Tehran, the Iranian leader addressed Israel’s allies: “It is in your own interest to distance yourself from these criminals... This is an ultimatum. Don’t complain tomorrow.”

Dozens of rallies were held across Iran for “Al-Quds Day,” the Arabic name for Jerusalem. Many became anti-American protests as well, criticizing U.S. support for Israel.

“We have advised the Europeans that the Americans are far away, but you are the neighbors of the nations in this region. We inform you that the nations are like an ocean that is welling up, and if a storm begins, the dimensions will not stay limited to Palestine, and you may get hurt,” he said.

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15343184


Iran threatens Europe over nuclear program
Mercury News, The, March, 2006 by Jonathan S. Landay

' Iran has privately threatened Britain, France and Germany that it will escalate the crisis over its nuclear program 'beyond Europe's control' in retaliation for any steps the U.N. Security Council takes to force it to abandon uranium enrichment.

Iranian diplomats delivered the warning orally in meetings Monday with foreign ministry officials in London, Berlin and Paris, said a U.S. official and a Western diplomat who spoke only on condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the issue.

The Iranians could resort to the same measures they could use to carry out a threat to cause 'harm and pain' to the United States, including sponsoring terrorism and disruptions of global petroleum supplies. Iran is the world's fourth-largest oil producer.

'They were not specific' ...'


Starting to get the idea?

'An attack on Israel would provoke as large a response as an attack on any European city. '

Well 1) Israel or the European city would be gone and millions of people would be dead. 2) Mutual assured destruction does not work with fanatics who see death as martyrdom. 3) Mutual assured destruction does not work with madmen who think the Hidden Imam is going to come to their aid after they provoke a cataclysmic confrontation with the west....

Starting to get the idea?

'This is the time for Bush to get COHESION between our allies, and stop the go-it-alone attitude. It's 5 years too late for that; but better late than never.'

Nice sloganeering but again it is bullsh!t. We have been going along with the diplomatic efforts of the Europeans since 2002. Precisely why nothing has gotten done.

'The REAL Iranian leaders have no death wish.'

You say these outlandish things like you had the slightest idea of what you were talking about. Do you know them personally? You continually ascribe motivations to people that only exist in your head, be it Bush or the Mullahs. Again, you have no frigging idea what they 'wish' for. None.

'It's in Putin's ultimate interest NOT to see Iran fully empowered '

Wrong, he wants more control over the Middle east and the fastest way of doing it is to eliminate the Saudis as the dominant power.

'Putin is no doubt seeing potential sales to Iran as leverage against Bush;'

He also sees the influence in the region growing through his proxies.

' Bush's changing strategy would cause this Russian fire to go out quickly, as Putin would have established the fact that Russia wields influence, in Bush's eyes.'

That just does not make any sense what so ever.... (Why am I wasting my time here?)

'The problems of downsizing a warhead, and accurate guidance systems, are a giant step up from being able to launch. '

Again, you do not have the slightest idea what you are talking about. Regardless, it doesn't have to be accurate or even proven to work in order to blackmale Europe, it just has to exist without any countermeasure.

'Contrast the current situation with the end of 2000 (and Clinton DID try to take out bin Laden)'

Bullsh!t, we have had this out before as well, there were at least 4 opportunities that we could have killed bin laden that we did not on orders from Clinton or Sandy (are those classified documents in your pants or are you just happy to see me) Berger.

'The difference is that my view is that attempting to blow the other guy up first is not optimal, if you don't do it correctly'

So the missile defense system is 'blowing up the other guy first'? It doesn't even work. It is nothing but a scarecrow and everyone, especially the Russians know this. That filthy monkey was essentially correct, it's a joke. It is however a start and when these bastards do get longer range capability and god forbid if they do get a warhead it will be something that the Europeans can point to when the crazy demands start pouring in from Tehran.

'Note that I wrote that entire thing without calling you any names - try it sometime - it's good exercise)'

You are so ugly I could press your face in dough and make gorilla cookies.

' Their weak spot is refined petroleum products, but with the oil supply situation as difficult as it is, getting support for those sanctions, particularly from China, will be impossible.'

Then we either 1)need to get leverage over China or 2)start the blockade 3) find a way to stop them from importing refined gasoline. If they et an atomic bomb we will not be able to do any of that or keep the strait of Hormuz open. $300 a barrel oil traded in euros. (one of their stated goals) That will lead to a world wide depression that will make 1929 look like an all you can eat buffet at the Plaza.

'Were you truly seeking to see other nations join with the U.S. for pressure or sanctions, you should be angry at Bush for having been partly responsible for destroying those relationships.'

Bush is exasperating, but he is not forcing China to cozy up with mass murderers and terrorists to guarantee their supply of oil or Russia to slip back into a tsarist thug-ocracy.

'PM Blair is leaving office with a 6 percent approval - that's what happens when you don't have the right-wingers (as in this country) covering your butt. '

That is what happens when you have a bunch of trend hopping British who follow fashion and think what the BCC tells them to think.

' Cooperating with Bush, at this point, is seen as politically risky - he's odd-man-out on climate change at G-8,'

Thank God.

'... to see how his lobbyist/insider appointments have massively set back anti-pollution and environmental efforts in the U.S.'

Man made global warming is the largest con game since Charles Ponzi sold stamps. There is a whole lot of money to be made by selling rubes useless crap so they can feel self-righteous. I ought to get in on it. In that sense carbon offsets are better then religion, very low overhead.

Report this comment

????Jun 5th, 2007 - 03:58:26

Good lord, does anyone actually read these rambling comments other than the ones who post them???

Report this comment

pbJun 5th, 2007 - 06:57:26

RE: I believe my point was that you and yours would have been whining and seething that Bush was fear mongering or war mongering or taking away our civil liberties in the face of a manufactured threat if he had taken genuine steps to prevent 9/11 before hand. (etc etc etc ad infinitum)

-------

The Adminstration was warned prior to 9/11, and did nothing. No doubt the American people would not have gone along with more extreme security pre-9/11 - the same could be said about our attitude in the WWII era before Pearl Harbor. it's human nature to deny bad news until it ups and smacks you in the face.

If things are really as bad as you say, you should just dig a hole, and pull the ground in over you. Iran makes noise, Putin makes noise, and that's all jockeying for position, and nationalism and egomania at work.

Terrorists with their thinking distorted by fundamentalist are suicidal - the leadership of a country, on the other hand, has something tangible to lose. Not comparable. The leadership of Iran will eventually turn over, and hopefully some moderate voices will emerge, as the population is already having problems with some price hikes internally. It would be great if we could convince China, and others, to increase sanctions - but I don't see it happening. In part, that's because Bush has lost leverage which the U.S. formerly enjoyed in such matters, in a time where the price of oil dictates policy.

Putin is a complex individual, and very intelligent - too intelligent to disrupt the status quo, where the Russian economy is growing rapidly, and the price of oil has brought in considerable wealth to a country once starved for currency. Putin will solidify his position; but even Putin needs customers - and that's Europe. You don't blow up your customers. If the price of oil goes too high, everyone suffers - that's why the Saudis control their production to keep the oil price in a rough 'band'. Middlemen and traders are also influencing the pump price, and Bush and Cheney have influenced that manipulation. U.S. buyers pay considerably less than Europeans for gasoline, since they have taxes which increase the price. That influences Europeans to drive vehicles which are less gas-hungry, which helps the 'demand side' of the equation.

It will certainly be interesting to see how everyone acts during the G-8 - Rice already visited Putin, and I expect the tone in the conference to be calmer. Rice's problem now:

PANAMA CITY -- A war of words broke out yesterday between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her Venezuelan counterpart over Venezuela's decision to close a popular television station, sidetracking a meeting of the Organization of American States (OAS) that was supposed to focus on energy.

I left one more posting on the National Geographic program 'Inside the Taliban' on the M&C thread:

Ahmadinejad: Collapse of Israel imminent (Roundup)

Report this comment

JoshApr 8th, 2009 - 21:51:24

Just do it: ,

Report this comment