US News
Jan 16, 2008, 17:05 GMT
Iran has sped up missile development, US official says
And Also
Similar articles
- Hundreds protest US missile shield in Prague
- Czech-US missile-shield talks to last beyond NATO summit
- Bush tries to sell missile shield plan in pacifist country
- Czech thumbs up for US liberators, thumbs down for US radar
- Czech village makes its voice heard on US radar base
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. Four police officers slain in coffee shop "execution"
- 2. Struggles at home leave Obama hamstrung at Copenhagen (Feature)
- 3. Four US police officers shot dead near air force base (1st Lead)
- 4. Four US police officers shot dead near air force base
- 5. Tiger Woods' slightly injured in car mishap (Roundup)
Via BuzzFeed
Older Talkback
page: 1 2
There is one already well-established defense against Iranian missiles--MAD. The other great worry gets back to energy independence because the Iranians could, if they were determined, close the Straits of Hormuz. Even without missiles they can cause trouble in the oil markets. With missiles, they can cause serious trouble in the oil markets. Even with this inordinately expensive missile defense system proposed for Europe, Iranian missiles would cause serious trouble in the oil markets.
The REAL answer then, is to change the nature of the oil markets. Personally, I think the oil companies could do this given the right incentives. A carrot and stick approach seems to be in order. Oh, and let's not forget the automobile manufacturers and automobile drivers. Automobile designs must change as well as consumer expectations. It's the patriotic thing to do.
If the US were to develop the new technology that will ultimately replace fossil fuel as the primary energy source for transportation, we could market the resulting device to China, and the rest of the world, and solve our trade deficit. It would probably make oil nearly worthless so places like Iran, and others, would lose their ability to threaten our security.
RE:'If the US were to develop the new technology that will ultimately replace fossil fuel as the primary energy source for transportation, we could market the resulting device to China, and the rest of the world, and solve our trade deficit.'
BINGO! The alternative is for us to strain our on resources to the breaking point and go broke while enriching our enemies. Which is the smarter strategy?
is a fantasy word, boys and girls. Get real. If wishes were horses, we would all ride.
RE:'. If wishes were horses, we would all ride.'
If all you do is sit on your ass and wish for something you don't ride, you don't eat and you probably won't even get in out of the rain. If, on the other hand, you look for solutions to your problems, you usually find them. In this case, there ARE solutions. Some powerful people are not all that fond of them, but there ARE solutions. Solutions, by the way, that are vastly superior to bankrupting the country while sending American soldiers to fight and die in foreign sands.
'and go broke while enriching our enemies'
Well, boy, if you bloody yanks didn't go around making enemies of everybody, then you would be enriching your friends, who would return the favour. Sonce when is China an enemy? when do you start bombing? China is one of your major trading partners, and your economy which is already in the tank would totally collapse without them. Who's got the power? Remember what that jerk in Nam said about the Hearts and Minds Programme. 'When you have them by the balls...' Don't you feel that vice tightening on your scrotal sack, boy?
go beating up on Noharness. After all he is a product of his environment. He's from Texas where it is shoot first and don't bother to ask questions. He is an republican american, that means he is a linear thinker and cannot think laterally. Feel sorry for him and his ignorance. I am sure that in real life he is a very charming fellow, for a republican. Being a linear thinker also means that he can only understand what is fed to him and cannot see the fallacy in anything that he 'knows.' This type of thinker is incapable of questioning themselves or what they've been taught. Yes, feel a great sadness for the great Noharness. Don't beat him up, OK?
noharness had a brain... But then that is a fantasy, too.
The jealous canadan and her sock-puppets strike again!
Iran is years from having a missile, in quantity, that would do damage to Europe. They've depending on importing knowledge, if not the hardware, from Russia and North Korea. Ideally, we could dissuade the suppliers. Bush famously inferred that he 'saw Putin's soul', but that did not take into account the economics gains from energy prices that followed. We SHOULD have leverage with North Korea, as a group of nations, China and Russia included, worked to resolve their nuclear issue. North Korea is needy economically, and uses weapons sales to raise currency.
Any missile shield will be penetrated by sheer volume of incoming missiles, especially with each carrying multiple warheads, inbcluding possibly some dummy warheads to draw interceptors. If a nation could field a nation with 10 warheads, but only 5 carrying a warhead, it compounds the problems of picking and choosing targets, and allow a nation with fewer available warheads to appear as a greater threat.
Iran can do a lot more damage in other ways, a lot cheaper, and with less risk to the Iranian homeland.
YA THINK?
RE:'Well, boy, if you bloody yanks didn't go around making enemies of everybody, then you would be enriching your friends, who would return the favour.'
Oh, really? You could have fooled me.
RE:'Sonce when is China an enemy?'
Since they decided that they were our enemy. That was quite a while back and their attitude hasn't changed very much. Their methods have changed, but their intentions haven't. I invite your attention to the Chinese press.
RE:'When do you start bombing?'
Hopefully never. As I have been struggling to point out, there are many ways to skin a cat.
RE:'China is one of your major trading partners, and your economy which is already in the tank would totally collapse without them.'
Sort of true. Our economy is collapsing quite handily without Chinese help. One of the reasons I never supported the Bushbaby and his minions is because he came out in support of Bill Clinton's trade policy with China. I thought it was foolish then. I think it was foolish now and I am being proven correct even as I write this. Free trade never was and is not now a panacea. It only does good in certain contexts. China is NOT one of those contexts.
RE:'Who's got the power?'
That's a good question. Do you really want us to try and find out? Somehow, I don't think you do. I know that the Chinese don't and I am dead certain that the boobs in DC don't want to try either.
RE:'Remember what that jerk in Nam said about the Hearts and Minds Programme. 'When you have them by the balls...' Don't you feel that vice tightening on your scrotal sack, boy?''
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. I am working for a Chinese owned company at the moment. Ironic, isn't it? Everyday I roll into the parking lot, there is the Chinese Communist flag fluttering in the breeze overhead. It's frightening, seeing the Chinese Communist flag flying over Texas soil, but I am not among those who invited them in.
Did you know that the price of steel is about the same in China as it is here in the US? I assure you that it is. They and we buy most of it from the Indians. Do you know why they can beat us like a drum in the fabricated steel market? They abuse their own more than we abuse the illegals here. I hate to think what it must be like working in Chinese toy factory. It must be thoroughly hideous. In fact, the whole of China is a hideous mess. I've seen pictures that never make it to the news outlets and likely never will.
As best I can tell, China has a polity that shares many characteristics with ancient Sparta. All of the politicking goes on among their nearly hereditary party elite. I don't think we have a modern label for this kind of polity. It isn't Communism by any stretch of the imagination. It certainly isn't Capitalism and they certainly do not live under a Democracy. They have a powerful oligarchy that elects a new monarch every few years and they reveal very little about how it is done.
Here of late they have been talking about changing the target of their manufacturing. They are now thinking that maybe the United States is not their best customer. With the fall of the dollar, their monstrous great profits have started to dwindle. Are you ready for the flood over there, mate? You had best get ready, because it is about to hit.
Don't try to tell me anything about China, Bubbette. I am dealing with it up close and personal.
I agree with most that paranoia seems to rule the USA .As if Iran or any other nation would attack the USA,the country that spends the same amount on weaponry as the rest of the world combined .I would laug if this matter wasn't so sad .It is so obvious that the military industrial complex that rules the US government has shifted to grooming and raising new ennemies once the USSR collapsed to continue making their enormous profits and keep the economy going .We only have the word of the neocons and republicans for this so called iranian menace,not a shred of evidence .Perhaps that is enough to convince some mentally impaired citizens but not the rest of the world.Especially in view of the released evidence from the US own intelligence sources revealing that Bush has lied again .In short,keep your missiles ,we do not need any kind of help fighting your imaginary enemies at all,it should have become clear even to the most feeble minded that the attacks against Iran are instigated by the Israeli lobby njust look at the commotion in the US congress regarding trhe armament sales to the SAudi's .It demonstrates two things ;first of all that once Israel feels threatened it start pulling strings in the US congress,and second that Bush does not give a rat's ass about democracy or human rights outside Iran.Since when is Saudi Arabia a different kind of country than Iran.Last time I checked the government in Iran was elected,but not the Saudi government.And again Iran has a functioning parliament,the Saudi have none.And now to pleasure SP4 ...Hsu...Berger....
If you read the article you will find out Oberring explained his opinion in front of a congress of businessmen .Need any more evidence of the military industrial complex ???
What other, more relevant role does a military have, than to protect it's population centers from nuclear annihilation? What good is a military at all if it cannot interdict weapons delivered by ballistic missile?
Costs too much?
Go put a value on Cleveland, or Brussels, or New York and by all means, Tonny, get back to us.
your last post is so full of fuzzy thinking and distorted logic that I gave up trying to refute it point by point. Goodby. Good luck working for the 'enemy,' traitor. Go comfort yourself with some of that Scottish bog water.
'Go put a value on Cleveland, or New York'
How about 2 cents.
To noharness
Other than their being commies, how are the working conditions over there at Texaspro? Are you still attending the daily political re-education seminars?
Tonny,
'As if Iran or any other nation would attack the USA'
The biggest concern for a long time is that rogue nations will use terrorist proxies to attack US/allied interests. This is actually the case. For years Iran had terrorist sponsorship as a line item in their budget... It is a very effective strategy because you can inflict damage on your enemy without necessarily being held accountable. As an aside, I'd just like to make the point that it is in the interest of the US - or any other target of asymmetrical attacks, to make the primary sponsor of those attacks concerned that there is a high probability they will be attacked in retaliation.
'the military industrial complex that rules the US government has shifted to grooming and raising new ennemies once the USSR collapsed'
So islamic militants are the invention of the MIC?
'We only have the word of the neocons and republicans for this so called iranian menace'
You really ought to consider the fact that when you oversimplify things to the extent that you reduce most of the worlds problems to a mantra of 'Bush' or 'Neocons!', that you might be missing something. Our current problems with Iran date back to President Carter.
'some mentally impaired citizens'
Iran has made quite public its government sponsored 'death to america' rallies, their support for terrorist groups, their threats against our allies, their threats against international shipping in the Persian Gulf, and their desire to dominate the 'Persian' gulf. Maybe they are right on all points, but let's not pretend that Americans, who see rabid mobs screaming for their death, are somehow 'mentally impaired.'
'US own intelligence sources revealing that Bush has lied again'
You obviously never read beyond the headlines. You should try. Keep in mind that the media exaggerates things create 'buzz' to entice you into reading their content and being exposed to their advertisers (or propaganda line).
'In short,keep your missiles ,we do not need any kind of help fighting your imaginary enemies at all'
Who are 'we'?
'the attacks against Iran are instigated by the Israeli lobby'
If Iran stops its 'death to america' state controlled propaganda, and stops providing aid and weapons and training to proxies who are literally killing US citizens, then we could make a lot of progress. I must give Iran credit of course: while they do engage in indirect attacks that kill US citizens, and overtly demand our destruction, it is the US (who engages in neither activity) is considered the bad guy. Kudos.
'Bush does not give a rat's ass about democracy or human rights outside Iran.'
When will you stop hyperbolizing? It can't be just youthful exhuberance. It must be deliberate since you are so consistant. The Saudi government - and other allies of circumstance, are called out on human rights issues. The big difference of course - just as in WWII when we supported Stalin, is that there are larger more overt strategic threats. One is the regional threat potential from Iran. Other strategic threats have included the USSR and now potentially China in coming decades. The Saudis must love the attention!
I do agree that it is unfortunate. Does your country of origin have a better human rights record? Does your current host country do more?
RE:'I agree with most that paranoia seems to rule the USA. As if Iran or any other nation would attack the USA,the country that spends the same amount on weaponry as the rest of the world combined.'
We have two buildings down in New York, Tonny. It isn't paranoia after they really have had a go at you. True, the World Trade Center Atrocity was perpetrated by a different group of fanatics than the Iranians, but it is hard for anyone to see how the Iranians are that much different. I would be very surprised if the Iranians launched a direct attack, but they can attack through surrogates, just as the Saudis already have, there is no question about that. Here is the rub though, if the Iranians have the ability to attack, will they? It is especially worrisome from a military viewpoint if we are not prepared. Opinions vary on this one and rightly so. Do I think we need a missile shield to thwart the Iranians? No, especially not at the cost of annoying the Russians who could, very likely, overwhelm any such shield. We should be looking at other ways to skin the cat.
RE:'I would laugh if this matter wasn't so sad.'
It is sad, I agree, but I can find no amusement in it.
Re:'It is so obvious that the military industrial complex that rules the US government has shifted to grooming and raising new enemies once the USSR collapsed to continue making their enormous profits and keep the economy going.'
Oh, here we go again. Same old blather. Europe isn't keeping up its defenses so we feel obliged to do the job. Personally, I would put an end to NATO so you folks would be obliged to start worrying about your own defenses--or not--however you might choose. Either way, it makes no sense to me for us to keep on picking up the tab as though there were a full blown threat afoot and bad things happening to Europe would really matter that much to us.
As for the rest, Tonny, there is this unfortunate acrimony between the US and Iran. There have been errors on both sides. The Clinton Administration went out of the way to make amends, but their attempts at rapprochement were re-buffed by the Iranians. Then, there is the very clearly expressed hostility against both the US AND Israel. Add to this that the Iranians did at one time have a nuclear weapons program and still have a legitimate military need for such weapons, and there is good reason to expect them to re-start that program once the US leaves Iraq. If you are wont to complain that the Bush Administration is mishandling this situation, I will agree, but to blythely assume that Iran presents a threat to no one is foolhardy.
As for the arms sales to Saudi Arabia, I am of the firmly held opinion that the Saudis are in no way shape of form allies of the United States. Upon close examination of the Saudi polity, I can see no redeeming factors whatsoever. Why should we sell arms to the Saudis? Whatever else they might be, they cannot be counted as our friends and they express no concerns about the Iranians--quite the opposite.
Use this as a chance to express your racism if you like, Tonny, but rest assured that it is wasted on me.
page: 1 2
Your Talkback on this Story