Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 12th October 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

US uses Iranian missile tests to justify European defence shield



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 10 July 2008
THE United States led vociferous condemnation of long-range missile tests by Iran yesterday, but also used them to justify its controversial plans to install a missile defence shield in eastern Europe that have met with fierce Russian opposition.
The Iranian muscle-flexing also highlighted sharp differences in foreign policy between the US presidential rivals. Barack Obama, the Democratic hopeful, called for "aggressive diplomacy" with Iran, while John McCain, the Republican candidate, warned against making any concessions.

Tehran said a "new version" of its Shahab-3 missile, with a range of 1,250 miles and carrying a one-tonne conventional warhead, was among nine medium and long-range missiles test-fired by its elite Revolutionary Guards.

Tehran said the exercise demonstrated the Islamic Republic's readiness to retaliate against any attack over its nuclear programme. Referring to the US and Israel, General Hossein Salami, the air force commander of the Revolutionary Guards, declared: "We warn the enemies who intend to threaten us with military exercises and empty psychological operations that our hand will always be on the trigger and our missiles will always be ready to launch."

The tests came less than a day after the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, dismissed fears that Israel and the US could be preparing to attack.

Despite the sabre-rattling, neither side has ruled out a settlement.

"We view force as an option that is on the table, but a last resort," said William Burns, the US under-secretary of state for political affairs. "We do not believe we have exhausted all diplomatic options."

Footage of the missiles, fired from a desert location, was broadcast on television.

In London, the Foreign Office said the "tests were unwelcome and only serve to reinforce our concerns about Iranian intentions". The White House expressed concern that Iran's ballistic missiles could be used as a "delivery vehicle for a potential nuclear weapon".

Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, said the test justified plans to install a missile shield in eastern Europe. "Those who say there is no Iranian missile threat against which we should build a defence missile system perhaps ought to talk to the Iranians about their claims," she said on a visit to Bulgaria.

That argument was echoed by Mr McCain. He also implicitly criticised Mr Obama's strategy of engaging with Iran. "Working with our European partners and regional allies is the best way to meet the threat posed by Iran, not unilateral concessions that undermine multilateral diplomacy," Mr McCain said.

Mr Obama said Iran must "suffer threats of economic sanctions with direct diplomacy opening up channels of communication so we avoid provocation, but we give strong incentives for the Iranians to change their behaviour".

BACKGROUND

IRAN'S medium to long-range missile programme is primarily based on North Korean-supplied technology, shipped to the country in the late 1990s and based on Soviet designs.

There is also evidence of some later Russian and Chinese input and it is to be assumed the Iranians have made several advances themselves.

Defence analyst Paul Beaver said Iran's missile programme was fairly advanced, but it still needed to get accuracy and guidance systems right for long distances. "They are some way away yet from threatening Israel or US bases," he said.

Pieter Wezeman, a researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, said he did not believe that Iran had many Shahab 3 missiles in stock or that they could cause major destruction.

The full article contains 583 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 09 July 2008 9:53 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Iran
 
1

Schot,

10/07/2008 00:05:00
Cough(bullshat)cough.
2

Schot,

10/07/2008 00:09:14
This is an offensive defence against the Russians, which better explains the location of the sites.

So the US can take out Russian missiles while still being able to strike Russia.

It is the latest round in the 'Sword vs Shield' race that has been killing people since history was first recorded. It is a crying shame that philosophy can't keep up with technology.
3

Schot,

10/07/2008 01:01:14
Harry ? Me ? What ?

Sword vs Shield is an analogy of the arms race throughout history. Defensive capabilities are equivalent to offensive capabilities. So you increase your sword, I increase my shield.

I am NOT recommending this as a national policy.

'MAD', mutually assured destruction, was completely mad, but it was far safer than the US being able to launch missiles with impunity. Because if they can do it, they will. That is a basic law of biology/politics.
4

Scullion,

Canada 10/07/2008 01:09:13
The U.S. has no missile bearing nation to fear (the small ones who don't have them is a different story).
It is all posturing to bring Iran on board as at has in N.Korea.
5

2dogs in D.C.,

10/07/2008 01:45:46
The U.S. has had, for some time, the capability to hit just about everywhere, using nothing more than our nuke subs,You, and I, may not like it, but there it is.
6

57Nomad,

california 10/07/2008 02:03:15
#4 Schot

schot said:

"but it was far safer than the US being able to launch missiles with impunity. Because if they can do it, they will. That is a basic law of biology/politics."

A basic law of biology/politics? Are you implying that biology and politics share common laws? Are you insane?

"If they can they will,"? This is your prediction, Nostradamus? Did this come to you in a vision? Were you into the meadow mushrooms? Try thinking things through. You are proposing a scenario where the US has attained sole capability for launching long range missiles. Once having reached this capability they do what? They start blowing things up? How did you reach this conclusion, Sloopy? Care to document your outrageous claims?
7

Finnking,

Lempäälä 10/07/2008 03:37:36
This system will allow the most violent, brutal, terrorist state on Earth to attack any country without having to endure the retaliation.

For any of the countries who are dumb enough to allow it on their soil, the sword of Damocles will be double edged. The US gov will be able to switch the system on and off (yes, the US terrorist state will have full control) and freedom fighters will target them.

"In London, the Foreign Office said the "tests were unwelcome and only serve to reinforce our concerns about Iranian intentions".

Where was the condemnation of the Israeli war preparation last week?

The White House expressed concern that Iran's ballistic missiles could be used as a "delivery vehicle for a potential nuclear weapon"."

So why did the US GIVE Israel long range bombers last year without 'concern' for Iran or anyone else?

One 'rule' for US and quite another for THEM.
8

W Smith,

Middle East 10/07/2008 04:22:05
The Iranians are rationing petrol at the moment - thats without a war.

I suppose thats Bush's fault, eh?

Funny how the Iranians have the time and energy to make missiles but not to increase their refining capacity.

When Germany and Japan tried to take on the americans during WW2 they were both modern industrialised nations with capable engineers and scientists.

THEY STILL GOT STUFFED.

The USA doesn't have to use nuclear weapons to defeat Iran - thats typical anti-american SNP and Labour propaganda.

Actually its an insult to america's manufacturing industry that turned out more conventional weapons, including warships and aircraft, than Japan and Germany combined in WW 2.

If Iran wants a fight with the USA then they had better do their homework.

1) A conventional war with the US will require Iran to do something about their refining capacity.

2) A nuclear strike against Israel will cause nuclear fall-out on Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan.

3) A nuclear strike against a Europe and Tehran will be "rubble by lunchtime".

BTW
It was the USA, NOT THE SOVIET UNION, that gave back territory they won in WWII.

After WWII, The Soviet Union took possession of countries like Poland and East Germany.

The Scottish lefties talk about "american imperialism" but never "Soviet Imperialism".

Funny that.
9

Guga II,

Rockall 10/07/2008 04:54:05
Rice's assertion that "the test justified plans to install a missile shield in eastern Europe." is utter garbage. Iran would not be attacking Eastern Europe, they would only be "attacking" in retaliation against the two states that are liable to attack them first. That is, the septics, and their bought and paid for attack dogs, the Israelis.

In modern history, the Iranians have never attacked and invaded anyone. They have only ever fought in self-defence. The septics and the Israelis, on the other hand, have attacked and invaded a number of countries in recent history, and have, as a result, caused the deaths of countless civilians.

Rice's pathetic excuse for placing missiles, which will be strictly under septic control, in Eastern Europe, is another puerile attempt by the septics to surround Russia with missiles. They tried it before with missiles in Turkey, but had to agree to withdraw them to get the Russians to withdraw their missiles from Cuba. The septic bully boys thought they had the sole rights to place missiles on another country's borders, but they didn't like it when it was done to them.

Iran, like any country, has a right to have missiles to use in self-defence.
10

Finnking,

Lempäälä 10/07/2008 06:39:06
WH Smith.

"The Iranians are rationing petrol at the moment - thats without a war. I suppose thats Bush's fault, eh?"

---Well, it would help if a) there was no trade restrictions, b) no bank accounts frozen, c) not being put on the axis of evil (that from a grown up!)and d) not being under constant threat of bombing. All of these things make it very hard for a nation.

"Funny how the Iranians have the time and energy to make missiles but not to increase their refining capacity."

---Do you meant in the same it was funny that 'uk' and USA could fund many wars (killing millions) but have old folk dyeing of cold in winter, lots of poor housing etc? Do you mean 'funny' in the way that the US have placed trade sanctions on them and any anyone dealing with Iran will be out of favour with USA? Yeah, tres drole.

"When Germany and Japan tried to take on the americans during WW2 they were both modern industrialised nations with capable engineers and scientists.THEY STILL GOT STUFFED."

--Well, perhaps, but not by the USA. Oh, and look at them now. How's the US debt these days? Still at 50% of all world debt? How's the dollar looking against the Yen and the €?

"The USA doesn't have to use nuclear weapons to defeat Iran - thats typical anti-american SNP and Labour propaganda."

---ANTI ANTI ANTI----I only hear that when folk crit Israeli and US foreign policy. "SNP" AND "Labour" would not share a lift at the moment, far ess a propaganda routine. The shield doesn't only work against nukes. That's just the US gov's way of getting you to pay for it.

"If Iran wants a fight with the USA then they had better do their homework."

---Iran does not want a fight with anyone. That's why they haven't attacked other folk in centuries. It's the other way around. I agree: the US had better do its homework because Iran is not a starved out, bombed out place like Iraq was.

"A nuclear strike against Israel will cause nuclear fall-out on Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Jorda
11

Finnking,

Lempäälä 10/07/2008 06:39:39
WH Smith.

more--------

"A nuclear strike against Israel will cause nuclear fall-out on Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan."

---The UN Inspection teams clearly state that there is no way Iran can get a bomb. Deal with this, please. It hinders your thinking. Iran does not have a bomb and have shown no signs of trying to make one according to the UN inspection teams.

"It was the USA, NOT THE SOVIET UNION, that gave back territory they won in WWII. After WWII, The Soviet Union took possession of countries like Poland and East Germany."

---When will you realise that, contrary to Hollywood's Education/Propaganda Department's insistence, the USA did not win the war in Europe. There were so many other nations involved in every action. So, why would the USA 'take over' land they didn't win?

"The Scottish lefties talk about "american imperialism" but never "Soviet Imperialism"."

---Oh we do, so the frequency adverb has to change. Try 'Rarely': Because the Soviets are no more? Because Russia doesn't act the ars* as much as Uncle Sam so there are fewer articles about them? Because we never have to convince people that there was/is a USSR/Russian empire whereas the US tax payers seems completely unaware about their own foreign policies?

Funny that.
12

ebbi,

spain 10/07/2008 07:12:28
bearing in mind that us exports to iran have been increased by ten folds and the current situation with missiles,iwonder if usa and iranian government are in it together.does usa really want a democratic iran?why i would say? would they be able to play these games in the m east if iran was democratic?no way.
bottom line is that they want an escuse to be there and stir up things.lets hope russia does not get p****d off.
13

postmark55,

Chongqing, China, 10/07/2008 07:18:19
#7 57Nomad,
When are you going to realize that beyond the borders of your screwed up country there is a whole world, filled with people who are smarter than you, equally or more advanced than you, and can bring your country to it's ever weakening knees in a hurry? You and your idiotic leader Bush are the most arrogant, therefore the most stupid people this forum has ever seen. You are not the center of the Universe, you are barely a blip on the radar. Quit reading your fantasy novels and get with the program, sadly it will be a rude awakening for you.
14

Raj Persaud's ghost writer,

10/07/2008 07:25:51
15 Heart attacks cheney can't wait to go to war. Why else would he spend the past 5 years building and equiping all the military bases in iraq, all for American soldiers.

Israel are just their to kick it off

I wish god had got him propelry the first time.
15

Proximaking,

Aberdeen 10/07/2008 07:34:02
If Israel attacks it will be anihilated, "Bring it on!"

And if 57NOMAD doesn't recognise the links between biology and politics he/she/it is mad, .... must be a machine to be so thick. Ever heard of an anti-semite? These are the people who hate semites and base their politics on it. Semites like the Jews and ... errr the Palestinians. The greatest anti-semite political force in the world stole Palestine by terror and requires that terror to continue, go and ask the Jews who were there at the time as they've long ago given up pretending the Palestinans left peacefully of their own accord, they were shelled out by Jewish incomers. Does the King David Hotel atrocity, nutters denounced and then all voted into the Knesset within ten years, ring any bells in La La land of the good ol USA? It seems some saddos in the States still haven't woken up to the facts of biology and politics. Has he/she/it never heard of Hitler? I suggest he/she/it goes to the Jewish memorial building at the Southern end of Manhattan if he/she/it hasn't and there will be seen in all its glory the star of the show, Hitler, the bogeyman used for decades to excuse the terror state that was/is/will always be Israel, ...... until it is pushed into the sea of course. And as Nostrodamus was a Jew isn't our he/she/it being a tad anti-semitic?

I don't like the Iranian government but I like the Chinese one even less, and the Russian one, and the USA one and the Israeli one, ..... so let's nuke em all, after all it was European scientists and not Americans who gave us the bombs, or has "57nostradumbus" or is it Heinz57 forgotten that? Get out of your tin can and look afresh at the world you small minded he/she/it. I'm a he by the way as you may have guessed.
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

16

yockel,

10/07/2008 07:37:20
Anyone here who wouldn't test a missile if they were Iranian?
17

,

10/07/2008 07:39:06
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
18

gus1940,

Edinburgh 10/07/2008 07:44:27
That bas---d Columbus has got a lot to answer for.

19

Silence of the Yams,

10/07/2008 07:55:03
Not too smart these Mullah's. Test firing these missiles just bolsters international concerns about their illegal enrichment and behaviour.
20

Finnking,

Lempäälä 10/07/2008 08:00:04
gus1940

Well, at least when the Europeans were strutting around the globe killing and stealing as they went, they create an entire fiction line about moral justifications. You know? They just sailed, bombed and killed and invaded and stole and ran the place under the various flags. Terrible but 'honest' horror.

This current crowd (USA) get themselves all tied up in the bull they produce, the propaganda. The people of USSR KNEW what they read was bull/propaganda while the average US tax payer actually believes it all without question. There was some USSR delegation to the US decades ago and they couldn't believe how successful the US system was in indoctrinating the herd.

Watch US TV and play the game of "count the flags". Make a valid critisism of US policy and you are "anti american". The Kremlin of yore must have been in awe of the US system of herd control. Because of that indoctrination, the ROTW endlessly have to explain the screamingly obvious about US foreign policy.
21

Finnking,

Lempäälä 10/07/2008 08:02:57
Look at the NPT document that the Iranians signed. It clearly states that signatories are entitled to process Uranium. Therefore it's not illegal.

So, having done that, now you know Iran is not acting illegally. Now, tell me why Iran should be attacked?
22

Finnking,

Lempäälä 10/07/2008 08:04:25
Gus

Oops!

Line one edit: "they ***DIDN'T*** create an entire fiction line about moral justifications.

Sorry: no coffee yet.
23

Louis Catorze,

10/07/2008 08:21:29
Wonder where they landed....
24

bluehead,

edinburgh 10/07/2008 08:22:27
when Russia wanted to put weaponry on Cuba some years
ago,the Americans reacted in a very forceful manner
to the point ,almost of war.
So what do they expect when they say, they are going to
put weaponry almost on Russia's door step.
America disgusts me in the way they seem to run this God -forsaken world.
25

Silence of the Yams,

10/07/2008 08:23:31
22. The UN have told them to stop enrichment, end of! If they don't comply and continue to both sabre rattle and deny access to key sites and individuals the inevitable will happen.
26

yockel,

10/07/2008 08:49:45
#26 If UN resolutions are so important why does the US not meet its funding obligations to the un?
27

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 10/07/2008 08:55:35
#25

The russians put nuclear armed missiles on Cuba which cut down any warning of a nuclear strike to minutes. These missiles are ballistic defence missiles which are purely a defensive system.
28

sweet76,

10/07/2008 09:27:00
#10 Iran has never needed to openly invade anyone, they do by proxy by funding terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Like all good terrorist groups they set out intimidate and control the people they are supposed to defend.
29

57Nomad,

california 10/07/2008 09:40:53
#25 bluehead

Bluehead said:

"So what do they expect when they say, they are going to
put weaponry almost on Russia's door step.
America disgusts me in the way they seem to run this God -forsaken world."

Sir you have equated non-explosive anti-missile missiles, this is the system to be deployed, the missiles do not contain explosives of any kind.

These are the missiles you have compared to the nuclear armed IRBM's the Russians were deploying in Cuba? Do you have no shame at all? More than that, do you think that anyone who doesn't go around with their name and phone number safety pinned to their shirt pocket didn't notice? Get real, Skippy. Get a clue.
30

Electric Hermit,

10/07/2008 09:45:32
28 All Politicians are the same
"These missiles are ballistic defence missiles which are purely a defensive system."

There is no such thing as a "purely defensive" system. Strong defences are always to some extent intended to facilitate the use of offensive weapons.

Whatever the US may say about the purpose of this supposedly defensive system, we are entitled to judge their true intentions from their previous conduct. Given the continuing arrogant belligerence of the US, only the most credulous fool could possibly believe that any of its actions is benign?
31

Electric Hermit,

10/07/2008 09:55:06
30 57Nomad
"These are the missiles you have compared to the nuclear armed IRBM's the Russians were deploying in Cuba?"

It is you who needs to "get a clue". If you truly believe that the US would have found it acceptable for the Soviets to site "defensive" missiles in Cuba, you are seriously deluded.

I somehow doubt that you are capable of such an intellectual exercise, but if you could draw the obvious parallels between the two situations then your understanding of other's attitudes might advance from zero.
32

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 10/07/2008 10:02:27
#31/32

Youre arguement is that a defensive system is purely designed to enable an offensive system to be used with impunity. that may be true I was merely pointing out that the missiles are defensive. As for Cuba they had complete SAM systems installed for years and nothing was said until they tried to install an offensive nuclear strike capable missile.
33

TSW at the Cyber Shebeen,

10/07/2008 10:22:12
30 57Nomad

Bluehead does not seem to be very sharp.
34

Electric Hermit,

10/07/2008 10:23:36
33 All Politicians are the same
"Youre arguement is that a defensive system is purely designed to enable an offensive system to be used with impunity"

It is not! If you read what I wrote you will see that I actually said that nominally defensive systems are "to some extent intended to facilitate the use of offensive weapons". Note the phrase, "TO SOME EXTENT". The clear implication being that different defensive systems can be either more or less "purely" defensive. The SAM missiles that you mention are a good example of a weapons system that tends towards the more "purely" defensive end of the spectrum.

The proposed "shield" in Poland/Czech Republic cannot be seen in the same light. Especially when the US record of war-mongering aggression is taken into account.
35

Schot,

10/07/2008 10:24:11
"Are you implying that biology and politics share common laws? Are you insane ?"

No, merely educated, but I understand why educated people seem insane to you as you have no way of telling the difference. Politicians and voters are biological, at least until our robot overlords make their move.

"Biology and politics"
Authors: Robert Blank; Samuel M. Hines Jnr

This book demonstrates the increasing interest of some social scientists in the theories, research and findings of life sciences in building a more interdisciplinary approach to the study of politics. It discusses the development of biopolitics as an academic perspective within political science, reviews the growing literature in the field and presents a coherent view of biopolitics as a framework for structuring inquiry across the current subfields of political science.
36

TSW at the Cyber Shebeen,

10/07/2008 10:29:19
8 Finnking - Troll

Your site is even restricted here! You can't even type the word out here on the Scotsman because you and your ilk are trouble makers here deleting commnets and promoting your communist site, why don't you go away!
37

Schot,

10/07/2008 10:30:33
"You are proposing a scenario where the US has attained sole capability for launching long range missiles. Once having reached this capability they do what? They start blowing things up?"

Yes, sort of like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Did you know Churchill urged massive nuclear strikes on the Soviet Union to preempt thier development of nukes ?
38

TSW at the Cyber Shebeen,

10/07/2008 10:48:02
18 Finnking

You are one sick communist!
39

Electric Hermit,

10/07/2008 10:49:59
7 57Nomad
"You are proposing a scenario where the US has attained sole capability for launching long range missiles. Once having reached this capability they do what? They start blowing things up?"

You are proposing a scenario where the US attains such power with no intention of ever using it.

Perhaps you want to think about that for a moment.

Or perhaps you would rather not.
40

Horrible Cankers at the Cyber Shebeen,

10/07/2008 10:55:26
Aaaaah looks like the trolls been let off the leash....didnae notice ye here wae me in the Cyber Shebeen petal...need tae work on yer personality...ye've goat issues ye know!
41

Finnking,

Lempäälä 10/07/2008 11:25:45
Bluehead

You are correct in your use of the word "weapon":

weap·on (wpn)
n.
1. An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.
2. Zoology A part or organ, such as a claw or stinger, used by an animal in attack or defense.
3. A means used to defend against or defeat another: Logic was her weapon.

The word "weapon" is used for defense use too.

Are you aware that the USA had placed nuclear missiles in Turkey (NPR, anyone?) and the Cuban crises was the USSR's response to that? IE: the USA started it.

The problem with this "defense" system is that it allows USA to attack with nukes and those under its umbrella will be forced to go along with agreeing to the nuke attack or be de-selected from the safety net.

It's an offensive weapon, IMO. When the most violent, terrorist, state on Earth develops a protection system such as this, nothing will stop them attacking REAL foes. So far they have NEVER fought any decent "enemy" but managed to lose every war. (I blame the training and eduction of the troops and the insanity of the rulers). This system makes USA war success a bit more likely.

Sadly for the US citizens who will have to pay for this system (Liberal economics, anyone? har har har. Transfer of wealth!)the "enemy" will simply use other methods, methods that will involve more civilian deaths.
42

Number 6,

Germany 10/07/2008 11:30:21
The Iranians are well aware that the US joint chiefs of staff refuse to attack them because Cheney Bush etc can't come up with a "what happens next" strategy.

This will enhance the generals apprehension about attacks on US soldiers in the region. Saudi Arabia for example , would be a prime target, hence one of the reasons the US is now under pressure to leave the whole region. Even Iraq are now demanding a dated time table for US withdrawl from their country.

All the bleating and protesting from the US and Israel is farcical ahnd will be taken as a sign of weakness in the middle east. Hilarious to suggest that Israel is the only country in the region that should have a reasonable defense capability while the others cower in fear. Wake up ! then Grow up.
43

Vote SNP !!! !!!,

Kilbarchan 10/07/2008 11:42:57
41 Horrible

Aye! Finnking and his mates are back to disrupt the fora again, bring the children in!
44

Iain's,

10/07/2008 12:14:25
Can anyone recommend which shares I should buy to profit from arms manufacture?
45

Schot,

10/07/2008 12:15:23
@43 Vote SNP!

I'm no mate of Finnking and wouldn't have heard of the FH site if it wasn't for you eejits going on about it.

However, Finnking uses argument and facts while the war-mongers here use glib insults at best while running away from rational argument, so better fit the the term 'troll'.

And you personally are a disgrace to the SNP. Please chose a name that represent s you and not the rest of us, you faker.
46

Schot,

10/07/2008 12:29:47
44

There is a huge choice of British arms manufacturers you can profit fromNot for the first time we are now the largest exporter of arms on the planet. Read CAAT.org for best tips. I wouldn't invest in BAE though as the US justice department are about to rip that corrupt, immoral keech to shreds.
47

Maurice,

Fife 10/07/2008 12:56:54
Unfortunately the US uses any possible excuse to forward their quest for world domination and the promotion of the state of Isreal. They do not act in the interests of world peace but are purely driven by capatalistic ideals. They will blackmail and bribe their way into every country in order to form this "New World Order" (G Bush snr)

8. W Smith,Middle East. Of course Iran is rationing fuel. It is not in their economic interests to have a low price. Law of supply and demand. The West and China need the fuel, Iran wants the money. If you produced something and the demand outstripped supply, would you over supply so you get a lower price??
48

Rennie,

Upstate NY 10/07/2008 12:58:58
Iran is Russia's North Korera, they will do everything they can to help that nation become a threat, pretend they share no responsibility, and then offer to help "defuse" the situation if we beg them. Let me be very clear, Russia and China have helped Iran build those underground bunkers, missiles, (but warhead may be acredited to Dr. Khan, that they helped), and they supply them with intelligence, the only reason Iran put aside those warhead designs in 2003 is they have better ones, they have better missiles fully capable of 1,000 miles, they have a banditto navy and Russian submarines. Incidentally, where were the cooling towers if that was just a reactor Isreal blew up in Syria? And who benefits if the Straits of Hormuz closes? Russia. This business of bullying the Czechs is just talk. Besides Russia can launch at the USA from anyplace on the globe, a European missile shield is not a threat to them. They claim a balance of nukes and to embrace the MAD theory, truth is they have been almost to pushing the button at least once a decade, the closest was probably Nov 8, 1983, not the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kruschev had planned to attack before 1962 but was convinced at the last moment they didn't have the superiority a Cuba launching base would afford. If the USA was going to strike as soon as it had superiority, Russia/USSR would long ago ceased to exist. The point is we didn't, and won't, unless attacked first, but if attacked will wipe the slate clean somewhere else. China has the largest conventional military force, Russia is working hard to rebuild theirs, although I had a good laugh at supposed recent May Day parade footage in Red Square that looked like something off a video game. Bottom line is Russia wants Europe at their feet, just like the Cold War, turns out Clinton gutting the CIA and giving everyone hugs and a big check was a poor foreign policy because bad guys mistake a unconditional desire to be friends as a sign of weakness and fear. And I'll throw
49

Rennie,

Upstate NY 10/07/2008 13:13:51
What other nation has historically stood more for personal freedom and liberty? Communist Russia, China, the National Socialists? Everyone likes to bash the USA well alright, odds are we will lose the next world war, how is your Russian or Chinese? Speak against those regimes as a citizen and see what happens. We get the blame, and the bill, for anything that goes wrong anywhere in the world, come tax time there is a growing sentiment in the USA to kill all foreign aid and assistance until our own books are straightened out. Freedom is not exclusive to the USA, but only this nation and it's allies, such as the UK, seem willing to put down lives and wealth to preserve or spread it for teh sake of others. Those who oppose a world run by freedom lovers can only want tyranny imposed by themselves.
50

,

10/07/2008 13:21:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
51

Maurice,

Fife 10/07/2008 13:30:31
48 Rennie,Upstate NY ,in the eighties I was very involved in the Angolan war. (for my sins) The threat was from comunism or so we believed. Strange, I never saw a soviet operative. in 1984 we were met by CIA operative (Yes , American) who transfered to us an enormous amount of Russian made weapons and landmines. These in turn were pssed over to Unita for use against the Angolan government, Swapo and civilian targets to strengthen the fascist agenda of America. That is, to destabilize the region into a state of political and economic chaos. Angola has oil, America wanted it. PW Botha threatened to expose this to the world while SA was under sanctions so America withdrew funding and the war came to a peaceful end except for the band of bandits Unita who were never told it was over till Jonas Savimbi was killed. My point, dear friend, is judging by your post, Like I was, you are incredibly indoctrinated
52

Schot,

10/07/2008 13:33:37
"We get the blame, and the bill"

Britain just finished paying off it's WWII debt to the US. It took us 60 years to pay the cost of fighting Nazism alone, at a time Henry Ford was still producing tanks for the Third Reich, IBM was collating the Jews to be killed and Prescott Bush was war-profiteering.

Hypocrites.
53

Silence of the Yams,

10/07/2008 13:48:57
51. Yes, but the US are not to blame for this situation. The Iranian Mullah's want to control Jerusalem, that's the root of it all.
54

Number 6,

Germany 10/07/2008 13:49:09
#49 Rennie, get a grip and try and breakout of your Hollywood fantasy. America has done more to destroy freedom, especially in your own back yard, than any
other dictatorship in recent history.
Condasleeeeeeeza rice (Shudder) was on tv this week saying how "Proud" she was of the Iraq occupation. Try telling ANY iraqi that the US stands for freedom. A sick joke if ever I have heard it. Stick to US media forums if you are going to continue spouting such obvious trash . Once again , THIS IS EUROPE.

ps you only get the blame when it's your faut. The fact that that's nearly all the time, is your fault, no one elses.
55

Number 6,

Germany 10/07/2008 13:50:23
#53 Why would Iran wish to control Jerusalem ?
56

,

10/07/2008 13:55:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
57

,

10/07/2008 14:07:13
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
58

Silence of the Yams,

10/07/2008 14:12:27
55. lol! You lefty's haven't a clue about the Islamist agenda have you? Jerusalem ranks with Mecca and Medina for the pious Muslim masses. The Mullah's despeartely want to control it.
59

Vote SNP !!! !!!,

Kilbarchan 10/07/2008 14:13:57
#45 Shot yourself in the foot

You are a very rude person, where in this thread did I mention the name of his site? It is you that are touting the name of his business.
60

Schot,

10/07/2008 14:21:03
59 Vote SNP!!!!!!

I am a very rude person, but it took me sometime to work out what site you and your cronies were referring to.

Now let's get back to what right you have to misuse and misrepresent the SNP. What gives you that right ? Don't you have a name that you are prepared to ascribe your views to, or the wit to invent a nom de plume ? Are you aware that the SNP would not have troops in Iraq or Afghanistan ?
61

,

10/07/2008 14:26:51
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
62

Vote SNP !!! !!!,

Kilbarchan 10/07/2008 14:27:10
#60 Shot yourself in the foot again

Unlike you, Finnking the troll, and your other half wits the SNP do not all have to agree on every issue with fear of being ostracized from the group.
63

Vote SNP !!! !!!,

Kilbarchan 10/07/2008 14:33:51
#60 Schot

"it took me sometime to work out what site you and your cronies were referring to"

I seriously doubt that, Finnking the trolls site monitors everyone's IP address and your history, if you do not agree with them on every issue they pass on your information to some of the trolls here on the Scotsman like they did with that retired Fire Chief in California. They were able to look up his personal information and found out his wifes name and kept postings info here on the Scotsman. It's sick stuff!
64

,

10/07/2008 14:37:41
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
65

Gere,

Scotland 10/07/2008 14:46:14
The Republican Presidential hopeful was publically singing Bomb, Bomb Iran, I believe in tune to Barbra Anne.

Israel recently held a practice bombing run on Iran over Greece.

American Warships and submarines threaten Iran's security on a daily basis in the Gulf.

On 3rd July 1988 an America Naval Captain murdered some 292 unarmed Iranian civilians by shooting down a civilian Iranian passenger Jumbo Jet.

In 1953 Iran held its first democratic elections, one Mohamed Mossedeque became Prime Minister. He soon indicated he would not be an American puppet and the CIA engineered a coup. A chosen American Puppet, the Shah was installed. He enforced the will of his American masters on the Iranians by torture, murder and the savage terror of his secret police. Thousands of Iranians remain unaccounted for. The Iranians turned to the Mad Mullahs and Iran became another made in America problem for the world.

Now Iran wants to defend itself and America and its Israeli masters want to complain??????

The lessons of Iraq are ignored at every country in the world's peril. Either get the Nuclear deterent or have American troops invade and rape their 14 yeay old girls and then murder some 24 members of her family to silence them (Haditha). the operation of Abu Ghraib as an efficient American torture centre certainly is reminisent of the American puppet the Shah.

66

Schot,

10/07/2008 14:47:30
63 Vote SNP !!!

Yeah, well, your paranoia aside, since I haven't visited that site I doubt I have to worry about my IP address.

Are you going to answer what right you have to discredit the SNP with your posts ? Are you an elected party official or are you a faker ?
67

Neal! Whit? Haud yer Whisht!!,

10/07/2008 14:50:02
Schot and Vote SNP

This board is about Iran and the problems faced by her!

Please take your petty political squabbles elsewhere . . .
68

Silence of the Yams,

10/07/2008 14:51:48
65. Defending a tyranical regime that executes children and treats woman like cattle right to exist are we? Pathetic.
69

Finnking,

Lempäälä 10/07/2008 14:52:52
Shot & Rose

Thanks for the support.

Shot

He's talking about Daithi who posts on FH as CalCelt. Some fool on this site (and SNP has just given himself away) abused Daithi's trust and posted personal details on this site. Diathe is on holiday the now but i will ask him so explain this situation to you when he returns.

The fools on this site seem very upset about Free hoots man, probably because that site has a great system to stop these fools disturbing it. If you have any technical savvy, you will know that the IP routine SNP spouted above is nonsense; besides, the closet an IP gets is the local area and the ISPs now alter the addys regularly.

I wonder what SNP fears. I will be telling Daithi that SNP seemed to be able to describe the event (a year ago) with detail.

Oh, Nomad also posted private correspondence (private e-mail) on this site, described Muslim women as ugly (they should stay covered up) and told Rainbird he would "write Nazi with his (rainbird's) teeth.

Nice folk, eh? I had hoped they would wisely give me a wide birth when I post here, but no.....

Anyway, ta for the support. (watch this get reported!).
70

Gere,

Scotland 10/07/2008 14:55:37
The American placing of missiles in Europe is nothing less than a military act of agression against Russia and amounts to nothing more than the overt display of conteptous dismissal of that country's right to defend itself.

Only a fool would believe the American missiles are for the defense of Europe. Their purpose is to neutralise any defensive retaliation against American aggression by Russia.

Remember when the Soviet Missiles were placed on Cuba???? Boy did those bullies, the Americans squeal loudly.
71

Neal! Whit? Haud yer Whisht!!,

10/07/2008 14:55:55
#68

Defending the worlds most dangerous state and her only friend again are we? Pathetic
72

Gere,

Scotland 10/07/2008 15:00:28
Post 68
Silence of the Yams

America executes people who commit murder while mentally challenged.

Women in America are debased are by prostitution and pornography!
73

Neal! Whit? Haud yer Whisht!!,

10/07/2008 15:03:04
#68

And Iran isn't proposing to site Nukes all over the damn world either, unlike your chums across the water . . .
74

Neal! Whit? Haud yer Whisht!!,

10/07/2008 15:11:57
Hmmm, I believe WE used to execute children too, just for trying to eat. It took us a few 100 years to stop that, Iran will catch up.

After all Christianity is some 300 - 400 years older than Islam, yes?
75

Schot,

10/07/2008 15:20:33
Alright, this is a comment on forum moderation so feel free to delete it.

I can't actually remember what I wrote in comment 50 so I have no idea how to avoid repeating the error - do you have a 'guidelines' page ?

And on this thread, Harry's comment no 3 was removed completely, and all he did was to ask me what I was talking about. By completely removing Harry's post all the numbers of the posts are thrown out and it becomes difficult to know who is talking to who.

I realise it is probably just one underpaid bloke who is moderating here, and he is probably sick of the posters, but if he would like a bit of training on Web Moderation then I'd be happy to come in to the Scotsman.
76

Gere,

Scotland 10/07/2008 15:24:47
post#74
Neal Whit?HaudyerWhist!!

Good post.

Remember also how many Christians were murdered by other Christians because they did not worship in the "right" manner, burn the heretics! was a common cry from Christian lips.

This happened not all that long ago in Scotland
77

bikewoman,

10/07/2008 15:30:00
69 Finnking

That's funny!!!

Then maybe you can explain why you, and your other socialist pals sat on your hands and none of you condemed SuckMccrunchie for his actions against Daithi with the information your site gave Suck????? Not one peep!!!
78

bikewoman,

10/07/2008 15:31:19
69 Finnking

That's funny!!!

Then maybe you can explain why you, and your other socialist pals sat on your hands and none of you condemed SuckMccrunchie for his actions against Daithi with the information your site gave Suck????? Not one peep!!!
79

Neal! Whit? Haud yer Whisht!!,

10/07/2008 15:36:25
#76

Yes. If'n I remember history aright, Christians started killing Christians almost as soon as Jesus was dead and cold in the ground.

If it didn't fit the 'Rome' plan, it was Heresy and Death.

Christianity could have been SO much better than it is.
80

Lord Killwillie,

Killwillie Castle 10/07/2008 15:43:18
#69 Finnking

Finnking Wrote -

"Oh, Nomad also posted private correspondence (private e-mail) on this site, described Muslim women as ugly (they should stay covered up) and told Rainbird he would "write Nazi with his (rainbird's) teeth."

Even if it's not taken out of context I guess you do not know the meaning of "private"
81

Number 6,

Germany 10/07/2008 15:50:06
The bottom line here is that the only winners in this whole american planned catastrophy are Iran. kept in check by Saddam Hussein, they now see themselves as the unrivaled power in the region. The reason the Saudis wont pump more oil is in retaliation for the US removing the Sunni's from power in Iraq, allowing the shia majority to link once again with their Iranian brothers.
Good job America, another country in ruins at your hands and an enemy now twice as strong .A once secular country now crawling with religious fanatics. And Condaleeeeeeeeeeeeeeza rice is "Proud" of the Iraq invasion.

I shudder to think how history will judge the most shameful period of your history.
82

Neal! Whit? Haud yer Whisht!!,

10/07/2008 17:00:34
For how history judges just Wiki 'Iraq War'
83

Laurette,

Carlsbad, California 10/07/2008 17:01:06
The lessons of Iraq are ignored at every country in the world's peril. Either get the Nuclear deterent or have American troops invade and rape their 14 yeay old girls and then murder some 24 members of her family to silence them (Haditha). the operation of Abu Ghraib as an efficient American torture centre certainly is reminisent of the American puppet the Shah.

Well the ones who committed the outrage at Haditha did get their wrists slapped for doing it,so we can't say they got off completely! I am totally ashamed of what the US has done to that Country and have said from the beginning it was all about the lucrative oil contracts to be had for the Cheney cohorts. Some who care about Iraq might enjoy Professor Juan Cole's views on his "Informed Comment" blog. A bit more informative that the US MSM.
84

BillMcKill,

California 10/07/2008 17:03:01
Iranian missiles and Eastern Europe defense shield

As a native Scot, I am embarassed that there are so many left-wing screwballs in my home country, and persons who label something as controversial because the Russians do not like it.

85

Maurice,

Fife 10/07/2008 17:13:59
53 Silence of the Yams, Sorry Pal! you missed the point didnt you? USA, active in 48 armed conflicts since WW2. Iran, 1 (against a US backed invader)
86

Schot,

10/07/2008 17:27:48
84 BillMcKill, California

"As a native Scot"

hhahahaa

87

Schot,

10/07/2008 17:34:05
Unless you live in California, Falkirk you are just another piece of dandruff that Scotland has shed. I suspect the latter.

I visited California in '87. I stayed with an old Scottish woman who had just moved there from Canada, previously emigrating from Scotland. We saw a young hispanic girl skating in a mall, a bautiful young girl. The scottish immigrant took one look at her and snorted derisively 'Immigrant'.

It's disappointing that US Scots tend to be more racist than US Germans.
88

Gunn,

10/07/2008 18:21:18
57Nomad

I think what Schot was trying to suggest is that the US Government could not be trusted with Nuclear missiles if they were the only nation to have them. Would you trust them?

What some folk need to realise is that the US is not a paragon of virtue trying to save the World. Everything they do, everything they have ever done, is self-serving. They didn't jump into WW2 out of the goodness of their own hearts. They watched from the sidelines long enough to see the old Empire trading blocks (Britain's, France's, Belgium's) collapse under the weight of war, and only joined in because Nazi Germany and Japan looked set to create a new trading block that would squeeze out the US just as the old order did.

If the US truly fought the war to liberate Europe, not to advance its trading opportunities, the US Government would have backed Winston Churchill's request for the US to aid Britain in fulfilling her defence treaty obligation with Poland and throwing out the Russians from that country. However, the US was quite happy to leave half of Europe under the thumb of Stalin instead if Hitler's.
89

Schot,

10/07/2008 18:37:20
Gunn,
100% better than me. My mother is a saint, but when she loses her temper, well, I wouldn't trust her with nukes.
90

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 10/07/2008 19:46:32
-- If the US truly fought the war to liberate Europe ..

They'd have listened to General Patton instead of getting him assassinated!
91

Cerberus,

Hades 10/07/2008 20:59:32
Bill Killing folk in USA

You say "As a native Scot, I am embarassed that there are so many left-wing screwballs in my home country". You need to leave the USA at once. You have been there far too long. You have started to associate the desire for real freedom and liberty from foreign oppressors as "Left Wing". Romans? Anglo Saxons? In our area of the world, stealing our forest? changing our culture? cleansing our lands? Making us pay RENT? The same minded folk are currently at work in the ME. That's not LEFT WING, it's an expression of self det