Iran satellite launch or missile test??

western pearl

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/IRAN01257.xml

This situation is definetely getting worse before better. The question is... what's going to be done about it and who is going to do it?

even flow?

I sure hope this cuts down the expense in the field when Canada needs to put a new satellite in space. It is always good to have more options so users can save money.

B nice

But ultimately, their space program aims to orbit reconnaissance satellites like Israel's "Ofek," using an Iranian satellite launcher from Iranian territory, says Uzi Rubin, the former head of the Israel Missile Defense Organization. Rubin made his assessment in a report for The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs

Last Exodus

western pearl wrote:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/IRAN01257.xml

This situation is definetely getting worse before better. The question is... what's going to be done about it and who is going to do it?

Does it matter? Either way that crazy little fucker in Iran wants rockets and weapons grade plutonium. I think crazy George W has something up his sleeve. 3 carrier battle groups in striking distance of Iran with 20,000 more troops headed to Iraq despite criticism from even his own party... Wake up and smell the coffee. Iran is now ringed with American troops on two borders and 3 carrier strike groups ready to go. I dont think we need carriers to battle insurgents. So what do you think?

MrBrian

what lawful authority does america have to touch iran? so much so that you call the the iranians insurgents.

catefrances

Last Exodus wrote:

Does it matter? Either way that crazy little fucker in Iran wants rockets and weapons grade plutonium. I think crazy George W has something up his sleeve. 3 carrier battle groups in striking distance of Iran with 20,000 more troops headed to Iraq despite criticism from even his own party... Wake up and smell the coffee. Iran is now ringed with American troops on two borders and 3 carrier strike groups ready to go. I dont think we need carriers to battle insurgents. So what do you think?

i think 3 carrier groups and not enough troops to secure a country three times the size of one they already can't secure sends some sort of message.

i love the smell of brickmanship in the morning. it smells like... victory.

but you know if the US makes enough of a fuss then perhaps the world will actually start to believe the emperor has new clothes.

Last Exodus

MrBrian wrote:

what lawful authority does america have to touch iran? so much so that you call the the iranians insurgents.

Should i type slower? I was referring to the insurgents in Iraq. Settle down there Yasser.

Last Exodus

catefrances wrote:

i think 3 carrier groups and not enough troops to secure a country three times the size of one they already can't secure sends some sort of message.

i love the smell of brickmanship in the morning. it smells like... victory.

but you know if the US makes enough of a fuss then perhaps the world will actually start to believe the emperor has new clothes.

Well the poster was asking who was going to do something about Iran's nuclear and rocket ambitions. I was simply pointing out that this country is in position to do that right now. I did not suggest we should, simply that the assets are there as we speak. I happen to think the 20,000 troops George W wants is not meant for Iraq so much as they may be to help counter an Iranian advance IF we do attack their sites. The point, that was lost, was that we don't need or cant even use carrier groups to battle dug in insurgents with RPG's. Those carrier groups are meant for Iran. If not for show, then for real. Either way George W is ready to get his bomb on again.

MrBrian

Last Exodus wrote:

Should i type slower? I was referring to the insurgents in Iraq.

I dunno, your post seems to read otherwise, but maybe I was reading it wrong, nevertheless, it can be said for iraq as well. america had no right attacking iraq. then when iraqis fight back you label them terrorists and insurgents.

and again, i'll just edit your insults out of your posts, I'm not interested in those types of things.

Last Exodus

read on...
http://www.kommersant.com/p734795/fleet_deployed_Persian_Gulf/

Bombapalooza to start this spring.

catefrances

Last Exodus wrote:

Well the poster was asking who was going to do something about Iran's nuclear and rocket ambitions. I was simply pointing out that this country is in position to do that right now. I did not suggest we should, simply that the assets are there as we speak. I happen to think the 20,000 troops George W wants is not meant for Iraq so much as they may be to help counter an Iranian advance IF we do attack their sites. The point, that was lost, was that we don't need or cant even use carrier groups to battle dug in insurgents with RPG's. Those carrier groups are meant for Iran. If not for show, then for real. Either way George W is ready to get his bomb on again.

then george is a fool.
i realise as he surely does, that he has nothing to lose politically from attacking iran. did you hear what i said - attacking iran, not defending the United States from imminent danger, which is their right is their sovereignty is breached.

Last Exodus

catefrances wrote:

then george is a fool.
i realise as he surely does, that he has nothing to lose politically from attacking iran. did you hear what i said - attacking iran, not defending the United States from imminent danger, which is their right is their sovereignty is breached.

Hey man, im just the messenger. The guy asked a question, i gave him some facts. I wasn't advocating it. It could be a disaster. On the other hand it could stop the very dangerous trend of crazy third world leaders who feel they need the bomb to be accepted as the new kid on the block. At least we had the Russians to keep us at bay. I think but for MAD we would have used those nukes as often as we wanted to back in the old days. Today, it's a different world.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/01/25/uranium.georgia.reut/index.html

catefrances

Last Exodus wrote:

Hey man, im just the messenger. The guy asked a question, i gave him some facts. I wasn't advocating it. It could be a disaster. On the other hand it could stop the very dangerous trend of crazy third world leaders who feel they need the bomb to be accepted as the new kid on the block. At least we had the Russians to keep us at bay. I think but for MAD we would have used those nukes as often as we wanted to back in the old days. Today, it's a different world.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/01/25/uranium.georgia.reut/index.html

i'm not attacking you exodus. and why should any country be nuclear armed?
are conventional weapons not destructive enough. how's about we downsize ALL stockpiles of weapons and make the effort to look at real avenues of negotiation without thinking we need to hold soemthing back.
i don't see it as a trophy for acceptance. i see it as these nations look around and take note of who has it and figure well why shouldn't i.

Last Exodus

catefrances wrote:

i'm not attacking you exodus. and why should any country be nuclear armed?
are conventional weapons not destructive enough. how's about we downsize ALL stockpiles of weapons and make the effort to look at real avenues of negotiation without thinking we need to hold soemthing back.
i don't see it as a trophy for acceptance. i see it as these nations look around and take note of who has it and figure well why shouldn't i.

Well your in the minority and i appreciate it. And I agree with you. But I also feel strongly that nuclear proliferation has to be a top objective in this century. Too many people have the bomb as it is. Getting those countries that have it to give it up is not going to happen. All we can do is try to keep the club as small as possible and hope for the best. I, for one, happen to believe nucear terrorism can and probably will happen in this country. And god help us if a guy like George W is in the White House when it does...

catefrances

Last Exodus wrote:

Well your in the minority and i appreciate it. And I agree with you. But I also feel strongly that nuclear proliferation has to be a top objective in this century. Too many people have the bomb as it is. Getting those countries that have it to give it up is not going to happen. All we can do is try to keep the club as small as possible and hope for the best. I, for one, happen to believe nucear terrorism can and probably will happen in this country. And god help us if a guy like George W is in the White House when it does...

i'm sure you mean nuclear NON proliferation.

Last Exodus

catefrances wrote:

i'm sure you mean nuclear NON proliferation.

Maybe that was Freudian on my part...