Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
11/20/2019 5:07:11 PM
Posted: 4/15/2006 5:57:17 AM EST
They are just begging for a fight. To have something to say everyday about us or Israel is inviting disaster.

HH

============================================================

Iran issues stark military warning to United States

Apr 15 4:42 AM US/Eastern


Iran said it could defeat any American military action over its controversial nuclear drive, in one of the Islamic regime's boldest challenges yet to the United States.

"You can start a war but it won't be you who finishes it," said General Yahya Rahim Safavi, the head of the Revolutionary Guards and among the regime's most powerful figures.

"The Americans know better than anyone that their troops in the region and in Iraq are vulnerable. I would advise them not to commit such a strategic error," he told reporters on the sidelines of a pro-Palestinian conference in Tehran.

The United States accuses Iran of using an atomic energy drive as a mask for weapons development. Last weekend US news reports said President George W. Bush's administration was refining plans for preventive strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.

"I would advise them to first get out of their quagmire in Iraq before getting into an even bigger one," General Safavi said with a grin.

"We have American forces in the region under total surveillance. For the past two years, we have been ready for any scenario, whether sanctions or an attack."

Iran announced this week it had successfully enriched uranium to make nuclear fuel, despite a UN Security Council demand for the sensitive work to be halted by April 28.

The Islamic regime says it only wants to generate atomic energy, but enrichment can be extended to make the fissile core of a nuclear warhead -- something the United States is convinced that "axis of evil" member Iran wants to acquire.

At a Friday prayer sermon in Tehran, senior cleric Ayatollah Ahmad Janati simply branded the US as a "decaying power" lacking the "stamina" to block Iran's ambitions.

And hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told AFP that a US push for tough United Nations sanctions was of "no importance."

"She is free to say whatever she wants," the president replied when asked to respond to comments by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice highlighting part of the UN charter that provides for sanctions backed up by the threat of military action.

"We give no importance to her comments," he said with a broad smile.

On Thursday, Rice said that faced with Iran's intransigence, the United States "will look at the full range of options available to the United Nations."

"There is no doubt that Iran continues to defy the will of the international community," Rice said, after Iran also dismissed a personal appeal from the UN atomic watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief must give a report at the end of April on Iranian compliance with the Security Council demand. In Tehran he said that after three years of investigations Iran's activities were "still hazy and not very clear."

Although the United States has been prodding the council to take a tough stand against the Islamic republic, including possible sanctions, it has run into opposition from veto-wielding members Russia and China.

Representatives of the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany are to meet in Moscow Tuesday to discuss the crisis.

In seeking to deter international action, Iran has been playing up its oil wealth, its military might in strategic Gulf waters and its influence across the region -- such as in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.

At the Tehran conference, Iran continued to thumb its nose at the United States and Israel.

"The Zionist regime is an injustice and by its very nature a permanent threat," Ahmadinejad told the gathering of regime officials, visiting Palestinian militant leaders and foreign sympathizers.

"Whether you like it or not, the Zionist regime is on the road to being eliminated," said Ahmadinejad, whose regime does not recognise Israel and who drew international condemnation last year when he said Israel should be "wiped off the map."

Unfazed by his critics, the hardliner went on to repeat his controversial stance on the Holocaust.

"If there is serious doubt over the Holocaust, there is no doubt over the catastrophe and Holocaust being faced by the Palestinians," said the president, who had previously dismissed as a "myth" the killing of an estimated six million Jews by the Nazis and their allies during World War II.


"I tell the governments who support Zionism to ... let the migrants (Jews) return to their countries of origin. If you think you owe them something, give them some of your land," he said.

Iran's turbaned supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, also accused the United States of seeking to place the entire region under Israeli control.

"The plots by the American government against Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon aimed at governing the Middle East with the control of the Zionist regime will not succeed," Khamenei said.

There was no immediate reaction from Washington, but French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy severely condemned Ahmadinejad for his latest remarks on Israel.

"As I have had occasion to do before, when the Iranian president made similar statements, I condemn these inacceptable remarks in the strongest possible terms," Douste-Blazy said in a statement.

"Israel's right to exist and the reality of the Holocaust should not be disputed," he added.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 6:03:37 AM EST

"We have American forces in the region under total surveillance...."


oh crap! I sure wish we had thought of putting iran under surveillance.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 6:04:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By HoustonHusker:
..."Israel's right to exist and the reality of the Holocaust should not be disputed," he added.



hey, we agree on something
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 6:04:31 AM EST
itsadupe, but it still pisses me off.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 6:04:34 AM EST
NUKE THEIR ASS!!...........TAKE THEIR GAS!!!
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 6:04:35 AM EST
This was posted yesterday with almost the same title.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 6:06:58 AM EST
Apr 15 4:42 AM US/Eastern

Don't read it if you don't care to.

HH
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 6:09:26 AM EST
Nuke it till the cockroaches die. Then send Halliburton in to retrieve the oil from under the glass....
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 6:15:06 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/15/2006 6:15:44 AM EST by TacticalMan]
Unfortunately, I think this is something that, for purely political reasons, will have to be saved for the next administration to deal with.

I think we should let a Democrat be the one to drop the bomb again.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 6:29:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By Cypher214:
This was posted yesterday with almost the same title.



I don't recall seeing this yesterday. Link???

Anyway, at this point if we don't do something soon we will look like weak incapable idiots and our status as "the worlds superpower"
will be questioned by everyone. That is more than likely Iran's goal.

Link Posted: 4/15/2006 6:32:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By TacticalMan:
Unfortunately, I think this is something that, for purely political reasons, will have to be saved for the next administration to deal with.

I think we should let a Democrat be the one to drop the bomb again.



Not sure if it will last that long. This one is going to hit before the end of GW's term, possibly before the end of this calendar year.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 6:33:56 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/15/2006 6:34:22 AM EST by TheCynic]

Originally Posted By HoustonHusker:
"You can start a war but it won't be you who finishes it," said General Yahya Rahim Safavi


Is this what passes for diplomatic threats these days? It sounds like something a drunk would yell at someone in a bar.



Hey America. Yeah, you! I'll give you two hits: me hitting you and you hitting the floor! Yeah, walk away you pussy. That's what I thought...

Link Posted: 4/15/2006 6:34:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By kissfan:

Originally Posted By TacticalMan:
Unfortunately, I think this is something that, for purely political reasons, will have to be saved for the next administration to deal with.

I think we should let a Democrat be the one to drop the bomb again.



Not sure if it will last that long. This one is going to hit before the end of GW's term, possibly before the end of this calendar year.



I think so, too..and I'm thinking before the end of summer.

HH
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 6:35:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By kissfan:

Originally Posted By TacticalMan:
Unfortunately, I think this is something that, for purely political reasons, will have to be saved for the next administration to deal with.

I think we should let a Democrat be the one to drop the bomb again.



Not sure if it will last that long. This one is going to hit before the end of GW's term, possibly before the end of this calendar year.



I would rather see it hit before the end of this calendar month.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 6:36:14 AM EST
I think we should nuke them with a B2 bomber and be like so you set off your own nukes while trying to build one a?
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 6:38:54 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/15/2006 6:41:27 AM EST by S30V]
At least he is right that Israel is primarily a Zionist nation, not a Jewish one. And people wondered why an orthodox Jew killed Rabin, a Zionist... They hate eachother!
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 6:39:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By HoustonHusker:
"You can start a war but it won't be you who finishes it," said General Yahya Rahim Safavi


Is this what passes for diplomatic threats these days? It sounds like something a drunk would yell at someone in a bar.



Hey America. Yeah, you! I'll give you two hits: me hitting you and you hitting the floor! Yeah, walk away you pussy. That's what I thought...


My thoughts exactly! Strange they are,maybe Baghdad Bob's got a new job!
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 6:41:20 AM EST

Originally Posted By kissfan:
Not sure if it will last that long. This one is going to hit before the end of GW's term, possibly before the end of this calendar year.



I read somewhere that some of his staff have indicated exactly this scenario. GW is concerned that it won't be handled properly after his term in office.

Anyone remember the chatter not too long ago regarding presidential elections during catastrophe or war ?
I predict that an extensive large scale war will erupt and an attempt will be made to postpone the end of GW's term in office.

Things are 'gonna be VERY interesting in the coming months and years...
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 6:44:03 AM EST
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 6:49:14 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/15/2006 6:51:36 AM EST by The_Macallan]
We won't use nukes first.

We won't invade Iran.

There will be no sanctions.

Nukes will be used by NGO terrorists first but there won't be enough "proof" to convince the Eurotrash, Ruskies and Chicoms they came from Iran.

It'll have to be Israel who acts first - then they'll be overwhelmed with WMDs from Syria (Iraq's) & Iran.


Have a nice day.

Link Posted: 4/15/2006 7:04:21 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/15/2006 7:05:01 AM EST by Paul]
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 7:11:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By Paul:
Actually they lost it in the translation ... the true transalation was that Iran was issuing a shark military warning to the United States.

www.geocities.com/slothjammin/shark_laser_head.jpg

Iranian shark with a freaking laser on its head







I now have coffe in my sinuses. You, sir, are a dick.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 7:12:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
We won't use nukes first.

We won't invade Iran.

There will be no sanctions.

Nukes will be used by NGO terrorists first but there won't be enough "proof" to convince the Eurotrash, Ruskies and Chicoms they came from Iran.

It'll have to be Israel who acts first - then they'll be overwhelmed with WMDs from Syria (Iraq's) & Iran.


Have a nice day.




I wish I could convince myself that you were wrong about this, but I can't. I think your exactly right.

We are too spread out as it is to engage another country. We have too many deployed in Iraq and Afganastan, not to mention those few forces we have stationed around to protect other interests like Tiwan. At best I see some sort of "sanction" comming out of the pussy UN.

Israel has to realize they are alone here. As they have done before, they will be forced to engage in some sort of premtive strike. I would suspect a small spec ops force first, to sabotage the plants, and if that fails then air strikes.

Next, some car bomb or suitcase bomb goes off in Israel. Even if Iran hasn't gotten to the point of making a fusion weapon they already have the enriched uranium for making a dirty bomb, and that's a "best of the worst" case senario.

Of course, Israel has a nuke or two of their own, so a retaliation nuke from them isn't out of the question either.

Personally, I think we should invade Iran, IN RADIATION SUITS!
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 7:23:41 AM EST
I was mistaken, the title of the thread was different, but the article was the same.

A search for "Iran" would have shown it.

I'm not a dupe Nazi, it just seems like everything that comes out about Iran gets repeated here about 5 times.


www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=455095
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 7:24:37 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/15/2006 7:25:09 AM EST by 1911lover]




I think we should let a Democrat be the one to drop the bomb again.





Why? Will we limit our bombs to aspirin factories?
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 7:35:23 AM EST
I know it is wishful thinking, but wouldn't it be nice if our new allies, Iraq and Afganistan took care of the problem for us?

A quick and descisive victory might give them some national pride in thier new govt's. Make Iran the enemy instead of us and let them divy the country up when they are done.

You would think the Iraqis still have hard feelings left over from the last war they had with them. Wasn't that part of Saddam's strategy, to keep the people occupied and not worry about problems at home?
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 7:37:26 AM EST
I wonder if our government is concerned about waves of domestic terror attacks if we go to war with Iran?

Iran is a huge sponsor of terrorism, they've publicly said if we attacked them they'd do it, and there is a definite fifth column in this country they could rely on - namely, the press, the Democrats, and the fact there are thousands of real-deal terrorists on our soil.

The case is building, but frankly, Ahmenijad (sp?) is doing much of the legwork himself.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 7:54:18 AM EST
More:


Iran Advances Nuclear Program While Media Downplays Growing Threat

Back on March 23, we wrote that Iran was moving forward with operation of a 164-centrifuge cascade, and if successful, would move towards assembly of a 3,000 centrifuge unit which could produce enough highly-enriched uranium for a bomb. As we all know by now, that is precisely what happened. Iran has made clear that following the installation of a 3,000 centrifuge unit it will upgrade to "industrial production" via a 54,000 centrifuge unit. Without significant action from the international community, the Iranian march towards nuclear weapons will continue unabated.

On Tuesday, Iran announced a major breakthrough in its drive towards a nuclear weapon, enriching uranium to a level of 3.5 percent using its 164-centrifuge cascade.

This announcement reflects what they see - or rather what they don't see - from the international community. Iran's leaders are keen to the lack of pressure from veto-wielding powers in Moscow and Beijing and frequently proclaim their immunity from action. In the absence of a concerted effort to put the brakes on their plans, Tehran will continue to press forward. "Our enemies know they cannot stop the Iranian nation from its path with such propaganda, meetings and showing an angry face to us," Ahmadinejad has said.

Many pundits have decided that this latest technological accomplishment is something to belittle (WP, NYT, Reuters). Unfortunately for them, and for the American public which relies in large part on their analysis, it is indicative of a fundamental misconception of the nuclear process. In fact, it's far more difficult to go from 0 to 3.5 percent than it is to go from 3.5 percent to 90 percent.

Also of concern to us is that editorial boards, such as the New York Times, consistently frame the debate in terms of the timeline for Iran to actually produce a bomb. That is not the issue, because once Iran masters the process and crosses the technological threshold, then it's not a matter of if, but when. Iran has shown its willingness to skip key steps in the enrichment process and is leaping forward in its capabilities faster than the diplomatic process can advance.

When it comes to Iran, the pundits tend to fall back on the old models of the Soviet Union and the Cold War. Yet Iran is not the Soviet Union and represents a threat on a completely different level. Simply put, the world has never seen an Islamic extremist terrorist state armed with nuclear weapons. The old models on nuclear deterrence are simply not applicable. On Wednesday we saw that even well-respected pundits are thoroughly confused, and it's time to drive a stake through their arguments. By comparing the crisis with Tehran to the Cuban Missile Crisis, readers are given the false impression that this problem can be handled the same way.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, believes that America risks losing its global power in a war with Iran. We beg to differ. In this crisis, the issue is not what we can afford to do, but rather what we can afford not to do. This is one of those nightmares you don't wake up from. An Iranian-dominated Middle East threatens the future of the West.

Iran is creating facts on the ground that are rapidly bringing us to the brink. Time is running out on the diplomatic option, and several more months of inaction will lead the West to one of two terrible options: acquiesce to a nuclear-armed terrorist state, or resort to military action with all the consequences that come along with that. In the words of Sen. John McCain, "there's only one thing worse than using the option of military action, and that is the Iranians acquiring nuclear weapons."

Link Posted: 4/15/2006 8:10:57 AM EST
I said it before and i'll say it again. The US will probably do very little, thanks to the traitors who think every war is a vietnam war and Cant we all just get along? and I'd rather trust Osama before i trust Bush and where my anti-psychotic meds???? Just look at what the moon bats are saying now. They are literally shills for the Mullahs. They already have all their talking points all setup. It's just cut n paste with them. #1. "iran is still 10 years away from the bomb" (yeah right, like so was N Korea, India and Pakistan!) #2 Iran is actually acting RATIONALLY when confronted by the neo-con threat. <--- I actually saw this sentance posted on a site!! #3 Bush needs to wag the dog to deflect his low poll numbers. (yeah cause he actully cares what people think right?) #4 Now is the time for HARD diplomacy. <--- they actually capitalised the word hard!

SO tell me again moonbat, What countries have been prevented from getting the bomb by HARD diplomacy?? What's that you say? none? Well maybe they just did'nt use enough Exclamation points in their diplomat letters!!!!!!!!!!!
The fact is the US wont really be that harmed by Iran going nuclear, Unless they plan on giving a bomb to Hezbollah or something. It is only Isreal that stands to lose big time with this development. They are the only ones who MUST do something. before it is too late. I DO with 97% certainty belive that we will help out logistically but not enough that it would give Iran a good excuse to attack us with their full army in iraq. I laid out my plan before, Isreal will do as much from the air as they can then to finish the job in certain areas they WILL have to land A'LA "sword of Entebbe" with strong forces to repel and take the "bomb proof sites" then use special engineer attachments to destroy the equipment. then they will all pack up and leave. They will also land in certain areas as a decoy to draw forces away from the main LZ. To accomplish this they need Two key success' to it to work. #1 They WILL have to cripple C&C to make response difficult. #2 The air defences at the site and on the approach paths MUST be completely elminated. #3 about the iranian ground forces???
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 10:51:57 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/15/2006 10:56:25 AM EST by The_Macallan]
fuck it.
Top Top