RSS
Iran Reveals New Ashoura Missile
Posted by awb on Nov 27th, 2007
2007
Nov 27
Iran announced today that it has developed a missile capable of carrying a warhead 1,200 miles. Within that 1,200 mile radius are several United States military installments and, oh yeah, Israel. Recently, we have had some discussions over the viability of Iran’s nuclear weapons program and whether the United States should take military action on Iran. Whatever your views are on those topics this new missile only goes to reinforce the fact that Iran is working everyday to pose a threat to the United States as well as our goals and allies in the Middle East.
November 27th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Awb writes : “Iran is working everyday to pose a threat to the United States as well as our goals and allies in the Middle East.”
“pose a threat”??? If you mean Iran intends to defend itself from U.S. aggression by being able to fight back against the US by being able to attack its military, then I agree.
If on the other hand you mean that Iran is intent on attacking the U.S., then I disagree because that has as much veracity as the excuses the U.S. used in its war of unjust aggression against Iraq.
November 27th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
The United States does not advocate the utter destruction of Jews and Israel as Iran does. The United States is a positive member in the world community. If the world community truly had a problem with the United States and truly felt that our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan were a “war of unjust aggression” would they not have taken some sort of action against us? Nazi Germany started a “war of unjust aggression” and WWII ensued. I would imagine that many leaders of the countries who decry our actions are happy that someone is taking action against terrorism.
The fact is that in order to combat the Islamic terrorists who wish to destroy Western culture, specifically the United States, we will inevitably have to take the fight to them. I for one will not wait to get punched in the teeth when I can see the bully on the block winding up. I’ll punch first.
With more frequently commentors on this website are painting Iran as an innocent nation that should be able to “defend itself from U.S. aggression by being able to fight back against the U.S.” Iran supports terrorism, advocates genocide and decries personal freedoms that we take for granted. The United States leads the charge against these atrocities on the world stage. Rather than confronting the reality of the threat of Iran and Islamic terrorism it seems that these commentators fall back on ideology. Ideology will not protect us from a real threat, action will. Perhaps these comments would be more appreciated at a blog such as the Daily Kos.
November 27th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
AWB: Within that 1,200 mile radius are several United States military installments and, oh yeah, Israel.
Frank: a) Hand those military installments over to the Iraqi forces and get ours the hell out. b) Iet Israel defend herself.
Next case.
November 27th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
“Let Israel” etc., i.e.
November 27th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
LTG: Awb writes : “Iran is working everyday to pose a threat to the United States as well as our goals and allies in the Middle East.”
“pose a threat”??? If you mean Iran intends to defend itself from U.S. aggression by being able to fight back against the US by being able to attack its military, then I agree
Frank: Suppose some foreign power — let’s sayyyy, China — decides to invade Mexico. If American military forces or just plain ol’ US citizens decide to enter Mexico to help them mount an insurgency against the Chinese forces, couldn’t the Chinese likewise claim that “The US is working everyday to pose a threat to China as well as our goals and allies in Mexico”?
And as long as Chinese forces remain in Mexico, shouldn’t we?
How can we unjustly invade and occupy a neighbor of Iran (with no love lost between them, incidentally) and get all bent out of shape when Iran begins to prepare itself to deal with the threat in their neighborhood?
November 27th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Frank, First I diagree that our invasion of Iraq was/is unjust.
Second, you are right that China (in your scenario) could claim “The US is working everyday to pose a threat to China as well as our goals and allies in Mexico”? And I think rightly so. The difference being that the United States would most likely openly admit involvement and declare war on China and defend our neighbors.
November 27th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Someone writes, “If you mean Iran intends to defend itself from U.S. aggression.”
Another case of paleo enemy-sympathizing and apologetics?
I think so.
November 27th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Bill,
Iraq had neither attacked the US, nor did it pose any manner of imminent threat.
Invasion unjust. It was not defensive, but aggressive. (See my comment under the “Losing Afghanistan?” thread.)
November 27th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
I find it amazing that so many people in this country are shy to the fact that we are in a clash of civilizations with the Islamic middle-eastern world.
November 27th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
You have to remember, Bill, that the paleo brain isn’t wired to comprehend a clash of civilizations.
It can only recognize the clash of cultures at home. This, again, is the result of it’s marginalization by neoconservatives. Well, that and the fact that their worldview is dead letter.
November 27th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Indeed, I do see a greater desire to destroy the “philosophy” of the Neocon than to address real world problems.
That said, I understand that all answers to the world’s problems need a solid philosophical base under them. I love a good philosophical discussion, but talk without action never solves problems.
November 27th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Bill writes : “I understand that all answers to the world’s problems need a solid philosophical base under them. I love a good philosophical discussion, but talk without action never solves problems.”
Gee Bill, thinking rather expansively aren’t you? Not only solving the world’s problems but also taking action on them all on a blog?
As for me, I’m simply attempting to determine the underlying causes and their relations.
November 27th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Bill: I find it amazing that so many people in this country are shy to the fact that we are in a clash of civilizations with the Islamic middle-eastern world.
Frank: I won’t deny that strong possibility.
But what I find amazing is that so many people think that clash of civilizations somehow justifies the misuse of questionable or even false intelligence for the purposes of invading and occupying a secular nation that neither attacked nor threatened us.
“Hey, whatever it takes to get us into the neighborhood, right?”
Wrong.
November 27th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
LTG: “Gee Bill, thinking rather expansively aren’t you? Not only solving the world’s problems but also taking action on them all on a blog?”
I do offer real answers to real problems. I also base my answers on a philosophical underpinning. I do not sound the retreat from action horn nor do I hide behind the ideas and inaction of others. Rather, I use past ideas to pursue new and real solutions for the problems of today. We can not go back in time and fix mistakes or take lost opportunities; I know it would be easier if we could.
But you are right, LTG, I am not elected and I have no real power. Alas, I sit on the sidelines and offer answers, not merely critiques. Ohh, and I vote.
November 27th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Frank, here, I think, is where we differ:
I do not think we needed any other justification for invading Iraq other than the clash of our civilizations.
Yeah, the war drum beat to death by Bush contained errors. Doesn’t matter to me. Bush could just have easily said “we are invading Iraq as one step in a war against all of the islamic middle-eastern nations who support terrorism in any form.” That would have been good enough for me.
November 28th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
SM: “You have to remember, Bill, that the paleo brain isn’t wired to comprehend a clash of civilizations.
It can only recognize the clash of cultures at home. This, again, is the result of it’s marginalization by neoconservatives. Well, that and the fact that their worldview is dead letter.”
In fact, as I recently reiterated, the paleo position is that there is a very real clash of cultures on a global scale, as we were the first to welcome neoconservative converts to the struggle against godless communisms throughout the world. Containment and conversion worked marvelously. Prayer and missionary work would astound us all, were it tried in overwhelming measure with regard to the dar al Islam.
I note with some trepidation the approach of Ashura on January 19th, especially with the added significance of the Iranian introduction of the not coincidentally named missile of the same name. This year’s sectarian strife (or lack thereof) in Karbala and wherever else there are large Shiite and Sunni populations may prove the allegation that the house of Islam are united in purpose against those they see as Crusaders. One problem is that we are not bringing the Cross, but reeducation camps where our tax dollars are being funneled into palatable Islamic instruction, not to mention tacit approval of boy-rape, opium, and the ever-present products that Hollywood and Madison Avenue are eager to pitch to the pruriently oriented in that corner of Democracy, Inc.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:42 am
very good
November 29th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Silly article. Of course Iran will make weapons. People arunf the globe worry much more about Israel and US weapons. Israel must have to vanish in the garbage. No need Zionist on this planet. They make war and lie all the time.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Very articulate, Peter.
January 20th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Hello!
Nice site
Bye
February 28th, 2008 at 5:08 am
the US didnt start this fight, anti Christian sentiment from the muslim world started this fight a long time ago. and seeing how worthless life is to the crazy muslims, I’d say that that US has no other choice.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Hear, Hear Biggs. Thanks for the post.