http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,268030,00.html

http://www.clicktronic.com/archives/mission_accomplished.jpg

Iran threatens to attack US forces in Gulf DOHA (Qatar) - Iranian Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani has warned that Iran might launch a pre-emptive strike against United States forces in the region to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities.
'We will not sit (with arms folded) to wait for what others will do to us,' he told Al-Jazeera television when asked if Iran would respond to an American attack on its nuclear facilities.

'Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly.

'America is not the only one present in the region. We are also present, from Khost to Kandahar in Afghanistan. We are present in the Gulf and we can be present in Iraq,' he said.

'The US military presence (in Iraq) will not become an element of strength (for Washington) at our expense. The opposite is true, because their forces would turn into a hostage' in Iranian hands in the event of an attack, he said.

Mr Shamkhani, who was asked about the possibility of an American or Israeli strike against Iran's atomic power plant in Bushehr, added: 'We will consider any strike against our nuclear installations as an attack on Iran as a whole, and we will retaliate with all our strength.

'Where Israel is concerned, we have no doubt that it is an evil entity and it will not be able to launch any military operation without an American green light.'

A commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards was quoted in the Iranian press earlier on Wednesday as saying Teheran would strike at the Israeli reactor at Dimona if Israel attacked Iran's own burgeoning nuclear facilities. -- AFP

Thanks needed the laugh.

Heh. Good one.

That's just asking for so much trouble.

Are you being serious?

'...when asked if Iran would respond to an American attack on its nuclear facilities.'

- Well, who wouldn't strike back?
As if America would just start blowing up Iranian nuclear plants.

Whoops, I'm giving 'em ideas.

We are present in the Gulf and we can be present in Iraq,

Or

'The US military presence (in Iraq) will not become an element of strength (for Washington) at our expense. The opposite is true, because their forces would turn into a hostage' in Iranian hands in the event of an attack
Cant decide which is funnier.

Bring. It. On.

Because nuclear war is cooooooooooooool

Because being reactionary is so smaaaaaarrtttt....

quite they gonna take whole armor divisions hostage.

Pre emption and pro active are not the same thing.

Seriously.. Iran is a nation ruled by 5% of the population which force its relious extremism on people who for the most part dont want to ruled by them, but really have no choice.

What options do we have in regards to them funding, supporting and harboring terrorists? None. Zero.
We threaten to invade and they just basically said they are going to go Nuclear. Probably on Israel, who will in turn nuke back. The Mullahs? Theyll be fine 500ft below in bunkers.

Updated Aug.6,2004 19:03 KST
http://english.chosun.com/img/clear.gif
http://english.chosun.com/img/clear.gif
Iran Tests Missiles for North Korea: U.S. Official WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A U.S. official said Friday that North Korea is developing a new ballistic missiles that could be armed with nuclear warheads, and Iran is conducting the technical experiments for North Korea. The offical, requesting anonymity, said that after North Korea announced a freeze on missile testing, the nation has been sharing technology with Iran and testing it through proxy. He added that while North Korea is not conducting missile experiments on its own, it's nonsense for it to claim that it has frozen missile tests.

The official also said North Korea's missile development plan is based on Russian technology and there was a possibility that the North was still getting support from Russian scientists.

The U.S. has yet to get a detailed grasp of the North's missile development plans, however, and is placing much importance on finding out whether the missile are exactly patterned on Russian models and whether they could reach the United States.

On the other hand, the official insisted that there is no doubt North Korea is improving existing missile designs or making new missiles onto which it could place nuclear warheads.

He said North Korea may have secured technology for submarine-launched ballistic missiles, but it seems the nation does not yet possess the necessary missile platforms.

The man added that despite North Korea's lack of a missile platform, it may get one from another country, and it is pouring a huge amount of money into developing missiles, especially ballistic missiles.

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg

Was this that guy giving the statement?

Iran is going to launch a pre-emptive strike on US or Isreal?



HAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHHHHAHAAAAAHAHAHH A


Thats pretty fucking funny.

Almost as funny as helping a dozen or so Terrorists to sneak into the United States to kill 3,000 people?

Shit, they already attacked.

Huh? You've lost it today LL. Off the deep end completely.

Not really.
You're mocking the Middle East's ability for pre-emptive strikes.

LL is showing you perhaps the biggest pre-emptive strike against America, ever.

Bring it on huh? You folks are almost in danger of being warmongers.

Almost.

Thanks you proved my theory... he's off the deep end.

Oh ok.

So wait, lemme get this straight.. We can laugh off Iran as not really a threat, and who cares.

BUT IRAQ WAS AN ACTUAL THREAT?

wtf...
holy shit, any of you that laughed and acted like it was joke, I cant wait till the next time you post how fucking important launching a pre emptive strike against Iraq was and how vital it was to our national security..

Thanks guys.. point proven.

Actually I think we are laughing at the nature of Iran's threats, not at Iran being a threat.

I have read a few articles about the US being at the limit of its military capabilities with the long tours in Iraq (someone with better understanding of the situation can perhaps enlighten me if that's true or not).

So I'm not sure if a wholescale war with Iran would be a good idea really in the current situation, especially if Syria, Jordan and Lebanon joins in.

Well, I don't imagine we'd be alone either.. but on the other hand, maybe so. *Shrug*.

BTW: Why is this not on any major US news network (that I can see)?

Why is this not on any major US news network (that I can see)?
They're too busy trying to keep Kerry from imploding.

As Edwards so succintly stated...
"I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."

Damn right we're safer. Don't you even listen to your own party L2? Too easy.

It is being reported widely, but I think most people see it for the ridiculous posturing that it is. LL forgot to take his medication today though. Dude what happened LL? Helter skelter.



Yeah well Kerry said Iraq was an imminent threat and the biggest threat in the world to our security too.

Seriously I hope you're okay LL.

'Yeah well Kerry said Iraq was an imminent threat and the biggest threat in the world to our security too'

- Are you sure that just wasn't after we went in and created a terrorist holiday hot-spot?

compared to iraq is iran a REAL nation with +65 000 000 citizen

for more data see here

http://devdata.worldbank.org/external/CPProfile.asp?CCODE=IRN&PTYPE=CP


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/index.html

iran is during these days in a bad situation they are located between 2 countries which are occupied by the US ... iraq and afghanistan.

so i wouldnt wonder if they help themselfes to make the situation more comfortable since they know for sure that the us-toops are operating at their limits, that the only reason bush beggin all day for reinforcements from other countries since the costs are going skyrocket.

Rofl... beggin all day for reinforcement from other countries. You guys are classic. You know when Hartmut shows up the group IQ takes a serious hit.

this has nothing to do with IQ .... just show that you got some intellect and prove me wrong ... looser...

looser... lol. Good one! So in your little fantasy world, the US is "beggin" for you to come save us? Man that's a wild imagination you have. OMG the voice of doom has spoken. Yes we should run away right now... Iran will wtfpwn us.

How about this... prove that we are beggin for your sorry ass to come help us. We've asked for international support... of course. What has been the overwhelming European response? Only if we can make money out of it. The trouble is with your limited information sources is Europe. You only get the party line.

ok some background info for you


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19142-2004Jul27.html

Powell Urges U.S. Allies To Stay Steadfast in Iraq

Powell's appeal comes with the first signs of the fraying of the coalition. Five nations -- Spain, Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua and the Philippines -- have pulled out of Iraq since April, and three more have decided not to renew their mandates when they run out early this fall, according to diplomats from coalition countries.

Others, such as Poland, have indicated they do not intend to stay through the full transition period, scheduled to conclude after elections for a permanent government at the end of 2005.

? How does that have to do with your claim that we are beggin for support because we can't handle it? A little background for you.... US, Britain and Poland SF have born more than 90 percent of the load. What does the fact that Hungary wants to take out its 350 soldiers have to do with your claim that we are beggin you for help?


Its a fantasy of yours that the US comes to you for help I know... but its not happening, so wake up from your wet dream. A little background for you... lol nice try.

that the only reason bush beggin all day for reinforcements from other countries since the costs are going skyrocket.

You have no idea what you're talking about, you're just parroting some bullshit you heard on the "news."

Well. Begging and begging.
The US has repeatedly (twice at least as I recall) asked the UN to step in and take a bigger share of the responsibility for the situation in Iraq. I don't believe for a second that it's because the US desperately needs reinforcements, rather I believe that they don't want to be stuck with shepherding the country for the next two decades all alone.

I think the US sort of assumed that if they went ahead with Iraq that everyone else would back them up in the long run just to improve the conditions of the now conquered nation. But that's speculation on my part. I severely doubt that the US administration thought that the political repercussions would be this severe seeing as how many actually backed an invasion of iraq, as long as it was done by the UN.

Right now it's a situation of the US, and its allies, proudly standing on their vanquished foes trying to mend damaged foreign relations while the rest of the world is throwing up a childish front going "nyah!" from their own sandbox. The repercussions of the Iraq war will run deep, for a long time. I don't think the US really believed they would. Not that they need to care being as self sufficient as they are. But you know what? It's always nicer to have friends, than enemies.

Hartmut, you should apply for the Iranian Information Minister position.

"No, the Americans are not winning. Infact, they are falling on the gates of Baghdad in their hundreds - no, in their thousands - and blood is running everywhere, they are being masacred, and we have them on the run"

*American tank rolls past*

"Honest."
Ah, I miss that Iraqi guy :P

The US has repeatedly (twice at least as I recall) asked the UN to step in and take a bigger share of the responsibility for the situation in Iraq. I don't believe for a second that it's because the US desperately needs reinforcements, rather I believe that they don't want to be stuck with shepherding the country for the next two decades all alone.



I think thats incredibly reasonable. They have been asking the UN to take a bigger role because as Colin Powell put it, they have a great deal of experience in peace keeping situations that would be valuable. On top of that, obviously in Iraq and in the mideast, the more UN involvement and the less US involvement lessens the PR problem of "American occupation."


proudly standing on their vanquished foes trying to mend damaged foreign relations while the rest of the world is throwing up a childish front going "nyah!

I know where you're coming from in those two characterizations, but I don't think either are as correct as they are convenient. The US desperately would like Iraq to be coming along more quickly than it is, but its obviously densely complicated. I think that Europe has a huge stake in seeing the Iraq situation resolved, and that the majority of people I have to believe are above the "nyah nyah" approach and more interested in seeing a resolution. Am I wrong about this?

Yeah I miss him too.

'...lessens the PR problem of "American occupation."'

- Why, on earth, are there quote marks around those words?

'I think that Europe has a huge stake in seeing the Iraq situation resolved'

- What the fuck are you rambling on about?

Way to be civil.


It has quote marks around it because intelligent people on both sides of those quotations would choose to characterize it in different ways. I know in your world there is only one possible way to think, but most people have the ability to believe in multiple dimensions.

You don't believe the European countries want Iraq to progress in peace, and that they would benefit from a peaceful, democratic Iraq?

To be honest there's very few European countries who have any kind of investment in Iraq historically or economically, which makes the whole concept of Europe wanting to lend a helping hand purely ideological. The only countries who ever gave a realrat's ass about Iraq when it was under sanctions were Israel, Turkey, Iran and Kuwait - and that's because Iraq was a direct threat to their existance.

Don't get me wrong. Most, if not all, of the leaders of the free world has at some point scratched their chin going "hmm, yes, Iraq... not good, not good", but at the end of the day they'd just go back to try and get reelected. Morally "we", Europe that is, has always been anti-Saddam. But in truth we've never cared as long as the US allowed him to smuggle his oil out.

Though today this isn't an issue anymore. Europe would leap to the cause and bulldozer in aid and troops at the drop of a dime... if the american presence was gone, or diminished. Why? Well the reasons are many. One of them being France. You know France, right? The biggest sticks in the muds there is after possibly China and Russia. France, who is fairly anti-american in its politics, still hasn't truly overcome the futtbucking the US laid down on them when they circumvented the UN and went straight in. Oh, and it's not just france. But they're the biggest obstacle the US has.
You simply made a booboo by showing the world how little power the UN has. That matters because over here in Europe we've idolized the concept of a unified earth government, or close to it, for the last fourty years.

That's why the "nyah!". Right now the politicians of the European Union are playing the "you soiled our god! now live in squalor", or something. The US is politically outcast from our good graces. Not that they care much. But the repercusions are thus.

To make a long and complicated story short, you'll just have to wait until the collective ego of the UN fanboys have mended to a point past pout-city. That, or make some sort of apology/plea to make the EU/UN/France look like the saviors of the day when they roll in.

Yeah. It's sad. But that's how it works, and has worked, ever since the conception of the modern state.

Very interesting info. It points out exactly why the UN is so impotent though as it inevitably becomes just another tool which nations fight to control in order to further their own interests. It has also become a contradiction in that there is so much anglo influence in the security council, yet the majority of the world is not anglo. On top of that, with so many muslim nations speaking with one voice in so many issues, how must the UN truly look in their eyes?

I wouldn't criticize western european countries or the UN for a reluctance to get involved. Ideology would say, forget the past and do what's right now, but that's not reality. If begging Hartmut for help would fix things in Iraq I'd do it.

Heheh I think its more like:

You created this shit, deal with it. Indeed the USA made a booboo and showed how useless the UN is so why are you guys now counting on it :p

No one ll win in irak, france sending troops there would change nothing, nor would any other country of europe or the UN. You see, iraq is just algeria 2.0 as far as I look at it ( check france history 57 63 if you don't know about it). Superior power +occupation but you lose against terrorism and islam. In iraq they are already working turning the population against the usa and nothing that the government there ( hehe if you call that a government) can do will change something. On a side note they had the same problems with torture ( in algeria i mean) than USA had a few months ago.

You're fucked basically. I m really hoping the situation get stabilized and get better because in the end the only people really suffering atm are iraqies

'I know in your world there is only one possible way to think, but most people have the ability to believe in multiple dimensions.'

- There's another dimension to invading a country and occupying it for a year?
Please, dazzle me.
Or were you just "tea guests"?

Oh, wait, it was for their own good. So we have to call it liberation? We liberated 10, 000 dead people! Huuwah! No, wait. Wait. We killed those.

Sometimes I get conf00sed.

Thank for illustrating my point. You don't have the intelligence to think from more than one perspective. I'm not going to get in another pointless flamefest with you. It's been proven over and over that you don't have a clue what you're talking about most of the time... so you're reduced to this kind of idiocy because every time you try to enter a conversation of substance with anything other than a flame, you get schooled. Toddle along punk... no one's intersted in babytalking today.

Are you playing cute with me?