Iran threatens 'decisive strike' if US attacks

Why, because this time is not in the best interest of the parties involve that means US and Israel.

This time they are the enemies. When it comes to the definition of terrorism actually all nations in the world specially the super powers has been involve in terrorism in many ways, but it all depends in which side you are at the moment and who call a nation terrorist first.

Originally posted by Harlequin
which beggers the question - If it was `ok` for the usa to supply the IRA with military weapon and money to fight the british (NORAD) then why is it wrong for iran to do it.

When did the USA provide the IRA with weapons and money?

I know there was some Irish fundraising going on for them, but you make it sound like the US actively supported the IRA against the Brits.

Please clarify.

I knew abunch of american cops that were fundraising for the IRA in the 1980's. They sold drugs. Lot's of Irish cops here.

reply to post by earthman4


Yeah,
But it was not the US gov't raising money for them. That is what his post made it seem like.

I believe that Harlequin was talking about the funding coming from different groups in the US during the 70s and 80s, most of the weapons that the IRA had came from Lebanon.

I remember during the 80s when the government started to crack down on this furnacing groups here in the US.

Sim, I think the real problem is that the American people just arent aware of what going on and just how much they face an attack on their home ground and I'm not talking about suitcase nukes or dirty bombs.

Militarily America is not as strong as many think it is and relies on other countries for much of its power projection. Should the US/Israel us nuke weapons in Iran this help could be very quickly withdrawn.

advice from a random person....if you see a war is coming and you think that "the military industrial complex stands to make a fortune" Buy stock now and when their profits go up, so do yours...let your 401k get fat as America bombs the crap out of whomever. Let the free market work for you and create yourself some wealth. Bloody hand money...maybe/opinion, but at least your bloody hands won't be eating cat food when social security goes bankrupt in the near future.

reply to post by marg6043


Michael Caraher when captured by the British had a M82A1 rifle , standard issue (at the time) US Army sniper rifle.

source

[edit on 29/10/07 by Harlequin]

Certain members here are posting on the wrong thread, this thread is about Iran striking back if attacked not about America supporting terrorists.

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by marg6043

 

Michael Caraher when captured by the British had a M82A1 rifle , standard issue (at the time) US Army sniper rifle.

source

[edit on 29/10/07 by Harlequin]

Which you buy at almost any gun store or gun show.

Iran's decisive-strike would most likely be to hit the U.S. economically by targetting the oil supply routes of which there are 2 obvious options.

Either by blocking the the very narrow and shallow waters of the Straits of Hormuz by sinking a tanker, or by striking at the oil pipeline distribution hub at Baku in the Caspian Sea.

Both are very vulnrable targets and a disruption of oil exports through either route would be economically distastrous

War sucks., but I have to agree with the above poster about the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran is no match militarily for the U.S. but they could temporarily block the Strait of Hormuz and oil would probably go up to about.... $250 bucks a barrell for awhile.

The wars we've been seeing played out lately are being done so with kids gloves on because no one wants to see women and children suffer. Yes, I know they suffer, but it could be way worse.

If for some reason we do attack Iran, watch for those gloves to come off. No ground troops this time. I also expect Britain, France and probably Australia to be in it up to their eyeballs with us.

I can almost hear the war drums.

Originally posted by mad scientist
Get a grip people, enough of all the paranoid ranting. You make some very ineresting candidates for some psych students.

. Really think about what you [pst veofer posting it, .

Practice what you preach.

Looking at the world stage its very likely this will turn very ugly in the new year.

[edit on 10/29/2007 by MrMedic]

[edit on 10/29/2007 by MrMedic]

[edit on 10/29/2007 by MrMedic]

[edit on 10/29/2007 by MrMedic]

Originally posted by Harlequin
Hezbollah is recognised by most countries in the world as a legimate group of freedom fighters - only a handful of western countries (which include usa and israel) say they are terrorist...

Who exactly recognizes hebollah apart from a handful of Arab countries ?

which beggers the question - If it was `ok` for the usa to supply the IRA with military weapon and money to fight the british (NORAD) then why is it wrong for iran to do it.

Are you actually saying the US governemtn funded the IRA. Me thinks someone needs a dose of reality. I must say the US never supplied arms to the IRA, in fact it was Gudafi who supplied the bulk of the weapons ti the IRA in the 1980's.

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Militarily America is not as strong as many think it is and relies on other countries for much of its power projection. Should the US/Israel us nuke weapons in Iran this help could be very quickly withdrawn.

Well actually America's strategic power projection doesn't need any foreign bases. Bombers can fly direct from the and carriers can sitin international waters.
As for using nukes in Iran, if that happened they woudn't need any bases close to Iran, the job would have been done.

Originally posted by mad scientist

Originally posted by Harlequin
Hezbollah is recognised by most countries in the world as a legimate group of freedom fighters - only a handful of western countries (which include usa and israel) say they are terrorist...

Who exactly recognizes hebollah apart from a handful of Arab countries ?

I think what he is implying is that only 6 countries in the world (from memory: The US, The UK, Israel, Canada, Australia and the Netherlands) see them as terrorists. The rest of the world is either indifferent, doesn't view them as terrorists, or actually supports them.

Do none of you not remember the lead up to Iraq?

1. Coalition of the willing
2. IAEA problems
3. UN sacntions
4. Threats of chemical/bio weapons from Saddam

The words and bravado. This is not about the US being a bully, it is about he US stopping the IRanian wmd program, and Israel proved a few weeks back that it is willing to strike. Do you not find it odd that Syria is not up in arms?? It is because they were guilty, as is Iran.

We go in and Russia rebuilds them...you think Putin does not want that for his economy. Look at the war machine from WW2 and realize it is no different now. Destroy and rebuild....make money....it is not about oil.

Iran doesn't have to have anything fancy to defeat Israel. Israel is a very tiny country with a very high population density. Assuming that Iran has thousands upon thousands of relatively inexpensive conventional missiles capable of hitting relatively nearby Israel, which is not a unrealistic assumption, they could either do some serious damage or scare most Israelis into fleeing, remember that over a million Israelis were displaced from their homes in the summer of last year by a much inferior force. A missile that can hit anywhere at any time with almost no warning, that can send tens of thousands off ball bearings going off in every which direction is a truly terrifying thing.

reply to post by uberarcanist



Well that may be the case except that Israel has over 200 nuclear weapons from low kilton to multi meagaton. Their largets warheads can be delivered anywhere in the Middle East, not to mention their shorter range IRBM's which can also it all targets in the MIddle East.

The Jericho 3 is currently in development. It is believed to have a three-stage solid propellant and a payload of 1,000 to 1,300 kg. It is possible for the missile to be equipped with a single 750 kg nuclear warhead or two or three low yield MIRV warheads. It has an estimated launch weight of 29,000 kg and a length of 15.5 m with a width of 1.56 m. It likely is similar to an upgraded Shavit space launch vehicle. It will probably have longer first and second-stage motors. It is estimated that it will have a range of 4,800 to 6,500 km (2,982 to 4,038 miles). It is believed that the Jericho 3 is inertial guided with a radar guided warhead and silo-based with mobile vehicle and railcar capabilities
missilethreat.com...

If threatened with anihilation you cn be sure these birds will fly and the leaders in Tehran know this. The Israeli's can be just as fanatical.