Iran test-fires missile with range that can hit Israel
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. observers warn of Syria civil war after massacre
( 7 )
-
Obama on the defensive over spending, debt
( 18 )
-
Egypt's top candidates try to broaden support
( 1 )
-
Queen marks diamond jubilee riding wave of popularity
( 0 )
-
Thousands take part in 'Slut Walks' in Brazil
( 10 )
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
-
- 営業パーソン
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tochigi
- Salary: ¥240,000 ~ ¥350,000 / Month Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
34 Comments
Login to comment
0
Den Den
So what. Most modern countries test fire missiles everyday.
0
grafton
Den Den
I wonder why a peaceful country like Iran would want a missile that is capable of reaching Israel AND Diego Garcia?
0
HonestDictator
Well, they can test fire all they want. Just as long as they don't actually target somebody.
0
grafton
HonestDictator
It's a bit late when they do.
0
JoeBigs
Why complain about Iran having long range missile capabilities when many other nations in the region have them also.
Russia has been selling the SS-26 to many nation in the region. This missile has a range of about 400 km (almost 250). Syria has them and they are next door neighbors. Last time I checked Syria and Israel really do not like each other. BTW Syria has SCUD missiles also and they have a 500 km range.
I wonder how long it will be before Israel attempts to knock out Irans reactor......
0
skipthesong
eh!JB: Why complain about Iran having long range missile capabilities when many other nations in the region have them also. " Then why complain about someone buying a hand gun because others have em?
I wonder how long it will be before Israel attempts to knock out Irans reactor......" Well, with nukes, do you wait to be attacked or do you go with your gut instinct?
den den, haven't you heard that white supremacy is so not cool?
0
OssanAmerica
The headline is misleading because Iran already had missles that could hit Israel. It's te extended range (far beyond Israel) and probability of higher accuracy of this latesdt missle that's the concern.
0
WilliB
DenDen:
Most modern countries don´t declare another country a "dirty bacteria" which "must be wiped off the map".
0
nandakandamanda
So Iran is over 1,200 miles long/wide?
0
adaydream
Damn those Iranians. They possess weapons that will reach Israel? Oh yeah, Iran just wants a deterent against Israel's nukes. < :-)
0
adaydream
Still looking for the Iranian quote that Iran said that "Israel must be wiped off the map." < :-)
0
USARonin
AdAydReam, so everything is equal?
Don't get too many splinters sittin' on that fence.
0
USARonin
ADayDream, here's that source - a well known left-of-center source - that quotes Iran's President's Immad(as in 'insane')adinajad that you wanted reference 'wipin' Israel off the map or face of the earth' or some other anti-Semetic Apocolyptic philosophy:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4378948.stm
I hope that boy doesn't get me nuked in my bed at 3:22 in the AM some mornin'.
0
adaydream
Thanks.
I think a lot of countries and people say a lot of things that should never pass their lips. < :-)
0
HonestDictator
Grafton I stick by my earlier statement, Iran already had missles that were in range of their neighbors. They're just trying to extend their range for neighbors further away. Its not that it would be "Too late" its more like "You started it, nows the time to pay the consequences". Every war is an example of too late.
0
teleprompter
While you're lookin, maybe you'd like to confirm this quote, from Ahmadinejad’s chief strategist, Hassan Abbassi:
"We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization... we must make use of everything we have at hand to strike at this front by means of our suicide operations or by means of our missiles. There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them. [...] "But it is not only the US that Abbasi wants to take on and humiliate. He has described Britain as “the mother of all evils”. In his lecture he claimed that the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, and the Gulf states were all “children of the same mother: the British Empire.” As for France and Germany, they are “countries in terminal decline”, according to Abbasi."
0
SushiSake3
This'll be more fodder for the celebrities in the GOP like Rush Limpbow, Sean Hannity, Dick Cheney and others to get all uptight and emotional.
They tend to be the same ones who believe NKorea has nukes, lol!! :-)
Dumb is as dumb says....
0
SushiSake3
After 8 years of 'terror' under bush, Republicans can't seem to go a single day without being terrified of something.
Yesterday, it was President Obama's plan to raise fuel efficiency standards for vehicles.
Today, it is Iran's missiles.
Tommorrow, what's it going to be that will have Republicans cowering?
:-)
0
SezWho2
Exactly right. Tell it to the Afghani civilians in respect of an even superior and better-tested technology.
It's right, but it's not the point. The point is that sovereign countries have the right to sovereign defensive systems. It's hardly the Iranian's fault that defensive systems can also be used offensively.
Israel occasionally busies itself discussing whether it should or should not try to bomb facilities in Iran. It seems to me to be fairly natural that the Iranians would develop technologies which might make Israel think twice before it attacks.
0
SuperLib
...or we could say it like this: Iran wants to be able to defend herself while she engages in a policy that kills Israelis.
Hmmm....maybe yours sound better... A much more generalized approach that ignores the reality of the situation at hand is probably the best way to get people to agree with you.
0
skipthesong
Still looking for the Iranian quote that Iran said that "Israel must be wiped off the map."" Aday, I don't know. I am starting to believe your age.
Every single news cast I see, and I get to see many at this places constantly running, where Iran is the topic, it starts off with that quote.
0
skipthesong
telepromter:
I just looked for that guy. YOu're right.
0
Nessie
The range can hit Israel?
0
sharky1
Just let Israel do their thing...
0
sabiwabi
Indeed, it seems Iran is the only country that can make Israel think twice about anything. Other countries continue to let Israel get away with crimes against humanity.
0
teleprompter
They're definitely thinking twice about Obama. Too bad most American Jews were more easily duped...
0
LIBERTAS
If YOU had Israel whuppin´the US´s rear end towards an attack on you, YOU´d invest in some serious firepower too. Look at North Korea, Kim´s got nukes and they just leave him alone. Saddam didn´t and look what happened! See any clear lessons to be had here? I sure do.
0
SezWho2
Oh, yes. We could say it like that. In which case the retort would be that a much more generalized approach that ignores the reality of the situation at hand is probably the best way to get like-minded people to agree with you.
SuperLib, you don't get to decide what the "reality of the situation" is. But kudos for initiating a nice smear without really bothering to address the comment you are smearing. In case you haven't noticed, there are several countries who purport to defend themselves while pursuing policies that kill citizens of other countries.
0
ca1ic0cat
If Iran could be trusted to be interested in only defence then the rhetoric might not be so shrill. But when they are funding and arming groups that claim that Israel has no right to exist then you have to wonder why they need to develop missiles with longer and longer ranges.
0
Helter_Skelter
The Mullahs are laughing.
Socialists like adaydream also want Israel wiped off the map since Israel runs counter to their socialist ideology. The Socialist-Islamist Alliance continues.
0
SezWho2
Possibly. However, I don't think this is a matter of trust so much as it is a matter of who is doing the trusting. Some of those countries who raise the issue of trust are known to be interested in more than their own defense.
The two have a thin relationship at best. The need to develop missiles with longer and longer ranges has less to do with Iranian support for groups which deny Israel's right to exist than it does with where threats to Iranian security may come from. Other countries who support groups dedicated to the overthrow or destruction of foreign governments also develop missiles with longer and longer ranges and this includes countries whose missiles already have the longest ranges imaginable.
0
SuperLib
Which countries? Last I checked the countries that actually support Iran can be counted on one hand. That leaves everyone else being against them. This isn't just the US and Israel against Iran, but pretty much everyone in the entire world. You can temporarily stall the debate by focusing on Israel and the US only, but what happens when we take everyone else into account? You don't feel their concerns are legitimate?
Maybe Iran could worry less about their threats to security if they didn't intentionally kill innocents in several surrounding countries. You're trying to paint Iran as the victim that needs defense. In reality I think most countries are against Iran having nukes because they see it as an aggressor who wants to protect their aggressive positions, and could quite possibly increase their hostile nature as long as they're able to "defend themselves" from anyone trying to stop them.
0
SezWho2
You must have a big hand. Last I checked most of the non-aligned nations supported Iran's right to develop nuclear technology. The UN has 192 members which include most of the non-aligned nations 100-plus members. Most of the 100-plus has to be over 50, but as I recall the support level was more like 80 or 90%.
I'm not here focusing on the US and Israel. I'm not even focusing on Israel at all but it's possible that it could be included in my comments. I was focusing on any country that feels free to make war in the name of defense, which might include the US, Britain, France, Russia, China--our rock-solid security council members. Are these the countries that get to spend trillions on defense and then turn those defensive weapons into offensive tools?
Back to top