Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
German Intelligence Source: Iran Building ABC Weapons  
User currently offlineBeaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 24
Posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1313 times:

The german criminal investigation office has revealed reports that incriminates some german companies involved in illegal transfer -via Russia -of high-tech material used for ABC weapons.
Intelligence sources-following an article in the news-magazine "Focus",have advised the german foreign minister about those facts and Steinmeier has voiced threats to Theran regarding sanctions .
Germany has traditionally good ties to Iran.


http://www.fr-aktuell.de/ressorts/na...ik/nachrichten_aktuell/?cnt=795983


Please respect animals - don't eat them...
29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineThorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1288 times:

This doesn't look good at all. They seem to be storing all kinds of chemical and biological weapons. One Pasdaran (revolutionary guard) commander also said that their rockets can reach every region of Israel. If you compare all the evidence of the Iranians searching for WMDs to the "evidence" that was enough to attack Iraq, you'll notice that the US attack against Iran is almost overdue. The question is: Can the US really do it? The army seems to be close to its crackdown, according to a report issued a few days ago and airstrikes alone will not do it. Bomb them for a couple of weeks - and then? If the US is going to attack it, then they need to occupy the country and leave a stable government that is not a threat to Israel.

User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1273 times:

All this saber rattling is starting to get a little unnerving.

User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21463 posts, RR: 53
Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1256 times:

A military attack (alone?) wouldn't bring much of an improvement; There would probably have to be economic and political pressure as well. Politically many of Iran's neighbours in the region won't be thrilled at the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran... And Iran has always attempted to get into a leadership role. Making that strategy backfire on them would have to be a part of a counter strategy.

User currently offlineMrmeangenes From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 566 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1237 times:

I suppose one should not be surprised at French and German statements about Iran: it has finally dawned upon the EU that rockets which can hit Israel can also hit parts of Europe.

La Belle France has had some recent experience in dealing with Islamists-on its own soil-with France the TARGET.Germany has also had some "close encounters of the worst kind."

I believe Donald Rumsfield was on the right track when he said to Europe,in a Der Spiegel interview : "You have the lead on this. Now lead !" (or words to this effect.)



gene
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21463 posts, RR: 53
Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1225 times:

There have been no illusions about the potential threat - you just don't present any evidence you are aware of the alternatives with all the consequences they would come with.

User currently offlineAsstChiefMark From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1222 times:



User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1194 times:

Quoting Thorben (Reply 1):
The question is: Can the US really do it? The army seems to be close to its crackdown, according to a report issued a few days ago and airstrikes alone will not do it. Bomb them for a couple of weeks - and then? If the US is going to attack it, then they need to occupy the country and leave a stable government that is not a threat to Israel.

As we demonstrated in Iraq, you need boots on the ground to really prevail in armed conflict. We simply don't have the troops we need to occupy Iraq and Iran at the same time.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1185 times:

I'm going to shock a lot of people here.

The more I hear coming out of Iran-the nuke talk, the talk of destroying Israel, the talk that they can see a world without the U.S. The further and further they get into this Islamic Miltiancy, I've come to think the following:

-It's time to double the U.S. Presence in Iraq, if it can be done; and increase our presence to the east in Afghanistan.

-These forces should be there NOT to police Iraq, but put in Eastern Iraq, along with as many airbases as possible, as a warning to Iran, and as a barrier to any incursions westward by Iran, if they even have such ideas.

-Make it absolutely clear to them that they will be welcome at any negotiations on their WMD program, that the door is open to discussion, but that ANY attack launched in the region-against Israel, against Iraq and American troops-any attack, will be met with a retaliatory response of the same magnitude. That means if you launch non-WMD missiles at Israel, or Afghanistan, or Iraq or anyone, the U.S. will do the same; if they launch even a ground probe over someone's border, the U.S. and anyone who wants to joine us, will do the same; if they launch a chimical, bio or nuclear strike of any sort in the region, the U.S. will retaliate the same.

Iran and it's belligerance is becoming an increasing worry, and my worry is, as it has been all along, that the U.S. picked on the wrong country in the region when it came to ability to threaten others. Iraq was a beaten, run-down nation; Iran is a nation ran by crazy men, far more dangerous to the outside world than Saddam ever was.

But it can't just be the U.S. in such an effort. Europe, Russia, the Arab nations in the region (who, if they don't realize that these fools are as big a threat to them as to Israel, they're fools), need to make clear that Iran will be leveled, if need be, to eliminate the potential threat they pose. No pre-emption here, let Iran hang themselves.


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1184 times:

they are taking the necassary steps from getting invaded.........


they probably see what happened with Iraq and North Korea and decided that its better to take the "armed approach" than the "passive" approach...


also, if Iran wanted to "destroy Israel", it probably would have already removed/killed/whatever the 20,000 or so Jews who live in Tehran right now...

A big problem the United States (and to a certain extent, the EU) has is that Iran has A LOT of backing from Russia and China.....this is something which Iraq didn't have.......

my personal belief is that North Korea gets a lot of backing from China also...but I guess that's another subject.......

[Edited 2006-01-29 04:24:03]


"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1184 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 8):
I'm going to shock a lot of people here.

The more I hear coming out of Iran-the nuke talk, the talk of destroying Israel, the talk that they can see a world without the U.S. The further and further they get into this Islamic Miltiancy, I've come to think the following:

-It's time to double the U.S. Presence in Iraq, if it can be done; and increase our presence to the east in Afghanistan.

While I agree with your characterization of the problem we face, it simply CANNOT be a unilateral effort. Our ground forces cannot be stretched any further. The only way we can commit more troops to Iraq would be to pull our forces out of South Korea.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 8):
-These forces should be there NOT to police Iraq, but put in Eastern Iraq, along with as many airbases as possible, as a warning to Iran, and as a barrier to any incursions westward by Iran, if they even have such ideas.

-Make it absolutely clear to them that they will be welcome at any negotiations on their WMD program, that the door is open to discussion, but that ANY attack launched in the region-against Israel, against Iraq and American troops-any attack, will be met with a retaliatory response of the same magnitude. That means if you launch non-WMD missiles at Israel, or Afghanistan, or Iraq or anyone, the U.S. will do the same; if they launch even a ground probe over someone's border, the U.S. and anyone who wants to joine us, will do the same; if they launch a chimical, bio or nuclear strike of any sort in the region, the U.S. will retaliate the same.

Back to the Cold War? Not a good idea, I believe - unless it is a truly multilateral effort. If it is just the US, it will be viewed as a US versus Islam situation, and we cannot afford that.


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1171 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 8):
-It's time to double the U.S. Presence in Iraq, if it can be done; and increase our presence to the east in Afghanistan.



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 8):
-These forces should be there NOT to police Iraq, but put in Eastern Iraq, along with as many airbases as possible, as a warning to Iran, and as a barrier to any incursions westward by Iran, if they even have such ideas.

The problem, my friend, is that

a) Where do you want the US to get more troops? Between Bush 1 and Clinton, the Army has been gutted, it's already stretched way, way too thin, the Air Force hasn't the lift capability anywhere near what it needs.

b) Where is the rest of the world on this? Where are the grand Armies of the EU? Well, I know where the UK Army is, but where are the Germans? French? Spanish? I'll tell you - waiting, once again, on the US to make the first move rather than taking on any of the risk themselves.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 10):
The only way we can commit more troops to Iraq would be to pull our forces out of South Korea.

Very bad call. And, FYI, there is already a Brigade of the 2ID in Iraq.

I'd love to say, lets get 'em, but the fact it, there's nothing left to "get 'em" with! We've been complacent, to a tragic degree, in that the politicians (most of them never having served in a uniform) and the general public and allowed our military to be gutted and effective on only one front . . . it's a self-inflicted wound.

The short sighted politicians, afraid to make the hard call and maintain for a strong national defense have allowed this to happen. Rather than standing up when there were calls for military cuts, they acquiesced and now we - the US - face an inability to be militarily effective in the long haul. Sure, we're dynamite at the gate, but our endurance is now limited.

Where are the EU Members standing on this.

Pleasantly, I see Thorben, someone I usually disagree with, seems to be rather concerned! Is it because this issue is in the EU's own back yard?

Is the saber rattling okay now because of the potential threat to the EU and European geography? Do some of my EU friends see this threat a bit differently now that it's in their ball park?

[Edited 2006-01-29 05:00:44]

User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1166 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 11):
Very bad call. And, FYI, there is already a Brigade of the 2ID in Iraq.

It's high time to wean South Korea off the 2ID and USAFK. They need to stand on their own and assume the responsibility for their own defense.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 11):
The short sighted politicians, afraid to make the hard call and maintain for a strong national defense have allowed this to happen. Rather than standing up when there were calls for military cuts, they acquiesced and now we - the US - face an inability to be militarily effective in the long haul. Sure, we're dynamite at the gate, but our endurance is now limited.

Agree 100%. Bush 41 and Clinton couldn't wait to cash in on the "peace dividend" but no one made a similar reduction in the overseas deployments of US troops.


User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13115 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1162 times:

I think what Iran and N. Korea are looking for is MONEY - nothing but extortion from the USA and some EC countries. They believe the USA and other countries severely took advantage of them, taking huge amounts of their wealth for little money to them and damaged them as to trade, occupation and support of undemocratic leaders. Probably if we relieved them of most of the sanctions some countries have against them, if we paid them 5-10 Billion USD a year for several years, and withdraw our support of their 'enemies' (Israel as to Iran, S. Korea as to N. Korea) they would stop their programs. Of course, the USA and UK cannot do this as it would be against our laws and policy. Also they would expand their extortion to try to break us and they would never be satisfied. Until we really get energy independence such extortion will continue to theatern the world.

User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1160 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 12):
It's high time to wean South Korea off the 2ID and USAFK. They need to stand on their own and assume the responsibility for their own defense.

While I don't necessarily disagree about weaning South Korea off the 2ID tit, I believe now is not exactly the time. The North Korean Government, Mr. Kim Jong Il, is more a threat now than the North Koreans have been in two decades. All the posturing and 'saber rattling' during the 80s and 90s was exactly that. Now, however, there appears to a more credible threat there. I believe the 2ID - fact the entire II Corps - presence is necessary, for now.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1151 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 10):
Back to the Cold War? Not a good idea, I believe - unless it is a truly multilateral effort.

Maybe not, but if Iran keeps up this pressure, there may not be a choice. And I agree, it should be a multi-national effort: Europe, Russia, anyone in the ME with any common sense. It has to be multi-national simply for the forces that would be needed, if necessary, to invade a nation the size of Iran. You're probably talking about a force of half a million-just to begin with, along with 6 or 7 carrier groups, and squadrons of aircraft. I agree with you.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 11):
a) Where do you want the US to get more troops? Between Bush 1 and Clinton, the Army has been gutted, it's already stretched way, way too thin, the Air Force hasn't the lift capability anywhere near what it needs.

I agree with you, which is why it HAS to be a world-wide effort, that will need the support of the UN (sorry, righties-swallow your pride, and accept this as fact right now). If the world relies only on the U.S. Iran is going to do some serious damage somewhere in the next decade or less, I'm convinced of that.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 11):
Between Bush 1 and Clinton, the Army has been gutted, it's already stretched way,

And one reason they are, is that Bush II has invaded the wrong nation, and committed forces to the wrong conflict, which, if Iran keeps this up, will have become a catastrophic mistake on his part. Not trying to bash him, really, but that's just how I see it.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21463 posts, RR: 53
Reply 16, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1142 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 11):
Where is the rest of the world on this? Where are the grand Armies of the EU? Well, I know where the UK Army is, but where are the Germans?

a) In Afghanistan, trying with other european forces and the relatively few remaining US troops to slow down the resurgence of the Taliban and the drug lords, who are both gaining ground due to the basically aborted cleanup when US troops were moved to attack Iraq instead.

b) In various balkan regions.

c) In several other places.

Germany has about 6500 troops deployed on international missions at this point.

Other european nations are quite active as well, but obviously they're not focusing on the american obsession du jour.  Yeah sure

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 11):
The short sighted politicians, afraid to make the hard call and maintain for a strong national defense have allowed this to happen. Rather than standing up when there were calls for military cuts, they acquiesced and now we - the US - face an inability to be militarily effective in the long haul. Sure, we're dynamite at the gate, but our endurance is now limited.

Wrong. Your Military isn't the problem. It's your leadership.

You're talking exactly like that guy on the passenger seat of the Ferrari your best friend has just swiped from his father and has driven into a ditch, complaining that you wouldn't still be stuck if that worthless piece of junk just had proper off-road tires and four-wheel-drive. No thought being wasted on the actual cause of the accident, namely pure recklessness on the part of the driver!

Your military would be relatively adequate for the missions it would actually be needed for (if somewhat insufficiently trained for the post battlefield scenarios). No army on the planet would be sufficient to compensate an incompetent and overreaching political leadership.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 11):
Is the saber rattling okay now because of the potential threat to the EU and European geography? Do some of my EU friends see this threat a bit differently now that it's in their ball park?

Iran had next to nothing to gain and everything to lose by threatening Europe militarily. It is a concern, but nobody in Europe is frantically buying plastic covers and adhesive tape because of it. Blind militarism doesn't solve problems, it causes them.

If you'd stop to think for a moment, you might realize that the current iranian threat has a lot to do with

a) completely ignoring the massive threat of Pakistan acting like a nuclear arms wholesale dealer, in concert with North Korea

b) jumping an almost completely harmless and ruined Iraq and thus sending the message: "Get your nuclear arms now - it's the only thing keeping the americans from invading!"

c) destroying your own image to the point that even moderate iranians are feeling threatened by US forces on both their borders with Afghanistan and Iraq, basically closing ranks even with the more loony ones of their leaders.

d) with the Iraq invasion losing ever more ground among the arab populations so even(!) Iran has a chance of presenting itself as the one islamic nation in the region that actually kicks amercian butt in revenge. Petty? Sure. But you know all too well how that works, don't you?


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1137 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 16):
Germany has about 6500 troops deployed on international missions at this point.

Ohhh, Katy Bar the Door!!!! 6500 Troops!!! Holy shit, almost a whole Brigade! Can you stand it?  sarcastic 

I know there are European troops out there doing great things Klaus . . . that was not my point, I guess you know that of course.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 16):
Wrong. Your Military isn't the problem. It's your leadership.

Did you gloss over these parts of my comments???

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 11):
Between Bush 1 and Clinton, the Army has been gutt



Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 11):
in that the politicians (most of them never having served in a uniform) and the general public and allowed our military to be gutted



Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 11):
The short sighted politicians, afraid to make the hard call

I never blamed the military for it's current state. So, wrong go back and read my posts again.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 16):
r military would be relatively adequate for the missions it would actually be needed for (if somewhat insufficiently trained for the post battlefield scenarios).

Dead wrong. Dead frickin' wrong. The vision to be able to fight a war on two fronts and maintain a significant, effective presence in yet a third location was utter bullshit. The resources didn't match the vision. Smoke and mirrors by politicians in civilian attire and uniforms alike - more concerned with keeping their jobs and cushy DC townhouses than real "soldiering".

It was a  redflag  vision in the late 80s, early 90s and it's proven to remain a  redflag  vision into the 21st Century.


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1137 times:

What is an ABC weapon?

User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21463 posts, RR: 53
Reply 19, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1125 times:

"ABC weapons" is often used in german for referring to Atomic, Biological and Chemical weapons.

User currently offlineClipperhawaii From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2033 posts, RR: 11
Reply 20, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1115 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 8):
I'm going to shock a lot of people here.

The more I hear coming out of Iran-the nuke talk, the talk of destroying Israel, the talk that they can see a world without the U.S. The further and further they get into this Islamic Miltiancy, I've come to think the following:

-It's time to double the U.S. Presence in Iraq, if it can be done; and increase our presence to the east in Afghanistan.

-These forces should be there NOT to police Iraq, but put in Eastern Iraq, along with as many airbases as possible, as a warning to Iran, and as a barrier to any incursions westward by Iran, if they even have such ideas.

-Make it absolutely clear to them that they will be welcome at any negotiations on their WMD program, that the door is open to discussion, but that ANY attack launched in the region-against Israel, against Iraq and American troops-any attack, will be met with a retaliatory response of the same magnitude. That means if you launch non-WMD missiles at Israel, or Afghanistan, or Iraq or anyone, the U.S. will do the same; if they launch even a ground probe over someone's border, the U.S. and anyone who wants to joine us, will do the same; if they launch a chimical, bio or nuclear strike of any sort in the region, the U.S. will retaliate the same.

Iran and it's belligerance is becoming an increasing worry, and my worry is, as it has been all along, that the U.S. picked on the wrong country in the region when it came to ability to threaten others. Iraq was a beaten, run-down nation; Iran is a nation ran by crazy men, far more dangerous to the outside world than Saddam ever was.

But it can't just be the U.S. in such an effort. Europe, Russia, the Arab nations in the region (who, if they don't realize that these fools are as big a threat to them as to Israel, they're fools), need to make clear that Iran will be leveled, if need be, to eliminate the potential threat they pose. No pre-emption here, let Iran hang themselves.

Interesting opinion. Some will thankfully say that you hold no elected office.

As for Iran, let them make one mistake. The U.S. will be ready. Europe won't, (they don't have the guts)and Israel will be welcoming home their jets as they land after flying multiple preemptive atomic bomb runs.

Time for the world (are you listening Europe) to start teaching hard lessons to regimes that even speak the nonsense Iran dares to say.



"You Can't Beat The Experience"
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1105 times:

Quoting Clipperhawaii (Reply 20):

As for Iran, let them make one mistake.

and what do you think that "mistake" is going to be??

Not to mention, you will be waiting a loooooong time........rhetoric and all, they know what they are doing.....

The Iranian regime doesn't operate like Saddam Hussain.....Saddam was a moron..the Iranian Government is on top of things...



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineClipperhawaii From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2033 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1096 times:

I will let our leaders determine what that mistake will be and not some soft shoe birkenstock liberal from San Francisco or the like decide. That I can assure you.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 21):
the Iranian Government is on top of things...

Oh, you think? The world thought Hitler was "on top of things" too.

LOL So sad.



"You Can't Beat The Experience"
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21463 posts, RR: 53
Reply 23, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1095 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 17):
Ohhh, Katy Bar the Door!!!! 6500 Troops!!! Holy shit, almost a whole Brigade! Can you stand it?

Actually, for an army which for decades had a priority of not being too threatening and which is still in transition from a purely territorial tank-centered defense force, with only a part of its troops being volunteers who can be sent abroad, that's not too bad at all.

You were presenting the typical short-sighted ignorant rant as if you didn't know better. But you do, if I'm not mistaken. So why posting this kind of nonsense?

Quoting Klaus (Reply 11):
Wrong. Your Military isn't the problem. It's your leadership.



Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 17):
Did you gloss over these parts of my comments???

You're still running after the illusion that your problems could be fixed by changing the military. But an ill-conceived and badly planned war can't be salvaged by having better troops!

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 17):
Dead wrong. Dead frickin' wrong. The vision to be able to fight a war on two fronts and maintain a significant, effective presence in yet a third location was utter bullshit. The resources didn't match the vision.

No. That vision simply did not imply screwing up the entire global strategic situation at the same time. When you're destroying the fundamental assumptions, you cannot expect the conclusions to still hold true.


You're again shying away from the central point: The Iraq invasion and the way it was prepared, pushed through and executed was a bad idea.

It's not enough to "support the troops" - actually taking good care of them requires sound political decisions about peace or war, with an alert and critical public keeping the leadership on their toes. But every single one of those safeguards has failed on the political side, even though there were plenty of opportunities to recognize the consequences (even with almost exact predictions of the outcome we now see).


That was what I'm talking about in the other thread (Airliners.net Non Aviation: US Troops Demoralized?). But apparently nobody cared (or dared) to go near those thoughts.


User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 25
Reply 24, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1090 times:

We have to think very carefully. Is a policy of escalation the right step? Is it something we want to be a part of right now? Lets think like police do, escalation is the last thing that they want to deal with.


NO URLS in signature
25 ANCFlyer : Not the answer at all. The fact remains, the military is last resort at the ultimate type of diplomacy. I know that. Problem is, IMO, in the US anywa
26 Post contains images Jacobin777 : better to err on the side of caution than invading a country on a false pretense then lie to the American public. oh really? comparing Hitler to Iran
27 AerospaceFan : Oh, I see. The equivalent here would be NBC -- nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Thank you for the kind answer.
28 Beaucaire : Iran has enough intellectual and technical capabilities to produce weapons that would present a serious threat to the region.To that respect ,Bush inv
29 Halls120 : I do believe that the UK "volunteered" to handle eradication in Iraq. I don't believe our troops were ever slated for eradication duties. The two fro
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
German Chancellor Compares Iran With Nazi Regime. posted Sun Feb 5 2006 20:08:36 by Avianca
US Sends Warning To Iran--Sells Israel Weapons posted Thu Apr 28 2005 15:13:39 by RJpieces
Weapons-grade Uranium Found In Iran posted Fri May 12 2006 21:04:19 by 11Bravo
Blix: Iran Years Away From Nuke Weapons posted Fri Jun 24 2005 07:09:05 by Rsmith6621a
Does Iran Deserve Nuclear Power And Weapons? posted Wed Oct 20 2004 15:08:15 by Greaser
WTC Building Designed By A German. posted Fri Feb 28 2003 12:03:49 by GunFighter 6
It Isn`t Good To Be A Porno Star In Iran posted Thu Nov 30 2006 23:04:44 by Oldeuropean
Iran: Canadian Embassy A "Den Of Spies" posted Thu Nov 30 2006 20:44:09 by SKYSERVICE_330
A Fully Nuclear Iran posted Wed Nov 15 2006 00:38:29 by Allstarflyer
Does Bush Still Have Ambitions To Attack Iran? posted Fri Nov 10 2006 15:17:48 by Baroque