Iran Test Fires New Long Range Missles

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Time-Immemorial
Another "FU Obama"

Who was it that was saying this deal was good and that Iran wants peace?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/11/middleeast/iran-ballistic-missile-test/

"To follow our defense programs, we don't ask permission from anyone," he said, according to state-run news agency IRNA.

The new rocket is "capable of scrutinizing the targets and destroying them completely," IRNA reported.

The Emad would be Tehran's first precision-guided missile with the range to reach its enemy, Israel.

Omega Vision
Precision guided missiles aren't what you use for nuclear weapons, lol.

If you want to get mad at Iran for having a conventional military, be my guest, but that has no bearing on the nuclear deal.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Precision guided missiles aren't what you use for nuclear weapons, lol.

If you want to get mad at Iran for having a conventional military, be my guest, but that has no bearing on the nuclear deal.

Im sorry but this was incredibly ignorant.

"When Tehran announced in February last year that it had successfully test-fired a laser-guided surface-to-surface and air-to-surface missile and a long-range ballistic missile capable of carrying multiple warheads, the Pentagon spokesman at the time, Adm. John Kirby, described the missile program as "a dangerous threat to the region."'

Robtard
IOW: "Iran shouldn't be allowed to have any weapons or military capabilities at all so thanks Obama!"

Time-Immemorial
"When Tehran announced in February last year that it had successfully test-fired a laser-guided surface-to-surface and air-to-surface missile and a long-range ballistic missile capable of carrying multiple warheads, the Pentagon spokesman at the time, Adm. John Kirby, described the missile program as "a dangerous threat to the region.""

So why is Iran allowed to have this kind of stuff and you are ok with it but you want to see guns taken away from law abiding american citizens?

Star428
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
"When Tehran announced in February last year that it had successfully test-fired a laser-guided surface-to-surface and air-to-surface missile and a long-range ballistic missile capable of carrying multiple warheads, the Pentagon spokesman at the time, Adm. John Kirby, described the missile program as "a dangerous threat to the region.""

So why is Iran allowed to have this kind of stuff and you are ok with it but you want to see guns taken away from law abiding american citizens?




thumb up



It's like I said in other thread, TI. Logic and liberals don't mix.

Robtard
Yeah, Iran's a military is a threat to Saudi Arabia and possibly Israel. This has been so for years and years, unless you think Iran just recently and because of the nuclear-deal magically acquired a military/weapons?

Does it shock you that besides missiles, they have a strong army with tanks and *gasp* planes?

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=iran

Time-Immemorial
As soon as it comes to Iran its all about protecting them and being able to protect themselves. Even if it means having nukes. But when it comes to American citizens protecting themselfs, they want our guns taken away.

These people are Anti-Americans and anti-constitution.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, Iran's a military is a thread to Saudi Arabia and possibly Israel. This has been so for years and years, unless you think Iran just recently and because of the nuclear-deal magically acquired a military/weapons?

Does it shock you that besides missiles, they have a strong army with tanks and *gasp* planes?

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=iran

Missiles>tanks

Nice downplaying.

Robtard
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Missiles>tanks

Nice downplaying.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
As soon as it comes to Iran its all about protecting them and being able to protect themselves. Even if it means having nukes. But when it comes to American citizens protecting themselfs, they want our guns taken away.

These people are Anti-Americans and anti-constitution.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=iran Thanks Obama!

Time-Immemorial
"When Tehran announced in February last year that it had successfully test-fired a laser-guided surface-to-surface and air-to-surface missile and a long-range ballistic missile capable of carrying multiple warheads, the Pentagon spokesman at the time, Adm. John Kirby, described the missile program as "a dangerous threat to the region."

This was known before Obama made the deal.

Missiles>tanks

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Im sorry but this was incredibly ignorant.

"When Tehran announced in February last year that it had successfully test-fired a laser-guided surface-to-surface and air-to-surface missile and a long-range ballistic missile capable of carrying multiple warheads, the Pentagon spokesman at the time, Adm. John Kirby, described the missile program as "a dangerous threat to the region."'
They already had missiles capable of reaching Israel though, for a long time now, the only new change is that apparently they have new missiles that can hit specific targets in Israel...but as I said that wouldn't have any significance on a nuclear arsenal as you don't need precision for nukes.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Omega Vision
They already had missiles capable of reaching Israel though, for a long time now, the only new change is that apparently they have new missiles that can hit specific targets in Israel...but as I said that wouldn't have any significance on a nuclear arsenal as you don't need precision for nukes.

Yes so not only did Obama make a deal with Iran who has Ballistic Missiles, but now they have precision missiles.

Are we not speaking the same language right now?

They are making it known the will be attacking Israel in the future and its ignorant to think they are not.

Robtard
So you'd rather have no deal and Iran have both missiles (which it had) and nukes. Clearly, the smarter path. Thanks Obama!

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Robtard
So you'd rather have no deal and Iran have both missiles (which it had) and nukes. Clearly, the smarter path.

Yes as Obama originally said "No deal is better then a bad deal."

Robtard
So you'd rather have Iran have the missiles it had and nukes? How does this make sense to you?

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Robtard
So you'd rather have Iran have the missiles it had and nukes?

Is that what I said?

Robtard
Seems so.

Regardless, these missiles are not part of the nuclear deal, no matter how you try to spin it. The deal is Iran not acquiring nukes, nothing about them giving up their military, missiles, tanks, planes, subs etc., while bending over and spreading cheeks.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Robtard
Seems so.

Regardless, these missiles are not part of the nuclear deal, no matter how you try to spin it. The deal is Iran not acquiring nukes, nothing about them giving up their military, missiles, tanks, planes, subs etc and bending over while spreading cheeks.

I wasn't spinning it, Wolf Blitzer announced it on CNN, and he mentioned "Is this Iran's way or snubbing their nose at Obama."

Robtard
Yes, clearly with your immediate comment to OV about "ignorance" when confronted about Iran's conventional military having nothing to do with the nuclear deal and then the supposed "downplaying" of these missiles.

So then, what's your issue with Iran having missiles?

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, clearly with your immediate comment to OV about "ignorance" when confronted about Iran's conventional military having nothing to do with the nuclear deal and then the supposed "downplaying" of these missiles.

So then, what's your issue with Iran having missiles?

Why do they need long range precision missiles capable or hitting Israel?

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Why do they need long range precision missiles capable or hitting Israel?
You may dislike them, you may think of their influence as negative (and I would agree), but Iran has the same right to a conventional military deterrent as Israel does.

Time-Immemorial
Announced: This violates current UN resolutions.
Just heard it on CNN.

Robtard
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Why do they need long range precision missiles capable or hitting Israel?

Considering they're enemies with Israel and Israel threatens to bomb them every other day (yes, slight exaggeration), it's called a deterrent. "Don't **** with us or else", same reason why Israel has nukes, as a deterrent to her enemies that surround her.

edit: OV answered already

Time-Immemorial
And your opinion of it violating current UN resolutions?

Robtard
If they did violate UN resolutions with these missiles (which I'm confused, as Iran's had missiles), then they'll have to suffer the fallout of such actions.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
And your opinion of it violating current UN resolutions?
That's more serious then, and if they did, the UN should take the appropriate measures.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Robtard
If they did violate UN resolutions with these missiles (which I'm confused, as Iran's had missiles), then they'll have to suffer the fallout of such actions.

The falloutlaughing out loud

So thats the end of the it then.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The falloutlaughing out loud

So thats the end of the it then.
What reaction do you want? Bomb them?

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Omega Vision
What reaction do you want? Bomb them?

Good questions. So when someone does something should they be punished?

I could make a similar argument for guns.

When people kill each other using guns, should we take away the guns from all the people that don't?

Robtard
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The falloutlaughing out loud

So thats the end of the it then.

Yeah, they'll have to deal with the consequences depending on the severity of the violation.

What do you propose?

Time-Immemorial
Interesting so a country that violates UN resolutions is going to honor a deal from a country they hate.laughing out loud

Robtard
1) We've yet to see if they actually did violate UN resolutions

2) You're comparing the severity of these missiles (if the above is true) with them violating the nuclear deal (hint: Nukes are far worse than standard missiles), ergo, the backlash would be worse

Nice dodge BTW.

Time-Immemorial
They already have ICBM's. We already went over this.

I already said we should bomb them numerous times, how is that a dodge?

Robtard
Then how is this a UN violation? Not saying it isn't, it just doesn't make sense considering and you've yet to provide a link.

There you go, you want to bomb them again. Alright then.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Robtard
Then how is this a UN violation? Not saying it isn't, it just doesn't make sense considering and you've yet to provide a link.

There you go, you want to bomb them again. Alright then.

Like I said, Wolf talked about it on the news, I don't have his source yet.

Robtard
I just find it funny that for all your "Iran is evil, they want to kill everyone" posts, you're the one that wants to bomb Iran and kill civilians (cos that happens many a time when you drop bombs).

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Robtard
I just find it funny that for all your "Iran is evil, they want to kill everyone" posts, you're the one that wants to bomb Iran and kill civilians (cos that happens many a time when you drop bombs).

Unless they are putting there nuke families in the city, how do you know civilians will die? Obama has been killing civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan the past 8 years, you didn't seem to mind.

Robtard
Believe it or not, bomb and missile strikes are not always 100% accurate.

I've been against the Iraq war from the start. But nice Obama deflection thumb up

IMO, the UN should sanction you, you seem far more unstable than Iran.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Robtard
Believe it or not, bomb and missile strikes are not always 100% accurate.

I've been against the Iraq war from the start. But nice Obama deflection thumb up

IMO, the UN should sanction you, you seem far more unstable than Iran.

So a few dead to prevent nuclear war and a war in the middle east?

Obama has been killing people for 7 years and I never seen you had a problem with it.

Robtard
The good ole "can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs", great, if you're not an egg. But I find that you want to start a war, to prevent a war, to be funny. Because bombing Iran would be a declaration of war.

Oh look, more Obama deflections thumb up, I've been against the Iraq war from the start (this is no secret), why I criticized Obama for trying to circumvent the Iraq troop withdrawal a few years back. We've literally had the conversation before back when you blamed Obama for withdrawing out of Iraq as it being a sigh of weakness and I had to correct you that the Iraq withdrawal was out of his hands and he actually tried to stay.

Time-Immemorial
Iran has been bombed before and it didn't start a war.

Robtard
Then what are you worried about with this WW3 nonsense?

Time-Immemorial
Two completely different topics that you are trying to convolute.

Robtard
Nope; just beating you at your own game.

Time-Immemorial
No that wont work, I said a WW is coming.

Robtard
Thanks Obama

Time-Immemorial
You said it, not me.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.