Iran Test Fires New Long Range Missles

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.

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.

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."'

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

"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?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
[b]"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? [/B]

👆

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

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

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.

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.

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!

"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

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."'

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.

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

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."

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

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

Is that what I said?

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.

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."

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?