You are absurd. I'm saying that this is the third time they've tested a solid fuel two stage rocket - that all versions the Sejil missiles are built on solid fuel designs. Now take your Aricept before you get too agitated or confused:
I don't think the thread went in the direction basso wanted it to. LOL! This was the equivalent of Ariza's performance in that Toronto game. All shots and counter punches denied!
i guess ya'll are right, nothing to see here,just move along... [rquoter]On Iran, a bipartisan message to Obama: Act now By: BYRON YORK Chief Political Correspondent December 22, 2009 Is there anything that could bring our deeply divided Congress together in an act of overwhelming bipartisanship? Is there any issue that could unite more than 400 members of the House of Representatives, Democrats and Republicans, in common cause? Is it even possible to have broad bipartisan agreement on a major problem facing the country today? The answer is yes. You might not have noticed -- it didn't get much coverage -- but on Dec. 15 the House voted, by the unheard-of margin of 412 to 12, to pass a bill called the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act. With one loud, united voice, lawmakers told President Obama to stop messing around and impose real sanctions in response to the Iranian nuclear weapons program. The bill targets a major Iranian vulnerability. Even though it has vast stores of oil -- it's the world's fourth-largest producer -- Iran has little capacity to refine that oil into gasoline, diesel fuel and other usable products. So an oil-rich nation has to import gas. If it can't get the gas, it can't keep its economy going. The legislation would crack down on the companies that provide the fuel that keeps the Iranian theocracy in business. The act's prologue is an extended rebuke of the Obama administration's Iran policy. Iran's nuclear program is "a serious threat to the security of the United States," the prologue says, and many U.S. allies, including Britain, France and Germany, have already advocated tougher sanctions against Iran. In October 2008, the prologue continues, then-senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama said petroleum sanctions might force Iran to change its ways. "If we can prevent them from importing the gasoline that they need and the refined petroleum products, that starts changing their cost-benefit analysis," Obama said. "That starts putting the squeeze on them." The prologue goes on to cite the "serious and urgent nature" of the Iranian threat, as well as the "brutal repression and murder, arbitrary arrests, and show trials of peaceful dissidents" in Iran. It declares that Iran has not only ignored but has been "contemptuous of" Obama's efforts to reach out to Tehran.Iran "is not interested in a diplomatic resolution," the act concludes. Therefore, it is time for action. The legislation would require Obama to impose sanctions on companies that sell refined petroleum to Iran or help Iran acquire refined petroleum, either by shipping it in or by increasing Iran's capacity to refine oil. The proposed sanctions extend to companies that provide ships for getting the refined products to Iran and even companies that insure those ships. The sanctions include basically barring those firms from doing business in the United States -- prohibiting them from taking part in any financial transactions in the United States, freezing their U.S. assets and forbidding them from dealing in U.S. dollars. Those are real and serious penalties, and they would be felt if actually imposed on the companies that keep the Iranian machine running. After decisive passage in the House, the act is now in the Senate, where it also has far-reaching bipartisan support. The problem is, the Democratic leadership has been more interested in passing a national health care bill by Christmas Eve than in dealing firmly with the Iranian nuclear threat. But it will ultimately pass the Senate and then head to Obama's desk. Will the president who has invested so much of his personal prestige in the idea of engagement -- the man who, as a candidate, pledged to meet Mahmoud Ahmedinejad without preconditions -- actually take action? "This is a test for the Obama administration," says an advocate of sanctions. "It's clear Iran is not cooperating. Will the administration lead on this and move forward to the United Nations, with the Europeans and then with the coalition of the like-minded? It will be a moment of truth, the time by which his foreign policy will be defined." Support for action is as bipartisan as bipartisan can be. In the House, the act was passed with the votes of 241 Democrats and 171 Republicans. Republicans Mike Pence and Eric Cantor support it, and Democrats Henry Waxman and Barney Frank support it. The 12 lawmakers who voted against it were mostly fringe figures, including Reps. John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. The mainstream message is as clear as Congress can make it: It's time for Obama to do something.[/rquoter]
Iran has a missile. Oh my God!!! Can we please start another war so we can have a happy neo-con Christmas
Please Basso, just leave your hate for your Glenn Beck fan club meetings. Here at clutchfans, we don't really need that crap.
I doubt we can actually stop them from getting a bomb...its nearly impossible there are too many places they can hide the components. Centrifuges, radioactive material, casings...everything in random mountains or anywhere. Israel should attack but it would come with major repurcussions world wide, for us too.
So by your reckoning, nuclear deterrence and intercontinental ballistic missile capability should work out well for Iran as well? Hmm, considering the reason why Iran feels it needs nukes is because Israel has them... And since you state that it's legitimate to attack another nation under the threat of nuclear capability. The only logical conclusion is that you True Beaner fully support any and all military actions on Israel by Israel's neighbors? In the past 10 years, our government assisted Iran gain regional influence that they couldn't accomplish on their own with nearly a decade of war in the 80s. We gave explicit approval of the nuclear armament of Pakistan and politically and economically incentivised the further nuclear armament of North Korea. We've looked the other way to a massive military buildup in China to the detriment and threat of our East Asian allies in Japan and Taiwan. We've stuck our heads in the sand while Israel built up tens of thousands of settlements in occupied territories and constructed an apartheid fence based on ethnicity and religion in direct contradiction of democratic ideals and our national interests in the Middle East. We invaded Iraq because they had "WMDs." All the while, the people who attacked the United States are sitting pretty in Pakistan largely unthreatened by any of this. And in the past 20 years Iraq has gone from ally to enemy back to ally. Now we're told that Iran is the new Iraq. Much worse than as the old Iraq because of A, B and C. So the proletariat working classes go off to war in the all-volunteer army mindlessly accepting every situation. It seriously sounds Orwellian, overprogrammed and undereducated masses led like sheep into wars between Eurasia and Eastasia changing mid-war as the political climate dictates without irony. Seriously, this crap aint what made America a great country. I wonder what some of our grandfathers who fought in WWII would think of this warmongering and total abdication of American principles.
