Link here

Edited by GH--the link was stretching out the thread, and it's a good idea to post the text of the article in the thread, as well.

Exiles: Iran Making Missiles That Could Hit Europe

By Madeline Chambers
LONDON (Reuters) - Iran is working on long-range missiles capable of hitting European capitals, as well as nuclear and chemical warheads, an exile group said on Thursday.

The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), which has in the past given accurate information on some of Iran's nuclear facilities, said Tehran was working on missiles with a range of 1,600 to 1,900 miles, capable of hitting cities such as Berlin.

Iran denies any intention of making long-range ballistic missiles and says its existing medium-range missiles are purely for deterrence.

The NCRI told reporters Iran was carrying out research, testing and making the Ghadr 101 and Ghadr 110 missiles, comparable to advanced Scud E missiles, at the Hemmat Missile Industries Complex.

Ghadr means value or merit in Farsi and Shab-e Ghadr refers to the night the Koran was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad.

The NCRI is a coalition of exiled opposition groups fiercely opposed to Iran's clerical rulers. The State Department lists the NCRI and its armed wing, the People's Mujahideen, as a terrorist organization.

The exiles also said Tehran had in August tested a Shahab-4 missile with a range of 1,200 to 1,900 miles, depending on the weight of the warhead. Shahab means meteor in Farsi.

Iran has acknowledged it can make large numbers of medium-range Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, capable of hitting Israel or U.S. bases in the Gulf, but has repeatedly denied Israeli accusations it is developing Shahab-4.

"Militarily speaking, by obtaining long-range and medium-range missiles, the clerics are trying to put many regions of the world, including all of Europe, within their range," NCRI's Ali Safavi told reporters.

The NCRI acknowledged that the missile programs did not contravene international law. It provided site maps and detailed explanations but had no blueprints of the work.

Safavi also said Iran's Shahid Karimi Industrial Group was pursuing nuclear and chemical warheads, but he gave few details.

Last month Secretary of State Colin Powell suggested Iran was working to fit missiles with nuclear warheads but Iran says its atomic plants are solely for power generation.

Earlier this week the United Nations' nuclear watchdog decided against referring Iran to the Security Council after Tehran agreed to freeze all activities which could be used to make bomb-grade material.

so which is it


The US be the my body guard of the world

or

should the US mind its own fucking business?

This is something I've grappled with too. It seems that many say going into Iraq was a terrible decision, yet they want further action in other places. I understand that it may work on a case by case basis, but it's also odd that some can have such conflicting viewpoints, both of them being strongly held.

I'm not implying that the original poster fits into this category, by the way.

Why did we attack Iraq when Iran is a greater threat?

Well, how about Iran has more than twice as many people and the whole country is mountains that we would never be able to fight a successful war in. Imagine Afghanistan with 70 million people. The Bush administration was looking for a victory, and Iraq was do-able.

--PunkDavid

we're in a war that we shoudlnt' be in anymore...they dont' want us there anymore so we need to just get the hell outta there and quit killing our innocent people...We needed to get the bush administration out of the white house but of course we voted that moron back into office

well they thought Iraq was do-able, anyway.

Iran would fucking LOVE the US to attack them.

We cannot just simply "pull out" now, because that would leave a power vacuum that has a 90% chance of being filled by a radical dictator. However you or I feel about the war, it has already taken place, and we cannot change that. I was not for the invasion of Iraq, but it would be foolish of me to say that we should just up and leave, when we have already spent this much time, effort, money, and lives trying to correct what was determined a problem. We got rid of the country's leadership, we have NO CHOICE but to try and rectify the situation and leave it better than what it was when we came. That is THE RIGHT THING TO DO. We must right a wrong and we are in this for the long haul.

What we need to do is focus on how we can make Iraq a stable place. If we up and leave, then not only would the war would be a complete failure but a country would be left in utter ruin, and I highly doubt that even the most ardent anti-war people would want us to run out of the situation like this. The war is on, our focus should be trying to make things RIGHT in spite of the fact that the war may have been or may not have been a good idea to begin with. We're in it now, and we need to do things right and we owe it to the Iraqis (now that we have invaded the country) to deliver them a situation better than what they had before. To simply leave is a mistake. We cannot undo things, so FAR BETTER that we stay to make things right. It is our mess and we are obligated to clean it up. I honestly would be more upset (again I was against the war) if we left it half-assed than if we stay and get the job done. It is out of hands that we are there now, but it is in our hands that we clean up the mess.

Secondly, our soldiers and volunteers in Iraq really cannot be considered "innocent" and I categorically reject that label. These are professionals who have signed up or volunteered to go of their own volition. Innocence does not apply. NO ONE wants Americans to die (certainly not myself), but if they do, they certainly do not die as an "innocent" nor "guilty" people, but rather as professional soldiers or workers. It is their job and not a matter of guilt or innocence. They were told what to do and they have an obligation to fulfill despite the danger of being killed.

Regarding Iran, this is a difficult and worrisome situation. It is quite clear that Iran is looking to bolster its military force with nuclear arms, specifically for use against Israel and to strong arm other nations in the Middle East. By becoming nuclear, Iran feels it can become the superpower of the Middle East, on par with Israel.

I believe it may be more of a question of "when" Iran gets nuclear weapons rather than "if". WHEN Iran goes nuclear, I think it is a very real possibility to see an arms race develop between Israel and Iran. I think it is also safe to say that it would be a nightmare scenario. Can it happen? Sure. Will it? We cannot say yet.

The US's role will certainly be important, equally important as its role in talks with North Korea. With Russia and its republics becoming increasingly unstable, the US is quickly becoming the last nation which could stand up to hostility in the world.

To not do anything would be foolish, but action may be just as volatile.

This is a tenuous situation and I hope we are ready for it. If President Bush is in charge, and he is, I hope that he makes the right moves and I feel we must hope that he does.

the US mind its own fucking business? yip

Unfortunately, this question is not as easy as two black-and-white answers.

This is far too complex a situation.

Which? Iran, Iraq, the Middle East; or America wanting to have their finger in all the pies?

One has to remember that America placed itself in the position of a 'body guard' post WWII, to protect its economic interests from - what was then perceived as an enemy of Democratiic values: The eastern Bloc. Now, that enemy, albeit sustaining its Communist ideologies dressed in a supposed Democracy, became America's bed fellow. Should I mention Libya?

I don't know...At times, it actually is pretty simple: Integrity.

I understand what you are saying Human, and there are certainly times when the US's integrity has left something to be desired.

But I consider the situation with Iran to be very complex and tenuous. I cannot say whether we should be involved or not, because there are obvious pitfalls with each policy.

For all the problems people have with war... I would say everyone would agree it makes a lot more sense to go into a winnable war...

I know what you are saying Tsunami. Unfortunately, I have seen the results of American international policy with my own eyes. It always lacked integrity...It always came down to protecting its economic interest, not human interests. I understand my bias in this, but that is because I have worked, and will return to working, on a humanitarian level. Once you see it, you do not care about politics. You only care about the people...

Interestingly, noone brought up Afghanistan...I mean...It all comes down to one thing: control of the Middle East. I doubt I need to spell the reasons for that need of control. It is the same as Russians wanting control of Chechnya.

Anyway, I am going to go and sit in a corner now...

You shouldn't go! You bring up some very good points and I thank you for the discussion.

I'll definately have to do some more research on this.

You are very kind Tsunami. You forgive me for my jadedness.

Well more sense than attacking Iran, for whatever that statement is worth...

--PunkDavid

Give it a year if you're impatient. We'll be in there one way or another in the next 12 months.

its on the list definitely.

I guess they need to work out the no bid contracts for halliburton first