http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5021304.stm
We must all have sympathy with the Americans in this case. They simply don’t like that those nations they wants to attack are able to defend them selves with weapons newer than ones that predates ww2. 
I agree. I think Iran has every right to defend itself with whatever weapons it wants, especially when rogue countries like the US are going around illegally invading and occupying sovereign nations in the Middle East. I don’t see where the US gets off thinking it has any authority to decide what kinds of weapons anyone else should be allowed to have. Frankly, I think the better armed Iran is, the better. The US needs to be put in check.
Much as I hate to agree with Minotaurus (at least it appears he’s at last discovered the Shift key)…
If these missiles are, indeed, purely defensive, then I say good on both Russia and Iran. Perhaps if the US didn’t want the Iranians to acquire modern miliary technology (not to mention atomic weapons) they shouldn’t have set up the giant neon signs 50 yard from Iran’s border saying “Get Better Weapons, Or We Invade” (with a big arrow pointing at North Korea).
I’d be less concerned if we were talking about a nation such as Pakistan, Indonesia, or Brazil. All chosen since I believe they all have nuclear weapons programs. None of which are making grandiose statements that imply a desire to either conquer a neighboring nation, or obliterate another nation.
Do Happy Clam, and Dio really want to see Iran’s nuclear weapons program to prosper behind defenses made of the most modern weapons it can buy? I’m not sure I do, to be honest.
If I weren’t concerned about Iran’s desire to conquer or obliterate other nations, I wouldn’t object to them getting any kind of defensive weapon systems. As it is - I’m not exactly happy.
Of course, selling military technology to questionable regiemes is nothing new from Russia, nor the U.S. And frankly, given Russia’s budgetary problems, I’m not sure I can condemn them for it.
Which nation(s) is(are) Iran grandiosely stating they will conquer or obliterate?
Why are you less concerned about Pakistan, which actually has nuclear weapons? Or India? Or, for heaven’s sake, France, which could reach the U.S. with their weapons?
Frank, are you trying to say that you don’t see the rhetoric coming out of Iran recently as being inflammatory, and close to saying they’ll obliterate Israel as soon as they have the capability?
I doubt I’m the only person who’s been viewing their rhetoric that way.
If Pakistan were to use their nukes they’re not going to attack the US, anyways. They’re going to attack India over the Kashmir. (And vice-versa for India) Frankly, I doubt that either nation is so lost to sanity as to want to consider such an option.
Likewise, while France has nuclear weapons, what scenario do you imagine for them using such weapons - especially against the US?
2005 “World Without Zionism” speech
RUSSIA SIGNALS DELAY IN TOR-M1 TO IRAN
US urges Russia to reconsider missile export to Iran
Personally, I would prefer it if Iran (or North Korea or Sudan or Pakistan) was not able to purchase such weapons. I don’t see why the US shouldn’t make its views known or even throw a couple of wrenches into the deal.
For the former,certainly; for the latter, I’m not as certain. There is nothing new about inflammatory rhetoric directed at Israel from the Muslim states.
How do you compare such rhetoric to that directed at Iran from President Bush?
If I were an Iranian? Pretty damned worrisome.
I never said, Frank, that I viewed Iran’s desire for the best available military equipment as irrational.
A short test:
a. US
b. Iran
a. a democratically elected president and congress
b. a military junta
c. an ultra-conservative Islamic theocracy which makes implicit and explicit threats against its neighbours
d. a dictator
a. enough to make even the Jihadists puke
b. 7
c. infinitely more than their American counterparts
d. slightly less than Diogenes
Rational or not, you appear to view it as a bad thing, due to Iran’s sabre-rattling at Israel.
Iran, even with nuclear weapons, is no more a threat to the U.S. than Pakistan or India or France or Israel, and it is none of our business how they choose to arm themselves any more than it is our business how the aforementioned choose to arm themselves.
Neither. Iran’s government has been pretty stable for 25 years, and, actually, should a revolution occur, it would be a pro-Western revolution.
None of the above.
Not as disingenuous as yourself.
Wow, Frank, you turned that right around into… a complete non-sequitor.
Ooooohhh, burn. And next are you going to tell us that you’re made of natural rubber latex and Karl from the hooves of the late Barbaro?
John Bolton, US ambassador to the UN says the Iranians already have enough U235 for a bomb:
Now it’s just a matter of putting it together, and Tel Aviv is DOOMED!
Or Bolton and his buddies could be continuing to lie about Iran.
I don’t see any reason why Iran shouldn’t be able to go weapons shopping.
However, I also don’t see any reason why the US shouldn’t be able to ask a nominal ally to decline to sell weapons to Iran, particularly anti-aircraft missiles (I doubt anyone would care about a shipment of Kalashnikovs). Russia, being a sovereign nation and all that, will no doubt make a decision based on what Putin thinks is in his best interest, and that will be that.
What’s the matter with TOW missiles? Aren’t those good enough any more?
It’s gotten to the point where you have to assume this crew is lying anytime their lips are moving.
To refine uranium to bomb-grade quality, don’t they need something like thousands of centrifuges that they don’t have? It isn’t like that sort of stuff can be thrown together overnight.
And it’s the fundamental two-facedness of the US regime that’s so amusing. Who sold arms to the mujahideen to use against Russia? Hell, who sold arms to any petty dictator with a Rightist stance for so many years? Pigeons coming home to roost, is all.
Y’know, just because the Bush administration opposes something doesn’t make it a good thing.
Bush isn’t going to be president forever, and we’ll still have to deal with Iran after he’s gone. Just because Iran’s desire to get nuclear bombs is rational doesn’t mean we shouldn’t oppose it.
Anyone who supports the Iranian nuclear program on the grounds that George Bush is against the Iranian nuclear program is a fucking idiot.