...Western sources claim that the Shahid Hammat Industrial Group, which is responsible for developing liquid propellants for Iran's missile programmes, is currently running a programme to develop a totally different missile with a range of 4,000-5,000 km (depending on payload). ...Dubbed 'Project Koussar', this is based on the development of a reverse-engineered RD-216 engine, probably acquired from Russia in the late 1990s. The engine powered Russia's (now obsolete) SS-5 'Skean' (R-14/8K65) intermediate-range ballistic missiles and SL-8 Cosmos satellite launch vehicles. While the status of this programme remains unknown, but is believed to be at the preliminary design review stage, the source said that Iran is making progress in reverse engineering the RD-216 engine. It is, however, unclear as to what strategic benefits Tehran would acquire with this range of capability. http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/jdw060908_1_n.shtml Iran nuclear ambitions...3500 mile range ballistic missile...their over-zealous hatred for anything American...their threats to destroy American targets anywhere in the world...you do the math.

There ambition to extend their will over the world is transparent, a threat to our prosperity and safety, in the from of terrorism and next by missle. The president must immediately act to protect our interests by pursuading Russia and China to jointly take military action to eliminate the idiolgolical threat. Immediate action now will inhibit threats in Korea and Iran!

You must be jesting.......they only want nuclear energy....not weapons.........

hahahahaha, and Kim Jong Il is just a movie freak.....you don't hide a nuke program for years if all you want to do is generate energy. You also build power lines from the generation point. No transmission lines anywhere near the site in Iran.

So research into long range missles are indications that a nation presents nothing but a threat to international peace. http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2006/02/05/2003291602 So with technology that can reach China, what does that say of the U.S.? Following your logic, I get confused, Are the U.S. and Iran in the same bucket in terms of threat assessment, or are they apples and oranges, which you will likely argue. What constitutes defense and what constitutes offense? Have times changed enough that defense from immediate neighbors is not enough?

Times have apparently changed to the point any country putting a spy satellite in orbit is attacking America. Go Bush!

It says nothing of the US, and actually is says nothing of Russia or China as well. Our missiles and defenses were set up to act as a deterrent to stop the advancing enemey. Ok, let's refresh the cold war, shall we? Democracy was at war with Communism and vice-versa. Both were trying to spread from nation to nation, and much of it was in response to the other. It was an endless struggle. Missiles developed during that time were primarily used as a deterrent because not one of the big 3 really wanted to do much more. The Cuban missile crisis was proof of that. When push came to shove JFK and Kruschev both rattled their sabres and waved their manhoods in the air to show their prowess, but in the end the US dealt and the Russians backed down. Why was that? Because neither the US or Russia was crazy enough to actually send a missile off and start WWIII. China also didn't want to be sending missiles off into the Soviet Union to start WWIII when they had their tense moments. The game was like a high stakes poker game, only instead of being played with harmless poker chips it was played with the deadliest of weapons. Since then a meeting of minds came about to some extent. We came to understand that taking the world to the brink of WWIII, where the missiles are prepared and used as a real threat, was crazy. If you listen to the sabre rattlers today from the US, China or Russia and pay attention to them then there just isn't the seriousness involved when talking about the use of missiles. They are put back, mostly, in their proper place and that place is... "We know these tools of deterrent exist and we know you probably won't use them.. but if we cross the line you just might." China and Russia both understand that the US just might nuke them back into the stone age if they cross the line, and we understand they might light up their missiles if we go to far. However places like Iran and NK do not know this and they are careless in their threats. They are wild cards and all three of the Big 3 realize this. Why do you think China is building a wall between them and those crazy NKs?

Ah deterrent! Great argument. Nukes are, as you said, deterrent instruments. Then why would Iran or North Korea start irresponsibly using them when other nations sit stockpiled ready to counter attack. When has any nation or state put itself in a position of such disadvantage? Because they are warped and ruled by madman, and have horrible P.R.? Is that the logic? Because Bugs Bunny might follow it, but I don't.

Let's follow your logic by saying this: Guns are a deterrent when used in self-defense. Let's take a real life scenario that happened during the Rodney King Riots in LA. We've all seen this played out on TV. The Rioters began to attack the shops owned by the Koreans. When the Koreans came out and showed they would defend their places with guns, the Rioters moved on leaving the Koreans Businesses alone. However a little way down the street they pulled an unarmed man out of a truck and beat him senseless. Now take it a step further, what if the Rioters had Guns? Do you think for an instant they would not have used those weapons of defense for attack? Of course they would, at the very least the odds were 100 to 1 they would have. The Police files are filled with people who used guns to murder others. Nukes are the same way. They are a deterrent, that was proven during the cold war. However that does not mean some whacko couldn't use nukes for attack.

There's the flaw in your argument. You are assuming that Iran and North Korea will behave like rioters. They talk like ones but they don't behave as such. And these aren't rioters versus korean shop owners. These are rioters versus mafia protected turf.

There is a flaw in your reasoning.. you are assuming they won't.

So there are flaws in both our arguments because of the assumptions we make. Therefore we can only debate as to why the assumptions we make are sound intelligent arguments. I'll argue past actions don't indicate such aggression, but you can counter with the independent event theory, where past actions don't indicate future actions. You'll likely argue that words are thrown out that indicate certain action and I'll counter that words and actions are not good correlations when words can be truths or lies.

The bottom line is this, Zero, if your next door neighbor is making comments that indicate harm will come to you or your family, do you sit idly by and ignore it or do you do something about it? People often will harass people to the point of the person taking some action, be that going to the courts for a harassment order or beating the heck out of the guy and showing him how foolish it is to threaten. Why would Nation-states act differently?

A. This isn't a next door neighbor. B. My house is much larger and has an impressive security network. C. I'm running around appealing to the neighborhood committee board, so that mail doesn't get delivered to their house. I'm not exactly the nice guy either. D. Other houses on the block will synmpathize with me should I be attacked, just as they would with them should I attack.

LOL Zero, is that all you got? a. Follow the line of logic being employed here, for a change. lol b. Moot point since you tossed out the whole premise, but the fact is that if you honestly think your home security is that impressive to make you immune from attack.. I have swampland in Florida just aching for you to buy. c. According to the post office they are not allowed, by law, to stop delivering junk mail...ergo they cannot stop you from receiving mail sent to you from any source. If it has a stamp on it then it has to be delivered to you ... but it does not have to be delivered to your home.. the post office can hold your mail for pick up by you. Never the less your mail cannot be stopped. d. Are you sure other homes on the block will sympathize? Perhaps they view you as just a big of A** as the one harassing you believe you to be. Or maybe they will just be like people everywhere and glad hand you to your face while conveniently hiding in their living rooms like they do with street crimes. Don't ever count on a neighbor jeopardizing his own life or the lives of his family for you.. big mistake.

This isn't just about America, DC, the Iranians don't like the west. We are viewed as a threat to their society. It's the same problem we have with the Saudis, but amplified by 10 or 100 times. I watched a part of a show last night and it turned out to be a debate between Jon Kyl, Jim Pedersen and some other yokel I never heard of (which means he is so far back in the polls that he isn't even a viable threat to Jon Kyl LOL). Anyway it was said that Bush has to speak to Ahmad the Mad and Kim Jong. I listened to his reasons and thought, "That was the most stupid reasoning I've ever heard!". His approach was the classic "The US needed to open our doors to these people, pass around the coke and smiles and sing Kumbaya". Talk is cheap, DC, there comes a point when Talk is only indulgence and a smoke screen. We made our point known and we have taken the proper steps of going to the UN. In both cases that most magnificient of all useless organizations made their decisions and are being ignored. Further talk is futile, their intents are known. It's time to teach them the folly of their ways.

Talk is cheap, as you so commonly exemplify. But when lives are at stake, it is the least a real man can do. Those who don't talk to their "enemies," as Bush refuses to do (even his political enemies in the Congress) are childish and simpl-minded. Anyone who knows the real history and real issues of US-Iranian relations knows that talk is the only answer and that all our differences are manufactured by politicians.

Hmmm.. do you realize you just bad-mouthed the whole diplomatic corp of every nation, including the UN? LOL I bet you don't. Your willingness to mindlessly follow your political leaders mar your thinking. Bush has talked the talk and walked the walk, Lumpy, and no intelligent and logical person can deny it. Bush stayed the course and put his money where his mouth was since 911. We are still fighting the war on terror on as many fronts as we can possibly fight it, and we are standing by Iraq and staying the course. This is what ticks off his political enemies the most... Bush shown he was a man of his word and despite the hard times and setbacks, he is willing to stick by his principles and the word of the United States of America. You might be able to make a case for Bush having tunnel vision and not being willing to adapt, but you can never make the case for Bush not walking the walk. lol Appareantly you do not know the history of Iran, Lumpy. Iran was never s "state" of the US, they were a friendly nation at one time. That came to an end when Islamic Fundamentalism took hold and the people of Iran overthrew the Iranian Government and put that whacko, the Ayatollah Khomeini, in Power. Khomeini hated the west, not just the US, and there was no talking better sense to the man because he was other-directed. He wasn't the least bit interested in what the US, UN, UK, Europe or even Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the lower states of the Arabian Peninsula had to say. His mind was set, he first wanted to march into Mecca and Medina and take over the holy cities and then press his agenda for further domination. Iraq, under Sadaam, would have none of that for it meant Iran had to go through Iraq.. and Sadaam had his own plans. Today Iran is lead by like Madmen who care not for the Arabs or anyone who has different ideas than theirs.

Bush put his money where his foot is. You know nothing of the Iranian people, like Bush, and like Reagan before him. You see, as they do, oil fields, empires fighting for control, and a lot of little flag-draped coffins that don't cost him or his deferring friends a thin dime. Defend empire, if y ou will, defend survival of the fittest, even defend morality based on evangelical hype, but don't embarrass yourself defending a privelidged, bought-and-paid-for pseudo Texan, failed oil man, lesser Bush that can't tie his or anyone els'es shoes, no matter how long their feet are in his mouth. You are an American, OutThere, you should know better, and you certainly deserve better.

I know enough about the iranian people. They are the ones who took those US Citizens at our embassy hostage, remember? Apparently you know less about them than I do. lol