The Student Room Group

Israel threaten pre-emptive strike on Iran

Scroll to see replies

Reply 80
Original post by I Persia I
1) Of course not, they haven't made them yet. :rofl:


So on what basis will you attack Iran? That they MAY acquire nuclear weapons. That is so ****ing silly.


If the UK were planning to abolish murder as a criminal charge in a few years time, could I go out and murder 100 people based on the intention, "Well, it's going to be abolished anyway".

2) I beg to differ. It has repeatedly refused to declare several sites and when they were caught out they said they were going to declare them anyway.


Evidence?

3) As I said before here you are, making a pipsqueak about it and you only have to have an open mind to know that America's being hypocritical.


I Know America AND ISRAEL are being hypocritical. Yet no one is telling them that.

:rofl: First of all to put it into context Israel didn't threaten Iran. It's been the warmongering on the mullahs' part after they decided they wanted Israel destroyed for some obscure reason because their ideology advocated it. Iran is not an Arab country, the Israel-Arab conflict has absolutely nothing to do with Iran. The mullahs have no right funding proxies there because they are getting involved in something that has nothing to do with them. The mullahs themselves see the Arabs as more of an enemy than Israel so this comparison is idiotic as there will never, ever be unity in the Middle East amongst Muslims and I hope there never is either.


(1) Yet for 30 years, they didn't do anything. In fact, Iran has never even waged war against Iran which cannot be said for it's neighboring countries.

A very optimistic view. :lol: China and Russia don't want the US to throw its weight around so they're using their veto as a feeble show of strength. By vetoing the criticism of Assad's actions they want to show that they will not just follow America's lead on this one.


(1) Feeble: America's looking feeble. They can't intervene and save their beloved "democracies in action" because of Russia/China. There used to be a time when Americans would say "**** the world, we are doing this".

Defending itself against what? Hezbollah was created by Iran and Khomeini decided to send Revolutionary Guards there to train militants as a 'resistance' group. They don't seem to be doing much resisting by constantly firing rockets into Israel are they? That's a whole different argument and frankly, this has nothing to do with it. As I said before the mullahs have no right to poke their nose into the Arab-Israel conflict so whether Hezbollah attacked first or otherwise, it doesn't justify their actions.


The Afghan security force was created by the US and the coalition. Yet when they attack the people who they are "helping", they are labelled terrorists.

On the same scale, America has no RIGHT to poke it's nose at the Arab/Israel conflict if Iran hasn't got the same right. Why are there different rules for one country and different rules for other countries?
Original post by I Persia I
Well it's obvious they'll say that but it's obvious they're after a bomb. It's so they can throw their weight around without fear of reprisal from America or Israel, not for use. They shouldn't be allowed nukes, period. As for an invasion, definitely not.


why is israel allowed nukes though. Okay Iran should not have Nuclear weapons but Israel has no right to say it,

Its like a thief telling other people not to thieve because its illegal
Original post by I Persia I
The same way I saw the US invading Pakistan instead of Afghanistan even though Pakistan have nukes.


Because Pakistan largely follows American orders. The US assisted them in developing nukes in the first place.

As I said before Iran initiated it...


How?


For example? The Shah seemed pretty content with staying out of it.


The Shah's absolutism was a knock-on effect. Mossadegh was going forward with social-democratic nationalism that had been popularised by Nasser and Arab leaders, and this led to the 1953 coup.

Where did I say that?


Note it was a question.

Why do you keep jumping to conclusions. How did me explaining the reason for China and Russia's veto somehow make me an American lover. Bishy said that 'we'd see more positive results from China and Russia' and I implied that the Chinese and Russians hold no sympathy for the Syrian people rather they want to maintain their control and not have the US throw its weight around.


The way OP is written makes it a good guess you'd be backing US-Israel because you seemed to be agreeing with the proposed intervention by them, but fair enough if you're not.

Though based on what you're criticising Iran for, it should be quite a bit down on your priority list.

No. I was just mentioning the Iran bit... Why does the US and Israel having favoured factions justify Iran to do the same.


It doesn't justify it, but it puts their actions into context. On the same logic, being hit by someone doesn't justify hitting them, but it makes why you do (if you do) understandable.
Original post by Bishy786
So on what basis will you attack Iran? That they MAY acquire nuclear weapons. That is so ****ing silly.

Who said I want them to invade Iran? Do you have a disorder or something?


If the UK were planning to abolish murder as a criminal charge in a few years time, could I go out and murder 100 people based on the intention, "Well, it's going to be abolished anyway".


I think you have a fetish for jumping to conclusions. Let me ask you this, do you get sexually aroused when you try to find implications that aren't there or can you just not read? :confused:



Evidence?


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/concoughlin/100011358/undeclared-uranium-facility-deepens-suspicions-that-iran-has-a-clandestine-nuclear-bomb-programme/

Also look up the declaration of the Natanz and Arak facilities.


I Know America AND ISRAEL are being hypocritical. Yet no one is telling them that.


Who's gonna tell them? The peaceful and morally just mullahs of Iran?


(1) Yet for 30 years, they didn't do anything. In fact, Iran has never even waged war against Iran which cannot be said for it's neighboring countries.


What??



(1) Feeble: America's looking feeble. They can't intervene and save their beloved "democracies in action" because of Russia/China. There used to be a time when Americans would say "**** the world, we are doing this".


That has nothing to do with it. You see China and Russia as some sort of neutral and peaceful nations that are against US imperialism when they just want to stop the US from throwing its weight around so they can do it instead.



The Afghan security force was created by the US and the coalition. Yet when they attack the people who they are "helping", they are labelled terrorists.


I fail to see the relevance...
Original post by anarchism101
Because Pakistan largely follows American orders. The US assisted them in developing nukes in the first place.


The point is Pakistan is a breeding ground for militants and the Taliban was born there but the fact that it has nukes gives it immunity because if it were to be destabilised then anything could happen.



How?


Are you seriously implying Israel started it? As I said before Iran has never played a role in the conflict until Khomeini decided to constantly threaten Israel and that policy has been maintained by his successor...



The Shah's absolutism was a knock-on effect. Mossadegh was going forward with social-democratic nationalism that had been popularised by Nasser and Arab leaders, and this led to the 1953 coup.


What has this got to do with the Shah not interfering in the Arab-Israeli conflict which was the point I was making that Iran has never played a role in the conflict until the mullahs got themselves involved after the revolution.



Note it was a question.


No.


The way OP is written makes it a good guess you'd be backing US-Israel because you seemed to be agreeing with the proposed intervention by them, but fair enough if you're not.


So me pointing out the torture, rape and mass executions of Iranian protestors is me defending the US... Right. Okay.


Though based on what you're criticising Iran for, it should be quite a bit down on your priority list.


Well obviously; shooting people on the streets isn't a big deal. Kicking those dastardly Jews out of Muslim land is top priority.



It doesn't justify it, but it puts their actions into context. On the same logic, being hit by someone doesn't justify hitting them, but it makes why you do (if you do) understandable.


You still don't understand this do you? I said you're justifying IRAN's support for Hezbollah not Hezbollah hitting back @ Israel. I couldn't care less whether Hezbollah decide to strike back/first at Israel but the fact of the matter is Iran is getting involved when it isn't needed then criticises Israel for threatening to invade it. By your logic Israel can invade Iran right now...
Reply 85
Israel is getting greedy, it already has Palistenian land, & now it wants Iran's land& power. Take a back seat Israel, let's see how Iran reacts. Lets get ready for another war between the too, it's bound to happen....
Original post by Bishy786
My bad. :smile:


Are you a shia?
Original post by I Persia I
The point is Pakistan is a breeding ground for militants and the Taliban was born there but the fact that it has nukes gives it immunity because if it were to be destabilised then anything could happen.


Pakistan has 'immunity' because it's a US ally, not because it has nukes. The same with Israel. Pakistan's actually been through some pretty unstable times since getting hold of them too.

Are you seriously implying Israel started it? As I said before Iran has never played a role in the conflict until Khomeini decided to constantly threaten Israel and that policy has been maintained by his successor...


Israel started their conflict with various Lebanese groups including Hezbollah when they invaded Lebanon in 1982. Iranian funding of Hezbollah in an already-existing war is not 'starting it'.

What has this got to do with the Shah not interfering in the Arab-Israeli conflict which was the point I was making that Iran has never played a role in the conflict until the mullahs got themselves involved after the revolution.


That's not what you said. You said they had nothing at all to do with it, which is an exaggeration. Iran is in the region, so global and regional powers were always at least a little interested and concerned with what went on in Iran.


So me pointing out the torture, rape and mass executions of Iranian protestors is me defending the US... Right. Okay.


What I've seen you post has been about foreign policy.

You still don't understand this do you? I said you're justifying IRAN's support for Hezbollah not Hezbollah hitting back @ Israel. I couldn't care less whether Hezbollah decide to strike back/first at Israel but the fact of the matter is Iran is getting involved when it isn't needed then criticises Israel for threatening to invade it. By your logic Israel can invade Iran right now...


I wasn't talking about Israel and Hezbollah actually. I was talking about the US interfering in and around Iran to force a coup, encourage and aid Iraq in invading Iran, invade and occupy two countries on Iran's border, surround Iran with military bases, etc. Are you surprised Iran might want some sort of increased defence?
Original post by anarchism101
Pakistan has 'immunity' because it's a US ally, not because it has nukes. The same with Israel. Pakistan's actually been through some pretty unstable times since getting hold of them too.


Are you telling me it would be invaded if it wasn't a US ally, of course it wouldn't. Pakistan has gone through several leadership phases and that's been a major reason but the country's never slipped into chaos which is what a war would bring.



Israel started their conflict with various Lebanese groups including Hezbollah when they invaded Lebanon in 1982. Iranian funding of Hezbollah in an already-existing war is not 'starting it'.


Starting their beef with Israel by funding Hezbollah when Israel had no hostility towards Iran is initiating it or do you have problems coming to terms with this.



That's not what you said. You said they had nothing at all to do with it, which is an exaggeration. Iran is in the region, so global and regional powers were always at least a little interested and concerned with what went on in Iran.


I said they had nothing to do with the conflict and I'm right, what the hell has that got to do with 'global powers'. this is what I said... 'For example? The Shah seemed pretty content with staying out of it.' Staying out of the Israeli-Arab conflict which is what I was on about or are you not keeping up, then you randomly mentioned something about Mossadegh which implies you have no idea what you're talking about.




What I've seen you post has been about foreign policy.


Is this about foreign policy?: 'I think you overlook the fact that the Iranian regime shoots people when they come out to protest and is helping Syria to do just that; BUT WAIT! That doesn't matter as long as they hate Israel and America. '


I wasn't talking about Israel and Hezbollah actually. I was talking about the US interfering in and around Iran to force a coup, encourage and aid Iraq in invading Iran, invade and occupy two countries on Iran's border, surround Iran with military bases, etc. Are you surprised Iran might want some sort of increased defence?


Waeyyy, they're trying overthrow us so lets blow up some Israeli school buses! Iran would have nothing to fear if it didn't keep poking the US and give it more and more reasons to justify an invasion which it is doing now, getting desperate, threatening to close the straits etc. Of course I'm not surprised they want nukes, it's obvious they want them but agreeing to them having them is a whole different story.
Original post by Bishy786
Contrary to what you may be under the illusion of, Iran is seeking nuclear ENERGY, not weapons.


Then explain why exactly they are enriching and purifying uranium more than 25%? Because anything after enriching after 25% has weapon-grade ambition. Nuclear energy does not require such purification.
Reply 90
Original post by VeniViciVidi
Then explain why exactly they are enriching and purifying uranium more than 25%? Because anything after enriching after 25% has weapon-grade ambition. Nuclear energy does not require such purification.


What are you talking about? They haven't gone above the 19.75%... the use for this is for converting into fuel pads which are used for making medical isotopes. The problem is that they haven't converted the uranium into fuel pads yet so they're in effect stockpiling 19.75% which potentially, if they decide to in the future they can fairly quickly further enrich to 90+% weapons grade.
I don't know if you've been actually been following this or not but this has been the whole dispute and basis for negotiations for the last 3 years. Both in 2009 in the US proposed deal where the Iranian stockpiles would leave the country through to Russia for them to take care if it which would pass it on to France to convert into Fuel Pads then back to Iran. Iran did not agree to this, they're official reason was because they said they didn't trust France because they used to buy fuel pads for medical isotopes from France in the early 80s directly before France decided to stop selling iran. But its more likely that Iran just didn't want a deal at the time or may have just wanted to stall for time or couldn't politically because this was just after the 2009 uprising and brutal crack down.

THEN, this whole dispute was the basis for another US proposed deal in 2010 but this one involved Turkey and Brazil who actually got a YES from iran and they agreed to it. But just 2 days before iran said yes, the Obama admin had just managed to get a rare YES from Russia and China to agree to new UN Security Council resolution sanctions. And because there were some small details in the turkry-brazil deal that said that iran reserved the right to ask for yje stockpile that was to be kept in Turkey back. The US wanted that once the stockpile left iran it wouldn't be allowed back. So... instead of trying to iron out that detail, Obama under pressure from the US congress decided to reject the deal outright and went with the UN sanctions because it would have been very difficult to get another yrs from Russia and china.

So you know its extremely complicated

I would just point out that director general amano of the IAEA has confirmed that the activities at Natanz and the newly active Fordo are legal. The issue the IAEA is about undeclared facilities which is a loophole in the NPT which is complicating things. The issue the US has is the stockpiling.

Just thought its important to make sure we understand what the situation is and not spread misinformation. Just note I haven't judged in this point if any side has done anything wrong or right, just spelling out the situation.
Original post by MxSK
What are you talking about? They haven't gone above the 19.75%... the use for this is for converting into fuel pads which are used for making medical isotopes. The problem is that they haven't converted the uranium into fuel pads yet so they're in effect stockpiling 19.75% which potentially, if they decide to in the future they can fairly quickly further enrich to 90+% weapons grade.
I don't know if you've been actually been following this or not but this has been the whole dispute and basis for negotiations for the last 3 years. Both in 2009 in the US proposed deal where the Iranian stockpiles would leave the country through to Russia for them to take care if it which would pass it on to France to convert into Fuel Pads then back to Iran. Iran did not agree to this, they're official reason was because they said they didn't trust France because they used to buy fuel pads for medical isotopes from France in the early 80s directly before France decided to stop selling iran. But its more likely that Iran just didn't want a deal at the time or may have just wanted to stall for time or couldn't politically because this was just after the 2009 uprising and brutal crack down.

THEN, this whole dispute was the basis for another US proposed deal in 2010 but this one involved Turkey and Brazil who actually got a YES from iran and they agreed to it. But just 2 days before iran said yes, the Obama admin had just managed to get a rare YES from Russia and China to agree to new UN Security Council resolution sanctions. And because there were some small details in the turkry-brazil deal that said that iran reserved the right to ask for yje stockpile that was to be kept in Turkey back. The US wanted that once the stockpile left iran it wouldn't be allowed back. So... instead of trying to iron out that detail, Obama under pressure from the US congress decided to reject the deal outright and went with the UN sanctions because it would have been very difficult to get another yrs from Russia and china.

So you know its extremely complicated



Whilst I apologize for the the logical fallacy, I don't have a source but mere word on a friend of mine who works in the security sector who works first-hand in the analysis for a small-risk consultancy company on geo-political issues and strategy. I don't have any reason to doubt his word but neither do I doubt there's no real tangible evidence to suggest that they are enriching nuclear weapons grade uranium (which is 90% so way off for an objective conclusion for a impartial organization like the IAEA). However, the issue is not the uranium enrichment process - Iran can do this with the aid of China. The issue really lies in its ballistic missile capability and if Iran were to achieve nuclear weapons, it would lead to an arms race in the Middle East and a mad competition for regional power. My issue really lies in, why exactly would Iran make attempts and strives in its ballistic missile capability if it has no aims of achieving weapons of mass destruction? Ballistic missiles are useless for conventional matters (hence why the WMD argument was put forth in the September Dossier). An absence of evidence in no way equals the evidence of absence.
Reply 92
Original post by I Persia I
Who said I want them to invade Iran? Do you have a disorder or something?


You certainly implied it through the assertions that Iran should not acquire nuclear weapons.

Let's get this straight: Do you want Iran to be invaded or not?

I think you have a fetish for jumping to conclusions. Let me ask you this, do you get sexually aroused when you try to find implications that aren't there or can you just not read? :confused:


Americans and Israel have a "fetish for jumping to conclusions".

Nuclear energy =/= Nuclear weapons.

[QUOTEhttp://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/concoughlin/100011358/undeclared-uranium-facility-deepens-suspicions-that-iran-has-a-clandestine-nuclear-bomb-programme/

Also look up the declaration of the Natanz and Arak facilities.

ARAK (Wikipedia) - "Under the terms of Iran's safeguards agreement, Iran was under no obligation to report the existence of the site while it was still under construction since it was not within the 180-day time limit specified by the safeguards agreement."

Natanz (Wikipedia) - Mohamed ElBaradei visited the site on 21 February 2003 and reported that 160 centrifuges were complete and ready for operation, with 1000 more under construction at the site.[25] Under the terms of Iran's safeguards agreement, Iran was under no obligation to report the existence of the site while it was still under construction.


Would you mind if I said "**** YOU"?

Who's gonna tell them? The peaceful and morally just mullahs of Iran?


Why don't YOU go and tell them?

What??


Sorry, it was meant to be: In fact, Iran has never even waged war against Iran Israel which cannot be said for it's neighboring countries.

That has nothing to do with it. You see China and Russia as some sort of neutral and peaceful nations that are against US imperialism when they just want to stop the US from throwing its weight around so they can do it instead.


Trading masters is actually a good thing in this day and age, didn't you know that?

I fail to see the relevance...


The same people that the US and the coalition are training are turning against them, killing them. Strange?
Reply 93
Original post by King-Panther
Are you a shia?


Na. A Sunni defending Shia's. Imagine that.
Reply 94
Original post by VeniViciVidi
Then explain why exactly they are enriching and purifying uranium more than 25%? Because anything after enriching after 25% has weapon-grade ambition. Nuclear energy does not require such purification.


They still haven't reached the 90% to develop it into weapons grade material though, have they?

To answer your question, they maybe want to use it in research reactors; for medical isotope production; and as fuel in icebreaker propulsion reactors.
Original post by Bishy786
They still haven't reached the 90% to develop it into weapons grade material though, have they?

To answer your question, they maybe want to use it in research reactors; for medical isotope production; and as fuel in icebreaker propulsion reactors.


I've responded to this comment on an above post. However, I will say that the IAEA has mentioned that Iran's nuclear programme is "relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11709428

(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 96
Original post by VeniViciVidi
I've responded to this comment on an above post. However, I will say that the IAEA has mentioned that Iran's nuclear programme is "relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11709428



But of course they'll say that if the percentage goes above 20%. One automatically assumes that above 20% = Nuclear bomb.

But what is interesting is that the "West" chooses to INTERPRET it's own findings instead of listening to the country who is being inspected.

It says it will not make a nuclear bomb. Following the IAEA report, President Ahmadinejad declared: "We do not need an atomic bomb. The Iranian nation is wise. It won't build two atomic bombs while you have 20,000 warheads."

Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who is reported to have issued a fatwa some time ago against nuclear weapons, has said: "We fundamentally reject nuclear weapons."


I know you'll pass this off as some sort of "propaganda or brainwashing" but isn't it time that we stopped interpreting our own agendas into this, just like with the Iraq war and the fiasco of the supposed WMD's when the UN chif Hans Blix, at that time, stated clearly that there were no WMD's.
Original post by Bishy786
But of course they'll say that if the percentage goes above 20%. One automatically assumes that above 20% = Nuclear bomb.

But what is interesting is that the "West" chooses to INTERPRET it's own findings instead of listening to the country who is being inspected.

It says it will not make a nuclear bomb. Following the IAEA report, President Ahmadinejad declared: "We do not need an atomic bomb. The Iranian nation is wise. It won't build two atomic bombs while you have 20,000 warheads."

Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who is reported to have issued a fatwa some time ago against nuclear weapons, has said: "We fundamentally reject nuclear weapons."


I know you'll pass this off as some sort of "propaganda or brainwashing" but isn't it time that we stopped interpreting our own agendas into this, just like with the Iraq war and the fiasco of the supposed WMD's when the UN chif Hans Blix, at that time, stated clearly that there were no WMD's.


The uranium enriching is an important point and there's isn't much transparency in their enrichment process. Like I said, there's no need to go over 25%, even for medical purposes. However, this point is moot. Iran, if it may wish, buy weapon-grade uranium from China if it so sought to. You haven't addressed my points about their furthering of the Shahab-3 missile development (which I feel is a greater and more pervasive, overlooked issue) and its testing. I think that's an important thing to consider when talking about WMDs. Don't you agree that ballistic missiles serve no purpose unless attached with WMDs and are practically and strategically useless when used conventionally?

If you take Mr. Ahmadinjead as truthful word, then do explain how he can be considered a rational leader when he explicitly stated that Israel should be wiped off the map. Add to that, a holocaust denier at the same time.

The thing is, Iran would benefit greatly with having nuclear capability. With the US interest in the Middle-East quite apparent and overt, Iran being a nuclear state would solidify it's regional presence and influence in the Middle-East. If it were to have the capability of launching an ICBM on the East/West Coast of the United States or indeed, a NATO power, the MAD stalemate and doctrine that dominated American policy for the Cold War will certainly be applied to Iran. Iran will have a lot of political and strategical dexterity to carry out proxy wars in Israel and further, with Syria, express hegemony in the Middle-East.

I would be inclined to see their nuclear programme as peaceful but from Iran's perspective, have nuclear capability has far more benefits then it does being a conventional power and thus, you can see the Western rationale. Iran's state-sponsoring of terrorism has long been a threat to Israel national security. Therefore, it is the United States obligation as an ally (morality aside, personally I believe Israel are an ally that give far more trouble then it does benefits) to protect Israel.

Personally, I agree that Iran has no intention of using it as I believe they are pursuing a strategical stalemate rather than offensive, popular to contrary belief.
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 98
Original post by VeniViciVidi
The uranium enriching is an important point and there's isn't much transparency in their enrichment process. Like I said, there's no need to go over 25%, even for medical purposes. However, this point is moot. Iran, if it may wish, buy weapon-grade uranium from China if it so sought to. You haven't addressed my points about their furthering of the Shahab-3 missile development (which I feel is a greater and more pervasive, overlooked issue) and its testing. I think that's an important thing to consider when talking about WMDs. Don't you agree that ballistic missiles serve no purpose unless attached with WMDs and are practically and strategically useless when used conventionally?

If you take Mr. Ahmadinjead as truthful word, then do explain how he can be considered a rational leader when he explicitly stated that Israel should be wiped off the map. Add to that, a holocaust denier at the same time.

The thing is, Iran would benefit greatly with having nuclear capability. With the US interest in the Middle-East quite apparent and overt, Iran being a nuclear state would solidify it's regional presence and influence in the Middle-East. If it were to have the capability of launching an ICBM on the East/West Coast of the United States or indeed, a NATO power, the MAD stalemate and doctrine that dominated American policy for the Cold War will certainly be applied to Iran. Iran will have a lot of political and strategical dexterity to carry out proxy wars in Israel and further, with Syria, express hegemony in the Middle-East.

I would be inclined to see their nuclear programme as peaceful but from Iran's perspective, have nuclear capability has far more benefits then it does being a conventional power and thus, you can see the Western rationale. Iran's state-sponsoring of terrorism has long been a threat to Israel national security. Therefore, it is the United States obligation as an ally (morality aside, personally I believe Israel are an ally that give far more trouble then it does benefits) to protect Israel.

Personally, I agree that Iran has no intention of using it as I believe they are pursuing a strategical stalemate rather than offensive, popular to contrary belief.


What makes ballistic missiles so useless in a conventional role? Surely with a large enough explosive warhead they could be quite potent?
Original post by Aj12
What makes ballistic missiles so useless in a conventional role? Surely with a large enough explosive warhead they could be quite potent?


But you're very limited in what explosive you need. It can be used as a demoralizer in combat because of it's accuracy but in strategic warfare it is useless as you need a lot of fuel, a lot of payload in order to give a devastating blow and to the best of my knowledge, the Shahab-3 doesn't have the capability of such payload. That and they are expensive so if you want to conduct a war economically and efficiently, a precise air-strike with a bunker buster or strategic bombing is the best way forward. Not to mention also that ballistic missiles on radar are near-impossible to distinguish from a nuclear-armed missile. Hence why in Operation Desert Storm, there was a priority for destroying SCUDs in the region as it is near impossible to distinguish between a missile that is armed with WMDs and ones that aren't. The consequences far outweigh the benefits.

Quick Reply