Russia contemplates selling S-300 missile system to Iran

[BassRevelation0]

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=68096&sectionid=3510203


"If Tehran obtained the S-300, it would be a game-changer in military thinking for tackling Iran. That could be a catalyst for Israeli air attacks before it is operational," said Dan Goure, a long-time Pentagon advisor.

"This is a system that scares every Western air force," he said.

Israeli officials have said that the system would complicate a potential attack on Iran's 'numerous, distant, and fortified' nuclear sites.

Iran announced last December that it had ordered an unspecified number of Russian-made anti-aircraft S-300 systems, which can simultaneously track 100 targets and fire on planes 75 miles (120 km) away.

The installation of the S-300 systems could further enhance Iran's defensive capabilities to counter any potential aerial attacks on its nuclear sites.

The Daily Telegraph reported that senior US intelligence operatives believe the Kremlin could use the S-300 system to create a new foreign policy showdown with the White House in response to US interference in the Caucasus.
an, the director of Stratfor, a leading US private intelligence agency.

He added that once the S-300 is operational in Iran, it would effectively rule out Israeli air raids and seriously complicate any US aerial bombings.

You can read the whole article at the source.

This is a win-win/in your face deal for the Putin administration if it takes place. For one, selling the Iranians a missile defense system with these capabilities can change any thought of aerial strikes. Not to mention, this will cause tension in the middle east region, and we all know what that leads to.

I expect certain supporters (hypocrites) of the Poland Missile defense system to criticize this, but who knows i could be off. Discuss

[Aaron]

Why not? If one nation can have it, why can't another?

[SugarCoatedSour]

I think once America dumps it's military budget+defense systems we can argue right and wrong.

damn you beat me to it Aaron.

[Hababi]

Why not? If one nation can have it, why can't another?

erm are you seriously saying that giving a crazy theocracy weapons is fine?

V simple btw: threaten to throw Russia out of the G8, strike up more deals with Poland and other western-friendly nations, and maybe arm some Chechyan groups.

[Aaron]

erm are you seriously saying that giving a crazy theocracy weapons is fine?

V simple btw: threaten to throw Russia out of the G8, strike up more deals with Poland and other western-friendly nations, and maybe arm some Chechyan groups.
Pot. Kettle. Black.

[Hababi]

Pot. Kettle. Black.

:lol: you tool. Try explaining that.

[Light Fantastic]

zero is only pro christian theocracy

[SugarCoatedSour]

I think everyone should have a missle defense system (or not). Until then there's no one who "knows what's best" especially when it comes to weapons. What? do the Americans use all their weaponry to go skeet shooting or seeing how many cans they can knock over from a 100 yards?

[Hababi]

zero is only pro christian theocracy

im not pro-anything-theocracy

[SugarCoatedSour]

how bout hipocracy?

[Smokey D]

Cold War politics is awesome.

Although it's obvious this is more likely to cause conflict than missile systems in Poland, if only because the middle east started off at a far higher level of tension. Part of the issue is no doubt because Israel sold some weapons systems to Georgia, although they did refrain from handing over advanced missle defence systems. That alone might stay Moscow's hand.

[Light Fantastic]

you support laws based on religious ethics

theocracy-like, at least

[Hababi]

you support laws based on religious ethics

theocracy-like, at least

any Christian derives his or her ethics from their faith. Many of the founding fathers were Christians, those who weren't were mostly Deists which had much in common. Their spiritual ethics played a major role in the shaping of laws.

[SugarCoatedSour]

I think the middle east, although has had tension, was quite self-contained. Now with the kind of open uncertainty that American politics and international policies have created there's no telling who is capable of what. In fact the only reason there's any question is because a strike at America is now completely justified and nearly expected.

[Light Fantastic]

any Christian derives his or her ethics from their faith. Many of the founding fathers were Christians, those who weren't were mostly Deists which had much in common. Their spiritual ethics played a major role in the shaping of laws.
obviously you do what you think is right on a personal level, but where comes the need to force others into conforming to your ideals if not heading towards theocracy

[Smokey D]

The tension in the Middle East has always been informed upon by superpower politics.

[SugarCoatedSour]

Didn't ya hear it, he said something about the forefathers. Obey your goddamn father!

[SugarCoatedSour]

The tension in the Middle East has always been informed upon by superpower politics.

Mhm, but I'm talking about current politics. The here and now is a filthy culture of previously unresolved relations.

[Independent_CA]

Yeah...this would be a win for Russia and Iran until (and if) the US decides to blow these up too at the beginning of any planned strike, then it will just be money down the drain.

[Smokey D]

Mhm, but I'm talking about current politics. The here and now is a filthy culture of previously unresolved relations.

Which is the product of cold war (and 19th century great game) politiking and the role of oil.

[SugarCoatedSour]

Which is the product of cold war (and 19th century great game) politiking and the role of oil.I'm not disagreeing. It seems though rather than doing what is right, we do what is alotted by history and it's various versions as taught by these countries of power. It's what's always been, but we're people and we're meant to learn. We're not living in the dark ages, but we sure like to think we still do. We're not cavemen but we sure love thinking like that. We don't have to escape our origins, so much as be informed by each others origins. That is right in my opinion.

[Hababi]

obviously you do what you think is right on a personal level, but where comes the need to force others into conforming to your ideals if not heading towards theocracy

the whole entire basis of a legal system is forcing people to conform to ideals.

[Smokey D]

Not your ideals, though Steve.

Also, hte founding fathers were liberals not Christian theocrats.

[Hababi]

Not your ideals, though Steve.


My ideals include the little concepts of not unlawfully killing people, not raping etc. i donnu maybe you don't want people to be held to those though...

[Smokey D]

Lol. Terrible strawman.

[Hababi]

so then you agree with my civic ideals.

[Smokey D]

Some of them.

[Hababi]

and you dont mind that they spring from a religious-centered ethics

[SugarCoatedSour]

^they don't spring from a religious ethic. It has nothing to do with religion. You're gonna blow my mind with your partial views.

[Smokey D]

I don't think arguments against rape and murder spring exclusively from religious ethics.

And there are plently of religiously motivated ideas that I am very much against.

[Hababi]

I don't think arguments against rape and murder spring exclusively from religious ethics.

Exclusively no.


And there are plently of religiously motivated ideas that I am very much against.

Nevertheless the point that I am making is that civic ethics derived in part or full from religious ones are disconnected from the concept of theocracy.

[Smokey D]

Sure. But there are plenty of non-theocratic things that you believe which repulse me.

[Hababi]

Sure. But there are plenty of non-theocratic things that you believe which repulse me.

:lol: must you put it in such strong terms?

[Aaron]

This thread went exactly the way I expected it to.

erm are you seriously saying that giving a crazy theocracy weapons is fine?

V simple btw: threaten to throw Russia out of the G8, strike up more deals with Poland and other western-friendly nations, and maybe arm some Chechyan groups.
Reverse psychology doesn't work in global-politics.

[Hababi]

It's not reverse psychology it's "try anything and we're going to mess with you in a mean way"

[Aaron]

It's not reverse psychology it's "try anything and we're going to mess with you in a mean way"
How is a if-you-give-guns-to-your-friends-i'll-give-guns-to-my-friends policy going to work? :rolleyes:

[Hababi]

How is a if-you-give-guns-to-your-friends-i'll-give-guns-to-my-friends policy going to work? :rolleyes:

think of it as a kinder, gentler MAD

[Aaron]

Do you agree with the statement "the enemy of my enemy is my friend?"

[Hababi]

that's not true all of the time but it is true some of the time.

[SugarCoatedSour]

I'm gonna go buy a missle defense system. I don't trust this "hababi"

[Aaron]

You don't like habibi so i'm going to help you build it.

[SugarCoatedSour]

it's a pact.

[Aaron]

only today though. I only go by this way of thinking when it suits me.

[DekWannaBFlea]

Russia also has economic interest in Iran with the potential selling of uranium, logistics, and etc for Iran to build a nuclear reactor. It's a tough situation that becomes more complicated with Russia's invasion of Georgia.

[Radiobass81]

V simple btw: threaten to throw Russia out of the G8

Hah, that's meaningless.

The G8 itself should just disolve itself.

[Smokey D]

There's no point doing that.

[Radiobass81]

There's no point doing that.

The G8 disolving itself?

[Smokey D]

Yeah. How would that help anyone?

[Radiobass81]

Yeah. How would that help anyone?

It doesn't help anyone know, except show how the 'top economic powers' (Spain and China now surpass Canada, and I think Brazil does, too, so even when looking at the REASONING for these nations to unite is off) say they are going to help, and don't. For years we've been hearing how they are supposedly going to do X things for poverty, for AIDS, how they are going to eliminate national debt on Y countries, and they do nothing. There are reasons why year after year people protest on the G8, and it's because it really has no purpose, it's a placebo for people to think they actually care.

In short, and in slang, the G8 is full of it.

EDIT: And that's why, in my initial comment, I find laughable the 'threatening' of taking someone of the G8.

[Smokey D]

Yeah but having a forum for 8 of the world's top economies is probably a good thing even if they don't get much visible achieved. I'm a great believer in the invisible processes of international diplomacy.

Also, G8 refers to the eight top industrialised economies, not the eight largest economies. For a long time the two were synomous but not so much these days.

Also again, G8 is as much a forum for the implicit alliance between the countries (well, the G7) as it is a forum for economic discussion.

[Radiobass81]

Yeah but having a forum for 8 of the world's top economies is probably a good thing even if they don't get much visible achieved. I'm a great believer in the invisible processes of international diplomacy.

Also, G8 refers to the eight top industrialised economies, not the eight largest economies. For a long time the two were synomous but not so much these days.

Also again, G8 is as much a forum for the implicit alliance between the countries (well, the G7) as it is a forum for economic discussion.

EDIT: This is the first time I ever see inconsistency on a post of yours, so I want to point it out <3. You say 'top 8 economies', yet later go ahead and tell me how the G8 isn't a group of the world's top 8 economies, but the top 8 industrialised nations.

Much love <3.

I also believe in those 'invisible processes', but I don't see any real positives. Have you ever seen a G8 protest? Huge. If anything, they show that the top eight industrialised economies don't care about many of the problems they acknowledge exist. Every year they make agreements, and every year they fail to accomplish those from the past. If anything, it shows how weak 'international diplomacy' may be.

A sociology prof of mine describes G8 meetings as a place where 'the super powers agree to divide the world between them' :p.

[Smokey D]

This is the first time I ever see inconsistency on a post of yours, so I want to point it out <3. You say 'top 8 economies', yet later go ahead and tell me how the G8 isn't a group of the world's top 8 economies, but the top 8 industrialised nations.


I didn't say 8 top economies. I said 8 of the the world's top economies.



I also believe in those 'invisible processes', but I don't see any real positives. Have you ever seen a G8 protest? Huge. If anything, they show that the top eight industrialised economies don't care about many of the problems they acknowledge exist. Every year they make agreements, and every year they fail to accomplish those from the past. If anything, it shows how weak 'international diplomacy' may be.

I don't really put much stock in those protesters.

I mean, sure, the countries in the G8 could do more for the developing world, and they probably are the cause of much misery. But arranging trade deals and co ordinating economies is good. I hate the idea that because the G8 doesn't do much visible it is ineffective. To the contrary, a world without the G8 would probably be far less effective but still suffer from the problems which G8 protesters rail against.

To clarify, you don't need to save the world for the world to be better off for your existence.


A sociology prof of mine describes G8 meetings as a place where 'the super powers agree to divide the world between them'

I don't put much stock in sociologists either.

[Radiobass81]

I didn't say 8 top economies. I said 8 of the the world's economies.

Hush, it's the closest I'm going to get.
I don't really put much stock in those protesters.

I mean, sure, the countries in the G8 could do more for the developing world, and they probably are the cause of much misery. But arranging trade deals and co ordinating economies is good. I hate the idea that because the G8 doesn't do much visible it is ineffective. To the contrary, a world without the G8 would probably be far less effective but still suffer from the problems which G8 protesters rail against.

It's not that it's invisible, it's just that the G8 doesn't do much, at all. It says it's going to donate X for AIDS, and help prevent global warming (and the US is here. funny.), but they just neved do. Eliminating national debt wouldn't be too bad. Or HELP poverty, which they always say they will do, but don't.

I don't know, I think a world without the G8 would pretty much be the same, although it wouldn't have an anual hypocrits (sp?) convention.

I don't put much stock in sociologists either.

It was a joke, not to take into heart :(.

[Smokey D]

It's not that it's invisible, it's just that the G8 doesn't do much, at all. It says it's going to donate X for AIDS, and help prevent global warming (and the US is here. funny.), but they just neved do. Eliminating national debt wouldn't be too bad. Or HELP poverty, which they always say they will do, but don't.

Well yeah but even without saving the world coordinating world trade etc effectively has major benefits.


I don't know, I think a world without the G8 would pretty much be the same, although it wouldn't have an anual hypocrits (sp?) convention.

Yeah.

Except maybe a little less efficient.

It was a joke, not to take into heart

It was also a joke; since I was using quick reply, I didn't have access to the smiley panel.

[Radiobass81]

Ah, my bad, then :p.