"Peaceful Purposes"
Iran Claims to Have Test-Fired Missile That Can Destroy Warships
Sunday, April 02, 2006
(Associated Press)
TEHRAN, Iran — Iran announced its second major new missile test within days, saying Sunday it has successfully fired a high-speed torpedo capable of destroying huge warships and submarines.
The tests came during war games that Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards have been holding in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea since Friday at a time of increased tensions with the United States over Tehran's nuclear program.
The Iranian-made torpedo — called the "Hoot," or "whale" — has a speed of 223 miles per hour, said Gen. Ali Fadavi, deputy head of the Revolutionary Guards' Navy.
That would make it about three or four times faster than a normal torpedo and as fast as the world's known fastest, the Russian-made VA-111 Shkval, developed in 1995. It was not immediately known if the Hoot was based on the Shkval.
"It has a very powerful warhead designed to hit big submarines. Even if enemy warship sensors identify the missile, no warship can escape from this missile because of its high speed," Fadavi told state-run television.
It was not immediately clear whether the torpedo can carry a nuclear warhead.
[Note by Republicus: For quite some time Iran has been playing the offended party, "insulted" that the West would second guess its motives vis-a-vis its desire to possess enriched uranium.
President Mahmoud even saw fit to demand an apology.
He just wanted uranium for "peaceful purposes," you see, and muttered about Neoconservative plots that sought to portray his peaceful nation as militant so as to distract from imperial America and Zion's own genocidal militancy against Muslims and their plot to invade Iran next.
Yessssssssssss...
Meanwhile, as "imperial" and "militant" Israel unilaterally withdraws from Gaza and West Bank settlements, Mahmout genocidally talks about "wiping Israel off the map" and develops a very advanced torpedo that behaves like a Russian one while Russia assures the West that it would chaperone Iran's desire for "peaceful" nuclear energy just as it comes out that Russia passed on to Saddam American military plans just prior to the invasion.
And it's all President's Bush's fault and his greed for oil (but NOT Russia's) and his militancy (but NOT Iran's)!]
Sunday, April 02, 2006
(Associated Press)
TEHRAN, Iran — Iran announced its second major new missile test within days, saying Sunday it has successfully fired a high-speed torpedo capable of destroying huge warships and submarines.
The tests came during war games that Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards have been holding in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea since Friday at a time of increased tensions with the United States over Tehran's nuclear program.
The Iranian-made torpedo — called the "Hoot," or "whale" — has a speed of 223 miles per hour, said Gen. Ali Fadavi, deputy head of the Revolutionary Guards' Navy.
That would make it about three or four times faster than a normal torpedo and as fast as the world's known fastest, the Russian-made VA-111 Shkval, developed in 1995. It was not immediately known if the Hoot was based on the Shkval.
"It has a very powerful warhead designed to hit big submarines. Even if enemy warship sensors identify the missile, no warship can escape from this missile because of its high speed," Fadavi told state-run television.
It was not immediately clear whether the torpedo can carry a nuclear warhead.
[Note by Republicus: For quite some time Iran has been playing the offended party, "insulted" that the West would second guess its motives vis-a-vis its desire to possess enriched uranium.
President Mahmoud even saw fit to demand an apology.
He just wanted uranium for "peaceful purposes," you see, and muttered about Neoconservative plots that sought to portray his peaceful nation as militant so as to distract from imperial America and Zion's own genocidal militancy against Muslims and their plot to invade Iran next.
Yessssssssssss...
Meanwhile, as "imperial" and "militant" Israel unilaterally withdraws from Gaza and West Bank settlements, Mahmout genocidally talks about "wiping Israel off the map" and develops a very advanced torpedo that behaves like a Russian one while Russia assures the West that it would chaperone Iran's desire for "peaceful" nuclear energy just as it comes out that Russia passed on to Saddam American military plans just prior to the invasion.
And it's all President's Bush's fault and his greed for oil (but NOT Russia's) and his militancy (but NOT Iran's)!]
posted by John | 7:20 PM
7 Comments:
And since when is Iran not allowed to have missle or torpedo defenses for it's nation? Apparently you seem to think only the U.S. is allowed to have anything resembling millitary capabilities.
"And since when is Iran not allowed to have missle or torpedo defenses for it's nation?"
How about since since they've expressed a desire "to wipe" a neighboring U.S. ally "off the map?"
Or their sponsoring of terrorist organizations while were in the thick of the War on Terror?
Or their meddling in Iraq?
Or their Islamist regime in the thick of the War Against Islamic Extremism (a.k.a. The War on Terror)?
Their reckless, threatening rhetoric for the United States and United Nations alike?
"Apparently you seem to think only the U.S. is allowed to have anything resembling millitary capabilities."
So Republicus has apparently given the impression that he thinks Iran should not only not have "military" capabilities, but not have "anything resembling military capabilities?"
You must be the lurking Lee Harvey--if unwarranted over-the-top hyperbole meant to be taken seriously is any indication.
Yes, "None absolutely whatsoever."
But such hysterical hyperbole may not necessarily be Lee Harvey's own peculiar way of arguing badly, but is the universal characteristic of the liberal.
Anyway, Iran has a strong enough conventional military (army, air force, and navy) to defend it's borders.
Republicus acknowledges their right to self-defense, including their development of the conventional *Hoot* torpedo.
Let them have it (they really should, however, think twice about actually using it).
The point of this post was to juxtapose their "peaceful" posturing in their pursuit of uranium development with their simultaneous and aggressive military build-up (and the accompanying saber-rattling) and cast reasonable doubt on their recent boo-hooing about being "victims" of "unwarranted" suspicions brought on by "Neocon" demonization.
How you went from there to the conclusion that Republicus wants every single nation but ours disarmed and militarily impotent is a non sequiter worthy of belonging in the best and "brightest" liberal accusation.
Anyway, a build-up beyond conventional means at this juncture is unacceptable due to the destabilizing effects of the balance-of-power in the region and because of the hostile character of the ruling theocratic regime and their nexus with black-listed terrorist organizations, most especially in the context of the War on Islamic Terror.
But of course, as far as you're concerned, apparently, the only war is the Red State/Blue State Culture War, the only enemy to fight against is President Bush, and the poor, beleagured Middle Eastern nations in the cross-hairs of the U.S. military are victims of Neocon imperialism and are themselves valiantly fighting against militant aggressors, as well they should over there while your crowd handles the propaganda war on the homefront.
Bravo. You must be proud of yourselves.
But can Republicus conclude from your grievance that you would allow Iran to develop nuclear capabilities at this stage of the game?
And if not, why not?
Perhaps because "you seem to think only the U.S. is allowed to have anything resembling millitary capabilities?"
John,
In this case I would tend to agree with anonymous with the exception that you mentioned. That lunatic that runs Iran has already said that he will wipe out the "Anglo-Saxons" and the "jews" out of the middle east. Dear old Adolf told us what he was going to do in a long rambling piece of crap called "Mein Kampf" and we ignored that to our peril.
It is the nature of regimes, no matter how nutty they are, to create weapons to kill an enemy. Iran would be no different in my mind with the exception, again, that they have already stated intentions. As a good libertarian, I DO think that we as americans should be looking for ways to untie ourselves from obligations that we have incurred over the last 80 some odd years. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to say to Iraq: "Kiss our collective ass and keep your damn oil....oh, and if Isreal DOES blow you off the face of the map then it was YOUR BAD." At this point, that would most certainly apply to Saudi Arabia as well, among others.
In reality we cannot withdraw that quickly. I know that, to our loss.
Come over and see the new Sciolist Salmagundi site when you have a chance and let me know what you think about the new format.
Oh, by the way, I think that "Lee Harvey" is non other than anonymous. If I am wrong then I sincerely apologize.....but I bet I do not have to....
The idea of Iran having such a weapon makes a lot of people nervous...even if it doesn't have nuclear capabilities.
Yes, the US has used nuclear weapons. They were dropped on two cities in a nation we were defending ourselves against.
That war was the beginning of a continual US involvement in international affairs. When we sit back and do nothing, letting rogue nations do what they may, we are accused of turning a blind eye and contributing to the delinquency of these countries.
When we step in to play referree or give aid to one side or another we are accused of medling or of being imperialistic.
With the exception of WWI, prior to WWII we chose to stay out, to remain isolated in such affairs. It became apparant, however, that such a stance was actually detrimental to the security of our country.
I am sure that Great Britain did not look to highly on France's "medling" during the "English Civil War"(1775-1783) but we here in the United States are grateful for that help.
Yes, it has a lot to do with which side you are on, but Iran's leaders have threatened to wipe another nation off the map. They have demostrated that they cannot be trusted. Hence our nervousness with the idea.
Phelonius said...
"In this case I would tend to agree with anonymous with the exception that you mentioned."
Anonymous concluded from a post that was skeptical of weapons-developing Mahmoud's desire to possess enriched uranium for "peaceful purposes" to meaning that I "seem to think only the U.S. is allowed to have anything resembling weapons capabilities."
That's a non sequiter. I said--or even implied--no such thing.
Again, "Republicus acknowledges their right to self-defense, including their development of the conventional *Hoot* torpedo."
But I'll draw the line on letting him play with cooked uranium.
"That lunatic that runs Iran has already said that he will wipe out the 'Anglo-Saxons' and the 'jews' out of the middle east."
Right. He was threatening genocide.
"It is the nature of regimes, no matter how nutty they are, to create weapons to kill an enemy."
Right. But nutty or rational, they have every right to have a military (especially if they have the military forces of the United States flanking their country east and west in in Afghanistan and Iraq, heh).
"I DO think that we as americans should be looking for ways to untie ourselves from obligations that we have incurred over the last 80 some odd years...."
During the Cold War we had a different enemy to fight, and we turned a blind eye to the malignancy of Jihadism and even empowered it if it would be at the expense of the Soviet Union.
As recently as 1988, we had the movie *Rambo III* in which Stallone was fighting side-by-side with the "heroic" Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the evil Soviets.
Bin Laden was a top general of those Mujahideen.
A rogue operation in those days also saw fit to arm the Ayatollah's Iran for the purpose of funneling the profits to the Nicaraguan Contras (terrorists of sorts) who were battling the communist Sandanistas.
We also propped up and patronized dictators like Saddam Hussein for similar, realpolitik purposes.
There's nothing "hypocritical" about that. It was the geopolitical gamesmanship of the Cold War, which we won against the most oppressive and murderous system of government perhaps in human history (Stalin blew Hitler away in terms of who caused the greater amount of misery and deaths).
But with the demise of the Soviet Union, assorted dictators--and erstwhile allies--like Noriega in Panama and Saddam in Iraq and others all over the world not only lost their usefulness but began biting the hand that fed them (Saddam didn't appreciate the assistance to Iran, either) so, since the end of the Cold War, most of the American military missions--including the present ones in Afghanistan and Iraq-- could be considered post-Cold War mop-up operations, made more urgent by 9/11.
Look at it this way: During the Cold War, Middle-Eastern Jihadists and dictators were treated like pit-bulls who we threw bones to with the knowledge that they would bark at and attack trespassing Soviet expansionism or fight each other while we saw to other matters (like improving the quality of life for the Western world).
But with the Soviets gone, the pit-bulls got restive and began growling at us.
And then one of them attacked us on 9/11.
And we ourselves are ultimately responsible for the pit-bulls running around in the Middle-East and its environs.
To untie ourselves from the obligations we incurred requires that we dismantle the systems that the West itself created since the days of Lawrence of Arabia and normalize the cultures that flail about disfunctionally--and dangerously--since the end of the Cold War by giving them the ability and responsibility to behave as a civilized nations in the 21st world.
That is our current obligation.
And its the right--the noble--thing to do.
"In reality we cannot withdraw that quickly."
Right.
"I know that, to our loss."
James, if we succeed in our mission goals, the benefits will be great. For the whole world.
"Come over and see the new Sciolist Salmagundi site when you have a chance and let me know what you think about the new format."
See you soon.
Phelonius said...
"Oh, by the way, I think that "Lee Harvey" is non other than anonymous."
Well, he did interpret my stance against allowing Iran to possess enriched uranium as meaning that I was against them having "anything resembling military capabilities," which is a tendency of his to hyper-inflate.
But again, that has been the tendency of the Bush-hating liberal for years now (e.g. "Bush is the very worst president ever in the history of the country, if not the world," and "There is utterly and absolutely nothing redeemable about this president," and so on).
Kelly said...
"The idea of Iran having such a weapon makes a lot of people nervous...even if it doesn't have nuclear capabilities."
Well, it's their right. But again, they better think twice about actually using it.
"Yes, the US has used nuclear weapons. They were dropped on two cities in a nation we were defending ourselves against."
Right. And they were the first two of such weapons created (aside from the test bombs) and were used to end a long, bloody war against a very tough enemy that may have killed a million American soldiers conventionally before giving up.
Since then, the nuclear arsenal has grown huge--but over the decades and through more wars we have proved our disciplined responsibility in the forebearance of using such dread wapons.
Mahmoud's reckless rhetoric and the audacity of test-driving and rattling the *hoot* torpedo in our collective faces makes one glad he doesn't have nukes do that with.
"That war was the beginning of a continual US involvement in international affairs. When we sit back and do nothing, letting rogue nations do what they may, we are accused of turning a blind eye and contributing to the delinquency of these countries."
Right. And many of those rogue nations are our own creation.
So, on the one hand we are accused by the America-haters as irresponsibly--if not callously and immorally--turning a blind eye
to the delinquencies, but when we finally get involved were called "imperialists"-- BY THE SAME CROWD!
"When we step in to play referree or give aid to one side or another we are accused of medling or of being imperialistic."
lol Right.
"With the exception of WWI, prior to WWII we chose to stay out, to remain isolated in such affairs. It became apparant, however, that such a stance was actually detrimental to the security of our country."
Yes. But understand that WWI was supposedly "The War To End All Wars" on the assumption that the exhausted, war-torn nations of the world would embrace Wilson's League of Nations and allow disagreements and grievances to be resolved diplomatically and by the rules of international law.
That fell through, but the remembrance of the very brutality of WWI served as a psychological deterrant which made the average citizen say "No way Jose" at the prospect of another European bloodbath, so our anti-war squeamishness is understandable.
But we were deluded into thinking we could stay above the fray as the Axis Powers rolled across the trans-Atlantic AND trans-Pacific hemisphere.
"I am sure that Great Britain did not look to highly on France's 'medling' during the "English Civil War"(1775-1783)."
Kelly, that's the first time I heard the American Revolutionary War referrred to as "The English Civil War," but I guess it was, as far as the Brits were concerned, a civil war...
"Yes, it has a lot to do with which side you are on, but Iran's leaders have threatened to wipe another nation off the map. They have demostrated that they cannot be trusted. Hence our nervousness with the idea."
And we're in the thick of the War on Terror--a.k.a. The Struggle Against Islamic Extremism."
What, we're going to give an extremist Islamic regime--that sponsors the uber-terrorist group Hezbollah--cooked uranium?
Jess said:
"Sadly, I have to partially agree with anonymous. If no one else can have defenses, then neither should we."
I clarified that that was not what I meant at all, and was hyperbolically sarcastic when I said "absolutely and utterly none at all" or something to that effect.
I said several times that I acknowledged their right to national defense and their development of conventuional weaponry.
But I draw the line at their posession of enriched uranium.
A nuke is not a *Hoot* torpedo.
However, I must strongly disagree with your reasoning that "if no one else can have weapons, than neither should we."
That's like saying "Well, if criminals can't carry guns, than neither should the cops."
You're drawing a moral equivalence between our enemies and us, both in character and righteousness.
"Agreed with the statement that Iran would use their weapons in an un-orthodoxed way, however, we're not much better."
Jess, I must whole-heartedly disagree with that statement.
We've demonstrated responsible discipline and forbearance in over a half century of possessing the most powerful weapons on earth, through times of war and great provocation.
I do not believe that a theocratic Iran with an eye on Jihad would show the same restraint.
Did the "Muslim-Hating" and "Crusading" Bush nuke Kabul after 9/11?
He did not.
What would other countries do in the same situation?
Well, France's Jacques Chirac recently indicated that he would do just that--i.e. nuke-- to any Islamic nation that hits France with its own 9/11.
Jacques Chirac, the Frenchman.
What do you think Mahmoud's regime would do if they had ready nukes?
A lot, beginning with blackmail.
"You talk about Iran meddling in Iraq, what do you think we're doing? Meddling."
No, Jess, they've been meddlinmg with our interests for a long time now. But we didn't nuke Saddam's Iraq, did we?
We would have if we were "worse" than anyone else.
We're trying to civilize Iraq, not destroy it.
And Iran is meddling with that process.
Jess said:
"John, you posted to the wrong blog. I'm not Kelly! :-)"
No, I went to the right blog, but I just got your name mixed for a second.
Post a Comment
<< Home