 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | |||||
Iran has successfully test-fired a new generation of surface-to-surface missile that uses solid fuel and has a range of 1,200 miles, making it more accurate than its predecessors, the defense minister announced Wednesday. In other words, targeting Tel Aviv will be more accurate.
[source]
Comments
Posted by Fred on November 19, 2008 And this proves what?
Posted by FZeroX on November 19, 2008 What’s important is that the prime iranian technology is nothing when compared with the western military potential. I hope this missile, the iranian pride, can be easily countered from Israel.
Posted by vlad tepes on November 24, 2008 First of all its not just about the range. its about payload and mostly the fact that a solid fuel rocket can be launched without a long complicated and mostly vulnerable fueling process prior to launch. Iran can now quietly move a missile to within range of a number of targets and launch quickly. They dont need to hit Israel with a nuke so much as they need to create an EMP burst over it. This will be as or more effective. If the thing goes off at the right altitude over Israel the effects will be as devastating. I refer you to this most excellent article from the Wall Street Journal Via Vladtepesblog http://vladtepesblog.com/?p=3598
Another large concern is the revelation today that Iran is poised to become a serious naval presence in the Gulf and straights of Hormuz. The Saudis have more to worry about than a few Somali pirates.
Posted by Stevoh on November 25, 2008 Fred is a moron. Wherever you are writing from, I hope you are or will soon be living under Sharia law. You should be ashamed of your defense of the Iranian regime. Perhaps you are gay or have a friend that is, or choose to drink alcohol publicly or engage in some other behavior the Islamists will not allow. They may stone you to death. And in Iran, you only get buried up to the waist as a man. Not the neck as for women. Wherever you are writing from, may the evil of the Islamists reach out and touch you, you vile Nazi scum.
Posted by Fred on November 26, 2008 Well Stevoh, I thought you would know better then insults. But you are proving me wrong. Maybe you will learn one day. Last time you wrote about something U.S. was quite a different country. There is a new presidency and new approach to World problems. It is time for diplomacy, not new invasions. With Obama’s lead U.S. will regain its position in the World. Less of an Empire, and more of a positive example and leadership. Iranian regime should crumble, but not with U.S. bombs, rather with will and efforts of Iranian people. War mongering will just make that regime stay longer in power.
Posted by vlad tepes on November 26, 2008 Fred Obama can make no difference. The Bush admin has been in negotiations with Iran for years now. Iran may try and offer Obama an optical solution. In fact they already did and Obama snubbed them as he should have.
Iran offered Obama the chance to appear the great peace maker while they jerked the west around long enough to have nukes. Obama was smart enough to blow them off.The name on the door of the oval office may have changed but the world has not. Obama’s presidency will likely look a lot like Bush’s but his supporters will think the same decisions are wonderful coming from him. Just like Clinton bombing the snot out of Belgrade. Where was Code Pink then?
Posted by Fred on November 26, 2008 Well, If you call treats, sanctions, and show of force - negotiations, then yes - the Bush administration has engaged in that. If Obama will make a difference remains to be seen. I certainly know that this Iranian regime feeds on external treats and will stay in power as long as U.S. government plays its Nemesis.
Posted by vlad tepes on November 26, 2008 I understand Fred. I read a geopolitical think tank that reports stuff that typically doesn’t make the news. Not secret material but stuff the usual news doesn’t catch the regular media’s attention. Iran and the US have been in regular negotiations for many years. Even Condi has met with high Iranian officials in Geneva and these negotiations did not end till Iran blew an Aug.2 2008 deadline to make a statement on nuclear weapons programs.
In essence, there are back channel actions that the public typically doesn’t know and would effect your opinions if you where aware of them.
Having said that, Iran likely wants major concessions with respect to influence in Iraq. Iran needs access to parts of Iraq for industrial purposes. We shall see how it plays out.
Try reading www.stratfor.com on Iran
Posted by Fred on November 27, 2008 Needless to say: Iran is signatory of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iranian statement has been consistently that they have only peaceful nuclear program, which according to NPT, they have right to pursue. Do I believe that they would not seek nuclear weapons, once they have enough uranium? I certainly think they might. But, that’s why by NPT there is International Atomic Energy Agency, and its inspectors.
Posted by Stevoh on November 27, 2008 My thoughts and prayers are with the families of those murdered last night in Mumbai. My thoughts are also with the innocent hostages being held by the Islamists. Brave people, like Ahmadinejad and his Basiji. Hey Fred,
Were you hanging out in Mumbai last night by any chance? If you were and holding a British or US passport, you might have been a little nervous. Islamism, The Basiji. The Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Qaeda. All share the similar indoctrination techniques, seek to annihilate Jews, hope to bring about a Muslim caliphate. You are one of their enablers. Read http://www.spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=878
MATTHIAS KUENTZEL - AHMADINEJAD’S WORLD - THE DEPLOYMENT OF THE BASIJI IN THE MINE FIELDS SHOWS WHAT ONE CAN EXPECT FROM THE MULLAH-REGIME, 7.30.06
By • Matthias Kuentzel, Germany
Posted by Musa bin Kalb on February 15, 2009 Care for another enabler?
I don’t like to live in a country where Sharia law is limiting my life in a certain way. But I do not have to live there - so what? If the do not allow drinking alcohol in the public - apart from interests, hoarding, or usury, or even do not like western society as a whole, it is their concern, not mine. They would even have reason enough not to like certain features of it. It any event, they should have the freedom to chose themselves the society they want to live in, and to make sure to keep this freedom, just in case somebody does not want them to keep it - perhaps people who insult you by calling you Nazi scum when they do not represent the same opinion while they use to excuse otherones any malefaction. There are always some promotive circumstances when undemocratic regimes come to power. This is true for 1933, for some centuries ago, and still for today. Bombs will not wipe out those circumstances.
Posted by vladtepesblog.com on February 16, 2009 In Iran, its not just that you cant drink in public. If you are caught with any alcohol (apparently an arabic word by the way) the police, which have the power of arbitrary search and seizure, can and will arrest you and you will have little or no recourse to due process. This is not a trivial thing. Also, this was not their choice. The students and left who revolted against the Shaw of Iran in fact expected a more liberal state and and no inkling of the totalitarianist Islamic regime which was to follow. As for bombs, it helped a great deal with Germany and Japan. political Shintosim was nearly as pernicious as Islam is, was defeated by war as it started wars. It faded once it was no longer allowed as a political movement. Islam must also be forced to no longer be a political force. I do not know if this is possible, but it is what is necessary.
Posted by Musa bin Kalb on February 16, 2009 Dracula, what do you want to explain me by that? That any religious dogmatists should be impaled? Then start doing so with those people in the bible belt.
But joking apart, I fully agree that it is a discomfort for us to stay there for a longer term. But again, it is not white man’s duty to bomb them away, and if you cannot stand without alcohol (which is really an Arabic word in a fairly strange and confused sense), or if you don’t like anything else there, then do not go there, and forget about their oil. You can however also try to bring the bliss of Western civilisation to those people. Just wait what will happen. The only I remember are flops whenever the West tried to do so. Even Ahmadinejad and the Islamic Republic of Iran are actually a long-term result of the elimination of former leftist president Mossadegh by the west. It is their country, not yours and not mine. So don’t decide for them what is the best for them, and what they actually want.
As for political influence of Islam, it’s there from it’s very beginning and is hence inextricably interwoven with this religion. Monotheistic religions always use to be a problem in this respect because they tend not to tolerate anything next to them. Trying to abolish or limit a faith is however most likely not possible, and will also not lead to what you want. Think of the number of muslims in the world, and not so much of their rulers. And also think of the resistance of Jewry over the milleniums. This is not the solution, quite the opposite. I guess enlightenment, progress, and self-determination are much more effective in this respect - as it also was regarding christianity. This also includes their right to self-defense.
Posted by vladtepesblog.com on February 16, 2009 Musa first, Thank you for your comment it is a very good one. Although I know that your first point is a joke, I do want to point out that Vlad Tepes while a brutal man, did what he did to defend his nation at the time from an especially barbaric threat, the Muslims who he knew well having been kidnapped and raised by them. In true self defense, I think most things are justifiable.
I agree that Persia of all Islamic nations is the most likely to adopt a free and reason based society. Pre revolution, they where a secular and advanced people. I admire the Persians greatly. They are in fact, the people with the most respect for their pre islamic past and that says something alone. However since the revolution they have lost all choices. You CAN give that back to them as was done in Iraq and it worked. You also CAN limit Islam as was done with Shintoism in Japan although the scale was smaller I concede. It’s not that ‘I’ am deciding whats best for them, the majority of the Iranian people loath the revolutionary government. Hell you can’t get a cab in Tehran if you have a beard as they think you may be Hizbulah.
Anyway thanks for your response I do not think we are that far away from each other ideologically.
Posted by Musa bin Kalb on February 16, 2009 Forget about ideology as this is one of the biggest barriers for mutual understanding - even for us, I think. I also believe, however, that the difference between our opinions is not as big as it may seem at first glance.
Would you like to correspond directly? I am afraid here is not the right place to talk about Vlad III Drăculea. 
If so, just drop a message at 1016-645[at]online.de. And also not to explain why I may have a slightly different stance over Islam and the Middle East as a whole.
Posted by Nizzeq on August 12, 2009 Hej all, However some stupid mullas, imams and other no-brainers are in power some more years. Don’t hate Iranian people, hate their religioun and the mullahs. Islams Fate
Most people of Iran in big cities, want to live like the west, they do not like mullas or Izlam. They want freedom and democrazy.
War and Hate
supporters