Slashdot Mirror
Iranian Heavy Water Nuke Plant Goes Online Today
avtchillsboro writes "According to an article in the NYT, an Iranian heavy water nuke plant goes online today. From the article: 'An Iranian plant that produces heavy water officially went into operation on Saturday, despite U.N. demands that Tehran stop the activity because it can be used to develop a nuclear bomb. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inaugurated the plant, which Tehran says is for peaceful purposes. The announcement comes days before Thursday's U.N. deadline for Iran to stop uranium enrichment — which also can be used to create nuclear weapons — or face economic and political sanctions.'"
I would be very suprised if mosad/delta force/sas are not already in Iran keeping an eye on things due to the lack of UN inspectors, so I imagine some non-Iranian govt somewhere has a realistic idea of what is going on in Iran.
Warhammer forums
Iran has money to burn, and UN sanctions don't seem to be particularly effective ways to convince to governments; it's the proletariat who suffer. In the meanwhile, Iran's government gets to play the "it's us against the (non-Muslim) world!" card again. Jihad, anyone?
Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
With Israel a known (suspected within 99.999%) holder of nukes, Iran sees themselves as the logical counterpoint. They do mean to make weapons, of this I have no doubt.
Peaceful purposes? The iranian prez has said Israel should be wiped off the map. He doesn't strike me as a man with peaceful intentions.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
One quote that might interest people from the interview is this:
Mohammad Saeidi is a practical man. Sidestepping the political, ideological and historical aspects of the nuclear dispute with the West, the vice-president of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation is focused on a set of problems that must be solved logically if the country and its people are to develop to their full potential. "The country's oil and gas reserves will last a maximum of another 25 or 30 years," he says. "Therefore we have to provide other resources."
If you are an American, please don't support your current administrations drive to cause yet another war by believing their propaganda about Iran. Really, you should trust your politicians as soon as they find the WMD that they told you existed in Iraq.
Please don't let Bush plunge the world into the Realm of $200 a barrel oil prices by attacking Iran.
1. Diplomacy, so far has failed.
2. Air strikes, don't know where all the facilities are and many of those we do are located so far underground that conventional weapons are useless. Not only that but Iran would no doubt cut off oil supplies which would cause an oil crisis.
3. Military invasion, not enough troops because of our excursion into Iraq. The only possible alternative is a draft.
4. Leave it for the next administration to sort out, the most likely scenario.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
This is not a nuclear power plant that's online (yet), but merely a facility that produces heavy water.
It's fun to get people worked up with such a headline (and almost all the AP wire sites did so), but on closer examination, it's hard to get too outraged at Iran for manufacturing something that you can buy on eBay.
I remember what happend. Iraq didn't make any weapons of mass destruction.
You mean like this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5217424.stm
On 15 August, 2004, Atefah Sahaaleh was hanged in a public square in the Iranian city of Neka.
Her death sentence was imposed for "crimes against chastity".
The state-run newspaper accused her of adultery and described her as 22 years old.
But she was not married - and she was just 16.
Sharia Law
In terms of the number of people executed by the state in 2004, Iran is estimated to be second only to China.
In the year of Atefah's death, at least 159 people were executed in accordance with the Islamic law of the country, based on the Sharia code.
Since the revolution, Sharia law has been Iran's highest legal authority.
Alongside murder and drug smuggling, sex outside marriage is also a capital crime.
As a signatory of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, Iran has promised not to execute anyone under the age of 18.
But the clerical courts do not answer to parliament. They abide by their religious supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, making it virtually impossible for human rights campaigners to call them to account.
Code of behaviour
At the time of Atefah's execution in Neka, journalist Asieh Amini heard rumours the girl was just 16 years old and so began to ask questions.
Crane for hanging in silhouette
To teach others a lesson, Atefah's execution was held in public
"When I met with the family," says Asieh, "they showed me a copy of her birth certificate, and a copy of her death certificate. Both of them show she was born in 1988. This gave me legitimate grounds to investigate the case."
So why was such a young girl executed? And how could she have been accused of adultery when she was not even married?
Disturbed by the death of her mother when she was only four or five years old, and her distraught father's subsequent drug addiction, Atefah had a difficult childhood.
She was also left to care for her elderly grandparents, but they are said to have shown her no affection.
In a town like Neka, heavily under the control of religious authorities, Atefah - often seen wandering around on her own - was conspicuous.
It was just a matter of time before she came to the attention of the "moral police", a branch of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, whose job it is to enforce the Islamic code of behaviour on Iran's streets.
Secret relationship
Being stopped or arrested by the moral police is a fact of life for many Iranian teenagers.
Previously arrested for attending a party and being alone in a car with a boy, Atefah received her first sentence for "crimes against chastity" when she was just 13.
Although the exact nature of the crime is unknown, she spent a short time in prison and received 100 lashes.
Atefah was soon caught in a downward spiral of arrest and abuse
When she returned to her home town, she told those close to her that lashes were not the only things she had to endure in prison. She described abuse by the moral police guards.
Soon after her release, Atefah became involved in an abusive relationship with a man three times her age.
Former revolutionary guard, 51-year-old Ali Darabi - a married man with children - raped her several times.
She kept the relationship a secret from both her family and the authorities.
Atefah was soon caught in a downward spiral of arrest and abuse.
Local petition
Circumstances surrounding Atefah's fourth and final arrest were unusual.
The moral police said the locals had submitted a petition, describing her as a "source of immorality" and a "terrible influence on local schoolgirls".
But there were no signatures on the petition - only those of the arresting guards.
Men's word is accepted much more clearly and much more easily than women
Mohammad Hoshi,
Iranian lawyer and exile
Three days after her arrest,
Don't underestimate Israel's ability to do what they feel is neccessary to keep themselves safe.
Considering Iran ordered Hezbollah to cause a war with Israel to distract attention of its program and its leader publically plans to destroy Isreal publically several times is cause for concern.
They already started a proxy war with Israel and mentioned the Lebannon war was proof that Israel must be destroyed. You want this country to have a nuclear weapon?
http://saveie6.com/
I voted for the guy. Not once, but twice, so don't preach at me about being mental. :)
FP was meant to be a joke...it isn't flamebait.
Why doesn't cringe every time the guys says Nucular?
I for, one, do NOT welcome our new-clear, Shi'ite Overlords. No matter how you pronounce "nuclear", or, for that matter, "Shi'ite".
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
The real problem is that Iran is not letting international inspectors see their installations. Remember what happened to Iraq in a similar case?
<rant>
The real problem is that the USA has pissed off all its allies with the result that none of them will contribute to any US led invasion in the middle east or any place else. Perhaps after the next US presidential election but not as long as GWB sits in the white house. The US has also used up a great big chunk of it's resources on the war in Iraq, it has it's hands full containing the situation in Iraq. The US Govt. also doesn't have the public support at home for the kind of showdown with Iran that would be needed, i.e. massive air-strikes and deployment of large naval and ground assets which in turn would mean large losses of American troops since the Iranians are a much more formidable enemy that Iraq was. Then of course there is the effect that another major shooting war in the middle east would have on the world economy. Iran is playing for time by participating in the nuclear negotiations. As soon a Iran has 10-20 tactical nukes in the 5-15 kiloton range and does an underground test to prove it they will become de-facto untouchable. Barring any catastrophic melt-down of the Iranian regime, which doesn't seem likely, there is little apart from air-strikes that the US, Israel or anybody else can do to stop them from getting nukes. All they US can do is slow Iran down and Ahmadinejad knows it.
</rant>
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
They need nuclear power like a submarine needs a screen door.
They're sitting on one of the richest petroleum reserves in the world, and selling it off in order to get hard currency, which they want to use to develop a domestic energy industry that relies on imported nuclear fuel? Right.
I'm not saying it's a complete impossibility; under different leadership, in a different situation, if their priorities were obviously not what they are today, it might make sense for them to be looking for a post-petroleum energy source. Heck -- the rest of the world is. But building an obsolete plutonium-factory nuclear reactor (which hasn't exactly solved the rest of the world's energy needs) isn't the way to go about it.
If peaceful energy research was their goal, there are lots of ways they could go about it which wouldn't be so obviously antagonistic. But they're not, and the point is that they've done little to assure the rest of the world that they're out to do anything but build nuclear weapons and use them in a jihad against Israel or the West generally.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
"We still reserve the right to fuck you up."
That's how I view the Iran situation. Let them pursue their "peaceful" ambitions (Yeah, I'm sure, but pre-emptive warfare is bullshit), but as soon as they slip they're going to get it, and hard. Listening to their president is enough to make me puke from the rhetoric, especially regarding Hezbollah, and I find it difficult to believe someone could bother me more than Bush when they open their mouth. Same arrogant asshole, different place 'n face.
"We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
So what? Every country has their share of government committed crime and acts against human rights. Search the news and you will find equally disturbing incidents within USA and EU countries. No such arguments can lead to the conclusion that a country can be told what to do by others.
Sounds like Pakistan.. Oh wait, the US doesn't mind Pakistan having Nuclear weapons because they are an ally.. A religious fanatic ally harboring terrorists, but an ally.
so china gets its oil slightly cheaper and the west slightly more expensive big deal
oil is a commodity, an expensive one but still a commodity. As such a single supplier cant really threaten a single customer (they can stop exporting thier oil altogether but that would hurt all oil customers as well as thier own pockets)
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
And noone can argue with them, because--bottom line--Israel has nukes.
This is the lesson that developing nations around the world have learned.
Noone fucks with you once you have nukes.
-----
PGP Key ID 0xCB8FF658
Exactly. For example, Israel could use nuclear weapons developed under it's cladestine nuclear program to destroy Iran's clandestine nuclear program.
The irony would be fit for a Shakespearean tragedy.
Pick a topic you're familiar with. Computer security, IP law, file sharing, medicine, whatever.
Read a newspaper article on that topic.
Note how grotesquely ill-informed the reporter and editorial staff are on that topic? Notice all the basic and fundamental errors they make that shine out as eye-searing actinic flares to you, given your far greater knowledge of that field of human endeavour?
Extrapolate this to all the topics you're not as familiar with.
I think they're just goading the Israelis to take out the facility, gain more support in the Arab world, and rid themselves of the problem while they secretly create a more clandestine program.
Reading this reminds of Bush's Axis of Evil speech. Convenient, simple-minded, defined by a narrow-enough perspective that appeals to voters, and effective in removing the complexities of the situation so as to allow everyone to move forward without thinking. A few bullet point for thought.
Iran is a sovereign country. Irrespective of what anyone's opinion of their current leadership (or the public rhetoric of their leadership), I think that is A Good Thing. Remember that they had to overthrow the US-supported Shah to get their country back. Hardly surprising they view the US with contempt and distrust.
Iran is surrounded by nations with nuclear capabilities, and most of those nations are perceived, to one degree or another, as a threat. They fought a long, brutal war with Iraq only to have the US move in and set up camp. Hardly a stretch to consider that they, too, have legitimate defense needs. Notable among the list of those nations is Israel. Think what you want about Israel, but the folks in Lebanon most certainly view, and justifiably so, Israel as real threat. I doubt the the folks in Iran intend to wait to be bombed to rubble for them to justify their concerns to the western world.
The US doesn't talk directly with Iran. Or with Syria. Or with North Korea. Or with many other nations for that matter. So much for the diplomatic process, and so much for the extent of US influence in the region.
Iran sits on a lot of oil. Our economy depends on that oil continuing to flow. The bluster about taking direct action, or hinting to Israel that they direct action on our behalf may work for the voters, but balancing "national security" concerns includes ensuring the US economy continues to grow.
To my mind, the only possible outcome is for the US, and by extension, its allies, is to move toward acccepting the eventuality that Iran will in due time have nuclear weapons and nothing anyone says or does is going to change that. Once the US learns live with that, maybe the Iranians will get over their hatred of the US and it's involvement in their own country, and its continuing involvement in the countries that surround it.
Doesn't it seem stupid to have only a handful of countries with nuclear weapons?
My solution would for the US to build one ICBM for each country in the UN. If you're in the UN, here's ONE nuke. You only get one.
* You want true equality around the world, there it is. Every country is now equal.
* You want to end wars, you've done it. No one can invade anyone else or risk getting nuked.
* Talk about one world government? Now it's really possible.
Give them all nukes.
Interesting. The United States and the Soviet Union pursued a course of Mutual Assured Destruction for decades, and were roundly critized by, well ... pretty much the rest of the world for it. Nice to know that other peoples, when faced with the EXACT SAME DILEMMA have reached the same conclusion: if I have to glow in the dark for ten thousand years you're gonna glow brighter. There really is no other short term solution that makes any sense at all when thermonuclear weapons are involved. If an ideologically murderous nation is threatening you with a (to quote Lewis Black) nuclear-fuck-holocaust you can a. depend upon their better nature and hope they don't nuke your ass (stupid and probably fatal) or b. build enough weapons yourself to hold them at bay (expensive but survivable.)
... you can build them but God help you if we think you're crazy enough to use them.
Here's one important point, however. M.A.D. only works if the enemy's leadership actually grasps what a nuclear-fuck-holocaust is all about. Nobody has seen a megaton-equivalent blast in a long time, maybe too long. Perhaps if we were still doing nuclear tests we could invite a few of Iran's top officials to witness one, simultaneously pointing out that the U.S. has thousands of the things. I mean, we've spent trillions on our weapons programs, weapons whose primary function is to sit in their silos and deter foreign governments from doing anything really stupid. Might as well use them for that purpose. It's better than having to actually drop them on somebody.
The Soviets, totalitarian empire-builders that they were, were rational enough to care that we could kill them all if we really wanted to do so. Consequently, they never dropped anything big on us, and we never dropped anything big on them. Hideously expensive as it was, as a foreign policy M.A.D. worked just fine, for that matter is still working. This is the problem as I see it: can we trust that the fear of swift and total radioactive retribution is sufficient to sway Iran's "government" from attempting thermonuclear genocide? Other posters have asked what right does the world have to prevent Iran (or any other nation with imperial ambitions and/or dangerous ideological imperatives) from building atomic bombs. That's your answer
{sigh} So far as I'm concerned America may be fucked in its collective head but the rest of the planet is just as screwed up if not more so.
I rest my case.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Oh wait I think you meant we have a greater relationship with Israel because we view the Israelis as "white people". You might be right about that.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
mutualy assured distruction works* becoase you have two rational powers with nuclear capabilities threatening each other - both know and fear the result of a strike.
What we have here is one side which is a secular democratic power who have never actually stated they have nuclear capabilities. on the other side you have a theocracy who glorifies honorable death, and has publicly stated it's will to distroy the other side.
* thanks to what we know now of Curtis La-may's recomendations during the kuba missle crises - I think it's pretty obvious that we had more luck then brains with MAD. Most people don't know how close we were to distructions back then.
A country like Iran doesn't care. They're fixated on a religious war, which supercedes any concern over political matters. These people don't care if they die, because they're convinced that they will reach a special form of heaven in the process. That makes for a very, very dangeous opponent.
You really haven't been paying attention if you think the New York Times has any journalistic integrity! Wow. Between all the outright fraud and failure to investigate things which are dogmatically unpleasant for them over the Hezbollah attacks on Israel and Israel's response, it was hard to miss things like the overt (and poorly done) photo doctoring, staged photos, etc.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Sovereign states may have whatever weapons they wish, but when their leadership pronounces that their goal is to wipe out a neighbor state (Israel), it no longer becomes acceptable to the international community to allow such weapons programs to go forth. If Iran does develop a nuclear bomb and uses it against Israel, the retaliatory strike from Israel would result in casualties that are simply beyond anything any previous war has shown us. Yet Iran's leadership may well be foolish enough to do it anyway, if only to ensure that the rest of the middle east would destroy Israel. Never underestimate the blind arrogance of religious zealotry.
The US cannot learn to live with another nation developing nuclear weapons who wants to destroy another nation. Say what you will about current US foreign policy, but we go out of our way to minimize civilian casualties and avoid use of excessive force. Terrorists do the opposite, as seen on countless occasions. After 9/11, two options were available to the Bush administration - nuclear strikes on al Qeida bases in Afghanistan, and special forces teams. There was no possibility of ground invasion for some time. Would the leadership of Iran, placed in the same situation, be so reluctant to use nuclear force?
There is no economic gain to an attack on or invasion of Iran. None that would be realized within 15-20 years at least, and by that time the need for oil would have reduced as alternative energy options come online. Any time the slightest conflict erupts in the middle east, oil jumps another $10/bbl. That said, our economy has continued to grow despite a doubling of the price of gasoline in the past five years.
In regards to your comment about Israel/Lebanon, I am a bit taken aback. Israel acted with extreme restraint in the face of continuing Hezbollah attacks launched from Lebanon. They had pulled out of Lebanon in 2000 after the UN adopted a resolution stating that a UN force would disarm Hezbollah and enforce a peace. The UN and Lebanon both failed to do so over the course of six years. When terrorist attacks increased, Israel did what any sovereign nation has a right to do - retaliate and disarm. Were civilians killed? Yes. Were Israeli civilians killed by Hezbollah attacks? Yes. The difference is that Israel wasn't targeting those civilians. Terrorists like to hide in civilian areas in order to cause casualties like CNN was so happy to show.
The situation in the middle east is perhaps unrepairable. The rest of the world can't tolerate dictatorships bent on the destruction of each other and the acquisition of nuclear arms. The people of the middle east can't tolerate the rest of the world interfering and apparently can't tolerate each other's differences enough to get along under a democratic system of government.
I see no real solution short of allowing them to obliterate each other, which means we need to stop using their oil.
Noone fucks with you once you have nukes
This is patently untrue. See 9/11/2001 for examples. This leads us to an interesting problem. Is Iran willing to nuke Israel through a terrorist proxy? If yes, goto Israel nuking Iran pre-emptively.
but we go out of our way to minimize civilian casualties and avoid use of excessive force.
Rally? this site says between 40,000 and 45,000 people's relatives would disagree with you if every given the chance.
And if you're talking historically, the only country to use a nuke in war was the US, and they targetted civiallians with it,
You guys aren't the good guys; you're not even the better guys,
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
As an American, I am in favor of invading Iran to steal their nuclear power plants, as the US is sorely lacking this natural resource.
Dark Reflection
and the Neocons?
There is perception and then there is reality. Few politicians are what they appear.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Don't get me wrong, I'd rather live in Israel than Lebanon any day because I share more of Israel's values, generally. But that doesn't justify every thing that they do.
Now let's be realistic for a moment, which country do you think is more likely to be invaded and overthrown within the next 5 years, Israel or Iran? Especially given that Israel has (probably) already achieved the nuclear ambitions Iran is accused of harboring. After watching Iraq get invaded and overthrown for failing to prove they had no WMD, when in fact they did not, can you imagine why Iran might want a nuclear deterrent? I suppose it is still best to stop them from getting it, but I think it is very disingenous to act all surprised and outraged when Iran pursues parity with their rivals.
I'm glad to see that someone still remembers things like Iran/Contra and the Shaw (and the CIA engineered coup that brought him to power in the first place).
In the early 1970's Iran was the shining star of capitalism in the Middle East, and was the biggest US interest in the region. The US sold some of it's finest military hardware to the Shaw - some $20 Billion in arms from 1970-78 mostly coming from Oil profits. Meanwhile, the Shaw jailed or tortured some 20,000 political prisoners to keep the country "friendly" to US companies. The Islamic leaders used the resulting unrest among the population to launch their revolution.
To anyone who has studied the history, the foreign policy blunders that led to Iran becoming an enemy of the United States are painfully clear. What we should be asking ourselves now is how to keep it from happening again in places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
"Rally? this site says between 40,000 and 45,000 people's relatives would disagree with you if every given the chance."
Heh, compare that to the 150,000 to 340,000 (depending on who you ask) Iraquis Saddam killed. Then, there were the 450,000 to 700,000 Iranians killed during the Iran-Iraq war. Sorry, but regardless of whether US is involved in a middle east war, Arabs always kill more Arabs than anyone else.
sig: sauer
In regards to your comment about Israel/Lebanon, I am a bit taken aback. Israel acted with extreme restraint [...] The difference is that Israel wasn't targeting those civilians.
Thoughtful and reasoned replies I've found are always more useful than the knee-jerk reaction I was expecting. The only thing I can say in response to any They Did This Because of That is that the Middle East has a long history of action/reaction, and the continuation of the cycle, while grotesque and unfathomable to us outsiders, has support from both sides. My own opinion is that like everything in life, there are two sides to every story, and in this story, both are sides are equally culpable.
My motive, if there was one, was to highlight the possibility that an average person or family in Lebanon doesn't have to an extremist to view the destruction in his country as something more than the abstract interplay of geopolitical forces, or the calculated military maneuverings of their respective militaries. Put another way, if someone bombs your neighbourhood in the ground and kills most of your family or neighbours, chances are you'd view the person who did the bombing as a dangerous threat. If you're smart, you flee the country (as many did). If you're angry and armed, you take up weapons and fight back. If your're angry and without arms, you do throw rocks and molotov cocktails like the poor in the Palestinian territories.
As for Iran, I think we'd all agree their rhetoric is alarming, but then I find the speeches of Bush, Cheney & Co. alarming as well. I can say that and laugh, but I don't live in the Middle East. If I was an Iranian citizen, I wouldn't be laughing, but I would be proud that my country wants to extert its influence in the region (the Shia crescent), and find a perverse but perfectly-human satisfaction that my country could snub its nose at a greater power. Not unlike a typical US citizen who feel proud when the US goes out to remake the world in its own image, or thumping their chest when the conversation involves United Nations, the WTO, or internal treaties of any sort.
I'm afraid that the US will, for the time being, continue to prosecute its bogeyman theories, while the bogeymans themselves (Russia, Cuba, Iran, and so on), will continue on despite, or perhaps in spite. One thing is certain if not a constant in each case. Someone is Really Pissed Off. Doesn't hurt to ask, or consider why that is.
Noone fucks with you once you have nukes.
Except suicidal terroritst, who will soon have nukes also. Suicide changes the old equation.
Table-ized A.I.
Read up on the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, a worthless piece of shit who extensively collaborated with the Nazis, helped recruit Muslims to serve in the Waffen S.S., and never missed an opportunity to help kill more Jews.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Or rather three different ways of looking at it:
One is the grandfather clause. Basically when the nuclear non-proliferation treaty was signed it allowed those nations who already had nukes to keep them. So the US can have them for the same reason as Russia, the UK, France, and so on. That would be the legalistic view.
Another would be because the US has a stable government with excellent protections against accidental launch, or deliberate launch by a rogue person. You can Google around for the details if you wish, but what it comes down to is that GWB can't just wake up one day and decide to nuke a country for the fun of it. He lacks the authority and the ability. The US also cares for the lives of its' citizens to a high degree, and has a stable government that doesn't get overthrown all the time. That's the somewhat moral view.
Finally, there's the simple matter that nobody can stop them. They've got the biggest military, and the amount of nukes they have is such that they can annihilate anyone they wish. There's no possibility of any sort of invasion or strike that could take out even a fraction of the US arsenal before they could retaliate. So there's simply nothing anyone can do about it. That's the practical view.
You can take it any way you like but it really isn't comparable to Iran getting nukes. The US is allowed, under internal law, to have it's nukes, they are not (despite some ranting on Slashdot) run by extremists that can launch them at any time, and there's just really nothing anyone can do to take them away. Iran isn't allowed to develop nukes, there is a concern that they would use them given that there are no controls in the country stopping their hard line government from doing so, and as it happens they can be stopped.
I'm not saying that they should be stopped, that's a different argument. However trying to say "The US has nukes so Iran getting them is the same thing," isn't the case, regardless of what level you choose to look at it on.
Giving arms to Hezbollah does not mean that Iran orcastrated the Israeli incursion into Lebanon. Especially when you consider that Israel gave the US its proposed plans *BEFORE THE KIDNAPPING*.
I also find it ironic about people going on about Iran when Israel for example actually built a fake nuclear control room so that the UN inspectors couldn't determine that they where building nuclear weapons.
But the most classic is that people stating they should bomb the plants, some even say nuke the plants. Have you people even looked at where the actual plants are. They are very near cities in Iran. I am sure some people will go "OMG! They are using these cities as human shields", try comparing locations to other countrys.
">>The US doesn't talk directly with Iran. Or with Syria.
No shit. They refuse to recognize Israel and their main goal is to eliminate Israel and the Jews from the planet."
So what? Why should that dictate who the US talks to and not? Am I paying my taxes to serve the interest of israel or the US?
evil is as evil does
Those gas attacks happened when Iraq was a US ally and were covered up by the US at the time, remember? Iraq was armed by the US to fight Iran.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
The difference is that Israel wasn't targeting those civilians.
Nice troll, but two days before the massacre in Qana the Israeli military told the press that they considered civilians in southern Lebanon a legitimate target.
Since when has the US been bound by its treaties ?
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
if they did, they haven't had them for that long.
N. Korea's deterrence is the fact that they can launch an artillery barrage that could kill at least 100000 residents of Seoul. Nukes would also allow them to hold hostage a larger area.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Good ol' Hal Porter. You're a semantic webbist, not a economist. Don't venture out of your domain, chico.
Financially, they're better off selling their petrochemicals to nations like the United States and China, who are willing to pay (at this time) $70 for each barrel. They could use their oil domestically, of course, but then they're not maximizing their return. In economics, failing to maximize one's return shows that some resources are being wasted, and that's not a beneficial thing to do.
Iran knows better than to deal with the US. They've seen what happens to countries (Iraq, Lebanon) that aren't self-reliant. And again, it may be a matter of economics why they didn't subscribe to such a deal. Their return may be maximized if they perform the enrichment themselves. Anybody with even the smallest amount of financial or economic knowledge should be able to comprehend their stance.
Your argument makes a lot of sense to me. Does some or all of it apply to the USA? Think of the ballistic missile defence system (a.k.a. "Star Wars") as a recent example. Does it differ? If so, why? If not, why not? Just asking for opinions - esp. from American citizens. Really.
No, they're not. They're designed primarily to spread damage capabilities against lightly- or non-armored targets over a maximum area per weapon. They were intended to deal with soft targets that are often spread out or in difficult-to-reach locations such as in hilly or mountainous terrain, or which spread over a large area, such as happened with Soviet-era SAM bases, which were designed such that a single powerful bomb could not destroy the entire complex, whereas one cluster bomb had a decent chance of damaging every launcher to such an extent as to render the location useless. This also makes them useful against artillery, which includes rocket artillery, which Hezbollah makes great use of, firing from scattered locations.
They are, of course, quite effective against civilians, since civilians are rarely well-armored, but this is incidental. That Israel used them bothers me greatly, as I am generally in favor of the removal from service of the common dumb weapons that make up cluster munitions, and was quite pleased when the US began doing so some time ago. From a moral perspective, I would rather have seen their use avoided, but from a tactical perspective, it's easy to see their utility.
Israel withdrew completely from Lebanon in 2000, and this was certified by the UN. Later, every militia group in Lebanon disarmed -- except for Hezbollah. Hezbollah continued periodic attacks against Israel for six years, including attacking outposts and patrols, kidnapping soldiers, and the occasional rocket attack into northern Israel, on the fictional basis that Israel had not completed its withdrawal because it was still in the Shebaa Farms area, a location that no map in the last century has showed as part of Lebanon, save for one that conveniently showed up in 2000 and which was claimed to have dated from the 1960s, and which was contradicted by official Lebanese and Syrian maps printed over the ensuing decades.
Hezbollah views Israel as a snake. Well, if you keep prodding a snake that has nowhere to which it can retreat, at some point it will lash out, and Hezbollah claimed surprise that it did so, suggesting that the response was unprovoked. While it's possible to claim that Israel's response was out of scale (and I do think that it was), I don't think anyone can reasonably believe that Israel was completely unprovoked.
And for those that think that Israel was deliberately targeting civilians and not causing collateral damage when attempting to deal with Hezbollah infrastructure, consider that an average of 30 Lebanese (including Hezbollah fighters) were killed each day over the course of the war. If Israel was capable of killing dozens with a single bomb, and civilians were what Israel was after, then why was the overall count not in the several tens of thousands? If Israel was capable of hitting Hezbollah bunkers, then why did it not hit a few dozen civilian bunkers, where dozens or hundreds could have been killed in short order?
Lebanon is in a very poor position. Due to both the unwillingness of the Lebanese government and the world to force a disarmament of Hezbollah in Lebanon, it has remained a pawn, even after Syria's withdrawal, in a larger game of which most of its people want no part. It is the only state in the Middle East that has significant fractional percentages of multiple religions living largely peacefully in the same set of borders. Muslims (Sunni and Shiite), Druze, Christians, and (until recently) even Jews lived there. I see more hope in a better Middle East in Lebanon than I do in Israel. Until Lebanon can be helped to rid itself of Hezbollah, it will remain as a pawn, and subject to outside interference from Israel, Iran, and Syria, and its people will continue to suffer.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
you have no FUCKING clue what the ground reality is. You would seem to think we go out of our way to kill Iraqi civilians. Wrong. We have our strict rules of engagements.
Was Abu Gharib within those rules of engagement? How about the torture in guantanamo bay? The thing is, you're right, we have no fucking clue, and I'll bet if we knew the whole story it would look a helluva lot worse than it is. you can look at yourselves through rose coloured glasses if you like, the rest of the world with a half a brain knows what this war is really about.
You don't even know why you're there. First it was because Saddam had WMD's. Now that ya'll look like fools in the eye of the world and have turned up nothing, y'all simply change your mission objectives to say it's to liberate the Iraqis (who incidentally did not seem to want you there at all).
I admit I don't have as much of a clue as I'd like. I point you to articles like this where you have the police policing the police, only answering to themselves. I don't buy it and you shouldn't either.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
He did all the things you mentioned, but frankly the US didn't give a toss about that.
The problem was that the second largest oil field in the world would soon only be available in Euros. Which would mean that oil buyers wouldn't have to buy dollars to get the oil. Which reduces the demand for US dollars. So. supply and demand. demand for dollars decreases, the value decreases, the US dollar begins falling in value. The dollar is worth less the more of them you need to buy things, That's called inflation and guess what, devaluing dollars severely limits the US government's ability to print more of them with abandon, to pay their huge military, to pay huge subsidies to industry and farmers etc etc.
Guess what. Iran is planning to set up an oil exchange which would operate in Euros. I wonder who's going to be hit next.
Deleted
If you are going to judge a majority by the actions of a minority, then go ahead.
No, I judge by the military's response to the actions of the minority. Rest assured if the media attention was not on Abu Gharib (sort of like it isn't on Guantanamo Bay), the military response would have been quite different.
Look, I respect those of you who fight in Iraq. You probably believe it's a noble cause. Truth is this war in Iraq has cost the US almost a trillion dollars. Think about the kickass health care system ya'll would have if you invested alomst a trillian dollars into it. How man American's lives would have been saved if the money was better allocated back home, to health and education?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
If oil company profits are going through the roof (and they are, obviously), then their supply costs can't be going up that much, unless demand has gone crazy. They're gouging; every time any sort of Middle Eastern violence story is in the news, they crank up the price at the pumps, even if it doesn't affect the cost of a barrel of oil.
- chrish